This is an archive of past discussions with User:AnmaFinotera. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The things I noticed that caused me to tag: The MOS needs to be applied to get the sections in order and better formatted. The character section should either be prose or a bulleted list with 1-2 sentences per characters. Summary renamed to Plot or Synopsis (and expanded to cover major plot points from beginning to end). The Origin needs to be renamed to Production. Reception moved above Media. The sections on sakabatō and Hiten Mitsurugi-Ryū seem completely out of place. I'd suggest they be moved to Kenshin's character article. The media section should be ordered chronologically. The novel section needs formatting. Either the movie needs a separate section like the OVAs, or they should all be in the anime section. Right now it looks inconsistent. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
About the Hiten mirsurugi ryu, Kenshin maybe the most famous users but there are some more in the series incluiding his teacher, a filler character and Yahiko imitating it. The sakabato is also used by Yahiko in the end of the manga.Tintor2 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know. However, for the sakabato, at least, its passing to Yahiko is one of the final scenes, so it can go into Kenshin's article with a note on Yahiko's, I'd think. For the Hiten style, I'm not sure. Kenshin is the main user, with his teacher and the filler being only a short time apperances. Yahiko combines it with the Kamiya-style into his own thing, so part of it could also be noted in his article. In either case, both seem very out of place where they are now...not sure how else they could be incorporated into the main....AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, waited to look at that this evening after work ;) It looks like its on the right track. Section formatting is good. The main thing is filling in the real world stuff (creation/concept and reception), and working on sourcing everything in the fictional sections. :-) AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Conception is something that I have been looking for a lot. I couldnt find anything in different interviews of the author and in my country they dont sell the databook of fullmetal. Do you know any user that is related with fullmetal a lot? Thanks (again ^_^.--Tintor2 (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately no. Its been a relatively neglected set of articles of late. May want to ask in the project to see if anyone has the book. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I added some external links of different Naruto Charecters yesterday. And those links were removed and my contribution was marked as vandalism. I am the owner/Admin of that linked site. What should i do to show that i am the owner of that site? And I added those links because there is no proper or bigger image of each characters. Please let me know.
Yes, the links were removed because it is considered spam and linking to copyright violating sites like yours is against Wikipedia policy. The links do not belong and will continue being removed if added to any Wikipedia article as vandalism. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Your GA assessment of Karas
Hi, thank you for assessing Karas (anime). I agree the lack of tertiary sources is major enough to fail the article, but would like you to clarify other points. I think this would help others to improve their anime articles (or get an inkling of what is to be avoided at the least). Please check my comments following your GA Review. Thank you. — [Unsigned comment added by Jappalang (talk • contribs) 17:28, 1 April 2008.]
You write "This user prefers Internet Explorer." Yet you also write that you use Firefox. In my experience, the only people who use Firefox are those who distrust the Active X controls in Internet Explorer. What are your reasons for using both? NBahn (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I use Internet Explorer for most of my net browsing. I prefer IE's features and feel in several areas. I also browse with IE locked down, so Active X and other security issues are not as much of a problem. :P I started editing with FireFox because Twinkle and Friendly do not work with IE and I wanted to use them. Editing on Wikipedia is the main time I have any desire to use tabbed browsing as well, which I find annoying while doing regular surfing, but quite useful for checking sources, doing bulk assessments, etc. At this point, I probably use IE and Firefox about 50/50, and I'm usually using them at the same time with me editing and researching for Wikipedia in IE and doing everything else in IE. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm? Links to both are fine so long as they are useful. It is the link to a fansite that got you warned (twice now). We do not link to fansites. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
whose authority?
Just a question on the Inuyasha synopsis, which i consider to be very missing some introductory fundamental points, which include the act of inuyasha's and Kagome's initial betrayal which sparks the series.
On what grounds do you feel my additions to be vandalism, and on what authority do you have to put a bot up that automatically replaces anyone's changes back to what you want? I don't mean this as an insult, but at first glance, it doesn't seem fair that only you can make changes to an article unless you were given some sort of special priviledge from wikipedia.summguy1 (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who can make changes to an article, obviously. Several regular editors work on that article, as do the occasional random editor. In fact I rarely do much editing to it at all, primarily watching it for vandalism and foolishness. I do not have any kind of bot. Bots only revert vandalism when its blatantly obvious, based on word usage or totally blanking the pages. Your edits were considered vandalism because you continued readding excessive plot detail after it was removed multiple times with the explanation that is was unnecessary, excessive, and badly written. We do not do blow by blow plot summaries, we do actual summaries. The full events between Inuyasha and Kikyo are already more and adequately covered in both of their articles as well as in the more detailed episode and chapter summaries. Perhaps you should take the time to learn more about editing on Wikipedia before making so many incorrect assumptions and before continuing to try to force in unwanted additions. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
As soon as I added the change to the synopsis, I linked back to the article and noticed it wasn't there , immediately right after I added it. I thought at first that my changes weren't saved. after a couple of tries, I went to the history section and noticed they were manually removed. I figure you were monitoring this article and have the original text saved and replaced my additions with it as soon as you saw a change, because in a matter of seconds, my additions were reverted back. If I am incorrect please give a reason how this was done. Also, the additions A made to the synopsis are not "vandalism", and the fact that you call it that is somewhat insulting. Since iSwant to add to the synopsis but my changes are being removed, please advise me how I can do so.summguy1 (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You are very much incorrect as to how it was done. I simply undid your removal. That is a very basic and simple function of Wikipedia. When I notice someone doing what you were doing, namely putting back changes you were already told was inappropriate, I will keep a close eye on that article so such changes can immediately be reverted. Your additions to the synopsis are unwanted, as you were told multiple times. They will continue to be removed if you continue trying to bloat the main article. As noted above, detailed plot summaries are already covered in other pages of the article. In the main article, we only have a brief summary of the series not a blow-by-blow summary. This is in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Also, before leaving comments in a discussion you have no clue about, such as you did here, perhaps you should bother yourself to actually learn more about Wikipedia policies. Despite that person's question, a very detailed message had already been left on his talk page explaining that under no circumstances are links to websites that violate copyrights appropriate additions to an article. He just doesn't want to comply because he thinks its okay to spam articles with links to his website. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
he did not realize it, and you felt you had the right to remove someone's changes without giving a reason. Again, somewhat insulting. Regardless, my changes are not vandalism, and you have given no reason why you feel that they are. Please do so, or please permit me to add to the synopsis.summguy1 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Then read my reply again, because I have already explained why your changes were called vandalism. You continued putting them back after they were removed with an explanation as to why they were not appropriate. And no, your addition to the synopsis will not be permitted. It violates our MOS and WP:PLOT, is excessive, and detracts from the quality of the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you think this article is yours and all contirbutions must be approved by you first, regardless of the rules. Quoting the rules today in this talk section doesn't justify your removal yesterday of a contribution with the reason "vandalism" when A. it's not and B. That's not the reason why you removed my contribution (and you don't even address the additions I made in accordance to the rules you quote, which BTW I firmly disagree on. my additions do not violate the Wiki rule you quoted, but I don't wish to get in a rule debate with you on this page). Your edits either discourage those who wish to actually contirbute real content or otherwise instigate more vandalism. While i don't care much whether my own contributions are added or not, when I see an article commandeered and controlled by an individual, it leads me to suspect that wikipedia isn't as free as i thought. summguy1 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Your contribution was only called vandalism when you continued doing it after being told not to. At that point, yes, it is vandalism. I do not think the article is mine at all, however contributions to Wikipedia are monitored and must comply with our policies and guidelines. At the bottom of every edit box is the statement "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." and this is very true. Wikipedia is not free as in "you can do whatever you want." Yes, anyone can edit, but you are not alone and other editors may change your edits to fix issues or remove them if they are not appropriate for the article. That is part of being a Wikipedia editor. Excessive plot details is not "real content." Our focus is not on the minute fictional details but on the real world aspects of the series. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify why i initially posted this, the inuyasha synopsis currently does not mention the initial betrayal or inuyasha and kagome. It is not mentioed later in the plot section. How inuyasha and Kagome initially fall in love and their betrayal of each other. This gives the reason why Kagome seals inuyasha to the tree. My contribution was adding this part to the initial synopsis. It is part of the key plot of inuyasha and i believe it is necessary to understand what inuyasha is doing pinned to the tree at episode 1. When i added this contirbution, it was immediately removed by AnmaFinotera, and i recieved a message after trying to add it four times that my contribution was vandalism and that i was on warning.summguy1 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't need it. That is what the episode, chapter, and character articles are for. It is not critical to understanding every last aspect of the earlier events to understand the series. Also, Kagome didn't seal Inuyasha to the tree, Kikyo did. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your correction. As for your edits, I don't wish to get into an edit war with you, and this will be my final post. one might argue that your removal of my contribution is the real vandalism here. I could make a bot that would continually try to add my contribution indicating that you are committing the vandalism, and you could do the same to remove mine, but that wouldn't get us anywhere, and i don't care enough. After all, this is Inuyasha, we're talking about, and I have a full-time job and don't have the time to spend bickering with you on the validity of a contribution to an anime article on wikipedia. Clearly this is more important to you than me. I hope you find some sort of satisfaction in it. summguy1 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you couldn't. Bots have to be approved by an administrator to run on Wikipedia. An attempt to use an illegal bot would result in permanent blocking from editing. As for the rest...it isn't really needed remarks. I also have a full-time job, so what? And yes, I take a great deal of pride in working Wikipedia, and I'm satisfied when my efforts pay off. I enjoy working on articles and work hard to bring articles up to high standards. I rejoice when several articles I worked on reached featured status and I hate to see low quality articles suffering from neglect. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Civility
This edit summary is totally and completely inappropriate. You are not allowed to disregard Wikipedia's policies just because you have an opinion; a lot of people have worked hard on that article, and you have just slapped them all in the face open-handed. Are there problems? Absolutely. But there are countless ways to point out those problems without making this whole project emotionally painful for others to participate in. Show some basic respect. --Masamage♫21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Shrug. It may not be worded the most politely it could be, but isn't totally and completely inappropriate. It is not a B class article in any way shape or form. Similar articles have been AfDed from other series, showing it is inappropriate and useless.Sorry if I get frustrated with people running around giving their article B ratings when they aren't, which to me is disrespectful to the project and to those who actually work to create B class articles.
As for your note on the project talk page: "Meanwhile, I suspect that if you, AnmaFinotera, put half the energy into actually editing these articles that you do into aggressively insulting them we might make some real progress."
I'm sorry, but my experiences with the project so far have made me a bit bitter and disillusioned to the idea. I doubt attempts to really clean up the articles would actually be allowed, considered the fight from the project to actually argue that fansites and sites distributing illegal downloads are reliable sources and perfectly fine to link to. I honestly don't believe the project should even be allowed to exist, and if there were a process to do so, I'd recommend it be forced to be dismantled and, at best, made a work group under the Anime and Manga project. But that won't happen, anymore than it will happen with the Gundam project. I've yet to see any sign that the project is making any real attempt at making Sailor Moon articles good articles that follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, rather than what it is now: a fancruft filled set of articles of little encyclopedic value. So I, instead, will concentrate on working on those articles where clean up can be done and the potential to take the articles to FA and FL quality exists, such as Tokyo Mew Mew. It had quite a few of the same issues as the Sailor Moon articles and the clean up is taking a lot of work and time, but its worth it, to me. Fortunately, most of the editors involved support the work as they realize it is necessary to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I look forward to it being a featured topic one day. I put a ton of energy editing articles, ridiculous amounts really along with time. I've learned not to waste my time on some though. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You are 100% wrong about the project resisting change. We have restarted these articles time and again to try to be better, but every time we get through about five of them the guidelines change again, so we have to start over, and meanwhile the ones we never had time to get to just lag behind. This is unfortunate, but it's also a completely normal process of events, and it has nothing to do with people being insane, stupid, or whiny. Your assertion that we're unbending or clingy about this stuff is downright insulting. I have personally rewritten some of these articles from scratch as many as three times. I have thrown away old sections (many that I wrote) that didn't fit. I have spent hours finding images and then deleting them because of tightened fair-use rules.
I'm not some kind of rebel, and neither are the other editors; you have no right to saunter in at the eleventh hour and declare that everything was stupid until you showed up. It's just bloody hard to keep track of this many articles. That's why it needed a project, and the improved organization has helped immeasurably. Here is the "Ami Mizuno" article before the WikiProject was formed. If you don't think there's been improvement, hard work, and drawing-closer to the guidelines, then I do not know how to communicate with you. (You might also find it educational to look at the others from that era. They're absolutely nothing alike--except that they all talked about yuri fanfiction and were mostly lists. Oh, and every single minor villain used to have their own article. Also many of the items.) The fact that it's called a WikiProject and not a Work Group is pure technicality, because it was founded before work groups existed. We certainly look to WP:ANIME for overarching guidelines and goals; the name is kept purely out of a sense of identity.
Your experiences have been unfortunate, but you're just one person, you haven't been paying attention to us very long, and you've let your treatment by a small handful of our members mutate your entire perspective on what's going on. Back off a little and try to remember we're all after the same goals here. --Masamage♫03:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
"try to remember we're all after the same goals here" hmmm...perhaps you should tell the rest of your members that. I have seen all of 2, maybe 3, so far who actually seem to believe what you state: that the group is still under the Anime and Manga project and should follow the AM MOS, and one of those is you. Let's look at Sailor Moon (English adaptations), since that was one that caused this discussion. It is extremely NPOV, with very little in the way of reliable sourcing. What sources exist are mostly fansites. The EL section has inappropriate links, including COPYVIO violations. I tagged the article for having original research, being non-neutral, and to question its notability. The notability tag was removed rather quickly, despite the fact that two other such pages for series that had the same adaptation issues (Tokyo Mew Mew and Cardcaptor Sakura) were deleted in AfDs not so long ago. The reason for removing "This article is pretty notable, judging on the fact that the English adaption is well remembered for being twisted so much." which has nothing to with notability on Wikipedia at all, and gives undo and unfair focus on the issue. Would you say such an article is an appropriate thing for the Sailor Moon pages?
Am I to believe it is really necessary to have FIVE story arc articles (story arcs which are not declared within the main series), in addition to an episode list, instead of just having a nice, normal episode list with good summaries? Worse yet, the episode list actually has a fansub as a reference as well as a glut of unnecessary external links??? Are efforts being made to fix those up as well so the series has a more proper episode list, or is the current one considered okay? I don't see any discussions in the project on fixing up anything. Recent discussions include arguing against the copyvio issue I brought up, trying to figure out how to add OR regarding Usagi's name changes, noting the official website was changed, and of course the template issue. When notice was posted about the updates to FICT, I see no discussion on how to bring pages into compliance at all. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Dunno why.....
.....but it seems as though user:Hazelcake may -- just may -- be inching towards an edit war with you on the Fruits Basket article page.
i dont know how to use talk or whateve you might call this bit atm, so bear with me if this is written wrong or something basically i would like to mention about the fruits basket thing, that there definately IS one reference to the baseball cap in the anime. I have watched this series hundreds and hundreds of times and im completely sure that its in there somewhere. To find you the exact episode would take me an extremely long time ¬¬ i will find it if you really do need it, but i dont see why you cant just accept that its in there? >< im not trying to be rude or anything but its kinda annoying me ^__^; i forgot to sign in so this isnt posted under my user, sorry -hazelcake 90.206.192.39 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Because I have also seen the series multiple times, and I don't remember any reference to the baseball cap. Wikipedia requires things be verified. Since you are making the claim, it is up to you support that claim by giving the exact episode where this single reference occurs. You may want to read the Wikipedia tutorial. Here is the page regarding how to use talk pages: Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages)AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Mew Mew-related
The Chimera Anima seemed to be too major for the show to be merged...especially with there being a whole lot of them that won't fit on the character page. If you'd like, you can contribute seperate articles to this Wikia: http://tokyomewmewpower.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page It's in need of articles. Rtkat3 (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't too major to be merged, or it won't be once appropriately cleaned up. Such level of fan detail can go in that wikia, if you want to transwiki it before the merge. And thanks, but no, I have no desire to work on such wikias. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Reference Library request
Could I please trouble you to look up your copy of "The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917" for Sailor Moon-related information? -Malkinann (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. :) Please don't feel like I'm rushing you, or that it has to be done right this minute - just whenever you've got some time to spare on it. -Malkinann (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries :) Meanwhile, if you have access to a copy, I'd highly recommend checking out "Anime explosion!: the what? why? & wow! of Japanese animation." As I recall, it has a whole chapter on Sailor Moon. My local library carries it so I can get it if you don't. I got a ton of great production info from it for The Vision of Escaflowne and need to get it back to finish the film anyway. ;) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ohh, really?? Awesome!!! :D Unfortunately, I can't get my hands on a copy, (and it doesn't seem to be in the WP:ANIME reference library...) but thanks for the heads-up and offer. :) -Malkinann (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, it has nearly a page worth of stuff, including the start as Codename Sailor V, commentary on the various seasons through Stars with summaries and some ratings and reception info. It also mentions teh movies, and comments on the failure of the English dub. I can scan both pages and save as a PDF, if you want, so you can through as I suspect it would be useful in several articles as there is also some character commentary. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Got it, thanks heaps!! :D Would I cite it like this using cite book? Are there any chapter titles? Is that a full enough citation? Clements, Jonathan (2001). The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917 (first edition ed.). Stone Bridge Press. pp. 337–338. ISBN1880656647. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) -Malkinann (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, no real chapter titles beyond front and back matter. Slightly tweaked version I used to cite it: Clements, Jonathan (2001-09-01). The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917 (1st ed. ed.). Berkeley, California: Stone Bridge Press. pp. pp. 337-338. ISBN1-880656-64-7. OCLC47255331. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
I noticed that you removed the WikiProject TV tag from the film article's talk page. I think it was there because it was a TV movie. Is there a different reason why the tag shouldn't be included? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Woops. I think I did it confusing it with the other Carrie movie, then forgot to put it back after realizing it was a failed TV pilot. I've put it back now. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say that it is only appropriate to use the {{reflist}} template only if there is more than 10 references? -Mike Payne (T • C) 01:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I see where it says to use the reflist template if there is more than 10 because some aditors like smaller fonts for refereces, but I don't see it saying anywhere to not user reflist otherwise. The references are not as important as the rest of the article and should hence be displayed smaller. -Mike Payne (T • C) 02:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The references are just as important as the rest of the article as it VERIFIES what's there. Verifiability is one of the core components and missions of Wikipedia. If tiny fonts should be the norm, references would look like reflist. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Being a resident of College Station, Texas I was outraged at the simply wrong reports given. I originally changed the cinema closing date in the first place because the given reference did not mention a theater at all. It gives vague closing dates and I can gather better proofs through photos (Post Oak Mall had a 20th anniversary display last year) and other mentions. Most of the items are merely reworded though the post summary was inappropriate. The only reason why I can't just whip out some references right now because I am in Florida attending a funeral. Once I return next week, I will give the article a new rewrite and better references. TheListUpdater (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm also a resident, and all of the references are more than reliable and confirm exactly what is written. The article does not need a rewrite. If you have new information or have reliable sources that conflict with what is written then post them to the article's talk page for discussion. Your "knowing" is not a reliable source per Wikipedia policy, and the company that owns the mall saying X was there and the writings of the Brazos Historical Society are certainly considered far more trusthworthy than one person's memory. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I could have sworn I answered this. If those the change was to the original Japanese air dates, that's fine, however a better source needs to be found for that (John Norris Brown's website is not a reliable source. As the person who changed them left no edit summary to explain their changes, I reverted and questioned. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason I added info about the French dub was because it's just as relevent as the English version since DIC was originally a French company. In any case, I put back the "Other Languages" section because I felt that was "important". Also I clicked on the German and Spanish links, but those articles are non-existant in their respective Wikipedias, so I removed them. Brittany Ka (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Dic may have been originally a French company, but unless the series was originally in French, this is the English Wikipedia. As such, we generally only mention the original language and the English translation. Additionally, when we do mention such things, we ONLY mention in terms of "the series was also broadcast in X, Y, Z" and it must be sourced. We don't just give a list of the title in other languages. As your addition is completely unsourced and is nothing but a trivia list without context, I have removed it again. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Advice
Just as a tip, it's usually a good idea to inform people when you start an ANI thread about them. I recommend placing a brief courtesy note at Kei-clone's talkpage with a link to the disussion. That lets him participate, plus it might also be a nudge for him to fix things himself. :) --Elonka13:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I would've thought that NFimageoveruse is more accurate and easier to understand than {{non-free}}? BKNFCC15:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In this case, no. {{NFimageoveruse}}, besides being harsh, says there are too many images, period. {{non-free}} says there may be too many and is just a little friendlier. We're still working on it, after cutting it down from 15-20. {{nonfree}} also seems to be more the standard one to use. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but 5 is a sequel to the original Medabots[2], which is the one related to the anime (though not sure if one is based on the other or not). There are two other manga sequels to the original 5, plus a spinoff. The anime also has a sequel that probably should be mentioned. Its rather confusing, as a whole :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Medarot Damashii, which has 39 eps. It looks to be a straight continuation, so should be able to just go in the main Medabots article with an infobox and section. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that's true. I always viewed it as an alternate reality or something like that. Also, you might want to add the english translation, Medabots Spirit. RC-0722247.5/118:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait, so its a game, not a character? If so, ax from the character section and add appropriate info on the game (platform, type of game, who made, release date(s)) to the video game section. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Question, should we be allowed to use Gamespot as a source? The reason I ask is because it is user maintained (much like WP) and according to WP:REF, we aren't allowed to use user maintained places as sources. RC-0722247.5/115:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the part. The Gamespot editor reviews are usable as a source, and I believe the basic game information pages as those parts are not user-maintained. The user maintained aspects should not be used. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Reassessment for class? It is still start class, though much better than it was before. Remember, start is a very broad class, so it encompasses a great range of articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool...I've removed the OR tag as well, since I think that's all gone. I'll try to help out with the last bit of format clean up this week, but for tonight, gonna work on my neglected manga reviews for my own site :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, it should be 52 (and the infobox fixed). I just looked at the infobox when writing that part, didn't think to check, doh. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Just since I'll be inconsistently on the Internet for the next few days (as I'm visiting Princeton and Columbia), could you keep tabs on this user? I deleted an image on his/her talk page that was blatant advertising for an anti-lolicon group, and then ironically found this post, which I reverted also. If this continues, leave messages on his/her talk page, and take to ANI if it persists. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR(Converse)09:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
For your patience and cool-headed nature in the conflict surrounding MyAnimeList and a certain Otaku. Keep up the good work! swaq16:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Comics are not the only thing scanned. Gaming manuals, box artwork and magazines are also scanned. This article was discussing the act of Debinding. Since I have written a detailed article on my Wiki about how to properly debind a perfect bound magazine...I believed it was relevent to the discussion on this wiki page. While I could care less about you removing it, placing a vandalism tag on it is a bit of a stretch. Go Google "Debinding Comics" or "Debinding Magazines" and you will see that my site is at the top of both of those pages....even beating out Wikipedia.
While running a wiki myself I realize the nature of link spam, inserting an on topic link to enrich a wiki article is really not link spam. I will not argue the point any further, but in the future you may just want to remove the link and not cite it as vandalism. I was only trying to add value to the wiki page in question, while it does serve me in adding slight traffic to my site, it does not change the fact that it was on topic and hardly vandalism. -Phillyman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.97.90 (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You added a link to your site that did not meet WP:EL and does not enrich the article in anyway. It is pure self-promotion, hence spam. If you want links to your site added, as it is your site, you should never add it yourself, but suggest it on the talk page and allow neutral parties to judge the site.AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, not that I can think of. Per WP:NONFREE, the article should not have a lot of images unless its to illustrate something critical to understanding the work. The one added to the plot, for example, would probably have to be removed before a GA or FA attempt. Later, when the sections are expanded and the lists in place, the cover of the first manga volume and a cover of one of the DVD releases would be good. If a cover of the original computer game could be found, that would be awesome. If not, the second game would also be good. I also need to remember to check the second edition of my encyc, because I'm wondering if that 1977 date is a typo in my current one and if Medarot: Kuwagata Version is the game it was speaking of. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll look into, but there's no guarantees. BTW, that one in the plot is kinda critical, as it gives readers a visual of what a medabot is. RC-0722247.5/101:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That isn't actually considered critical, depending on who is looking, similarly to many plot sections not having images of unique characters and creatures of the series. It may seem odd, I know, but that's usually been the case when I seen it coming up to GA and FA. For now, its fine. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I don't own the manga, but I should be able to pick up up soon, so I'll use that to source the plot issues. Once that is out of the way, is it worth making a shot a GA, or should I work on other areas more? I think the reception is better than most of the character articles, but the rest isn't so clear. - Bilby (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd work on tightening up the plot sections first, and making sure the creation/concept and reception sections are as comprehensive as possible. Belldandy is one of the biggest anime characters in the English speaking world, with lots written about her and the dynamic of "she's a slave" versus "she's a perfect woman." While the current section is nicely filled, I'd suspect some more might be available in other sources as well. Maybe search Lexis Nexus (if you have access) or a similar journal DB, and search Google Books to be sure all relevant book references have been found. Also, I'd probably get it copyedited to take care of any problems with prose flow, grammar, spelling, et al. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Plot was some of what I'd inherited with the article, but I'll see what I can do there. As a general rule, do you prefer original sources for plot, or secondary sources? I tend to prefer primary sources academically, but Wikipedia seems weighted the other way. I've been through Google Books and most of the databases, but while she's heavily discussed outside of academia, like most of anime/manga the academic discussion isn't as good as I would like (with Perper and Newitz as the two best counter-examples, each having devoted a lot of time to her). I may focus more on the non-academic sources, then - hopefully something else will turn up. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
For the plot sections, the primary sources are sufficient. For the rest, it needs to be secondary sources, with supplementation, as appropriate, from materials from the author, production company, and novels/manga/anime releases. Yeah, when doing your own research, primary sources are often good because you are doing your own synthesis. With Wikipedia, since original research is a bad thing, editors primarily report/summarize the work of others. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll annoy you with one last question, then, as you seem to be a great source of advice. :) Manga or anime? I have the TV series somewhere or other, but given my work I don't generally reference anything other than papers and the very occasional books. I'll probably end up picking up the manga, though, so if that's a better source I'll hold out. Technically I could reference everything from both, but that might seem a tad like overkill. - Bilby (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, both is partially right. :P The manga, being the primary work, should be used for most of the sourcing and doesn't need to be backed up by the anime. However, where there are differences between the manga and the anime, or where the anime may expound on something the manga didn't, those should also be noted as appropriate with citations from the anime. You can see some of how that works in List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters in the sections on Pie, Tart, and Deep Blue if that helps illustrate what I mean. :)AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks muchly. :) On the plus side, this gives me an excellent excuse to watch the series again, while still justifying purchasing the manga. That looks suspiciously win-win to me. I'll try and leave you be again, but thanks heaps for the advice. - Bilby (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to let you know I went ahead and ordered a copy of Anime explosion!, the other book I told you about. When I get it (should be within a few days), I can scan in the pages on Sailor Moon for you if you haven't been able to get a hold of it yet. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I can do some quick MOS formatting. I've got too long a back log for doing much work on it myself right now, though I'm happy to answer questions and provide guidance. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, it seems so empty now. Thanks for the help. I'll have to re-write some sections. I am interested to know which policy explicitly states the associated soundtrack doesn't belong in the article though, because I've seen a boat load of anime articles that include such information. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, a lot have them because so many articles need cleaning. Its been 2 years since we've had an FA :(, though working on some possibles myself now. We have had some GAs though, and you won't find the lists in those. It isn't a policy, but an editing guideline and part of the MOS. It was agreed upon in multiple projects (TV, Film, Anime/Manga, Music) several months ago that soundtrack listings should only be in an article about a specific CD. I believe they are actually debating whether to even have them there, though don't know how that one ended as I never work on CD articles so didn't keep up with it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
They are still there. I reformatted the character list in keeping with the MOS, which puts the voice actors at the end of each character description and utilizes the anime voices template :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Good question! I've been trying to find a list for the Ep/Char redirects to make sure each had a show name and couldn't find a single list. Not sure where to even begin looking for an answer.AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:Chapter list, ANN remover
For the chapter list, listing the chapters, cutting down the plot summary, and removing the kanzenban section would be the items that immediately come to mind. The latter item is since the table for the extra volumes looks really sparse, and might be better represented by simply a sentence in the lead. For the ANN remover, I'll try to keep tabs on him as much as I can. His stance is pretty arbitrary on the matter and it's clear he has zero experience in the matter. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking the same on the kanzenban section. I'd list the chapters, but either they were unnamed or Tokyopop removed the divisions in their printing, so I'm not sure how many are in each volume and not sure how I can find out. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yay, found the break down of chapters by volume and have added it to the list, along with the cover characters to balance out the table. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I really dislike when this tool is used in reverting edits that are not vandalism. You may want to use soft revert in the future. :) -- Catchi? 02:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Spotted your support of the FLRC for this, so wondered if you'd review the article which has been polished and taken to FLC once more. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think most, if not all, of your concerns have been addressed. Would you mind revisiting the article and, if possible, hiding your comments which have been dealt with since the FLC is looking a little bloated already! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Erk... I can't work out what the outstanding issues are either. Can you do some hiding or striking? Ta! --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You were probably otherwise engaged, you said you'd add some notes yesterday. Is there anything else outstanding or would you be prepared to supports it's reselection as a featured list? Thanks again for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well not a problem, I'm sorry to hear you're not feeling well. I've moved the links to a See also (from the lead) and moved the full stop. As for the selection of only one player, well I guess it's similar to the selection of six or nine... It's entirely up to Wisden. I suppose the individuals were pretty significant, like W.G. Grace who effectively created cricket, like Wisden who created the alamanack. I'm not sure anything beyond some WP:OR will definitively explain the ideas of the Wisden editors... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Feel pretty ropey myself today, perhaps I've got wiki-flu! Sorry to sound like a broken record but have Dweller and I (and others) done enough now to obtain your support or are there any other issues we need to deal with? All the best, hope you're feeling better! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, due to the block below, I can't come update my comments until tomorrow. I think everything was addressed except the slight awkwardness of the lead. Wee you able to find a copyeditor to give it a quick going over? Since that's the only real prose, I think someone could hit it pretty fast. There is a list of copyeditors at WP:1FAPQ#Project resources who are willing to help on FA/FL stuff. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
unblock|Yes, I realize that and acknowledged it in my report. I'd honestly lost count until I did the report and stopped to look at the history, since I'd also been doing other edits to the page inbetween the reverts. I can understand the block, since I should "know better" however I feel 24 hours is too long, since its the same given to JTMcDonald who was also vandalizing the article in removing clean up templates with no reason, and who continued his actions when another editor also twice reverted his reglutting of the article. I did attempt to open discussion with him, but he completely and blatantly ignored all such attempts, as well as the other attempts, and just continued. This is far worse to me, than my own regrettable losing count and going over while trying to clean up an advertising sounding article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
3RR doesn't really care who is in the right in a case since the violation is simply to do with behaviour and disruption. I'm glad to see that you accept that you went to far but I generally feel that words like vandalism are used too freely and without sufficient regard to what vandalism actually is. The missing element from the request is an undertaking not to edit the article in question for the remainder of the block and a promise not to break the 3RR again. SpartazHumbug!18:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I won't be editing the article again for awhile. I mostly just wanted to clean out most of the advert reading stuff as no one else was addressing the issue and I don't think anyone else is really doing anything on the article at all. It needs sourcing and stuff, but I'm not going to bother with that as I have some other stuff to edit, like the lists I'm trying to get ready for FLC. I will continue working on not breaking 3RR when dealing with such issues (and I have gotten better about breaking off than I used to be). This time I really did just totally lose count until I went to leave the warning for him, and I fully accept I should not have reverted after that. I can't promise I will absolutely never break 3RR again, though, because I don't believe in making a promise that I am not 100% sure I can keep. I can only promise to work hard not to break it, and to be more careful in the future. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
I don't think you should be counting reverts at all. Better to be using the talk page and discussing but I think there are sufficient undertakings to allow us to reduce this one to time served
Thanks! Hopefully when his block expires JTMcDonald will respond to the requests to discuss the issue, but if not I'll let someone else deal with it. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Same old broken tunes..
