User talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


peer reviews

Happy New Year to ya, AnmaFinotera! I thought I could solicit your assistance. I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might like to critique them:

  • Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
  • Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Comments and suggestions are appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.

If you have the time, it'd be great if you could look over those two articles and assess their flaws and weaknesses. Thanks, and, again, a Happy New Year to you! — Cinemaniac (talkcontribs) 03:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for me view on the two articles. Just wanted to elt you know I haven't forgotten the second article and will try to take a look at it later today. Happy New Year! :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Executive Stress

I have removed tags as the airdates are now referenced. As I've said expert attention is not needed as it is unrealistic to get more information (although feel free to try). As a member of the Wikiproject, feel free to improve the article yourself.--UpDown (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

American Dragon: Jake Long

I am referring to a previous edit that you made: ([1]) It seems that article 12 of Links normally to be avoided at WP:EL was updated when you removed that blog that was created by the producers of the show and that website that was created by the creator of the show. TrackFan (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay...feel free to undo that edit then. I thought they were just regular fan blogs. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound harsh when I made that comment. TrackFan (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


Just a quick thanks for reverting the vandalism on user page.--UpDown (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Planet of Dinosaurs

I disagree with every single one of the tags that you placed on this article, and am therefore removing them. I see no deviation between my edits to this article and the guidelines set out at WP:FILM.

  1. Lead tag - The lead is perfectly compliant with WP:LEAD. It summarizes all the major points and headings in the article and does not introduce any information that is not already present in the body of the article.
  2. NPOV tag - No explanation given and I can see no place where the it isn't NPOV. The film is not specifically praised or trashed and all the opinions expressed in the review section are cited.
  3. Refimprove tag - Every statement contains a citation, except for the plot, which does not require any per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot.
  4. Tone tag - Again, not sure what you're referring to here, but having reviewed nearly 100 articles for WP:GA and having had several of my own passed, I'm not sure I understand what the problem is.

Further explanation is definitely required. Cheers, CP 09:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You asked for an assessment. It was given and I explained the tags in my reply to your assessment request. To expand even further: The lead is missing very basic pertinent information that should be in the very first few sentences of a film article. Please check the film MOS and re-read WP:LEAD, and take a look at some GA or FA film articles to get a better idea of what the lead should contain. The second paragraph of the intro doesn't come across as neutral and seems to resynthesize the reaction rather than just summaries. Ref improve doesn't just mean every statement needing a citation, but also the need for better references, as most of the ones in the article appear to be reviews rather than neutral sources. Reviews are fine for some basic info, plot interpretation, and reaction, but more neutral sources are preferred for other aspects of the film's discussion. AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I disagree on most counts, but thank you for the input and apologies if I sounded crass. I'm used to "ask for an assessment" = change "stub" to "start". Anyhow, given the nature of the film, I doubt that it's even possible to fix most of the above. I considered doing a reformatting of the cast section, but couldn't think of a way to do it without it being original research. Anyhow, my aim was to get it out of Stub territory, not make it a GA, so I'm fairly satisfied. Cheers, CP 09:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


Hey just to say thanks for the heads up on writing episode articles, i'll have to read more into it but it was all in good intentions you see, and my reorganising the page Vision of Escaflowne was just to make it easier for the user to get around the page especially with the episode link at the top. But thanks anway.

mickyfitz13 Talk 23:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The Vision of Escaflowne article needs some work, but the episode list is in okay shape. It just needs a little clean up and the intro expanded (and probably some grammar checking LOL). Escaflowne's article are on my list of articles to give some heavy work to, after I finish redoing the Wolf's Rain one (almost done with the main, working on the character and episode lists now). :) Check out Blood+ for examples of a B class anime article to see the MOS in action. The List of Trinity Blood episodes is a good example of what we're aiming for with the anime article lists for single season series (it is currently nominated as a Featured List Candidate). AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey you beat me to editing the Escaflowne page last night, i already had an episode list built up in my Sandbox page, check out the history if you don't believe me. But it looks like you have the Escaflowne area under control, feel free to copy the episode table from my sandbox if you want. mickyfitz13 Talk 10:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I appreciate the idea, but the one in your sandbox is missing the Japanese titles, so I'd have still had to do about the same amount of typing anyway :) I did, however, wipe all the episode summaries. I've seen the exact summaries in several places and I just can't tell if they are all copied from Wikipedia or if ours were copied from one of them, so will leave it blank for a rewrite, hopefully later this week after I finish rewatching Wolf's Rain and doing up its summaries. I'll also add in the DVD releases later and fix up the intro to get it more in line for B class status so hopefully it can go under peer review within a month before aiming for FL status. :D AnmaFinotera (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Good, I will try my best to see how I can help, but i'm bogged down with work at the moment (exams). Happy New Year to you and goodluck. mickyfitz13 Talk 12:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No prob. Good luck on those exams! AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Justice League of America (TV movie)

Hi, you added this tag to the above named article. I wish to improve this article. In regards to the tone request, could possibly point out a few "tone" errors in the article please, I'm having a bit of trouble with it, that way I can remove/edit any. I would really appreciate the help, if it's not too much trouble, cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay...for some reason now I can't remember why I tagged that one for tone. I think it was the talking of the bootleg. To me, the paragraph reads like its advocating or approving of as it gives no sourcing and no discussions on what, if any, action was taken against such bootlegging. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
OIC, well actually I think you was right for tagging it for tone, it reads should be written in a formal tone. I realised that the text had a rather "creative writing" feel to it (I apologise, I know why I did this, I often slip into it by accident when creating large piece of texts). Well I've made a big edit to it, I'd really appreciate it if you could have a look and tell me if I've gone to far. I removed a pic, added more refs etc.
I see what you mean about the bootlegging, I didn't even add that originally (I tend not to revert edits, even if they're shit because I do not want to appear as having a case of WP:OWN) so we can remove it if you think it's best. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Tone looks better. I didn't mean you needed to cut down the cast/character list. The length was fine, just some tone corrections to sound more neutral. I didn't quite mean you needed to cut the plot down that much. The general guideline for plot is about 400-700 words, and now that I see the shorter version I realize your original one was within the proper size. It just looked longer because of the image. *doh* I didn't think to check the word count. Mostly it just needed the image removed and to make sure the plot's tone stays neutral and is a straight reporting of what is seen/said in the movie with no interpretation (interpretation needs sourcing outside of the film). I've removed most of the tags, and put in a few in-line fact tags for places where references are needed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


First of all, I'm not some newbie, so please don't post templated message on my talk page (especially not "Welcome" messages). I've been editing on Wikipedia for quite a long time, with almost six times as many edits as you, so I know my way around the block. I've reworded the Youmex page to be more verifiably factual and less pulling information from places for which I have yet to find sources (despite knowing the information is correct). So, stop using Twinkle to revert me or you may end up violating WP:3RR. And please get off your high horse. Thanks. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiLawyer ^^^ Ryan4314 (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are as experienced as you claim, then I'm sure you know about the WP:CIVILITY policy, so I suggest you strongly work on your attitude. You have been abusive with other editors in the AfD already, and such abuse and unnecessary rudeness will not be tolerated long. You should also know about reliable sources and recognize that you have yet to provide any good ones for that article. For someone so adamant about having it kept, you are are making it hard for anyone to want to. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, did you even bother to read the refs? And the wording changes? Obviously not as both were very clear in what they said and meant, and all the changes only restated what the refs said. As for my attitude, it's due to running into people like you who don't bother reading anything or listening to anything other than what they want to see, damn the consequences. You are abusing the rollback feature in Twinkle to remove valid edits adding legitmate references and legitimate wording changes to address the very things you have expressed concerns about. I have protected the article to prevent anyone from editing it until you can sort out what the hell you want in the article. You obviously don't want legitimate references added, and you obviously don't want the wording changed to more closely match the references, or you wouldn't keep abusing Twinkle to revert these changes. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I checked every reference. They were not legitimate references. You did not make real wording changes, only put back what you already had in there and to add in more unsourced material. You have said that Youmex released CDs under the Futureland label, and it may well be true, however without a valid source that explicitly states it, you can not then modify the article based on your own research. Find a REAL source that meets the WP:RS guidelines, and I'll put in the Futureland stuff myself. So far, none of the sources you give state that. You can not extrapolate or guess from catalog listings or store catalog numbers. I am not abusing the Twinkle function, you displayed ownership issues over this article in the AfD and in reverting the legitimate clean up of the article to remove all unsourced materials. Your list of series was not confirmed by a single source you listed. (and my last rollback was a misclick as I intended to do a regular rollback with comments). You are the one who refuses to listen to other editors telling you the sources are not valid (I wasn't the first, I just addressed the issue instead of letting the article get deleted for having badly sourced content). You are also the one who deleted my far more legitimately sourced content and the source I added which confirmed several of the anime series from the ANN list. I was actually shocked (and appalled) to realize you are an administrator with the behavior you are showing on this article and on the AfD. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are saying that none of the references provided verified that Youmex worked on those series (in one capacity or another), than you are lying. As I told you elsewhere, the company has been defunct (or at least absorbed back into the parent company) for almost ten years, so finding online sources is extremely difficult. The sources I used in the article were perfectly legitimate, and you removed them. Catalog listing are perfectly legitimate resources for record labels as they have absolutely no reason to list anything other than what the label really is (and every reason to list only the correct information so people can actually find it). For older companies like this, that is one of the few places where you can find that information short of looking at the back of the CDs or LPs in question (which I have done as I own several of each). You have no idea what you are talking about in this case.
And I did make legitimate wording changes. Please go back through the history and actually read what I put in my last edit to that page. I completely changed several of the sentences. If I removed anything you added, I apologize, but it likely got mixed up in all the legitmate information you were removing when you added whatever it was you claim to have added. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain

Could you please explain what the number in this means?

   * (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Iraq War‎; 23:44 . . (+2) . . Luke0101 (Talk | contribs) (→OIL as a motivation MUST be added for a non-biased view)
   * (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Rationale for the Iraq War‎; 06:48 . . (-50) . . Luke0101 (Talk | contribs) (→Human rights)
   * (diff) (hist) . . Rationale for the Iraq War‎; 05:08 . . (0) . . Luke0101 (Talk | contribs) (→Human rights)

Like, what does the "(+2) and "(-50)" and "(0)" mean? Thanks. You have been very helpful. And also, thanks for the friendly newcomer message you sent me! --Luke (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The + or - indicates how many characters were added or removed during an edit (while a 0 means no characters were added or removed). :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The "0" can also mean that the added and removed characters were equal (i.e. 8 characters added and 8 removed). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Luke (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


I apologize but I accidentally removed one of your comments at ANI due to dome problems with edit conflicts and locked database's. You probably will want to re-add it. You can see the edit here. Also, I noted the history of the page for others. Again, my apologies. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle access revoked for 72 hours

Based on your use of Twinkle to edit war, I have removed it from User:AnmaFinotera/monobook.js and protected the page for 72 hours. You should never edit war, and using Twinkle to do so with an administrator and tag his contributions as vandalism is highly improper.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob and understandable. My second revert as actually a misclick (meant to edit), but not going to worry about it. Arguing with an admin, even if I think is abusing his powers, is obviously a bad idea. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
That is not the issue. You were blindly reverting, as far as I could see. I saw the interactions with Nihonjoe to be improper (through Twinkle), and acted upon it. If you have issues with an article's content, bring it to the article's talk page, and don't continue to rollback and bring what you perceive as abuse to WP:ANI when no one is right or wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not blindly revert. I checked the new "sources" and they were no better than the ones removed and still did not support his assertions. His edits mostly just put back what was removed as unsourced. Oh, I admit, I got annoyed. People insulting me in edit summaries tends to do that, so I'm fine with the Twinkle revoction, though I'll hate having to use the old fashioned method for dealing with legitimate vandalism on other articles for the next four days. However, I do think his removal of CSDs from his own articles is at best a plain conflict-of-interest and at worse abusive. Other editors would be warned for such an action and given a block if they did it multiple times, but because he is an admin it is all okay and people should just look the other way? That seems like a double standard to me. Admins should be held to higher standards than us regular editors, not lower ones. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I already addressed the CSD removal issue and indicated I was mistaken. I don't remember ever seeing that in the CSD policy before. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
CSD tags were removed from both because even I think they were invalid. It can't be a spam deletion for something that's simply an article on a company, and your use to tag the redirect for WP:CSD#R3 makes no sense, as there was no typo or misnomer.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying I disagree with the Youmex article not qualifying under CSD. Obviously, I don't think it does as I said Keep in the AfD. My issue is specifically with Nihonjoe removing CSDs from articles he created rather than using hangon and letting another neutral admin evaluate it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Depression Page

Thanks for telling me! I'm new to Wikipedia, and it's a bit confusing. I want to make a new page on the causes of depression, because I'm writing on that for a college course I'm taking.--Luke (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusaism, however the Causes section does not need to be in its own article. Subarticles from major articles like this should be done by consensus on the article talk page and thorough discussion. Please remember, Wikipedia is not a place for a student's original research, but for neutral verifiable, reliably sourced encyclopedic discussions on a topic. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote on the cognitive causes of depression. No original research or anything. What do I do to create a new page on the causes of depression?--Luke (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You first need to suggest the split on the article talk page and give appropriate reasons for the split and why you feel it should be moved to a separate article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And suppose people agree, then I just create a page? Thanks --Luke (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a strong consensus, then someone will create the page. It would be better to let an experienced editor create the page first, then you can work on it. However, if you have information to add, you can always go ahead and edit the existing Causes section, though if you plan to make extensive edits, you should also bring those up on the article talk page first. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'll probably be adding my edits to the discussion page in a few more days. --Luke (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I put the text back in, made it less creative and removed the fan-boy original research comments (that I didn't add by the way). Added a few refs and removed some stuff I couldn't find refs for (nothing major really). Would really appreciate it if you could take one last look before I put it up for rating again, cheers mate Ryan4314 (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Look better. The only other thing I noticed is the character list formatting. I believe the MOS prefers a format like this:
  • character name, descriptive sentences. Played by actor name.

So the first one would be something like this:

  • Dr. Eno, has his own meteorological institute and is also the terrorist known as The Weatherman. He is driven by financial gain and is seen escaping at the end of the film. Played by Miguel Ferrer.

(in his case, not sure the character wikifiying to Weather Wizard is right since they aren't quite teh same character, but I don't know enough about the show to say for sure. :) Oh, actually one other thing. It won't affect an up to B, but to go any higher, make sure all of the sources are using an appropriate cite template, like {{cite web}} or {{cite book}}. That's one of the first things that will usually get mentioned in a peer review or higher note *grin* AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG yes you're right! The Weather Wizard is a huge bit of OR, I forgot about it (someone else made the connection), I'll have to change. Just read about your run in with that admin, such a shame. I really think that once they decide they want to become an admin they shouldn't be allowed to edit articles (barring maintenence) anymore, having an interest in contributing to a encyclopaedia does not make the next logical "step" to run the administrative side of it. Plus they love to intimidate users, like that guy above "subtlety" mentioning the 3RR rule and then his admin pal blocking your tools, ignoring the dispute resolution advice of "take some time and step back" and "building a consensus". Ryan4314 (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Should I keep their superhero names in the MOS format? i.e "B.B. DaCosta / Fire", or just "B.B. DaCosta,"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talkcontribs) 06:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Good question...I think it would work well either way (having all with name/superhero name or having the superhero name mentioned in the description). Article is looking much better :)
And thanks for your words on the admin thing. Kind of annoying that a double standard seems to be applying (punish one, but not the other), but oh well. Most annoying thing is losing Twinkle. I watch quite a few articles that are vandalized almost daily, but leaving warnings manually is such a pain I'm just undoing and letting the users go unwarned. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Fuck it, don't even bother reverting vandalism, to quote the offending admin "They obviously don't want vandalism reverted, or they wouldn't of abused their powers and removed your Twinkle" ;)
I'm gonna add the proper format for references tomorrow, cheers for the help. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No prob, glad I was able to be of assistance :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh by the way, do me a favour, let me know if the thing with that admin goes into to any sort of public debate, that I can add a opinion/vote to, cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talkcontribs) 15:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I filed an ANI, which is what lost me my Twinkle access, so alas, I think it won't do any good to bother fighting anymore. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Are they gonna give them back? Ryan4314 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm supposed to be able to reinstall it after 72 hours. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
LOL which proves it just for punishment, thought admins weren't meant to punish. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Category: Showjumping horses category

You can change this if you want to. Cosmetic changes are always OK by me. :) Wallie (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been changed to Category:Show jumping horses after the CfD. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Vision of Escaflowne page

Define "excessive"; if you cannot, then I urge you to put the non-free images back. Not only is four nowhere near excessive, but there are featured articles with far more than four images - all of them being non-free. Just because an image is not "free" does not mean it can't be used. If they enhance the page (and they do), then they should be used within the rules. -Biokinetica (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to read the WP:NFCC policy and the several discussions on the talk page. The removals were done at the requirement of policy and the Wikimedia Foundation's rules (which trump all policies and guidelines and consensus). There are, in fact, now mass removals of ALL free images occurring in articles due to there being far too many on a single page. I pro-actively removed the excessive ones to keep the article from losing them all. The Non-free image policy is very clear on minimal usage. The Vision of Escaflowne page had too many. The individual character images on the character list will be replaced with more appropriate group images. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That talk page isn't helping. It's the same war-zone it's always been, and once again, nothing has been resolved. Yes, we all want group images, but the reason they aren't there is because no one has any provided by the copyright holder that are acceptable for an encyclopedia or this article's specific needs. We're not always blessed with beautiful widescreen images such as this one. If group images are available for animé character lists, then they are used. If they're not available, then the most common action is to resort to individual images. This isn't done to spite deletionists, it's done because there's no other means of primary identification of the important characters. The line about exemptions to the rule is there for just such an occasion; there is no group montage, but this article needs to identify the characters you removed. Part of this has to do with significance, as the images you deleted were of very important characters. -Biokinetica (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of group images available for Escaflowne, so that isn't really a valid argument in the case of Escaflowne. No one having uploaded the images yet does not automatically given an exception for individual character images. Rather it means the article has none until someone does the necessary uploading. New images will be put in the article that comply with NFCC as part of the over all clean up of the Escaflowne articles that is currently underway, work that will bring the article up to B class or higher and hopefully result in at least one of the lists getting featured status. I started with the main article first, however, as it is the most crucial aspect. When its good, then I will work on the episode and character lists. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I never said one had to be uploaded in order for it to merely exist. And you can't 'invalidate' an argument with a statement you can't back. People (including I, personally) have looked all over the place for suitable (not just any piece of internet trash) group images of these characters. If you're so certain that you've found something no one else has, then produce it instead of making up fables of it's existance. There's no screenshot of them all happily crowded around the camp fire, so I know that's not it. The only other option would be promotional images, which are scarce, and too low quality to serve their intended purpose within this article. And all the images can technically "comply" with NFCC, the only distinction is in how they're used. It's already known that you're going to try to follow the rules, the question posed is of your interpretation. -Biokinetica (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I will created the images when I rewatch the series and get them from the DVDs. There are group images that can be used to keep the article down to just a few images rather than individual images for every character. I've watched the series enough times to know that, hence my assertion there are. I plan to do that as soon as I'm done rewatching Wolf's Rain and finishing up its episode summaries. I don't think the article is suffering all that much from not having images for a short time, other lists never have images and the list as a whole has bigger issues that need taken care or. If you really think its somehow a bad article just because it has no images, go ahead and put them back if you want. .I'll just remove them later when I do have the group images ready, presuming the rule enforcers don't do strip them all back out first. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean screenshots of a couple of characters who just happen to be in the same frame? That's not too different from individual images, and that solution usually turns up mediocre visuals that hurt the article anyway. When people say "group image" they're referring to something like this. That one's actually not bad, but I have a gripe with the five in the corner, as they aren't 'left-to-right list'-friendly. You can't "point" to them without taking out photoshop and litterally doing so. And when this argument is had doesn't really matter. No one is in any sort of urgency, I've just seen to many articles get "revamped" by people who can't deal with images for their lives. They usually end up knocking the format off balance or forcing it into something complicated, yet insist it's for the better of the page. -Biokinetica (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree, that image wouldn't be very good. And yes, when I say group shot, I mean screenshots that have multiple characters on the screen or official/promotional images with multiple characters. Whiel it may seem like its not any different from individual images, those kinds of group shots are allowed because it lets multiple characters be covered with one image, thus reducing the number of NF images and bringing the page into compliance. If it helps anyway, take a look at List of Blood+ characters. That is one that I and some other editors have already cleaned up a lot to bring into compliance using group shots, all taken from the series itself. Before it also had an image for every character. The only minorly annoying is the shot of Diva's Chevaliers because James' back is to the viewer, but it is much better than it was and it meets the compliance requirements even with the two individual images remaining. List of Trinity Blood characters is another one that has also had many individual images replaced with group images, though its still a work in progress because we have editors on that one, and I don't have the DVDs yet to get the shots myself. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Great debate, so you are saying that it would be much better to gather images (screen dumps) of the selected article using DVD screen dumps as long as you personally own the collection, this will somewhat reduce the copy right infringement of the image, am i correct? Still this debate makes a dull day brighten up a little :). mickyfitz13 Talk 13:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. :P Anyone can do a screen shot from a DVD collection. It's actually where most of individual character images tend to come from. It is still a screenshot and they would still be non-free images that require the appropriate fair use rationale and fall under the NFCC. The main difference is that having access to the DVD makes it easier for me (or any other editor) to get good images for articles, as they can easily do a perfect frame capture from any episode. Often times, images that are found on fan sites or the like have been cropped, edited into a wallpaper, or are just plain low quality. ;) In the case of cropping or editing, they really shouldn't be used as that makes them a derivative work which violates the copyright. So having access to the DVD also makes it easier to be able to say: yes, this is the unaltered copyrighted image from X source. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not exactly true; most screenshots are actual screenshots taken from raws and fansub releases (as many animé articles are written in real time along with the series' airing), often being of considerable quality. -Biokinetica (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess it depends on the series. Some series, yeah, you can find decent quality screenshots on other sites, while others are a little harder (especially older, less popular, or unlicensed series) :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean "other sites"? People take the screenshots themselves with fraps. Most fansubs are DVD quality, and end up looking no different than screenshots from an actual DVD. -Biokinetica (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops, mean on some sites :P I don't agree on the fansubs being DVD quality, though. They are far from in 99% of the cases. Good enough for viewing but not nearly as clear or crisp an image because they have to be compressed enough that people would want to download. DVD quality would require huge download times and massive file sizes :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
That's simply not true. They use the same codecs DVD publishers use, sometimes better. DVD9 doesn't support H264, when just about every current subber does. That in itself makes the fansub superior to the DVD. Even the resolution of the DVD is inferior: 720x480 for NTSC, 720x576 for PAL. I have fansubs at 1280x720 (720p). Fansubs now are coming in standards that equate to High Definiton. And file-size is never an issue, as torrents are easily capable 400+ mb/s upon a new release, those releases rarely breaking 250mb. This usually takes the shape of a download that's less than 10 minutes. But good luck on the article. -Biokinetica (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I used to work with fansub groups so I know they are below DVD standards. Fansubs are not superior to DVD, they are inferior. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Don Markstein's Toonopedia

Hi. I removed your speedy deletion tag. This site is notable -- see my [Don Markstein's Toonopedia|earlier comments on the talk page]]. --A. B. (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure it meets the WP:WEB notability requirements, however I think at minimum it should stay tagged for notability until someone actually makes the effort to assert it, so I've put that back. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Please check the Google News link I previously left on the talk page. Also, you should understand that Editor & Publisher is a leading magazine -- that ref alone establishes notability. --A. B. (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I checked the link. Only a few seemed usable and they have not been used. A single link does not establish notability on its own, the article must clearly establish it and that one does not. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It was good?

Dia dhuit. So nothing was wrong with mo edits? They just did nach want it on the site?

Correct. There was nothing wrong with your edits, its just individual movie characters do not generally need their own articles. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Enchanted (film)

Hi. I was wondering which sections of Enchanted (film) you think need the attention of a film expert. The only technical aspect of the article is the Production section, particularly, the section on the aspect ratios. The other sections have information that is supported by relevant sources. Regards, Ladida (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Expert attention doesn't necessary refer to a need for sources. The article needs expert attention from the project to bring it in-line with the Film MOS. AnmaFinotera (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I may be wrong but I thought we require expert attention when we need expert opinions on a technical matter. Articles in the scientific field like Chemistry or Mathematics require expert attention when the information is technical and the sources contradict each other. If all the article needs is to be brought in-line with the Film MOS then can't we do that ourselves? I am not objecting your suggestion for expert attention if it improves the article but it's just that you didn't provide a reason for adding the tag (unless I missed it then I apologise). The article in its current form does follow the Film MoS. I just wanted to know what aspects of the article you feel needs expert attention so I can help improve it or ask the administrators for their opinions on the format of the article. Regards, Ladida (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is its primary purpose, though it can also be used to refer to a big need for cleanup/restructuring per the MOS, deal with excessive in-universe issues, etc. things someone experienced in the project would know how to fix. And yes, you can do it yourself if you want. It would probably be helpful if we could just tag for MOS issues, but there isn't one for it that I know of specifically for film (might be something the project needs to do, as video games does have a tag more specific for that). For now, I've removed the tag and replaced it with something closer in meaning to what I was trying to point out.
The article does not quite follow the MOS. Some specific things that need to be reformatted or restructured: character list (table is not a good option here), soundtrack listing (needs to be put in regular soundtrack format and any appropriate, sourced information from notes incorporated above or below the list), the Promotion section is unneeded as there was nothing unique or particularly notable about the promotion for the movie, awards section needs to go to prose, and the official references belongs under either plot or production details along with the cameo appearances. AnmaFinotera (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


I respectfully suggest that you disengage. Let an uninvolved admin deal with it now. Just ignore and move on. I'm leaving the same message for AnmaFinotera CBFan. - Philippe | Talk 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am AnmaFinotera :-P and yes, I'm trying to. I think its a good time for a nap and hopefully it will all be resolved when I wake up (or would just have been a nightmare). AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
See what happens when I change a message too soon, thinking I've cut and paste the wrong version? Oh well. Of course you're AnmaFinotera, my apologies. Good call to go take a nap. Have a cup of WP:TEA too.  :-) - Philippe | Talk 22:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Enchanted (film)

I just read your reply. I'm a bit busy at the moment so it took me a while to see it. I'll try and fix it up. Thanks for the explanation. Regards, Ladida (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no prob :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


Is it possible to also block CBFan's IP ( He used it before to vandalize the 3RR report, and is now using it to continue to push his POV and continue to be disruptive by vandalizing the userified version of the List of Crash Bandicoot characters to put it to what he wants and be uncivil on the article's talk page. I userfied the page in an attempt to work on the clean up and get feedback from other editors before implementing after CBFan's heated reaction, but he seems determined to accept any one else's ideas or allowed the article to be cleaned up, though it is full of OR issues and needs formatting fixes. :( Alternatively, if his IPs can't be blocked, can that page be protected from anon editing? AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected that page. Stifle (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, its appreciated. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, that is not true. I have not being even remotely trying to "push my PoV and continue to be disruptive". I explained, clearly and politely, what the problems AnmaFinotera had in his re-write, of which there were several (Sentence fragments for the voice actors, characters being in the wrong section, mis-information), were, then I corrected them, noting him in the process. When I come back, he starts going on about me vandalising and I go and find he's gone right back to his old, relatively mis-informed, relatively mis-constructed, version. AnmaFinotera is being too possesive if you ask me. He's refusing to accept any constructive edits or criticism PURELY because I made them, when in this instance I was trying to help him correct his mistakes. Really, I think you should un-protect the page. I am honestly just trying to be of assistance. (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


In the last month, you have created a new WP:FL. From what I can tell, this is your first one. Congratulations! You may not be aware of WP:LOTD. We are experimenting with selecting Lists of the Day so similar to the current WP:TFA and WP:POTD features that run on the main page. I invite you to participate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes

Hey, I noticed you added an {{underconstruction}} tag to the aforementioned article. I was just about to take a stab at it due to the current discussion at WT:ANIME, but didn't want to conflict with whatever you're planning, so cementing out the details here seems good. I think separating by seasons (List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes (season 1), List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes (season 2), and List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes (season 3)) is best, similar to the structure at List of YuYu Hakusho episodes. My big issue is that the English version's episode listing is completely different, so I'm even wondering whether a separate List of Cardcaptors episodes is preferable. Thoughts? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, feel free to go for it, since I haven't started yet and you do such awesome lists :) You're probably right on the idea of doing three season lists rather than trying to put all 70 episodes on a single page. The extra fun is that there are two English releases. I think the seasons in these lists should just deal with the Japanese and the uncut English releases, which were not aired on TV just released to DVD. The Cardcaptors version had an episode list in its main article, but it was all wrong so I removed it (it was the CCS list, not the Cardcaptors one), so might be good to do a list for it as well. They changed so much and merged/hacked the originals, it would be easier to have the list separate than to try to make notes in the regular list to tie the episodes together.

