This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Apologies for pestering you again. I am having some problems on Agatha Christie's Poirot article, where an user is trying to insert a section listing "notable" guest stars and mentioning actors that have appeared more than once as different characters. I have tried to explain the POV of "notable" actors, and my belief that an actor appearing more than once in a TV series is not really that unusual - but I'm getting no where. Your opinion as ever would be greatly appreciated.--UpDown (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks anyway. Luckily, the issue has died down after a 3rd editor also removed the information.--UpDown (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
For some reason, the reflist used on this article is {{Reflist|4}}. Should I modify it to {{Reflist|2}}? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Reflist 4? Ewww...definitely take that back down to 2. From the discussions I last read in the cite talks (before I got tired of it flooding my watchlist), even 2 is pushing it these days. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 20:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I was planning to make a dvd table for the episode list but when I saw the amazon both English and Japanese dvds, they were identical. Should it be something like this?Tintor2 (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that would work. Also, consider going with a prose format instead of tables, something like: the series has been released across 13 DVD volumes, with each volume containing 4 episodes on a single disc." Then a summary of the first/last release for each country. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
BarnLoli for excellent and tireless contributions
I hereby award you the Anime and Manga BarnLoli for your excellent contributions toward making WikiProject Anime and manga a force for good in Wikipedia. While we don't always agree, I definitely think you are improving the project. Thanks for all your hard work! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Eww....yes, that one needs some serious merging and help. You may want to post in the project to get some assistant as it needs some heavy work. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Are manga articles supposed to be in this category? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say no, but maybe double check at the project. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 01:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thought I bring this up. Why do you feel that uploading the original Japanese cover (such as the recent Image:Vampire Knight, Volume 1.jpg) is better when an English cover exists (and hence what most people reading this Wikipedia would recognize)?--十八 06:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Because it is the original work (and generally there is not that much difference). Novel articles use the first cover, when possible, so it seems more correct to me to use the original cover if available. I also vaguely remember that the last time it was discussed in the project, that was the preferred order where the manga was the primary work: Japanese 1st cover, English 1st cover, Japanese other vol, English other vol.-- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 13:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I feel that I've done pretty much all I can. Anything I missed, or is the article going to stay a GA?--十八 08:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been keeping a rough eye on it, so I'm pretty sure it will stay, but I'll give it another check either at lunch or after work. Great work!:) -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 12:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I found a few more places cites should be added, but otherwise seems fine. I don't think all the images are needed, but should be fine for GA:) -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty. I left a note on the GAR page as well about the copyedit. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Regarding this edit, I hadn't seen that before - could you point me to where the MoS discourages the use of columns in this way? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
See talk page. Basically, it's certainly successful, but until we can prove it's notable, how about a merge into the prequel series? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, it´s about the deletion of the alternative endings of Blade 3. You left the above comment. Can you please explain for somebody not very familiar with the english wikipedia? 212.40.162.26 (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The article is under the Film project and there is a specific manual of style (MoS) that film articles should article. Per that MoS and multiple discussions in the film project, consensus has agreed that that alternate endings and deleted scenes added to DVD releases should not be listed in articles as its trivia. The only exception is if there is reliably sourced information discussing why the scenes were removed and the like. Just listing the scenes, however, is felt to be a violation of WP:TRIVIA and adds no encyclopedic value. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 18:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
You aren't a vegetarian, are you? If not, then STOP UNDOING MY EDITS - IT IS IMPORTANT FOR WIKI VISITORS TO KNOW WHAT IDEAS THIS CARTOON HAS! YukonWorld (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not important for Wiki visitors to know what ideas you THINK this cartoon has. Find a source or stop making false claims. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 04:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The source is the cartoon itself, all the characters are never seen to eat animals or fish, they never talk about it and their devotion to saving the nature proves their vegetarianity! YukonWorld (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it does not. That is your personal opinion and personal interpretation of the series, and it has no place here. Go read WP:OR. Again, unless a reliable source says that the series characters are vegetarian, do not keep adding your own opinions to articles or you risk being blocked. This is not your personal platform for exposing your personal views. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 04:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
My first article is a candidate for speedy deletion... T~T
Help me please?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Inoue
He sung the new opening for Naruto Shippuuden, and he's a growing star... and I think he should have his own article...Moocowsrule (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule
Sorry, but I agree with the CSD. Singing the opening of a single series doesn't make him notable, and per WP:CRYSTAL, we do not create articles for people based on their possible future notability. If its deleted, ask the deleting admin to userfy it for you, then you can spend more time working on it. Notability must be established by significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. If you can find those and build a more thorough biographical article per WP:BIO, then you could recreate the article. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 02:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well then why does Kanon Wakeshima have her own page? She sang one ending, and soon two, and people were quick to create her page. I couldn't create a better page because I'm really bad with templates, otherwise I would have made a much better page.Moocowsrule (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule
jumps in* That page has been tagged for notability (by AnmaFinotera actually), but it's not been put up for speedy deletion because it has verifiable sources as stated and consists of more then one paragraph. I suspect if this article was of a similar standard, it would be less likely to be put up for Speedy deletion. I'd also argue that being a single paragraph, it might not escape speedy deletion even if notability was "obvious". Singing a naruto theme is certainly no claim to notability in itself, most of the themes for both naruto shows have been by minor artists Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
What Dandy said. That's why I suggested requesting the article be userfied if its deleted, and also studying up on the biography notability guidelines to learn more about how to establish notability for people. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 03:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. I can write the reception section, and we could get away without a production section for GA (in theory). — sephiroth bcr(converse) 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Considering (assuming) that the information doesn't exist/is hard to find. — sephiroth bcr(converse) 04:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it should have some good reception info out there as it seems to be a fairly popular series and both the manga and anime are licensed. I'll give the lead a quick redo then move it over. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 04:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
And done. For the reception stuff, ANN has reviewed three of the manga volumes and has some news articles talking about its ranking in Japan to help get the section started.. Hope the rewrite helps some:) -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 05:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I did research into available reception information before listing this topic at WP:ANIME/TW. I wouldn't have tried this if I didn't think we could pull this off :p — sephiroth bcr(converse) 05:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been eyeing up Rurouni Kenshin as a potential candidate for collaboration aiming towards good topic. You previously pointed out the article (currently a B)as a good example of a lead, but it needed info regarding reception. Since the previous message on the talk page as well as your previous reference to it, the lead has been edited on a couple of occasions. Would you be able to take a look at it and see what needs doing or if the tag can come off? I've compared it to other articles with better ratings and don't see a problem with it, but I'm hardly in a position to give a proper assessment :p
With regards to the associated articles, Himura Kenshin is GA, Sagara Sanosuke is currently B, but has been nominated for GA, and the rest of the characters with seperate pages are all/mostly start class, with several being suggested for merges (not that I've found the details regarding them but presumably into List of Rurouni Kenshin characters). Everything else is start. I'm after your opinion on what should be done first, I want to try and improve some of the "half done" pages before drumming up interest (Samurai X: Trust & Betrayal doesn't even mention it was adapted from a flashback in the manga, thats how bad it is) Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Good question. I think good topic would take awhile, but its certainly a good goal, particularly for this series since it is one of our "biggest" in terms of popularity and the like. I'll take a look at the main article after work and see if the lead needs any tweaking. For doing first, I'm inclined to say deal with any needed merges, so then we aren't "wasting" effort maintaining/editing pages that aren't going to exist. For the characters, if there isn't a discussion yet, feel free to do the tagging and start a discussion at Talk:List of Rurouni Kenshin characters to get the ball rolling. The big challenges will be getting the character list redone ala Naruto's to go for that FL star, along with the chapter and episode lists. Then deal with the individual character, OVA, and film articles. I think its doable, though, as RK should have plenty of reference material out there already to really do some great stuff. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 18:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the criterion on mentioning voice actors of anime characters? Is it alright to list everyone so long as it's sourced, like this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The original Japanese voice actors should be listed, along with the major English version actors. No other languages, like that one, should be included. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 05:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok. But is there a particular guideline that I should know of? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't think of a specific guideline at the moment. It just falls under the general idea that this is the English Wikipedia, so we cover the original language and the English versions in detail, while the rest are not giving as much attention. Its the same basic reason we do not do more than maybe briefly mention other countries a manga or anime series is licensed it. It might be good if the MoS did specifically note that in the character section, though I think that whole character article part may be in for an review anyway. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 05:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
More information A Thank You Card! ...
A Thank You Card!
Dear AnmaFinotera, thank you so much for your words of support, kindness, and your trust in me. My request for Adminship has been closed, and the support the community has shown will be with me forever. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am, and all I can tell you is this: I shall try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, please tell me!:) If you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you are welcome to ask, and I shall do my very best.
Dear AnmaFinotera, I would also like to thank you for your friendship, and your note of congratulations.