Hi AnmaFinotera. I've tried to rework the Wisden lead a little but your suggestion for improvement is a little too nebulous for me I'm afraid! I hope it's a little better but I'm now at a loss as to what you find wrong with it. I guess if you can't isolate more specifically the remaining problems then they'll just have to stay and you'll have to withold your support. Thanks for you time and effort. I'm sure regardless of the result of the FLC, the list is in a much better state than it was when it was delisted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've made some suggestions in the article. I generally try to avoid doing it because my grammar isn't the best either, but hopefully it at least shows what parts I found awkward. Feel free to change if it doesn't read well to you, and to fix any mistakes I may have made with British English. AnmaFinotera (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've left most of it as you did but I did reinsert the clause explaining the players who had an impact on not just English cricket. The way you'd re-written it implied that non-English players had not been eligible before 2000. They were, but the point was they had to have had an impact on the English season the year before. I hope that's tidied it up! Are we done (phew?)!?! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The character section needs some clean up. We don't generally divide by manga/anime only, but mention that in the text. The list also seems a bit long considering the almost insane number of see also links in the section. However, I suspect that may be a larger issue do to the horrible state of the character lists (and lack of a real main List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters, so there may not be a lot you can do. Other than that, the anime section in media needs some clean up. DVD releases should be a basic table with only the original Japanese and any English language DVD release dates. I personally find it works better to have the table with details on the episode list and a prose summary in the main, but that's totally a personal preference. The opening and ending theme section, however, also needs clean up. The basics of theme music goes in the episode list, with the soundtracks and other image music needing to be converted to prose and put in a single CDs section. Novels and Drama CDs also need reformatting. For the novels, you can use {{Graphic novel list}} (take a look at Blood+ to see how to deal with the volume titles) to give it a cleaner look. Wee! :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
How should CD Drama be formatted? Is there an article you recommend me to use as example for the CD dramas?Tintor2 (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Usually its done as prose unless there are a lot of them. With only two, a paragraph for each would be good, just mentioning title, who released and when, summary (if available), etc. I can't think of any good examples, right now. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...none appear to be notable enough to pass WP:MUSIC, so I'd merge in the three that currently have articles (sans the opinion and track listings), add some sourcing, and convert to prose with the image CDs in a single section. See Blood+, Wolf's Rain, and The Vision of Escaflowne for some examples of articles where there was done. Depending on how long the section ends up being, one or two of the CD covers can be included in the section.AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
CDs and images
Done. I still need to ref the cds. However, those soundtracks can be taken to AFD without problems. Now I ll see the CD Dramas.Tintor2 (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Awesome, you're making great progress! For the CDs, if you can't find anything else, CDJapan usually is acceptable alternative for referencing. :) Oh, one thing I did notice: don't forget to keep the date formats consistent. Americanized dates month d, yyyy seem to have been the first used in the article, so that should be used consistently through out instead of missing americanized and international (d mmmmyyyy). AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
From my understanding, composite images made of non-free images tend to be frowned on, so it would be better to have it as two separate images. Then double image can be used to put side by side.AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, because its a composite, it is considered to be two images. In this case, the image illustrates an important point about the English version so no worries about it (or them) being removed. Five is a bit much, but I think it is fine for now. If/when a character list is made, then that image can go, but otherwise should be good. Could also replace the image in the infobox with the cover from the manga, which would be more fitting since its the original format. That has both main chacaters, so the image in the character section would no longer be needed. :)AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Done (I had to make like 4 four edits, he he). I have no idea what are those cds drama about but I got info in this official japanese site. Could you tell me what it says or if its a complicate japanese tell me what user is skilled in japanese? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I wish I could tell you want it says, but alas my Japanese reading is limited to running through Babelfish :P For someone skilled in Japanese, hmmm...I can't think of anyone (and wish I could). We really should put together a list in the project, but for now, maybe post in the project, or browser Category:User ja-3, Category:User ja-4, or Category:User ja-5 to see if someone in there would be willing to help. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Manga chapters and light novels
I tried to add to the infobox the list of manga chapters but it seems it has a problem. Could you check it?Tintor2 (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Will do. Is any other information about the novels available, maybe enough to write a whole paragaph like with the manga and novel section? AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The introduction of the novels. Right now its just two sentences with no sources. Take a look at Blood+'s novel section to see what sort of stuff I mean. Once that is filled out some more with sources, then it might be good to consider a List of Fullmetal Alchemist light novels or List of Fullmetal Alchemist novels, depending on whether they are light novels or regular ones. That would give spaces for novel summaries to be added, while also helping reduce the size of the main article a little bit. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Light novels are published in smaller format (pocket size really), and are illustrated, usually with color and black-and-white images. When they are released here, the color images are usually stripped to save costs (though Seven Seas is promising to keep them and has done so with Ballad of the Shinigami). They also tend to be written in simplier language to be a faster read and for a greater range of audience ages than regular ones (well, except Ai no Kusabi which has got to use the most overly wordy convoluted language ever :P). AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I wouldnt be able to know that since in my country they dont publish fullmetal due to economical problems (Argentina).Tintor2 (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, no prob. I'll see if I can find one, though I suspect they probably are since most novels tied to anime and/or manga series are. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There is something I have been wondering, is it okay to use Ed and Al (instead of edward and alphonse) in the wikipedia? I see it kind of inappropiate.Tintor2 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...I think I'd use the full names except when dealing with direct quotes. While they do use Ed and Al, especially among themselves, as short forms, Edward and Alphonse are their full names. I would note in the respective character descriptions, though, that they are often called "Ed" and "Al" respectively. BTW, total side note, but I noticed you'd stated adding some of the refs from the manga and episodes (yay!). One thing I have noticed in GAs and FAs, though, is they are wanting page numbers for manga references rather than just the volumes. If you can add those, it would be great. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I saw you put some in already. Don't forget to put p. or pp. in front of the page numbers (p. for single page, pp. for multiples). ;) Good luck with it! I know doing those individual volume references can be a rather draining part of working on an article.AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably not quite yet, since the rest of it isn't too long. Once someone starts adding novel summaries, then it will need probably need to move off to a list. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Copyediting, per request.
I'm going to do some editing of the eight detailed sections of the article, but you really need to think about some big picture issues here:
(1) It's not clear to me that it's appropriate to separate List of Marmalade Boy chapters from the main article, Marmalade Boy. Combined, the article would be lengthy, but it wouldn't exceed the length of a lot of FAs.
(2) I don't understand the title at all. To me, a "chapter" would be what appeared in a single issue of Ribon Magazine, just as many of the novels of Charles Dickens were serialized by being printed, one chapter at a time, in English magazines of his time. What you've done is summarize the volumes. So a better title would be List of Marmalade Boy volumes, or even better - because when we talk about "lists", in Wikipedia, we normally mean bulleted items or - at its most complicated - wikitables, not sets of narratives - call it simply Marmalade Boy volumes. In short, a book (or volume, or tankōbon) consists of a bunch of chapters. (And, even more confusingly, you use "volume", in the lead section, when describing the six-volume set, but the article is about eight things - volumes, books, whatever). -- John Broughton(♫♫)22:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. For the first, it is appropriate and called for in the Anime and Manga MOS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)). We generally split out a chapter list for manga with this many volumes with summaries. For the name, I have to admit that I also wonder about that. However List of X chapters is the standard name used by the project, and the article is using the standard format for a chapter list. See List of Naruto chapters (Part I) for our most recent FL of chapters. This particular one is missing the list of chapters in large part because Tokyopop doesn't make it clear in the English editions how many are in each volume. I hope that helps answers your questions some?AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You've clarified somewhat, except that the example you gave - List of Naruto chapters (Part I) - actually does list the chapters, making the title appropriate both because the article is much more of a list, and because there are (how can I say, this?) chapters listed. If your article in fact listed chapters, then I'd have no problem with the title. But I don't see how you can follow the standard naming convention when you're not following the standard format for the contents of the article (list). If the contents are non-standard, then why not use a (non-standard) title that actually matches the content. Or (and I know this is difficult), why not use the chapter information from either the original magazine publication or the Japanese eight-volume set to figure out the chapters that are in each of the eight parts. We are talking about comics here, yes? So it's quite possible to figure out, looking just at pictures, what is included in what volume, yes? -- John Broughton(♫♫)
I'm actually working on that now :) Looking at the original to determined what chapters are in which volume. :) I'm glad Tokyopop has mostly stopped ignoring those breaks though! LOL AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) I'm glad I was finally able to find the list (though after finding it, I relooked at the volumes and could then clearly see the chapter divisions though they were unnumbered) :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I saw the issue you had yesterday, so I understand why you didn't get back to this. I would appreciate it greatly if you could reply to my replies so I can understand better how you would like the third point addressed. Thank you, -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@05:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Shamrock, Texas
I have temporarily reverted your removal of this content. Please, unless you have a good reason, do not remove information or text from an articles talk page. If I have made a mistake, please let me know on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing. Dustitalk to me18:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This IP has a history of vandalizing the article to turn it into an attack piece. He finally left the article alone, but continues attacking the city in the talk page at random. I felt it best to remove the entire vitrol laiden mess to an archive rather than continue to allow it to sit in the main talk page where it is likely to scare of most editors and feed the issue. I removed the newest comment, along with another, as they had nothing to do with the topic at all. This is allowed under WP:TALK, however it can also just be moved to the archive. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It just came off a month long protection. As soon as it was lifted, the comments started again. :( I may ask for permanent semi-protection, but as he's so far sticking to the talk page, not sure if it would be granted. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I went ahead and put in a new RPP request, noting its previous protection status and that the anon just waited until it was lifted to begin again. Blocking won't work with him because he's always changing IPs, so hopefully protecting the article itself on a longer term, to indefinite, will take care of it and maybe with that, and the stuff off the talk page, others will feel more comfortable coming in to do good edits. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason the bot didn't archive some of the threads is that the final response was within the last 60 days, and it bases its archiving on that rather than on the time of the original post in the thread. That's also caused it to be archiving the threads out of order. I still think manual archiving is the best option, and I'm still willing to do it myself as I had been for a couple of years - if you're okay with turning the bot off. Dekimasuよ!04:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the bot to use a thirty day trigger. That should take care of it. It doesn't really archive "out of order" as it puts them in the order of last response rather than first post, and since the talk headers now have plain archive links, trying to list by date would require duplicate links. AnmaFinotera (talk)!
Editing Trinity Blood Characters
I don't know if you remember me from before, but I was the guy who was helping you complete the Trinity Blood Character Article. I just think that Antonio should be re-added to the characters section because his suggestion launched many of the problems during the Ibilis story in the novel. (Having the Inquisition go to Carthage made a big difference in the mess in Carthage) He also appears in some of Thores Shibamoto's original illustrations for the novels, implying a more involved role in the future of the novels.
In case you have a difference of opinion, I also wanted to mention that Susan von Scorzeny does not appear to have any relavancy at this point, and it might be a good idea to incorporate her information into Sister Kate's character description. She can still be mentioned, just not as a major plot character. Just a suggestion.
I'm not an expert on citing, but that fact about the Inquisitorial Department concerning the way that they are raised should be cited as Volume 2: The Iblis. It is mentioned in passing during Caterina's conversation with Francesco and Antonio.
I haven't read any of the second set of novels, not wanting to jump ahead, so I'll take your word on it and put back for now. Agreed on Susan. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Please remember to provide sources for your additions. You made a very big addition to the main Trinity Blood article that has no sourcing at all. Please provide a source, including page numbers and chapter name if it is from a book. Ditto for the addition to Radu's section in the character list, as the information added is not in the current source for that section. Thanks. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I added something from Trinity Blood: Reborn on Mars: Volume 2: The Iblis. Like I mentioned before, I'm not particularly good at citing. I just felt compelled to mention it because it is a general fact about the Methuselah mentioned by Abel in the original novels. (Even though it is not particularly explored in the other adaptations of the story) The author is quite good at explaning things like that.
If it isn't very explored, and something only specific to one or two vampires in the story, its better to just leave it to their character sections. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine, I already mentioned it in Radu's section recently, so that's basically covered.
Yep. It still needs a citation though. :P If you give me the page number(s) its mentioned on, and the name of that chapter, I can add it for you. Though you really should work on learning how to do them as it is an important part of editing. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay... I believe that I already gave you the novel title. Chapter name: Visitor's Evening, pg. 38.
It might have been awhile ago that I made 2 accounts, so I guess you're right. According to the website, there doesn't appear to be a page for the other profile. Well... whatever then. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Hi! Me again! I already commented at User talk:AnmaFinotera#FLC above, but this is about something different.
I started a discusson at talk:List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes#Summaries regarding the need of summaries on the main episode page now they're all there on their own season articles. A few other episode FLs have also removed them in favor of putting them on season articles. I was really bold and made the change once already, but a user who had never edited the article reverted it a few days later. Now I'm seeking a consensus, and as a contributor to that page, would appreciate your view on it. I'm hoping at some point in the near future to put them up for Featured Topic, and IMO it's probably best if they were removed before I do that. Regards, -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@07:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no opposition to the merge, but I would wait until the remaining summaries are filled in (I'm having difficulty finding the episodes) before performing the actual merge. Having the present poorly written summaries (with several of them empty) on a featured list is essentially asking the article to be taken to WP:FLRC. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR(Converse)08:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that. That's one reason I just tagged instead of doing the merge straight off, since I didn't want to ruin the Gunslinger Girl FL. :) Once its ready, though, definitely should be merged, I think, cause its just the 2nd season of the same series, even if it was done by another company. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
2.4 Children
I've made a start in my Sandbox. With the aid of a number of websites I've expanded on the summaries somewhat, hopefully they're not too long though. Let me know what you think so far. I'm considering on removing the director and writer columns though, because most are written and directed by the same two people. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Those look like a good length to me. 150-300 words per summary seems to be about right. I'd also agree, since the director/writer seems to be pretty consistent, there is no need to have them listed for every episode. I think you may have your episode numbers and production codes backwards though ;) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't sure how to present those. The British television industry uses "series" instead of "season", so it isn't possible to give a season number and a series number. S1E3 refers to Series 1, episode 3, whereas the 3 would eventually be the overall episode number, increasing all the way to 53 or whatever. I don't think S1E3 would work as a production code though as I'm pretty sure it isn't. Prod codes aren't often given on British shows like they are at on closing credits in the U.S. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@02:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...probably use programme instead of series for the series number. I personally never liked that column being in an episode list, and don't have it in any of my featureds, so it could be left out and just have the regular episode number. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:Featured chapter lists
The summaries still look really thick. See List of Naruto chapters (Part I), which provides summaries in a more concise style. Try not to cover the story by noting every specific event, but rather provide a summary of the major events that makes it so a reader can gain the gist of what is occurring. And I'm guessing that the individual chapters have no titles? Sephiroth BCR(Converse)02:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Correct on the titles. :) I took out a bunch of smaller events to try to tighten, but I'll see if I can shorten up some more. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The current article revision doesn't use "Duck". Didn't know if you saw that. I haven't had a chance to change it, and I think there may have been too many intermediate edits to simply revert? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Its an interesting series, but it seems like it might have stalled in Japan. A fifth volume finally was released last year after a two year hiatus, though, so hopefully the author is still continuing. I'd hate for it to end in the middle! :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Haven't had much time to read manga as of late. There's one I've wanted to read where everyone dies at the end of each volume in a predestination paradox. But I can't for the life of me remember what the name of it is. Considering how helpful you are, you probably know and can tell me! Edit: Something about cicadas, that's all I can remember. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if that was it, but wasn't entirely sure from the summaries. :P That was the answer I got when I asked some other folks. And yes, it looks like it could use a rename. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, in your GAN review of Karas (anime), you considered DVDActive.com and DVDFuture.com as unreliable sites. It seems Wikipedia Movies consider reviewers listed by Rotten Tomatoes (which the two mentioned are) as reliable. You might want to check out the FAR for Cannibal Holocaust in which sites listed on Rotten Tomatoes are brought up. This could be useful for sourcing anime reviews as Rotten Tomatoes keeps track of several animes reviews. Jappalang (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd never use those site myself, and they only do a relatively small number of anime reviews. If they have passed review at the RS noticeboard, then their use in the article is fine, and those two alone didn't cause it to fail. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
My intention is to inform you of what others have considered as reliable sources which could be of help to others in Wikiproject Anime. I never raised an issue with the failure of Karas as a GA (which I agree with primarily due to lack of tertiary sources). As such, I find it curious you are on the defensive raising up the GAN failure here. From your view expressed above, you believe only sites approved by the RS board are reliable. As such, is there a published list (on Wikipedia or otherwise) where we can refer to for reliable sites, or is every editor required to send all their referred sites to WP:RS for approval before going through GAC or FAC? Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were pointing out in disagreement with the failure, and sorry if my wording came off as defensive. I don't think I stated what I was trying to say. I don't believe only sites approved by the RS board are reliable, but where there they seem borderline, its a good place to confirm. Those two seemed borderline to me, and I've never seen it said that any site Rotten links to for reviews is considered RS, so I said that if they have been declared RS by the noticeboard (or some other group discussion), then that's fine and I'll keep it in mind in the future. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
My watchlist thanks you :) Why that person seems to like doing those vandalisms to that page so much that he made two accounts and keeps changing IPs...who knows. *scratching head* AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Your userpage
It was a Grawp pagemove vandal. We deal with him all last night (and after I went to bed apparently as well). If/when you'd like the move protection removed, let me know. seresin ( ¡? )17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Geneon logo
Dear AnmaFinotera: This morning, I attempted to add the Geneon logo to the Wikipedia article on the company. You quickly deleted it, saying it was "too small to be useful". Fair enough; it wasn't the ideal size, but it was the best version that I was aware of at the time. However, after you deleted the first logo, I remembered that a larger version is available at http://animeondvd.com/images/logos/geneon.gif. I've tried to upload this multiple times, but for some reason it's not going through. Could it be because I got it off a fansite? I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong. Any advice you could give me would be greatly appreciated.--Mark Lungo
Hmm, not sure why it wouldn't let you upload earlier but I was able to get it to upload and replace the smaller one. I've put back the image in the article. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:Episode list warring
I realize it's frustrating, but I can't really say anything other than deal with it. If he starts to edit war, the worst thing you can do is edit war back, which only escalates the situation. I'm going to leave a note on his talk page on the matter focusing on how he should engage solely in discussion if he has problems about the page. If he continues to revert, then escalating blocks are simply the way to solve it. If you edit war with him, however, my hands are tied in the situation, and I'll either be forced to block you both or neither of you for the sake of fairness in the matter. You might want to alert WP:TV about this to generate some knowledge of the situation, and if you really want to, WP:RFC, WP:3O, and other venues are open. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)19:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm trying to resist the urge to revert, because I know its not the proper way of dealing with him. I just get so frustrated when it looks like he listening to discussion, then just suddenly reverts again. :( That's one reason I've asked the TV project to deal with the lists instead, so I can then just step away. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I have not come across her before. I left her a warning for her almost total blanking of the list. Been here since 2006 and should certainly know better by now. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm very sorry for violating the rule again, AnmaFinotera. I am not 100% experienced with Wikipedia. I sometimes can't help myself.Kitty53 (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Its okay, but you should learn not to rely so much on the help me, as others may lose patience with it soon. Have you read any of the tutorial pages for Wikipedia? They can help a lot with the basic editing information. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've left my thoughts there. Meanwhile, feel free to weight in on the List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes issue and Robin's repeated removals of the series overview table and DVD listing (as partially noted below. She's removed four times, despite two editors telling her to please stop and to provide evidence of her claim that the release dates are wrong. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You're WRONG!
I don't think i OWN the page. Your tag will be removed AGAIN because it is inappropriate. Synopses don't need references, none of the Keeping Up Appearances episodes have them. As for the remaining points in the tag, they will be addressed. Edito*Magica (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, the page does not need a "clean up" and what "expert"??. I will add to the lead, but if there isn't much else to put i don't see why lines should be filled up for the sake of it, or just to please you.Edito*Magica (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
My next point is the colour scheme you have reverted on the One foot in the grave episode page. There was no need to build up consenus because nobody disagreed with me, except you of course. Please do not revert edits to deliberately spark controversy, you aren't being helpful to anyone.Edito*Magica (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There is plenty to add to it, except per your own post at Wikipedia talk:Lead section#Leading the way- what the "lead" policy should say., you don't think it belongs there and despite others already telling you there that you are wrong, you'll just ignore them and keep pretending you're right in the face of consensus. I'm not going to get into another edit war with you, nor a war of words. I've already gone ahead and file an ANI about you.AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Just noting that trying to change the article even when consensus is against it is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which is not looked on kindly. To both parties here, cease edit warring and discuss. As it stands, however, the tag seems to be appropriate - the lead probably should be expanded, an expert familiar with the episodes should work on expanding and fixing the summaries, more references for the related material wouldn't hurt, and as such, general cleanup is required. Trying to work against the overwhelming precedent set by previous featured episode lists isn't really helping your case either. Nevertheless, further edit warring may lead to the protection of both pages. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, the tag you have placed on the 2point4 children page is wrong! It does not need expert attention ,myself and other editors know exactly what each synopsis should be for each episode, and the page still is not complete. I don’t understand how the page needs references- synopses don’t have them! I accept the lead needs expanding, and a tag that implies just this i’ll accept, but your tag simply is inaccurate. Secondly, the One foot in the grave edits I have made are perfectly justified, the colours are distracting and my changes solve this problem, and as no one disagrees with me, why kick up a fuss? And try to accept that every edit does not need a full length talk page discussion, particularly when there is no disagreement! I really don’t want to be involved in any further slanging matches with you, it is time consuming and tiring for both of us, please acknowledge what i have said and do not hesitate to leave a reply on my talk page. I’m trying resolve our disagreement in the most diplomatic and understanding manner possible. Edito*Magica (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The lists do need expert attention as you have stated clearly and emphatically that you will never properly edit a list to follow the agreed upon format. Project attention is needed to fix both lists, with someone already working on One Foot in the Grave. For 2point4, the synopsis themselves do not need references, but everything else does, including the air dates. The tags are perfectly accurate for the issues with both lists. The colors are not "distracting" except to you. No one agreed with you about the changes either, though you only gave people 3 minutes to answer. If you don't want to get into disagreements, quit ignoring what you have repeatedly been told is the proper format for episode lists and stop running from list to list changing them to what you "think" is correct despite being told by multiple people that it is not good. All your "changes" do is create more work for anyone who might actually want to take the list to featured status. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well bright green is very distracting actually, and again, there is NO disagreement with my alterations to the colour scheme, hence you are making a big deal out of nothing. And do the air dates really need references when i know they are correct? When i view other episode pages all i see is hyperlinked airdates with no references. I still think your tagging is too drastic, the pages are not in a terrible state, but for peace's sake i'll leave your tagging in place for now.Edito*Magica (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. You hide your bad edits by working on lists with no other editors. Your personal knowledge is not a reference. Bad referencing in other articles is not an excuse to remove the tag, and if you look at any FEATURED list you will see referencing for the airdates. Anyway, I'll just wait to see if AN/I will deal with you this time, and wait until the redo of the list is done since the whole thing will be replaced anyway. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No. In fact i have only just begun editing One foot in the grave; there’s plenty of editors involved in the page and not one of them is against the new colour scheme. Is there a mighty uproar on the talk page? No. My edits are not “bad”, they are improving the article for those wishing to use it. Edito*Magica (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No, they aren't, but keep fooling yourself into thinking that since you seem to think you know better than everyone else who has told you that are wrong. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
And who are these that have told me i am wrong exactly? Do you mean yourself? And if there aren’t any editors involved in the One foot in the grave pages then they will be no disagreement with my alterations.Edito*Magica (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The many editors who left you messages on the talk page you cleared the last time we went through all this with the other episode lists. The same guidelines apply to ALL episode lists and you shouldn't have to be corrected every last time just because you either conviently forget or just don't care about actually being a productive editor but just want to do things only your way irregardless of what anyone else tells you is proper. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I cleared my talk page because the messages were defunct. There were no messages commenting on the One foot in the grave page that were removed, the one from user “Bob” was the only one commenting, and his comment is on my talk page. I’m also scratching my head as to what “my way” is, as i have not broken any rules or guidelines. Oh well, keep believing what makes you happy. Edito*Magica (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Your way of editing is wrong because you constantly revert people's clean ups of episode lists because "you don't like it," despite the changes being proper to bring the lists closer in line with the preferred format. You refuse to follow the guidelines people have explained to you numerous times before, and using a claim like "well, you didn't say this specific article" is just plain silly. You have ignored an administrator telling you not to revert something multiple times, just because you don't want to listen and, again, you don't like what consensus has already agreed is correct. Then you have the audacity to say you haven't broken any rules? I know you are still just a kid (or at least claim you are), but seriously, that's no excuse at all for such behavior.AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a kid? Eighteen does not make me a child, and besides, my age is irrelevant. No I haven’t reverted clean ups, just disruptive edits YOU have made. And digging up settled disputes is hardly constructive and has absolutely nothing to do with the current issues surrounding One foot and 2point4. Now just a civilised question, as I’m still unsure what you mean when airdates require references, do you mean referring to when the programme first aired and ended in the lead of the page? I am addressing all your claims in your little tags and will then have them removed.Edito*Magica (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does, and you are doing nothing but acting yoru age. Those are not settled disputes at all, you just moved on to new victims hoping no one would notice. It has everything do wiht One Foot and 2point4 because you are pulling the exact same crap on those two pages that you did on the others. Airdates require references. I mean every airdate in the table referring to when it first aired. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
And you're doing nothing but not acting yours! Moving on to new “victims”, now you are just being ridiculous. I don’t have any “victims”, I have disagreements, expected on a site with so many different contributors. I think it’s time you start acting your age instead of like a petty eight year old! And I don’t call making justified colour changes and removal of tags “crap”, nor are all of the other constructive contributions I have made. And you’re wrong (again), passed disputes on the Goodnight Sweetheart and Keeping Up Appearance’s pages have been resolved...no disputes surround them. As stated, I will address all issues in the tags you have plastered over the pages and then remove them.
Furthermore, if you can’t settle disputes without twisting the truth and getting vicious, I suggest you consider departing from Wikipedia. All the best. Edito*Magica (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not twisting the truth, you are just ignoring it. You didn't justfy any of your changes, you alone don't like them so you remove them. You remove tags just because you don't like them. That isn't constructive editing, its acting like you own the page. You were told in the GS and KUA articles that colors belong in episode lists along with the summary tables, yet you turn around and remove them from two more lists again because you don't like them. That is just ruining the articles and making more work for other people. If you don't want to actually work in a collaborative environment and yield to consensus, you ae the one who should depart from Wikipedia and go to a place where you can create episode lists in the format that you prefer. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
2point4
Your tag is now inappropriate. The 2point4 page does not need a majior clean up, the lead is fine and the page has been formatted correctly. Obviously more will be added to the page in the future, including more to the synopses and the lead, however the lead is still an adequate length, and “expert” attention is not needed. References yes, thus if you want to label the page, select an appropriate tag. Edito*Magica (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The expert tag is still needed, as someone is already working on it anyway, as the format has only partially been done and still has issues. The lead is long, but full of fluff and only some of what actually belongs there. However, as it is "long" I have changed that tag to rewrite. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I can you are trying to find any excuse possible to keep your tags plastered across the page. No the information in the lead is not useless, but important cast and crew information, along with DVD releases, no different to the UNTAGGED Keeping Up Appearances lead which features similar details. And be a little more specific, specifically what expert assistance is needed? And to do what to the page? Edito*Magica (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
To finish fixing the formatting, for one, and bring it in line with a good quality, possible FLC episode list. This includes fixing the other issues as someone who is well versed in the project will know how to write a proper episode lead, fix the format, add the remaining missing parts and references, etc. Someone has already volunteer to fix that one and is working on it now. KUA is untagged because I don't mess with it anymore. The lead is badly written, and is missing basic information (and of course references). AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
That’s plain bias! You can’t tag one page and not the other. KUA, mostly written by me anyway, is also lacking in everything you’ve tagged 2point4 for. You have even gone to the lengths of complaining about the very colour of the table lines! Yet KUA has no references, you claim the lead needs a re-write and it is untagged??? The tag you placed implies something is drastically wrong with the 2point4 page, there is not. Edito*Magica (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I said 2point4's episode needs rewriting. I haven't looked at KUA in weeks and have no intention of doing so. And yes, I can tag one page and not another. I don't have an obligation to run through every last episode list and tag them all for their issues. If you see KUA has such issues, tag it yourself. Tags do not indicate "drastically wrong" just plain wrong. Almost everything on 2point4 needs rewritten for flow, grammar, and to follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style and editing guidelines. It will remain tagged until all of the issues have actually been adequately addressed, not a quick partial attempt just to try to justify tag removal. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
“And yes, I can tag one page and not another.”and is that fair treatment? Tagging one page with similar problems to another, untagged page? Nonsense and plain bias. You've tagged the 2point4 page because there are limited editors involved, unlike KUA which has a wide base of regular editors. I quote you once more “I don't have an obligation to run through every last episode list and tag them all for their issues.” Well that is exactly what you are doing to the 2point4 page, and no doubt any other page i am responsible for. I will be expecting a tag on the Brittas Empire episode page shortly. A lot of the 2point synopses do need work, mainly because i have not spent enough time on them yet, and furthermore much of the page’s material wasn’t written by me anyway, as the edit history will confirm.Edito*Magica (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
There are TONS of other lists with similar problems. This is just one I happened to notice. And I know you didn't write most of the summaries, that doesn't make them good. I have no idea how many editors KUA has, though last time I checked it only had two which is not "a wide base." You're the one acting like you own 2point4 and seemingly to be unwilling to admit to its problems and just try to correct rather than removing the tags and going "no I won't". And there is no bias, considering I have (and do) tag articles I myself created and/or are working on. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a “wide-base” of editors is exaggerating, but my point is that is far more editors are involved with the KUA pages than 2point4. And I have being trying to correct the 2point4 page’s problems, hence the formatting i did earlier along with the extension of the lead. I removed the tag because i can’t see how one set of rules applies to one page and not the other (hence one page being tagged, and not the other). And also the tag is inaccurate, there are not multiple issues surrounding the page, which is in a better condition than the TONS of untagged pages. And it clearly seems like you are being bias, when, you have admitted and noticed similar issues surrounding the KUA page and left it untagged, yet you are picking out even the minor faults with 2point4 page such as the colour of the table lines!Edito*Magica (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The tag is perfectly accurate. The article issues tag just keeps multiple tags from taking up so much space. Multiple tags = multiple issues. It is not in better condition than tons of untagged pages. Indeed, an expert should probably come through and break it out into appropriate season pages since it is seven series long and the list as a whole is too long. I'm not picking on the color of the lines since I already took out your misguided attempt to "hide" them by making them white. I also did not admit the KUA page has similar issues. I said I have not looked at it in weeks, if not months, and I still have not. I said that if YOU see the page has the same issues, tag it yourself. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
“The lead is badly written, and is missing basic information (and of course references).” Are your exact words, so you must have looked at the page to come to such a conclusion. I don’t think there is anything wrong with KUA, but you clearly do. My point is, that you blatantly claim there are issues with KUA but refuse to tag it, yet you do decide to tag 2point4, that is bias. But i think this debate has gone on long enough now. I will once again address the issues, as i’ve done before, and will then remove the tag when i believe it is appropriate. Period. Edito*Magica (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, I was talking about 2point4 not KUA. I have yet to say anything was wrong with KUA, only you have. When the issues have been addressed, I will remove the tags myself. Until then, I will put back if you remove before the issues have actually been addressed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you said 2point4 children’s lead was mainly “fluff”, I told you it consisted of similar information to the lead of KUA, which you then criticised in the way quoted above. (Just to correct you) . But we have both had our say and discussed the 2point4 issues, so this debate/argument does not need to go any further. Bias or not, we’re not going to meet consensus on that issue; as stated i am going to address the issues in your tag and then remove it, which is perfectly reasonable. Edito*Magica (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you seem incapable of reading and understanding what I wrote, but the quote above was a criticism SOLELY about 2point4 to further clarify what I was saying was wrong with it since you didn't seem to understand it. Your false belief that I was referring to KUA is just that, false. When the issues are fixed, I will remove the tags. You don't seem to even understand what the issues are, so I'd rather you not remove them yourself. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then in that case the 2point4 lead is fine and the information isn't "fluff", because it is the same as that in the KUA lead. Edito*Magica (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't fine. The lead has the problems I already mentioned above in the comments you keep tying to say is about KUA. The information is fluff, horribly written, and lacks the real details that belong there. Why don't you go look at some of the featured episode lists and study their leads instead of trying to compare it to another list that could never pass FL? AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, thanks. So is the page adequately referenced now? Because if it is, a more suitable tag should replace the present. Edito*Magica (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it to refimprove. Not sure if the "British TV Resources" is considered a reliable source, but I do remember KUA used it as well and its not an issue unless/until the list is taken for an FL attempt. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just read your comment before last. Look, either both 2point4 and KUA's leads have issues, or they are both fine. Both feature similar information, and you can't say one is ok and the other isn't. Thus, if you think the lead of 2point4 has issues, then you must think the same about KUA's. Edito*Magica (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't "must think" anything. I've already told you repeatedly that I have not looked at KUA's episode list in months, so I can't offer any view on whether it has similar issues. If you feel KUA has the same issues as 2point4, tag it yourself. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have stated what you have said. Whether you want to fool yourself into thinking otherwise is your business. We both know the truth. Anyway this debate is pointless and not getting us anywhere, so let's draw a line under it now. Edito*Magica (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you have stated what you falsely want to think I said because then you can attempt to justify your bad tag removal rather than just admit the 2point4 lead sucks. You want to continue deluding yourself, feel free, so long as you don't remove the tags until the issues really are addressed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be the jack of all wikipedia-trades - care to help?