AfD question: Recombinant text

I have very little experience in AfD matters, and am asking for your input before nominating an article for deletion, because, quite frankly, I do not want to be seen as someone who capriciously nominates articles which do not meet AfD standards.

If you have time, please take a look at this article. It was created by the person who—as the intro asserts—is the very person who coined the term. Most of the edits are by that person. Most, if not all, of the sources link back to this person. I mean, at best it appears to me to constitute OR, at worst, self-promotion. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. What do you think?

I selected you and many other editors pretty much completely at random; I picked one day's AfD archives, and clicked on the talk pages of the first two or three dozen editors' talk pages I came across. I hope that in using this selection method, I will get editors who are well-versed in AfD policies, yet who also represent a good cross-section of AfD philosophies. I will monitor your talk page for your response. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree it should be AfDed. The term has no notability and the article is original research in the form of a personal research essay. As Wikipedia isn't a web hosting service, and the only one using this term is him, it is not something that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Restructured Enchanted (film)

Hey, AnmaFinotera. I have changed several sections and reorganised some sections in Enchanted (film). Do you think it needs further restructuring? Individual sections may still need improving but I think the general structure of the article follows the MoS now. Regards, Ladida (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think its looking great. I've removed the tag. About the only thing I might suggest is maybe moving the official references up either above merchandise or under the production section. Great work on the article as a whole. I've also reassessed it to a B. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks, Ladida (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#The Television Episodes Edit Wars. John254 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank for the notification, though I disagree with being included in it. I have added my statement. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, they won't take the case. I participated in the prior case and ArbCom is not going to rule directly on the content issue. I think the consensus among admins is that blatant disruption will be dealt with harshly from here on. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Good to know. I was mildly annoyed with being included as I have attempted to actually do what people complained about TTN not doing, starting merge discussions first if I feel there will be some complaint and attempting to do the needed work in a more friendly way. Of course, several times people have made no remarks on the merge discussion, then after the merge is done, complain anyway, but its stayed fairly civil throughout. If no consensus can be reached for a merge after explaining, then and only then have I resorted to AfD (rather than just straight redirecting). AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I may have spoken too soon. Not to worry, though. I don't believe you've done anything wrong. A lot of editors who've been given the moniker "resurrectionists" have been busy reverting and their sin is disruption. Their day will come. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for making a nomination at WP:LOTD. The system works best with more voters. Please also come by and vote before voting closes on the 20th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the votes. Good luck next month.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • grin* Thanks for the reminder. I'd meant to do it before and got sidetracked :-) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Not protesting, just wondering what you are talking about in terms of the Trinity Blood Article. If I could give you information to cite data books, I would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewR5D4 (talkcontribs) 01:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What are these data books you keep referencing? I haven't seen any information about them online at all. I reverted the edits because they contained too many NPOV/unneutral statements without a source. Particularly "While she appears to be young, Mirka Fortuna is in fact a scary old lady who likes to scheme, and would sacrifice her own flesh and blood to accomplish her goals. Her plan to expose Suleyman with her own grandson as bait is proof of her ill nature. Some would say that she is selfish, arrogant, and twisted" is not supported by the anime, and seems biased against Mirka without proper sourcing that explicitly states it. Its also redundant, as the same basic information is given in the paragraph above, but allows the reader to decide what they think about her actions. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll grant you that much. What does the acronym NPOV stand for exactly. As for what you stated earlier, the data books contain detailed information about the main characters and locations, and came with the Collectors Edition DVD's only. From what I have seen so far, they are based highly on the Anime, but make references to novel information like Isaac's profile did. The small booklets are licensed by Trinity Blood Partners and Funimation Productions Ltd as it says on the back cover. If you need information for future citing, I will see what I can do.
On a lighter note, the edits in Mirka Fortuna's article were a bit redundant now that you have discussed it rationally. I'm also glad you kept my good grammatical statements. Upon ready Asthe's profile, I found the original version to be a rough read, due to the constant use of unnecessary commas and lousy wording. I added that small statement about her personality, because she does display kindness. (If not rarely) I was just trying to do the character justice.
--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
NPOV = neutral point of view :) I put back in some of the grammar fixes you made, since they were good. Just easier to revert and add back those than try to hack out the rest. I'm sure all of the character articles will continue to be expanded as the novels come out, so I'm not sure the DVD booklets are needed as a source unless they add some information not already found in the anime, novels or manga? Any info on production details or stuff like that? AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You are right about that, because most of it is either historical background (Which fit well when I edited the information about the Empire itself) and information most likely seen in the novels. What do you need exactly in terms of production details?
--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC), publication date, publisher at minimum, I think. Author if they have one listed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Back says "AX File, Trinity Blood Collector's Edition Chapter V" The data in small letters says "2005 Trinity Blood Partners Liscensed by Funimation Productions Ltd. All Rights reserved" I don't know if that's enough, but that's the information for one of the books.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes...I saw it earlier. That sufficient for doing a cite tag, but need to know what specific parts are sourcable from it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by that? Are you telling me to cite information within the article. If that is the case, than I will have to give you information about the other Data Books as well. The above example is only for 1 book as you can guess.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If information for any of the books are currently used in the article, yes, each of the books must be properly cited where it is used. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


What is the problem? I only provided a source for Cruise playing an elf. I can put elf back in without the source, but that wouldn't carry as much weight. Seriously, you take yourself too much... Jon Jonasson (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The way you put that link it, it looked like link spam. Also, its factually incorrect. According to the movie, he is a hermit, not an elf. Gump is an elf, not Jack. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I have since realized that Jack, aka "Jack O' the Green" is an allegory of a Jack in the Green or Green man forest deity character. And while he may be some kind of fairyfolk, you are correct, he is not so much an elf. Jon Jonasson (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please provide a reference for hermit, or restore my edits to Legend (film). I already agreed he isn't an elf. Jon Jonasson (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, in Celtic mythology, "Jack in the Green" is not a tree, he is just symbolized by a tree. The folk-fair practice of dressing someone as a tree is an offshoot of the celtic mythology, not the cause of it. Read deeper into the article without being so rash. Jon Jonasson (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
"Tom Cruise stars in this timeless tale as young Jack O' The Green, a free-spirited hermit who becomes a hero when he combats the evil Lord of Darkness (Tim Curry) to rescue Princess Lili (Mia Sara) and free the universe from its curse of icy winter night." - from the American Press Kit. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added the citation to the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Press kits are written for the Hoi polloi with no understanding of myth and symbolism. Jon Jonasson (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
That really isn't your call to make. Unless the movie specifically calls him something other than a hermit, an official source does, or an actually reliable source does, we will use what they do. Nor is the plot section a place for discussion the allegories, myths, or symbolism in the film, it is for straight summarizing of the film. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Can't think of a better guy to be an admin :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Expedition Robinson

Survivor and Expedition Robinson is the same thing, despite the fact they have different names. For example, Let's Dance is the Swedish version of Dancing with the Stars. Strix is a Swedish television company that was founded in the 80's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If Survivor is the same thing as Expedition Robinson, they wouldn't have separate articles. One show being inspired to copy another's format does not make them the same. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw that long time ago, but sites on Wikipedia are made by people, that cannot know everything and make mistakes like everyone else, and I am sure those who made these pages were not aware of the fact that ER and Survivor is the same thing. American Survivor has been televised in Sweden since the beginning, and everything is just the same as ER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I'm commenting a bit late on this archived conversation you had regarding WP:SOAPS; IrishLass had mentioned it and it got lost in my Talk page. In any case, I feel like I have to clarify something regarding your perception of the Project. We are well aware that it is a descendant Project of TV, but it certainly allows us to focus efforts on improving the articles in this genre which previously were lost in the thousands of TV pages. The fact that you notified the TV Project about the article IrishLass mentioned and no one got involved sort of proves my point that the general membership of TV isn't concerned with the genre. And I don't think you can call it a "vanity project" any more than the TV project itself. — TAnthonyTalk 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • shrug* I disagree. I think SOAPS should be a workgroup under television (are there any non-television soap operas? Genres don't need separate projects anymore than individual shows and after seeing what the SOAPs project calls improvement, it seems to have no disregard for its "parent project" or existing Wikipedia guidelines and policies, filling the encyclopedia with literally thousands upon thousands of articles on episodes and characters that never should have been created. Few to none peet WP:EPISODE, WP:FICTION, or WP:N. If there were a system in placed, I'd recommend the project be forced back down to a work group so it can fully be under the TV project for better oversight. As for notification, that isn't my job. I "notified" TV by including it in the deletion sorting because I'm in the Television project. I do the same for any other TV article I AfD or find while browsing the AfDs. I do the same for few other projects I'm a member of. I do not del sort for other projects. Those projects should have people watching the AfDs same as we do. And since any SOAPS AfD would also be in the Television AfD, it probably be even easier just to watch the TV ones. But that's up to y'all since you want to be a standalone project. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I actually agree with some of your points; many people who edit soap-related articles regularly are merely adding miniscule plot details, listing distant relatives and creating articles for soap opera infants — but the bulk of those are IP editors who aren't even part of the Project. We are relatively small and just gaining momentum again, but we do have overall goals that include making soap articles fully compliant with the usual TV and fiction policies. We've begun actively merging and cutting articles and changing tense in an initial "cleanup" phase, and have been slowly identifying articles and implementing the necessary references and real-world context with notability in mind. The first standout achievement of the Project is Pauline Fowler, the first soap article to achieve Featured status. We generally get what needs to be fixed, it's just a daunting task.
This Project was definitely created before my time and I imagine before the concept of task forces was widely known, and I could see it morphing into one in the future. But I feel like you may be thinking this upstart, specific little Project came along and "stole" a bunch of TV articles. In fact, when I came along in May 2007 and added the Project to WP 1.0, it had about 300 articles, hardly any of which had a WP:TV banner. I spent many hours scouring through categories and such tagging articles for the Project — I think we're up to like 2900 right now — and few of them had any WP banners at all, let alone a WP:TV one. A number of these articles probably have no right to exist, but many were actual series, and WP:TV had not adopted them yet. Step one in cleaning house is seeing what you've got and organizing, right? Your point about oversight aside, I don't think WP:TV needs the burden at this point. — TAnthonyTalk 03:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Depression article

On the question of how I redirected the depression article, you said this caused some kind of GFDL problem. What kind of problem does it cause? just like to know more.

Sardaka (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

By Wikipedia policy and the GFDL, content from one article used in another must retain the credits to the original authors. The proper way to rename a page would have been to move it. Instead, you copy and pasted the article to a new name, which means the new article has none of the history of the existing article, and thus the credits. It also meant the new article had none of the talk page history of the old, which could be seen as a way of refactoring comments. If/when consensus is reached on a more appropriate name, it should be done properly to ensure all history and content are retained. AnmaFinotera (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of objective criteria

Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: TracyLinkEdnaVelmaPenny

Thanks for telling me that. I posted a note at ANI. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you lend me a hand with a new article?

I'm working on an article for the webcomic 9th Elsewhere, but I'm a little stumped. The article I wrote was speedied for WP:CSD#A7 and WP:WEB as it had been AfD'd for the same reason. I tried to fix the problem, but I'm not sure it will be enough to keep the article. I was wondering if you could take a look over what I've got and give me some pointers? My working copy is here if you're interested. I'll be out of town for the next week, so I'm in no rush for an answer. Thank you. --Eruhildo (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...the big thing I think would be to find some other assertions of notability and other reliable sources. I think the awards may be enough, but more RS wouldn't hurt. While the comic itself is fine for the character and plot info, and some of the basic history of the series, other RS's discussing it help further establish notability. With web comics, the additional challenge is that they aren't like print ones that may be syndicated in thousands of paper, so finding neutral sources will be harder. You may want to cut back on the character section some as it dominates the article. Try to focus on the more real world notability first, including reception (reviews, awards, etc), history, impact, etc. It looks like they are doing a book compilation, so that should also be mentioned if you can get more info on it. The Comic series MOS might have some useful tips for organization and formatting]]. Maybe see if there are any GA or B web comic articles to study as well?
For some other suggestions. I'd probably not have quite so many links to the site (have one in the info box, so need need for one in the intro or ELs). Also, if a reference is used more than once, don't forget to use a named ref so you don't have it repeating in the reference list. :)
Here is one review link I found that might help some for the receiption section: [2].
Hope that helps some, AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't expect that much help. Thanks a ton! That really helped me know what to look for. Again, thanks! --Eruhildo (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite welcome and welcome back. Hope you had a great trip :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Projects and deletion

In the past few months, turning old projects into task forces has become a bit more widely accepted, and that's why the current trend is to "task-force"-ize them if they have had any real history of activity and/or other substantive content. Unfortunately, I was creating a new draft of the directory which still isn't complete because I have an unfortunate tendency to get sidetracked fairly easily. I have since asked for some help in finishing the directory. When that all gets finished, then I think the inactive projects page will be a bit more obvious. In effect, though, it probably is at least primarily my fault for having attempted something beyond my own abilities. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and I agree with the idea :) Hopefully some other folks will step in to help, since it is an important bit of work and much needed. Trust me on knowing about biting off more than you can chew...I'm starting to wish I'd never even seen some stuff I work on :PAnmaFinotera (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Trinity Blood Name Edit

I was just wondering why you changed the names to fit the novel rather than the Anime. I was under the impression that this article was created using references from the Anime more than the other two versions. It really doesn't matter either way, and I believe that it was unnecessary to bother. I would stick with the Anime because it is probably better known than the other two versions, but either versions work.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia guidelines and the anime/manga MOS, articles about series with multiple versions focus on the first version, with the rest mentioned as adaptations/retellings, as appropriate, not the most popular one. As the Trinity Blood novels came first, and are the source for both the manga and the anime series, the novels are what the main article and character list must use as their primary source. The episode list, of course, will still use the anime as its source because that is the specific version it is about.  :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Whatever works I guess, but the spellings in the novels are translations, so there is no absolute certainty about the validity of the spellings in a different language. I suppose we should avoid over complicating the situation and just assume that it is correct, and leave it at that unless some reliable source say otherwise, but for the time being it doesn't really matter. --AndrewR5D4 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
True on the translations, but in general we use the official English translation unless there are reliable sources that show that the translation is incorrect. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Marmalade Boy

Oops -- I see we're stomping on each other. I'll get out of the way. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, no worries. I just couldn't take looking at the layout anymore. I'm done for now. Need to go eat. I've tagged it as underconstruction, so if you want to work on it some more, just change it to inuse then change back when done. *grin* I left a note on the talk page detailing the work I saw as needing done, if it helps. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Princess Leia's Theme?

I don't think that's a bad idea at all! It would certainly be appropriate—since Wookiepedia's page on Leia already has that title as a section—and would give the article a relieving boost. — Cinemaniac (talkcontribs) 02:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I've noticed, by skimming the Theme article's history, that you've had to deal with an IP vandal who kept on trying to add the Leiabikini image. I and several others have had to deal with that same IP vandal over the past few days, and I thought you'd might like to know that he's been temporarily blocked. Kudos to you for handling the situation so well. ;) — Cinemaniac (talkcontribs) 02:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, he's been changing IPs so I also filed a request for the page to be protected. I don't get why that guy is so hung up on having that image, other than I guess he just liked it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Although it's obvious he likes the bikini pic (by running through his contribs you can see he's been adding the same pic over and over to various Star Wars-related articles), there were much more relevant images to add. Besides, it wasn't even the article about the character herself, so an infobox was in no way necessary. — Cinemaniac (talkcontribs) 02:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
LOL, yeah, that was my guess...he could just make it his desktop wallpaper and leave it at that. ;-) Hopefully if its merged, the issue will be fixed, at least on that one. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aggie comment

Regarding this, I'm confident BQZip01 was not intending an insult. He is an Aggie himself and, at the least, meant nothing more than to be informative; and, at most, meant nothing more than a good-natured ribbing. Just came across the edit and wanted to chime in. I would hate to see such such a little misunderstanding escalate. Keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured he was just trying to get in a little ribbing, but it really isn't appropriate for putting in an article, even if one wonders about the anon user that changed it in the first place :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Just wanted to make sure you didn't feel there was anything malicious on his part. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


See the top of my talk page. I can't really afford to get involved in a big project like this at the time, I'm afraid. Circeus (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to provide a thorough copyedit, but it will take me a couple of days. (There are two articles in line ahead of yours.) In the future, however, please contact me for a copyedit before the article is listed at FAC. I don't care for working under the pressure of the FAC process. Thanks and I'll be in touch. (If I haven't made comments by Friday, please send me another message.) – Scartol • Tok 18:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I'll keep it in mind for future FACs (this one is my first). :) Much appreciated! AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello freak!

You don´t mind if I have another account, do you? Yaeh, it may take a while for you to call again the support of yr peers. Lulu Margarida yes? 17:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can´t you stand for yrself? Mom???!! She, they, him (Oh, Iam so confused*&¨%$#@!), called me again of freak!! Mom??? Help me, mom! Go there, mom, block her, knock her!! Block, block! Childhood... Baby boomers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu Margarida (talkcontribs) 20:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lemur Street

Thank you for doing so much to improve the article on Lemur Street and the articles that cited it. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll try to work on it some more later. Hopefully it does better than Orangutan Island seems to have. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm certain that Lemur Street will do better than Orangutan Island. The problem with Orangutan Island is that there is no competing group of Orangutans for them to fight with. Lumur Street has two competing groups of lemurs. Of course it still won't be able to beat our Meerkat Manor, which is (in my opinion) the greatest animal show that could ever possibly be made. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
True on Orangutan Island. Been harder to expand out Orangutan Island article like I have with Meerkat Manor because it just isn't getting the same coverage at all. I suspect people like that there is human intervention, but on the whole you're probably right about the competition. I could also be that not everyone finds Orangutan's cute and, really, unlike meerkats or lemurs, they have had lots of coverage before, so other than the research idea, there isn't much unique there. With Lemur Street, we have another relatively unknown animal for the general public, another instance of never before seen footage, and while its just two groups, the competition should still make it more interesting.  :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nathan Mahler

I'm gonna have to work on that. I'm sure thare's some way to write in the part about him not actually being Diva's Chevalier. The fact that Saya's blood didn't kill him is proof of that.--Marhawkman (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Saya's blood not killing him is not "proof," only speculation and nothing in the anime series that is said by the characters explicitly states it. Anything added to the article must be properly sourced an verifiable from a reliable source or straight from something said in the anime, novels, or manga. Personal guesses, speculation, or opinion do not belong in the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's explicitly stated that Saya's blood is fatal to any of Diva's Chevaliers. However it DIDN'T kill him. That sounds adequate to me.--Marhawkman (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No, that's guess work and WP:OR. It says her blood is fatal to Diva's creations, and visa versa, however several times Diva's chevaliers have withstood some exposure to Saya's blood when they are at full-strength. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The only time I know of that that happened he only survived by cutting the affected limb off before it could spread.--Marhawkman (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it does show they can do something about it. If Amshel isn't Diva's chevaliers, if the anime never says it explicitly then perhaps the novels will. If not, we must presume that he is what he says he is, and just call the blood thing a plot hole. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... Are they still making more?--Marhawkman (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The anime? No, its done, though its still airing here. The novels and manga are both completed in Japan, but the novels won't be released till March. The first volume of the manga should be hitting stores sometime between now and the end of the month. :-) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You think there's a good chance they might elaborate on this there?--Marhawkman (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the novels might, or at least be less ambiguous, if some of the other Japanese light novels I've read that anime series were based on are any indication. Kinda like books to movies, some details get lost. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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? AnmaFinotera (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. AnmaFinotera (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 AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:58, 22 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 (talkcontribs) 03:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think its time, since I didn't see any objections. AnmaFinotera (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 (talkcontribs) 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 :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Done! But now, what do I with the previous music article? — Cinemaniac (talkcontribs) 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). :-) AnmaFinotera (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 (talkcontribs) 02:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Texas AgriLife Extension Service

Updated DYK query 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)

Alabama Extension article.

AnmaFinotera, 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 (talkcontribs) 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, 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 your 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACES-wikiman (talkcontribs) 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that's fine since you made a good faith effort to address the issues (though you forgot to ptu in an edit summary ;) ). I did retag the article for needing copyediting, per my earlier comments. That one should be removed by the editor who does the copyediting (which, by necessity, should be someone else). If you go to the League of Copyeditors, you can submit a request to have someone give the article a going over. They will do some edits themselves, and the rest leave as suggestions on the article talk page. :) They do great work and can really help find all kinds of things we can't see as the folks who did the writing, and copy editing would be required before the article could be nominated for Good Article or Featured Article status, if that's something you're hoping to do. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping Prehistoric medicine!!

Hi, I'm just writing to thank you for helping with my Prehistoric medicine topic. This might seem a bit too formal, but just I think that the article has a lot of potential. Thanks again! =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talkcontribs) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. After taking a look at it, I was suprised there wasn't already an article on it. Just remember when creating articles that only the first word should be capitalized unless its a proper noun :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Me too, I couldn't believe there wasn't one. Anyway, just to ask how you suggest that I categorize the article and clean it up? Should I include it in the history of science, or medicine, or what? Sorry, but I'm unsure atm. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
For categories, look at some similar articles and see what categories they are in, then determine if Prehistoric medicine would fit into any of those as well. You want to put it in the most specific category, so check each to see if the article best fits there or if there is a subcategory under the article that would be even better. I'd look at 2-3 to get a good selection. You don't want to over categorize, but it should be able to go a few. For clean up, take a look at the Wikipedia MOS (there is a link to it in your welcome message) and look at the sections on how to format headers (for the short version: headers should be all lower case except the first word and proper nouns, and avoid using special symbols like & :) ). AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping my editing on Orang Island

Hey, I know it's not "my" page, per se, but I wanted to thank you for all the work you've done on the page!--Browneatmidnight (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks for taking care of all those descriptions :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for supporting me in my merge of Hanataro Yamada. I started a relist section, could you relist your name? Earthbendingmaster 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

When you do a relist, it usually means that you're just wanting additional comments, not that the existing ones are no longer valid :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose. Thanks anyway. Earthbendingmaster 05:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Its the same way when an AfD is relisted. It doesn't mean people need to repost their earlier comments, only that the admin felt that more comments were needed to ensure a clear consensus.  :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple text and/or fonts cannot be copyright, therefor the image is not protected by copyright. It is however protected by a registered trademark.

To make this clearer I have changed the license from {{PD-ineligible}} to {{PD-textlogo}}.

Fine...the graphic, however, was taken from their website and is not just text/font, but if that's fine with the Wiki legal folks, okay. If you'd tagged it that way from the get go, it would have been clearer. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm going to recommend this address be blocked. It is a shared address and if you note most of its history is vandalism. This probably will continue as many computers are using this account. I will not anymore (no longer working here), so I don't care, but I advise you watch this IP's edits. (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem...and thanks for undoing some of the vandalism :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo! 360 Edits

I had noticed that you had removed my edits on the Yahoo! 360 post. While I agree that, as you stated, the shutdown had been confirmed by previous cited sources, the "Future" addition was not related to the shutdown, but rather the user reaction to the shutdown. As to your comment that it was excessive in detail, I am willing to revise my edits to be re-added. Zebaron (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The user reaction was unsourced. A reliable source is needed to make claims about the user reaction, otherwise its original research and personal opinion, which are not appropriate additions for a Wikipedia article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do about sourcing it, my concern is that it is near impossible to source a feeling. How would I cite a movement of people from one service to another? Zebaron (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Look for newspaper/magazine articles or the like discussing the shut down and user reactions. Basically, the "feelings" have to have been discussed elsewhere, then we can include it in the article by summarizing the source. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
As it were, I was one of the users who moved (did you have a 360 page, per chance?), and when I got to Multiply, the platform many users moved to, I founded a group, Y!360 Refugees. The group now has 1800+ members with more every day, so could I say something like, "Users have formed reunion groups on new blogging platforms, notably Y!360 Refugees on" or something like that? You'll have to pardon me as I was encouraged to edit another article earlier this evening, so this is really only my second attempt...! Zebaron (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have Yahoo! 360, and was greatly annoyed by the shut down after having invested years in it. And no, that would not be appropriate, as it is still original research, because it is synthesizing your own thoughts from seeing the group on Blog posts and the existance groups are not a reliable source. Reliable sources must be a neutral, third-party source that has with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So newspaper, magazines, industry websites, etc are reliable sources. If, for example, CNet had an article discussing the shut down and user reactions, you could use that article as a source to include a summary of what they reported in the article. However, a blog post about it would not be a reliable source unless it is a blog of an known industry expert. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I share your feeling... I spent two years at 360 and made a lot of good friends and it disappointed me that Yahoo! didn't upgrade the product rather than just write it off. Are you at Multiply, then? Also, I have a good 3rd-party site that I can incorporate into the "future" section. I found it at Techcrunch. Should I re-write, and then add it in, considering all your suggestions meanwhile? Zebaron (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I moved some of my blog content over to my LiveJournal, but the rest I'll just let get deleted. To cumbersome, and no desire to really learn anything else. Between my LiveJournal and my personal website, the stuff I want to do is covered. :)
Is the article you saw this one? Anything you write must be directly attributable to that article. So you could say that Yahoo's decision to shut down 360 has mostly gone unnoticed except by its users. You could also note that the shut down came after a drastic drop in US traffic in the last year, and that while it had worldwide appeal, even the international traffic had dropped greatly. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That is precisely what I was planning to cite. I'll head over there now.

