User talk:AnmaFinotera

I prefer to reply to comments on the page they were left, so if I left a comment on your page, reply there it is on my watch list. If you leave a comment here, watch this page until the discussion is done as I will only leave replies here. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, an attempt flame baiting, or that are are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right, don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you. I'm something of a neat freak, so I regularly archive items from my talk page when the discussion is resolved or closed, hence the archive box over there. ->>

Are you hear about an edit I made? You may want to check my user page first to get some general info on some common questions about edits I make. Here are some quick links as well:

• Explain the assessment you made on this TV or film article
• Why did you give X article Y tag(s)?

New Animal Planet logo

Exactly when are you going to put the new Animal Planet logo, with the giant words ANIMAL PLANET written all over it, on the Animal Planet site? The reason why I am asking you this is because I know that the new logo will make its appearance on the Animal Planet channel in exactly two weeks from today. AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Unless Animal Planet has released it online somewhere, how could I put this new logo up? Collectonian (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw that logo on the Escape to Chimp Eden commercial while I was watching Animal Planet. If you want that new logo, you're going to have to tape one of the Animal Planet commercials, like Petfinder or Puppy Bowl IV. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to have to do anything. As I said, if/when Animal Planet updates their website with the new logo, then if another editor hasn't already done it, then I will probably update the logo. I'm not sure why you feel like anyone HAS to do it, that it has to be done ASAP, or even why you feel like I'm the one who is supposed to do it. Wikipedia is edited by millions of editors. Looking at your contribs and your talk page, you seem to have some very wrong ideas about how Wikipedia works. No one owns any articles and asking another editor not to edit an article is heavily frowned upon. I'd strong suggest you reread the links given in the welcome message on your talk page so you can have a better idea of how it works so you do not continue to break the rules. Thanks. Collectonian (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective criteria for episode notability

I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wolf's Rain

That's weird. In terms of reading, I would expect reception to come after any sort of media, especially when the reception is based on the media, thus leading to a flow problem with the reader wondering "what [insert piece of media] does this thing have?" I guess you can move it back, but common sense would dictate it would be last, especially when one of our FAs, Madlax, follows this format. Feel free to bring this up at WT:ANIME if you see fit. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I probably will later. We already got so many discussions going on, I think I'll let those pass first and I'm not quite ready to FA that one (found a book that may have production details, wee!). Is it a bad sign when I got all excited to find a book that enabled me to add production info to Vision of Escaflowne the other week? LOL Collectonian (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Texas AgriLife Extension Service

On 21 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Texas AgriLife Extension Service, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Princess Leia Merge?

D'you think it's time for that merge you proposed with Princess Leia's Theme, or is it too early for consensus to be reached? — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think its time, since I didn't see any objections. Collectonian (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Great! Truth be told, I'm not really sure how to do that, although I'd assume that it has something to do with cutting-and-pasting. . . — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case, yep, I'd go for a straight cut and paste section somewhere in the new article, either as a main level section or under an appropriate section. I think main level would be fine. If it needs any rewriting, it can be done after the merge :) Collectonian (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Done! But now, what do I with the previous music article? — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect with merge tag, which I did :) And remove any project tags from the the talk page (also did). :-) Collectonian (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! I think this merge will give the article overall a much-needed boost and will spur users/editors to provide more citations, arguably the basic problem with the article. I hope this problem will be rectified soon. Thank you very much for this contribution! It's much appreciated! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Alabama Extension article.

Collectonian, I'm still rather new to the whole Wikipedia endeavor, and I wasn't aware of the COI issue. Yes, I am a news and public affairs employee for Extension, though I believe I've striven to avoid any overtly nonneutral language in the article. Could you point out the areas within the article that seem nonneutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACES-wikiman (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain it. :) Except for the history (which is awesome BTW), quite a few bits read in like self-promotion. You may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Words to avoid for help with identifying non-neutral language. A few things I noticed:

• "Distinctive programs" - Just "Programs" would be more neutral, as the distinctive implies they are unique to ACES when not all are.

• "While many of these priorities areas are reflected in Extension efforts in other states, Alabama’s unique history often has channeled Alabama Extension programming efforts into directions that have distinguished it from other states" - as this is sourced from ACES itself, it is not a neutral statement. A neutral, third party source is needed to make claims of uniqueness or being distinguished.

I've left a welcome message on your talk page that has a lot of helpful links regarding Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability, neutrality, and reliable sourcing. The article also seems to have an excessive number of images. Images in Wikipedia article should illustrate a concept, and is generally limited to one per major section unless its an extremely technical item. Check out WP:IMAGE for more info on image selection and placement. Beyond that, I'd recommend moving structure above programs and critically evaluating all of the content to ensure it is encyclopedic in value. You might want to request a copy editor give it a once over, as they are very skilled in spotting issues in neutrality and can offer a much better breadth of suggestions than me.

I hope that helps some. Collectonian (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, I've undertaken a thorough reediting of the page, which I hope, renders it less objectionable from a neutrality standpoint. Also, when I figure out how, I'm going to post my ACES affiliation to the discussion page. One last thing: after following through with your edits and other possible nonneutral language, I took the liberty to remove you warning. Hope I didn't violate Wiki protocol in doing so.

Oh, and I'm going to look into removing some of the excessive graphic information.

Again, many thanks for your suggestions. I think I've ended up with a considerably strengthened article as a result.