Not like you aren't editing five million other things, but... ever work on any record label articles? I'm trying to clean up, source, and expand Righteous Babe Records and get it up-to-par with some other record label articles. Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I'm not quite a jack of all trades ;) I haven't worked on any record label articles, though you seem to be on a good start (though not sure on the personnel section - depends on what you have planed for it). Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information provides some good over all guidelines on writing about companies. There aren't a lot, but may want to take a quick look at some of the FA Company articles for ideas on structure and types of content (though other than history, it is also depends on the type of company). Hope that helps :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be seen as violating the not a directory thing. Usually what I've seen is the key personnel mentioned in the infobox, then major ones mentioned primarily in relevance to the company's history (changing of owners, important changes in leadership, etc). AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I did explain my reason for removing the DVDs from the episode section. First of all there's already a place for DVDs and secondly the release dates in Canada are wrong. Robinepowell (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You have already been warned, multiple times, not to remove the list and to explain your claim that the dates are wrong (which, if true, means they should be FIXED not just deleted). Stop removing the table from a featured list. It belongs there as evidenced by the article passing FLC with its inclusion, and by simply looking at any of our many more featured episode lists of this nature. The table belongs there and is a part of the standard format for an episode list. Your continuing to remove after being warned is completely inappropriate. If you want to discuss the dates, do so in the article talk as you have been asked to do already. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That does not excuse your removals. You keep claiming the release dates are wrong, but you have not responded to no less than three requests that you provide reliable sourcing to prove this claim. The current dates come from a reliable source, you need to provide the same to be able to claim they are wrong. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done AN/I before. Basically just write up a brief summary of her actions and what she's done. I'm suprised 3RR didn't give her a block or warning or something. No reason given either. :( If she keeps changing the dates on other pages and refusing to answer both our requests for the source for her info, an ANI report would be appropriate, including her 3RR resulting in page protection and links to the relevant discussions on your talk page, mine, and the list page where she continues to refuse to provide a source. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you haven't. TVShowsOnDVD is an American site, not a Canadian one. You continue to be disruptive and refuse to actually discuss on the talk page as we have asked. You instead just keep reverting and reverting and refuse to actually talk, only go "I'm right because I said so." I am reporting you, again. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Duh but the creator is CANADIAN. Don't you think if there was a seperate release date Gord Lacey would say so? Apparently you forgot about that part. Also if there were a seperate Canadian release date, why wasn't it mentioned like it was for Season 1?
Regarding this edit of yours: Before you decided to revert and label that IP edit vandalism, you did of course check whether or not the IP had added a valid interwiki link to the Russian Wikipedia equivalent of WAF, didn't you? Dorftrottel (criticise) 11:35, April 21, 2008
Ah, no, was it valid? I saw the post in AN/I about an anon IP adding fake Russian interwiki links at the same time and thought it was the same thing. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Wha?! In that case, sorry. However, I followed the link and it looked authentic enough. I don't know any Russian, so I checked various links in that page and looked at those pages' English pendants, yielding a cross-section similar to that on WAF. Someone in Category:Wikipedians in Russia should be able to help us determine the validity. Dorftrottel (bait) 03:57, April 22, 2008
You may want to read the close instructions, because it seems you've forgotten some steps with regards to the article itself....like removing the template and adding the afd results to the talk page... :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have recently been editing the List of McLeod's Daughters episodes and McLeod's Daughters individual season articles and have put into place the suggestions which you reccomended to me previously, for the Blue Heelers articles. I have created Template:Episode list/McLeod's Daughters and have moved the episode lists to the season articles. The problem is, when I transcluded these lists to the main episode list, the short summaries were not hidden. I have checked and checked and have been unable to find out why the main list is not just displaying the basis information, as it did previously when I implemented the system in the List of Blue Heelers episodes. Could you possibly have a look and see what I've done wrong? It's probably something very stupid but I would very much appreciate your help.
How odd. I suspect maybe its something to do with the list name, but let me look into it some more and check with the editor who taught me that trick. Meanwhile, don't forget to put all the individual season pages in the TV project as lists. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone was able to fix it! :) The apostrophe in the list was what was causing the problem. BTW, I did it for the season 1 page, but for the rest the headers of the ep lists should match the line color and colors in the overview table :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi AnmaFinotera (a curious name, meaning?), I would like to open up a dialogue with you about the date conundrum. One of the first things that I noticed in switching from writing aviation, automobile and history articles to film "pieces" was that dates were all over the place with m-d-y, d-m-y and ISO formats used interspersingly, sometimes in the same article. I peronally find that I am constantly translating ISO dating and note that in other project groups, most editors have stayed away from them because of just that reason. Is there any need to use ISO dating (bearing in mind the argument that other users will have preferences set that will still point the way to the date preference set in the browser). Most editors may have the date prefeernce option toggled but the "average" visitor or guest to Wikipedia would invariably not be concerned with such niceities/tweaking. See my comment to you on the film project talk page. Care to discuss further? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
Further, you have never heard people having difficulty with ISO fomats? really? do you use this format in your everyday life? does anyone? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
Yes, in fact I do use this format in my everyday life, and yes, many people and industries do. And no, I've never heard of anyone having difficulty using it. I deal with a wide range of users, some of whom I consider to be downright dumb at times, and while I've had to explain what a keyboard is, what a browser is, etc I've yet to have to explain to someone how to read an ISO date. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Forgive my sceptecism but regardless the ISO format is not specifically addresed in the citation templates as a preferred or recommended date convention. My point about using different dating systems is that there should only be one date system in use for consistency. Most (nearly all editors) use either d-m-y or m-d-y conventions in the text as the format of choice, so... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
Not really. Most editors actually use full-date formatting. I rarely see anyone using d-m-y nor m-d-y. Even though who don't know the citation templates are supposed to use ISO will usually use either "short month name day, year" or use "year-short month name-day." And yes, all of the citation template instructions do very specifically say that date and accessdate are to be in ISO format. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
When I say m-d-y, I mean editors would invariably write out April 22, 2008. As for citatation template instructions, can you point out where ISO dating is required; I couldn't find that direct specification. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
From {{cite book}}: "origdate: Full date of publication of original edition, in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2004-06-27. Must not be wikilinked." and "date: Full date of publication edition being referenced, in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2006-02-17. Must not be wikilinked." From {{cite web}} "accessdate: Full date when item was accessed, in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, for example 'accessdate = 2008-04-22'. Must not be wikilinked" and "date: Full date of publication, preferably in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2006-02-17. Must not be wikilinked" and "archivedate: Date when the item was archived (requires archiveurl), in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2006-02-17. Must not be wikilinked; it will be linked automatically.". Now, cite web actually has an option if you want to do the format you mentioned:
"For producing a non-wikilinked date of retrieval:
accessmonthday and accessyear: Month and day when item was accessed, for example "accessmonthday = May 10", and year when item was accessed, for example "accessyear = 2006". Produces: Retrieved on May 10, 2006.
accessdaymonth and accessyear: Month and day when item was accessed, for example "accessdaymonth= 10 May", and year when item was accessed, for example "accessyear = 2006". Produces: Retrieved on 10 May 2006."
However, as no similar option is available for the date field then you would have mixed dates in the ref, though that seems to be acceptable as you may only have the month year of a publication date in which this would apply "OR [other option being date] year: Year of publication, and month: Name of the month of publication. If you also have the day, use date instead. Must not be wikilinked." Those are two of the most used, but every other one I've used including {{cite press release}}, {{cite journal}} and {{cite news}} have the same. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to be contrary, but I do not see the requirement that states ISO dates must be used. Just to clarify, the point I am trying to make is that citation templates are not mandated nor are the exact means by which they are used mandated, including variations, conversions and adaptions of templates. Numerous authors/editors whoi are unfamiliar with bibliographical referencing, use the template method as a good alternative. Some (I stress some) editors have been more conversant with cataloging and referencing and have either made adaptations of the template system or relied on conventional "scratch" cataloging. The other point I am trying to make is that use of two different formats for dates is inconsistent and that as the texst is developed, most authors use or establish a preferred system, which I maintain should be the system used throughout the article, right to the bitter end of reference sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
If consensus supported that view, however, then the templates would all have been changed to support that flexibility. I personally don't agree with the idea either, but that's neither here nor there. I'll keep using the templates as the instructions state, which is to use ISO dates. Also, there are exceptions to the use of different date formats, as ISO dates are also preferred in large tables, while the prose of the pages with those tables should still use regular full date formatting. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This quote appears to be the actual wording in the cite book: "accessdate: Full date when url was accessed, in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2006-02-17. Required when url field is used. Must not be wikilinked.
OR: accessyear: Year when item was accessed, and accessmonth: Month when item was accessed. If you also have the day, use accessdate instead. Must not be wikilinked." The way I read this is that there is an "or" (my emphasis) so that an accessyear, accessmonth and accessday is accepted, therefore ISO dating is not the only stipulation. FWiW, I didn't actually come up with all these suppositions, the concepts were hammered into me by many other editors who had prior experience and knowledge about the use of the citation templates. Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
Accessdate is a different field, but it has the same requirement for ISO format. And fo rth eidea that you can use an accessday, you didn't seem to notice that there IS NO accessday field, only accessmonth and accessyear. :P If you have day, you are expected to use the full date field.AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Now nothing prevents you or any other editor from using whatever system you prefer. My only contention was that for consistency, one rather than two date conventions should prevail, and that the Wikipedia guidelines allowed for that. FWiW, there a number of altered templates already in existence and use that accomplish any variety of subtle changes including adding additional authors, placing first and other editions, and even creating a date system that matches the established dates used in the article. Wikipedia has flexibility if nothing else and editors have already "pushed the envelope." Bzuk (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
I did say I had a last point or last word, and that is "thanks" for the conversation. Now to find yourself a glass of milk?! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
Maybe it's time to remove some of the maintenance tags from this article, now that references have been added and the POV issue apparently is settled — at least, there doesn't seem to be any current discussion underway on the Talk page about a POV dispute?
Tee hee, coffee with my cookie *grin* I've removed the NPOV, as you're right, it seems all cleared. I also removed clean up since the format is much improved. I left refimprove, though, as there is an excessive reliance on two sources, and only 11 sources (that we can tell are actually being used) for an article of its length is not enough, particularly for such a notable series. I also left the the lead tooshort tag because...well it still is and I still haven't gotten around to attempting a rewrite either *grin*. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Media pages
After commenting in this AfD and noting the merging of the Bleach media page a while back, I think we need to determine a format for media lists (as we did for chapter lists and episode lists, and one for character lists that hopefully works at List of Naruto characters). List of Kingdom Hearts media is a model, but we often have to take much more into account (DVDs, OVAs, films, soundtracks, etc.), especially in larger franchises such as Naruto, Bleach, Fullmetal Alchemist, and so on and such forth. The present media lists that we have are definitely atrocious though, which is the primary reason for me bringing this up. Thoughts? Sephiroth BCR(Converse)04:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
My inclination is to discourage them completely. They seem to just become catch alls for all sorts of unsourced fancrufty stuff, most of which doesn't really need to be included (like the track listing for every CD, etc). I don't think the entire media section should ever be boken from an article as a whole unit, only as needed for episode lists, chapter lists, light novel lists, and maybe the very exceptional need for a CD or video game list. Those that do exist need to be merged back in or just deleted all together if there isn't anything to merge. Some have been merged back in with little to no issues, while others, like Bleach, are being argued against by non-editing users and fans, in part I think due to the lack of any project back up at the moment. Unfortunately, considering the attempts to even make a more formal episode list addition to the MoS seems to have been badly received, I'm not sure where or how to implement any "official" word on the media lists in general, though it seemed agreed on in the Mos discussions about it that they were not appropriate. :( All the discussion on making it clearer in the MoS seems to have just died though. *sigh* AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I'm still working on the 2.4 ep page in my sandbox. I've been away most of the week because my computer was infected -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It is, except every time I shut down the computer and turn it back on, none of the websites remember my passwords! Very annoying! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@00:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That sucks :( Have you considered trying KeyPass? I downloaded it because of the number of websites at my job that require new passwords every 6 months (including ones I built LOL), and I've found it quite invaluable. BTW, thanks for fixing the lead of Sopranos, looking much better. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What about WP:GAR; one editor can't just judge an article by themselves and delist it from GA. You are overstepping your bounds. And I realize it says at the top "It is not necessary to go through this process unless there is a disagreement about the article's status"; well, I disagree. --十八21:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, no, I'm not. The delisting procedures say that anyone can delist an article if it is clear that the article does not meet the Good Article criteria anymore. Sending it to GAR is not required before a delisting. If you disagree, you can take it to GAR for relisting, but both of those articles badly fails the GA criteria and have thus been delisted. Feel free to complain/discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment#Delisting where I have left a note about the situation. Until they say otherwise, however, the delistings stand. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine then, I'll play by your rules. If I run it back through GAC and get it promoted again, are you going to delist it again?--十八01:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not "my rules," BTW. thus far my decisions to delist have been confirmed by at least two other editors who also noted that no, discussion is not required. I left the appropriate comments and followed the appropriate procedures. If it is repromoted, then I would presume you (and others) have fixed the referencing issues and other problems and that it has gone back to being GA quality. I would, of course, expect whoever reviews it to do so neutrally and fairly, and per the GA rules, not be someone who has contributed to the article. Getting upset with me because the article was not maintained so that it continued to meet the GA criteria seems like misdirected anger. Considering the version that passed, its understandable that doing so would require quite a bit of work. Still, if one wants an article to carry the GA mark, it must be done. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I was merely getting annoyed that there was no prior discussion, as I was under the impression that that is why WP:GAR exists, or else GA delistings would be rampant. I can agree on the referencing issues, though I tried shortening the plot, and it is now about 100 words shy of the plot-word-count on a recent FA for a novel, which is somewhat similar in what a visual novel is, and they're both under WP:VG (plus that plot has no sourcing either, so I hope that will not be an issue in the GAC, as it almost never has been in the past). I have tried also to source what I can, and have removed things I can't. I look forward to the renom.--十八02:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Plot doesn't need to be sourced, so that's fine as long as it has no interpretation (I didn't see any myself). :) The settings/themes do, however, need sourcing as themes are interpretations. GAR is mostly used for when it isn't clear an article should be delisted, if the person who feels it doesn't meet the criteria for delisting isn't comfortable doing it themselves, or when the person who feels it should be delisted can't do so themselves do to having worked on the article in any extensive manner. As you might guess, I'm quite comfortable delisting a GA myself. When I am not sure or I feel I have a conflict of interest, I will take to GAR instead. I've always tried to be fair and balanced in doing any delisting. If the article had just had one or two unreferenced statements, or the issues were otherwise relatively minor, I would have tagged and left a message on the talk page, as I have done for others that just had some little problems that needed to be headed off before becoming big ones.
If discussion were required for all delistings, the system would become unbalanced as GA listing is basically one editors decision. Thus delisting can also be one editor's decision so long as it is done fairly, and based on the GA criteria. Its pretty easy to tell the difference from a legitimate delisting versus one that was done out of spite or as vandalism. I hate having the project lose two GAs, but I also firmly believe that no article should carry that GA class if it does not meet the criteria. They are held up as examples of how an article should be, so when an article that doesn't really meet the criteria is used like this, we end up with more problem articles. Recent discussions in the GA talk regarding having an article symbol like we have for FA/FL prompted me to start looking through our GAs and seeing if any of ours are in need of delisting. The two I delisted today just happened to be the first two in the alphabet. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
RfA?
After seeing your position on The List and your edits, etc., I was wondering... have you ever been nominated (or nom'ed yourself) for an RfA? If not, you really should; you'd be likely to succeed. :) Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚1504:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've never been nominated. Someone else asked if I'd like to be but I declined. I don't feel I'm of the right personality to be an admin as I often seem to rub people the wrong way and tend to have little patience for fans filling articles with "crufty" stuff and what many considered to be "minor" vandalism acts. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Just commenting here as an admin coach, the only thing really standing between you and an RfA passing is civility issues. You've certainly begun to handle yourself better, but RfA regulars will want a couple solid months of that before your RfA will have a chance of passing. Everything else is fine - you commonly edit in administrator areas, you have plenty of good mainspace contributions, and your knowledge of policy is spot-on. Ultimately, it's up to you. It never hurts to have the tools, and even if you're only using them a couple times from then to then, they're still useful. I said at my RfA that I would participate at WP:RPP, WP:AIV, CAT:CSD, and WP:AFD. I think I've closed one AfD, protected like five pages, and only make rounds at AIV or CSD every so often. That and I've only ever received complaints over my activities about twice. Rule of thumb - if you're doing your job correctly as an administrator, you won't have to deal with these interactions with new users that often. If you want to really try for the mop, then my biggest recommendation would be to simply hop on the clear civility bandwagon (go out of your way to be civil and avoid WP:BITE especially), spam "rollback (AGF)" with Twinkle, and never utilize "rollback (vandalism)" unless it's blatant and clear. Again, it's up to you. It's a long, tedious, and arduous process that requires your full dedication to if you want to pass, and you certainly shouldn't be forced into it, but neither should you tackle it half-heartedly. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR(Converse)08:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Sephiroth. That's very helpful, even for me.
As for you, AnmaFinotera, I'd like to thank you for your previous constructive criticism regarding my edit count; it's for that reason that I have gotten more involved with mainspace editing and have finally reached 1,000 edits! Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚1501:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Guess that works too. I kind of have my hands full with the seemingly coordinated attack on a bunch of anime articles right now though. *sigh* This is insane...be nice if they could just turn of anon editing for a few days to allow these people to grow up. *pulls hair* AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it needs increase at the moment so much as clearer organization. It starts good, with sales figures, moving into awards. Then it jumps to a review quote and a long paragraph of X site said X, Y, Z followed by a another quote. Considering the differences between the two, it would be better to have a paragraph on the manga, then a paragraph on the anime, and probably a paragraph on the novels and other stuff. It needs to be clear what was said about what. Also, I'm not sure Anime Boredum and ActiveAnime are considered reliable sources. You can see some of this in action at Wolf's Rain#Reception, which starts with the ratings success of the anime, moves into the reviews about the anime series and soundtrack, and the ends with the manga adaptation (which in this case is the secondary work, and also significantly different). AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reread the reviews and most of them talk about general parts of the manga and anime (at the start they are the same but later they are very different). Should it be in reception, one paragraph for general? 2nd for manga? and 3rd for anime? (I still need to look for novels)Tintor2 (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, basically, start with the first media, manga, with general sales and awards, then actual critical commentary. Then repeat for the anime, and for the novels (as available). AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean like [[6]]? I will still reword some parts.
Does the movie and OVA need to be given their own section in the media part? Note: The movie is a sequel of the anime while the OVAs are short spin-offs of the anime.Tintor2 (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Because the OVAs were released as if they were episodes and are numbered episodes 27-30 rather than individually (and aired as episodes in the English broadcast). I should have been clearer there. If the FMA OVAs are a straight line continuation of the series or fit in the series, they can go in the anime section (or if there are only a few of them). If they are alternate time line, distinct from the series story line, etc then they should go in their own section. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...movies are almost always put in their own section, particularly if they were released to theaters, however since FMA just has one and only two sentences about it right now, I think its fine to stay with the anime since its just labeled anime rather than anime series. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, those should be briefly mentioned in a section on art and guide books (or can also title it other printed media). :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe guidebook, and yes the lead does require a little expansion to better include the additional information added. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
How should the lead be? I would keep the example of Wolf's Rain but it focuses in the anime since thats the first media, while the first media of fma is manga. Could you tell how should the paragraphs be?--Tintor2 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The first part of the lead is fine. The last paragraph should have some mention, in brief, of their being artbooks, concerts, and the other merchandise not mentioned. The reception paragraph should also mention some brief highlights of its success as manga. The Vision of Escaflowne shows this some, though like Wolf's Rain it started as an anime. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. When you said "The last paragraph should have some mention, in brief, of their being artbooks, concerts, and the other merchandise not mentioned" were you talking about the second that talks about the franchise?--Tintor2 (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I will be cleaning the fma alchemist terminology adding terms from their respective articles (but taking care of the length). I guess those articles could be redirected to fullmetal alchemist when its finished. I have a question, do fictional countries and fictional objects require italics?--Tintor2 (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Fictional countries, no. For fictional objects, only if they are books, films, etc (i.e. same things we'd italicize for real items :)). AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Site
Is this [7] a fansite? Tell me and I will delete from the Himura Kenshin article (done with the merge of sakabato and fighting style and also reduced a bit the abilities section to reduce the in-universe).Tintor2 (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be fine for that then. I'm curious, though. I remember reading that the article said that the reverse blade was created for Kenshin, then real ones began being made. Was that sourced anywhere? I've seen several reverse blades at some other swords sites (though that is by far the most beautiful and it is going to be my belated birthday present from my best friend LOL). AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
He he. That was sourced in the Rurouni Kenshin article. I added the reference of non-functional from Japanimation.com while another user (dont remember who) added the one of the functional.--Tintor2 (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've tagged it and its character list, killed the story arc page, and tagged three articles for PROD. Will see if someone else picks up the ball there, since I've never read the manga and can't do too much for the plot parts. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I added a to-do list in Fullmetal Alchemist, but it is wrong made. Could you see it and add about your thoughts?--Tintor2 (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No, 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism. However, you need to make sure you're leaving warning messages so they can be blocked if needed. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you think Himura Kenshin has a good article quality or you think something could be improved? (I expanded the conception five seconds ago)--Tintor2 (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think its in pretty good shape. It passed GA last month, so I'd probably suggest a peer review if you were thinking of trying for an FA. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
WOW! FA is pretty much for me. Could you create that peer review request for me? I still dont know how to make it.--Tintor2 (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I think a peer review might still be good, as it might encourage someone else to step up and finish it off for a possible FA :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it would be awesome to see the first anime/manga character article FA, so please request the peer review (Im kind of strange today).--Tintor2 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I forgot, I have cleaned the drama cds. What else need clean up? I would like to improve it until removing the tag and start thinking of GA (although that may be hard)--Tintor2 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Let me see. Hmmm....character section should probably be bulleted, and the voiced by's fixed to use the {{anime voices}} template. Terminology needs to finish being sourced. The manga section needs to have its ref completed (the first paragraph seems to indicate its sourced from one page, but it isn't really). Any "citation needed"s of course need fixing. Beyond that, probably a peer review and copyedit, then depending on the PR results I'd go straight for FA rather than GA. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to bug you or anything, but I feel that the discussion on the reliability of the fansub paper and Sequential Tart for Fushigi Yuugi fansubs has come to a halt, if not a close. Could you please take a look at it to see if you're satisified with the responses? According to the etiquette of the page, I believe that if the originator of the request is satisfied the matter can be tagged as resolved and archived. (and the source can be used in the article.) -Malkinann (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Might as well. Its inaccurate and a false, but since they say it is still a valid source despite that, I'll go with consensus until a better source says otherwise. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi AnmaFinotera. I've addressed some of your comments left at the Degrassi FAC. There's a couple I haven't, and have just left questions for the moment. Thank you for reviewing so far! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@22:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:Cleanup task force
I entirely agree. The state of some of the larger anime/manga franchises is shockingly bad. The disparity I think arises from the fact that the editors in these franchises are nothing more than well-meaning yet policy-deficient editors who essentially want the series to represent their dream of having an in-universe hub of information. The exception really has become the Naruto articles, which certainly have become increasingly impressive and a model for franchises of similar size to aspire to. As such, the cleanup task force becomes necessary; a relevant model is WP:VG/C sans the requests section, as we're simply going to go through the list of articles marked for cleanup and whatever we deign necessary. Cheers, 02:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Tintor and some others have done some great work on the main Fullmetal Alchemist article as well, though the Ishbal-Ishval issue is still unresolved and the subarticles still need work. It would be good if we can start point folks to Naruto and eventually FMA and say "look, see, it can be done." :) On a smaller scale, I'm trying to do the same with Tokyo Mew Mew to get to the point that I can then point to it when Cardcaptor Sakura is tackled to show that yes, the mauled English adaptation can be covered nicely without giving it 5 separate articles. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
News of the World, The Star
Me again! I noticed you did a GA review at the beginning of the month, and saw that part of the fail was due to the use of News of the World and Daily Star being used as references because of their tabloid status. I know you're in the United States, and having lived here for a number of years I know how tabloids such as Globe and National Examiner are viewed. However, I don't think NOTW, The Star, [[The Sun], and The Mirror are on the same par as those papers. Sure, they have a lot of scandal-type and celeb-type news stories, but they do produce some good work, too. Also note that The Independent, The Times, and The Scotsman have in the last couple of years moved to the tabloid format (size as well as content), but refer to themselves as "compact" to avoid being stigmatised, and these papers are still regarded as "high brow". -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@22:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
My Edits
Well let's see you reverted 2 of my edits. One of the edits was that I fixed the spelling mistake from the Ending Theme title: 'Ragret'
Originally it was 'regret' but I fixed it to 'Regret' until you reverted it back. AND, as for me creating a box for people to add links, I don't see anything wrong with that since the same thing can be found on the One Piece Wikia home page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bon3z (talk • contribs) 22:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This isn't Wikia, it is Wikipedia, though I have now reported the One Piece Wikia for the links. Those links not only violate basic Wikipedia article formatting, but violates the copyright violation policy and external linking guidelines. They have absolutely no place here at all. Do not add them back, nor try to repeat such actions in any other article or you risk blocking. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Inuyasha chapters
Yes, I planned to finish the rest of them tomorrow. I want to put them all on the same page, but I'll first edit the sub pages first so the task isn't so big. It'll take a while so I can add all the Japanese names in for each.
I like the new look of the Excel Saga page. I typed all the chapter titles for that a month or two back and I think the new layout makes it look less cluttered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapeofdeath (talk • contribs) 01:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No prob. I'll move them over for you once you've finished, if you like. I've tagged the chapter list page so people know work is going on :) And thanks on Excel Saga. I'm gonna get that one split, probably today or tomorrow. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The first 26 are done and I'll do the last 26 in the morning. I'd trim down the manga summary boxes too, but I'm not very good at it. Once that is taken care of the page will look a lot nicer. Grapeofdeath (talk • contribs) 06:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've finished putting all the volumes up, the translations of titles, and all the chapters that haven't been published into tankōbon yet. I don't think there's a need for an expert anymore unless to just keep up with the weekly chapters.Grapeofdeath (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Ya know, its kinda sad that a newer user like yourself was willing to do such a tremendous amount of effort that the long time editors had let go for so long. Thanks a bunch! :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been hanging around wikipedia for many years, but it's only in this last year I finally made myself an account. I spend a good amount of time at librarything.com watching the manga sections to make sure everything is combined correctly. I think I'll work on the Cowboy Bebop manga section next. I'm not even sure where to start with Sailor Moon...Grapeofdeath (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah :) Well glad you decided to make and account. For Sailor Moon...ugh...that one is something of a lost cause, I think. Efforts so far have been met with strenous conflict by the SM project, and most in the AaM project just don't want to deal with the stress. :( SM badly needs it though. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Robin...
...has been blocked for two weeks. Would it be considered WP:DICKish of me to cheer and dance? :)
Anyway, I'll try to pop on when I can, if not I'll see you in about two weeks. In the meantime, I think I've addressed all your comments at the Degrassi FAC. Take care, -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@04:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL, only if it would be considered it cause I did ;) Have a good wikibreak (even if not wholly voluntary LOL). I think you have as well, but I'll double check now.AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The lead of his article needs expansion :P I'm still inclined to say delete, but I'm not one for people categories like that. I suspect he'd get more keeps, though, since his category seems to be missing items. Hmmm...would be an on the fence thing. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes on Takahasi. I don't see anything showing Akamatsu's was already deleted, but I'd send to CfD as it is clearly no different from Takahasi. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately no. A bot should have already removed them, or the closing admin. For Bleach, I already did and left him a 3RR (I didn't leave you one since you already gave yourself one LOL). Also left a note on the talk page. Kinda silly to have a disambig at all, but if there is going to be one, a simple one is best. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Though I use "POPUPS" for reverting, still haven't figured out the kinks for disambiguating and/or correcting redirects. For instance, I'm trying to "auto-fix" 666 Satan redirects, but can't find the button. Can your "TWINKLE" do that? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't tried popups yet. No, Twinkle can't do much of anything regarding auto-fixing. It can pretty much do rollbacks and vandalism rollbacks (which auto opens links to the user's talk page), leave a wide range of talk page warnings, do diff highlightings, and automate Xfds/Prods/CSDs/page protection requests/and three kinds of vandalism alerts. :) I know there is a program or something that can do it, but darned if I can remember what its called right now. I think its that one you download and install on your desktop. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
SingStar article
A couple months back you commented at Talk:SingStar about a proposal to change SingStar-related articles. The discussion has recently come up again, and I've been discussing with User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles about whether or not we should include track lists for the games. If you have the time, I'd like to get a third opinion on the matter if possible. Thanks, --Tntnnbltn (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with that. He seems to think that anything and everything belongs in Wikipedia except for a few topic which are personally distasteful to him. He uses almost the exact same arguments, word for word, in every deletion keep vote I've ever seen him do. Anyway, I don't think the tracks lists are needed. They just glut the article, are nothing but game guide material for a game of this type, and are easily available on the official website. It is no different from tracklists of soundtracks, which do not belong in individual film or television articles either, per consensus in both projects (and ditto in Anime/Manga articles). You may want to try prodding the video game project into providing more views, or at WP:NOT to see if it would violate "not a guide." AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Manga chapters that will never be published
Hope you don't mind me asking you another question. I'll be starting on Cowboy Bebop tomorrow, but I realized I'm not sure what to do with the chapter that was never published in a tankōbon. It's been many years now, so I know it's never going to happen. I don't know whether I should make one of those lists like the ones on other pages of all the chapters waiting to be published or a separate section say what magazine it appeared in and what time. I own the magazine, so that wouldn't be difficult. The only other instance of similar occurrence is the 109 chapter of Death Note that was never collected into tankōbon, but since it is never mentioned on the wiki page, I'm not sure how to go about formatting this. Do you have any ideas?Grapeofdeath (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't mind at all :) For something like that, just note it in the main article either as part of the manga section or in the media section. Something similar was done with Rurouni Kenshin, though the article itself is in need of work, it shows one way of handling it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
AIV repoort
Hi AnmaFinotera, I am copying my response to your report on contributions at 14:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC) to WP:AIV here, in case you didn't get a chance to see it. R. Baley (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
"I am reluctant to block at this point, because the damage is pretty minor, and the account operator is more immature than malicious. Please leave a note at my talk page if problems get more intense or problematic. I will add their talk page to my watchlist. R. Baley (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)"
That doesn't mean you get to take over the old article. Your Adam Powell is no more notable than this one, and he already has an article. You don't get to just claim the other name because its prettier or something. Leave it alone already and be happy with the article you already created. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. You are taking over an article with an extensive history with a FOUR year editing history. You can't do that, period, especially just to steal the name. Your player has an article, work on it there where it belongs. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Would be happy to associate that information within a special section within the neopets article, else see some verification for non articles having precedence. Were that to be put in front of me I would obviously cease and desist.Londo0616:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the right thing to do here would be to move the current Adam Powell article to Adam Powell (Neopets), then move the existing rugby player article to Adam Powell with a link to the Neopets article at the top. Londo is doing it the wrong way but it makes no sense to me to enforce a disambiguation for a non-notable individual. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
That would seem like the proper procedure (though I believe once Adam Powell is moved, an admin would then have to delete the old Adam Powell before the move could be continued), and it is certainly far preferable and Londo's just taking over the article to claim the name without so much as a word and continuing to do so after being repeatedly told he was acting inappropriately. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware of such things until afterwards, upon quick inspection it was only a redirect. Apologies for that aspect of my actions.Londo0616:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm against teh creation of episode articles period when they violate Wikipedia guidelines, which almost all of them do. It isn't against the rules to open the discussion, but they don't belong, nor do those others. Episode articles should be rare, and only for the very few episodes which actually are notable. If your only desire is to just make some articles full of huge plot summary and silly trivia like other attempts, please just put it on the Xena wiki. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid reason to keep violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and episodes SHOULD meet WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT, which require significant coverage in third-party sources (and being in a TV listing doesn't count). AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted your undo because the article is better than before. Since you have so far shown the most interest in the article, you should check what of the former cleanup tags should be added again (I left them off for now). Regards, – sgeurekat•c18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I've put them all back. It isn't improved at all, IMHO. Still an unnotable plot filled article that fails WP:EPISODE and should be merged back to the episode list. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a policy or something that says it is wrong to accuse editors of such and such behaviour? For instance, I am getting tired of Abtract labeling me a "stalker", in spite of the fact that I have told him (several times in fact) that many of the pages he happens to edit are on my watchlist. What do you think? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it violates WP:CIVILITY (policy) and WP:AGF (guideline). Abtract seems to have a false view of 3RR, and though he says he is working on the civility issues, I see he is still making accusations while saying he's working on it. :( If he ignores Redrocket's current attempt to talk to him, and continues his actions, I'd be inclined to look at some stronger options, such as an WP:RFC/USER, since multiple editors have now tried to correct his actions with no results.AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, his respond to Redrocket leaves a lot to be desired. I pointed him to Civility already, so guess he didn't read it either. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...his responses are showing he has no intention of changing, so I think an RFC/U may be in order, but let me touch base with Redrocket and an admin first. I'm thinking either Red or I should file it, if we go that route, so he can't claim its a personal thing. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
AoD is heavily used as a reference, as it is considered an extremely reliable source for anime and manga topics, particularly for reviews. They have plenty of industry support, and I suspect could pass WP:WEB if someone wanted to take the time to write up a real article on them, particularly with its 10 year history and the recent purchase of the site by Mania.com. I've debated it but haven't gotten around to it yet. Of course, the first issue would be...what name to use :P AnimeOnDVD is how Chris himself refers to the site, and I believe AnimeOnDVD.com is most used when their reviews are quoted by licensors on product ads and releases. However, the site's footer uses Anime on DVD. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I say AnimeonDVD.com, with redirects, AnimeOnDVD, and Anime on DVD. And of course a hatnote stating "this article is for the site of AnimeOnDVD.com if you are looking for a list of anime released on DVD go here" AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we settle on linking "AnimeOnDVD.com"? (Note the capital "O") That's all I'm proposing, mainly because most pages spell it out like so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure...though if you're going to go through and add links to all the refs, you're gonna be very busy for awhile ;) AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw that List of Meerkat Manor meerkats edit, thought about cutting it, then thought "I'm not 100% sure on that one--better let AnmaFinotera weigh in on it." And ten minutes later, it was gone! Always good to have many pairs of eyes on something... thanks!Gladys J Cortez22:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL, yep. I don't want those to be like some featured lists and left to rot after getting that FL star. ;) Someone else said Rocket Dog was killed by a car (in the middle of an uninhabited area?). The new series premieres next month...may have to do some page protecting to keep the IPs from going crazy :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
No. You created it without consensus and establishing notability, in violation of WP:EPISODE. Girls Just Wanna Have Fun only got a free pass as it was around awhile and went through AfD. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible for you to withdraw this? -- Catchi? 23:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
No. I stand by my reasons for submitting it for deletion. It is an unnecessary and inappropriate duplicate of the real episode list template. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Endless discussion part 3
Started new discussion. (I guess you could merge our endless speech, he he). However, are you making the peer review of Himura Kenshin. At least I could make the improvements I can.--Tintor2 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I'm just calling it a little dedicated section of my talk page ;) And peer review started (I knew I'd forgotten something...its a brain dead day LOL) AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Me and my friend sesshomaru are discussing something from Himura Kenshinhere. Its about the weakness of a technique and how should it be written. Since we cant agree, can you give your opinion there? Thanks.--Tintor2 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
About the List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters, last month I decided to stop making summaries since I thought I could better improvements in other articles. Even, if I get to finish it the article will be tagged for copy-edit and jagger (no idea what is jagger, he he). Once again I agree with all the merges you said in the talk page. Regards.--Tintor2 (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I ll start giving a hand in Rurouni Kenshin, once I finish Fma and also delete that clean-up tag. I guess the expert more or less is done since I have been asking you everything about the article improvements^_^.--Tintor2 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
He he, today I wont appear here until wikipedia midnight time (here in South America is earlier), so see you.--Tintor2 (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, just kinda brain dead when I try to do any editing right now. Probably too much stress from my hunt for my first house and an overload from working on too many things at once. I'll still be watchlist stalking monitoring and be around for discussions and stuff :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera? Sorry for bothering, but at least I would like to know the sections that require clean up.--Tintor2 (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, your message got lost in a barrage of others of late. The character section needs its formatting fixed. I think that's about it for the major needing a tag clean up. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I found these two interviews that look pretty nice that talks about Kenshin's voice actor.[11][12]. I just cant understand too much about it. Could you add it?--Tintor2 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for bothering but are you going to post the information of those interviews? I find myself very hard to do it (what is a ADR?), but I can make you sure that the information is totally helpful. Regards.--Tintor2 (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If no one beats me to it, I'll try to get to it sometime soon. I have a 12 page mortgage pre-approval application and a bunch of documents to gather to go with it by first thing Monday morning. Weee...AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, if you have time could you please take a look at Facebook and post any suggestions you may have at Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive3? I'd like to get it to WP:FAC soon but first I'd like a copyedit from people who are not involved with the article, and if you have any content suggestions such as what to keep or remove, I would also appreciate that. Thanks! GaryKing(talk)21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to take a look at it tonight or tomorrow. Feeling under the weather today. One thing I did notice real quick is that Facebook Platform redirects to Facebook features, so probably doesn't need two mains and double links.AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is becoming annoying. I've about stretched my patience to the breaking point with this user (and as you know, I consider myself very even-tempered and overly civil), and his obstinate nature is about all I can handle. Fresh comments would be nice. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR(Converse)08:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Done and indef blocked. Sometimes SSP's take a while as so few admins watch it. Thanks for your report. If you find anymore it'll probably be quicker to come straight to me or User:Enigmaman. Thank you! ScarianCall me Pat!20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, looks like Ryulong asserted his ownership of all articles tokusatsu again, and undid all those edits you made to Kamen Rider Blade, as he usually does to any attempt at removing content from an article, no matter how superfluous. Thanks for trying to help, though. It was nice to see someone had my back. Howa0082 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed it, again, and restructured it to meet the guidelines of the Television MoS (rather than the anime/manga one). AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Was that why you chopped so much? I didn't realize you were using the anime/manga ones. Meh. I liked the vast majority of the edits, anyway, so wha'ever. Howa0082 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
They are similar, so it would have been chopped either way (television one actually doesn't allow as much plotty stuff, in some ways). The main difference is in the organizing of the sections and some variants in their names :) Nominated that Undead article for deletion...so now Fractyl is glutting my watch list by adding "references" to the official series site to all 52 listings *doh*AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm reformating to keep the page up. Tell me if this format works.