Multiply provided a transfer tool, but the way that Yahoo!'s servers are, the tool was not 100% reliable. Is LiveJournal very social-network like, or is that rather blogging?Zebaron (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Live Journal is primarily blogging, though it does have some social-networking features (community blogs, friending abilities, and they just added the ability to send messages, but don't know how much its being used yet. The main thing I liked about 360 was it was such a more interesting and dynamic profile than the old stuff, then when they shut it down they brought back the old one and it was all broken :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd encourage you to check out Multiply, then, because you can cross-post automatically to LiveJournal. I was considering moving to one of the bigger blogging sites, but I craved the social-networking too (though I would rather quit before I went to MySpace.) If you are even remotely interested, my profile there is On to business, though.

I edited that entry again, adding the source for the "future" area, and also amending the "official blog" area to include a comment count. I also cited that since what was there was not cited. If you have any concerns, please write me here (as I don't know how to check my Talk thing) rather than delete the entire thing. Zebaron (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but it doesn't interest me much. I really don't like social networking as a whole. I love LiveJournal as it gives me most of the features I liked from 360. I mostly used 360 for a very nice profile (which pulled in my LJ feed, Flickr feed, etc), and for doing some sporadic blogging. For the article, I had to clean up your entry, as you still included OR and did not properly place the reference (references should go at the end of the sentence, behind the full stop, unless there is a very pressing reason to have it within the sentence. If you get a message on your talk page, an orange bar will appear at the top of all pages you look at until you click the link :) You can also check it by clicking "my talk" at the top of the page, or the talk link beside your name in your watch list. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Erm, do I say "Thank you" or tell you that I'm totally disgusted with my experience here? I don't see what the problem was with what I wrote, and if you'd take the time to explain it to me rather than to rip it apart less than five minutes after I wrote it, I'd be much obliged. Zebaron (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that explains it, but I am still rather unhappy. Zebaron (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I did explain, in all of the conversation up above, that personal opinion and unsourced material should not be added to articles. I removed the unsourced OR (about users going elsewhere). That wasn't supported by the source or by any other source. I removed the header because it wasn't quite accurate and the history section wasn't long enough to need a header. I rewrote the rest to be true the source. The way you phrased it was not an accurate summary of the source. Synthesizing your own conclusions from a source is also considered original research. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that "History" quite explains what happened after everything went down. History does not accurately encompass what happened/is happening after it was closed. I understand your conclusions about original research and have cleared that up, as well. Zebaron (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It covers the history of the service from start to finish. If the section were longer, a subheader would be appropriate, but at its current length, a header for just two sentences is unnecessary. I've left a welcome message on your user talk page that can help you learn more about some of the basics of Wikipedia article formats and the like. Great resource that I hope will help improve your experience, and lessen the disgust factor :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I do see your reason, but unfortunately, I think something larger is at play. It appears that, in its entirety, I wasted quite a bit of my time. I do suspect that nothing I would have written would have been good enough for you, and I concede that point. It would be quite a shame for I, a new editor, to try and add information to a C-list article as per the aims of Wikipedia. I should hope that you realize the disgust factor was not Wikipedia, or the complications of the system, but rather the inhospitality that was willing to undermine every step I tried to take. I do believe I'll be removing my account in the next few days... it's all for naught. Respectfully, Zebaron (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. I've tried to be helpful and hospitable in this discussion, but yes, Wikipedia does have guidelines and policies that should be followed, as the goal is to have articles with validated, accurate content. As a more experienced editor who knows some of the ropes, I tried to guide you to help you do an edit in keeping with the article, then corrected the edit where it was improved, but not quite there. The source did not specifically claim that users left 360 in droves, and as the numbers given were from before the shutdown was announced, it was a false conclusion to presume they had. We must always be careful not to misuse or misreport a source, otherwise we are falsifying information, which benefits no one. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(Restarting at left margin because I can't stand a column one word wide) I do understand the rules of interpreting the source correctly, and if you were concerned about how I worded mine, regarding the source not claiming that users left as a result of the shut down, I would like to express the concern that your revision is more ambiguous, in that it states, "came at the heels of its American web traffic dropping 51% between 2006 and 2007." which is not entirely true, because the results were September-to-September. In reality, your revision gives the impression mine did, as well. I would hate for you, "a more experienced editor who know some of the ropes", to "not to misuse or misreport a source, otherwise we are falsifying information, which benefits no one." Wouldn't you agree? Zebaron (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, September 2006 to September 2007. The shut down announcement did not come until October 2007. So technically, it is more accurate, however it also still quite right so I have reworked that section. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks wonderful. Doesn't a little constructive criticism help once and a while? ;D Zebaron (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Reply:Merge: Well, admin are not the only ones who do it. Many times the person who listed it for deletion or someone who has participated in it will. Earthbendingmaster 14:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins are generally the only ones to close AfDs, which is why I said that. Sorry I was being confusing.  :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bonfire leadership article

Thanks for the cleanup. — BQZip01 — talk 03:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Suze Orman Edit War

AnmaFinotera, I can understand a difference of opinion on my additions to the Criticism section of the Suze Orman article. But it is a personal attack to label factual references as "vandalism" and "borderline libel". And it is censorship to delete my discussion from the relevant talk page where we could get feedback from other editors. Do you want to discuss this here or seek third-party opinions? (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding unsourced, libelous information to the article of a living person is not allowed on Wikipedia, and continuing to try to add it after its been removed more than once is properly considered vandalism. It was not censorship to remove the comment, as it always was too close to being libelous and was unsourced opinion, not verifiable fact. If you wish to rephrase your comment in a more appropriate way, without making derogatory remarks about her sexual orientation, then it can be discussed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera, my comment about Orman's investing is absolutely a verifiable fact because it referenced the Suse Orman interview by the New York Times. The criticism and relevance to her financial advice was referenced in the MarketWatch article.

I don't consider being a lesbian/virgin "derogatory". In any case that is already in the article. Are you going to let me post the financial critism now? Or are you going to continually delete my facts sourced by the New York Times? (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It was an unsourced fact and you didn't say "she's a lesbian" you said she never had been with a man so she wasn't qualified to offer advice about relationships between men and women. I will revert any unsourced or badly sourced material added to the article per Wikipedia's policies regarding articles on living people. Saying "she doesn't invest in the stock market" is not a criticism, its a comment. Keep your personal views out of your edits, and it should be fine. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned Article?

Just a note on your decision to make Prehistoric medicine an orphaned article. I have already linked many related articles to the page such as: Prehistory, History of Medicine, Medicine Man and many others. What else do you think I should link it to or is that plenty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talkcontribs) 19:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's plenty. It just didn't show any links when I checked it :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kk =] MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to put the logo gallery back on the Animal Planet page?

When Animal Planet changes its logo this upcoming weekend, do you want me to put the logo gallery back on the Animal Planet page so that I'll know which logo was used first? Please let me know what you think. This is very important. Thank you. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Unless the article is cleaned up and expanded to include an actual sourced discussion of the logo history, using more than just the current logo would not be valid fair use. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: January 2008

It was a complete mistake. My apologies. I was kinda reverting a little too fast and when I checked your edit, I accidentally hit "revert" (I use Popups). I'll try to go at a slower pace. --Nobody can see me 23:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Its good to be vigilant against vandalism, just be a little more careful to be sure what you are reverting really is vandalism first :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Congrats on the FA star for Meerkat Manor. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 19:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Television infobox template

Hey, noticed you undid my revision. Not complaining, just really feel that those are two items that are really needed for that template. American game and talk/variety shows don't have presenters and narrators. They have hosts and announcers. Added a blurb to the discussion page. Hope to hear back soon, and hope to see those added to the template soon as non-mandatory options. Snowpeck (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is possible they do, however with a template like that, which is literally used on thousands of pages, any major changes like that should be discussed first and agreed to by consensus. Its also better to let them be done by someone with more experience with the template code so as not to risk breaking anything. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Hello, why is not a good source to use for film shoot locations? Secondly, what do you recommend as a good source instead? Nhl4hamilton (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In general, IMDB can only be used for basic film information, like actor, director, etc (i.e. the credits of a film). It can be used to find film location, however, it should not be listed as a reference as the location information listed generally comes from the film credits as well. If another reference can be found to expand on the location, then that can be added to confirm the film credits, but otherwise it isn't needed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
OK Thanks for the speedy response and explanation. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Alabama Extension Page

Hi, ACES-wikiman here. Would you consider removing the tag on the Alabama Cooperative Extension System article? I've got two of our professional editors on it right now, going over it with a fine-toothed comb. Also, as soon as i can figure out how, I will submit it to the Wiki editorial board for review. Sorry to be a bother about this, but I've spent literally hours of my free time on this material, running over it with a fine-toothed comb myself, and consdier it pretty topnotch. I'm not bucking for an FA, only a page that is respected and that convey's factual information. Also, as you remember, I removed all the nonneutral material and have sense gone back and checked for anything else considered crossing the line. Sorry if I've violated any Wiki etiquette here, but I'm respectfully asking for some consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No. While I'm sure your editors will do a great job, it also needs neutral eyes to look at it. I've already put in a request at the organization project for them to take a look at it to see if it conforms to their Manual of Style regarding content and layout. It isn't anything personal and many articles are tagged for needing work. Also, please remember that no one owns Wikipedia articles, so while you may not be aiming for an FA article, that is part of the over all goal for most projects and most editors: to have articles that are of high enough quality to be considered a featured article. After the organization project looks at it, then it can be reviewed by the Wikipedia League of Copyeditors, who are experts in Wikipedia's manual of style and requirements regarding style, tone, etc. It is something all well done articles go through, and again it is nothing personal. Even if you were not personally affiliated with ACES, the article would be tagged the same and require review and clean up. It is something all well-fleshed out articles will go through. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Littles response and more

When it came to YouTube, how come Yo Yogi had some links to clips and some shows have links to the show's intro? Rtkat3 (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't and the links should be removed immediately. People often add bad links to pages. If they aren't being well watched, they may sit there awhile until someone spots and removes. That doesn't make it acceptable and YouTube links that violate copyrights are expressly forbidden as violating Wikipedia policy. Only official streams/videos published by the copyright owner are acceptable for linking to with regard to copyrighted works. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


Greetings...I am a member of the Heroes wikiproject. I recently noticed that you made some motifications to the talkpage. The talkpage has recently been changed to make the page less crowded and model itself after the talkpage on the LOST talkpage. Lost is a featured article, which the Heroes wikiproject has consistantly modeled itself after. There is no Wikipedia policy that says the boxes can not be small, similar to the small boxes on the Lost page. Your referenced wikipolicy TW, but that did not support your claim as to the changes you have made. the heroes wikiproject is quit content with the way the Heroes talkpage looks. Is policy being broken the way the page was before you changed it?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't reference policy, I said the revert was unexplained (which it was the first time). The page is hideously overloaded, on that I agree, hence some of the changes I made to try to balance the amount of information, while also making it clean, consistent with most talk pages, and to help handle some tasks. I've tweaked my initial suggestions to try to blend the two styles. Please take a look and see if that works. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing this with me. I have taken a look at what you have done, and funny enough, I had an edit conflict, because I was doing the same clean-up job you were doing at the same time. The talkpage looks fine now. I just thought those boxes were too big...but now that you have made them a little smaller and cleaner, it looks fine. Its great to find users who will openly discuss issues with other users in a positive way. I agree with your changes and I will not contest them again. The talkpage looks better and cleaner now and I respect what you did. I may have accidently reverted something that you did during the edit conflict. I think the page is back to the way you had it, but if you could take some time to review the page and make sure it is right, please do so. thanks you very much and thanks for adding a ranking to the heroes article--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem and glad it helped :) Good luck going for GA/FA (guessing you guys will after the peer review and a copy edit?) :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks...i appreciate it...and yeah, we are going for GA and FA one day. we have some work to do, but we will get to that status soon. once again, thanks for being real civil. see you on the talkpages!!!--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Closure of Post Oak Mall AfD

Hi -- Just a note that when you closed the Post Oak Mall AfD, you placed the first tag in the wrong place; it goes right at the top. I've fixed it for you. See Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_Deletion_page for detailed instructions. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Woops. Thanks for catching, and fixing, that :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime...

Thank you for notifying me about the problems with that image. Now I know what to do in future with promotional images of television series. In the meantime, let's talk about the article... you say it has multiple issues, right? There are four problems you listed; could you please give a detailed explanation of each one, in point form? (I find that easier to read.) I'll be looking in the article's discussion page under that title you started. Thank you!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already given a detailed explanation in the article's talk page. If you look at the MOS, it can provide even greater detail on what a television series article layout should be like, and what should go in each section. WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Citation templates can help with making the references more consistent in format. WP:LEAD gives a detailed explanation on what the lead section of an article should have. Use it, along with the MOS to help flesh out the article, fix the layout and formatting issues, and address the various things mentioned in my initial assessment and per the tags I left on the article. You may also want to look at some of the featured television articles for ideas and guidance. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, what I meant was what exactly else do you think needs to be cited there? Because - pardon my French - it was doggone hard to find citations for what I did ( she laughs). Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Before the article can go higher in class, pretty much any fact that didn't come specifically from the series (like credits and over all plot), must be sourced. Anything that can not be sourced is basically considered original research and should be removed as it can't be verified. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Heroes rated

Hello...I had a question about your comment. your comments was Assessment completed and set to B. As its already under peer review, no comments left on the talk page. After the peer review, though, with some copyediting from the LoCE, might be ready to try for GA or FA. I was wondering if you could explain to me what LoCe means. This is a new term to it a wikilanguage word or what? Just wondering...thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I forgot to wikilink it. LoCe is the the League of Copyeditors...a project of folks who specialize in copy editing articles before they go up for GA or FA. :-) AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


On Xena; it's only work, right?  :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob :) I wonder why she keeps nominating such bad articles...that one has a ton of broken references even. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Fourth time; could be communication issues. I deal with another editor like that, but not at FAC, where it ties up so many resources. And, once a FAC is up, I've got to leave it at least four days <sigh>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Blech...then she tried to put it in PR AND GA. I hope she figures it out soon and stops nominating hideous articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that; since I'm not an admin, I asked Gimmetrow to housekeeping delete the old, redirected malformed fac nom. Work, work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No prob. I've tagged the bad PR (which was incomplete) for CSD as housekeeping.  :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to do that; I just leave a message for Gimmetrow (talk · contribs); he got the fac already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I use Twinkle, but can also do by adding {{db-g6}} to the top of the article (for Housekeeping CSD). AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I won't remember g6, but if I type db-Maintenance once, I'll remember :-) Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Xena page.

Thanks very much. I'm very new to this, and really don't know what to do at this point.

Glitter1959 (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

Edit Summary

AnmaFinotera: I will gladly provide an edit summary - just as soon as you point me to the regulation which states one is required.  — [Unsigned comment added by Supervox2113 (talkcontribs) 19:02, 31 January 2008.]

Is it strictly required? No. Not doing so, however, is considered rude and don't be suprised to find your edits continuously reverted if you can't bother yourself to explain why you made the changes. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera: No problem. I will gladly cease to be rude, and explain (to those who apparently need it explained) every little grammatical error I happen to fix. Btw, failing to provide an edit summary is considered rude according to which wiki guideline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supervox2113 (talkcontribs) 06:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's considered rude per Wikipedia interactions. You aren't collaborating and its hard to work together when one person doesn't think they need to say what they are doing, or why. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bob Ross

I have made some ammendments to this page, I have not added this thime about Bob's third wife. He was married three times, I have researched him for over three years and have copied of all three of his marriage certs. I have removed the fact that Bob was Veggie, it would be nice to think that my hero was like myself. I have also ammended that he was only in the US Air Force for 20 years. If you see a JOP show, Bob will say in numerous programmes that he served "ALMOST" 12 years. There's little point in speaking to BRI, they are currently trying to stop a close friend of Bob's from having a book of Bob's life published. I as well as other Bob friends I have made cannot understand why they wish to keep details of this beautiful man a secret, I could fill Bob's page with info I know about him, but I cannot state this this is available online anywhere, as it has all come from speaking direct to those who knew Bob personally. This is not just friends, but also folk from the WIPB Muncie studios.

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewindmill (talkcontribs) 01:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the removal of unsourced information and the correction of the years based on the show. Also, you may wish to look at Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. Since you have noted multiple times that you were friends with Bob Ross, per Wikipedia policy you should refrain from major editing on any articles related to him. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I wish I had been a friend of Bob Ross!! I simply have made friends with those that were close to him. I am SLOWLY plowing my way through all 30 series of JOP and making notes of the personal details that Bob says. I'll see if i can find out what shows, if just one or two that he mentions the air force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewindmill (talkcontribs) 17:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool...make sure to note the episode numbers, which will be needed for citing anything. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to episodes and characters

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

For the duration of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (c.f. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message (link) have been notified of this injunction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you please upload the new Animal Planet logo right now?

Would you please upload the new Animal Planet logo right now and place it on the Animal Planet page? AdamDeanHall (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already told you, no one is obligated to do anything "right now" and it is inappropriate for you to "order" someone to do any particular edit that you yourself can't seem to do either. I am trying to get a clean version of the new logo, but AP's launch of their new site is incomplete and they themselves have not posted a nice version that can easily be acquired and used. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll just wait for the new logo. I won't bother you about it anymore. AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Eye Guess

There seem to be a constant disagreement with the user and you, and perhaps the standards of Wikipedia, in regards to what is acceptable as external links and references to the article about Eye Guess, the 1960's television game show. Looking at the past history of the article, the links, references and other notes are really considered as spam, and they do contain very specific and concise additional information by the individuals who each wrote them in their own web page essays.

Checking on many other television game show articles found in Wikipedia, with individual program titles and within the genre in general, they also have external links and outside references contained with their layout and format. Many of them each do not seem to have had any past history of being planned to be deleted and/or being removed as such.

My question towards you as a Wikipedia contributor, and perhaps speaking for Wikipedia, is do you consider yourself a true authority and as an real overall expert on the subject of the TV game show Eye Guess, as well as other programs in the genre. If so, I strongly suggest that you completely overhaul and rewrite from the beginning this article with a much better layout and detail information, and not just deleting links and notes that might leave out certain key elements of the history of Eye Guess. I believe that you should have that particular task fixing up yourself the entire article in question.

A reply is greatly welcome as a courtesy in return. Even the true fans of Eye Guess and game show historians in general would like to hear what you have to say on this matter, and perhaps you come with a solution that will be satisfy everyone on this topic...even does fall if at all in the guidelines of Wikipedia and you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your message shows that you really don't know much about how Wikipedia works, and as such, there is nothing really to say other than I or any other editor can tag an article for having issues without requiring we be a "true authority" or "real overall expert" in anything. I tagged the article in question as part of my work for the Wikipedia Television project, so I do have some experience/expertise in the standards a Wikipedia television article should conform to. Just because other television articles have bad links does not mean I must let this one have them. They will eventually be removed from all television articles, even if they have gone unnoticed before now. As for your suggested that I must fix up the entire article, uh, no. It isn't an article I wish to fix up, and I'm not obligated to do anything to it just because I'm the one tagging it and I protect it from inappropriate edits. "True fans" should realize that this is NOT a fan site, but an encyclopedia. As such, information should be verifiable through the use of reliable sources. Fan sites and personal opinion do not belong, period. I doubt that will "satisfy you" but it is what it is. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:February 2008

Stop reverting the edits to Animal Planet (Canada), if you took notice to the edits made to the article since you first put the tags on the article, references have been made, and the article is not confusing to readers, and cleanup has been made to the article. I have and will continue to remove those tags that reference those concerns because they have been addressed. (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The issues have not been addressed, and you obviously have no idea what the issues mean. If you continue to remove the tags, you will be blocked. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Some of the issues have been met. There are references added to the article, obviously you have no idea what a reference are then. You are just adding tags to the article for no reason. Ie. the Animal Planet article, one of the tags says add additional references when there are clearly many references added to support the article. Regarding the Animal Planet (Canada) article, there are references added, exactly how is this article confusing, anyone with a grade 5 education can understand this article, that tag does not need to be added, and cleanup to the article has been made. These 3 tags can be removed. (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, no. The section called "references" provide no citations, so there is no evidence they are actually used and are relaly just external links. The article has not been cleaned up and it is confusing as it seems to repeat the basic stuff from the main AP and doesn't even explain its relation to AP - regional channel or just same name, different country. The introduction makes no sense and provide no context for anything it says. Your insults aside, leave the article alone if you aren't actually going to contribute to it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn, you sure do like to hide behind your delete key!

I have the right to remove offense crap from my talk page. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Kind of like I have the right to correct an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdfielder (talkcontribs) 00:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You didn't correct anything, you just removed the source. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This time I removed the information, just like you recommended! It reads kind of odd now, though...

I did not recommend removing the information, and if you don't quit defacing that article you will be blocked. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

FY character list

Please note that one of the requirements of WP:MERGE, to keep the terms of the GFDL, is that you link the article you got information from in your edit summary when merging. -Malkinann (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to put the links back in. When the injunction is lifted, they will all be made redirects, hence my not bothering to link. Personally, I'd rather scrap them all together and start over, because they are hideous, but then I'd be "deleting" stuff. *sigh* AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you've understood me. I'm not talking about the links being in the article at all - I'm talking about the links being in your edit summaries when you merge content. In WP:MERGE, it says that to comply properly with §4(I) of the GFDL, you have to put in your edit summary something like "content from old article name", to help keep the history of the words intact. That way, even when the old character articles are merged, someone can go back and easily follow the history of the words and who contributed them. -Malkinann (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh...I didn't know about that at all. I've never done that with any merges I've done. I'll remember that for future edits though :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please have a read through WP:MERGE? I find it a bit dense, and I'm not sure I've got the full story with it, so any insight you can shed on it would be helpful! ;) -Malkinann (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think you got the right idea :) I never even noticed that part about noting the merge in edit summaries. *doh* Thanks for pointing that out. For the FY character articles, I think selective merging would be the best approach, because most of the character articles have hideous formatting and lots of OR and creative interpretation. You've been doing fine with the ones you've done so far. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for notifying me of your proposed deletion. I wish all people were as courteous and diligent when they propose a deletion. Thank you again, Johntex\talk 04:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, though in honesty, it is done for me by Twinkle (though before I started using Twinkle, I did notify as well) :) More people really should do so, as it part of the process, but you are right, many do skip that step. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ace of Cakes

I've been a member of Wikipedia for a long time, but thanks for the welcome nonetheless. My page may look bare and it may look like I am not a big part of Wikipedia, but I do my best to do what I can. I'm sorry you felt taking out the duplicate link to Ace of Cakes was a major faux pas....but can you answer to me why you think there needs to be 2 of the same links for one show? Pick one, the actual official show website, and leave Food Networks proxy by the wayside. Just my two cents. And if I seem a little cranky, try not to mind, Im just tired of cleaning up other people's messes on this site and getting flack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ownlyanangel (talkcontribs) 06:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and believe me I know the feeling. I get it all the time. I'm rather cranky tonight user page is currently being hammered by a vandal, probably some editor I ticked off for cleaning up cruft (the bane of my existance). :( For the link, for television series articles, it is considered good and appropriate, to include links to all official sites, when they are significantly different. The production site (the second link) and Food Network's sites are very different. The infobox was actually expanded recently to allow for two official links, because this is relatively common. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Hey there! I noticed your request for protection of your userpage at RFPP, and have done so. If/when you want to protection lifted, you can either ask me on my talk page, or just make an unprotection request at RFPP. Happy editing! :) Jmlk17 06:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk page is protected as well, but with an expiration. I recognize the same vandal, as they have made an appearance on my talk page several times before. I used to think they'd give up, but I suppose some people just make hobbies of the dumbest activities ya know? :) Jmlk17 07:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Discovery Channel Australia

Which parts are confusing or unclear? Reubot (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The intro is confusion and doesn't adequately connect it to Discovery Channel. Is it a regional version of DC, or an independant station with no real connection? What does the Animal Planet channel have to do with this channel and why is it included? Ditto the other sections. Is this article about the actual Discovery Channel Australia television channel, or a company? Take a look at the main DC article. It focuses purely on that channel, not on that channel and the related ones. The other channels are part of the Discovery Communications company, not the Discovery Channel television channel. Hope that helps. Also, the programming is broken up into "highlights" and "other" but no context or explanation is given as to what makes something a "highlight" or not, so the grouping seems arbitrary. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Expert for Aria (manga)

Actually, it already has the attention of one -- if I count. I've been working on the page over the past month. At the rate I work -- and the rate I watch episodes for summarizing -- I have a couple more weeks left of cleanup. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, sorry. I wasn't checking the history, just kinda quick hitting while adding in the ADV manga to the categories. Feel free to remove the tag. I think after I tagged I saw another one you were working on too? AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If so, I haven't noticed. I does need cleanup, which is what I've been working on, but I'll remove the expert attention tag. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Good luck. I'm still trying to smack around Fushigi Yugi while also working on Marmalade Boy. I still have 6 summaries to write up. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I kinda slowed down once I made a personal pledge to whack one article from the project cleanup list a week. This week, it's the list of Black Cat volumes/chapters (which has a couple paragraphs of summary per chapter -- oy). —Quasirandom (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to get myself to focus more too, cause I'm finding I don't get much done when I'm letting myself get pulled into multiple articles at once. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that. BTW, I moved the cleanup tag to List of Aria episodes -- a split I should have done earlier, but I was waiting to finish filling out the episode lists -- because most of the cleanup issues seem to be associated with that. With the honking big tables out of the way, the main article is, I think actually pretty much a B-class article -- even has a decent start on a Reception section. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool! I saw that earlier. Definitely needed it. I wouldn't say it was ready for B class though. The character list could, and probably should, be broken out, the anime section has a list that should be prose, and there is a stub section. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. We must be reading the qualifications for B differently. Those are enough for me to say "don't bother trying for GA yet, but it's getting there, so B." —Quasirandom (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Possibly...I tend to take a much stricter view of what should be B and up than most, though it also seems to go by project. Film is very tough on assessments, while TV, not so much. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fushigi Yūgi and romanization

I did what I could for the romanization on both pages, though I have some reservations about the episode list; I'd feel better about it if I had the series to check against, as kana readings for more obscure combinations are hard to come by. In particluar, the "星見" in episode 26's title could be "Hoshimi", but the first thing the online dictionary I use gave me was a name and not a deinfition, so I don't know if that's accurate. The four Eikoden titles also has similar problems, so I simply cut them. TangentCube, Dialogues 03:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it is much appreciated :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: InuYasha and Date Formats

That's the thing, I've also seen it both ways. I noticed that the dates given at InuYasha were formatted UK style and an entire section was Americanized. What to do? Since the majority of the dates were already in UK style I just went along with it. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question, really. I've seen it both ways in some articles, and being rather regional, I tend to go for Americanized. I personally only use UK style in articles on UK shows. ~scrounges around in the MOS ~ Okay, it looks like either can be used for the article, so long as its consistent. The only main requirement is that for US-centric articles, the americanized should be used, while UK ones should use the "international" format.  :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
How does Canada style the dates? I ask this because the English dub is from there. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 04:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
According to the MOS, Canada uses both equally, so either is acceptable. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
We might have to keep an eye on Snapper2 (talk · contribs · logs). I'm not sure what his deal is, but he's almost breaking WP:3RR on Naruto's page. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 05:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed. He is a relatively new editor, so I've been fairly lenient, but if he keeps it up I'll send him a warning as well. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Very new. ~SnapperTo 05:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...sorry about that, I presumed you were new because of your actions, but since you are not then you do not need to be told, again, that your edits are not appropriate. For future reference, if multiple editors undo a change you make, you should not just keep making redoing it. Rather, bring the issue up on the talk page and discuss your point of view there. In the case of these edits, I could agree that the part "According to Viz" can be removed if Viz is only the publisher of the cited work, however the excessive wikification is completely unnecessary. Repeated wikifications are unnecessary and would only be required to be removed when we take the article up for FA status. If you continue to just revert the changes, you will violate 3RR and be subject to blocking. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Other editors reverted me with the explanation of adding unneeded wikification, which I was not doing on the whole; the only link I added was one that Sesshomaru removed when he reverted me, and I in turn reverted him. It was not but negligence on my part. Even then, to again quote WP:CONTEXT#What generally should not be linked, "It is not uncommon to repeat a link that had last appeared much earlier in the article." Links, present or not, are not going to be the downfall of an article. ~SnapperTo 05:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You sure act like a new editor. Otherwise, you'd know better than to edit war and hide warnings. Just open up a discussion on the article's talk page if you still disagree with the edits. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, can you take a look at this? I would like to solve the problems brought up by Snapper2 on Naruto's page. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 23:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and get Naruto Uzumaki updated per the talk. No one (aside from you and I) commented on the matter and frankly I don't believe anyone else bothers. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 07:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that seems to happen a lot...someone will complain, but then in the end only one or two people really care enough to do anything. Funny thing is, I don't even watch the show :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Really? I think people who particularly like anime or manga should. {^_^} Well, actually, if you were at one time a Dragon Ball supporter then the show is right for you. Anyways, I'll get the changes done. Thanks for your support, Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 08:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL, never could get into Dragon Ball either. Kinda ironic because it is the only anime my younger brother likes! :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Rough Collie page

Hi, I cannot see why you keep removing every edit I make to this page. For instance, I corrected This is a ..dogs and you reverted it! Please show some respect for other users.

