User talk:AnmaFinotera

Contested prod

I contested the prod on Black Swarm because I found 5 reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

I completely understand this diff. Per Wikipedia:REFLIST#Font_size, and considering my screen resolution, I find it easier to use {{reflist}} all the time. However, I nearly always have more than 4 refs... so don't hold it against me :). Best wishes and the happiest of holidays. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should generally be at least 10 references before using reflist, and at least 20 well-formed ones before using Reflist|2. :) Per the guidelines, this is the most appropriate reason to resize refs, rather than personal preferences and screen resolution. References should be resized more for space reasons, than by default. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With my screen resolution, poor fellow that I am to not have a supersized widescreen monitor, and with guideline acknowledging a lack of consensus at Wikipedia:REFLIST#Font_size, my own use of reflist is to allow easier viewing for readers who, like myself, may have smaller monitors, use a PC rather than a Mac, and IE7 rather than Firefox. I agree that common practice may be as you describe, but as it is not consensus, and my use is for the readers not the editors, please don't hold it against me. :) Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I work on a laptop, Windows, and alternate between IE 6 and Firefox. *shrug* Your resolution and settings aren't relevant. And yes, the common practice is consensus per the page itself, its talk page, and the software itself (if "reflist" as default were consensus, that would be the default for the software and not references. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right... its not about me or my settings... and not about the lack of a guideline mandate despite "common" practices... we're here for the readers, not for us. Keep warm and be well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 10th Kingdom Plot Summary

How is removing the maintenance tag for a plot summary with a valid reason that the series is seven hours construed as vandalism? The plot summary is not too long. If you disagree that is alright, but marking legitimate edits as vandalism is wrong. 70.106.28.26 (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Kyle[reply]

My error. Was working quickly because was dealing with two rampant vandals at the same time. Apologies. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I took a look at Ichigo Kurosaki and noticed that there was a change in the manual of style and I need some advice on how to convert Kiyo Takamine and Zatch Bell into that style. Am I suppose to list everything in chronic logical order? Like, this happens, he gets this technique, then this happens, he learns of his past, and so on?

Also, I'm not sure if I should continue undoing an IP address's edits to Shiho Miyano. I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 09:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh...didn't know a new manual of style was made for characters? I'd guess you'd need to do something like that, but may want to ask Tintor since he made the updates to Ichigo. And yes, I'd keep undoing as it seems like its just OR they are adding. However, if there is no reliable source giving the proper spelling of the name, I'd question why such a character has an article at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i had already proven to DragonZero that my edits r true and i am not tring to do a edit war or doing ne vandalism and DragonZero is repeatedly reverting my edits without ne solid reasons u can check plz check the talk page of DragonZero>Shiho Miyano.plz let me edit the article of Shiho Miyano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.245.17 (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plz see Case Closed: The Last Wizard of the Century this sentence doesnt hav citation "Funimation released it earlier in November on Comcast On Demand, and is set to last until December.[citation needed]" but only this sentence "Customers who pre-ordered the dubbed movie from RightStuf got the movie delivered to them before the movie released" which i added was removed by DragonZero.he is just want to fight me by undoing each of my edits only which doesnt hav ne citations but not removing those edits made by others which doesnt hav citations117.197.245.17 (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am editing shiho miyano with true facts,plz dont revert it back again and plz tell DragonZero the same.ThankYou. 117.197.245.17 (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not proven anything to anyone and you have not added a single real citation for your claim. You need to stop reverting, as you are considered to be edit warring and will only end up getting blocked. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EW/3RR reminder

You've been warned and blocked before- you and I both know that you know better than to edit war over silly things on this page. Okay? tedder (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I apologize. The list has been kept in fairly decent shape despite it being an airing series, and I just hated seeing wrong info added that the source was not supporting yet. Wish Syobi would hurry up and update their site, which would likely end the whole issue. *sigh* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I can understand the frustration. Make sure to go to talk pages and user/IP talk pages early with personal notes- it's pretty easy, morally speaking, to semi/full-protect a page to ensure other editors read it and reply, rather than reverting. Cheers, tedder (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Şeref Taşlıova

Hello Collectonian. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Şeref Taşlıova, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Collectonian, looks like you took some of my suggestions for reviewing the storytelling section of Wikipedia. Its a shame there are Wikipedians who spend more time erasing than creating. Jymbo04 (talk) 00:29, 02 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: D. J. Cotrona

Hello Collectonian. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of D. J. Cotrona, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Playing a role in a notable movie/TV show indicates importance/significance. Thank you. So Why 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Natali

Hi. Just a heads-up to let you know that I removed your prod from this article, as he looks notable enough to me judging from his works. If you disagree, feel very free to put it up for AfD. Cheers, and happy new year! -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 19:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps update

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source requests

Just wondering if you might have any (probably printed) sources for Excel Saga and Slayers.

For Excel Saga I'm especially looking for the date of the serialised debut. While Viz and Jason Thompson both claim it's 1997, I'm inclined to believe the unreliable sources that it's actually April 96. Naturally for the moment I've gone with Viz, but as the first published volume came out in the first half of 1997 and it's a monthly series, it's clearly wrong. However naturally any reception or media info would be quite useful to.

For Slayers it's a combination of media release information for the novels and manga, as well as reception information. I have an Animerica with character profiles and a general discussion of the series/ovas, but there should be a lot of Central Park Media ads and announcements to source release dates and such from. For reception, I'm looking for a more objective look at the series to counter Chris Beveridge's ridiculous assassination of the series to allow the construction of a balanced and neutral section.

Neither are especially important to do right now, but there is easily enough sources out there to get Slayers to a respectable condition with time. Thanks. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]