Sealed by: Garren's Burning Divide(series), J-Garren's Jack Burning Shot (Movie)
The Spider Undead was a accomplice of the Peacock Undead, selecting the ideal users to become Leagule before he intentionally had himself sealed into the Change Spider card to create Leangle. Though sealed, the Spider usually takes over the body of Mutsuki Kamijō, using him to become more powerful for the Battle Fight until he no longer needs a human host. Affected by Titan's venom in episode 42, Spider starts to completely take over Mutsuki to the point of turning into the Undead himself. The Spider was forced out from Leangle during episode 42 when attempting to assume king form, with Mutsuki free of the Undead's influence thanks to Hikaru Jō giving Noboru Shima a stronger influence. The Spider was properly resealed by Mutsuki with the King Rouser. Though unsealed in Missing Ace by the Albino Joker, the Spider Undead was resealed by J-Garren.[1]
The format has nothing to do with anything related to its deletion at all. You need to work on dealing with the real issues, which is its complete lack of real-world notability. Running through and reformatting it right now will just be wasted effort. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Explain the "real-world notability", because the only place to find those are on episodes AND on TV Asahi(Offical Blade page). Not to mention the article opens with "Undead are are a fictional race of monsters in the 2004JapaneseKamen Rider SeriesKamen Rider Blade." And the Undead that didn't make physical appearences where already made into cards. Fractyl (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That is the point. They have no real-world notability. The episodes and the official website do not show any real-world notability. They are insignificant characters outside of the series. No one has done extensive discussions about them, reviews, analysis, etc. They don't need their own article, nor do they need listing as they are just one-shot characters. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
What of the Royal Flush Undead, the Aces, or the Jokers? Along with the Trials and Unknown Undead, they have alot more info than the minor Undead as they made a bigger impact. Fractyl (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The entire topic is unnotable. The amount of information is irrelevant when it all comes from the series itself, and the "impact" is only within the show. Again, real-world information, such as creation, conception, reception, etc sourced by reliable, third-party sources not related to the series is required to establish that the topic of the Undead is notable enough to have their own article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
But it doesn't work like that. We can't explain that kind of stuff, though some Undead are homeage to older Kamen Rider monsters, like a Gelshocker monster for Titan.Fractyl (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does work like that, at least here. Wikipedia is not a fansite and not a guide to the series. The emphasis is on the real world aspects. The undead are already adequately explained in the main article, making the list completely unnecessary and excessive fictional, in-universe plot regurgitation. They are not notable and need nothing more than the short summary in the main article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to make a consistant formatting amongst the toku articles similar to what has been done at the Japanese Wikipedia's pages. There is a plot section, a characters section, a section detailing the monsters of the day, an episode list (we have articles for them here that serve as short summarizations of the episodes, but I prefer having a numbered list and the list page), mentions of movies and specials, a theme song section, a cast, and whatever else there may be. I know that these pages don't have a written MOS, but the formatting on the other pages (Kamen Rider Den-O, Kamen Rider Kiva, Juken Sentai Gekiranger, GoGo Sentai Boukenger, Engine Sentai Go-onger) are all similar (and not conforming with a different project's personal MOS). Also, there's nothing wrong with using the logo that comes from the PS2 game if they are inherently the same image. Why bother uploading another fair use image when there's one that serves the same purpose, albeit a different source.?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make them consistent, then bring the others in line with the television MoS. They are television series. The Toku project is a child project of the TV project, whether it wants to acknowledge that or not. You don't get to decide to implement your personal MoS, and the project is not exempt from following the existing MoS. As for the image, because the fair use is invalid for its use. It is not representative of the television series, but of the video game, and it doesn't come from the television series. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing that says that these pages have to be in line with the TV WikiProject's MOS. The toku project is not a child project of anything, as it covers (currently) TV series, films, video games, music, and several aspects. Just because this particular article is about a TV series does not mean that it needs to follow the MOS of every other TV series. I'll admit that WP:TOKU doesn't have an MOS to go by yet, but I would certainly think that other similar articles that are formatted the way I was reformatting Blade's page also aren't consistent with the TV MOS, but are consistent with each other. The MOS is a guideline; not a written law.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Twinkle removed
AnmaFinotera, I've removed your Twinkle script for this edit. Twinkle is not to be used to edit war, and marking edits made by administrators as vandalism is a violation of our policy on no personal attacks. Please discuss things in a civil manner rather than resorting to edit wars and accusations. Thank you. Hersfold(t/a/c)21:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope you also intend to do something about that administrator who thinks his personal style choice can take precedence over the existing and primary MoS for the project, or who has been doing a slow edit war over that article for months and refuses to discuss anything, but just keeps reverting to his preferred version that violates the MoS and multiple Wikipedia guidelines. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If you'd be willing to give him a chance, he's trying to work with other editors to set up a guideline. Right now, however, you are in violation of 3RR and will be blocked if you continue to revert these edits. Stop now. Hersfold(t/a/c)21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, he's an admin so he can do what he want. Let him ruin the article again, it can just remain a glutted, horribly formatted, mess. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments like that don't help things either. Admins have no more right to edit pages than other editors do. Have you considered joining in the discussion about this? You might be able to provide some input, and that would be far more constructive than fighting over it. Hersfold(t/a/c)21:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
See above, all he wants is to use his own personal style that allows unnecessary, inappropriate information. From the project talk page, they did the same when the Film project tried to clean up the film articles too. And that may be what's said, but reality is usually different. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't really care either way; I'm in no way involved with this and don't care to be. But edit warring over it is causing more damage that even the worst formatting could. I can see that you've opened a discussion topic, though, so hopefully this will get sorted out. Thanks. Hersfold(t/a/c)21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really, his answer was to just emphasis he'll do what he wants. *shrug* Oh well, not like there are tons of other bad articles on Wikipedia as well. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't protected your monobook page, as I'm sure you've noticed; however I also notice it's been removed from you once before for a similar situation. I won't impose any time limit this time, however would strongly encourage you watch your actions with the tool in the future once you do reinstall it. If it gets removed again, it may be permanent. Twinkle, like rollback, should be used carefully and not as a tool to edit war. Hersfold(t/a/c)22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind it, I just think two is a little over kill. One should be enough, I'd think. Those inclined to ignore will just ignore both anyway :P If you want to put it back, I won't revert again. BTW, did you see the RfC/User on Abtract? AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I shall restore the edit then. And about that RfC, would it help if I signed somewhere here? I read it all, but wasn't sure whether to comment or not (might incite Abtract). Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think you need to certify, and give diffs of where you tried to talk to/correct him. I think since you're the main one he kept being incivil with, you can certify it. It needs at least one more certification before it can move on. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh, that RfC was deleted, but Abtract's behaviour doesn't concern me now (seems he sort of stooped anyway). In any case, what was to become of the Battosai and Sakabato redirects? Were they supposed to re-target Himura Kenshin's page and become new sections? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, user RfCs must be certified by at least two involved users within 48 hours. I was the only one to certify so it was deleted. He'll likely return to his usual behavior now, feeling he got another free pass. The Battosai and Sakabato redirects should be changed to point to Kenshin's page, but they don't need separate sections. Just point to the main article. Both have already been merged in, I believe. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if I understand your reverts since you put almost everything back to how it was. Though I do understand the thing about references and won't do that again. Do you mind if I put the correct release dates back by the books? Grapeofdeath (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Mostly I fixed the wording and put the ref into the text as an inline citation. Woops, yes, feel free to put back the correct dates, I thought I'd moved them back in when I redid it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Jenna Ficher's blog
In answer to one of your points brought up during the FARC for The Office, I would certainly consider Jenna Fischer's blog to be a reliable source for information about the show regardless of where it's hosted. When we blacklisted links to MySpace, for understandable reasons, we didn't seem to consider that notable people might be hosting their blogs there. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Dirty Dancing
I'm going to try and take Dirty Dancing to FA again... Since you were one of the principal opposers, I thought I'd check with you, what do you think? --Elonka13:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry to see you're feeling burned out atm - when you've got the time and energy, could you please thumb through your copy of Anime explosion! (which I'm assuming you've got by now, as you're on the anime reference list) for any gems of information in the Sailor Moon chapter? Thanks for your time. -Malkinann (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay (and forgetting). You can download the PDF here (its almost 13 megs, so may want to just do a save as :P). The first eight pages cover the chapter on Sailor Moon. Pages 9-11 are from the chapter on the theme of death and rebirth in anime and focus mostly on the anime version of the Hotaru storyline. Pages 12 and 13 are from the chapter on spiritual aspects of anime, giving a profile of Rei in the section on the depiction of mikos in anime. For the reference tag: {{cite book |last=Drazen |first=Patrick |title=Anime Explosion! The What? Why? & Wow! of Japanese Animation |year=2002 | month=October |publisher=Stone Bridge Press |location=[[Berkeley, California]] |isbn=1-880656-72-8 |oclc=50898281 |pages=pp. }} AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that :) Am I right in assuming that all further references (inside the book) are taken care of by the footnote format (and are thus included in the pages you've scanned) rather than in a reference list at the back? -Malkinann (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean the references it uses? It uses footnotes with a full list in the back, though referencing the book itself should be fine? AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been keeping a "reference wishlist" at Talk:Sailor Moon/to do, with references that are out there somewhere, but we don't have ready access to, and I was wondering if the reference list of the book could give us any more leads as to what is out there in Sailor Moon scholarship. -Malkinann (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Its something I've been doing for the talk pages of merged articles lately, rather than dealing with merging those talk pages into the talk archives of the pages they were merged to. It helps emphasis that the merged page's talk contents shouldn't be edited and that the discussion is now closed. Talkheader won't work because it encourages active discussion. Another possible option would be to move the page to Talk:Akatsuki (Naruto)/Archive 15, then have the main page just have the archive box and a note that article was merged. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Madam! I just proposed a merge of ALL Bloody Roar characters. If you like, you can join the conversation, and help with the eventual consensus. Oh, and sorry about the "accident" I left on your main page. (I removed it) I'm still getting used to this sort of thing. ^^; ZeroGiga (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I took a whack at it and realized I'm not familiar with FICT or MoS:LANG, I made some basic things, but you might try moving down the list to the next LOC guy. MBisanztalk08:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I had no idea yesterday would turn into such a huge clusterfsck. Sorry for dragging you into the mess that is WP:Toku. Howa0082 (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Its okay. Sorry I didn't realize he was an admin. Probably nothing to be done now but, unfortunately, just ignore those articles and work on something else as the same problems will crop up on all of them. He's made it very clear that he will never allow the TV MoS to be properly applied to any of those articles, and will likely just undo anything that doesn't meet his own personal style. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Normally, I would do that. But I've been driven off articles before, and I have no intention to be driven out of an entire Wikiproject just because of this nonsense. I'll just... work around him as much as I can, I guess. Howa0082 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Recently, you opposed the candidacy of this article. Since then, it has seen major improvements, largely because User:John Broughton, User:Bertport, and I, User:PericlesofAthens have copyedited the living hell out of it in the past week. Lol. Also, the infamous User:LaGrandefr has not shown his insidious face or made his presence known for an entire week now (which is unlike him), so the article seems to be stable at last. Also, two users have recently supported the article. I was wondering if you would look over it and reassess it.--Pericles of AthensTalk16:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
What? Are you pulling a fast one on me buddy?! If so I think it's kind of funny. But seriously dude, that's like asking for a citation that George Washington became president of the USA in 1789, or asking for a citation that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC. These are well known, common sense historical events. Not only that, I provided a citation from Rossabi about the Mongol conquest of Tibet in the 1240s, long before the Song Dynasty was conquered in 1279. Not only that, I provided a link to the article History of the Song Dynasty, which is well-sourced and goes into great detail about the conquest of the Song Dynasty. Not only that, if you doubt the existence of the Red Turban Rebellion or the Hongwu Emperor, that's like asking me if King Henry VIII existed, and asking for a citation. Unless there is some crazy historical revisionist out there like Anatoly Fomenko who wishes to challenge these events by explaining that aliens ruled the earth before 1400 AD, then WP:CITE wouldn't suggest that I provide citations for these, unless some publication comes forth to challenge them.--Pericles of AthensTalk17:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not. I'm saying they are unsourced. And there are enough crazy historical revisionists that I suspect someone out there would question anything. As someone who knows nothing about that area's history, how do you know its correct without a source? AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well I figured this was well-known stuff, even in Europe and the US people have at least heard of the Ming Dynasty (through porcelain antiques). If you really think it needs a citation, I'll be more than happy to add one. Here, let me just throw a bunch of my history books down, close my eyes, pick one at random, and find a citation for the Hongwu Emperor and the Red Turban Rebellion, because I literally have 10 or 12 books that at least mention it. Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk00:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Heard of yes, but for most folks the limit is about "oh yeah, those Chinese knick knacks." US education on foreign areas is mostly optional for most students and most opt out. I've taken a world history class myself, but have no memory for facts and figures, and it doesn't really gointo much information about a lot of stuff. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I made some major edits to the ED article, which you haven't changed, but you did change back the citation style, which is a major bugbear of mine. Standard academic style is 'Quigly 2000b' or something like that, with the full details in the references. Embedding long citations in the text itself quickly makes it unreadable and ugly. Just a plea for elegance and readability. You are welcome to do with the article what you like, anyway. Peter Damian (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
PS I checked in Wikipedia:Author-date referencing and the method I was using (Harvard) is the first method recommended. It is also (as I said above) a standard and universally used method. Of the other two, one is the use of endnotes, but there is nothing there that says the method of embedding URLs is standard. Peter Damian (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That citation style is ugly, and perfectly useless in that article. Also per the MoS you don't change the established style of an article without consensus. The style was already established as being pure inline. And Harvard being first does not mean it is the best or the most recommended. It is actually the least used, and rarely, if ever, used in articles like this. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I haven't changed it back, but you agree the source is practically unreadable? And it is not in fact an ugly style. The use of any other method is unknown in the academic world. Peter Damian (talk)
No. The references are now perfectly, and properly formatted. Harvard style doesn't belong, period. It is fine the way it is now that I've fixed the formatting. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No they are not perfectly, nor properly formatted. You haven't provided a single reference for your claim that embedded URLs are acceptable. One has to read past a swathe of http colon this and that and makes decent editing impossible. I after all reworked the whole of the first paragraph into something less barbaric (which you have retained, thank you). Give me a break. Peter Damian (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they are. Frankly, get over yourself. This isn't an academic tome, its Wikipedia, and the style used on the article is the style used in DOZENS of featured articles, if not hundreds. It is the most common citation style here and extremely, widely acceptable. If you don't like looking at it, I suggest you stick to the more mundane academia topics here where the Harvard style is actually liked and common. It isn't used much anywhere else. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit) forgive me, but I checked through your last 500 mainspace edits, and most of your contributions are linking and lists and formatting stuff. You don't do much 'prose' stuff i.e. the stringing together of connected thoughts into something resembling a coherent whole. This is what I do: I find these wretched embedded URLs a nightmare and a curse and an abomination. They make decent writing impossible. Given that I reworked that paragraph and made it nicer and less illiterate, I think it reasonable to allow me to use the style of citation that I find comfortable working with. Reasonable? Peter Damian (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(conflict) No, the academic style is not mundane, i.e. worldly. The anime stuff is mundane (forgive me again). And you persist in misunderstanding my point when you say "If you don't like looking at it" - I don't care about the looking, it's writing and editing my way through a thicket of URL's that I don't like. You understand? Peter Damian (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
ROFLOL, you really do need to get over yourself if you think "anime" is mundane. And your idea that I don't do much "prose" stuff...oh, yeah, I didn't write that silly featured article, or those silly featured lists, or the silly featured topic. Those are just nothing to you, I guess. And no, you don't get to use the style of citation you are comfortable with just because you don't like us "commoners" style. It doesn't belong, no one else supports it, and you don't get to decide on your own to completely change it just because you are some academic who hates the real world. As for URLs in refs, get over it. Its staying, and you aren't going to run around changing the entire way Wikipedia works just because you don't like it. Honestly, get used to it or stay out of any articles that don't already use Harvard style. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
What about you?
BarnSakura for excellent edits
I hereby award you the Anime and Manga BarnSakura for your excellent edits at most anime and manga articles, and all the help you gave me! Tintor2 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you. I'm not even going to bother bringing this up at the requests board. Would you be willing to take a look at Star Trek: Enterprise for me, and leave me a note on my talk page about any improvements you can see being needed? I rewrote the article months ago, and haven't really wanted to dissect my own work since then. Fix the quality rating, too, if you feel it needs to be changed. Thanks. Howa0082 (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
If I remove the TrekUnited and TrekToday refs, that section about the big, dumb, failed campaign becomes unreferenced. Which means I have to remove it. Right? Howa0082 (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If no other sources exist, then yes. You can start by removing those refs, and tagging for needing citations...give some time to find other, more reliable sources. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry for editing the Rave Master article a second time. Well, it looked okay, anyway, but I really wanted the data to show, not just a simple "show" button.
I won't touch that article anymore since it's okay in the first place (silly me)...
Thanks. We only show the initial network of airing. All others go behind the show button to avoid the infoboxes from being too long (some shows have aired on dozens and dozens of networks). We do the same with publishers of manga. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
New Account
Hi, I was the guy discussing the List of Friends episodes. I have now created an account (as I said I would) but I would like to know how you made your user page all fancy as mine looks a bit bare. You don't have to tell me but just give me link to the information if possible. That's one thing Wikipedia could make clearer – their own programing language. Thanks. Citizen89 (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I've left a note on your new talk page that has a lot of useful links and information that can help you learn the basics of Wikipedia. For my user page, I mostly used basic wikimarkup. The section on "How to edit a page" in your new welcome message has details on that. For the userboxes, you can find a list of ones available at Wikipedia:Userboxes. :) Hope that helps. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the help--I hope you had some automated way of making all those changes, rather than hand-editing all my technical errors (e.g., wrong date formats). If you see any other error that you'd rather tell me to fix than do yourself, I take constructive criticism reasonably well--doubly so when I've been seeking it out! I'd love to hear your ideas on the content, structure, etc. of the article as well if you're interested in commenting on those, but regardless, thanks for the assist. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I was able to do some with some quick search/replace, but about half done by hand as well (glad the article wasn't too long yet LOL) :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
As it stands now, do you think the article should have been quick failed GA review for lack of reliable sources? Jclemens (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, but I would have quick failed it as well. In addition to the references, it has several MoS violations (including some very basic ones regarding headers -- I already fixed the MoS issues in the references), and its far too short to be considered broad in its coverage. It's also missing an image :-P AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. So there is a minimum length? I was shooting for a tight, well documented article--that is, I wanted everything notable to be said, but didn't really see anything non-notable missing. I'll read up on header requirements. I've been looking at adding the web logo, but want to do the research to get it right, first. Thanks again! Jclemens (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Either a logo, or a screenshot would be good (for a website, a screenshot of the first page is usually preferred). No minimal length, but the "Recognition" section is just a list of a few awards, when it should be prose and, preferably, include reviews and critical commentary as well. If there isn't much more to say about the site than what's currently there and that can be sourced, then it calls to question whether it is really a notable website that should stand alone, or if it should be merged to Joss Whedon's article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sukeban
When cleaning up an article such as sukeban please take care not to delete the references from the reference list. Could you please use {{or}} to note the specific parts of the article that you think are original research? -Malkinann (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
There was no evidence in the article showing that the book was actually being used as a reference for anything. For OR, all of the parts I removed calling specific characters as "sukeban" without any reference to actually back it up. Just people's personal opinions. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Except the part where it was listed under "References"? In WP:CITE's language it might be considered a "general reference". I'm not exactly sure what it's used for, but I'm sure you can find the person who used it in the history of the article. I'm a little surprised that you think there are inappropriate self-published sources in the article - I'm guessing you mean Erica Friedman. Her site is used extensively as a reference for Yuri (term), as was discussed here. -Malkinann (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Gripe.
I'm bothering you again. Take a look at this and let me know what you think. And if you at all feel it's a worthless article, oh god, look at the original. I'm not too sure what else to do with this, but I think I've pared out the essential tv information, while also keeping in mind the idea of less plottiness, while also balancing Toku's desire for endless amounts of exacting information. I think it's a decent start and I'm nearly ready to upload it to mainspace, but what do you think? Howa0082 (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you got a little happy with the bolding ;) Beyond that, though, not sure what to say. Too much character info for me, but I doubt he'd be satisfied with an article that actually focused on the real-world stuff, like production, distribution, etc. *sigh* 04:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. But then, it's a decades-old program from Japan. I seriously doubt the ease at which someone could find any articles about the production of that show. I'm sure it's out there, but being that it'd be entirely in Japanese, I have no idea how to find any of it. I had originally only had the Biomen listed at all, but realized pretty quick the article became virtually a stub at that point, hence why now you get to read all about Farrah Cat. It used to be worse, though. A lot worse. Howa0082 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep...with it unlicensed, its probably not going to have much info available at all...well, unless you learn to read Japanese books ;) (and if you do, my hats off to you! Speaking it is hard enough!) AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Anime - popular culture and society
Hi, my name's Nick and I'm doing a speech on anime as a popular culture for a course in my final year of high school. The main focus of the speech is the two-way relationship between popular culture and social change. So, as a key contributor to the Anime/Manga portal I was hoping you could help me out. How do you think anime (in all its forms) has influenced wider society, and how have changes in society been reflected within anime? Also, how, in your opinion, is anime constantly changing and evolving?
I'm not really sure I'm qualified to answer the first question, since I'm not that familiar with Japanese culture and society, nor how anime may have influenced it. I'm also a much bigger manga reader than an anime watcher (though I greatly enjoy anime). You might do well asking at AnimeOnDVD.com's forums, as quite a few readers are more familiar with that side of things and can probably speak far more intelligently about it that I can. For changes in society being reflected, again since I'm not intimately familiar with Japanese culture, I can only speak to the more general side of things. The growing dependency, and maybe addiction, to technical gadgets is certainly being reflected in more modern anime series. Where as older series, such as Sailor Moon had the characters bound by the "old fashioned" ways of communicating, in the newer Cardcaptor Sakura we see Sakura with walkie talkies and larger portable phones, reflecting the big bulky first model cell phones. In the newest series, characters regularly have cellphones, to the point that we have manga series such as Calling You, in which a character feels like an outcast and strange because she doesn't have a cellphone (and to compensate, creates one in her mind). In the Fruits Basket manga, its seen as a sign that the character Yuki is becoming more sociable and less stand offish when he obtains his first cellphone. I also think some of the modern series are addressing topics of current concern, such as global warming and environmental issues, in increasing regularly. Series such as Blue Seed, Arjuna, and Pretear and films such as Princess Mononoke and Nausicaa do so in varying degrees of insistence. I still think Japan sometimes buries its head in the sand on some topics, though, just like US television. Not to many anime series, for example, deal with HIV/AIDs, cancer, etc. One of the few, Full Moon o Sagashite does have a child dying of throat cancer, and shows a little bit of her treatment and avoids the cliche of having her cancer miraculously cured through magic.
Is anime constantly changing and evolving? Yes, I think so. Of course, artistically, but also in terms of plot and scope. Sure, its still a mixed bag with some silly, some outrageous, some seemingly never ending, and some serious and heart-wrenching, but as a whole I think it continues to build on the past to grow. Of course, the classics are also still good, which I think is one of anime's greatest charms. With a lot of american cartoons, we grow up loving them, then watch them as an adult and go "OMG I can't believe I liked that" while I've found anime doesn't grow stale. Series I watched 10 years ago, I still watch now, still love, and still discover new things about.
I hope this helps some, and either way, I think its a great topic for a paper! :D If you haven't already taken a look, you might find Patrick Drazen's Anime Explosion and Susan Napier's Anime from Akira to Howl's Moving Castle: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation to be very useful sources. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thanks so much - you've really given me something to go on! I will definitely check out some of the titles you mentioned. I'll be sure to give you a mention in my bibliography, too :P Thanks again.--Nick???11:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you review Fires on the Plain (film)? This is not a review for B class, I'd just like an opinion about it. Me and Dekkapai have worked on it quite a bit. It would be appreciated if you could get to this quickly though I understand you are Wikibonked. Oh, and if you could give me an opinion on my new section in WP:film talk page "Saving Private Ryan - Sniper issue" that would be appreciated as well. I will ask other editors about this as well. Happy editing! Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It's getting there. A few notes: Awards should be a subsection under Reception. Availability should be renamed distribution, moved up above reception, and include the theatrical release information (per MoS). The lead needs quite a bit of work to meet the MoS and WP:LEAD. Anything else from the interviews that can expand out the production section? What is the "Bibliography" for at the end? Is the book about the film? Is it being used as a reference? With the wealth of reviews available, including the Rotten Tomatoes score is unnecessary and adds nothing to the article. I'd remove that line and start straight with the modern review remarks. Also, some ref format fixing is needed :) Hope that helps. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I put "Awards" under "Reception". A couple of questions come to mind quickly: Though I said that this is not a review for B class, would you say this is more close to B class or to start? Should I get more images for the article? Does the "Modern Reviews" section strike you as unnecesary (or atleast the title;P)? Citizen Kane is older and doesn't have it. However I'd be a liar if I said that another guy made that, I did to hold the Rotten Tomatoes reviews. Speaking of that, do you think that we should get rid of the rotten tomatoes thing but keep the review? Well, thanks. Me and Dekkapai have worked on it quite a bit and it's always nice to hear that your work is good. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Its getting closer to B. I don't personally think the Modern Reviews header is needed. More images are not needed either unless its to illustrate something that can't be clearly conveyed by the text (don't want to get issues with excessive non-free). I'd get rid of the Rotten Tomatoes percent stuff. The reviews themselves are fine as long as they are from critics and not users. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Dekkappai has used it as a source. I'll ask him if it maybe contains some info on production. Hate to admit it but, as much of an Ichikawa fan as I am, I don't have it :(. Oh, I'll get to some of the sfuff you reccomended. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing a recent edit of yours, which stated that Imdb was not a accurate source, does that mean filmography isn't good there either? Oh, and on a completely different note, I'm aware there was a discussion about having a GA symbol. Do you know what I'm talking about? I can't remember what it was. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Basically, IMDB can be used to look up the credits on a film (producer, director, etc), in liu of squinting to read the film credits. However, the film itself is still considered the source there, and if the film conflicts with IMDB, then the film is considered the accurate one. IMDB is not considered a reliable source because it is almost entirely user edited, and users can add/change almost anything in it, including the trivia, plot summaries, credits, awards, etc.