The article refers to the noble head, I have repeatedly inserted an image to illustrate, but, presumably because it is not your image you remove it! Please try to be reasonable! Mike0001 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I was reasonable the multiple times I explained the issue on your talk page. You refuse to listen and are stubbornly edit warring over your pets picture. Reuploading it with another name does not make it any less your pet. I'm reporting you to the administrators so they can deal with your edit warring here, and in other articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
So you think you are the only person who has an opinion or is reasonable? Your accusations apply equally to you. And how do you know the dog is my pet? How do I know the other dogs illustrated are not your pets?
In what way do you think that the picture does not illustrate a collie noble head? Please explain! Mike0001
I added a link to a respected collie forum. You removed it. Why? Spam? Do you know what spam is?

(talk) 17:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You uploaded the picture, twice, and it was taken with your camera. Obvious presumption is that it is your pet (either that or you are violating copyright by not properly attributing the photographer). For your second question, obviously not mine when I didn't upload the images (and I currently own no rough collies). The picture does not illustrate a point in the text. The history mentions the words "noble head" it does not detail it, explain what a "noble" head is, so how can an image illustrate a point that doesn't even exist? The link was not appropriate. We do not link to fan forums. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
LGS aka Shadow is a pedigree dog. The picture was taken with my camera. Clearly I cannot divulge ownership as that would identify the owners! But I own copyright. Did you remove the first image? If you want to expand on noble, please do! Any good photos can only add to the worth of the site. I have other pictures from Crufts if you like. I don't see anything to get so angry about! Mike0001 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain what's wrong with the picture independent of whether it is his pet? Because that alone (even if it is) wouldn't be a reason not to use the image. —Random832 17:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I have explained, above and on his talk page multiple times. The article isn't long enough to support another image, it can barely support the three it has now. The image does not illustrate anything in the text, and certainly nothing in the section he added it to. He is claiming it illustrates a "noble head" but the text doesn't even define what a noble head is, so how can it illustrate it. It is only being added as decoration and because it is his. I suggested that if he wanted the image to included, he should expand the article to support it, by greatly expanding the appearance section to better discuss the collie head shape, something the article needs far more than yet another pretty picture. He didn't want to do that, though, and instead began attacking the existing text because it disagreed with his personal opinion, and continued to doggedly readd the picture. (no pun intended)AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Strange but I don't think I could add an image that was not mine anyway. I don't recall you making any of the suggestions you have just mentioned either. As for not wanting to do something, every time I do try to do something you immediately remove it! Even correcting grammar or starting to add citations! Mike0001 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I also explained that it was not a reliable source and that you were not formatting stuff properly. As for the grammar, the only reason it was removed was because you were couching it in bad edits. Notice I did not undo your last correction when you did the grammar correction by itself, without trying to shove the image in. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Shove? You haven't given one good `reason why it should be unshoved! Mike0001 (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I gave lots, all based on Wikipedia guidelines and the MOS, but because you don't like those reasons, you decided they weren't good and that your reason of "because I like it" was the only one of importance.AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for adding {{afdold}] to Talk:Lost Treasure (film). I forgot to take care of the Talk page. Best, Johntex\talk 20:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

new look bus speed movie

Check the picture, what other proof do you need to identify the bus as the "new look"? If you believe it's incorrect, then you would need a specific reference. --Bachcell (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A specific reference is needed to show that it is the same bus. A picture alone is not an adequate reference to declare it to be a specific bus model. If a reliable source is found that notes that is the bus used, the information should also be included in the production section rather than the plot section. :-) AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes

I ask you for your help please on the above article. User:Edito*Magica keeps trying to change the lead to this, which as I have explained is against guidelines and against what other episode pages look like. However, he will not listen to me and keeps reverting saying "nd my rule does suit the article better, it is more concise, quicker and easier for users to find details" (from my TalkPage). I really would appreciate a third opinion on the matter. I know the article needs a lot of work, but we can at least keep the lead half-decent.--UpDown (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ewww...why would he think that is a better format? I've reverted his latest change, and as he's done it multiple times, I've left him a 3RR warning with an explanation as to why his actions are wrong. I'll keep the page in my watchlist and if he does it again, I'll report him for the 3RR violation. I do have one suggestion on the article layout, though. Consider adding a series table and converting the current tables to use the {{episode list}} table. For an example of the series table code, take a look at List of Meerkat Manor episodes, which is a recent FL episode list. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. It's a page on my long-term "to do" list, but I'm currently focusing on List of Time Team episodes and finishing List of To the Manor Born episodes. Once I've done them, I will certainly do this as it does need serious work. --UpDown (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to make it clear that my intentions behind all my edits are to improve Wikipedia articles. The truth is, the new layout that a certain “Updown” is against is far more suitable, not only does it allow users at a glimpse to find information, without having to read the entire paragraph, but it also does not break any Wiki rules.

The lead definition page clearly states that the lead layout does not need to be followed, and I think you’ll find that my alterations to the episode page still do everything the definition says. I quote: “The lead section, lead, lede, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first heading. The table of contents, if displayed, appears between the lead section and the first heading. The lead serves a dual role both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.” My layout does exactly these things. It goes on: “The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.” (my changes make it more concise) “It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs…” (the layout still contains paragraphs) “…should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.” So with my layout fulfilling all of this, what rules am I breaking exactly? And it’s only a minor change, all the information is still present and most of it is still paragraphed. I hope you have taken on board what I’ve said, and don’t approach the dispute is a bias way. I am afraid I will revert back to my changes because they are positive improvements, of which I will make to similar articles. I know it’s a long message, so thanks for your time. Edito*Magica (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you learn the appropriate format ofr articles. The lead should appears BEFORE any table of contents, so your edits are completely removing the lead all together. That is not appropriate. Your formatting also goes against the established format for an episode list as established by community consensus. You don't get to decide that because you "think" your format is better (and its not), that you can just keep changing it and be allowed to do so. If you continue to go against stated consensus, you will be considered to be edit warring and risk being blocked. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
My edits are not completely removing the lead altogether, just altering the layout slightly. You have misunderstood. And because my alterations are making the article more concise and easier to read, such changes are appropriate. Surely you can see sense?
Aside from the point, I have deleted information that is repeated once on the same page, because it is pointless being told the same thing twice. Edito*Magica (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No, your layout does not make anything more concise or easier to read. Again, we have an established format for episode lists and Wikipedia has strong guidelines for general article/list format. Your edits completely violate those, and are unnecessary and inappropriate. As for removing repeated information, the point of the lead is to summarize information, so it will repeat stuff from the rest of the article. That is its point. I strongly suggest you stop your apparent campaign to ruin many episode lists by applying your false idea that your preferred format is somehow good. It will only earn you additional ire from editors and result in you being considered disruptive as you have already had it explained to you in extensive detail that it is wrong. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I said there is no point in repeating the same information on the same page, hence the main. Aside from this I am not being disruptive, it is called improvements. And it is not “your episode list”.Edito*Magica (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You are being disruptive. You are blantantly disgrading Wikipedia guidelines and policies because you disagree with them, you continue to ruin an episode list with your bad attempts at enforcing your bad edits, and you are not working with WP:CONSENSUS. It is not your episode list, either, it is the community, and it will be protected from editors who try to violate what the community has decided how an episode list should be formatted and arranged. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
As I have mentioned before, my edits to the layout still follow the Wikipedia guidelines of which I have quoted from above. The layout still summarises, is still concise, etc. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy stating that bullet points cannot be used to show the lead. It allows users to find information at a glimpse. Edito*Magica (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


I have been watching this dispute with great amusement! But it's getting a bit silly now. An attempt was made by user Edito*Magica to get me on his side here.

Yep...I do wish the admins would just give him an appropriate smack so he'll stop it already. Taking folks times away from other work. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


I don’t see any harm in getting second opinions. Popular opinion is in favour of the minor adjustments I’ve made to the layout, and can I remind you of committing acts of "sneaky vandalism". Edito*Magica (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A - quit accusing people of "sneaky vandalism" just because they are keeping you from harming an article. B - popular opinion by one other person who has no clue about article formatting does not override consensus. Your ruination of the list will continue to be reverted. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


I think I just figured that out.. All the ones with red bars go before the ones with orange, right? :) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 19:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That could be it :) BTW, you may want to not tag the articles for notability, as I believe that violates the current ArbCom injunction. (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I only read your edit note from my watchlist. I see what you actually mean now. Hehe, I could have a lot of fun with {{Articleissues}} I thought the ArbCom was about episodes, not characters? I was speaking with TTN just now, and he didn't mention it couldn't be done. (And I would think he would know, everyone is on his case!)
P.S. I just realised that you're the same AnmaFinotera at FLC! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 19:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom seems to be applying it to both episodes and characters. At least, that is what I was told when I asked for clarification. I still disagree with them applying it to all editors instead of those personally involved, but alas, not much to be done. I do think the Degrassi characters need to be tagged, but it should be probably held off until the injunction is lifted. LOL at the PS, yep, that's me :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, you might want to look at installing Friendly...makes tagging way easier, and will auto group into article issues for you if you are applying more than four tags :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Bah! Like most Wikipedia toys, it's for Firefox. And the missus doesn't like me installing things on her computer -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah...true. Wikipedia is the only reason I use FireFox as much as I do now. I still prefer IE for my main browser, but for here, I have FireFox open most of my waking hours...which is probably a sad thing to admit :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Undent Do you know of any "List of (Insert TV Show here) characters" that have slipped through the GA process and been named GA? There aren't any FLs of such, and occasionally lists do get GA'ed. The only lists I can find for characters are computer games (List of characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series and List of Metal Gear Solid characters). -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...I can't think of any at the moment, but I haven't browsed through the GA list a lot. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Checking minor edits

Oops! (Stupid me)--> :( Sorry! Thanks for the note! I'll remember and be careful in the future. Thanks again! ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Sesshomaru#Request GA withdrawal

User:Sesshomaru is acting rather heatedly over my request above that you correlated with at Talk:Naruto, and I request that you intervene as a a third party to avoid this accelerating into something rather uncouth. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Misunderstanding. Thanks in any case. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Aww, I'd just finished my notes too. But no prob. :)AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Question for you

Left a question for you on Talk:Full Moon o Sagashite -- mentioning here in case you can't keep up with your watchlist. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Episode list

Thanks, that is better. As you know I'm not a great fan of colours full stop, but I won't remove them. With regards to titles, it's a difficult one as not many had on-screen episode titles, but I'll look a bit more into this. The only other thing I don't like is putting the specials with the series; in my eyes that are totally seperate and do not relate to series so should have their own box. At some point when I watch the episodes again I will write longer summaries, and look for more refs. Thanks again.--UpDown (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that would explain the slight title differences. For the specials, I put with the series as that's how had it, but another option could be to put them in a separate table at the bottom. Would that work better? AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Funny this was a debate with EditoMagica I once had! In my eyes they should be in their own boxes in broadcast order. It is logical to have them in broadcast order and logical to have them in own boxes and they are on-off specials, so a one-off special box is the best idea. --UpDown (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty, all moved :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. I did try and read through the ANI thing on the episode issue, but I've got absolutely no familiarity with all the discussions about that topic, so I'm not really comfortable getting involved with it. I will, however, ask a friend of mine, User:Masem to take a look at it - I believe he's involved in the ArbCom case on episodes right now, and may have a bit more knowledge to help out. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

InuYasha page

Why did you revert my edits? If you had a problem with an individual one, I'd understand, but my attempt was to clean up parts of the article that looked messy. Especially that horrible line that says "(episodes 1 - 43)" and then "(44 onwards)". Which just looks really sloppy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuwabaratheman (talkcontribs) 07:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Episodes shouldn't be capitalized. The more specific "six nights a week" is preferred to "frequently." I've reworked the sections you mentioned as needing some clean up. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "six nights a week" is better. That was my own fault. I believed that it had been removed from the schedule, but I checked a minute later and realized that I was wrong. I should have known better than to make that edit, but it's late at night, and I didn't think straight for a moment. The first word in a parentheses should be capitalized, however. That was the reason I made the change there. However, as the page stands now without parentheses being used, it's fine. Kuwabaratheman (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No prob. However, for future note, the first word in a parenthesis should not be capitalized. This is per basic grammar rules and the Wikipedia manual of style. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rough Collie issue

Hey there. I've just posted to the talk page on this article, asking for you and Mike0001 to weigh in with your concerns about the article and his changes. I'd appreciate if you could drop by and explain the situation there, and I'll try and work towards some sort of resolution.

I'd also ask that you take a deep breath and a step back in your dealings with Mike; I know you're frustrated, as is he, but the discussion has started to drift from the article to the editors, and that's not productive. I've asked him to calm down and stay civil as well. Hopefully we can sort this out soon. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree and am adding my remarks to the talk page now. However, his actions also appear to be getting out of hand. I updated the ANI report to include his recent vandalism of Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism and his other actions. It is one thing to disagree...Lord knows I get into some because people don't always like having articles clean up, but that is really no excuse to do some of the things he is doing. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that edit you pointed out on my talk page was a carryover from yesterday; I did ask him to lay off, and have made a proposal on the Rough Collie talk page that I hope will work as a compromise - he'll be able to work on expansion in his userspace, then bring that back for collaboration afterwards. I hope it's a reasonable compromise. If he does anything out of sorts again, though, do let me know - I'll be keeping an eye on things. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I wish I could agree, but he is now apparently decided he must help Edito, and reverted UpDown's revert of vandalism as vandalism[3], then I guess he realized what he did, then reverted himself as vandalism too. Then changed a grammar correction I made and called it vandalism as well.[4]. These were all within the last few minutes. *sigh* I do like your suggestion from the talk page, though, that he work on an expansion then bring it back. The article has sadly needed it for ages. Such a popular breed to have such a scant article. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've again asked that he stay clear of you, and (while I know you probably don't need it) would advise the same of you. If he keeps up with edits on pages you've worked on, I'll bring it up with him again. He's agreed to the expansion idea, so we'll see how it goes. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
He is still at it *sigh* No wonder most editors give up and just let articles stay in horrible shape. Dealing with this mess because of people who don't want to play by the guidelines is too exhausting and disheartening.AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Halo Graphic Novel

Have your concerns at Wikipedia:FAC#Halo Graphic Novel been addressed? Can you pls revisit? Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, my concerns have not. I've left a note to reiterate my oppose. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain what parts of the Halo lore are leaving you in the dust? Knowing all the plot, I'm having a hard time figuring it out myself? David Fuchs (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I know absolutely nothing about Halo, so when I see Halo series, I go "okay, what's that." In the plot summary, I didn't realize Halo: Combat Evolved was a game until the end of the paragraph, and still don't know what the 6th mission was or how this story relates to it. What's the Prophet? I read Prophet, I think Star Trek DS9 :P Little things like that. While there are full articles on many things, I shouldn't have to read them all to get a very quick idea of what something is. Does that help? AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for that. I'll get to it tomorrow. As for the MoS, I dunno, I just feel (partly 'cause I've done a lot more novels and video game articles) that it's more beneficial to explain how the work came to be before you go into plot, and especially since it appears that reception comes right after the plot. It's just contrary to every other article layout I've seen for media. David Fuchs (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm okay with the arrangement, its the missing sections that concern me. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added more explanatory text to The Last Voyage of the Infinite Succor. Is that better? David Fuchs (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that does make it clearer. Once the copyedit another editor mention is done, I can change to support. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't be so hasty, I got's to add info to the other three stories :) Thanks for clearing up my questions, hopefully I'll be done by the end of the weekend. David Fuchs (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • grin* Go for it! I have a huge list of stuff to do tonight as I have four references I'm using on multiple articles now overdue at the library :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I may have finished the copyedit. Browse through it at your leisure. :) David Fuchs (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Table format

I am using the proper format. The “Wiki-table” format is equally as proper as your method. Your tabular layout looks messy, confusing and certainly is not reader friendly. Thus, I have reverted your edits once again. Edito*Magica (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly warned to stop the edit warring, but you continue to refuse to listen and ignore consensus. Your changes have been reverted again.AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You are now being disruptive. You seem to think it is your way or no way, and that is arrogant. You seem to think that just because another site uses your layout this one has to use the same. You seem to think that just because another site uses your layout it is correct and better than any other format. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the present tables, which look far neater and reader-friendly. If your feel so strongly about the Goodnight Sweetheart tabular layout, I advice you to start a discussion on the subject’s discussion page. Thank you. Edito*Magica (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You are the only one being disruptive. You have been told, repeatedly, that the KUA list is in the proper, standard format for an episode list as agreed upon by THREE different projects. The format is not used by another site, it is used Wikipedia wide. You are the one thinking you can override the consensus of hundreds of other editors just because you don't like the existing format. Your format is not neater nor more reader friendly. You have been warned about your edit warring by multiple outside editors, but continue your disruptive actions, not me.AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you’ll find many pages use the table format I am in favour in, which is not “my” format at all. I hardly doubt hundreds of editors agree with you either. I WAS trying to create a page for the episodes of Goodnight Sweetheart, of which would have been complete by now if it wasn’t for you interfering. Hindering improvements of a page in vandalism. As for the latest threatening tag I’ve received from you, well I think you’ll find I could send exactly the same back to you, you have also broken the three revert rule and the message’s content also applies to you. Edito*Magica (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There are hundreds of editors in the TV, BBC, and Anime/Manga projects, and yes, they all agree on the format of episode lists as is shown in the featured episode lists. You have already been told this by others, but continue to ignore it in favor of your format, which is only found on bad lists that have not been cleaned up. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor*Magica, to be frank your format is rather poor as compared to the standard format used for episode lists by several WikiProjects as AnmaFinotera as mentioned. Consistency is necessary and best in this case, and I see no compelling reason not to use the standard episode list template. Please desist. As to both of you, I've seen you've stopped reverting, but please do not continue to edit war, or blocks for disruption may be appropriate, even if you're in the right. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He has ignored you and reverted the list again. I've refrained from undoing as I have already had my number of reverts for today, but I have reported him for the 3RR violation. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted his edits and protected the article, as I instructed him not to revert. Kudos to you for not continuing to edit war. In any case, starting a thread at the relevant WikiProject would be best for consensus purposes. WP:RFC is really only for issues taken so far that they need serious community input to resolve. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Earlier this evening I posted at the Television project asking for comments. I'll also post to the British Television project and requested RPP for the List of Keeping Up Apperances list to also stop the edit warring there. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, the last thing I want is conflict. But I strongly believe the new layout is not reader friendly, and the old layout makes the content much easier to read. The old layout had been in place for months and is also used by many articles. Obviously, when it is clear there is a strong consensus between a mass majority of which layout is most appropriate, then that is the layout we should go with, but until then I think it is only fair to keep the established format in place, that has faced no criticism in the past. All comments are welcome on my talk page if you wish to discuss the matter further, thanks.Edito*Magica (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused because you have left a rather unpleasant message on my talk page claiming I am unwilling to discus and have ignored you. This is not true because the above is what I sent to your requested reply.Edito*Magica (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


I see you have nominated a LOTD candidate, but have not voted. We need voters for the system to work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Off to vote :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead section in Iggy Arbuckle.

Hi, if you remember, one of the problems you brought up on the article for the show "Iggy Arbuckle", was that its lead section needed to be expanded. Well, I've since added in more on it. Will you please take a look and see if that particular problem has been sufficiently addressed? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not yet. It is still very short, especially with the length of the article. Remember, the lead should summarize the article and basically give readers who don't want to read the whole article, a highlight of the important points. Take a look at WP:LEAD and especially Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs#Introduction for some good guidelines one what the lead should include. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Awards and Nomination on Xena: Warrior Princess

Because you reversed my amendments in Article Xena: Warrior Princess, I explain the real need —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawless fan (talkcontribs) 21:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm...I think your message got cut off? The Awards that you added need to be written in prose form and, more importantly, properly cited (and IMDB can not be used as a source). AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Please inform me whether you would like to accept or decline on my talk page. If you accept, I will create the nom page. bibliomaniac15 18:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Keep working hard! I'll be watching you. bibliomaniac15 19:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wheel of Fancruft

Hi, could you please be more specific about which parts of the Wheel of Fortune (US game show) article you feel are crufty? Many of us who contribute to that article are trying to pare it down, but others think absolutely every detail of the show's entire history is significant enough to include in the article, like what color the Free Spin was before 1989. We'd welcome your contributions. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll post my comments there. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The configuration page was created to replace a bulky and space-consuming table on the original page. I think it's a useful adjunct to the main show page, illustrating a relevant point of interest. JTRH (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've left extensive comments on the article talk page regarding the cruftiness, as well as on the two articles I've AfDed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to you on both AfD pages and on the article's talk page as well. Several of us who are longtime contributors to the page are trying to get it down to a manageable level, and there's an ongoing discussion among us as to how to best do that. JTRH (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Echoing the above...

...regarding your edits to the Jeopardy! article. There are a number of conscientious regular editors to that article who would address your concerns with seriousness if you were to elaborate them in the talk discussion. One of them challenged your template banners but you reverted him and told him to take it to talk. This seems strange. He's not a mind-reader as to what, specifically, your issues with the article are. It's incumbent upon the banner-adder to initiate the discussion. Robert K S (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The issues are obvious to me, but as the tags have been questioned, I've left extensive comments detailing the issues in the article talk page. Hope that helps. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. There are obviously many things that ought to be done to improve the article, but note that some of your suggestions would take it back to a state it existed in previously and has since transitioned out of. Robert K S (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. I think possibly one issue is that the problems you mentioned in your response on the talk page were addressed, certainly in a good faith effort, but not necessarily in the best manner. I've left some more comments there regarding that and hopefully some suggestions for ways to avoid going back to a problem article, but to get it improved. With good cleaning, there is no reason an article on Jeopardy, which should have tons of valuable and sourceable information, should not be able to brought to GA or even FA status. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The reference to the film Amadeus was to Emperor Joseph II's criticism of Mozart's composition that it had "too many notes", and that he should just "cut a few". In the film, Mozart's response to the emperor was, "Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?" Robert K S (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Um...okay. Not really applicable to this discussion, but okay.AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Shall I wikilink analogy? You are suggesting cuts to an article that I am not convinced could sustain such cuts and still present a coherant description of the game. (You call it "simple", but it is so far from it that there exists no complete published theoretical analysis of its wagering particulars from a game theory perspective.) So my response is--which cuts did you have in mind? If you start making specific proposals, then we have a substantive discussion. Just calling everything "cruft" and putting a template banner on the page doesn't do any real service to the article. In point of fact, I agree with almost all of your criticisms of the article. But my creativity in improving the article is exhausted, and it's trying to deal with editors who point out flaws without specific proposals for fixing them, and without understanding the balances and compromises already struck in an article that has had a long evolution history. As far as references go, if you place {{fact}} tags on specific assertions in the article that you feel need sourcing, I will do my best to provide such sourcing. (Some aspects of the show will only be sourcable through the J! Archive, a site you dismissed as a "spam link" on one article.) Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Analogies only work when they are understood ;-) I'm not sure how much more specific my proposals need to be? Sentence by sentence explanations of what to do, or a description for each section? The "Jeopardy! Round" section, to me, could be handled in three sentences, not two paragraphs. "Jeopardy! Round clue values" could lose the table and again, be covered in just a few sentences. Three paragraphs is unnecessary. It also doesn't need to be a separate section.
In general, when an article has one or more dedicated editors, I'll tag for issues, I'll explain the tags if needed, point to the MOS for guideance(which I know is sadly lacking for non-fiction TV shows, but still gives a decent idea of what an article should have), and try to answer any questions. I try to leave the work to editors on the article, if they are willing to address the issues, as I prefer not to step on toes, and I prefer to teach than do (teach to fish and all that ;)). Also, too many times when I've tried to show what I meant, I found myself getting all sorts of personal attacks, which makes for unpleasant editing. :(
If something can't be sourced from a WP:RS (and no, a fan site does not qualify), then it shouldn't be in the article as its no better than WP:OR. It would seem to me that the "This is Jeopardy!: Celebrating America's Favorite Quiz Show" book might provide good sourcing on production details and the like, but I do not see it being used as a reference. Do none of the editors have access to a copy? AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The Richmond book is sparse and mostly a factoid book. There exists no good paper-publication secondary source for those aspects of the show which have only been mentioned on the show itself. This is why an online database of the show's material is a valid scholarly resource. (While the J! Archive is created by people who are fans of the show, your characterization of it as a fan site is inappropriately dismissive. According to the Wikipedia rules for sourcing it should be certainly considered a more valid source than official publications, like the Jeopardy! web site or the King World press releases, or "officially authorized" publications like the Richmond book, as the Archive is a disinterested independent third party and is effectively peer reviewed for accuracy.) If you can suggest specific changes that will shorten the article without deleting information, I and many other editors will be on board with you. If we just want a shorter article for the sake of brevity or altered focus, I think we're looking an uphill climb toward consensus. It's impossible to perform that kind of compression without losing information. Robert K S (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
J archive maybe sufficient for fans, but it does NOT meet the WP:RS requirements, nor is it a "more valid source" than official publications. J Archive is not a disinterested nor independent third party, it is a fan site. The terms are mutually exclusive. "Officially authorized" publications are perfectly valid sources for basic factual information, including production details, and the like, the same as DVD featurettes are acceptable for use in discussing those aspects of a show. Official, primary sources are only bared for the purposes of establishing notability and for validating other aspects, such as reception, criticisms, and the like, and when possible reliable sources should be used to supplement such information. The article needs to be shorter by Wikipedia standards, partly from brevity and partly from what the purpose of Wikipedia is. AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A "fan site" is one that promotes a particular media product or expresses opinions about it. The J! Archive does neither; it archives clues and players and provides an information resource. There's nothing OR about the site; information contained on it can be sourced to video footage from episodes of the show. You may be misunderstanding the meaning of the word "interest". The official Jeopardy! web site and various authorized publications released by the show stand to gain financially through promotion of their product. The J! Archive stands to gain financially neither from promotion of the show nor through traffic to the site itself. The Archive does not promote a point of view or opinions. It is not a forum. It is checked over for accuracy both from within and from without. I may be the wrong person to argue this with you, because (disclosure) I'm one of the site's archivists, but I have no interest in links to the site appearing in Wikipedia. But I've scoured the guidelines and policies and I can't find any language that defines "fan site" nor anything that says a "fan site" inherently fails WP:RS. Without using the words "fan site", can you describe what exactly about the Archive you believe is not reliable or verifiable? Robert K S (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You continue to argue that the Archive fails WP:RS, but you haven't explained why, and you haven't addressed my remarks above. Perhaps you would do me a favor and start the discussion on the Jeopardy! talk page. (I'll make sure to stay out of it, and let others who aren't involved in the Archive have their say.) It would demonstrate good faith if you would reproduce and address the points I mention above in your contributions to the discussion. Robert K S (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Laura Censabella

I probably should be asking this on the requests for ratings page, but since you rated the Iggy Arbuckle page for me, I figured this might save time. Could you please rate this woman's article? And I don't really know what qualifies as a free-use or public-domain use image of a living person, or where it must come from; but could you look at this site: [5] and tell me if the image qualifies as either? That would be much appreciated. Thanks! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. You may also want to check out the Biography article for better help on its format (the TV project is sadly lacking in good suggestions on people articles). For the image, no that would qualify as it does not have a specific statement releasing it to the public domain. I'm not super good with living people pictures, but from discussions I've read at WP:NFCC, an image must basically either be one taken by an editor, or one uploaded to the Commons, Flickr, or the like with a license for public use. So if someone goes to that event and takes a picture of her, that picture could be used as a free image. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Too bad about the image; it would have saved a lot of time and effort if it could qualify! Anyway, I must thank you once again for rating the article, and all that you did; I'm really no good at knowing what sort of content qualifies for what level! Thanks! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No prob. I've given it a few quick clean ups as well to help. Here are to FA articles on screenwriters that might provide some guideance on expanding and formatting the article Aaron Sorkin and William Monahan. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) would probably also be a good guideline, and you might want to see if there is an appropriate infobox you could add to it. Hope that helps :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA and BarnSakura

I was just about to drop a note for a possible RfA until I saw the message on the top of the page. :p Naturally, you are the best judge of whether you feel you are ready or not (or not really. perhaps, I was nominated about a month prior to when I planned to nominate myself - or rather, when I thought I was ready - and passed practically unanimously anyway). If you do plan to wait out a month or two before you feel ready, my most stalwart recommendation would be to stick to civility as much as you possibly can. One of the easiest way RfA nominations are sunk are because of civility concerns. On the flip side, people are much more inclined to support when they can attest to the fact that you've been nice to everyone, and thus have the proper "temperament" to become an administrator. Your current contributions are solid though. No worries there.

On a happier note, I believe this has been due for a while:

A Barnstar!
The Anime and Manga BarnSakura Award

For superb edits to numerous anime and manga articles, including but not limited to the Blood+, Trinity Blood (particular kudos for making List of Trinity Blood episodes an FL!), and Wolf's Rain series. --Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aww, thanks for the barnstar! I love that flower picture! Thanks as well for the encouraging words. One of my main reasons for feeling I'm unready for RfA is my temperament. Though I mostly do well at going to have a cup of WP:tea, I also can be stubborn when I "know" I'm right and get easily frustrated when dealing with conflicts on Wiki and Project standards versus what the fans want. :P So, while improving my edit qualities and working on getting more FLs (and hopefully some FAs if the LoCE would wake up) under the Anime and Manga helm, I'm working on building up my Wiki-patience factor...and in trying not to find newbies so tasty LOL AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


...for the heads-up and the clean-up. I made a couple more changes before I got your message, but I'm done for now in any case. JTRH (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And thanks again for the block. Back to work. :) JTRH (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I've cut almost half of the Wheel article's length. It hasn't been this short since I've been involved with it (going on two years). I'd say that's enough work for one day. Nice working with you. Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot WRT your suggested AfD's. You came in in the middle of an ongoing discussion among various contributors to the page about what to keep/cut/expand/move. Not that any of that actually got done until you put our feet to the fire. :) I may have overreacted to your characterizations of the material, and I apologize if that's the case. I hope we can come to an eventual agreement about what to do with the sub-pages. I'm not set in stone about them; I just think it's a lot of work to simply throw out without having some reasonable discussion about what to do with them, and I do think they convey useful information that needs to be presented somehow. Sorry if I came across as overly possessive of them. JTRH (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem, and I'm glad if my stumbling in helped get things going. :) I think with the main cut down, if the subs are given similar clean up, most can be merged back into it rather than lost completely. The only thing I think should go is a listing of the categories. I could highlighting popular/most used, if such could be sourced, or controversial ones, but I don't think a full listing is really needed. A paragraph giving a general discussion would convey the idea in fewer words without requiring as many updates or maintenance. Some, like set history, could be kept separate, though not sure on the actual name of it. For some reason it seems off, but I can't put my finger on why. :P And sorry if I seemed grumpy in my comments...its been a rough week and my wording probably reflected some of my stress. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


I'm trying to stick to my guns and stay away from the game show articles for my own sanity, but there are a couple of fake "broadcast history" notes in the J! infobox. It did not air on CBS ever, nor did it air on NBC in 1989-91. It did, however, air on ABC in 1990. Lambertman (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect the article has lots of fake and false info, because it used a fansite as a source. I've added a bunch of fact tags, as none of it is supported by the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if this is the work of the same person who keeps inserting into the Wheel of Fortune daytime show's succession box that Jeopardy! aired as an NBC daytime show in the late '80's and early '90's. JTRH (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The answer is "Yes." It's anon user JTRH (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No idea. I can't say I know a ton about its broadcast history, but if the information is being question, it should be referenced. Also, the question did make me notice that the broadcast info primarily seems to be covered in the lead with no separate section? Did I miss the section giving a full discussion (I admittedly just quick scanned)? AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I just added cites for the opening paragraphs about dates of broadcast history and Emmy Awards (though the latter is the show's own site). See, I told you I was taking a break from the Wheel of Fortune article :P. JTRH (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL. Cool on the sourcing. :) With the Emmy Awards totally crappy site for linking, I think linking to the show's official site is okay. I've had to do that as well, or link to a the network's site, because of it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, your assessment "I suspect the article has lots of fake and false info, because it used a fansite as a source" is inaccurate. Whoever added the false info about Jeopardy! at one point being a CBS show was confused, but did not get that information from the J! Archive, the information resource (you dismissively call it a "fan site", but it is not that, as I have shown in your talk page above). You have been the one to add the most inaccurate and unsourced information to the Jeopardy! article recently: you got wrong the episode count as of today; you got wrong the number of seasons; and you re-added the inaccurate information about the CBS airing. Robert K S (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Kare Kano Characters

What I put up there was not vandolism. You marked it as so. I was only editing the article to improve it. It was marked as Articles to be expanded since January 2008 so I was expending it. I added two useable pictures and another character (the dog). If a pet in the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion has a bio why not the pet of Kare Kano. By the way I did not vandolize anything. Please asume good faith. - Prede (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I assumed good faith when I removed it the first time. Your immediately putting it back, and continuing to add non-free images after being asked to stop, was not appropriate. The article is clearly not marked for expansion in any way shape or form. More images are unneeded, and the pet is not a major character, nor does it need listing. What they do on NGE has nothing to do with this list. If they have an article on the pet, it should be removed unless the pet was a major character. We do not list minor characters in lists. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The artcile was marked for expension so please check again. I was only adding useful pictures and another character. The pet is seen a lot, the way you say it, you make it seem like they show it for 4 seconds in only one episode. It was in the show from start to finish, I believe that makes it a major character. I did not re-add the stuff you deleted to try and be rude or anything. I apologize for that. I was editing something else on that page at the time, and thought I'd add the pictures again. Didn't know why they were deleted in the first place. But sense you marked my artcile I created for deletion are you trying to attack me or something? You seem to be trying to undue what I've been doing although I am unsure why. But whatever I wont add the Dog again or the pictures even though they should be added. No reason to keep fighting over something so stupid. - Prede (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
List of Kare Kano characters is NOT marked for expansion. It is marked for clean up, needing additional references, removal of original research, and need for more neutrality. It has not had a tag for expansion for months, if ever. Also, we focus on the primary work, which is the manga. Pero Pero is seen a few times, but he plays no significant role in neither the anime nor the manga, and does not need his own section or extensive discussion. Perhaps you are thinking of the main Kare Kano article? It has sections needing expansion, so it is tagged as such, however those tags only apply to it, not the its related lists.
I marked the Pero Pero article for deletion because it is an unneeded disambig, per the disambig guidelines. As I said in the AfD, Pero Pero is not the same as Pero, so only one link in the list is valid. As such, it doesn't need a disambig, and the Pero (disambiguation) page is more than sufficient for both. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again

I didn't know how to create a separate sandbox. Much appreciated. JTRH (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob :) Its also useful for making user my user page actually pulls in several other user pages I've made for easier maintenance *grin* AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wheel page

When you get a chance, please look Wheel of Fortune (US game show) over and see if you agree that some of the tags can come off. I think I've addressed everything but the sourcing - fan site, too long, copy editing and cleanup. I'm still working on sourcing. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. I also haven't addressed the issue of image use, because I didn't put any of them up there and I'm not entirely sure what the fair use/free use rules are. JTRH (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed copyedit and toolong. I've left fansite and cleanup while the subarticles are dealt with, and because I think gameplay can still be shortened up/condensed some, and some other sections still need some work. For the images, see WP:NONFREE for the guidelines on non-free image use. The basic guidelines, from my experiences having to address it, is that as few non-free images as possible should be used, and when used they should be limited to only those absolutely necessary for illustrating a section of text. My initial view would be to remove the image of Pat and Vanna (from what I've seen, non-free images of living people are almost always considered unnecessary see there are free alternatives available). Ditto the image of contestants row. Most of the wheel images are unneeded, as it isn't really necessary to provide a screen of every special spot. Instead, we need one good image of the wheel as it is, to illustrate how it looks. That can also replace almost all of the text of the wheel configuration section. Also, only one image of the board is needed here (especially if the set history article continues to stand alone). Hope that helps some. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to take a break from it for a while (he said...). I'm seeing it in my sleep. As it is, I think I've either written or heavily edited almost the entire page, and I think the next crack at it should be someone else's. I think a lot of the images have individually been tagged under non-fair-use as well as the blanket tag at the top of the page. JTRH (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL, welcome to Wikipedia addiction! (is it sad that I have seen, an edited, stuff in my sleep?) :P If no one else responses from the project, I'll try dealing with the images in another day or so. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bleach character cleanup

I've started a discussion over cleanup of the Bleach characters here. Comments would be appreciated. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments left :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Food Co-op

I would appreciate if you would cease and desist your acts of vandalism to the Binghamton University wikipedia page. Do you even know what the food co-op is? Of many things, it is a place where like-minded activists and other progressives share ideas and educate eachother. It is collectively run. So if you have nothing better to do, you can call the co-op at 607-777-4258 to verify the events of February 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkamins1 (talkcontribs) 18:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not vandalizing the article, you are irrelevant content. This isn't the Bingham news service, and you're adding unsourced material about living people. So cut it out. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:3RR report

Have a look at my response to your 3RR report here. Please do not continue to revert at this article (except in cases of true vandalism). Thank you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


I don't tink that the article Xena have exessives images, why you think? answer[Here]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talkcontribs) 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has strict policies on the use of non-free images. Only one image is needed for a character article unless there is a significant and compelling need for additional images. None of the images being added meet that requirement, they are simply excessive decoration. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Roger Rabbit

Greetings, I do not understand your reasons for removal of the text from the Who Framed Roger Rabbit article. This is a common statement about the film, and in this case the screenwriter has made it. The sentence had a citation required note, and even without source it should be addressed in the article.

Here is the quote from the commentary; if you can rewrite the statement that Roger Rabbit influenced animation then great.

Y'know at the time, animation, classical animation like this had really died out. This movie was really the first movie that really brought it back. And then the Disney corporation went on to do, uh, movies like The Lion King, stuff like that, were they utilized the talent that had been assembled for this picture. - Jeffrey Smart, screenwriter of Roger Rabbit.

MartinSFSA (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a statement needs to come from a non-primary source. The writer of the movie making a self-proclamation about his film reviving classical animation is not a reliable source nor does it make it an accurate statement. It really is only bragging unless it is backed up by a reliable, secondary source, preferably from an recognized expert in the film and/or animation industry. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
While this is true, it is also quite apparent that the quote is from the work's author. Reliable sources even links to Questionable sources which describes using self claims of dubious verisimilitude. If you don't like quoting the primary source then revert it back to Citation Required, which at least will enter the claim and hopefully see a better cite. MartinSFSA (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If a better source can be found, it can be readded. Otherwise, it is a fairly contentious and bold statement that, thus far, only appears to be something the work's author claimed. Such statements can, and should, be removed rather than allowed to stay and provide unverifiable, and possibly false, information. It would be one thing if it were a fairly matter-of-fact statement that is likely to be verifiable with time, however to claim one film revitalized an industry is not so easily determined and requires some major sourcing to back it up.AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sceptical about it myself, which is why I want to see it improved. MartinSFSA (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
One alternative is to note it on the talk page as having been removed and needing a more reliable source than the work's creator. This is sometimes done if it is felt that something probably can be sourced better. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Good, already done! MartinSFSA (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of Blood+ characters

Couldn't find any discussion, where is it? There are currently six images on the page. Per WP:NFC, there should only be images when necessary. Saya, for instance, is pictured in Image:Saya to Tomodachi.png and Image:Riku, George, and Saya.png. This is unnecessary. It may need to be trimmed to three, four at tops (see the Ranma discussion here. Anyway, there should not be repeated images of characters. Why not join more of these to a single frame like this or this? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The New Pic section is where we discussed the images and worked to bring down the number. Per discussions at WP:NFCC, combining non-free images into a single frame is a not allowed, and if done would still be considered the equivalent of how ever many images are used to comprise it. The primary purpose of the Riku, George, Saya picture is to picture Riku, however I have removed it. I've also removed the standalone image of Diva and replaced it with the other image with Diva and James. Hopefully this addresses your concerns and the tag can be removed? AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Huh, I was not aware of that, could you link the section? If the problems are addressed, go ahead. BTW, I think the bot added this because one of the main settings in Blood+ is Vietnam. Reply? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Its somewhere in the archives now (it archives very fast), though I remember the discussion from around December or so. It was a huge thing that carried over into some other areas because of the argument on images in lists at all. You're probably right on the bot, but from looking at the projects scope, I don't think it really is a good fit. The show is only in Vietnam for four or five episodes :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've watchlisted the page in case editors attempt to haul in more inappropriate pictures. Can I trust that you'll do the same or is your watchlist packed ATM? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, its on my watchlist and one of my pet pages, so I'll be keeping an eye on it. Trying to get things sourced and the sections cleaned up for that long future FL status :D AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There's another fair use issue over here and I'd greatly appreciate it if you could share your thoughts on policy. In any event, it is nice working with you AnmaFinotera. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to, though I'm not sure if my thoughts would be totally welcome as I sent that page to AfD back in December. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Tenchi Muyo! GXP

I am just letting you know that I had to remove GXP from the Geneon category because it was Funimation that distributed that series not Geneon. - (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I was just going through the Geneon list, which probably had errors. Thanks for catching that. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You should also go to the Tenchi Muyo! Ryo-Ohki, Tenchi Universe, Tenchi in Tokyo, and the seperate Tenchi Muyo! movie pages because they to are a part of Geneon's releases and I already added Magical Project S since it was part of Geneon's releases. Just remember that Tenchi Muyo! Ryo-Ohki OVA 3 and Tenchi Muyo! GXP are not part of Geneon's releases. - (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeping Up Appearances episode page

On the subject of the tabular layout, I have given it careful consideration and because no other user seems to object to the new layout, I have decided to leave it as it is. On the colour issue, I will attend the discussion page. Edito*Magica (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • sigh* You know, when someone asks you to discuss first, that means discuss, not "I'm gonna make my changes and to hell with whatever the discussion ends up saying." The point of discussing a contentious change that has no policy or guideline supporting it is you let other people reply, maybe give samples in the talk page first, then if others agree, make the changes. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Buffy and Xena

Other articles of characters, such as Buffy Summers have several decorative images also, because they were not withdrawn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NONFREE they need to be removed. If they haven't been removed, the articles need to be tagged for having excessive non-free images, and editors need to work on removing as soon as possible. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Feburary 2008

You have a problem with that site, take it up with Masamage (A mod mind you) and all the others who consider it a great source. I will be reverting any attempts you make to remove it with a passion unless the rest of the WikiProject gives an OK to have it removed. I would also like to note that 75% of the Sailor Moon pages use it as a source.--Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a message to the talk page. If you continue adding that link back, you will be blocked. The site violates Wikipedia's copyright policies and is completely inappropriate. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Do your worst. I am confedent that the site is ok. Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't. The site offers the entire series for download. How much more blatant a violation can you get? That you do not seem to understand the WP:COPYVIO policy, or maybe just don't care, is very disconcerting. I've alerted the anime and manga project to this as well. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Last I checked, the downloads were down. Also do we link to, mention or use that section? No. Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. They are a part of the site. There is no loopholing around that. And no, you can't get me to shut up. I will not stand by and allow people to violate the copyright policy. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sailor Moon project dispute

  • Please don't attribute the actions of User:Lego3400 to the project as a whole. I myself was not aware of the copyvio issues with "The Oracle" and "Bunny's Tour" and would not have put them down as sources had I known about it - I never went to those sites looking for full videos anyway. But had I known this before I would not have accepted them as sources. I won't speak for User:Masamage, who is an administrator, but I'm sure she will have something to say. In any case, I don't condone Lego3400's actions at all and agree that the references should be removed. JuJube (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No prob...Lego presumed to speak for the project, and I took his reaction and words to mean that the sites had been fully evaluated by the project as a whole. I'm glad to note there are editors in the project who do not share his view and are willing to work on removing them. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

Hey there, because of the edit war on List of minor Sailor Moon characters, I have fully protected the page for an indefinite amount of time. Please discuss the article and the edit war on the talk page. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem and thanks. Hopefully the Anime and Manga project, in conjunction with the Sailor Moon project, can get this issue address quickly. In our discussions, we've found the problem is running much deeper than expected, with multiple copyvio sites having been promoted as references within the project. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


Hey i noticed you helped a lot at the Xena page, and i wondered what you would think of a WikiProject Xenaverse. Not just for the tv show but for the expanded universe too.--Baitt (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would not support such a project, as I do not believe individual shows should have projects. It would be better to have it as a workgroup under the TV project (which could still include the books and what not). It also would save work on doing guidelines and stuff. Hopefully, either as a group or project, its goal would be to give the Xena articles a much needed clean up, rather than continuing to expand, as right now most are far too much fancruft more appropriate for another wiki or wikia instead of the verifiable, real-world context desired here. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of AniDB reference from ed2k: URI scheme article

You removed a useful reference from the ed2k: URI scheme article for what appear to be incorrect reasons. You stated "removed inappropriate links to site that distributes illegal material (AniDB)". However, you stated no reason to call it "inappropriate" and you falsely stated that the site distributes illegal materials. AniDB distributes no material at all, it is merely a database of information about anime and fansubs. They happen to use eD2K links as unique file identifiers, so their Wiki contains some valuable information about the eD2K URI. Admittedly I'd like a better source for the information there than an anime site's Wiki, but no such source exists that I could find and the material there does appear to be correct and unbiased. What you appear to have done is throw the baby out with the bathwater, and for reasons that do not appear to be based on Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Even if AniDB did distribute "illegal material" (they don't) there is no Wikipedia policy that says that that is a reason a link to their Wiki cannot be a reference. And even if there were, I'd say this is a case where Wikipedia:Ignore all rules applies because I believe the reference does improve the article. As such, I have restored the reference. If you think I'm wrong, and I'm willing to accept I may be, I'd love to hear your side of this issue. -- HiEv 06:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the whole discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Appropriate sources for reception. It was agreed that AniDB, in providing direct links to fansub distributers, violates WP:COPYVIO and all links to it have been removed from Wikipedia. This is also reflected in as well all three of its templates being MfDed, and very quickly deleted, showing those outside of the project agreed it was not an appropriate link. The wiki was delinked because a - per WP:RS a wiki is pretty much never a valid reference, and b - it had direct links to the copyvio materials. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I read that discussion, and no, what you are claiming was not agreed there. The last two comments there disagree with you, and a third person said that they were going to check on the issue since they were unsure. Furthermore, deletion of a template to AniDB is not evidence that linking to the AniDB wiki is inappropriate. Second of all, the sites (AniDB and AnimeNFO) do not violate WP:COPYVIO at all. I recommend you re-read that policy since I've seen you use it a couple of times inappropriately. In short, WP:COPYVIO says that you are not allowed to put copyrighted material in Wikipedia articles. It says nothing about the content of sites linked to by Wikipedia articles. AniDB and AnimeNFO do not carry copyrighted anime on their sites, and thus it does not violate Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works (a more appropriate link than WP:COPYVIO). Wikipedia doesn't prevent you from linking to a place, that links to a place, that (if you do a search) has links to places, that may have links to places, that have copyrighted material, and arguing it does is simply ridiculous. That is by no means a "direct link".
Now, I agree that wikis are generally not good reliable sources, but if the quality of the content is good enough then exceptions can be made, and I believe this is such a case. Under Wikipedia:External links it says "Links to open wikis" are "normally to be avoided", which means that there are exceptions, and I think this is one of them. Furthermore, the AniDB wiki requires registration, thus it is not an "open" wiki either. And finally, it is simply not true that the page I linked to had "direct links to the copyvio materials." If you think this is true, please show me an example where the page I linked to does that. In summary, the page I linked to has no copyright problems, and while I agree it's not a great reference, it is a valuable enough reference for inclusion since no better reference exists. I would recommend you focus on the value of the page linked to, rather than irrelevant copyright arguments. -- HiEv 07:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not a great reference, nor a valuable one. Per WP:V, another policy, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." It isn't a source in any way shape or form. Nor do such links add any value to any page at all. Just more fodder for the many media reports dissing Wikipedia. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Meerkat Manor

I have always been reading through your changes shortly after your edits, and I rarely found anything where your addressing of my concerns made the article worse. ;-) Anyway, I am not the FLC reviewer, and I am sure another copyeditor will still find sentences that can be improved further, but I'm pretty satisfied with the current article state, if that's what you want to hear. :-) – sgeureka t•c 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, can you tell I'm nervous about sending it for FLC? I'm pretty confident about being able to make FL ep lists, but this will be my first character list. Okay...deep breath, then decide if I want to try to re-watch the rest of season 1 to clarify the Gattaca section, or go ahead and nom. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Shugo Chara! episodes

I would like for you to look over the List of Shugo Chara! episodes, if you will please. So far, I've been concentrating in developing a proper lead for the list and haven't added any episode summaries, but I want to make sure that the leads are solid. --Farix (Talk) 23:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. The only thing I'd suggest is following up the sentence on the premiere with something noting that it is still airing (and is it still airing on all the channels). You might also want to consider changing the date format in the episode list to month day, year for consistency within the article, and with other episode lists. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Noted. Hopefully I've corrected the problem well enough that this list can pass FL review once the episode summaries are added. --Farix (Talk) 16:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, looking good to me. Maybe post for peer review first. Its kind of up and down, but we do seem to do better about getting feedback than in some other projects. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


Can stopping, has nothing illegal in Article Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture, there is this type of page to other series because I can not stay? This is not just! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talkcontribs) 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture,Because it can be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I take it English is not your first language? The article is inappropriate. Thanks for pointing out the Buffy has also been sent to AfD. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope not been boring, excuse me, I will take more care with the items that will create, I ask you whether or not an article can be created? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talkcontribs) 20:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy and pasting contents from other sites is a severe violation of Wikipedia policy. I strongly suggest you take some time to learn the rules here before you continue editing. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is copied from that page you talked about, if you can tell me something I sem kopiral, I support the exclusion of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talkcontribs) 20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
All of it is very obviously copied from that website. Making minor changes to avoid the bot catching it again is not helpful. You even stole the image from the site. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, caught the image, the more I had to get the picture somewhere, could not produce a through magic, But everything well, I thought that modifying the information could use them, I can at least create a page on the series dvds?And because information about the series in popular culture may not be on the page of the series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talkcontribs) 20:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No, individual DVD releases are not notable and all of the releases are already properly covered in the episode lists. This is not a fansite, it is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for detailed fancruft, but basic overview information. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Buffy the Vampire Slayer DVDs, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel awards and nominations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talkcontribs) 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've AfDed both of those. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Way to nibble on a newbie...
That aside, I don't even remember creating that. I won't weigh in, and I have no problem with it being deleted (I assume I created it as a polite way of deleting it from the main article). Thanks for the heads up.
chocolateboy (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Newbies are yummy with chocolate sauce :P Though he's been at this for over a week yes, my patience has started to go downhill. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for massacring those Getter Robo articles, I owe you one!

I'm never coming back to Wikipedia ever again, I will leave for TvTropes. At least they don't abuse power...  — [Unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:27, 29 February 2008.]

And? Am I supposed to be all upset? If you don't want to learn the rules and follow the guidelines here, by all means please feel free to go to another site that is better suited for fancruft and the like. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Been wanting to ask you two things

  1. Where is the recommendation for this? Most pages I've seen use {{Reflist|2}} when the number of refs have reached to 10 or more
  2. What article titles are we using for anime and manga that have been translated and licensed in the United States? Example, the page moves going back and forth from 666 Satan to O-Parts Hunter and so on has been out of hand for years.

Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 23:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For the first, the guideline I've been using (forget where I saw it), is that if it has less than 10 references, use <references />, if more than 10 go to {{reflist}, and then with 20 (well formatted) go to {{reflist|2}}. For article names, if it has been licensed for an English release, the MOS says we should use that English name. So unless a good argument can be made that 666 Satan is more known, then O-Parts Hunter should be the article name with a redirect from 666 Satan. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
In WP:REF#How to write them, it says either <references/> or {{Reflist}} is fine. WP:REF#Shortened notes gives a sample with {{Reflist|2}} but doesn't say anything about a preference. In reality, I've never seen a guideline depict what you're claiming. Sure it's not a false memory? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 00:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it was a talk discussion. Been a long time though, so could be. Makes sense to me, though, since there really isn't a need for two columns for only 10 refs (to me), or going tiny with only a few references. :) Could just be a personal preference thing too, who knows. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
So can we reach a compromise? Shall we get into the habit of using the standardized {{Reflist}} for less than 10 and {{Reflist|2}} for 10 or more? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 01:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...I still rather not see reflist used for just 1-2 items. It looks kinda silly to me. So what would you suggest be the jump from <references/> to {{Reflist}}? AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, {{Reflist|2}} for 10 or more. {{Reflist}} for less (actually, there is no BIG difference if it is {{Reflist}} or <references/> or else the guideline would have specified it). All I know is that {{Reflist|2}} generates it smaller but have no idea what the purpose of {{Reflist|3}} and above is, so, don't use them. Convinced? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you using IE or Firefox? There is a difference between them, though whether its big is probably subjective. :) <references/> uses the same font size as the regular article, while {{Reflist}} uses a smaller font. {{Reflist|2}} splits the list into two columns, in browsers other than IE, while {{Reflist|3}} (rarely used) takes it to a 3 column format. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
IE 7. Mind if I change instances of <references/> to the appropiate reflists as discussed? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah...that's probably why you can't see the differences. I think references, rather than reflist should still be used for less than 10 items. Not replacing references just to replace does seem to be supported by Template:Reflist. I did finally find where I saw that Wikipedia:FN#Resizing references :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The guideline didn't say which is preferred but I can imagine the difference. So wait until 10 to put the first reflist? What about the erroneous ones placed on pages now? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I generally just replace as I come across if it has reflist but has fewer than 10 refs. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
So you'll fix the wrong ones ASAP? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 03:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No...that would take a long long time. If I see any in article I work on, I'll fix those. Beyond that, its not worth a super effort. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

References in films and shows

The page Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture was about references of the series in other shows and films, I can add that information on the page of the series with the title references in films and concerts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talkcontribs) 01:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No. That kind of information is trivial and unnecessary. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
What can I do to the series page be part of the featured articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talkcontribs) 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Start by reading the FA guidelines and get far more familiar with basic Wikipedia editing guidelines, such as the need for reliable sources, how to format references and the proper formatting of television articles. That article is very far from meeting any of them. You also need to get a better grasp on what is, and is not, appropriate content for an article, and what is considered encyclopedic and scholarly. First, though, you need to get a better understanding of how to edit Wikipedia period...starting by signing your posts and not violating policies by deleting AfD templates from articles just because you don't want it deleted. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any help page whose theme is explaining how write good pages about television series?
Um, read my message, its all right there to help. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
What message? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talkcontribs) 02:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
THE ONE ABOVE! AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes‎

This is a list of the three reversions in 24 hours:

13:15, 1 March 2008 AnmaFinotera (Talk | contribs) (31,313 bytes) (Undid revision 195177556 by Egan Loo (talk) as per discussion and current consensus) (undo)

22:49, 29 February 2008 AnmaFinotera (Talk | contribs) (31,491 bytes) (Undid revision 195070943 by Egan Loo (talk) doesn't matter, that is what is used in the episodes as they exist) (undo)

22:38, 29 February 2008 AnmaFinotera (Talk | contribs) (31,491 bytes) (Undid revision 195070014 by Egan Loo (talk) we use English spellings) (undo) Egan Loo (talk)

Please read 3RR. Its the 4th revert that gets you a warning. You are the only one to do four reverts. I've removed your false and inappropriate warning again. Thus far, both Farix and I have been fairly patient, but if you revert again, you will be reported to the notice board for possible blocking. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It's actually the third revert that warrants a warning. After a fourth revert, blocking is guaranteed, unless it's a case of reverting things like very obvious vandalism, recognizable sockpuppets, or other stuff like copyrighted material. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 05:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...I stand corrected. So we should have given him the warning before he did the fourth revert? AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Technically, he should be blocked now for edit warring. Did you file a report here? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 05:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
No, though probably should have. I mistakenly assumed he was a newer editor, but just realized he's been here since 2004 so really should know better at this point. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I shall attempt to request protection on List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes to prevent further warring. Egan Loo reverted four times (the first edit counts). Though it is customary to warn the editor before reporting, you could still try. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 05:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...hopefully he will listen to my last message that he should discuss rather than continuing to revert when his view is currently the minority one. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not mischaracterize my willingness to discuss. I invited discussion when I made my edits, opened a section in the discussion for that purpose, and addressed each of the points raised when other editors did enter the discussion. Two of the reversions came after I politely and specifically asked the other editor to take this to discussion, but was ignored and reverted. Yes, I should I have used the proper channels of dispute resolution when my requests for discussion were ignored, but please do not imply I was not willing to discuss. Egan Loo (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't imply that. I said you continued to revert rather than discuss, even though you had no consensus for an obviously controversial change. That was your inappropriate action. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I did both: revert and discuss, as opposed to only reverting rather than discusssing (as implied above). I think this is something all of us involved had done. A fair enough assessment? Egan Loo (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You reverts were reverted because it went against consensus. After the first revert, you should have stopped reverting and discussed why you felt your position was the correct one, particularly when multiple editors disagreed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That I agree. I should have opened the discussion at the first revert, not the second. I await more discussion over there. Egan Loo (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Manga Kenshin

I could get the other manga titles and moved it to List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters. They still need release date and ISBN. Ill look for them. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I found all the release dates and 13 digit ISBNs on :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I added all from amazon, except the volume 26 that was in the viz media website. I couldnt find the holy english volume 1 to reference the ISBN. Apart from that I saw that most lists have the japanese titles. If it is necesary, do you know anybody able to do that? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Holy English volume 1? If its available, the Japanese titles should be listed with the nihongo template, but for 99% of stuff, we don't have the kanji title lists so those lists are left without until someone from Japan or who knows Japanese can add them. If they aren't listed in the entry in the Japanese wikipedia, you might try updating your post on the project page, or leaving a note on the list page, but it will probably be awhile. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Holy because I dont find it anywhere (Amazon, Vizstore is unavailable, etc) and because I dont understand why it dissapeared. I will see.Tintor2 (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I found it here [6]. The only problem is that the first english volume is called "Meiji Swordsman Romantic Story" while the japanese is "Kenshin - Himura Battōsai" (Not very similar). However, should I edit that japanese?.Tintor2 (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ahh...weird cause I know it is still sold, though maybe Viz took it out of print with the new VIZBIG editions out. Hmmm...for the name, maybe just put both with a note for English, Japanese separated by a <br />? Wonder why that is the only one they seemed to have renamed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I found the english volume 1 in the japanese amazon and added the reference. Maybe "Meiji Swordsman Romantic Story" is the reference to the extra story. I checked the Rurouni Kenshin manga page in anime news network and volume 1 had two titles. Apart from that how is that of nowiki? could you add it? No idea how to.Tintor2 (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I made an attempt adding the two for that volume. Take a look and let me know if you think it looks okay. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. I ll be adding the japanese volume titles. See you.Tintor2 (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool. If Viz kept the rest of the titles, then you can use the nihongo template rather than having to double list. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Here there are the volume titles in Anime News Network [7]. There are no big differeces. But what do you think? Should they be changed?.Tintor2 (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...probably not. If its only a minor difference, its probably from a difference in translation. To bad it doesn't have the kanji titles, though. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember that in the wikiproject you told me about kanzenban of the series and the viz big edition. Could you explain me? About the Kanzenban I think they dont have titles and the number of chapters is unknown to me. However, the ISBN and the release dates are easy to get, so the cover characters.Tintor2 (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kanzenban are the re-releases of the series in an ultimate edition. Usually we mention it in the prose that its been done, and add a second table giving just the release dates and ISBNs.
We don't need to repeat the chapters in either case, though if we know which ones are in it, we could make a note with the cover characters and rather than the full list of chapters, with something like
  • Chapters x-y
For the VIZBIG editions, each edition includes three of the original volumes (and in RK's case, included a few color pages at the front). Similar to the Kanzenban versions, we give it a section with a intro prose, mention in the lead, and just add a table with the ISBNs and release dates. For an example with the kanzenban releases, check out List of Marmalade Boy chapters. Hope that helps :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. So should I move the kanzenban info to the list of kanzenban? and the cover characters are not necesary, are they?.Tintor2 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and just mention in the lead for the summary style. For the cover characters, you mean in the kanzenban? If you can find the covers, you can add them, however without a volume list, it won't show. For MB, I didn't do cover characters in the main list because they are all Miki ;) BTW, Viz's site should be back up now...apparently someone forgot to pay to renew the domain name LOL. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, I made the list of kanzenban. My only concern is what to do with the introduction information of the kanzenban. Move it?Tintor2 (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Soon Ill make the wideban list. I see this article lacks summaries, I see if I an do something since Im not very good with this. I may ask another user.Tintor2 (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...main thing to say, I'd guess, is that it was re-released, who published (probably same as manga), start and end dates, and number of volumes. If there are notable extras (rare), those can also be noted. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ISBN formatting

Actually, all three converters listed at the Book Industry Study Group's website will return 978-(1,4)-00-000000-(9,0). There's a list of valid publisher numbers on the International ISBN Agency website, for reference. I'll add in some notes about ISBNs, though. TangentCube, Dialogues 06:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty :) I think that will work. I'd just hate people to get confused and run around changing valid formats :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Correction

On List of Meerkat Manor meerkats, the bot replaced all instances of Commandoes with Commandos, however the groups name in the series is Commandoes. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that. I've added that spelling to the exception list for that article in my bot. Thanks for letting me know. CmdrObot (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dates

It works both for online and offline (just tested it myself). Where in this section does it say that commas have to be inserted? And why remove the category? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 00:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It shows it in the examples. If they shouldn't be there, the examples wouldn't have them, I'd think. Woops, hadn't seen that you put in a category too. I've put that back :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Join the discussion. Seems my edits were justified. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 03:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Hey AnmaFinotera, thanks for swinging by to the RfB that's currently going on and adding a comment. I'm not here to change your mind, just to try to reassure you that should the RfB be a success, I'll be starting with great caution until I can be certain I've got the experience the community want before making any "big" decisions! All the best.... Oh, and I'll get back to re-reading the Meerkats list shortly! Cheers for now, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Television Show Guidelines

Would you please give me the link to the Guidelines you're using? Thanks. Also why was the quote from Henry Jenkins deleted? I think it appropriate. I'm going to return it to the article. Let's discuss issues on the article talk page before deleting additions and contributions. Please remember, Wikipedia is a joint effort -- the desmesne of one. ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be more patient, as I noted on the talk page, I was putting the quote back, but it took a few minutes as I had to fix the format and the reference link first. For the guidelines, there is only one Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs. (tee hee...that sounds so Matrixy :P) AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SM problems

I'm going to state this becuase I feel it needs to be said and should be noted that these are my personal veiws and don't reflect anyone elses. Unitl you pointed it out AnmaFinotera, no one in or out of the projects (SM or Animanga) were concenred at all. I belive there is a rule that states to ignore rules that get in the way of improveing the articles. From my point of veiw, that seems to be the rule we're following. From what I've seen you seem to have a Black and White view of the rules and it seems to annoy you that we're in the Grey area. Causeing Me (and maybe others) greif isn't going to help you at all. I suggest you do what I'm doing ATM and take a step back and see how things unfold. I have personally found that when your at the center of something like this, that is the best course of action. Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

People turning a blind eye to breaking the law is not something I will do, and really you are the only one complaining about the removal of links to copyrighted material. I will continue to push this issue as it is beyond time such problems were dealt with instead of being quietly ignored. As for causing grief, the only people it should be causing grief to are those who dont' care about the quality fo Wikipedia articles or honoring the series properly, by working to give it high quality, factual articles instead of filling with fancruft and rumors just because no one was watching. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
We've done our best to honor the series, we aren't dubbies (Though some of us have had to wach it for comparison purposes *Shudders*) I'm not complaining anymore As I said I've taken a step back from the issue until it's resolved. I just wanted to remind you that the grey area exists and sometimes, you have to compromise or just step back. (Next time, Please inform me if you respond with a message on my talk page please)Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
There are no gray areas here. Those sites are blatantly violating copyright. Personal choices are one thing, and I'll be the first to admin I have copies of Stars, but this isn't the place to push a personal agenda, nor is it the place to act (or edit) based on those personal preferences. As editors, we must put aside our feelings and edit within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. There are many times I'd love to offer my personal view on a series, but I know that is against the guidelines, so I refrain and leave that to my own blog. That's part of being a good editor here, being willing to put aside those personal views to acknowledge that while you might like a site, or use a site, or even run that site, it may not meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sourcing. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


Are you still doing TV article assessments? I've got an article, Kamen Rider Blade, that I posted a request for months and months ago, and no one's looked at it, I figure. It's probably only Start-class, but I'd still like someone else to say so. At the very least, it'd look better to have some of that backlog killed off, right? Howa0082 (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the article, and yes it was only start class. Much of the information that should be covered is sadly missing, while the article itself was full of a bunch of fancruft and excessive in-universe detail that didn't belong there. I've removed a huge amount of it, which will probably annoy someone. But it is now ready for the real information that should be there, as per our MOS. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Arigato. Howa0082 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No prob. I have heard of that show before, so hopefully the article can be expanded with some well-referenced material. Pretty sure there should be at least some out there. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


I noticed you reverted my edit to Omamori Himari when I used {{reflist}}. I don't really understand why. Is it because there are no refs in the article right now? I've seen it used in a lot of anime and manga related articles and thought it was preferred. Am I wrong? --Eruhildo (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how many references there are. When there are 0-10 references, <references /> is preferred to reflist. Once there are 10 references, then reflist would be an appropriate choice. If more than 20 well formed references, then it would be time to consider {{reflist|2}}. See Wikipedia:FN#Resizing references for the basis of that guideline. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Euhildo probably uses IE 7 too, AnmaFinotera/Archive 2, maybe you should bring up the link you once showed me. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 03:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I use IE7 as little as possible. I use Firefox 1.5 at home and IE6 at school. So, is reflist not preferred when there's few refs 'cause of all the extra code it throws in there? --Eruhildo (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
My guess is because reflist makes the font smaller, which really isn't needed unless there are enough references that being smaller make more visual sense. In general, it takes around 10 refs for the list to be big enough that going smaller is visually appealing (particularly in smaller articles where the refs would begin taking over).AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I never noticed that before. Thanks for explaining it to me. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Where you saw vandalism in Article Xena? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuing to add non-free images after being repeatedly told not to is vandalism. Changing between accounts and anon-IPs does not negate the warnings. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Those images are potentially acceptable fair use provisions. Don't label something as vandalism when it isn't, such as this: [8].--Father Goose (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This person has been at it for over a week. At this point, it is no different from vandalism and the images are not acceptable at all. They blatantly violate WP:NONFREE and its tiresome having to keep removing them because this person keeps readding them from different IPs and usernames. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Even if the images are not fair use, most of the text you removed could not accurately be described as vandalism. At a minimum, the "Casting" section you removed could be a potential improvement to the article, with some rewriting, and the ASCAP award info could probably be retained as well.--Father Goose (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to clean up the cruft and put it back, feel free. I'm sick of trying to police the thing. I've reported two more as probably socks, but I'm sure they'll just keep making more anyway. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom

The requisite 4 net votes + more than 24 hours have passed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision, so can it now be closed and the injunction lifted? AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no four net votes to close — four in support and one in oppose equals three net votes to close, short of the required four ("Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")"). Daniel (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The oppose was only for a day or two, though, and that time has passed? AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not empowered to take that into consideration. If you wish to ask Newyorkbrad to clarify his oppose and whether it still applies, you will need to contact him directly. Daniel (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Where are you seeing +4 for close? I see this: After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

--Cube lurker (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the "Motion to close" section. To quote "As the clerk of this case, I will close it once four net votes are reached". AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Motions to close only need four net votes to do so, plus twenty-four hours— to quote, "Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")". They do not need a majority. Regardless, there is not presently four net votes to close anyways. Daniel (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I see it now. And I see where you were coming from. I'm not sure you're right that it's closing (you know how arbcom is). But since i was basing my oppose on the indefinate injunction i'll strike as i said. And i do see that whatever our differences, you meant no bad faith and i'll add that comment.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...and it does feel indefinite, doesn't it? :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
So true, i've struck my comments and appologized, but i can't seem to fix the extra lines if you kno what i've borked up feel free to fix. and sorry, I just read your nom and didn't realize the nom was in anticipation of the ban being lifted, Just thought you were adding to the stockpile. My bad--Cube lurker (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No prob :) Looks like someone already helped you fix the spacing. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No comments?

Could you reply to this? I hoped there would be some response by now but there wasn't. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 07:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that one wasn't on my watchlist, so didn't see the message. Left a reply there. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Young Xena

The User User:NeilEvans said that the image Young Xena.jpg was ideal for Article. See the message:

Go ahead and add the young Xena picture to the Xena article. The image has fair use so it should be ok.--NeilEvans (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an on going discussion about it and the others at WP:NONFREE. No more images will be added until that discussion is finished. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Trinity Blood edits

Just a FYI but making effectively null edits by escaping/unescaping HTML is frowned upon as it is rather pointless. The links worked just fine the way I had them. Q T C 06:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...huh? I didn't make a null edit, I fixed the code to be exactly what it is in the page. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Powell

Include Donna Williams (web designer) in that AfD. ScarianCall me Pat 11:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It probably would've been better to merge it in the Adam Powell AfD, but never mind. Thanks. ScarianCall me Pat 13:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I debated it, but sometimes combo AfDs go weird, so figured I'd have them evaluated separately. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Isnt personally founding a company worth $160,000,000 not enough to warrant a single page on Wikipedia these days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No. The notability of the company does not confer to its founder. See WP:BIO. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew

I agree that the admin who closed this was clearly wrong. If you want to re-nominate it, add {{FICTWARN}} to it (so that no one can try and close it early and and say it's because of the ArbCom ruling since they will clearly be wrong) and let me know. TJ Spyke 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought. It looks like the final vote to close the ArbCom has come in, though, so I may just wait another day or two so the injunction will finally just be gone all together. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.

Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Let's settle down a little. I was in the middle of fixing the archiving and you decided to fix the archiving and we got tangled up. Can we use the box that is more descriptive as to the dates on the archives? Since we know them and they're in order, I don't think the information needs to be lost. And I'm capable of doing manual archiving - I've been doing it on the page for a couple of years, but was mostly off Wikipedia for a couple of months for the first time just as the page was starting to get long. Dekimasuよ! 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, I have left the bot archiving on and readded the descriptive box, which just sits at the side of the TOC. Dekimasuよ! 02:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
With the auto archiving, the dates will no longer match, so that's why I changed it to just be a regular archive box. Up to you though. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

food coop

607 777 4258

call the co-op to verify. we are neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkamins1 (talkcontribs) 18:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"anarcho-syndicalist" is not neutral language and unsourced. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

anarcho-syndicalism is a political ideology. source it yourself, give the co-op a call. ask "is the food co-op an anarchoo-syndicalist collective?" and the person on the other end of the line will say "yes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkamins1 (talkcontribs) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A phone call is not a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines. Nor is it necessary to even state. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Did you read the article? The novels are listed IN THE ARTICLE already. I merely added the infoboxes. (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw it later after I started cleaning up. It will be put back shortly. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: DotA

I'd like to know what links you take issue with, so I can find other sources for the info if it's not suitable. I'm also confused about what portions you mind OR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've responded in the FAC. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe I've taken care of your sourcing issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed "fans", if its the wording you are taking issue with. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Players is also not supported by the changelong. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I *could* go into the dota allstars forums, and find the users, but then that would be a forum and not admissible, correct? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct. There needs to be something, a news report, something on their site, etc that actually says players/fans created some items. Right now, some of the change logs do have user names, but no context to note that those are players and not just codenames for developers. Did they mention it anywhere else? Promos, ads, anything? I think it is rather cool, but definitely needs a source that says it more directly. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Artgerm is part of Imaginary FS and while it has the artwork in question, there's no direct connection stated; its more tenuous than anything else. I suppose I could just rephrase it to say that other people have contributed content, would that work? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It still wouldn't be supported by the change long though. If another source isn't found, you may have to remove that part. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I still can't find a source, so I've removed it for now. If I find something later on, I'll reinstate it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
SO does that change your !vote, or do you still oppose? Hate to nag, but I think Sandy wants to wrap it up... :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Has the copyedit been completed? AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Dihydrogen and Deckiller both went through, and I made a pass as well, so I think so... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the citations to the sources you found questionable, and the related content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Good call on the bit in the lead; somehow I forgot all about it. Anyhow, I added a blurb about what Warcraft is and its World Editor, which allows custom scenarios to be made. Take a look see when you get the chance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC) and I think I added in the transition you wanted from Warcraft to the editor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response. That's better, but still needs a little more to go from Warcraft III (and while it may seem obvious, mention Warcraft III is the third in the series) to DoA. I've tried making an edit to the article to illustrate what I mean. Feel free to correct/tweak as needed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops, just saw this note. :P I've tweaked your addition to point out that DotA is one of these entirely custom scenarios; does it read better now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I left some hidden comments in the development section as well. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
←I have no clue when the original map came out (no reliable source, the only thing would be to troll for the original map) but I did address the Frozen Throne query. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I guess DotA is download only then? AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Princess Mononoke


You've just removed my addition to the "Further Reading" section of the Princess Mononoke article stating that "if relevant, use to expand article and cite; not as "further reading" when its only a small part of the book". I have two objections against that.

01. There is no such a thing as you said. The only thing I've found about that section was "An ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader." If I want to just cite a book or a chapter and not edit the wiki entry, that is, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly ok.

02. Even though it's only one chapter of a book, I think that it's relevant to add it there, specially because there are no books written about Princess Mononoke. I know that I would have liked to see it there. Maybe I could have read it earlier if someone else had already added it.

thanks Evenfiel (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. You didn't "cite" anything, you just basically said "hey, this chapter of a book mentions Princess Mononoke." That book could be better put to use in expanding the article. Just adding it to the further reading section is misleading when the movie is only discussed in one chapter of the book. It is not a detailed book about about Princess Mononoke. Additionally, further reading sections are rarely included in anime/manga articles, or really most articles on fictional topics. They are generally kept to non-fictional topics, and are still relatively rare as something that would be of usefulness is better used as a source for the article than just adding it to the end. If you don't want to bother editing the article to use it as a source, leave a note on the talk page letting others know that the book might be a good resource for expanding the article.AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I course I didn't "cite", it wasn't mean to be in the notes section, but in the Further Reading (Sometimes referred to as Bibliography or References) one. Also "Hey, this chapter of a book is about Princess Mononoke" is basically what I wanted to say.
I don't see why it's misleading. The 20-pages or so analysis is certainly a lot more in depth than the wiki article.
I won't discuss why a further section is not used in anime/manga articles, but it is used in a few films, like Fight Club (film) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (film), and in many fictional books, like Candide, Nineteen_Eighty-Four and Fahrenheit_451. Evenfiel (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Only a handful few films and rarely with books. Of course 20 pages of anaylsis is more in-depth than here, we're an encyclopedic and supposed to provide an overview. Having seen the chapter, again, it would be far more useful summarized and added to provide better content to the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure it would, but I don't see how the article is hurt by adding it to a Further Reading section. The chances of someone to pick up the book, read that chapter and then edit the wikipedia article are far greater if the book is mentioned. Evenfiel (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It was formated correctly. There is absolutely no need to write the year, month and day when both editions were released, just like there is no need to write the chapter's page number. Evenfiel (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It was not formatted correctly. The MOS notes it should be a bullet. If you are going to list a book, the more precise the information, the better, and page numbers are certainly worth noting. I don't particularly like how the cite book shows earlier edition dates, but it is a second edition and we need to note that clearly so people don't get the wrong one. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but remove "origdate=" and "date=" and use only "year=" (for the 2nd edition). It looks a lot better.Evenfiel (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The full date remains. That is proper and the most accurate, regardless of your liking or disliking it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the fact that you seem to be the sole soul who uses it? Evenfiel (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not. If you want to believe its better to give incomplete info, that's on you, but don't be suprised when others later correct it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between complete and irrelevant info. Mentioning the day and month of all editions of a given book is completely irrelevant. Maybe that's why no academic work does that. The year alone is enough. Evenfiel (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Rhode Island Mall

Just letting you know that I cleaned up Rhode Island Mall after seeing your listing it at AfD. The article is now sourced and has a more appropriate tone. I'll be adding more once I'm more awake; just thought I'd let you know that I am doing some WP:HEY work on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 19:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I'm fine with seeing it get a better fighting chance than the original gave it, though not sure how notable it will be with so few stores. Did just see your note about it being the first two-story mall, though, so that might help. Shame too, because I saw pictures of it on Dead Malls and it looks like it was a beautiful mall. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, even if it is ten stores now, it still was notable, and notability doesn't usually expire. Fort Saginaw Mall and Dixie Square Mall have no stores in them, and there are no questions about either mall's notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 03:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
True, if it was once notable, then even being an almost dead mall it stays notable.AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

About the edit of Get Ride! Amdriver

Actually is the IP I once used in school (I forgot to log in then), and the edit is to add the information that this anime was once broadcast in ONTV and QTV (both are channels operated by Videoland), but because I'm not familiar with infoboxes, I ended up submitting a poor revision, and got reverted by you (however when I logged in later and add the information about the Videoland broadcast, you did not revert my edit).--RekishiEJ (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. No prob. Usually an IP that breaks something is a vandal, but glad to know it wasn't. Don't forget that preview button ;) AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Does "No prob." mean "No problem"? I don't know. By the way I had used the preview button before hitting submit, and found out that the result is horrible - there's always one blank line among three lines in the "Network" section (I tried my best and consult the SPEED GRAPHER article to find proper ways to add international broadcast information, but the layout result was the same.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, no prob means no problem. Not sure what was causing the blank line, but should be fine now. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Eyes of an Angel

It wasn't my intention for my edit to look like I was hiding the tags. I've been given the general impression that tags are better placed under their relevant sections, and not at the top of the page, where they may potentially ward off the user. Please remember that no harm was meant here, but I apologize if you thought I was reverting your edits without cause. Regards, Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 15:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob. In general, major tags relevant to the majority of the article should be placed at the top, especially unreferenced. There are some section specific tags, and uncategorized usually goes at the bottom, but in general, tags go at the top.AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 00:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be closed by an admin?