GA stands for Good Article. There are specific criteria for what qualifies as a good article, though the very short version is "just below featured article quality." A good article should be relatively well written, well sourced, comprehensive in coverage, well formatted, stable, and follow applicable guidelines regarding image usage. In order to be considered for a GA class, an article must be nominated as a "Good article candidate." It will be reviewed by another editor against the GA criteria and either passed (if it meets all requirements), put on hold (minor issues to fix), or failed (if it badly fails all the criteria). AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry about taking out the Jamie S. Rich rview. Somebody pointed out that the Reception section was overly long. As for that, she/he also noted that the same Jamie S. part was a pretty long quote and reccomended cutting it. Since it was also a dvd review, I figured it could still show some usefullness in the Availibilty section. Oh, and what I meant by the GA symbol was that editors were discussing a idea for making a symbol simmilar to the FA symbol that would be shown on the top right corner. Thanks. Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
About me renaming reception distribution... that was a mistake. I made don't know how I such a big one :P. Oh, and I had a feeling I'd miss out on the GA symbol discussion. Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL, hey, we all have those moments ;) And trust me, you didn't miss much, and it will probably be back in another couple of months since it seems to be a regularly occurring argument LOL. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Really? I think it is an okay idea but some people have noted that it could bring competition. I'll admit I get excited every time I see that little star thing. Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You, User:AnmaFinotera, are a Ray of Sunshine! You know how sometimes you hate checking your watchlist, especially when you see that certain someone or an IP has edited your favorite articles? The Ray of Sunshine is bestowed on that person that, when you see their name at the top of your watchlist, you know that all is right with the world, you can relax, and do something besides cleaning up another mess. I especially appreciate your helpful contributions to all Degrassi-related articles! Thanks again! - Keng - t | c - 18:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey I can help you with the wallflower chapter names. I put the rst in the talk page(but I didn't sighn in). Plz conact me if I can help. Thx.Mooncrest (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
re your comment on FAtalk, I'm reluctant to name names, since the ones I know are in the bird project, and I don't want to upset other contributors. Take a look at the bird featured lists and see what you think. I think most do not meet the criteria, especially in terms of referencing and mos, but I might be wrong Jimfbleak (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree, many of those need to be reviewed, and delisted if they are not fixed. They need to be taken to FAR for referencing and formatting issues, though maybe start with a discussion in the project, since you're a member, on the need to clean them all up. Point out the new criteria (even if I think they suck, other people seem to think they are stronger), and note that the lists would probably fail an FLR. However, I also noticed you yourself supported keeping one such list as a featured list, even though it has the same problems. :( Its FLR did, at least, result in its lead referencing issues being fixed, though I personally feel it is still not adequately referenced. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? There's no point of view in this section; it's just a description. That's plot content by definition. This sort of info doesn't need references unless there are interpretations or analysis, which it's not the case here. I understand if you like to source everything but it doesn't mean this actually needs references. Kazu-kun (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does need references. Its no different than a character list, which also requires referencing for each specific statement said about a character. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Even when dealing with characters, only interpretations or analysis need to be referenced. Direct descriptions don't need references because there's no point of view, therefore there's nothing likely to be challenged. What do you think we use references for in the first place? Kazu-kun (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, direct descriptions to require references, as has been shown repeatedly in GAs, FAs, and in the FLs of character lists. Sure, we can leave them unreferenced if the article is going to be left low quality, but I want it taken to FA so it requires references.AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not like that. When they ask for references in GAs or FAs it's because there's more than mere descriptions. Tell me, do you really know what references are for. I'm not asking in bad faith, I just think you may not fully understand what I'm talking about.Kazu-kun (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, wrong, I've been through all three and no, it isn't just for interpretative statements. Yes, I have an extremely clear understanding of what references are for. They verify the statements made in the article. Other than a simple plot summary, every statement in an article should be verifiable through clear, precise references. To me, the idea that "only things likely to be challenged" should be referenced is negligent, lazy, and presumes that the only people reading any of the articles will already be so familiar with the topic that they don't care. Making specific statements about characters (or settings) should be properly referenced to the specific episode and/or manga chapter/page where it is stated. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You said it yourself, that's your own opinion, which is irrelevant here. Even those two a three FAs don't reflect any concensus in comparison with the guideline. If you edit this way, based on your own opinion while disregarding the guideline, you could end up been pretty disruptive, even if your edits are in good faith. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not just my own opinion. It has been supported by numerous FAs, FLs, and GAs, and it does reflect the consensus among high class articles. Not just my own, but others I've participated in, including several anime and manga ones. There is nothing disruptive at all in holding articles I work on to the proper standards of Wikipedia. I'm not "disregarding the guideline" either, I'm upholding it far better than some people are willing to. And please stop speaking down to me as if I'm some newbie editor. I'm finding it a little insulting, particularly coming from an editor who is not any more experienced than I am and barely has even a quarter of the edits I do. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
But you are inexperienced; you wouldn't use those nasty comments if you weren't. Anyway, the problem is your approach to this. You seem to believe that sourcing content that don't actually need sources is improving the article, but you're basing this on the fact that others editors (and yourself) think it's a good idea. You should take into account the guideline is the way it is because it was made with the purpose of solving specific problems, not because some editors thought it was a good idea. If it isn't more strict than it is, it's because of that reason, and so "upholding it far better", as you said, can sometimes be pretty disruptive. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not inexperienced, not by any stretch. And no, I didn't make any nasty comments. I expressed that I felt you were insulting me and looking down on me in very polite language considering that I was feeling insulted. Your editing history shows you have almost no experience in FAs, GAs, nor do you actively participate in the various pages for the policies and guidelines you're claiming I am somehow violating or ignoring or misinterpreting. I'm highly active in all of the above, so I'll stick to following what long term, heavily experienced editors state during such reviews. Your argument that its disruptive to somehow actually want an article to be well-sourced strikes me as far bigger sign of inexperience that anything you seem to think I've done. Go ask in verifiability if we're free to state anything we want without any sources so long as no one challenges it. Perhaps then this strange and blatantly wrong idea you have that nothing needs to be sourced unless someone challenges it will be corrected. If it makes you feel better, though, my tagging that section as unreferenced is, in fact, someone challenging its accuracy and a demand for verification. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
"Perhaps then this strange and blatantly wrong idea you have that nothing needs to be sourced"
I thought it was clear I was talking about plot or character descriptions. Referencing is done for attribution, so any real-world statement must be sourced, of course. I wonder why you're twisting my words.
"If it makes you feel better, though, my tagging that section as unreferenced is, in fact, someone challenging its accuracy and a demand for verification."
Wrong. Tagging an specific statement because you have a concern about it means you're challenging it. Tagging the whole thing just because you think it needs references, without specifing any real concern, is pretty meaningless. You're not challenging anything by doing that. Kazu-kun (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
And I've already explained, very clearly, that character descriptions are not immune for referencing, nor are any other in-universe aspects that are not straight, simple plot summary. Making any specific statements about a character, a setting, etc should be sourced. If you don't wish to believe that, then I'm sorry, but it is strongly supported in numerous places. You are the one who mistakenly believes otherwise, and you view is not upheld by any actual evidence, only your own interpretation of something.
Tagging the whole section means I'm challenging the whole section as it has no references at all to support any of the statements and claims made about this locations within the series. It is the only section of the article that is now completely missing references that requires them. You'd rather I'd fill the section with a episode citation tag on every last sentence? That would just make the section ugly and bloated. You keep tossing around first part of WP:V to back up your idea, namely: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." The very same policy notes clearly that "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}." I'm requesting sources for the unsourced statements of the section just as the policy recommends, since some people objected to it being removed.
Anyway, I'm not going to keep beating a dead horse over this. You are wrong, plain and simple, if you really think none of that needs citations. I know I am correct in saying they do need referencing based on my extensive experiences in the featured and GA arenas, in the delisting processes of those arenas, in policy and guideline board discussions, and in my interactions with other experienced editors who do have a firmer grasp of what verifiability means. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
If you're describing what you saw about a character or setting in the work itself, without adding any king of interpretation, then that's also straight, simple plot summary. You're wrong because you're basing your argument in an incorrect concept. Well, it doesn't really matter actually, since I'll be re-writing the whole article soon. Just wanted to let you know that I think you have some misconceptions about sourcing and such. Kazu-kun (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, no, you are wrong and have yet to provide any actual evidence otherwise. As for rewriting the article, what do you mean you plan to rewrite it? I certainly hope you don't plan on undoing all of the extensive work that was done to clean it up and finally bring it in-line with the MoS, add much needed referencing, and real world info. It does not need rewriting at all. It need a brief character list added, the plot completed, and a reception section added. A few more refs and it will be ready for peer review on the road to GA. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a cinematography student so I know exactly what a plot is. Sorry, but you're dead wrong on that. About the rewriting, it depends on the references available. When writing an article, I read all the reference available first an part from there. Maybe you're right and it doesn't need more than what you say it needs, but that depends on the sources. On the other hand, I don't know when I'll be working on it. Kazu-kun (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but being a cinematography student doesn't mean that "plot" equals what you say it does. Plot here is the plot summary in the main article and the individual episode and volume summaries in episode, chapter, and light novel lists. Writing descriptions of characters and settings about a work, even if its purely based on the media itself, is not plot. This has been shown time and time again. If you believe that pure character descriptives based only on the primary work do not need citations, then are you then saying that a character list requires no citations at all, except for where real-world or interpretative statements have been added? If so, again, I will tell you that it is incorrect. This is shown in the character lists taken to FL that have been hit for lacking citations on all statements. This has been shown in character article GA and FA noms where the plot summary for the character has required referencing. If you do not wish to believe me, okay. Take a look at Himura Kenshin (GA prepping for an FA run), Rukia Kuchiki (GA) and Orochimaru (Naruto) (GA). Note, the plot "summaries" are all sourced to specific chapters and episodes. List of Meerkat Manor meerkats - its not a fictional series, so perhaps you'll discount, but also note every last statement is sourced. During the FLC, several that had not been sourced were quickly pointed out for fixing or removing. If you don't believe me that such information needs sourcing, perhaps you'll consider asking an experienced editor you have some respect for? Perhaps User:Sephiroth BCR, who is one of our more prolific featured content producers. Or, again, ask in the featured areas or at WP:V or, if you like, we can ask a third/fourth opinion at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard.
As for editing the article, I'll just keep working on getting it ready for GA then. For referencing, I agree, the more the merrier, so long as they are reliable. Escaflowne is a key anime series, so I'm sure its been covered in even more sources than those I've found so far, and of course I haven't done anything with the reception section yet.AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at the talk pages of the articles you mentioned, but I couldn't find anything supporting your ideas.
From Kenshin (I took a look at the archived peer review too):
"Besides, both of those are just original research and unless some justified facts from the series or reliable source states (or implies) that he has either of these disorders, then let's not jump to conclusions."
Here they ask for references because stating that Kenshin suffers from some mental disorders is interpretative, not just a description.
Rukia:
"and have all the relevant items properly sourced"
"At this point, we can only assume that it is an ice elemental like Hitsugaya since there is no other reference point."
The first statement here is the only one I found on this talk page that seems in line with your ideas. The second is asking for references for clarification, which is not the same.
Orochimaru:
Didn't find anything on this talk page supporting your ideas.
You should realize a plot summary and a character description are the same thing: in both cases you're describing the action in the work's narrative. The only exception could be the physical appearance of the character, but if you've got a picture you don't need a reference for that either. Of course, all the plot summaries and descriptions in those articles are sourced, but let's be real, 90% of the content is in-universe, which has little encyclopedic value and therefore is referenced mostly for show (because without those references the articles would have little to nothing referenced).
Ultimately, this only show how most editors give too much importance to the in-universe content, relegating almost all the encyclopedic content to the Reception section. The result is subpar articles, which ironically are all GAs. This is what happens when you write an article first and look for references later. Articles don't need the in-universe content to be referenced, they need more real-world content mixed in every section, even in the Plot. Kazu-kun (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the articles support my ideas perfectly because the articles themselves HAVE the references. If the references were unnecessary, they wouldn't be there. But oh well, I tried. Continue believing such things do not need referencing. Perhaps if you ever try to take an article to featured status or good article status without it, then you'll actually be willing to learn something. So, the concept and creation sections of those articles are also just "in-universe"? As for "this is what happens when you write an article first and look for references later" I'm just going to shake my head. You sound as if editors always have a choice in this. Most don't, unless thye only work from brand new articles. Many articles have already been created. You deal with what you've got and work to bring it up to standards. If you have the luxury of starting from scratch, great, but you can't just discount every other editor's work and start all over from scratch. You don't just come in and wipe out the entire article in one fell swoop because you think you wrote something better because you think you did it the proper way. As for those articles being subpar...well, go send them all to GAR if you think so. I do it all the time. For the ones I suggested viewing, though, I suspect you'll fine that others do not agree with your assessment.
Anyway, I wash my hands of this conversation. Suffice to say, I think the section should stay tagged until it is sourced, unless you can actually find consensus or proof that your idea is somehow right, despite the overwhelming evidence shown by GAs and FAs that its not. I've asked an uninvolved party (the admin I mentioned earlier) to look at this issue and offer a third opinion, to help clear this up, in keeping with the proper dispute resolution process. I hope you'll be willing to respect what they say, no matter which side (if any) they fall on. AnmaFinotera (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
In short, you source everything, whether it is plot summary, in-universe, or whatever. Any content you include has to be verifiable, and you should show as such via sources. It's not a big deal. Cite the relevant chapter/anime episode/etc. where the content is from. The practice of not sourcing plot summary has fallen through as of late, and there have been GARs and FARCs to show for that. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)10:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Geocities
Exactly what policy does a site published by Geocities violate? The article is well and professionally written as well as nicely-presented. What's unreliable about it? The fact that it was published on Geocities? Plenty of good articles are published on Tripod.com or Hispavista.es and they're acceptable? Why, because the user can invest on a domain name? Because that's the only difference. T.W. (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The information gathered in that article is supported by the Internet Movie Database, which is a more than reliable source for subject of Awards and Nominations, the information gathered from that article is also supported by the Spanish Wikipedia, not to mention the simple fact that the series was given the TP de Oro in 1993. I think articles should be created individually, articles linked here should link to a proper website on the subject and say, "go here, screw Wiki-policies." For the record, you haven't made comments to all I aported yesterday to the discussion regarding your deletion nominations. Still have doubts whether the author and the books are notable or not? T.W. (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) IMDB is not considered a reliable source either, just so you know. It is user edited and has repeatedly been struck down for not meeting the guidelines in the RS noticeboard. You can say that articles should be created individually and you can just link to whatever, but the truth is, that isn't how it works. If you want that, honestly, you might be happier making your own website, or working in a wikia or a private wiki that doesn't mind that. Here, we have guidelines, we have policies, and editors are expected to follow them if they wish to be good contributers to the site. WP:V is one of our core policies and not something you can, or should want to, just brush aside to allow anyone to put whatever they wanted.
And yes, I know I haven't made any comments regarding the huge glut of stuff you added to one of the AfDs. I'm not going to bother. And yes, I still doubt the books are notable. The author's notability isn't the subject of the AfD, so that doesn't matter. Its the individual books. I think they'd be fine as a collective series article, but I do not think they have any notability one by one and nothing you added really proved otherwise. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The bust proves that Elena Fortún is a notable author; the "Celia" books are her most popular and read works; A series was produced in 1992 not for the heck of it, but to add to the popularity of the books which was sadly decreasing at that time; The premiere of the series was a big event because it reflected important icons of literature, not to mention that it featured the collaborations of two important and respected figures, José Luis Borau and Carmen Martín Gaite; Cristina Cruz Mínguez was chosen to play the title role in this big-budget, landmark project. There, it all connects to something else. Where's the notability here? Introduction, plot summary, list and external links. I guess you have further deletion nominations to make. Oh, and I have made plenty of websites which are currently supporting information in many articles throughout Wikipedia, but I won't tell you what they are because I don't have the time to deal with further angonizing from your part, no offense. T.W. (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not antagonizing. If you want to feel that way and play the victim, that's your personal problem, not mine. You're the one who went all ape crazy instead of acting like an adult and calmly discussing the issues. Not that I'd expect less considering you aren't actually an adult, but it would be nice if you'd act more mature if you are going to edit here. I'm just doing my part to ensure non-notable topics are covered. Also, making the claim that other stuff exists, is not a valid argument in any deletion debate or other discussion. *shrug* If you have made websites being used, I'm sure they'll be found and removed if they are not reliable sources in time. They always are, and self-promotion is heavily frowned upon. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 15:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't simply throw stuff and publish it on a website, alright? I've put time, research and effort on those sites and no, they will not be found and removed because there'd be no reason to. The purpose of me pointing out that article is to see whether that particular article satisfies your "notability" beliefs. I don't see any difference from that article to the ones you've nominated for deletion, so I half-expect you to either reconsider your criteria or make further nominations, else we have a case of bias which could possibly be stretched into serious nationalistic beliefs and once again, put your criteria at risk. You're the one talking about "abuse", not to mention the ridiculous claim of "harrassment", when you're the one following me around in every article I create or contribute in. Also, I'm 18, closer now to 19, that makes me an official adult, and in terms of maturity, I don't disappoint either friends or family, thank you. T.W. (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you put time, research, etc into the sites. You aren't a scholar and your self-published research is not a reliable source. IAs fro the article, it needs work but it does show that is has been the topic of scholarly discussion, meeting notability fine. And no, we don't have a case of bias, just a case of you determined to whine and pitch a fit. I don't follow you around, you are the one who put a template in the Celia Television article alerting any who see it to your creating the other articles. And, when people act like you act, all of their contributions come under scrutiny. And no, you aren't an adult. But whatever. I doubt you went around telling your family how you called a perfect stranger such an ugly name just because you felt like throwing a tantrum instead of actually fixing the articles (which I notice you STILL haven't done). -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 15:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That is simply too funny. My dear, a person in this and many other nations around the world are officially declared adults when they become 18 years of age. This important event happened to me on June 25th of last year. As it is expected, you likely have your own federal laws, policies and regulations as well. There's no difference between the articles, you're just intimidated at the challenging of an article that is likely more widely read than the ones currently on question. I did not call you an ugly name, I called Paris Hilton and ugly name, with likely enough back up to support the claim, but that is another story. I linked the ugly name to your profile, which is very different, and since you requested its absolute removal, you may not even be able to prove that the hurtful, catastrophic event ever occurred. Your friend seems to disagree about the notability of the articles and finds the offered sources and support to be valid and valuable. So far, it's only you, as usual, who has a problem with them. T.W. (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice try, but you weren't blocked because you didn't call me a name (and its still in the history, so yes, I can prove it). As for the rest, grow up and move on all ready. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 15:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't excusing myself, don't worry. I don't care enough to "try". So much for "not following me around," you missed about a hundred other articles, see if you can spot them all before time runs out. T.W. (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If you removed the Naruto media list article...
If you removed the list of Naruto media article, then how will we know what Opening themes and Closing Themes they've used, and in which episodes?
And how will we know the names of the soundtracks and OSTs, especially the singles for the Opening and Closing Themes?
~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2008(EDT)
Opening and ending themes are covered in the episode lists. We are not a CD listing/sales catalog. The soundtracks and OSTs are listed in the main article's soundtrack section. CD singles are not something we list as they are specific to the artist not the series. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Project consensus, our MoS, and multiple featured chapter/episode lists where the originals are used. Where possible, we use the first volume of the Japanese release of a manga series for the infobox first, the English second when no good versions of the original are available. Yes, we are the English Wikipedia, but that does not mean we completely ignore the original work at all, nor that we downplay it. As Viz used the original covers for their release, there is absolutely no need at all to have two versions, and in-deed it pushes the line of violating WP:NONFREE as there are no significant differences. We only do both covers in the case of something like Trinity Blood where the covers are dramatically differences, and even then, that's something for the chapter list, not the main. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I am looking for the applicable section at the MOS for anime and manga page. It should be written there, if it is not already. If there is a discussion that indicates consensus, I would like to see it. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was discussed recently. I think on the MoS talk page, but if not give me a minute and I'll find the link for you. I need to deal with the personal attacks from another editor first. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty. Here is the discussion Template talk:Infobox animanga#Infobox image. Looks like we didn't touch specifically on Japanese versus English though. Turning to the Book and Novels projects, it is specifically noted that the first edition covers are preferred, which for manga would be the first volume of the first Japanese release. I agree this should probably be noted in the MoS to help make that clearer. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Doh, didn't even realize the main was using the final volume. I think the final volume is acceptable too. General order of preference is first volume of Japanese release, last volume of Japanese release, first volume of English, last volume of English. We should probably be consistent between the two, though and use one or the other on both. I'm inclined to like Vol 28's because its the normal orientation and dimensions, but probably something to discuss on the talk page.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 16:43, May 19, 2008 (UTC)
Yes, its having strong sales and its leading its timeslot among boy viewers in the UK are both bits from that article that would be good to add. :) Just to note, though, the section should be called "Reception" not "Response" ;-)AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Though its been cleaned up quite a bit, it still has some anti-Cardcaptors sentiment (including relegating Cardcaptors to another article to allow it to be a longer hate piece), unsourced complaints about the manga translations, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
...is at it again. Why isn't there a warn-4 for unsourced info, I wonder? Anyway, I've warned, but I'm off for a bit--I thought I'd pass the info along and let you AIV him if you'd like. What a pain. Gladys J Cortez00:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I did not nominate the page for being a bad proposed policy but instead for being a duplicate of WP:TOV. Please do not remove the nomination without discussion. Nakon02:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That should still be discussed on the proposed policy's talk page. If consensus agrees, then it can be redirected/merged to TOV as necessary. The MfD instructions are very clear, though, that even if you feel it is a duplicate, nominating it for outright deletion is not appropriate. Please discuss on the page's talk page instead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 02:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
For it being abbreviated YYH? That didn't really seem necessary considering the series name. :) If it is, though, should be properly formatted as actual ref rather than note. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 02:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm considering creating a new article and am working on it in my userspace at the moment. It is to be based on Template:LA TV and the information given in the infoboxes at channels such as KCBS and KNBC. I've started in LA because it's where I live so it's a little easier for me. I've only done 2 so far but I'm not sure if all the information would be necessary (such as antenna height, strength and location perhaps). It's not formatted correctly yet when it comes to dates and alignment, so just ignore that. Do you think it's a subject worth tackling? If it is, I might consider doing all 210 media markets for a WP:FT! Thanks in advance, -- Matthewedwards (talk·contribs·count·email)06:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...the broadcaster side isn't my forte per say, but I think it could be an interesting list idea with potential for feature topic status. The main thing, of course, is the referencing for everything. You might also want to ask over in the TV project for ideas on what would be good to include or not include. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 06:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the FCC's pages will be an excellent start for referencing, especially for current information. They might also carry the details for previous call signs and affiliations, too, but if not I think it will be available elsewhere. Most stations also have their own website, too, which could be helpful. Good thinking re the Wikiproject. I'll do that tomorrow as I'm off to bed. Night! -- Matthewedwards (talk·contribs·count·email)07:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a small word of advice ... if you want support, shouldn't you be advising "sympathetic editors" of what you have started? I wouldn't want you to be ignominiously timed out again. :) Abtract (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm already doing notifications. In the interest of fairness, I've started first with the people you yourself noted as people who "tried to help." -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well done, you took my advice and you picked two good ones who, I agree, actually tried to resolve the issue in a helpful way ... unlike you. :) Abtract (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera: thanks for looking at my article on William Honnyng, and the addition of the Notability box. I am quite new to Wikipedia, so was not sure about this person's notability. As to third party references, I have listed many; the person was an MP in the English parliament... and has a biography published in the official History of Parliament, so I figured he was adequately 'notable'. Many other Tudor MPs have wiki articles. In Wikipedia:POLITICIAN#Politicians it includes 'members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature'. Would a better link to the 2 published biographies be a welcome improvement?
But sure, as MPs go, he wasn't exactly Winston Churchill! So, grateful for advice before you zap my hard work off this wiki, or I waste time trying to improve it. When I wrote an earlier article on another person of similar (or even less) 'notability', another wiki editor thanked me for the contribution. Perhaps that encouraged me to contribute more to wikipedia; your feedback sends a contrary message. Honyng (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
My tagging does not mean I will "zap if off this wiki." I tagged it for notability because the article isn't clearly expressed. Yes, he was an MP, but did he do anything significant? In looking closer, I see he was arrested and possibly had some controversy during his term? Also, I was unable to confirm the existence of the stated sources and it seems like people disagree on how to spell his last name? Some of these needs to be made clear. I think he likely is notable, the article just needs to be tweaked to note this. You seem to have an interest in biographies, so you might consider joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and checking out their page for tips on how to tweak the article. I've gone ahead and put the article in the project for you. I'll also remove the notability tag and replace it with a clean up one to better indicate its needs.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 22:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
History
You arranged to have a copy of the previous failed RfC but I cannot locate my commenst on the current version ... if you have some means of making this available to me will you do so please. I want to avoid recreating my comments. Thanks. Abtract (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the pending action. I've endorsed it as well, and am quite surprised that this fellow hasn't quite figured out how to play well with others. - Arcayne(cast a spell)23:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm intrigued; what is your motivation for your second attack on me? I am genuinely interested. And, out of 100, how do you rate your chances of achieving a block? Abtract (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't consider it an attack. It is an unfortunately necessary corrective measure because other dispute resolution attempts and attempts by multiple editors to help you not engage in such behavior have failed. My overall goal is not a block, but you to change your behavior and to see an end to the edit warring and to the outright nastiness between you and Sesshomaru. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
As you should be aware, I have warned Sess about edit warring with you. I have not warned about his attitude as I have not seen any signs that his attitude is unwarranted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
In what way was it appropriate? Considering I made a perfectly reasonable edit summary which you clearly misunderstood and went on and on and on ... and indeed on, Why did you do it? Abtract (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I prefer to simply not have any contact or discussion with you. The thinly veiled insults and snarkiness are annoying. The RfC has been endorsed, so I'll let it run its course. In the meantime, I strongly suggest you avoid running around behind myself (or Sesshomaru) undoing our edits as it gives you the appearance of being the stalker you accused him of being. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am reliably informed, by no less than Sess (and others), that it is perfectly Ok to watch users contributions and follow behind them to correct their mistakes ... (s)he does it all the time and, since you have taken his/her side, I guess you are happy with it too (note spelling). Abtract (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
An RfC has already been filed against you, so you continue edit warring and basically admit to wikistalking? That will not help your case at all.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Being bold at WP Policy and Process pages
400
Hi, I noticed that you reverted and chastised an editor for making an undiscussed change at a policy page. I have no problem with your action. I've been working for a while on the Consensus policy page and have suggested hat it is a good practice to talk first on delicate articles and process pages. This practice is discouraged by the consensus of editors active at the consensus page. What are your thoughts? --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflictx3:P) I agree. I don't think changes should be done to policy changes, or heavily used guidelines, without some discussion and consensus. Making changes that aren't just minor fixes (grammar, spelling, etc) often leads to confusion and to people using such changes as a reason to declare the policy or guideline is in dispute and should be ignored. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Governance reform. Look at my description of Death by a thousand cuts, which another editor today called Goldfish editing, where a little fish constantly nibbles at the issue. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That is a very interesting guideline, and I have to agree with many of the points brought up. While the consensus model works well for articles, it tends to become a mess with policies and guidelines because some folks will always disagree and refuse to yield, even in the face of a vocal majority. I've seen it become a total nightmare in places like WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE, to the point I had to take them off my watchlist to lower my wiki-stress. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 00:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, normally I would agree, but Abtract's reverts were in a way defacto vandalism. He was reverting solely out out of retaliation and to deliberately trying to goad me into a 3RR violation due to this RfC/U I filed against him a short while ago. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 00:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If you believed his edits were a form of harassment, you should have walked away. Responding to perceived retaliation by violating policy is a Bad, Bad Idea. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
True, and I know you are right, but it would be nice if there were other ways of dealing with harassment besides walking away and ignoring such horrible behavior. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 00:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I shouldn't have let him goad me so easily. I do thank you, though, for looking at the whole situation :) I was hoping he might actually change his behavior, particularly with the RfC against him endorsed by one of his supporters, but instead, he seems to have chosen to act like this. :(-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I saw it. I considered mentioning it in the RfC/U as an attack piece, but with the stuff at the bottom he will probably say he was just taking notes for an RfC against you. Might still be worth noting, though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 03:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure looks like an attack. What bothers me most is that he accuses me of "stalking" while being the "stalker". I know I'm not violating any policy, am I? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I've seen, no. You sometimes let him goad you into being a little less civil than we're supposed to, but its understandable and (as we see above), he's good at doing it. His actions of late are becoming almost disturbing, particularly his seeming to take to randomly stalking both of our watch lists so he can do retaliation edits. I think it might be good, particularly in light of his activities today, to go ahead and mention that page in the RfC. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 03:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice on my talkpage; I have certified my resolution attempts. I may include some comments if I feel there is a need, but have watchlisted the page in any case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a favour to ask of you, if you're not too busy though. First, do you feel the saga pages (see the non-italisised links) should be deleted? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, yes, either deleted or redirected back to the appropriate episode lists. Ewww....man, those all look like a mess. Seperate dub/Japanase ep lists too? What has the DB project been doing :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The various discussions at WT:WPDB regarding the sagas and character lists have taken a pause (appears everyone's "too busy" nowadays). My request of you was this: could you WP:AFD the sagas with your WP:TWINK feature? I think the reasons are pretty obvious. The lists of episodes, characters, etc., I can take care of (with Sephiroth's help if possible). Your response? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll do a group nom as they are all the same. I'll do it later tonight, though. Right now I'm uber stressed and would likely mess something up. *sigh* Whoever said house buying was fun lied. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 20:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The searching part is fun, the buying part isn't. And yeah, we could redirect them to the episode lists to avoid the trouble of a huge AfD. If someone comes in and does a mass revert, start a discussion at WT:DBZ, cite WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N, and redirect them again. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - Sephiroth, as annoying as it is, I'd much rather go through with afd. We tried discussing it remember? We got nowhere. At least the rest of the community will be advised. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If it hasn't been tried yet, I'd say do the redirects. In the summary, note they violate WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:N, and WP:FICT and that they are inappropriate breakouts. If someone reverts, undo and encourage them to discuss if they disagree and then in the discussion explain further that they violate the already noted list, and that such articles have been deleted regularly in the AfDs. So far, this has worked with several other story arc articles I've merged in with little to no fuss. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 20:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just tired and trying to do to much at once. What Sephiroth and I meant is to go ahead and just change all the saga pages to redirects. If someone argues, beyond a blind revert, then we start a discussion. If that fails, then we can AfD. It also works better as one can't say we didn't attempt a merge/redirect first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 02:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You are a lady aren't you? I seem to remember reading somewhere that you were. With regards to the 10th Kingdom character articles, I know you redirected them and I was wondering if you still had access to them. If you do, would you be so kind as to permit me to add them to my user page? I could take a look at them and attempt to re-write them in a manner that is not plot regurgitation or original research. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't know about a lady, but I am female :P Anyone can access the old articles by going to the redirected names and looking at the history. A list of the redirects can be found here. However if you want to try to make character articles that would not fail WP:FICT, I'd honestly suggest starting anew as the old ones are in the wrong format, most badly named, and all were nothing but plot and OR. Keep in mind that any character articles have to meet the notability requirements, which includes significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, availability of creation/conception information, and availability of reception information. I think this is likely to be very difficult to meet for any of the 10th Kingdom characters, as the movie seems to have been unnoticed and unremembered by quite a few folks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you m'dear. And of course you're a lady, don't be so hard on yourself. Thank you for that, yes you may be right but I think it's worth a shot. I shall follow your advice and start anew. I think I'll need to recreate the 10th Kingdom category while I'm at it though. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I notice you've started some other film character articles already. You may want to finish those first, and aim for GA with them. It will be a good way to help see what is/isn't needed in a character article, before moving on to a new set. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 00:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed I have, did you like them? I shall follow your advice and finish those off before commencing work on the 10th Kingdom character articles because I have a feeling they're going to take quite some work. They are diabolical aren't they! I think I'll do articles for Virginia, Tony, Wendell and Christine and listify all the others. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm....to be honest, no. I don't feel any of those meet the requirements of notability to exist, most are unreferenced, and they seem to be all plot. They are not appropriate nor notable character articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a matter of taste. Off wiki, I enjoy reading such articles, but for Wikipedia, character articles need to meet the notability requirements and follow certain guidelines. You might want to look at some featured character articles to get an idea on the preferred structure and on how the plot should be balanced with real-world information. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, AnmaFinotera. I shall take them onboard as you're obviously a woman of distinction. I apologise for any offence I may have caused. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate you helping us fix up the Case Closed page, did the chart with all the movies really need to be deleted? It was rather useful. At the very least perhaps we could move it some where? - Prede (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't it orginize it better in a chart? I think the reason it was made into a chart in the first place was because it looked sloppy, unorginzed, and confuseing in prose. I'll see if I can fix the release dates... are you sure they are incorect? Thanks for putting it back though ^.^ - Prede (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it should be prose, in chronological order. I know it has quite a few movies, but it doesn't seem like there is much to say about any of them other than that they were released, and any licensing information. For the release dates, I meant they need to be fixed to be more specific. All were claimed to be box office hits, so finding the exact release date in Japan should be doable. We like specific dates for releases were possible. Once its redone into prose, and sourced out, it might be that it will need to be split off into its own list (rare for movies, but this is a rather lengthy series). -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 05:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Abtract is trying to incite something with you. Have you read his "smart aleck" comments on that talk page? Might be worth noting in the RfC. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, for all his accusations of stalking, he seems to be the one stalking me at this point. *sigh* I've asked an admin if such actions are a violation of policy. He also canvassed for help on the RfC, which resulted in someone who obviously didn't read any of it just coming in to leave a rather pointless set of comments to disparage folks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed. If he reverts again, I'd recommend going ahead and reporting. With his history and the current RfC/U, he has already violated 3RR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've commented, though I'm sure he will say we're colluding or something. Mikkalai and Dbachmann both have already rejected his version, so consensus is already there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: MOS image
At WP:MOS#Images: Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location.--十八23:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...it says second level headings, though. The soundtrack is a fourth level heading. Still, I'll just move it to the right. I hate it when images are put in a different section from what they are illustrating. :P Its probably more accurate MoS wise, since Kiba's head is more face towards the left than the right. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a stretch to extend the MOS to lower than second-level. I could bring it up on the talk page, if you'd like. And besides, aren't one of the jobs as editors to create ascetically pleasing articles that are well formatted. How it is now, with two images so close together (soundtrack/manga) I think it looks much worse than lefting the soundtrack and placing it 2 lines above in the anime section. You could, say, create a soundtrack list ala Music of Final Fantasy X-2 or the like (recently passed a GA nom).--十八23:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like clarification, as quite a few articles I work on with multiple images have the same thing done (left aligned under level 3 and below). It seems to me like the MoS is really speaking to a technical issue specific to level 2 headers rather than an aesthetic one as it looks the same either way. And no, on the soundtrack list. It only has two, and I personally disagree with the idea of throwing them off elsewhere. Article isn't too long and not much else to say about them. I am suprised Music of Final Fantasy X-2 passed GA as it looks horrible with tons of excessive white space all over the place. That isn't aesthetically pleasing, nor easy to read, nor particularly necessary or notable. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
FF music is quite popular though, as shown in the reception section on that article. Plus, I don't think you can get around the excessive white space unless the images were removed completely. Plus, a list provides more insight into who contributed to the albums, and provides the track listing (plus other things like creation/reception which could be added in time). It was only a suggestion.--十八00:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, FF music is popular, but the white space is really off putting. It isn't the images causing it, though, it seems to be a combination of the track lists and the infoboxes. I don't think such a list would work well for Wolf's Rain, and would likely do a merge suggestion or AfD on list slike that if I came across them. I know there were discussions that a track list doesn't belong in any article except for a single album, and even then maybe not, but I guess that's since been changed if the FF list made GA. I don't see much point in a track list myself, particularly for anime soundtracks where a list of song titles only makes any sense or has any value to someone who has actually seen the series or heard the music already. Artist info can (and should) be summed up properly in the prose anyway. But ah well. That's them, and Wolf's Rain is Wolf's Rain and I'd rather it just stay as is. The article is not very long due to the lack of production info, so splitting isn't needed for size issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 06:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
A track listing does more than just list the songs. The two lists I provided show the inclusion of lyricist, performer, composer, and arranger, showing who was involved in what and how the albums were produced, all of which is encyclopedic knowledge. The point is that sometimes a split doesn't have to be necessary to create a new article. Sometimes you (or I) just create a new branch list article, such as creating an episode list before it appears on the main article, or the same goes for a chapter list, and soundtrack listing. There is still more you could write about the Wolf Rain soundtracks, is all I'm saying.--十八08:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Our edits
Seriously, I don't think there should be some barricade between you and I. I have come around to see some of your views, though some of your aesthetics (images must be placed in the section to which they apply!) I think go a bit too far in lue of more visually appealing articles. The point is that images appear in or close to the sections they are used to illustrate but don't always have to be inside these sections, and is why I myself have seen so many people lefting images above second-level or higher headings, instead of always righting them in lue of placing them in the section they belong in (especially if this conflicts with another closely spaced image, like is the case at Wolf's Rain now, or when an infobox gets in the way, as in Kanon in the Setting and themes section, or Clannad (visual novel) with the Principal characters section). So I would suggest that you might want to become more flexible. You, I've found, are very stubborn. Your stubbornness in fact is up there with User:Ned Scott and User:White Cat, two of the most stubborn editors I've ever seen on Wiki. Not only that, but you tend to bring in your personal views into discussions, and assume bad faith, or at least come off as being non-neutral. A good example is with this edit of yours. Things like "hacked and trashed" and "ugh" should probably be avoided. It's good to remain neutral not only in articles, but also in disputes.