I understand that you don't think the article should exist. There's no way it will be closed as a delete, however, with 1 merge, 2 deletes, and 7 keeps. So why waste admin time demanding that only an admin can state the obvious consensus here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(The article of course being the article in the pre-edited subject line, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Xena: Warrior Princess]).--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a contentious issue and an admin is better equipped to evaluate the results. It is not just a simple matter of going "okay, 7 keeps, keep" but weighing each comment and the quality of them. If you do not realize that is part of the AfD closing process, you really shouldn't be closing them. Also, non-admin closures are not a norm and should not be done in cases where there is any disagreement. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a matter of looking for consensus. You had two administrators call for a keep, with policy based arguments. Even if you ignore all the other opinions to keep, just that would be enough to disprove a claim of consensus for deletion, which is what AfD demands. It's not really a contentious issue; it's an issue you disagree with, which is something different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, its something to be dealt with by an admin, not a user. There is a reason AfDs should primarily be closed by them. Non-admin closures are primarily reserved for: withdrawals, articles already deleted for another reason (CSDed), or unanimous keep. Not here. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty near a unanimous keep. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
"Pretty near" does not equal unanimous. If you're not worried about it being deleted, let it run the normal course and be properly closed. See Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. There IS contentious debate, so it should not be closed by a non-admin. Editor who closed is NOT qualified to make a proper closure. If an ADMIN closes it as pure keep, fine, but not someone who doesn't even know how to properly close an AfD and who is not qualified to evaluate the discussion appropriately. Additionally, 7 keeps does not mean automatic keep. There have been AfDs that close as delete even with more keeps because the deletes were based on policies and guidelines, while the keeps were "I like its" and other baseless remarks. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
So you think that a page is going to be deleted after two admins expressed a !vote to keep, plus 7 out of 10 !votes being keep? Are you implying that those admins' remarks were baseless "I like it"s? Or is this completely a WP:POINT behavior, where the bureaucracy has to be followed whether or not it achieves anything?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are "pissing into the wind" on this one. 7-3 for keeping is consensus. An admin can only count it as 7-3 (something called democracy, I believe). I asssume you proposed the deletion, but there's no point trying to flog a dead horse!
We do not work by democracy, but consensus. They are different. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
And the consensus was to keep the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This is NOT a contentious debate. The editor who closed made a correct and responsible closure. 7 keeps from good faith editors and amdins if nothing else reflects a non consensus, but certainly not a delete, especially when the delete "votes" were essentially "I don't like it" in nature. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. There has been on-going and contentious discussion. Stopping it is NOT appropriate. The delete's were backed by policy and guidelines. Some of the keep's also mentioned cleaning and/or merging. The closing admin may make that suggestion as part of the keep. Also, an admin's keep has no more power than anyone else's. If closures could be done by anyone, we wouldn't need admins and AfDs would be pointless. Let the admins do their work, which they are far more qualified to do. And running around leaving "Keeps" on all my AfDs is so not mature. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Only two editors are making it a contentious discussion, you and Percy Snoodle. Everyone else believes it has merits. Two against 7 is not contentious. Stopping it is entirely appropriate. The deletes were all "I don't like it" in nature, whereas the keeps are backed by policies and guidelines. Only attempting to delete articles does not benefit our project. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally, non-admin closures are only appropriate when you have a clear WP:SNOW keep situation. This isn't it. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The way it was going, it certainly appeared as if no one new was being convinced that the article should be deleted, so it really was beginning to look like a snowball closure for keep. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
With every oppose being contested, a delete rationale given backed by policy, and the "keep" situation not blatantly apparent, WP:SNOW doesn't apply. An administrator providing a rationale for the disregarding of the deletion rationale and why the rough consensus should apply is best. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The opposes were weakly contested with "I don't like it" delete rationales, whereas the keeps were backed by policy. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I hardly think WP:N, WP:NOT#INFO, and WP:DEL amount to nothing more than "I don't like it." Per above, an administrator close is best. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
They do when they're cited incorrectly and just used to sound as if the argument is backed by policy when it really isn't. The non-admin keep closure was the right call. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
And, Sephiroth, if you had reverted the closure, I wouldn't be having this argument. But the non-admin nominator reopening the AfD, with apparently the belief that the closing as keep was not the right thing to do, to the point that he will revert twice on the same issue, is frustrating. If it is to be left to admins, then he should leave it to admins.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that I am a non-admin or even the nominator. You never should have closed it as a non-admin yourself. I'd have done the same if I weren't the nominator. And stop calling me "he". AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't close it myself, so that accusation is completely wild.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right, you didn't. Then why are you even complaining? The person who did close it hasn't said a word and he was online for hours after so he knows it was reversed. Both complainers are keep voters. Wonder if y'all would have complained about the reverse if he'd said merge? Bet not. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, way to assume good faith. Of course you would have done the right thing, but my question about why you would demand an admin to close an article (and in an area that currently has a backlog0 when the non-admin made the obvious call obviously had to be motivated by bad faith. If the people had been arguing for a merge, then I wouldn't have objected a merge-closure.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Tag question not answered by your userpage...

...which is nonetheless very informative, and frankly, we're very much alike, if your userboxen are to be believed. :) Now: About Caillou. Since I have a whole mess of PBS shows on my w/l, and since all of them have that very same list of funders, I ask: what would you recommend we do to convert that into prose? I honestly can't imagine anything except a big ugly comma splice (okay, okay--I'd use semicolons, but the principle holds) to do that. In other words: "Caillou was funded by X from 1995-1996; by Y from 1997-1998..." Which is...kinda pleh. Any other ideas?Gladys J Cortez 01:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC) the way (whispers): you have a t-y-p-o on top of this says "are you hear about an edit". Sorry!Gladys J Cortez 01:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at Degrassi: The Next Generation#Executive producers, script-writers and directors for one example of how they handle the current funders in prose. It is currently a GA article getting prepped for FAC. :) For historical, it should be worked into a production section as part of the show's development and history. For example: When Caillou premiered, it was funded by X. In the second season, Y took over funding of the series." etc etc (with sources, of course). (and thanks for the heads up! Fix *grin*)AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
That'll work. :) I suspect I will come up against a horde of other editors with different ideas, but that's half the fun of WP. (The other half is mercilessly crushing vandals. bwahahahaha....)Gladys J Cortez 16:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Discuss and cite support for your claims. And don't shove idiotic templates up my talk page. --SABEREXCALIBUR! 13:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

While my position in the argument hasn't changed, I felt that I should take back the not-so-friendly wording I chose in impatience. --SABEREXCALIBUR! 14:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Soprano List

Have a look now. See if you approve.–FunkyVoltron talk 15:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, and I've undone. Each season header should be a standard header, without the extraneous formatting. This is consistent with the established format as per numerous featured episode lists and consensus amongst multiple projects. I'm glad the list is finally getting cleaned up to use the episodelist table, just please leave the season headings as they are, as they are correct. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not tampering with the headings anymore and my edits no longer break links, I fixed that. However, removing the "Part 1" and "Part 2" links from the Season 6 actually DOES break some links.–FunkyVoltron talk 15:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, just noticed that and fixed. With a year break, you'd think they'd have just called it season 7, but all fixed :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Uh, well, your edits are not really helping that much. Now you inexplicably split the sixth season into two parts. It's really one season, it was just aired in two parts as seasons sometimes are. I see you've replaced the broken links within the article but they're still some external links to the first and second part of season six that's not leading anywhere anymore.–FunkyVoltron talk 16:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I also would like to keep the colored headings for the season tables because they help with visual identification. Several featured lists use this undeniably smooth technique.–FunkyVoltron talk 16:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree the regular table headings should be colored. That can be done by setting the style for the headers. I've done season 1 as an example (though I changed the color for it as black and black does not read well) :) Feel free to change it to something else if you don't think it fits, it just needs to be something the text can be read on. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I know how it's done. I chose the colors to correspond with the DVD releases.–FunkyVoltron talk 16:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Ahh...alas, some are to dark to be read on, so may need to go for lighter versions of those colors. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
That's why I use the color of white for the text in the headings! See, white on black is quite visible. Funny how that goes. I now fixed it and tried to undo some of the damage you did. I will use white for all the headings. For the fourth season, I'll choose a darker shade of grey so it contrasts better. The box is actually much darker than that.–FunkyVoltron talk 16:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Suit yourself...the list probably wouldn't pass FL right now, but oh well. I'll give time for the issues I tagged it for to be dealt with before sending it for delisting. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course it wouldn't, hon. That's why I'm working to improve it.–FunkyVoltron talk 17:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


I feel that the closure of this AFD was correct. The only deletion comment left on the discussion was changed to a keep. Dustitalk to me 19:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The AfD was only 3 days old. It didn't even have the normal five days of discussion time. It was not appropriate at all. While its only an essay, this is noted in Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting a closed discussion

You know, its actually improper to reopen a closed AFD. I'd rather you renominate it if you're going to overturn a speedy keep, a Editing User talk:AnmaFinotera (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedias I'm not interested in reverting you're revert. This could have been discussed first mind you. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You aren't an admin and never should have closed it as a speedy keep. Per discussion on the talk page, reopening it and noting it was inapprorpiately closed was the proper procedure. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I dont have to be an admin to close a discussion such as this one. Its also bad form to reopen a discussion you yourself nominated. I'm not sure where you are getting you're procedural knowledge from, but can you please provide a ref? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
See the talk page, and you own where you have already been warned before that non-admins should not be doing speedy keeps. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, Which talk page, and what are you referring to exactly? Where have I been warned? Also, if you're going to nomination a category I'm in for deletion, you should really let me, and the other editors in the category that you have done so.
The AfD talk page. There is absolutely no obligation to inform anyone in a category that it is up for CfD. Not my job to watch your stuff for you. Your warning: User talk:SynergeticMaggot#Closing AfD discussions. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats another non admin telling me to amend my closing rationale to tell others I'm not an admin as well. Its not warning me of anything other than that. You're the only one who wanted the article you nominated left open. Lets just stick to that ok? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
"Note, from WP:SK: "Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of 'keep' can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to recommend a 'speedy keep' instead."" is not a warning about revealing the fact you aren't an admin (which you also failed to do). AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I'm aware of the paragraph. And I'm not a normal user, per say. I'm closed many, many AFD's. Non have been overturned or reopened. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Get over yourself. You are a normal editor. You are not an admin and shouldn't be doing speedy keeps. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Please calm down. Yes, the speedy-keep closure after such a short duration was inproper. That said, non-admins are perfectly correct to perform speedy-keep closures, provided they follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:Non-admin closure and Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Your last comment ("Get over yourself.") might be read as borderline incivil. The bottom line: Yes, it was wrong to speedy-keep this rapidly, no, even non-admins can speedy-keep things. CharonX/talk 04:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I know it was a fast keep. :) I just used the word speedy as its defined. It was my call, and I feel it was done rather well. The article will be kept (eventually), as enough concensus was gathered to close it. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Does {{Reflist|2}} become {{Reflist|3}} after 80? Or is it up to judgement? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 19:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

80!!! At that have a party! :P Good question though. Even in articles with 100+, I've still seen ref 2 used. I think ref 3 tends to be much more rarely used because it gets too squished in for quite a few folks. If the refs are all well formed, though, and it looks okay with it, then I think its fine to keep. The Lupin one looks good to me on a laptop monitor since all the refs appear to be well formatted. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Around what number can you suggest? To me, there isn't much (if any) difference. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 05:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...I can't even really think of one, though I'd probably say at least 60. Still, I agree that between 2 and 3, there isn't much difference which is probably why 3 isn't used that much. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


The voting time period is half way over. Your feedback would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I decided not to continue participating in/following LoTD. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Violation or not?

Hi. I got your message regarding linking to the description of the fansubbing process. I just want to make sure I understand things right here. You wrote: "When adding links to material on an external site, as you did to Fansub, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright." The creator of what exactly? I linked to a specific page containing only text written by a member of that fansubbing group. Now it is correct that elsewhere on this website, you can find links to torrent files. Is this the reason you considered the link a copyright violation? JoaCHIP (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A fansub group's website is never an appropriate link as the site itself violates Wikipedia's WP:COPYVIO policy. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi! You might have noticed that Degrassi: The Next Generation made Good article status over the weekend, and I was hoping that you would be able to comment at the current peer review to make it even better, ready for when I take it to FAC. All the best, -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do! I left a first round of remarks going through the first two sections and the lead. I'll take a look at other sections later. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for what you've done so far. It's all appreciated. Peter left me alot to be getting on with. I'll start addressing them either late today or tommorrow (real life and all!) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 19:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I saw! I wonder if he left anything for me to comment on, but will try to look some more tonight. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

I didn't change the kanji titles in question, I added to them. I felt they were more in keeping with the logos themselves. If you look in the logo for Full Moon, you'll see "full moon" written in katakana just above the kanji that would otherwise read "Mitsuki" or "Mangetsu". The Initial D logo is written that way as well. As I indicated in my Naruto edit, the video games based on Shippuden all have the English name as part of the title. In the Japanese Gundam Wing logo, you can see "wing" written in katakana.

So don't insult my intelligence by reverting edits that are meant to help the pages in question. They technically are correct; again I was adding to them to make them more in keeping with how the actual logos appear. Ever heard of WP:AGF? I am not trying to harm these pages. As such I also don't feel I deserved to be treated as such.

I'll leave them be, but only because I don't want to start a war. Brittany Ka (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not use the logos as a source for the kanji. Logos are stylized and not accurate for the proper way to writ the title. If I weren't AGF, I'd have rolled back all of them as vandalism and gave you a warning instead of what I felt was a polite note. And I didn't insult your intelligence, I undid what I presumed were innocent and uninformed mistakes. Please remember anything you put in Wikipedia may be mercilessly edited or undid by any other editor and try not to take it so personally. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: This discussion

After reviewing the contents, I have decided not to reopen the discussion. If you wish, you may take the article to Wikipedia:Deletion Review. If you have any further comments, please direct them to my talk page. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 16:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Blade character list

Sorry, I ended up reverting you a bit on that. Some of those people were legitimately important characters who appear in most episodes, or are important in some other way. Probably some more can be tossed from the list, but y'know. Tokusatsu articles are awful for this kind of absurd attention to detail, so it wouldn't surprise me to know a few more characters could be axed. Howa0082 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the series, so I just went by the descriptions and tried to figure out who was and wasn't major. :) I've left a note on the article talk page to start a discussion on the need to clean them up and maybe send the rest to a List of article. Kinda amusing...the character list is horribly too long, while the plot is badly in need of expansion :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about what kinds of categories you think are appropriate for the article. "2004 in television"? I don't do much categorization, so... Howa0082 (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...usually you have some regarding when it aired, genre, maybe production company. Unfortunately, it seems like the tokusatsu series have been getting the short end of the stick, despite having their own project and that maybe Kamen is the only one that can be listed. Blech. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. Seems a little pointless to cat it as a tokusatsu, when Kamen Rider is toku by definition. It's a pain, believe me. Trying to improve the articles for these shows is hell on earth, so I just chip away slowly over time. Nothing's more awesome than seeing two articles for the same character. Howa0082 (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Trust me, I do know that feeling. I'm currently working on the mess that is Tokyo Mew Mew. Three articles for what is really one character. *eye roll* Might be something to bring up in the Tokusatsu projects, though. I'm not super familiar with tokusatsu to know if there are subgenres. If nothing else, I think you can put in the category for year of debut and ending. For year of debut, its usually Category:XXXX television series debuts with XXXX being the year. For ending, Category:XXXX television series endings. No idea why Japan doesn't have its own cat for those when Korean television series do, but maybe something to bring up with project Japan. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Talk:Anime

There is a defaultsort. What is the purpose of this there? It's the first time I see it on a talk page. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 22:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was removed. It didn't do anything in the first place, did it? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 23:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
My guess is that it was added so that the talk page would appear in the various categories under A for Anime instead of under T for talk. It isn't something I normally see either and I don't think its anything that is actually need anymore. Maybe remnants of an older version of the software? AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Dunno. Thanks anyway, Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 00:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


You said on my talk page:

Why on earth did you revert my removal of vandalism from Wikipedia:Reliable sources and call it vandalism?[1] Did you not look at what he had done? AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a horrible error on my part, probably due to the occurrence of some sort of distraction while I was speeding through my watchlist hits and drinking my morning coffee. Sorry. Mea culpa. Apologies. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, no prob. After undoing I realized that probably what it was :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Zurek notability tag

It's not appropriate to tag for notability when the article has just survived AfD with a clear consensus to keep, especially where references addressing your original concerns were added during the process. It's important to abide by consensus decisions, even in cases where one disagrees. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no clear consensus at all, but an inappropriate speedy keep by a non-admin based on unexplained statements that all bishops are notable. It is nothing wrong with tagging it notability with nothing in the article yet meets notability by WP:BIO as far as I'm concerned. However, do as you like. I give up. People will just argue keep because he is a bishop as though that automatically makes him notable irregardless of what the actual guideline says, and its not worth the headache of dealing with such zealots. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as I am the one who closed the AFD first, and you still do not wish to let it go, I'd like to address the matter in a more direct way, and lets see if you can understand where I am coming from.
  • Snowball clause closes, where it is absolutely obvious that no other outcome other than keep is possible. Recommended criteria to use: (a) six or more participants have supported keeping the page; (b) no editor other than the nominator has opposed keeping the page or even supported another outcome, left a comment, or asked a question which could be interpreted as hesitation to support keeping the article;
My close satisfies two of the criteria. And Espresso Addict is merely pointing out that it appears to be retaliation to place a tag on the article you just nominated for delettion, especially a tag that goes against a consensus on AFD. I hope this helps out. Cheers! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Funny how you STILL forget that whole section of the same page that says that non-admin's should NOT close anything as Snowball Keep. But whatever. I tagged the article as the AfD was badly and falsely closed, which is well within my right as there was no real consensus. But keep running around playing like you are an admin when you aren't if it makes you happy. I find it sickening myself that you are allowed to get away with it, but oh well. I guess consensus also sees no problem with it since such actions are being allowed. Now please just go away. You can quit rubbing it in that you are allowed to do so even though its wrong. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Just noting that in contrast to the previous incident I commented in, this was a pretty good WP:SNOW situation. That and Ten Pound Hammer has more AfD experience than most administrators, and I highly trust his judgment in that regard. Let it go. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I still disagree, considered even speedies are supposed to get 24 hours, but I didn't bother arguing because I know its pointless. Somehow bishops are magic people who don't have to meet WP:BIO, so someone should go update that guideline because nothing in there says it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This is taken directly from the procedure section on speedy keep:
  • Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of "keep" can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to recommend a "speedy keep" instead.
I've highlighted the section that tells me and anyone else that it can be done by non admins. And please remain civil. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Try the real point: "Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of "keep" can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to recommend a "speedy keep" instead." I CAN speed down the highway going 100 mph, but that doesn't mean I should just because I can. The point is obviously that while yes, you CAN do it because nothing stops you, you should have the restraint not to. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no enforcement of policy that says I cannot close a clear keep/speedy. I've had prior experience in closing these and understand your frustration. But I am not a normal user in the sense that I cannot make decisions such as these. And I will continue to do so. I need no restraint, as it helps admins do the harder tasks, such as no consensus, tough calls and deletes. I admire your spunk though. And I hope you can soon relax and not be so angry. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to raise this can of worms again. As this dispute seems to revolve around whether the AfD was properly closed, let me just state for the record that I'm an admin and agree with both closures. As long as the closure is made properly and in accordance with consensus, it doesn't really matter who does it. Close as keep can be performed by any experienced user, and User:TenPoundHammer is one of the most experienced non-admins around at AfD. If you disagree with the outcome then the appropriate venue for challenging it is deletion review, rather than either reopening the AfD or tagging for notability with the stated intention (per your user page) of taking it to AfD again if no-one improves the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I tagged for notability because I still don't feel the article gives any indication of notability. Is there another policy or guideline I've missed that gives bishops blanket notability? AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a specialised guideline for religious figures. Given the existence of specialised encyclopedias covering the bishoprics, it would appear to be covered by the first pillar, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs", as pointed out by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. The present article also appears to meet WP:BIO in terms of coverage by secondary sources. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Operational sex ratio AfD

Hi, I'm wondering if you'd care to withdraw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operational sex ratio, perhaps after searching for "Operational sex ratio" in google scholar. After taking a look at your edits questioning the notability of Tim Clutton-Brock I feel perhaps you might want to consider taking more of a "measure twice, cut once" approach when nominating articles on scientific topics for deletion. Best regards, Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the term notable enough to be its own article though? Even in your keep you note it should be part of a larger sex ratio article (which if it did exist, I probably would have just recommended a merge, but it doesn't). Additionally, if it is so widely used and notable, the article should reflect this rather than it having a single source and being orphaned. As for my questioning the notability of Tim Clutton-Brock, that is a different issue and related to my knowledge of him as related to Meerkat Manor and my being unaware that all FRS have blanket notability (which I feel is partially because WP:BIO does not give a good pointer to WP:PROF for those of us who automatically look to WP:BIO when evaluating people articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, when you're wrong you're wrong... I just thought I'd suggest what seems an appropriate course of action. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I admitted being wrong about Clutton-Brock and considering the dealings with its creator, I'd rather not have someone else rub it at me that I was wrong. Nobody's perfect. As for this term, I'm not convinced its notable enough outside of being a dictionary term myself. But that's me. Nothing has been done to the article yet to establish the claimed notability, so I prefer to let the AfD run its course. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


As a nominator, you may want to vote before voting ends as soon as I get to it after the end of the day on the 20th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Resizing references

You are free to add comments at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Re: Resizing references so that we may build consensus on the issue.-- 19:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold up, please

Hey there. I'm taking a look at the above issue; there's a small potential for notability in the fellow involved (he's got several books and a number of academic references on Google Scholar), so I'd suggest that if you feel there's a notability issue you take it to AFD instead. I'm going to tell the other editor to back off as well, and leave a firm warning not to disparage other editors in the process. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If an admin removes the notice, that's fine as that is how CSD should work. This guy has ignored no less than seven warnings not to remove the tag himself, as well as throwing around the insults (see above and below). As someone who took all three Meerkat Manor articles to FA/FL status, I didn't feel he was notable at the time to make an article for him and nothing in the stub shows he meets WP:BIO, hence my CSDing. Additionally, until someone does something about that person, he would just remove the AfD tags the same as he is the CSD. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, an admin has removed the tag. =P He's been strongly warned, and one more shot and he gets blocked. The guy's got a couple hundred Google Scholar hits and nearly 10,000 on Google, a couple of books, etc., and claims of being involved with Meerkat Manor suggested to me that there's at least a claim of notability. I'd suggest giving it a shot on AFD. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on it. If he keeps up, I may protect the page for a period. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I was gonna work on it some, see if notability can be established, but think I'll go take a break first to take some deep breaths. *grin* AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I actually have other things I should be doing myself, but I'll keep eyes on this for a bit longer... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again...nothing like a strawberry frapp and shopping for GPS units to reduce WikiStress. :D Now to go study the rather skimpy biography guidelines because I'm not particularly well versed in doing such articles. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tim Clutton-Brock

Please see WP:PROF; FRS alone would meet points 1, 2 & 6. It's the most prestigious British award for scientists. As I recall, AfD outcomes for UK scientists who are FRS are 100% keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very helpful. It would be good if WP:BIO noted that. :P I have removed the tag and will work on the article some this evening to try to expand it, then since it falls with the realm of Meerkat Manor, but first I need a break after having to deal with all the insults and pointless edit warring over my having tagged it. *sigh* Some days I gotta wonder why I love Wikipedia so much...AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


What's the decision of commas in dates? Bloody Robin is removing them again, and Irish Lass is saying she's correct. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and particularly, per the talk page (specifically Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Concern: commas and dates, commas should be the default. I've restored and noted that. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Shamrock, TX

Thank you for looking. I do appreciate you taking the time to check. Also I would like to know how one may stop vandalism of this nature (if it can be regarded as such). Thanks. (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't remove the references, you only removed the reference section. References do not have to be periodicals to be references. They can be newspaper reports, websites, books, etc so long as they meet the reliable source guidelines. The sources listed are from US government sites, which are certainly reliable sources. One reference was bad, which tried to put a bunch of links into a single reference and I have removed that. You can't stop people from doing it, only undo people putting in NPOV statements and false statements and leave the appropriate warning on their talk page. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi AnmaFinotera.
Seems like you have had an interesting day...
What is your opinion regarding my comment? This is why I actually prefer to draft articles in sandboxes, it gives one a lot more freedom to move content around:)
Issue is, according to WP:SS we need to provide more than just a basic summary in a parent article, so what would happen in practice is that the list would probably give all relevant information within 2-4 paragraphs (the minimum amount that would have remained if the article had been split off properly), rendering the sub-articles obsolete.
WP:DUE also plays an part in this: We cannot provide more information in the list about supporting characters than about the major characters; even if the major characters have their own articles.
What would probably happen is, if subarticles are needed; that it would rather follow the example of Solar System#Inner planets and Terrestrial planet; being that the main section in the list (e.g. Antagonists/...) would have a subarticle that covers the antagonists/... in more detail, as opposed to each antagonist/... having an own article (Though in this example, each planet, being notable by itself, have their own article, as well:) (which is not linked via {{main}} in either article).
This would allow us to summarise common factors, and avoid having to duplicate the same information over and over in each characters' article.
G.A.S 05:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: Feel free to move this discussion to Talk:List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters

More like a very stressful and depressing day. :( Sorry I forgot to reply. I left an answer there. I still feel it should be done all at once, which is how we usually do it when dealing with such work. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to hear. Can I propose a compromise? Maybe it would work if we use a sandbox, in the list's talk namespace: It would allow some more freedom in coming up with a final product, as we can do all of the editing for all of the characters in a single page (starting by copying all of the content), then cleaning up and re-arranging, then decide how it should be split, if needed. The following templates could come in handy: {{Workpage}} or {{draft}} on the draft page, and {{Rewriting}} on each of the characters' pages, and list's page. Regards, G.A.S 06:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I can understand your view, but for this type of work, I prefer to work straight in the articles and tackle systematically after consensus is reached regarding merging. Each character can be handled one by one, starting with the more minor, then going up to the major ones. I tend to only use sandbox/workspace for stuff I plan to spend a length about of time working on. This shouldn't take that long. If you look at List of Fruits Basket characters, you'll see the same thing is being done there, primarily by one editor, in the same systematic fashion and its working fine. Doing one a day, it would take about 20 days (19 for the characters, another for final clean up and working on the lead). Minor characters could be handled in even less time.
(Edit conflict) As long as it is done one at a time, I believe it could work. I am concerned that if it is done all at once in the live article, information might get lost, or that the list would end up being too long. I am also concerned that, given that the AfD decision on the minor characters was no consensus, merge decisions on the 5 major characters will fail unless the quality of the merge process into the list has been sufficiently proven. — G.A.S 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, we need to be careful about just copy/pasting the existing stuff. From quick checks, the ISBNs appear to either be wrong or for the Japanese editions. Don't know about you, but the only ones I've read are the English ones so we need to be sure we cite those unless its something specific/unique to the Japanese volumes (and properly format them). As an example, Ucha is now merged in. Took me less than 20 minutes. It will be 30 by the time I add in specific page number references, but hopefully you see what I mean? AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the ISBN's are for the Japanese volumes. I do not think that there is a problem with citing the original source (esp. since there are translation differences — eg. ノドジロルリインコ (Vini peruviana, Blue Lorikeet) in the Japanese version vs Ultramarine Lorikeet (Vini ultramarina コンセイインコ) in the English version), if needed, we can add the English citations as well. — G.A.S 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we should primarily cite the English sources, as both are available the English is preferred. The Japanese ones should only be cited to denote a difference. Unless we actually have the Japanese volumes on hand, in reality we are looking at the English adaptations so we need to cite what we are using to ensure accuracy, particular with page numbers. Meanwhile, Ucha's section is now done, with page specific citations. Thoughts? (I have removed his main because, in reality, he doesn't even actual have article, it was just a paragraph in Masha's and the list's paragraph is now better). AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that Ucha's edits. Regarding sources: I believe where sources are already given, they should be kept, unless proven wrong, but where new ones are added, we provide that which is available. Also see my second remark above (marked "edit conflict"). G.A.S 07:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: Please note steps 5 and 6 regarding on Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages#Selective paste merger (equally applicable here). G.A.S 08:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
For the sources, I believe they need to be properly formatted, updated to use the English versions for accuracy and truthfulness, and in some cases rechecked. And, of course, the fansite refs must be replaced all together. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you OK?