That said, this edit summary you left confuses me. Particularly, your recent demoting of the Air (visual novel) article from GA where I am the major contributor. If you really did want to stay away from articles I was involved in, you wouldn't have done that, or at most you would have brought it up first at WP:GAR like I tried to suggest, but like I said, you are very stubborn and I, as of now, have not been able to win up on any of your views. I won't assume bad faith and suspect you were trying to provoke me, as I think that's a ridiculous notion; you were merely trying to make sure that GA articles really are of GA quality, which is admirable I assure you, but it can make someone very irritated to come in one day and see someone demoted it, especially without a discussion (and even more so since we've had disputes in the past). To say the least, I was not pleased. Even if you were within guidelines, there is such a thing as working with your fellow neighbor. If you saw that your neighbor was trying to build a house, you wouldn't demolish it, you would suggest things that he should do. I assure you, 100%, that if you had brought it up at WP:GAR first, I would not have even have been half as cross as I was that day with you because at least that way consensus could have told me what you were very forcibly trying to do. In the end, we got the same result, it was demoted for a month and now is back to GA at much better quality than it was before. My point? We should generally respect each others major contributions. My recent edits to Chibi Vampire I think reflect that.
Anyway, to say that we don't agree on anything is going a bit far now. A lot has happened since Kino's Journey and Ballad of a Shinigami, and as I've said I've come around to see your view on many subjects. The issues at Ballad I had with the references, and infobox are moot now for all I'm concerned. I still cannot agree on you with the placement of images, however, like the anime box set at Ballad currently which I think is fine, but you can't stand from what I've seen. I think everything else we can generally agree on now, which is pleasing since I never was able to agree with User:White Cat on anything! :P --十八05:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Air I demoted before realizing you were a regular editor and during my brief stint in being on the GA sweeps crew, before deciding it was not worth the amount of abuse you receive when you do it, even though I had followed the procedures as dictated. I learned my lesson there and gave up on all GA reviewing and GARing. I was pleased to see it regain its GA status after the work was done, though. It was never a personal thing nor something done out of malice. I just had a naive and foolish notion that GA should be kept up to GAC always, as FA should be kept to the FAC and FL to the FLC.
For the hacked/trashed remark, hey, we all have our moments, and I would never claim to be perfect. And yes, I bring my personal views into discussions. We all do, we're human. ;-) I was annoyed at the proposal, as I felt it was done in blind ignorance, and I tend to be a bit protective over the anime and manga project stuff. I've yet to meet even one editor who hasn't at times shown some display of temper or emotional response to things. And yes, I am stubborn when I feel I am right, and I have found that most of the times I am. I am flexible where appropriate and where I can clearly see that a policy or guideline conflicts with my own view. If, for example, the discussion on non-free says that the TMM images are in violation, I would fix them myself along with every other one I have uploaded. I will not, however, do so without making absolute certain they are wrong, as everything I have read on them, and my experiences in FA/FL when such things do come under close scrutiny, says they are fine. Indeed, I find the interpretation of the heading thing interesting, when many FAs pass with the images just like that.
In a way, though, perhaps its no different from when I de-listed Air. You noted that if it had gone to GAR, you wouldn't have been as cross. I feel if you had simply left a note rather than just resizing, it would have been better. In particular, with the TMM list, the talk page notes that we plan a peer review when I've finished the last of the merges, so if it is a major issue, it could have just been brought up there. I found it particularly...(searchines for right word)...aggrieving because I tend to be a hardliner when it comes to non-free and fair use. As an artist and a photographer, I have a strong interest in ensuring those guidelines are met and have always done my absolute best to meet them.
For conflicts between us, I find the best way to avoid them is to avoid one another. We may not disagree on everything, indeed we do often agree in project related discussions. However, there are core things regarding article formats/images, etc that we do disagree on enough that it makes it difficult to work well together on the same articles. I've avoided it by de-watchlisted any articles where you seem to be a major editor, regardless of any desire I may have to also work on them. Ballad of a Shinigami was one. I would like, however, not to do the same on TMM or Wolf's Rain which are two articles I take particular pride in for the amount of work I've put into them, and my on-going efforts to get them to GA/FA quality. I rather not feel like I have to abandon them just to keep avoiding the problem, hence my asking you to avoid them. Chibi Vampire is one I've done a lot of work on for the lists I've created, but I can walk away if needed, since I haven't seen the anime nor have I read the series leaving me limited in what I can do as I wish to avoid spoilers anyway.
As a semi-amusing side note, using neighbors is a bad example as I reported mine to my landlord for trespassing on my property and tried to get them evicted. I have also called the cops on them and others for noise ordinance violations and loose dogs :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 06:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, you seem to be taking this to an extreme. To go so far as to clearly avoid articles I majorly work on, I think, is messed up. It makes me feel bad that you don't edit the articles you want just because you and I disagree on some things. The point of collaboration is to find a middle ground between editors, and as long as we find that middle ground like we did at Kino and Ballad, I don't think we should avoid each other. You may ask me to avoid articles you work on, but I know I won't just because I dislike the notion of not being able to edit any article I may want to (even if it might strike up a lengthy discussion, like with the TMM images), and I don't think you should avoid articles I work on for the same reasons. You may want to to avoid disputes, but disputes are unavoidable on Wiki; it's an inborn flaw in the programming, and no matter where you go, there is always some dispute. I myself have very little to no interest in the series Wolf Rain or Chibi Vampire (and have never seen either in length), but that didn't stop me from expanding the Other section in Chibi Vampire, or getting clarification on the header/image placement on Wolf's Rain. Nor did it stop me on discussing the images on the TMM character list which you know how I feel about them, and I hope will end soon with a worthwhile conclusion. It is not my intention to deter you from articles I happen to edit, but I can't stop editing articles I want to edit either, and I don't believe you will find many on Wiki who would be willing to do the same thing either because the spirit of wiki has to do with collaboration.
In my experience, there is only one time where I outright avoided an editor and article. Way back when, there was a major content dispute on Air (visual novel) in June 2006. This was about 3 months after I joined wiki, and the two major parties involved other than myself were none other than User:White Cat (was Cool Cat at the time) and User:Ned Scott. Suffice it to say, it was a bloody battle of supremacy which left the Air article (and related Air branch articles which included character articles, episode articles, soundtrack articles, a manga article, and an anime article, plus the Air (film) article) in complete shambles for about 6 months. Then in late 2006, I reworked Air and brought it up to GA; it was, in fact, the first Key-related article I got up to GA. After that I reworked the entirety of Key-related articles on Wiki and have gotten 9 of them up to GA (soon to be 10 with Ayu Tsukimiya I hope), and eventually I will get the episode articles up to FL as well. The point is that during that major dispute with Air in June 2006 (the so called "Black June" as I call it) I outright avoided any editing to the Air articles and even getting involved with White Cat, and even when I started editing Kanon in October 2006, I still neglected the Air articles for another two months. Then in early 2007 about a year ago some repercussions occurred between White Cat, Ned, and I again on the issue of Air, though it was less bloody than last time. In effect, I outright dislike White Cat; I think he is a terrible person, and has shown himself to be disruptive many times before in other issues (check this block log for User:Cool Cat for one to see how many times he's been blocked). I still respect Ned, even though I know he's particularly stubborn and can be pig-headed at times. So I don't want you to dislike me, or my contributions. I don't dislike you, but I have found it find it vexing to work with you in the past. I am trying very hard to see eye to eye with you on issues, but of course there will always be disputes. In short, I think we are both very good editors, and if we combine forces there is much we can do, even if we have to go through a mountain of discussion at times.--十八08:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are always going to be some disputes, but if I know that editor Y and I will likely to end up in a some dispute or another, I find its better to avoid interacting. It is a big wiki, so generally its easy to avoid it. I realize most people won't stop editing, hence my just removing myself from the equation where I feel it best to avoid increasing conflicts. Basically just a matter of picking the battles, particularly at times when other issues are causing an excess of wikistress. No need to add on more unnecessarily. I don't dislike you, nor do I dislike your contributions, even if I disagree with the tiny images :P (another random side note...that is one of the longest block logs I've seen yet! @_@) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 08:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's a big wide Wiki out there, but when you confine the majority of your edits in or around one WikiProject, it tends to be a much smaller Wiki, I've found. As for picking the battles, I guess I generally try to stay out of conflicts first before they may arise too, but in a round about way. Like I doubt I will ever majorly edit articles like Naruto or Pokémon (despite liking both series) because I don't want to get into any disputes that may arise from any of the hundreds of people who regularly edit those high-traffic articles. Frankly, I dislike editing articles were tons of people contribute because it's hard to match my pace with others at times. That's why I initially worked on Death Note back in late 2006, but gave up soon after, and now it's not even on my watchlist anymore because I got tired of the pace. That, and I find it easier to contribute when I don't have other editors breathing down my neck which creates edit conflicts. On a side note Ned's block log is smaller, but still has many entries.--十八09:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now I do have to laugh a bit, because I have thrown myself into the insanity that is Naruto to work on cleaning it up even though I've never read it or seen or, nor want to. Smart man to avoid it! Can get quite intense at times, especially over the whole media list issue. Agreed on avoiding Pokemon, though, as well as Sailor Moon (much as I love love love the series)...they have gangs to big to deal with. I also dislike editing were tons contributer most of the time, and usually avoid airing or on-going series because of the extra issues of people wanting to do blow by blow summaries and stuff. Chibi Vampire was a exception because I came to it looking for info on the novels and their relation to the manga and found it couldn't tell me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 09:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Last of the Summer Wine
Yeah, that one has been on my radar for a while now. I do intend to make it a project. What I've been thinking about I would like to do is to break it up into similar pages as List of The Simpsons episodes. Both The Simpsons and Last of the Summer Wine are such long running shows that their pages both could have become extremely cluttered. I think, though, the people who did The Simpsons' pages handled it extremely well and created a model I can work from. Redfarmer (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be a great idea. It would really help the load on that page, and clean it up quite a bit (as will removing all those notes that Gordonastill keeps adding despite my asking him to stop and reverting him...*sigh*). I've done some of the episode list hacks, so if none of the existing ones will work for it, just let me know and I can make a new one for the list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 11:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've began the transition for the first few series if you'd like to take a look and see what you think. Also, I was wondering if you could be persuaded to reevaluate Last of the Summer Wine as I have now implemented all of the suggestions you made for it at WP:FAC. Thanks. Redfarmer (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't you say this is an insult and a bad faith removal? It isn't the first time he's done something like this against me. He of course deserved the warning since he deliberately tampered with another user's talk page. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
While he is allowed to remove anything from his talk page, his edit summary is an insult and a violation of WP:CIVILITY. His removal of the warning itself is a defacto indicator that he has read it so it should not be replaced, per WP:BLANKING. If he continues doing what the warning told him to stop doing, the warnings can still be escalated. I would not, however, bother with leaving another warning yourself, as he'll just ignore it. Maybe add a statement to the RfC noting the continued incivility, with a link there as well as to any other instances. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant you should write the statement and add it to the RfC to show your side of things. Just make sure to try to keep it neutrally worded and calmly point out these instances. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 22:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Not only ignored, but removed, as he has already been warned about the stalking of both myself and you. For where to put, yes, you can either expand where you certified, or you might want write up a fuller statement under the "Additional Views" section. Depends on whether you want to give a fuller history or just an update since the RfC started.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Again about the reception section being overly long, it works nicely, but should some of it be cut? Feature articles have quite varying lengths for the section. I don't think they should be cut, as we couldn't find many other reviews from the actual release. I am thinking of cutting the Jamie S. Rich thing again, or making it shorter. And, because it was also a DVD review, it could be used in the "Distribution" section. The Distribution section should also have release information, which I don't know how to find. I'll ask Dekkappai. Happy editing. Yojimbo501 (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll give it a look and try to add some comments in the next day or so. I'll be quite interested in its Peer Review and its FLC run since I'm attempting to get a character list there myself soonish. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 05:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I usually bypass peer review on the way to WP:FLC, but given that I'm going into untested waters, it would be best to get comments first. I probably will need a copy-editor for an article as big as this also. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)05:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that while experimenting with editing my page stealing borrowing some of your excellent ideas on user page design, I did something I didn't know was possible (and maybe shouldn't be) and created a page in your user space [20]. Stupid of me not to be more careful, but I can't delete it obviously and thought you should know about it. Abject apologies.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Woops! No worries, though, an admin has already deleted it. In the future, though, while code borrowing is fine, you may want to be careful to edit before saving, to avoid accidentally having a historical version like[21]. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 11:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was a big clue. In the future I'll slap anything more than 2 lines into a text editor and work on it there. I knew to make sure your username wasn't in it, but my implementation wasn't especially good. :-) Thanks for your forbearance, and is there an idiot's guide to all this code for formatting?--Doug Weller (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Cheatsheet has some of the basic formatting, while WP:MARKUP has a larger list (step two :D), and Help:Wikitext examples is probably the biggest list. My user page uses a combination of regular wikicode and some basic HTML/CSS (like the div tags). Some of the more complex parts, I picked up from studying other folks pages too ;) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 12:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, AnmaFinotera, could you pay a look at Sagara Sanosuke. You must probably know that the article is being reviewed now for GA. The only problem is some grammar problem, could you check it? ThanksTintor2 (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems the main problem was the overuse of Sano which I have already solved, however I think you must already know that the prose its my "Wikipedia weak point" so Im unable to make some reasonable copyedits. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep. If I'd known you were going to send to GA, I'd have recommended a copyeditor hit it first. :) Mine isn't my best point either, so I always try to get a CE before going. Might do an LoCE request (they might go faster with it being on hold) or ask over in the project. I think there is at least one LoCE member who is also active there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think its really so much inactive, as its just very slow going, backlogged, and maybe low on copy editors. For the request, you did fine. The only minor boo boo was you forgot step 3, adding a short summary of what is needed. I updated the base with that so the article talk page will update properly :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I read it, just misread it and say "presenter" as "panelist". More descriptive edit summaries would help, as would not changing a widely used template like that without first discussing and getting consensus. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, who said that we couldn't have staff lists? I happened to like how well formatted that list was.--十八19:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Its been agreed on multiple times in the project talk from what I recall (can't find the convos at the moment though), and such lists are deliberately excluded from being included in the MoS because of it. Staff lists are also not included/appropriate in TV articles nor film articles beyond the few major contributers already included in the infobox. In general, its considered trivial directory information. Sourced, prose discussions of the significant staff (producer, director, music, etc) is fine, but not a list/table just listing a bunch of the production staff members.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I guess. I'd still like a definite discussion on the matter though. I've always hated them (because they take up too much space, and are embedded lists, though Elfen Lied's was the only one I've come across that was done well I thought), but I often see them used, especially in anime-original articles (Darker than Black for example).--十八05:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
They are usually the first thing I strip out while cleaning articles. Most are just copied from ANN. A project discussion might be good, if nothing else to get the project stance "officially recorded" one way or the other. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 05:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Request for Peer Review help
Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.
1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...
2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.
3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.
Mind taking a look at this? Pretty much a one person article, and he means well, but doesn't...distinguish between what is encylopedic and what is trivia. I've managed to get more of the useless information stripped out and the article reorganized, but it still needs a hefty rewrite and general style overview. Since I feel like I'm not good at writing in an appropriate style, I've avoided actually editing the article much. Doceirias (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoa....that...that...so many tables and so many ELs! Wow. I'll see if I can tackle some work on it in a bit. Trying to get two peer reviews done firts :)Meanwhile, for some organization, I'd like to think that Shojo Beat is one of our better formatted magazine articles (actually following the style of some regular ones), if that would help any. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I accept that if I continue on this way I will be banned form Wikipedia and I won't want that to happen. I will stop with all this but I just want to let you know that the 3 word story is not a game at all. It has nothing to do with Linkland and is completely seperate from it.
It is like other pages in the Dept of Fun and should not be deleted unless all other pages like this in the Dept of Fun are deleted as well. Anyway how is the 3 word story user page actually being used as a social page? Darkside2000 (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It is still Start class. Remember, start class is the broadcast of the classes, encompassing a wide range of articles. To get to B class, you basically have to be "not quite GA level," which would require all relevant major sections from the Television MoS to be included (and the overall Wikipedia MoS to be fairly well followed), with appropriate length content, and a good level of referencing. The "Settings" section seems misnamed, and has a lot of unsourced plotty info, while there is no actual "Plot" section giving a synopsis of the series. I'd recommend axing the legends and culture stuff all together. Its borderline OR, and "crufty" rather than encyclopedic. Unless those areas have received significant coverage in third party, reliable sources, they don't need inclusion here. Reception needs expansion with critical reviews. The references also need cleaned up. They are not using proper names, missing author information, and sometimes date information. Make sure you using {{cite web}} for web sources and filling out available details. Its getting there, but still more to go.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
TPIRFanSteve, wouldn't ya know it, he's causing problems for you!
He is a long standing(and I mean LONG STANDING!) problem on this site. I have no idea how he has avoided a ban, but this is ridiculous. He's been basically "run out on a one way rail" from the Price Is Right articles and similar, now I notice he's harassing you all over here as well. The best bet is not to confront the troll(which he has proven to be here) and report it to AIV. The more people who report him(in this case, he's harassing editors of a different spectrum), the more likely they'll finally block him. It would be great if they could get the scumbag off here for good. Have a good day. 70.9.93.116 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.59.99.168 (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC) deceptive sig struck by R. Baley (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not. :) Already removed one message he left. No idea why he choose to leave that message here anyway, haven't dealt much with TPIRFanSteve in quite awhile. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 16:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
May, 2008
I do need a little help from you. May i ask why it's up to me to prove it and not Sesshomaru? I asked him if he could prove otherwise, but i've heard from various other editors that he always backs out of discussing these issues with them, as if he's afraid. So please give me the steps i have to take if you would please. Thank you. Thatwazezee101 (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Your edits are clearly written as OR and guess work that admit within their own words that they can not be supported by the series. As such, if it is challenged, you need to provide a valid source backing up the claim, or it can (and has been) removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
A valid source is not needed to dispute it, only to validate and verify it. The lack of sourcing is what "says otherwise" and makes in inappropriate for inclusion.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor Thelegendofvix keeps adding a "Name of show" section in, though many editors, myself included, belive it is unnecesary. Since there are (not that I can tell, anyways) coordinators for Wikiproject TV, and though you are a Wikiproject film editor, could you help in determining weather or not it is due weight? I'm going to ask other editors to. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I admire the speed in your response and edits, something I probably wont be able to do. Do you think the issue is over? No offense, but basically we are all just restating the same reasons why it should be taken out. Thelegondofvix will probably try to find some way to worm it back in. Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Should be. I filed an AN/I against him, and if he continues, he'll just get himself blocked. I'm keeping the pages on my watchlist just in case he tries anything. Good luck expanding it out, hopefully at a better base start :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 22:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've had to put up with some very unreasonable editors in the past and decided I wasn't going to put up with another, or let others be offended by rude editors. I saw your response to the guys talk page, and, while I had the smallest suspicion that he was, indeed, a sockpuppeteer, where did you get evidence that he/she was a suspect? Oh, and another editor suggested that we just have a link to a website stating that the whole "Greek" thing was a joke, and explains that they didn't use the correct letter. I have no real intention of editing the article much more, lest a sockpuppet comes up. I am to concerned with current Japanese cinema articles to do that. I also wish to find mor information for the articles Osamu Takizawa and Mickey Curtis, which I started (though, unlike Thelegendofvix, am keenly aware that they are wikipedia's and not mine, though I still post on my userpage that I created them, a fact I am actually rather proud of ;)). — [Unsigned comment added by Yojimbo501 (talk • contribs) 18:02, May 29, 2008.]
No prob. He's still ranting away over at ANI. I don't know if he is a sockpuppeteer or not, but having a non-editing account wake up after over a year to put back his edits after he got a 3RR warning was suspicious enough to warrant a report. The admins haven't closed the case one way or another yet. Nothing wrong with being proud of our creations or our work, so long as we don't get like him (who, of course, decides to bash me and my pride and joy, Meerkat Manor, because I *gasp* won't let unsourced crap go into a featured article! Gee...wonder why I should want the article to maintain its featured status? :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 05:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope this will end soon. I saw he tried to make a sockpuppeting case against you. That was unnecesary, and if you ask me, he is unconstructive enough to be banned. Thelegendofvix has really pushed the limits. Do you think the people who said that they thought the name of show section was usefull were his sockpuppets?
I let others the articles I created, besides, if anyone could find info for those articles, I'd be greatfull. I think the main reason with trivia sections being a problem is that they are often unnsourced. Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No idea. If he keeps it up with the false sockpuppet case, he will likely be blocked because he pretty much admits he is only filing it because I filed one against him. Its pointy and disruptive. Combined with his slow edit war over the name (seems like its really been going on for months), he doesn't seem likely to stay an active editor much longer. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it goes back to April 2007, making the conflict a year and 1 month long... That is a pretty long time. It seems that this editor is very repetitive. can we view this editors contribs to see if they are good faith or constructive? Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I already checked them. Pretty much the only editing he's every done, beyond he current ranting and false sockpuppet cases, has been to Greek TV and its talk page, with 2 posts each on two other talk pages[22]. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 22:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Just checked that to. I've put in some comments for the ANI case, and the sockpuppet case. I'd like to suggest that Preshuzz is not a sock, as only one edit suggests a connection. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
He may not be, but it was suspicious enough to warrant a report and investigation. If its shown its not, then the case will be closed. Not a big deal. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 22:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Gatchaman
Delete the One piece anime article if you wish since Democracy has spoken but surely you must see sense in this. I have made some addition Gatchaman pages to distinguish them from one one another I feel a template needs to be made also.
Plus I feel Eagle Riders and Gatchaman II should be redirected to their respective pages rather than Science Ninja Team Gatchaman.
No, both of those need to be put back into the main Gatchaman article. It is not appropriate to go ahead and split them out after making a split proposal without allowing discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 14:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Full Moon o Sagashite
I see that you undid my edits to the Full Moon o Sagashite page. I understand why you did. The reason why I had added that sometimes it is mistranslated as Full Moon wo Sagashite instead of Full Moon o Sagashite is because when you look it up on YouTube, most everyone has it as "Full Moon wo Sagashite." I was confused and looked it up on another website and saw that it is often called "Full Moon wo Sagashite" by mistake. That's why I added it to that page, I was only trying to help, not trying to mess it up. — [Unsigned comment added by Chibi-anime-Girl (talk • contribs) 12:22, May 30, 2008.]
Fansub transliterations (which is what that is, BTW, not a translation :) ) are not anything we generally bother to note. We would only note something like that if it is covered in third-party reliable sources as being relevant. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
May 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cats & Dogs. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
One Piece
Hello. Regarding One Piece, I personally feel I did nothing wrong unless you're talking about the Monkey D. Luffy and Roronoa Zoro article in that case, I must removed some guy's supposed link to the "Eleven Supernovas" article on the account it never existed. I merely bold-sized them. That's all. If anything I should have erased it. Please reply Uglyguy2006 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you also added in a "prologue" which doesn't belong and is copyvio (though unless you were the IP not logged in, I think you were mostly restoring the one the IP added). Mostly you kept undoing it after I cleaned it out. Maybe it was by accident, but that sort of thing didn't belong. The plot should be a summary of the manga, not a repeat of the prologue or a teaser. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyways, whatever it was, sorry about that. It was an accident. I just wrote the word "Prologue" to the edit of the plot, as well as the actual plot. My mistake. Uglyguy2006 (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The excorcist (film) seems to be in disscusion on weather or not the imagery is subliminal or not. I think in the talk page where an editor first posted the issue, we can clearly see he/she is ignoring wikipolicy's. I am still don't think the section should be taken out, but I think it needs a look from other editors. Yojimbo501 (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Redirects
Just noting that it might be a bit faster if you just tagged unnecessary redirects with CSD R3 and left to administrator, or just give me a list of redirects and I would run through them and delete the unnecessary ones. It's quicker and avoids the clutter at WP:RFD. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)19:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
And done. Is there any kind of log showing log ins that can check to see what happened? That was beyond weird, and more than a little disconcerting as I have an insanely secure computer system and am ridiculously careful about where I go online, so I'd hate to think it was hacked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 08:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I noticed this on my watchlist and indef blocked you to prevent the person that compromised your account from continuing. If you think you're fine, then post a message here and I'll unblock you. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)08:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Much as I hate the idea of being blocked, I'd like to try to find out what happened first before being unblocked. Would a check user show if the edits were done by a different IP? -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 08:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it could, but I'm not that familiar with the technical details, and I've never seen a checkuser request being used in this regard. If you want, I can unblock you and you can make the request, or do you want me to file a request for you (I think any request I would file would be substantially more difficult for a checkuser to deal with, as you're probably more familiar with the technical stuff on your computer)? It's up to you, but feel free to send a message to me or any other administrator if I unblock you and your account is compromised again to be blocked once more. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)08:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I changed my password and logged out/in. Hopefully that is enough. Please go ahead and unblock me. I think I will file a checkuser though, to see what happened. I'll also keep an eye out on my contribs for awhile in addition to my watchlist. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 08:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it would seem so. I think I know what may have happened now. I must have accidentally clicked Firefox's "check page links" while I was grabbing diff links to update Abtract's reports, and the stupid thing activated the rollback links! I just hit it again while grabbing more diffs. Can someone remove the rollback privilege from my account? I never asked for it or wanted it anyway, another admin I don't know gave it to me. While I appreciate the meaning, its been more nuisance than useful and Twinkle works far better (as its links were completely unaffected). Of course, I'd also like to figure out how to turn off this dumb check page links "feature"...blech. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 09:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera, if I remember correctly, there was a big thing about this happening quite regularly on a large scale by lots of good-faith users about a year ago, and was due to a bug in the (at the time) latest version of I think it was the Google Toolbar. Can you make sure you have the latest version of the Google Toolbar? Dreaded Walrustc09:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't use the Google toolbar, but I found the culprit. A Link Checker plugin I installed ages ago when I first started using FireFox and totally forgot about. I've removed the silly thing as I never used it (intentionally :P), so that should fix the problem. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 09:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've removed rollback, but you'll have to fix those last few reverts manually because rolling back will revert both your edits. Unblocking now. Black Kite09:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, to all of you for your help :) Glad the thing didn't get to run through the entire page of contribs I was looking at before I realized it was going nuts :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 09:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I prefer Twinkle's rollback since it prompts for a reason why. The rollback ability just rolls with no chance to say why. :P Now, I'm gonna go to sleep...my alarm rings in less than 1.5 hours! Wee...-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 09:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know you and came here to ask if your account may be jeopardized after seeing this, [24]. It has your name but is signed by another if I am reading this correctly. Anyways, I thought I would bring it to your attentions. If you are aware of this edit in the WP:Energy please except my apologies, just trying to help. --CrohnieGalTalk15:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. A technical issue caused some undoing of another editor's edits, so had to go back and undo them. The post itself is from Abtract whose edits were some of the ones accidentally reverted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 15:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Your Recent Edits
AnmaFinotera, I just wanted to drop you a friendly reminder to remember the 3 Revert Rule. It seems that you and another editor are in violation of this rule. If you would like to have a specific edit made, please take it to 3rd Opinion or try contacting another editor or Admin to voice his/her opinion. Failure to follow the 3RR could get you blocked. If you have any questions, please drop me a message. Thanks and Happy Editing! Dusticomplain/compliment01:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know, however in this case I feel it is extremely important to note the history here. Abtract has already been blocked once for his continuing harassement and wikistalking of myself and another editor. His "edits" to Meerkat Manor were just another part of that campaign and, as such, nothing more than vandalism. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point of view, but if you disagree with someones edits and violate 3RR in trying to keep the article in the way you want it, your just as guilty. Its better to allow the other user to put it in his/her way and contact another editor or Admin for their point of view on the situation, rather then trying to handle it yourself and get yourself blocked in the process. Remember this, as its not an huge deal if something goes wrong- it took myself to learn that. Dusticomplain/compliment01:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of "putting it the way I want it," it is removing false tags. Everything he tagged with {{fact}} is properly sourced within the article text. References should rarely be in the lead, as the lead is intended to summarize the article, not provide new information. He isn't doing anything to aid in the article, only trying to annoy me. Also, please note that the 3RR he filed was done after an AN/I was filed against him due to these very edits. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
In detail, no, because he doesn't care. He only tagged to tag. In one of the reverts, I noted the article was sourced, he claimed it wasn't because he didn't bother to check (or just wanted to get me to violate 3RR). He continues to harass me for no other purpose than to do so, and to prod me into 3RR violations so he can justify his own harassment and ludicrous proclamations that he is somehow a victim. He admitted as much (as can be seen in the RfC/U), and this is a long term, broader issue (as can be seen on his talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. Hopefully he will stop for awhile, though I'll admit, I'm not going to hold out a lot of hope after the extended history and his previous false promises to stop. It would also be appreciated if Abtract would stop throwing around "wikibonk" like its some kind of disorder or disease or intended insult, particularly when he's only throwing it around now when I've removed that from my user page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I debated expanding again, but the RfC is not getting much attention. I can see now why there was a move to ax RfC/U and just let cases go straight to AN/I or Arb Com: lack of active participation. Still, I'll add an update shortly, after seeing what the AN/I result is and if he is reblocked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 03:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
A lot of vandalization of my recent edits [except my sandbox] are from my sister. The New Orleans Idol thing is completely false. I know this sounds like a feeble excuse, but it's true. Is there any way to delete the article more quickly? [if it hasn't been deleted already?] Cruise meerkat (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like it has already been deleted. For future reference, though you can request an article created by your be CSDed if you are the main one to do anything to to it. You would just need to add {{Db-g7}} to the top of the article. I'd also recommend making sure your sister doesn't use your account anymore. Make sure to log out between editing sessions, and that she doesn't know your password. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it is, but unfortunately it would be best not to revert again as you are both at 3. Just wait till he gets himself blocked, then can go back and clean up the crap he's done. Request page protections on any other pages he starts reverting, explaining its being attacked by a harassing stalker and give links to the RfC and AN/I. May also want to leave a note in the AN/I.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 20:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I fully protected that and left a note on the talk page. Hope I got the right version ;) - if not, just let me know and I'll roll back to the right one. Thanks for the catch on this one! SkierRMH (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: I did not remove the other tag on the page which had it up for deletetion... I just removed the copyright infringment tag. Its basis was that a fansite (which is itself a fringment of copyright) held copyright over the pages contents. That was a mistake and no reason for the page to be deleted on that basis alone. Strickly speaking, I know it did not copyright that page because a bunch of us took the sources for it dirfectly from the series. On that note, I point out that if everyone gets the same information from the same source, we will all end up with basically the same thing written down. Lets face it, some things just can't be explained in that too many ways...Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That tag you removed was a CSD (Candidate for Speedy Deletion) tag. The CSD was on the basis of copyright infringement, but it was still a CSD tag. As such, and as you are noted to be the author of the page, it was not appropriate for you to remove the tag. Rather, you should have placed the {{hangon}} tag below it, then explained why you felt it was not a copyright violation on the talk page. Being a fansite already violating copyright infringement does not mean we have free reign to copy/borrow substantial from that page. Indeed, its all the more reason not to use it at all. The article was highly likely to be deleted in the AfD anyway, as it was not appropriate content for Wikipedia, violating WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:OR, and WP:V. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 07:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Dude, no offence but we didn't copy the site! I'll explain this more clearly; that site has claimed this before and we explained to them we didn't. In fact, their information is just common knowledge on the fandom that everyone is using (note: There is only so many ways you can say "Water is a clear liquid"). We had a big argument with them over this before for doing just this, when no one copied any information off them before. I don't remember that I created the page and was quite satisfied with it being deleted the other way it was written off (failure to follow proceedures and so forth).
I do apologise for doing the wrong method, its been a while since I had to save a page. The AtD though, we had time to discuss that, the CSD tag is the thing I'm disagreeing on and I'm not intereasted in the fact it was AfD because that not what I'm disagreeing on here. Gettit - The AfD doesn't bother me at all, its just the CSD that does. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one who tagged it for copyright violation. Someone else did. An admin compared the two and agreed. There are actually many ways to say "water is a clear liquid" (ask any scientist to say it LOL). For this, however, it seems the two were close enough, and with there already being a history of concerns about it, the deletion seems to have been valid. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
While your AfDing One Piece pages, since this is a matter never resolved, can you go other all our pages and come to the conclusion if their worth anything. I've had arguments with other editors before over loosing pages. I admit this is getting out of control for the most part and I took a slaughtering when TTN and I tried to sort the pages out. In the end I had to admit defeat and TTN had to back off and leave the pages. Trying to get everyone to understand the valuelessness of most of the pages has run thin, esp. since we got the wikia to replace the need for those pages. As I explained to everyone before, we only need the main page, the most we could have gotten away with was a anime page manga and possibly one for each game because they are under a different project.
I don't like the idea of deleting pages, but when their uneeded I don't see why you should have them. A lot of the time, I'm just editing them to keep them vandal and dumb edit free. People don't put references on them and when I do, they remove them. They've been told off countless times for not sourcing information. Overall, if you wish to AfD, I will not oppose you anymore, I'm long past caring because of the other editors round here. I only opposed that CSD because it was there was an incorrectness for it. I've told the only other editor Gune who is major around here that we pretty much can't keep the pages going any longer and to expect any you AfD to be gone. The only pages I'd not want to see go are the main SHs pages, and the crews pages, but I long ago accepted they aren't nessecary.
My opinion of hte OP pages has been for a while that with the wikia in place. They are simply distracting everyone from the wikia, which was orginally opened as a counter measure for wikipedia deletes and give fan s a place they can edit freely without fear of wikipedias wrath of guidelines and reglations saying why and why not a page can or can't exist. As TTN and I both agreed on before, the wikia should have seen most, if not all, of the wikipedia OP pages retire. And with not enough reglaur editors here putting the effort into quality in the last year, we're pretty much spiralling down the staircase to bad editing hell. Now would be a good time to for any AfDs. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been slowly going through some others and either prodding or AfDing, as have one or two other editors. The story arcs is going, the ep lists getting combined, and the main article is being redone to comply with the MoS. The various character articles need trimming and merging into a single list or two. This seems to have mostly been agreed to awhile ago, until the injunction shut stuff down. I plan to get that restarted/revived soon. I think you'll fine the mood is, for the most part, getting back towards most editors being ready to do the necessary clean ups. The anime and manga project is also working on creating a clean up task force for the sole purpose of tacking anime/manga article clean ups, including taking on several of these larger series for overhauls. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Franky
Franky is the only one that has that name. You came out with an edit saying that without any sources saying Franky isn't the only person named Franky while the Disambiguation page says other wise. He is the only one with the name Franky. That edit I did was extremely valid. Gune (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not involved in the one piece wiki, I just added it because you kept on demanding sources.
Um. No. Franky is a common nickname for men named Frank and Francis. Nor is the one piece character the only person or character in the world with the name Frank. Now stop messing up the disambig. You are being extremely disruptive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually no. The common nickname is Frankie. It is never spelled Franky. Only in One Piece is it ever Franky. Gune (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are wrong, as noted by my easily and quickly finding two more Franky's on Wikipedia. Multiple editors have already told you to stop, so I suggest you do. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No. Per WP:NONFREE and the rules of the Wikimedia Foundation, major character lists should not have individual images, only 1-3 group images. Minor character lists rarely meet the requirements for having images at all as they barely meet the requirements to even exist. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 22:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi AnmaFinotera, I noticed you have two peer review requests in at WP:PR, which were entered on the same day. There is a new policy on limits for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy, which is summarized on the PR page. I am not going to remove either of the two requests made on the same day, but if this happens again, they will be removed in the future. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°01:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Since you participate in PR (thanks again), what do you think of this as a notice? I thought I would give a notice like this on the first instance, then remove on the next.
Yes, sorry about that. And I think a notice is a good idea, especially at first for those who are likely familiar with the PR and don't read the instructions anymore ;) The second PR was done for another editor who isn't comfortable doing with the creation process yet (that's why I added his name after my sig ) :) Normally I try not to have more than one going at a time myself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I figured there was a simple explanation. As long as it is only two, I think a notice is in order. I will show more teeth when the next six or ten nominations in one day comes along. Ruhrfisch><>°°03:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I was slowly adding the episode list from Gatchaman II from a legitimate source and before you decide to slap me down again i got from TV Rage a recognized sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Tome#TVRage
As I said in my edit summary, if you want to add an episode list, then please add a proper one. Shoving in a numbered list of the English titles alone does not improve the article, and only makes more work for the editors who will have to clean it up later. Also, TV Tome is a horrible source for anime series. It does not have the original airdates, the Japanese titles, nor the transliterated titles, which a good anime episode list should have. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. Start has always been the broadest class, but not sure I support the idea of a C class either. Do think they need to put the word out to a much broader range of people, at the least notifying all projects since we're the ones you get to deal with most of the actual assessing and would have to update our guidelines accordingly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Blue Dragon
I heard that you were the one who redirected Blue Dragon (TV series) back to the video game page from Sesshomaru. Like I mentioned that if there are more anime-exclusive characters showing up on the video game page, then it would get overcrowded. Don't you think that should be separated like they did for Mega Man Star Force. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:34, 4 Jne 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the entire series since the second Blue Dragon anime seems to take place after the defeat of Nene. I think we need to improve on that article. Especially with it's anime exclusive characters like Bouquet and Logi. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I do see your point, I'm just trying to figure out how it should be done. If the anime is based on one or both manga, it should be there, similar to Star Ocean: The Second Story (manga), but if it is based on the game, it would be its own article, Blue Dragon (anime). Did some quick searching, and it looks like it is based off the game, and that is has a sequel Blue Dragon: Tenkai no Shichi Ryū. The Blue Dragon anime is said to be "loosely related" to the Blue Dragon Ral Grad manga, but neither seems to be based off the other. So, my inclination would be that it should have a separate article to cover it and its sequel (and the sequel's manga). However, I think it might also be good to ask in the Anime and Manga project before going forward, as some folks there might have a clearer idea of the relationship between the manga and anime adaptations to help determine who goes where. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Where do I find the Anime and Manga project? Rtkat3 (talk) 4:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have placed it under the project. Do you think it should've been labeled anime or TV series if it's page is restored? Rtkat3 (Rtkat3) 5:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You added it to the project page, which was not correct. I meant leave a message on the talk page of the project asking about it. I'll go ahead and post one though. If created, it should be labeled anime, per our current naming conventions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
When it's file is restored, let me know. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The file will not be restored, either way. A new article would be made, properly following the Anime and manga MoS and with more than just a chunk of plot summary :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The section Character History could be divided into two, then mix Xena Dark Past and her new life. It could be divided into sectionsEarly HistoryandThe New Lifeas had been done before? (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC))
That is not necessary, at all. The character history is already too long. It should NOT be a huge plot summary. The in-universe history of the character should not be the central focus of the article, but the real world aspects. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I know how many episodes it has. That isn't an excuse for excessive plot details about the character. Himura Kenshin is a GA character article for a character from a 28 volume book series and a 95 episode anime series. Note the emphasis on the real-world aspects, not plot and in-universe details. Rukia Kuchiki is another GA character article, from a 33+ volume book series and a 173 episode television series. Again, far less plot details than the Xena article (indeed, the whole article is smaller than Xena), with an emphasis on the real world aspects such as conception and creation of the character, reception of the character, and any plot details written from an out-of-universe perspective. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Signature
AnmaFinotera, could you please reduce the size of your signature? The font-size: 12pt; formatting creates text the same size as the <big> tag, which is discouraged per WP:SIG, and effects surrounding text. Thanks, - auburnpilottalk03:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, done. Never seen that page before. Be useful if it were linked from the preferences section since I was looking around for Sig guidelines quite awhile before just making do. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, much better. Thanks. Linking the guideline from within the preference section about sigs wouldn't be a bad idea. I know the first time I tried to create a signature, it violated all kinds of things (it was truly horrendous). Thanks again, - auburnpilottalk04:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I added to the main Rurouni Kenshin article videogames and soundtracks info, so I guess some merges could be done. Also, did something happened with the copyeditor that was supposed to help in Himura Kenshin? I remembered he copyedited conception and lead. Well, regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Been wondering that myself. She never finished copyediting Wolf's Rain either, and I finally just dropped its GA nom (the person who put it on hold for GA review also disappeared). -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 20:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
But are you going to nominate it again? And what about the merge of the soundtracks and the videogames?--Tintor2 (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm finishing up the merges now. Probably not on Wolf's Rain, at least not anytime soon. I'm going to wait until I've been able to clean up the character and episode lists, and can fix up the character section more, before trying again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 20:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey AnmaFinotera, I need advice, Im making the list of Dragon Ball manga chapters here but there is a problems. In Japan the volumes were published as 42 volumes called Dragon Ball, while Viz Media released the series in a different way. They released the first 16 vols with the name of Dragon Ball and the volumes 17-42 were titled Dragon Ball Z, starting since one. Thoughts?Tintor2 (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I would recommend just noting the change in title in the lead. Could possibly break the section list into two subsections. Does the story actually change significantly at volume 17? And sourced reasons for why Viz added the Z to the name? -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No, its not very different, in fact volume 17 ends with the story arc of volume 16. I dont know why Viz changed the titles, but they did according to the sources of my sandbox, (check English sources in my box).--Tintor2 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If its not different, then a mention in the lead is all that's needed. :) From what I read on ANN, it looks like Viz renamed it because the Dragon Ball Z anime starts with the events in the 17th volume. The Shonen Jump page for DBZ confirms this[26]. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...probably, yes. Since the division will be the more well known amongst English readers, do one subsection for Dragon Ball and one for Dragon Ball Z, then note the reason for the rename in the lead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice^_^, are you going to redirect the Dragon Ball Sagas? I remember some kind of conversationTintor2 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, these episode lists are such a mess! I may have ended up doing some double redirects. You might want to go behind and check to make sure they are right, since I don't watch the series. Some may also be off due the screwed up episode list structures. List of Dragon Ball episodes is not an actual episode list at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Here its an old version of the list of characters of the Rurouni Kenshin characters. I deleted the the one-episode characters, but it stil needs a big clean up. Thoughts?Tintor2 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Its pretty long :P I think the organization might need a little work, and probably some more of the characters can come out, but certainly a good start. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
From the sandbox I mean, I cant think what character to delete so I ll leave that to you (maybe some minor like gensai and those two girls from the anime?)--Tintor2 (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Let the bot take care of the double redirects? :P For the episode lists, I've asked for help with those in the projects, cause merging the split lists and fixing names/formats is a big task. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the GT pages. Wish I could help, it's just that (for some reason) I have no inspiration to edit those articles. Can you come up with a different phrasing for Sano, as discussed here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm suprised I got the inspiration to tackle it this morning. I just meant to take a look to see what each page was using :P Yep, will work on the Sano phrasing soon as I can remember which volume Sano talks about why he became a fight merchant in (or find it; should be one of the first ones). Probably not until later this afternoon/evening though.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, not our first meeting, unfortunately. Just wanted a third opinion from someone from the project, on whether the saga pages belonged. :) Still need to work on merging that list with its dubbed. GT is merged, but need to add in the missing titles. Took me 3 hours to do GT...wonder how long Z will take LOL -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Un-cited episode summaries are original research. They have no basis, besides fan created speculation. Therefore, they deserve removal based on Wikipedia's original research policy's clause: This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.. Please refrain from vandalizing Wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.39.120 (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No, they are not. They are fully in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They are sourced from the primary material. The only vandal here is use. If you continue vandalizing Wikipedia and being disruptive, you will be blocked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Please provide primary source material. Forming an episode summary requires an opinion on what is important in a specific episode. It is subjective and OR. Also, please provide a link to the policies and guidelines that pertain to this issue. Thank use for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.39.120 (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
We do not put citation tags on episode summaries, nor regular plot summaries. It is the overwhelming consensus of Wikipedia that its unnecessary. The source is implicit to the primary source. Episode summaries are neither subjected nor OR. Te page you quoted, WP:PSTS, also includes this: "For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge..." Episode summaries are descriptive claims, not OR. Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed expands on this: "Plot of the subject of the article – If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details." Also on many other pages and its been discussed dozens upon dozens of times with the same conclusion, plot summaries do not need sourcing and are not OR. This is also shown extensively in our featured articles on various fictional works, and their featured episodes lists. Plot summaries do NOT need citing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In this case, can you explain to me how someone can view the two relevant sources--the One Piece manga and anime--and not come to the conclusion that some episodes in the anime are not based on the chapters in the manga? It's implicit in the media that either story arcs appear in the manga or they don't.129.210.39.120 (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I figured you were doing this just to be pointy. An episode summary is a description of the work. Comparing two works is synthesis and OR. A descriptive plot summary with no interpretative statements does not require sourcing, and is not OR. Saying episode X is based on manga Y is not a description, its a declaration and interpretation that requires sourcing, same as saying anime X is based on manga Y. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
That is not what I said, and you know it. If you are only going to keep arguing just to argue, I'm not going to bother with talking to you. You don't seem to actually want to learn or understand anyway, just try to justify adding back the filler labels. Suffice to say, if you try to add them back, or remove the plot summaries again, you will be blocked from editing at all. Being disruptive just to make a point is also considered vandalism.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 05:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe that you are the one who needs to review the GA process as your undiscussed delisting appears to contradict the process. Please see guideline #4 here which states that you need to allow time for the editors to respond. Thanks.--Finalnight (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No, when an article very clearly fails GA and was inappropriately passed, a quick delist is allowed, especially if the issues can not be fixed quickly. This has been confirmed before (see the talk page, discussion is still there). The sweeps task force, in fact, also delists the same way for blatantly non-GA articles like this. I am extremely familiar with GA, thanks, and your passing of this article was beyond wrong. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi AnmaFinotera! To be honest, I don't think it should have gotton a GA rating, the referencs are totally my bad. But I don't think it should be Start class... but that's just me! I'm cool with it ^_^. Anyway thanks for coming to help on the page. I would need some help right about now.
P.S. I will get some references on the JC SQ. Comics section, I can actually get references everywhere... easily! Well, maybe a few sections have hard to find references, but it's all good. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia17:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi and glad to know you agree that it shouldn't have gotten GA. Unfortunately, there is a huge range of stuff in Start class (they are talking about making a C class to go between start and B). Its not quite B class do to the organization issues and lack of references. As more clean up is done, it should be relatively easy to get it to B. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool. You may want to take a look at some other magazine articles as well, to get ideas on content and formatting. I know there is a basic MoS as well, but darned if I can remember where it is at the moment. I used it as a guide in redoing and structuring Shojo Beat though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow you did a great job on the page! It's pretty much flawless, are you trying to get it to a GA? The reason I want to make Jump SQ. a Good Article is because I've come to a notice that most of the Jump articles aren't very good (especially Business Jump).... neither is really any other manga magazine article. ~_~ So with Jump SQ. I wanted to make a change to that, so I started with a very crappy article, started by making lists in those fancy boxes, History, Supreme Yomikiri Series, etc., and there you have it! – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia15:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) I would like to get it to GA one day. I'd like to expand it a little more, if I can, and needs copyediting and a peer review before it would be ready though. And agreed on the other mags. Magazine and company articles are some of the projects most neglected ones, unfortunately. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 15:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right, people only care about the series.... which is a shame. Maybe you should add a section bout how people think that Shojo Beat is the female version of Weekly Shonen Jump, which is abviosly not true. Trust me a lot of people think that. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia16:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I've been slowly working on cleaning up the Tokyopop, A.D. Vision, and Viz Media articles. I plan to add in a reaction section, if I can find some reliably sourced comments about it. Its sales pale in comparison to Shonon Jump so far, but still not doing to bad, I think. :) (says the person who owns every last issue since it debuted LOL) Need to see if anyone has done any discussions about Viz's failures with the Shojo Beat anime line, versus the seeming success of the manga.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 16:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh my gosh! AD Vision, and TOKYOPOP are train wrecks! Well I guess it's not as bad as the Japanese translation on Me & My Katamari (Boku no Watashi no Katamari Damashii), it said it was translated to My My Clump Spirit and My Clump Spirit of Mine. Yikes! It should just be "Our Clump Spirit". So anyway, have you ever read Jump SQ.? – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Viz and Tokyopop I managed to get some history going on. AD has been tougher (sucky site has no historical stuff). Dealing with people want to rant about stuff is the biggest thing though. I cleaned out some of the worse stuff awhile back, but all three still quite a bit of work yet. And nope, never ready Jump SQ. Shojo Beat is the first manga anthology I've read at all, much less subscribed too. I usually either read new titles by checking them out from the library, or blind buy the first volume after either flipping through or reading a promising review on AoD. :) SB lets me get a monthly hit of manga and try out new series too :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you ever read a Japanese manga magazine? I find them alot more interesting ^_^, it's more authentic and the series are unedited. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia16:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Great! I'd also suggest reconsidering some of the lists/tables in the article. May also want to clean up and clean out the ELs. There are quite a few there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Since you added the cleanup and introrewrite tags, I think it's fair to ask what you feel needs to be "cleaned up" in this article. It's pretty standard fare from what I've seen, so if you have any specific issues I'd like to know where to start. Thanks. Ark (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
For clean up, mostly just some basic wikilink fixing. Month year without a day should not be wikified. The ELs look like they are really general refs, and need to be fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Clearing things up
Okay:
Gune and I are reglaurs at the OP pages, I have accepted we are going to loose a dozen articles, but I'll try to save them. I know this is futile, but doesn't mean I won't look for ways around it. I want to loose half of what we have, but I'm a sympathic fool who has difficulty making big bold choices. I have witnessed pages being lost before and have squawked my distaste this the last set of deletetions that we shouldn't be creating new ones anymore as we have the wikia. Yet still people have. I've been left in the gutter and just gone to say "whatever pleases you, but don't say I didn't tell you".
Gune still wants to fight, I like to support the other reglaur editors anyway. So though I have accept that we're most likely will loose a lot of pages, if someone really wants them I'll try and aid them to the best of my knowledge. If not for Gune, I'd have suggested moving straight onto AfDing without a second thought.
Justyn is a known editor, someone has previously been concerned with the articles. I simply asked him to come here mostly as a support Gune mostly, as it was beyond my help. If I can't help Gune, I'll find someone who can. That is mostly being a good smartian if anything.
I'm a beyblade fan, and even I don't like the articles for Beyblade. I don't monitor those pages, and if I did I'd loose half of them. I asked for some help, because all of them are in desperate need of attention. They are hard to understand, I don't have any committments of anti-vandalism or anything like that attached to them. I do visit other pages, if I see anything that needs to be done, so be it. I enjoy visitng the non-OP pages more because I don't have to concern myself with people I know hating me.
Though I fight the AfD, as I said, I wouldn't mind loosing half of them as they are hard to control and take a lot of attention away from the wikia. The fans can't keep their fandom off of them, I am tired of this and have been on only "anti-vandalism" watch because of it. Not only that, but a lot of pages were created by me and the guys working on here 2 years ago and I have long realised their mistake.
AfD related stuff isn't my strong point. Mostly because theres a little niggering thought of doubt on them that thinks a page can still prove its worth even when the wikipedia is swatting it aside. And please, no speeches about this, I know I'm not a great wikipedian. If your going to crib me for everything, fine, thats up to you. Please let it be known - I DO support the AfD but I also support editors I know well enough first.
But if you must know, this is what I want: No characters or crew listings at all, they've long become redundant since we have the wikia which lists everything we have and more. Terms I didn't want loosing, but its gone and I won't cry over the fact it was lost, only over how it was lost. Epsidoes - I'd loose them in a blink of an eye! We have the wikia that lists them and half the OP sites out there have them listed. There is no need for any of them. Obivous keep Oda's page, the main page... If Episodes must be kept, then fine, have them, chapter and side comics only. If not all we'd be left with is the main page and the mangakas page, only 2.
Now you see that what I want and what I do are too different extremes. Would people like my idea? No. Thats why we're in this sitaution we are now - I just don't try to upset people. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
So basically, you hate half of the actual accept and basic pages, and would want to keep almost nothing at all? Interesting...and you call me a deletionist :P For the record, I firmly believe an manga/anime series should have a main article, a list of chapters (where applicable and has enough volumes), a list of episodes (again, where applicable), a list of light novels (w.a.), and a single list of major characters (as applicable). Individual character articles should be the exception, not the rule, and only where the character's have demonstrated real world information and their article can be at least 50% real-world info (conception/creation, reception, impact, etc) and not just all plot. Everything, of course, properly referenced. Side comics are not notable, and should only be mentioned at all if they are earlier works that were inspirations for the main. All in keeping with the Anime and Manga MoS and all relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Honestly, if you don't want to upset people, I'd suggest being more consistent. Right now, you seem to say one thing to me, one to Gune, and one to other people, which seems more like a politician than a human being. ;P It also inspires no confidence at all in your words. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 07:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you possibly take a look..?
Hello AnmaFinotera.
I'm currently waiting, patiently, for feedback on my article Prehistoric medicine so that I can improve it to a GA-status article, but it's a very, very long time coming. I was wondering whether you might be able to have a look at it for me and provide some, even breif, suggestions of your own. You seemed very friendly and professional, when you messaged me some time ago, and so you were the first person I thought of. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Some things I immediately noticed. The article is violating some basics of the Wikipedia MoS, such as having the refs inside the punctuation. For example, "[2]." should be ".[2]." It also steps out of the article with parenthetical "see alsos" and "see below", which are a big no-no. The first image should be in the top right corner rather than moved down. The lead doesn't seem to meet WP:LEAD, being relatively short with two referenced items seeming to indicate they are not summarizations of the article. Some of the sectioning seems excessive. If the larger section only has two paragraphs, they really don't need individual headers. You may also want to check WP:MOSHEAD, as some of the headers seem to go against the grain. The references need some consistent formatting, per Wikipedia:Citing sources. I personally find the citation templates, such as {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} useful for this purpose, but you can also manually format them. For a GA run, I'd first recommend making the MoS fixes noted above, having the article peer reviewed, and have it thoroughly copyedited. There are also quite a few statements in the article still needing in-line references before it could pass GA. I hope this helps some. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 02:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks AnmaFinotera for reviewing the article. I've made most of the changes you mention and will continue to make more, but, and I know it probably doesn't comply with something in the basics, I don't think that the first image should be moved to the top-right, purely for aesthetic reasons.
I have some things to add (I didn't even realise the {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) thing!), the article will hopefully become a GA-article, eventually! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to have a look at the article. I'd be happy to return the favour anyime so, if you need me, don't hesitate to ask. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem :) I kinda agree on the image, but I thought I should mention it since it recently came up as an issue on a list I'm prepping for FLC. The image is beside the menu (takes up the otherwise big white space), but someone said it had to be at the top. So it might come up when you go to do a GA or FA run. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 15:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll readjust it if it becomes a big issue. But it seems like no-one is going to make an issue of it, because no-one ever seems to be reassessing or reviewing it.. Is everything always this slow on Wikipedia? Anyway, it's not your problem and you've done quite enough already, thanks again. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Whoa!
Stop removing my information on BLEACH the title information is true. I'm not posting a fan site to be posting a fan site I am posting that site because it's where the information can be found. --Neoonyxalchemist (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If the page is to be redirected to Greek (TV series), then shouldn't it make some mention of the "spinoff" or whatever it is? I've got no opinion on the overall outcome here, I just know it's really iritating to be redirected to an article that doesn't tell you why you were redirected there. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
--lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello. I am the primary contributor to the article Last of the Summer Wine and am attempting to get it up to FA. I saw your name on the list of peer review volunteers and was wondering if you would be interested in taking a look through the article to see if you can spot anything for us to change. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Courtesy reminder
Hello, AnmaFinotera ... I added the "redundant" courtesy message to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because of this conversation with Some Other Editor ... I won't revert your revert, but I do wish that you'd reconsider restoring it ... you reverted while I was adding this message on the Discussion page. :-)
It is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.
I just went ahead and added it with the "Consider adding as a courtesy" message ... I figure that it doesn't hurt to repeat "as a courtesy" for the users who tend to "skip/skim-read" and might not catch it the first time. :-)
OTOH, some users are (by their continuously disruptive behavior) unworthy of such courtesy, which is why it must be optional, rather than required. — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi AnmaFinotera. Thanks for the message on my talk page. I was aware that tagging User:Neoonyxalchemist's page with the {{sockpuppet}} tag didn't open an SSP or RFCU case. Some instances of sockpuppetry are clear enough that further investigation isn't required. In my judgment this was such a case. Best, Gwernol21:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion the lead paragraph I added, and you removed just a while ago was mostly mentioned in the article, at least the movie ones. I would actually source them later when I go back home-- so keep those there.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori16:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This is off-topic. but I really can't dedicate any more time to Wikipedia this week. I have an admissions test Saturday that I need to prepare. I'll be back, though.--Monocrat (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Excel Saga chapters
I can start adding all right references to the page once you take the notice down. I don't want to get in the way of your work. Grapeofdeath (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm working on it now. I'll remove the notice when I'm done for the evening. If you're reading the series, when I'm done, can you add a summary for the newest volume, and maybe fix up volume 1 and 2s summaries? -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I can try to fix up the first two, but crafting summaries isn't something I'm very good at. The plot in the series has gone crazy and I don't know if I'd be able to describe the latest volumes very well. I have started transliterating the Japanese titles and plan to add those in eventually. Grapeofdeath (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No prob :) Hmmm...I can't seem to find any reliable sources for its starting its serialization in 1996 (and ANN has the year wrong). Blech. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 05:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
All the release dates for the Japanese books are from the ISBN pages of the books themselves. What I'd have to do is reference that actual book itself. You've already done what I was going to do for the English editions. Grapeofdeath (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know. Amazon.co.jp can be used to source the release dates. The books themselves are the sources for the ISBNs (so no reference needed). But in the lead, it also discusses the original serialization. That's what I can't find a source for. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 05:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The release dates in the back of the book are different from the ones on Amazon.co.jp. This is true for many series, such as Blood+ and Claymore. I'd rather use the books as the source for the dates as the farther you go back, the more inconsistent Amazon tends to be. I'll also be posting the information on volume 20 soon. I'm picking it up tomorrow. By the way, the line that says '125 chapters have been published in the magazine' seems incorrect since that is the number of chapters from the magazine that have been published the the first 19 volumes. I haven't been keeping track of the unpublished chapters like other pages do. Grapeofdeath (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so they put the release dates on the back of the books in Japan? Cool. For the chapters, I figured it was short some, but there is no list of the unpublished chapters, so I just went for the count available. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 06:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added the unpublished chapters to the bottom of the page, but now I'm left with a dilemma. The last mission in volume 19 is MISSION 131 in the actual magazine. Even if I add the four bonus missions, I come up two short. (Mission 5 and 5.5 in volume 14 were originally together in the magazine.) Perhaps the Professor Side Stories were originally two chapters? I'll have to look through the notes in the english volumes to try and figure this one out. If there's no good answer, do you think I should just leave these numbers out? Grapeofdeath (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd go with what the mission number is in the actual magazine. The side stories in volumes usually aren't included in the chapter count, unless they are numbered as such in the original serialization. Out of curiosity, do the original volumes retain the original mission numbers, or are they numbered like they appear to be in the English ones, with the numbers starting over for each volume (so its 1-5, 1-6, etc)-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 06:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It only shows 1-5 or 1-6 in the English and Japanese books. Same happens with Berserk. A chapter was actually taken out of the book format, so if you've keeping track of the numbers they're one off. But since all the original scans are still on the internet, it was easy to find out which one. Unfortunately I think I'd really only get to the bottom of this if I had all the actual magazines these were in or at least the original scans. Grapeofdeath (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Exciting new template
Template:Shueisha done by the same well intentioned man behind the Jump Square page. It is the worst thing I have ever seen. I feel so sorry for him. He must have worked so hard on it...I can't figure out how to channel his energies to things that would actually benefit Wikipedia. Doceirias (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying on the Jump Square, but he doesn't seem to be getting the hints I give :( I put the TfD up for deletion...words escaped me on its pure hideousness. Doesn't seem to be useful, though if its kept, it needs to be rolled back to the earlier version that didn't have inappropriate non-free images, etc. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 20:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I understood what you were trying to say, I just got overwhelmed because I put hours of work into it. It should be deleted... I'm just really imbarrased. I always get trashed on the internet. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we were talking about the Jump Square article too. I think you have a lot of enthusiasm, and you obviously enjoy editing. It does take awhile to learn, we all made embarrassing edits earlier (I still shudder to look at the first article I made LOL). Just gotta learn from them, and keep practicing (and don't be afraid to ask for help if you aren't sure about something) :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize for snapping at you (twice now). I think you have some good suggestions and I appreciate your contributions. I don't see any reason to make enemies online; I overreacted. --Kraftlos (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've been asked to close this FLRC, but am reluctant to make a mess of my first one! Would you mind returning to the discussion and giving your to-this-minute feelings on this particular FL? --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently working on the list for all the One Piece characters, but it's pretty slow going. I have it laid out in a way I think works well, now it's only a matter of condensing the character information and adding it. The number of characters makes it a chore though, so it'll be some time before it's ready. I'm only letting you know because you seem to be the driving force behind merging all of the articles, and I want to make sure you know someone is working on it. In the meantime, it'd be really helpful if you didn't merge or AfD any of the articles, because having to redo all of the work finding the references and character summaries would make this even more painful. Thanks. Ark (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Long as there is some active work being done on getting them merged, I don't generally do AfDs. I only do an AfD if it seems like its been abandoned, or there is a lot of resident editor resistance to doing needed merges. I do, however, recommend going ahead and tagging for merge. This keeps it up front, allows discussion, may get some offers of help, and can act as a check list of sorts as you go through each article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
...someone deleted it an hour ago and didn't close the TfD.
Actually I did close the debate on this template - at CfD! When I closed that I said that it was speediable but should have been listed at TfD. I didn't realise it had been listed in two separate process pages! Grutness...wha?00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, people have always trashed me on the internet. I am depressed easily, no one ever respects that. As for you, you are something different, you are one of the nicest people I have ever met. Also you're helping me on the Jump SQ. page, everyone usually ignores me. I think that deserves an award, great job. : ) – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia01:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yourwelcome, the reason people ignore me is because of some jerk at ANN that lied about me. Just if you were wondering. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia05:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't think so, don't even really care anymore. The people at ANN are probobly just a bunch of tweaked old men, I don't go there anymore, but it really affected my reputation. Anyway, what is AoD? – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia02:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL, tells you how slow I am. I hadn't made that connection! :P AoD's forum folks tend to be much nicer, and we have good convos. Its well monitored and the site rules help keep disagreements down. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Ahhhh.... : ) well that changes alot. Although, i'll still give myself a different name. Just so it doesn't "set off an alarm", if you get what I mean. : ) – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia15:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, because I bet some people at AoD have accounts on ANN. Yeah funny thing ^_^, the reason the person called me a dumb*** is because I said Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's was butchered. I mean, *sarcasm* "Sorry, 4Kids is gonna do a great job on YGO 5D's" *sarcasm*. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia17:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Some probably do, though I doubt they are the ones who said that. Vast majority of AoDers abhor 4Kids and mourn any series licensed by them :P They also tend to have no good words for ANN's forums, because there are a few asses over there who have trashed the AoD site owner and made beyond rude comments about his weight and health issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a horrible thing to say! Did they seriosly!? O_o One of the reasons those guys were makin' fun of me is because I said that CN ruins my hobby. Which is very true, they make Weekly Shonen Jump look like some 3-year old thing. Which is very not true, it's built for teens well in their 16 of age and older. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and this was after he lost a ton of weight to save his life. It was just crass of them. We readers of AoD are right proud of how much weight he's lost and found his work to be inspirational. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Poor guy.....it's good he lost weight. And can't believe they said that, I thought it was just me that they were jerks. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia18:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, especially Bellos the Almighty. He told me to ditch my friends, my friends are amazing; one of my friends has an account: User:Fiddlekid, he's still an amateur at Wikipedia. I'm teaching him all the basics, he's a genious at the violin. He plays so fast it gives me a headache. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia00:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, AnmaFinotera. I am coming to you for your thoughts on the fictional character article Bianca Montgomery because I know how stern you are about fictional character articles. You probably ticked off a few editors of soap opera character articles, but I understand your disdain for fictional character articles simply or primarily made of plot summaries. I share that same disdain, which was not there until I advanced as a Wikipedian editor. These days, however, plot-driven articles seriously agitate me. I've been significantly improving fictional character articles, mainly soap opera ones (for now), and would appreciate your comments on what further improvements could be done to Bianca's article. Since recent discussion has gone on at its talk page, I thought it best to ask you now. I have a grasp on what needs to be done, but want various thoughts. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
So far, its looking like its going in a good direction. Certainly the first soap character article that didn't make me scream and shudder. :D I would suggest reconsidering the images being used. The first two in the plot section don't seem necessary and would likely be called violations of WP:NONFREE in a GA review. Also try to tighten up the "Storyline" section. The headers there seem a bit off, especially the first one. In icon, the quote is not long enough for a callout, I believe, so need to incorporate back into the text. Rather than popular and criticsm sections, it seems a single Reception section would be a more neutrally headered section, either before or after cultural impact. Check all the refs to make sure they are formatted correctly (preferably using the appropriate citation template like {{cite web}}), and that they contain all relevant and available information: ideally title, publisher/work, author, date published, and date accessed. Ref 5, for example, is badly done and inappropriate. Its linking to a copyvio image, rather than just giving the actual publication information using {{cite journal}}. For printed media, page numbers are heavily desired. Ref 15 is missing the date and author, though both are given in the article. Als check to make sure they are all reliable sources. Also, clean up the ELs and make sure there are n unnecessary links (like that fansite). For the last link, use as a source if it isn't already, but otherwise unneeded. If you are going for GA, the last thing after that would be getting it copyedited and I think it should be good to go. Now, if you are aiming for FA, the entire storyline section will also need to be referenced out to the individual episodes ({{cite episode}} will be your new best friend :P). Hope that helps some :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy and paste your suggestions on the Bianca Montgomery talk page. Just for other editors to see as well, in case they would like to take care of some of what you suggested before I do. The only thing that would be difficult to do, though, is citing the episodes. Soap opera episodes are extremely difficult to cite. I would have to go the route of citing the episodes like the featured soap opera character Pauline Fowler does or the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article does. Anyway, thanks again. Your thoughts on this matter will be very helpful, as well as for similar topics. Flyer22 (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
That's fine :) I can imagine how hard it must be dealing with soap cites. Its bad enough trying to find the right episode for a 50 ep series, much less one so long. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 16:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I've been (slowly) working towards getting the list back to FLC, currently under PR again. I need your help, along with several others; I've already sent the page for consideration at LOCE's requests department.