I just noticed your closing statement on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operational sex ratio. I'm a bit concerned about the level of frustration you're apparently going through. If there is anything I can do to help, I'd like to help out. If at any point you want to talk about it, feel free to leave a note on my talk page -- RoninBK T C 15:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You know

I edited the article before you did, so this is untrue. If you're in a bad mood for whatever reason take a break, I'm not a person with enough patience to endure WP:ABF because of your issues. --SABEREXCALIBUR! 16:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, let's see, your first edit to the article was March 19th, by your diffs. Mine was December 19th. I'm the one who cleaned it up and put it in its current state and I don't appreciate you suddenly deciding to come mess with it and try to mess up the good work that has been done. I assume bad faith because until after you got annoyed at me, you never touched that article and really have done nothing constructive but try to nitpick it. So why not go back to working on the stuff you usually do and quit picking on it.AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, obviously I referred to edits done within the last day. Your last edit before this was over a week ago, and I've got better things to do than stalking you through your edit history. Anime is only one of my major interests and I write articles about Japanese railway transit, American volcanologists and German disasters on a different language version. Here I cruise through pretty much all categories and fix only small things. Escaflowne is a good series and having geographic locations as subheaders to characters was illogical, which you hopefully can admit. It'd be very helpful if you could treat me as a somewhat intelligent person without sinister intents. If it were up to me we wouldn't WP:EL to anywhere but official sites, licensor's sites and ANN in Japanimation articles. --SABEREXCALIBUR! 17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

General comments

I think you have a lot to offer Wikipedia. You're obviously quite knowledgeable about a decent number of subjects, especially anime. However, I've noticed that you seem to frequently employ a rather abrasive method of editing, including reverting people without any discussion (and no, I'm not bringing it up just because you've done that several times with my edits), and giving an appearance of not wanting to discuss issues or assume the other person may know something you don't. Now, I'm bringing this up in the hopes that you will take it as constructive criticism and see if there might be some ways in which you might be able to reduce the number of incidents you seem to have with these types of things. It's great that you are very enthusiastic about making articles better here, and I strongly applaud that, but I fear you are steamrolling over people without paying attention to what they are doing (other than that it's something you disagree with) or why they are doing it. Hopefully this information will be taken and considered in the spirit it was given. Thanks for all your hard work. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Meerkat Manor FT

Going to try for a Meerkat Manor featured topic consisting of Meerkat Manor (FA, main), List of Meerkat Manor episodes (FL), List of Meerkat Manor meerkats (FL), and Kalahari Meerkat Project (possible GA)? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

First let me take some deep breaths and tries to remember why I loves editing Wikipedia, cause as you can tell from above, my temper is up. :( But yet, Featured Topic is my big hairy audacious goal. I need to spend some time working on KMP's article, but I suspect some of the best info on the project background will be in the Meerkat Manor book. It was published in the UK in November, but won't be here until next month. Once I can get that, I'm going to try to spend some time getting KMP's article up to at least GA. It is difficult as well because I haven't really been able to find articles of a similar topic that are GA or FA that I can use to help figure out what sort of content should be there. I needs me a MOS :) I'm also planning on doing an article for Oxford Scientific Films, which produces the show, though not sure if that one would/should be included in an FT or not. Meanwhile, been reading the FT criteria, and so far I think I'm on track with the three Meerkat articles being well linked and all FA/FLs :) Have you done any FT's yet? Any suggestions for things to watch for? AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've done three. The biggest thing is that they're all linked clearly using a template or in-article links, preferably using "main" or "see also." I don't think the production company is needed for the topic,or that Kalahari Meerkat Project is really needed either per se. I didn't include Konami as part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow or Viz Media/Shueisha as part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Naruto manga chapters for instance. The relevant point is the topical scope - if you define it as the show itself, then you have the two major aspects of the show as supplementary articles: the episodes and the characters, which in my opinion, comprises a completed topic. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing verified local information from the Shmrock Texas page.

Why do you insist on continually removing verified information from the Shamrock Texas page? These facts are VERIFIED with state and federal courts and link to the public versions through cerrtified local media outlets. There is nothing "fraudulent" or "personally biased" about the linking of facts that accurately reflect conditions, "personality" and "flavor" of a given area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing the article. Nothing you are adding is verified by a reliable source at all and all of your edits use non-neutral language that distort the actual facts and violate multiple Wikipedia articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you bothr to read the information from the US Department of Justice that was in the references? If DOJ is considered "not verifiable", what is? (No doubt you'll have this labeled as "harrassment"...)

I can see that we will need to hitr people to keep our listing accurate... (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Harassment will not be tolerated. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Shamrock, Texas

Just so you know, I have fully accepted Kralizec's response on the talk page. You may read my final post on their talk page if you like. Cheers, Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 02:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) He did a better job explaining why I called it vandalism than I did :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

--Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 02:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


I see you are online, so I will ask before I close down the polls. No votes?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No. As noted before, I've decided not to participate on the LoTD anymore. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Blade, again.

This confuses me. What kind of expansion is needed? Howa0082 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The series section should discuss when it premiered, on what channels, and DVD/VHS releases in Japan. It should also include discussion on English licensing and releases (if any), and brief mentions of airing/licensing in other countries. Some of this is in the lead already, but it also needs to be in the series section, with additional details and, of course, sources. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If what I added is the kind of stuff you meant, feel free to remove the tag. Howa0082 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was what I meant. I did a little tweaking and added the DVD release dates before removing the tag. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Even though it may be a image on TTL

I just don't want it deleted, okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndorian41 (talkcontribs) 22:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


List of Meerkat Manor episodes has been selected as a list of the Day for the month of April. Let me know if you have any strong date preferences before March 26th. Since it placed in the top 5 it will be recognized on two days during the month.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool and no, I have no strong date preferences. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright then

I have created Category:Science fantasy. And I'll be getting to discussing the genres on Fullmetal Alchemist, mainly because I feel the science fantasy genres belong there. But right now, there are a few things I want to talk about on Tokyo Mew Mew. Should conversation take place on your talk page or over here? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 21:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Either one is fine, though may want to put in article talk as there is at least one other editor who is actively watching the page and joining in the discussions. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave a note there tomorrow, if given the chance ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 07:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Clow Cards

The source of the images I uploaded is and PageNbr=1&MemberId=17595634&PhotoAlbumId=4024478993&PhotoId=4024481054.

You should find there that all the images I posted are reliable. please contact me if you discover the contrary.


PS: please put the images back on the article. please

No. As has already been pointed out to you multiple times, individual images of the cards were removed from the article in compliance with WP:NONFREE. Having individual images violates Wikipedia's copyright policies. The list has two images and they are the only images necessary and that will be allowed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I know I am actually being a big pain-in-the-ass but what if i uploaded ONE image of ALL cards? Patronum (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No - see this Question from the FAQ. Black Kite 21:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject AfD closing participants

Hi, the deletion discussion for Category:WikiProject AfD closing participants has been closed (see here). I want to notify you of the closure in case you are not yet aware of it (the discussions was moved from WP:CFD to WP:UCFD). Black Falcon (Talk) 19:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...guess I'll try MfDing the project, though most of the time the answer seems to be "ah, just mark inactive and let it sit there" :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that may be a relatively recent phenomenon... As I remember, there used to be more selectivity at MfD regarding which pages had historical value and deserved to be kept. The "keep all WikiProjects" opinion, which seems to have become somewhat common in MfD discussions, was virtually non-existent about a year ago. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, there seems to be some disjoint in there somewhere. When I first found a long dead project, I asked how to get it deleted and was told MfD, then took to MfD and a few people commented that they don't belong there, just mark historical and let it sit there forever. That seems odd to me, and not sure why it seems to have become the new view. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Crocodile (2000 film)

Hello Collectionian, I knew I would probably receive a reprimand for my edit in 'Crocodile'. But did you ever see this film? Apart from tons of other implausibilities, one of the teenagers at the end of the film is actually eaten by the monster, only to be coughed up whole and unchewed some minutes later. After a bit of reviving he jumps up brandishing a sprayer and shouting something not unlike my secret tip. So it was not a pointless edit after all; maybe I could have worded it without irony and adding more of the happenings in the film. But there was truth in it, and it was not, in fact, vandalism. Soczyczi (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it, multiple times. Being a fan of b-monster animal movies, I've seen it enough times to almost have it memorized. Your remark did make me laugh cause I knew exactly what scene you were talking about, but it was still inappropriate and technically a vandalism (since we would call the same done by an anon user vandalism as well). :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you know it so well, maybe you could extend the story and its various happenings for all Wikipedia to enjoy? That is, if you have some spare time. I really enjoyed the jumps of the dog and the crocodile - and of course the Snatching of the Sheriff. Soczyczi (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • grin* It is already on my to do list...its just that list is rather long so will probably be awhile yet, and I want to get the DVD since Sci-Fi always does a little editing when it airs stuff. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep a weather eye on Crocodile 2000... Soczyczi (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Kino's Journey edit

Please explain this edit a bit more, as I am unsure exactly what you meant in the edit summary.-- 20:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just working on a message to try to explain that more. Edit summs are too short sometimes. :) In general, a series article has one image in the infobox (in this case, the light novel which is the primary work). The second light novel cover adds to the knowledge of the series, as Tokyopop radically redesigned the cover (though that section also needs to be updated to provide sourced discussion). Beyond that, though, an image shouldn't be added to a section if it has a main article/list. For example, a character image would be fine because there is no character list, but if a character list were created, the image would go there and be removed from the main. For the anime, there is a main, the list of episodes, which focuses soley on the anime release and the contents of the DVD release. Other sections, such as the art books, CDs, etc, could have one image each, to represent each section, but if they were ever broken out into sub-articles or lists, then the images would go there and be removed from here. Do you see what I mean? AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Uh, no, because even FA articles like Serial Experiments Lain use images in multiple articles. The image in the infobox in the main article is also used in the media list article. Where does it say you can't have the same image in two separate articles?-- 20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say you couldn't have the same image in two articles. The infobox image can be used as the main in other articles too, which is done with Kino's and its chapter list. I'm saying images from other sections. (also, note that SEL is tagged for having excessive images, so it isn't a very good example). AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you really thinking about going for FA for Kino?-- 20:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm? Shouldn't FA be the goal for all of our articles? Some may not be able to make it, but it should still be kept in mind. At minimal, GA isn't outside the realm of possibility. The main drawback on Kino's is the lack of the remaining volumes in English and I'm not sure how much production information can be added. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Solitaire external links

I think you might have interest in the following discussions, and I'd appreciate your input if you have time:

Thanks. Rray (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I took Spider off my watchlist after my earlier attempts to clean the links. I've left some remarks at EL. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

About dates

I did this edit to Death Note per what we discussed on retaining original date layouts. I thought there was a consensus back here. What became of the opposing user's conclusion? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea...he hasn't said or done anything since then about changing the table. From what he said, though, the comma should always be included. *sigh* Sometimes, editing is so confusing. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you suggest for List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters then? It initially had commas. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 03:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If it initially had commas, then it should still have them, I think. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Guess I'll be getting to that page later. And I have to hold off on Tokyo Mew Mew, unfortunately. I'll just be doing a few more edits and then will hit the hay :( Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 03:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No prob :) Have a good sleep! AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your bright idea


Thank you for your recent, timely and useful advice regarding the Blue Heelers articles. I have noticed you around Wikipedia a few times now and, I have to say, it was a pleasure to deal with you. It was a fantastic idea and I think it deserves to be implemented as soon as possible. Thank you also for your offer to help with the codes etc. Hopefully, if all goes well, I won't need them but, I'll know the offer's there. Thanks again and I hope to see you around Wikipedia again soon!

Because of your fantastic idea, I award you the...

Barnstar-lightbulb3.png What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thankyou for your ingenious idea.
I would have never thought of that!
Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

Daniel99091 (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

Aww, thanks :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Binghamton University

I appreciate all your work in trying to bring the Binghamton University article up to WikiProject:University standards! Wsanders (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for tacking the clean up of the Student groups and other sections! AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bob Ross

I've tried to find the info that you're asking for but Bob seems to have been a rather private person. His signing off every episode with God Bless though does imply that he believed in God though. 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Blackeagles (talk)

No, it doesn't. I was an atheist for 20 years, still said the word God. Some wiccans also say the phrase "God bless." It was a catch phrase. Without an actual source denoting his religion, you can't say that it wasn't anything other than a marketing gimic (unlikely, but not provable). He was a very private person, and his religion is not a defining characteristic when one can't even say he was one religion or another. Trying to categorize him one way or the other is applying your interpretation to the meaning behind the phrase. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
When you were an atheist did you often say "God Bless" to people? --Blackeagles (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I was raised in the south, twas an automatic response in many situations. Even prayed when necessary for family peace. Doesn't mean I actually "believed in God(s) or that one can call upon God(s) to aid people", by your own words. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Help (Blue Heelers)


I may now have to call on that help that you offered! I have had a good looked over the "Lassie system", and I have created some pages for the Blue Heelers articles. I have:

  • I have started the Blue Heelers (season 13) article, mainly for testing this new idea (this is copied from the version on my userpage);

The problem is, even though I have pretty much copied the system from the Lassie articles, I can't seem to hide the short summary section in the main episode list tables.

Your help with this matter would be greatly appreciated. From looking at all your user boxes on your userpage, you seem to be very skilled at this web development/computer science caper.

Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

In Template:Episode list/Blue Heelers, you accidentally put in the name of one of your user pages instead of List of Blue Heelers episode for the if statement. I change that and its working great now. :) One minor suggestion for the lists, while you're working on each season, would be to remove the redlink titles. It tends to encourage people to make episode articles, which really shouldn't be done unless every episode can be found to me WP:EPISODE. And, don't forget to put each season article in the proper projects as you work ;) AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks AnmaFinotera. I will also remove those links. Daniel99091 (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC).

List of Naruto characters revamp

See discussion here. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge complete. See discussion on stuff to do here. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision to List of Blood+ characters

By this revision, the date in the following sentence was changed (the change being in parentheses)

James became one of Diva's chevaliers in 1845 (1945) in Berlin, Germany during the second World War.

Normally I revert unexplained date/numerical changes on the assumption that they are attempts at vandalism (as most are), but I don't know enough about the series to make that judgement here. Figured that I should at least point it out, as you seem to be able to make this call, at least better than I can. OverSS (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I double checked and it was my typo and should have been 1945. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nuku Nuku Tv

Is this redirect even necessary? The article it targets doesn't make any reference of the "Tv" bit. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 23:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean it should be deleted? I redirected because it was a single talking about the Nuku Nuku anime, which is already covered better in All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku#Anime. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I suggest {{speedy}} with the reason as either WP:CSD#G2 or WP:CSD#G6. Which do you think? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be fine with either of those :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Can you please leave the source about fan translation there? And also, don't remove fan translation part of article, since it's needed there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enerccio (talkcontribs) 19:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not a reliable source and unnecessary. This is a long running issue under discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard and in the Anime and Manga project. It should not have been added until consensus was reached, which thus far says no, it is not a reliable source. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
But there IS a translation already made. --Enerccio (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. There has been extensive discussion that is still on going as to whether it violates WP:COPYVIO to link to a site that links to the downloads, whether a fan-translation should be mentioned at all when we do NOT mention fansubs and fandubs in anime articles nor fan-scanslations in manga articles, and what qualifies as a reliable source if such mentions should be made. Please don't start an edit war over this article without knowing the full issue at hand. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh please! Even if it's copyright violation, it was there for a so long time, and no one cares. Everybody knew (and companies too) that there are fan translations and if they operate on patch level, no one cares. Also, shii link is reliable source, since it's the truth. What other source can be more reliable, when you can download the patch itself???--Enerccio (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you read the relevant policies. Wikipedia's copyright policies are much stronger than the governments, and attempts to respect copyrights in ALL countries, not just the US. An shii does NOT meet WP:RS, regardless of the "truth." AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you out of your mind? Why that souce is not valid for WP:RS? Also, then remove every article and everything in whole wikipedia to prevent unauthorized copyright violation. I can fire up Google and get all this things, I just need the names. Then remove them too.--Enerccio (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you learn to watch your tone. You are pushing WP:CIVILITY. The site does NOT meet Wikipedia's requirements for being a reliable source. We do not just link to any old website as a source. There are limits and rules. Your arguments are beyond overblown and as it is pointless to argue with a child, I'm not going to bother. I've brought the attention to the project for further discussion and will let consensus deal with it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Old? Look at the last added translation. What date it says? 2008-02-22 Far from old site, even if the design look old. WP:RS is guideline, not a policy. All information regarding tsukihime is verifiable on that website. Therefore the source is verifiable too, therefore all according to WP:V. --Enerccio (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
And you ask if I'm out of my mind. As for your note on reliable sources, it shows you have little understanding of Wikipedia. Reliable sources is part of the verifiability policy. That site does NOT meet reliable sources and can not be used to verify anything. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, even if it's not a good source, the information is still valid and true, therefore it should be included on the wikipedia.--Enerccio (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's focus is verifiable information from reliable sources, not "the truth" or "validity." I know lots of stuff about stuff, but as it can't be sourced, it doesn't get added or if added, can be removed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
How that is unverifiable? The patch itself is downloadable, there at least two other web pages that mentions it, what you need more?--Enerccio (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Verifiable per reliable sources. Fansubs exist, we don't discuss them in any anime articles because a - they can not be reliable sourced and b - not something that needs to be mentioned as it is not encyclopedic and borders on advocating illegal activities. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Then remove every illegal article such as Child Pornography or Lolicon. Both are illegal, therefore as you said it should not be mentioned here. So only verifiable source is official one? Why? I can make claim that I am licensor of the English port of tsukihime. Will that be reliable? The most verifiable source is the truth itself. --Enerccio (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • sigh* I give up trying to discuss anything with you. And no, you claiming to be the English licenser would be a blatant lie and your saying it is beyond non-verifiable. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me give you better example. You said in other discussion page that there is nothing about tsukihime English tr. patch in news. So only believable source is news? Then watch this video [9]. Now tell me, is this a valid source? Is there a Church of Anonymous? Because from what you said it is. But there is no such a thing as 'Church of Anonymous'. Therefore the truth is most valid. And moreover, why do you care about that so much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enerccio (talkcontribs) 17:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
A YouTube video is not a valid source. Whether there is or is not a Church of Anonymous is irrelevant. Without significant coverage, it shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. My street exists, I drive on it every day, but that doesn't mean it needs an article nor does it need mention in my city's article. Why do I care? Because I care about the quality of the anime and manga articles and think its high time we get more featured series articles. It has been almost TWO years since we've had one, and poor sourcing like this is one big reason for it. Thus far, you are the only one supporting this addition, so why do you keep insisting on adding it back. I know you don't care if the article becomes FA, but others do so why ruin it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
For one point, anime version of Tsukihime is the worst anime ever. Or rather, there is no anime. Tsukihime is game and nothing more. While I care about FA, I care more about people playing the game instead. And link that informs them about English patch is very important.--Enerccio (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
NPOV much? The Tsukihime anime, which obviously does exists, is highly praised by critics and fans alike. Tsukihime is not just a game and nothing more. If you believe what you just wrote, you honestly should consider stop editing at Wikipedia and go somewhere else. Caring more about getting people to play the game than actually having a good, accurate, and comprehensive article is not an acceptable attitude for a Wikipedia editor, nor is outright denying the existance of the more well known form of Tsukihime. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you are not very internet meme person but whatever. If you want to know, follow this (unverifiable and not good source) link [10]. --Enerccio (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not, and I don't particularly care what some other wiki says. And you are right, it is not a reliable source at all, and nothing more than niche fancruft. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to explain reverts on related talk page

Hi AnmaFinotera,

May I request that if you do not agree with (my) edits that you explain in detail why you do not agree with them on the talk page? It would help much more than my trying to figure this out from the revert's edit summary.

King regards,

G.A.S 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I'd been clear enough in the summary. I'll try to be more detailed in the future. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Those edits...

were, to me, unacceptable. I've left a sharp comment; if there are any more issues, keep me updated. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Texas county photo instructions

"Wikipedia requested photographs in Texas" includes subcategories for the county photo reqests. Adding "Category:WikiProject Texas" to Template:Texas county photo instructions is causing the county photo request categories to appear in both "Category:WikiProject Texas" and "Wikipedia requested photographs in Texas". Since "Wikipedia requested photographs in Texas" already appears in "Category:WikiProject Texas", it seems duplicative to include the county photo request categories in both locations. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Didn't notice that, and since the project doesn't have a cat specifically for its templates, I'm fine with removing the project cat. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. If need be, the template still can be located via Category:WikiProject Texas by following the photo request subcategory there. GregManninLB (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It turns out that, if I use <noinclude>xxxx</noinclude>, then the category can be included on the template page without the category being transcluded into downstream pages. GregManninLB (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi, AnmaFinotera. I was just minding my own business and looking at the history for my user page when I saw that it said an anonymous user, vandalized my user page. Did that user really vandalize my user page? Please respond on my talk page when you have time.Kitty53 (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

666 Satan page move

I think just the other day we were conversing this and someone was finally bold enough to request a move to O-Parts Hunter. So, here is the discussion. Maybe you could share your thoughts on what little you know of the subject? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 04:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

U-Drop Inn‎

Maybe you shouldn't flaunt your disregard for 3RR quite as much. -- (talk)

Undoing vandalism, which includes messing up an article format, is exempt from 3RR. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this very discussion makes it clear that my changes are much more than vandalism. If you don't like tha changes I made, discuss them on /Talk, that's the way it is done here. -- (talk)
You didn't make any changes except to take the bullet from the EL (against MOS) and remove the spacer under the claim of "cleaning up." You continue reverting your bad edit despite numerous warnings. This discussion doesn't make it clear that you are doing anything more than low level vandalism and that you believe you can continue ignoring the warnings to stop and will just keep redoing it for no reason. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I did a lot of changes. If your browser does not display the changes sectioned, you should consider getting another one. I myself prefer Firefox, but you might prefer something else.
Your warnings don't apply, because I didn't vandalise. Again, if you don't understand my changes, ask on /Talk or just go elsewhere. You should also seriously AGF. -- (talk)
I am using Firefox, thanks (and that should be obvious as TW only works on Firefox). The only changes shown are those. Nothing else was changed. I AGFed the first four times, when rather than explain what you felt your other edits were, you kept rv saying I just didn't understand them. The diff shows nothing done but those I already noted, both of which were inappropriate. Your edit summaries give absolutely no explanation to counter this, nor do your remarks here. I also gave you ample chance to stop reverting and attempt to state your case in leaving you warnings. You refused and instead continued reverting, hence that IP now being blocked. If you revert again under this IP, it will be blocked as well. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that I am too stupid to know TW. My apologies.
Maybe you want to update to a more recent version? (Or is TW running only with the latest version?) My diff clearly shows a number of sections that were changed. Now, if you don't see what's changed within those sections, that's probably because my changes were small, tiny even. Still no reason to just ignore them.
I'm sorry that my edit comments were short, I just didn't feel like honoring your rude behaviour with a elaborate answer. You were the one reverting without knowing what's even changed ("what did you clean up?").
So AGF and don't fear what you don't understand. -- (talk)
TW is Twinkle and it is always running the latest version. It is what reverted your edits and left you the nice warnings. Your changes were so tiny as to obviously been invisible and pointless, while the visible ones were inappropriate and disruptive. As for rude, you are the one leaving thinly veiled insults in your edit summaries and remarks here. I AGFed, but it has its limits and you crossed it by continuing to revert for no reason. You also have shown, with your remarks here and your continuing to evade a block (and flaunting that you are doing so), which shows you have no actual intention of being a productive contributer to the project. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Sorry. Didn't know that. I'm not fully experienced with Wikipedia.Kitty53 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob. In general, if someone vandalizes Wikipedia, a warning should only be left if it is caught relatively quickly (within a few minutes or hours at most). :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

List of The Bellflower Bunnies episodes

Hi. While this is still going on, I've just made my final touch-ups on the list for a little known French/Canadian children's cartoon called The Bellflower Bunnies. I think I am the only Wikipedian who knows so much, so far, about the show and its original book series material.

I'm also willing to submit this as an FLC in a few days. Tell me what you think of the page, and I'll address concerns soon. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left some remarks on the peer review. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

assessment for Noble House (TV series)

Hi, would you mind doing an assessment for the article Noble House (TV series)? I left a message on the assessment page, but I don't really know what to do next and I kind of don't like waiting. Sorry to bug you. Thanks! LonelyPker (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Done and left at stub. It needs at least two major MOS sections before it can be considered start. I'd recommend looking at both Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs and WP:MOSFILM for ideas on the sort of sections and content a television miniseries article should have (which is a blend of TV and film).AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Great. Thanks a lot! LonelyPker (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:English airdates

Put whatever time they first were aired in English, regardless of where it was (note where it did air obviously). As an example, List of Agent of the Shinigami arc episodes in Bleach and List of Soul Society: The Sneak Entry arc episodes in Bleach show the Bionix airdates rather than the Adult Swim airdates since Bionix aired first. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Texas Atlas

I know for a fact that the Texas Atlas version is missing at least some information, because it omits the author and date of preparation of the text, which is in Section 11 of the NRHP documents. Have you looked at any PDF files of NRHP documents, say in the South Carolina examples? And what you quote from Texas is that they assert they don't modify it in any serious way, implying that they do modify it. So that makes it a different animal. It is no longer the U.S. National Park Service who is the original publisher of both the NRIS database data and the NRHP text document, which Texas takes and mixes together. I am not saying Texas is not a reliable source. You can use it to document the REFNUM and the date added for the site, for example, instead of or in addition to a reference to the NRIS database system that also provides those data. I have not encountered this Texas source before, I don't know of it being cited in any other articles (note, the Texas list of NHLs is very undeveloped, relatively, in wikipedia; i have worked on many other state lists of NHLs but not on Texas). So, it would be helpful if you would get the actual NRHP document. You are not aware of sections and types of information that is often in the NRHP document. I can't promise it will have a ton more useful info for this particular site than is presented in the Texas site, I don't know if there is not so much info in the Texas presentation because they left out good stuff or because there is not any more good stuff in this particular NRHP site's document, I have no perspective to evaluate what Texas does. Okay? doncram (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I did look at some of the SC documents, though they most seemed to be for multi-building places. I also looked at some other documents from the Texas site. The Texas site may be relatively new. It seems to have launched around 2006. It does note that if something appears to be missing data or truncated to report an error. For edits, I know part of it mentions they do not include archeological information to protect the sites. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


I have decided to take a break from these articles for a while, to focus on items closer to home. As such I am leaving them in your capable hands. I will still watch the talk pages, so leave a note if necessary, and I will try to help. Please leave a note on the main article's or lists' talk page if you are planning major changes (such as new mergers). Regards, G.A.S 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright and no problem. I'll work on the character article mergers as soon as my copies of the manga arrive. Beyond that, no major worked planned for awhile other than working on the already noted clean ups of those bad sections (CDs and reception). :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Good luck! It will probably be necessary to assess the articles (other that the main one and the list) for good article potential (or peer "audit" potential), if featured topic status is to be achieved; as action would have to be taken accordingly. G.A.S 20:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, once work is done my plan is Peer Review -> FAC/FLC as appropriate. When all are featured, then go for Featured Topic. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

procedeural question

I really messed up on the AfD's, sorry :(

A question of clarification, I'm sure its somewhere in one of the AfD related pages, but I'd feel better hearing it from an actual admin. Are non-sysops not permitted to close ANY AfD or only AfDs with a delete consensus? Mister Senseless (Speak - Contributions) 21:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins are not allowed to close any AfD if it may be closed as a delete. In general, an AfD should only be closed by a non-admin if there is a very clear consensus for a keep and generally non-admins should stick to closing backlogged AfDs. For more information on non-admin closures, see WP:DPR#NAC (guideline) and Wikipedia:Non-admin closure (excellent essay and instructional guide). AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)