Yes, I can review the copyedit in question, but it'll have to wait a couple of days. If you don't hear from me by Wednesday, drop me a reminder. – Scartol • Tok23:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Ask
Hi there AnmaFinotera! Could you pay a look at the Reborn! article? I think there are some tags that need to be added but Im not very sure. Some days ago I added a to-do list in the talk page but it would be better if you pay a look there, cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. I tagged for excessive non-free images, too much plot stuff, needs a better intro, and some general, basic clean up (like the infoboxes). -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 20:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Done with the terminology and bullets, are those the plot problems, though the plot section may need to be rewritten.--Tintor2 (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Better and glad to see the actual ending :) Of course, the fangirl in me wants a Saitō mention in there somewhere LOL (we'll eventually need to add a subsection on the major changes in the anime, which I believe mostly is with the ending). Also really need to deal with List of Rurouni Kenshin villains someday...it is NPOV and rather false (I doubt Kenshin would have ever called Saitō a villain...a bit extreme, perhaps, but not a villain). :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 16:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we'll probably need to expand some to include those two, since Yahiko's growing up and following in Kenshin's footsteps is a rather big part of the story as well. For the list, the way generally considered the most neutral is protagonists, antagonists, and supporting. Then, you can do some subsections, like for a named group such as the Oniwabanshū. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Organization is better (though I hope you don't mind, I removed the ToC limit so I could see who was where). For character removals, I'd say quite a few of the "others" can go (which needs to be renamed supporting. Katsura Kogorō, Tsukayama Yūtarō, Tsukioka Tsunan, Oibore, Yamagata Aritomo, and Ōkubo Toshimichi would be the first ones to come to mind. The rest, I'd wait and deal with after tehy have been compacted/rewritten from an out-of-universe perspective and referenced, then evaluate as that goes along. Also, take a peek at List of Naruto characters and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters for a way to redo the voices, as they shouldn't be given undue weight being secondary works. Also, only the Japanese and English should be listed. No Spanish/Tagalong/etc. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 00:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Pokespe
I have been making the list of pokespe here but I think something is wrong with the volume extras since they are in the right. Could you check them?Tintor2 (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This user seems to have been stalking your edits and reverting them. I looked at his activity and blocked the account indefinately, as he is clearly a sockpuppet of JJonz. All his edits have been reverted. Just thought I'd let you know ;-) Lradrama08:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Great...guess he decided to add me to his hit list since I am usually the one who spots him popping on and bugging Sesshomaru. 15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
So, may you initiate it? I still have quite a few more things to check on my huge watchlist before doing this. Maybe Zarbon can help you out ... for now. What's it gonna be? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Miami Vice may be in WP:Miami, but it does not appear in the WP:FL directory, which is why the tag was there. Even an discussion in WP:FL put the article under tagging. El Greco(talk)21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Its excessive, and a sign of a bad template design for Miami if it is not working right, but if there was consensus to be redundant and overtag all the Florida related articles, feel free to add back. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I have another question. There are a couple of manga series I want to add chapter pages for, but in the English release of the series each volume contains two of the Japanese volumes. Have you seen any other pages that are able to accommodate that and if not, do you have any ideas? Grapeofdeath (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...that's a fairly rare occurance, I think. I would go ahead and use the Japanese volumes for the list, noting in the lead that each English volume contains two Japanese volumes. For the table itself, use the same ISBN and release date for the two volumes. You may want to also ask in the project for other thoughts, as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 03:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright. :) And same here. I've seen it in some of the reprints, like the Viz Big editions, but usually the first printings stick with the Japanese divisions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 03:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I usually see the first printings start with the Japanese divisions. I think the publishers deviated on Futari Ecchi since there are already 39 volumes out in Japan. This will get through the series quicker and cut costs. ($20 for two Japanese volumes together makes the price about average. Berserk is $14 a volume and still hasn't caught up.) I can figure out why Hikari To Tomoni has done the same. Perhaps it's real audience for the manga in America is people interested in autism, so $15 for a 500 page book seems reasonable. Grapeofdeath (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this, he does have somewhat of a point. The edited dub Cardcaptors changed so much that one could almost consider it a different work, which was the thinking when we made Cardcaptors it's own article. The script itself had major alterations, making it very hard to cover on one page and not be confusing. -- Ned Scott22:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Not really. It isn't a different work and it can/will be easily discussed properly in the main article. Tokyo Mew Mew was also heavily edited, but its edited Mew Mew Power version is properly discussed within its article. Ditto with Escaflowne's edited dub. CCS and Cardcaptors has two articles with a ton of unnecessarily duplicated information because they are unnecessarily split apart. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 00:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
As long as we're still able to separate what happened in CC and CCS, then fine, but I don't see what NPOV has to do with a merge for organizational reasons. -- Ned Scott05:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Because the current CCS article shows clear bias against CC. The disdain for it fairly pours out in all mentions of it. Also, from the note left on the talk page, it seems the person who removed the tag totally misunderstood what it meant, believing it was saying all CCS stuff had to be removed. I've attempted to better clarify for him what it meant. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 05:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry for removing the NPOV, as you are right, it does focus on the anime more than the manga ^_^. However, there still doesn't seem to be bias against CC, but rather CC having it's own article and people not wanting to add conflicting info into the article. Each character page references the character's dub name and the person who does their English voice. I didn't believe you wanted to wipe out all CCS stuff, but rather felt you were trying to say we should add more things related to CC in the article, which if you've seen the dub, would confuse people. I mean Syaoran can't both be related to Meiling and not be related to her (she is considered just a friend in the dub and her last name was changed to Rae) at the same time. Oh and by the way, I'm a her not a him ^_^. AjaaniSherisu (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. In the new character list, it would refer to Meiling as his cousin, then note towards the end of her entry that in the dub her name was changed to X and she was changed from a cousin to a family friend. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess this is all fine, but remember that the dub is one of two (possibly three, IIRC) english versions of the anime. -- Ned Scott01:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, it's me again. Sorry that I'm coming to you again, but it seems that you're good at dealing with crap. An editor named Cooksi (Or something like that) keeps putting a list of horror films actors on the see also section of Horror film. The article has been deleted several times, and he/she was told not to make it again, and it was the editors final warning. So, in response, instead of making the article horror film actors, he made it "list" of horror film actors. Yojimbo501 (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
If he hasn't done any constructive edits, you may want to go ahead and report him as a vandal only account for blocking (unless he's been blocked already). -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello AnmaFinotera, : ) I just wanted to tell you that i'm making a SJ page on my sandbox. Just wanted to tell you, because I thought that you could be making one also. ^_^ – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way I think it would be better to switch the page name to Shonen Jump (English), because there's also Swedish and Norwegian. Another thing you should know is the fact that the official name is "SHONEN JUMP" in all-caps, we can't name the page that though, Wikipedia doesn't want us to give page names all-caps. Also you can pitch in if you want to: User:Jump Guru/Sandbox#Shonen Jump (English). There's the code for you to edit. : ) – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia16:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You may be right on disambiguating, though I believe the naming guidelines would suggest it should be North America or United States, but I'll double check on that. I did a few edits, but so far you seem to be doing fine :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 16:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I removed it while converting that section to prose. I think its ready to go ahead and move out as a starting point for the split. There seems to be overwhelming support for doing a split, so might as well go ahead and get it to the article main space so more folks can find it. Since the English one will be the most commonly known one, I think Shonen Jump (magazine) is the most appropriate choice, with a hat note at the top pointing to the disambiguation page, which should be placed at the current Shonen Jump redirect. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
We should. Although it is actually spelled as SHONEN JUMP, here's a link: http://www.viz.com/products/products.php?format_id=1 . If you look at the left hand side of the page in the "Magazines" section, SJ is spelled as is and SB is spelled normally. Also in the magazine they spell it as SHONEN JUMP, so there's proof. : ) – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia17:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, that is not a spelling, it is a stylization, which we ignored completely. We don't write things in all caps just because the company stylizes the title that way, so for Wikipedia purposes (and per all relevant guidelines), it should always be written Shonen Jump. For the same reason, VIZ Media is written Viz Media, and FUNimation is written Funimation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Say... you're a deletionist with no bias in the discussion above, so I know that you won't come down on my side without due consideration. Could you please review the deletion discussion and give me your opinion as to whether or not deletion is warranted? I have a feeling that if you feel it should be, you will at least have some solid support as to why. On the other hand, if you feel it shouldn't, then knowing that I'm not alone in that thinking will go a long way. Thanks again. --John (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi AnmaFinotera, as I've probably got the most access to Sailor Moon scholarly resources, I'd really appreciate it if you could please use the inline tags {{or}}, {{fact}}{{dubious}}, where appropriate rather than the banners, as it is easier to tell which bits of the article you find problematic, and so it is easier to work to plug any gaps in the article. I was under the impression that banner tags were only to be used when there would be dozens of inline tags otherwise, and I would like to think that this is not the case with the Sailor Moon articles, ha ha. I'm especially thinking of the main Sailor Moon article here, as it is currently a good article. Please could you be explicit about what is specifically wrong with the Sailor Moon articles? -Malkinann (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Many of the "sources" used in all three are neither scholarly nor reliable. They are fansites, WP:COPYRIGHT violating sites, and other dubious stuff. They have numerous issues. SM was made a good article over a year ago, that does not mean it still is now. There is blatantly obvious lack of neutrality and the article does not properly follow WP:MOS-AM by shoving the English adaptations to another section. They should be properly covered with the individual media. The ELs are badly formatted, and should not have/need descriptors added after them. Additionally, the person who passed it did not even do a proper, full GA review, so saying it is a good article is not much. I'm strongly tempted to give it a delisting notice, but waiting to see what is done to fix the article after its being tagging. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 06:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so your primary concern is the use of fansites? We can try and find other sources. :) I seem to recall that the main reason we used Alex Glover's site as a source in the Sailor Moon#Manga section was because it was much more convenient than citing the books themselves - would listing the books themselves be an appropriate reference for this? I'm afraid I must ask for clarification on the "blatantly obvious lack of neutrality" - where is this evident? I'm sure you're aware it's hard to see prose problems when you've been working on an article for some time. Also, many of our sources were written when Sailor Moon seemed unstoppable, and so they are shockingly glowing (except for commentary about the sailor uniforms being too sexy, which is mostly in Sailor Senshi#Critical attention). I'm not sure what to do about the MoS stuff, maybe in the merge discussion we'll come up with some ideas. -Malkinann (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Its the use of fansites and other non-reliable sources. Every source needs to be evaluated to ensure it actually meets WP:RS. The obvious lack of neutrality come in any discussion of the dub, which is an unfortunately issue with many such series. The English adaptation being shoved off into another article is part of that as well. There is no valid reason for them to be separate. Other similarly edited series have been successfully cleaned up and made into a single article with the appropriate splits. While Sailor Moon is a huge series, there is really no need the series itself can not have a single main article discussing the overall plot, adaptations, and the English language releases. Other much larger series can do it, so can SM. It should have one manga chapter list. The episode list is already tagged for splitting, while the individual season pages need to go. A single major character list, with those characters meeting WP:FICT having main articles. That is what the series really needs. I know the SM project likes having dozens of articles, and fights almost any attempt to delete/merge most of them, but it would be nice if SM would actually get in line with other AM articles instead of doing its own thing. There is really no reason SM can't be taken to a featured article, several featured lists, and an eventual featured topic if that clean up could be done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I'm just saying hi. I am relatively new to being a member user of Wiki and just saying that I'm open for any advice (given your credentials). :~)
P.S. if your wondering why I'm saying hi is because your help in explaining and answering my question in Escaflowne discussion. Also do you mind giving me your opinion on my response in the Bleach discussion page, please be gentle, I bleed easily.--AKIRA70 (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries, I'm learning more and more how to contribute properly to Wikipedia and I do apologize for my some what radical and "newbie" ideas. I'm just trying to find creative ways to help Wiki, even if sometimes they do seem juvenile and irrelevant. Thanx for being critic and for not bitting my head off (unlike other users).:~)--AKIRA70 (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Super Jump article
I'm redoing my old amateur Super Jump article. You wanna help? Right now i'm dealing with the manga list, and don't worry I bet I can find sources......they are hard to find, but who said Wikipedia was easy? : ) – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia22:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll add it to my watch list and will be happy to offer guidance :) I did a little clean up in the lead and infoboxes, and added some tags as suggestions for major things to work on. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I have made an important proposal for the project here .We are looking forward for your comments and suggestions. You are receiving this note since you have made a similar suggestion earlier -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 05:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I made another edit to Post Oak Mall again, except this time it's backed up with photos from their 25th Anniversary that show that my edits are true. The cinema issue is still up in the air with dubious references (two SEC articles with a different cinema operator each time?) but at least I've got the anchors cleared up. I'm sorry for the friction that's built up on that article, and thank you for challenging me to sniff out better references for what I know is right. The Post Oak Mall article isn't mine, but it's not yours either. This is more of an "explanation/friendly handshake" note rather than a "screw you you're wrong" note, which would be kind of rude. Thanks, TheListUpdater (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The SEC notes only point to one cinema, its just confusingly written. Also, your personal Flickr photo is not a valid reference nor link and has been removed again. It certainly is not a more reliable source than a book published by the Brazos Historical Society by its very nature. Nor does it support your claim. It only shows that when the mall was 99% leased, Beall's was an anchor. That also matches what the article states. Beall's was not in the mall when it opened on February 17, 1982. It and Wilsons came some point between 1982 and 1985, most likely later in 1982. But on opening day, neither was there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
However, in the 1981 lease plan, Bealls, Wilson's, and JCPenney were signed on as definite tenants. Foley's must have come in at the last minute. If Bealls and Wilson's were NOT open, then it would've said something along the lines of "Bealls Opening Winter 1982". Also, the pictures on Flickr were from me, not someone random. They weren't altered. Also, I haven't read this book by the BHS, but it's entirely possible people make mistakes. :/
I really don't know what to say. Part of me wants to say that you're an intolerant jerk, but part of me wants to believe you stand by your references just as much as I do. The references certainly are confusing, and I really hope that we can get to the real juice that is true. TheListUpdater (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The picture, however, doesn't say "mall at opening" but mall at "99% leased." The mall wasn't likely to be 99% leased when it opened. Part of the issue is while the picture is very interesting, it doesn't have anything with it to provide context. Any meaning we pull from it regarding who was in the mall when is interprative, making it too WP:OR. The BHS book, however, seems pretty accurate to me. I've used it with several local articles and its historical information matched other sources. Unfortunately, Post Oak just isn't covered as well in other sources. I could see if the library has copies of the Eagle from around its opening date to see what they reported. Their online site doesn't go back far enough. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem, however, is that the "99% Leased" picture...there are more where that came from...was from an insert from the newspaper on opening day. Since the opening of the Mall was obviously a BIG event, a multiple-page insert was put in The Eagle. It would be disappointing if patrons wanting to go to Wilson's or Bealls on that day found that their stores would not open for another two years. Everything on the article is somewhat dubious, since we've really only gotten information from a few questionable SEC filings, one book about the history of the Brazos Valley, and a couple of photos. Not even Google News goes back that far. The cinema is another issue. I could swear up and down it was General Cinema, because I think I saw it mentioned back there, but it doesn't really have the characteristics of a General Cinema theaters. All the mall directories there, including a circa-1998 one I have just mention "Cinema 3". I think it was 1998 because Kinney Shoes was there but Woolworth's was vacant (assuming Woolworth's bit the dust in 1997). If that IS true, then the mysterious theater could've closed in 1998 at the least. I've talked with people, and it seems the cut off point is 1998 (since it faltered shortly after Cinemark opened). An archived version of PostOakMall.com doesn't list the theater (late 2000), and everyone I've talked too universally agreed it closed before 2000. However, 2000 isn't horrifically off the mark (after all, these minor date mix-ups happen ALL THE TIME) so I guess it could stay for the time being. It's a real shame that so much information is missing, since The Eagle didn't get on the Internet bandwagon until around 1999 or 2000. They don't mention the theater closing, either (though they did when Schulman closed) so that's another reason I stand by my reason. Maybe you (and possibly me) could do some sleuthing in the newspaper archives. We'll get to the bottom of this...eventually...TheListUpdater (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Per the copyedit, it is excessive and unnecessary. It can be linked in the second sentence, if its appropriately written to note said manga premiered in Japan blah blah blah. Per the MoS and good writing practices, the first sentence should have more than 2 wikilinks ideally, and the media type (anime/manga/etc) and the author name are the most significant ones for the first sentence. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 02:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Quite welcome. Wow...by the time its all cleaned up, the article is pretty short, but hopefully gets it to a better starting place at least. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The misza archive bot
Hi there. Thanks for helping out with that bot. I looked at the template and couldn't work out why it hadn't archived anything for over a year. To be honest, I'm still not sure. Any clues? (reply here or at my page, I'll watch both) Ged UK (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't the bot code, there was likely a bad entry among the earlier ones that didn't have the right date format so the bot couldn't read it. When it hits that, it just skips the whole page. I manually archived everything from before 08, so that should get it back on track. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah right, I see. Well, kinda. Anyway, I know that it wasn't me missing something in the code then. Thanks! :) Ged UK (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL, there was one time it stopped archiving one of the project talk pages. It took us three days to figure out it was because the page had a blacklisted link on it! So usually, if the code looks right, I'll just do a big manual archive and that will usually fix any issues with a bad post. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 20:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple of ways to do it, but cut and paste is the easiest one to me. Just remove from the current (noting in the summary that you are archiving), the paste to the bottom of the newest archive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The Clique
Why not let the minor character list stay in, and simply redirect the articles on the characters? Much less fuss. I've deprodded the list, and I too if necessary. I totally agree the characters dont warrant separate articles. I think I may have deprodded one, but that iwas before I ssaw you had prodded the list as well. There are advantages to compromise solutions. DGG (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Because the list of minor characters is a pointless list of one-shot characters with absolutely no notability at all. Even the main characters have no notability, so why would the minors as a whole? -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
as you know, I take an approximately opposite view, that if the fiction is notable so are each of the major characters, but I am willing to compromise. Do you want to argue every individual character article, or compromise? One of the advantages of compromise is that one is certain to get at least some of what one wants. There's no point in you & me trying to convince each other of our position, but perhaps I can convince you of the merits of doing something for the sake of peace and the ability to concentrate on improving articles.
You will probably say, that if we dispute each one at AfD, then I will manage to get rid of 3/4 of what I want, so why should I compromise on half? And I of course can say just the same. But the question is then, are you willing to take the risk that your estimate might be wrong? People are generally a little over-sanguine about the extent of general agreement with their point of view.
But I'm not trying to compromise for fear of losing--I genuinely want to get on with other things. Is there nothing else here you care about more than removing these articles? DGG (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
What are you doing to the List of One Piece Episodes?
I hadn't checked that page in some time, and now I check it again and its ruined. I checked the history page
and saw that it was you who did those modification. You removed very neat and helpful stuff.
Like the navigation index now looks horrible, it used to be separated into the different arcs and their
respective name, and also indicating which were fillers. But look at it now, it sucks. Its a list which
makes it look worse than the little box format it had. It doesn't indicate which are fillers and which
are not, and on top of it, all the names of the arcs have disappeared, now there's only "Season 1, Season 2, Season 3...".
So I would like to know why you did that, why didn't you like the older and better format. And if
possible to leave it again at what it was. I just can't think that you did it just for the sake of
bothering people since these are some serious modification. So, please explain to me why?
Thanks for your time. — [Unsigned comment added by Ss3growntrunks (talk • contribs) 14:06, June 26, 2008.]
Its all explained/discussed on the list's talk page. The list is being cleaned up to bring it line with a proper episode list per Wikipedia guidelines and the relevant manuals of style. The previous list may have been nice for a handful of fans, but it was not a god format, it was useless for non-fans, and it was not appropriately arranged. It was also inappropriately split from the English broadcast information. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Footnotes/References
Hey, I was doing some work on the List_of_Elfen_Lied_characters and I noticed that some of the "references" are actually more like notes. Do you know of a way to make separate lists of notes and references using <ref>...</ref> without it turning out weird? --Kraftlos (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the notes, they should simply be removed. The first is the same one that was in the ep list and is unnecessary. 2 is an OR statement and unnecessary. And 5 is a link off to a fansite and, again, an unnecessary note. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
What a horrible thing to say, people like that should never be allowed on Wikipedia. >_< Sorry that happened to you. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia22:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm just trying to figure out why he said that....but you know, people are brave on the interntet, they say whatever they want while they would never say it up in someone's face, it's kinda' sad. ~_~ Oh yeah and by the way, what do you mean when you say "you've gotten worse". – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia01:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I have been alerted to this IP attack, and two other seemingly related accounts, that appear to either have been stalking your edits, or abusing you on your talkpage. Do you think the person operating them is the same person as the abusive sockpuppeteer I blocked on June 16th? Lradrama07:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The IP probably isn't the same fellow. The sockpuppeteer did reappear today, as User:SlimeyJJonz. He generally loves to identify himself from the get go. It seems to be part of his "fun" to leave a note for his main target and make it clear it is him while he's going, then try to revert as many edits as he can before he gets blocked. Not sure if the two IPs are the same person, but just seemed to be my day to have annoying folks around. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 08:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the IPs aren't related to the abusive-account-sockpuppeteer I blocked before, but the bahaviour between the two of them was brought to me via checkuser, and there does appear to be links. One rapidly defends the antics of the other. What they said to you is unspeakable of anyway. Both IPs blocked for 1 month. They shouldn't need warning four times each, behaviour like that is unacceptable, and there is thus clear evidence of the same person(s) being behind those two particular accounts. Lradrama08:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd say so too, so I guess he's one of those people who swears at random people on the internet. It's just like mob rules. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia15:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Miracle Dog
Sorry for the bungled edit in which I added a ref and inadvertently deleted the AFD notice. That was certainly not my intent. Do you have access to the actual book, or do you have an online cite to show that the list of TV/magazine coverage in the Barnes and Noble site is actually copied from the book jacket? All I have seen is an image of the front of the book. Are you sure that a list of publications is copyrightable, even if the order is varied and items are added? I did not understand that information as such is copyrightable. This should go to a forum on copyvios. Thanks. Edison (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The blurb on the back of the book is copyrightable, including the list of appearances. And yes, I found it on a book site that prints the full blurb from the back of the books. Also, unless you have an actual source for each appearance, you can't claim any of those are true nor that they are all specifically for the book. More than likely, NONE of them are, as they happened before the book came out. Its a promotional blurb, not usable, reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't me -- looks like an IP vandalized the name of the file (to something nonexistent) in the article while I wasn't noticing. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how this is vandalisim. I was editing the information Zaphod DID leave Aztecs. Zaphod DID stay with them. Zaphod SHOULD be moved to the Aztecs as he is in the group. Zaphod, being Zaphod, will most likely takr dominance. There is NO dominant male in Whiskers. The other males DID leave the group. Meerkatxoxo (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You removed source, verified information from a featured list and replaced it with unsourced information. You have been warned repeatedly NOT to do that, and I won't continue to coddle you over it. You should know better at this point. None of the meerkats will be moved, nor their status updated until its fully established in the current episodes that Zaphod is staying with the Aztecs. Episode by episode updates are not appropriate, nor is jumping ahead and trying to update based on the KMP site when they have already said the will not do any updates until the series finishes airing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Understanding Somethings
Hey you seem to know alot about wikipedia so I wanted to know somethings I dont understand, and also to talk about manga.--Amp99 (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It roughly indicates how the article's character count was changed by the edit. So +50 means the article was 50 characters longer after the change, while -25 would mean it was 25 characters less. 0 means the article still has the same number of characters. It doesn't indicate how many actual characters were changed, however. For example, someone could vandalize an article by changing the word "them" to "turd." The watchlist would have 0 beside it because the character count didn't change, but there were actual characters that were changed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh now it makes sense i wasnt sure what those numbers meant and the second question, how do I edit my page to look good.--Amp99 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
User pages work the same as regular articles, in terms of code. However, because they are user pages, you don't have the same MoS restrictions so you can have more fun with things like DIVs, tables, etc. Do you know any basic HTML? If not, you might want to try using one of the WYSIWYG editors available on the Gadgets page of your preferences. That will let you visually edit your user page. If you see someone's user page that you like a feature of, you can also look at their code o see how they did it, then do the same. Just make sure to follow WP:USER regarding allowed content. If you'd like to add userboxes, to give quick info about yourself, you can find the list at Wikipedia:Userboxes. There are also editors available willing to help you with a design if you aren't familiar with HTML/CSS and want to do more than the editors will let you do. Wikipedia:User Page Design Center would also be a great place to start and to learn more :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks AnmaFinotera i think i got that, well thats all need help with but tell me which do you think is better naruto or one piece —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amp99 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course you remember Thelegendofvix (Greek editor who put up the langauge comparison chart), well what on happened exactly? It seems very few moderators showed any interest in the case you presented. Now he deleted the Sockpuppet claim on his user page, and replaced it with: Wikipedia is accurate.[citation needed] Very cute. But now that I can't go back because he put the Wikipedia is accurate thing over the talk page too, I can't access the case. So curiously, was it ever resolved? I personally don't think the other guy was a sock, but was there a punishment for Thelegendofvix's innapropriate edits? Yojimbo501 (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera i would just like to say sorry. I really didn't mean to do any of this. I love wikipedia, and i've got to know people and maybe we got to close on here. I didn't mean to vandalise Meerkat Manor. I thought that the edits i was doing was okay, but i guess i didn't have evidence to support that. Please accept my apology. I really don't want to face the sockpuppetry case. I'm deeply sorry. I just wanted to make wikipedia better. I got a little mad, and went overboard with the users. Again sorry. I promise that i will leave wikipedia for a little while and calm down, but i really want to help out. I promise that i'll double check my edits, and everybody makes mistakes. I admit i made a mistake. Sorry.
Its good that you are admitting to your mistakes. Unfortunately, as you have made several accounts like this, you may not be allowed to return as it is against the rules to do it. However, if you are allowed to return, I hope you will consider the "adopt a user" program to help you better learn the ropes on Wiki editing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 06:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
We all do stupid things like that when we first come to Wikipedia. : ) For example, when I was new, I edited rapidly on the List of Weekly Jump series page and drove StragerAtaru crazy. And boy, am I embarrased now. -_- All Wikipedians should keep in mind, when they first came to Wikipedia, no pressure from all of us. : ) – J U M PG U R U@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia16:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
A Little Invite
I would like to Invite you to talk on my talk page under a new topic of mine titled "Can Wikipedia Change, Should it Change?" Also feel free to invite anyone else you think can contribute to this topic. Go all over Wiki is necessary. I'll try to do the same to. I thank you for reading this even if you don't respond to it. And if you do . . . Yaaaaaaay.:~)-BTJM--AKIRA70 (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Well what constructive way do you think Wiki can change? What I'am asking is that you and some other people I sent this message to is to think on how (other than the obvious gripes of backlogs and editing) Wikipedia could improve upon or modify or even change its stances and or policies on itself. Or even if Wiki doesn't need to be change and just needs to stay the same. Just asking you and others to dicuss the lest obvious problems and errors that you have come across on Wiki and ideas you have to solve and/or fix them. --AKIRA70 (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, when someone reverts edits I've made to a high-profile template, I expect to hear about it directly. I don't expect to be referred to as "someone editing it negatively" on the very protection request I've just made.
Secondly, in what way were these changes "negative"? There should have been no impact to these edits: they were purely code cleanup.
Thirdly, thanks for getting yet another template protected needlessly. Your devotion to making it harder for non-admins to contribute to template space is much appreciated.
Now I've got to go requesting editprotected, after having waited over twelve hours for the privilege of getting the last protection lifted. What a collossal waste of my precious time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk01:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No, they weren't. You also changed the text of the infobox. And yes, you SHOULD have to wait for edit protected to ensure your changes are both desired and have consensus. This is too visible an infobox to let it stay unprotected just like the film infobox and others. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't "change the text of the infobox" at all. You appear to think that removing the silly <includeonly>|</includeonly> markup has changed the infobox somehow, whereas all it's done is stopped it from being fully expanded in the direct template view (which is unimportant when there's a documentation page). As for "too visible", I imagine I know the infobox code better than most admins, not to mention random users, so being prevented from working in templatespace because editors who don't know what they're doing feel to need to run to administrators over changes they don't understand before discussing them with the responsible parties is extremely frustrating. Bah. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk01:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you did change it, and your determination that it was unimportant does not mean others agree. Such a heavily used infobox should NOT be changed just because one person thinks they know better, when such edits affect so many articles. I was already planning to request it be reprotected even before you made the changes, because it never should have been unprotected in the first place. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. There's no reason templates should be special-cased when it's so easy to fix them quickly. I wonder how you'd like it if you couldn't edit articles because some other user had decided arbirarily that your contributions required pre-vetting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk01:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I've had articles under full protection, and I like it fine when it keeps people for making unnecessary and undiscussed major changes just because they felt like it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 02:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue this with you any more, and I'm sorry I snapped at you earlier, but seriously: there was no need for you to revert all those edits, especially without even dropping me a note, and nor are templates so sacrosanct that they need every change debated prior to making it. You're in no position to be telling me straight up what edits are "unnecessary", and there's no reason that my peers on templatespace can't use the normal editing channels to work out disagreements rather than slapping fullprot on everything. Quite a lot of my work is on core changes to heavily-used templates, especially infoboxes, and it's made significantly more difficult when it is held up for petty procedural reasons by well-meaning editors who think WP:BB doesn't apply to templatespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk02:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Gundam 00
Your addition of tags in the Gundam 00 was clearly biased and in bad faith. The article is relatively complete now, considering how it is still running. How is it even possible for additional contents to be added? In fact, the article follow WP:MOS-AM rather closely. Trinity Triblood (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. You can stop removing the tags or you will be blocked, period. The article needs clean up and does NOT follow the MoS "rather closely." I realize you are relatively new, accountwise, so I suggest you just stop it and realize that I do knw what I'm talking about. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 02:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
i dont see how my information is excessive.
my addition to information on the neopets page was relevant, especially under the NC Mall section.
my facts were supported by very reliable sources.
i have since reverted my additions, but have refined certain areas to compromise with you.
thanks, Corythepaperboy (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, they weren't. You didn't add a single reliable source. Also, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Excessive game play information is just that, excessive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 06:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I left a note on the talk page. In the future, why not ask first before reverting. If that were done by a new editor, I'd have just called it vandalism and let a warning. I'd have hoped by now you would know well enough that I do not leave tags for no reason, and am happy to explain tags I left if someone feels their need isn't obvious. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with most of your taggings, but there are situations when you should explain why you do them. If you left an POV tag without giving a reason, you'd be reverted. This is a similar but less obvious parallel. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated and I'll see what I can do on the CE. If you get a chance, I just posted a PR for Shojo Beat. I'm aiming to have it be the project's first magazine GA (and maybe FA) and a model for future mag articles, so really looking for all the feedback I can get :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 09:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
User:RyRy has agreed to give it a CE. If there is anything he may need to know about the list or specific concerns, please leave a note on his talk page :) I've left him a note with the peer review link. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 16:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove Miscellany for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Miscellany for deletion pages, as you did with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:School threats. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 02:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cats & Dogs. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
,_episode_26.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}