Cool beans! I only have two on going series to pick up volumes for this month, so may go ahead and get those volumes of Free Collars Kingdom and some one-shots.:) -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 01:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
You haven't gotten Free Collars Kingdom yet? What one-shots are you getting? — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 18:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I picked up some video games last month so decided to wait instead. Not sure on the one-shots yet. Need to see whats on my wishlist. RightStuf is having a sale on Tokyopop titles so also debating picking up the remaining available volumes of Platinum Garden. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 19:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Good news! I finished the List of series run in Shōnen Book list! All the dates are on there, just need to source all of them and put translations of the titles. I definatly don't think it's a one-person job, wunna help? :D — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 18:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The prose seems to be the main thing that needs sourcing. For translations, I can try to help out, but kinda packed for the weekend. For any that were licensed, though, I think you can just put in the English title with the link to its article. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 18:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Only one that was published in English would be Speed Racer. I did put the English title. Why are you packing for the weekend? — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 19:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean packing, just packed as in busy. Need to do some work in my garden and in the house. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 19:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Oooooh. :P I get cha'. Right now i'm sourcing the dates on the page. I still need to go to Kinokuniya. — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 19:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Found a few items while out shopping this weekend. Two Sailor Moon SuperS volumes and a brand new copy of the first volume of Cromartie High School. I bought them all and put them on eBay. :D -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 19:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I'm just noticing how weird these squares are: ■. It looks like something you'd bleep out a swear with. STUP■D, D■MB, MEAN■E HE■D. :D — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 00:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I was thinking they look a little like those censor bars you see in government released documents where they mark out all to good parts :P -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Haha. They look like that too.: ) Ruplum og rænum! — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 23:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm very sorry that I never got back to you on this.. Alas, I think I've done all the anime/manga/video game reviews I can take for a while. Good luck with it, though, and hopefully I can be of more assistance in the future! Scartol•Tok 15:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently I owe you another response. =) Technically speaking, neither "to" nor "on" is appropriate when discussing VHS. VHS is a format, which means "in" is best, and usually with an explanatory word after "VHS" – as in: "The first series was released in VHS format in 1998". If you're talking about discs or cassettes, "on" is more standard. (I don't know if we have a technical preference in the textbooks yet, since they're relatively new formats.) If you're saying DVDs, for example, you might say: "The first series was released on six DVDs in 1998".
Notice, too, that "as" also works if you're describing specific products: "The first series was released as six DVDs in 1998". Hope this helps! Scartol•Tok 15:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL, so we're both wrong there then. Thanks and that does help. Never even though about VHS being a format. :p -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 16:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, AnmaFinotera, why didn't you or Sesshomaru leave any notifications at Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters, where all the discussion was taking place? GlassCobra 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't nominate any articles for deletion, so why are you also pointing the finger at me? And if you noticed, User:JJJ999 already left a note at that talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, apologies for dragging you into this, Sesshomaru. And yes, JJJ999 did leave a note there, but much much after the fact. As in, several days. GlassCobra 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Because there is no obligation to do so, what so ever, and I would presume that the editors who so vehemently argued against the merges would have had the articles on their watchlists considering they went and reverted them all. All of the AfDs were also posted to the public and highly viewed Anime and manga project deletion list. Also you may note that JJJ999 was the one who initially demanded that the merged items be taken to AfD because he felt talk page consensus for merges was worthless. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
As you are an admin, I'd like to ask you to please either do something about JJJ999's continuing unfounded and vicious personal attacks and accusations of collusion, sneakiness, etc, or please advise as to where to report this. He is now repeating his false attacks in the Cell AfD and I'm getting really tired of it. He's even attacking Sesshomaru now and another admin (Sephiroth BCR) with such out right lies. It breaks all lines of WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY and I'm shocked that he's been allowed to continue to get away with it. Far more experienced and productive editors have been warned for much less, yet he gets to do this for weeks? -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I created a new Karakuridôji Ultimo article. It still has a few issues, etc. But so far i'm thinking it looks pretty good.: ) Do you want to help? — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with that work at all, unfortunately. I can do MoS fixes once the info is there, but I'm curious as to how it meets WP:BK for notability? -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL.: ) The manga is created by former Marvel chairman Stan Lee and Shaman King creator Hiroyuki Takei. It is considered on of the most important manga in Jump history.: ) — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 01:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The creator doesn't really make it notable though :P Who says it is one of the most important manga in the magazine's history (and, outside of the magazine?) -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 02:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I updated a few things there. I have a question about the nihongo:
Where does the "or simply Ultimo" from from? Is that how its primarily referred to, or just a short nickname used casually? If the later, I'd think it wouldn'tneed to be at all. For the lit, yes, I think it is supposed to be shortened. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 02:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Something like that. In all the recent interviews I've seen with Stan Lee, he refers to it as "Ultimo". Not sure about the other guy though. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't very clear on that. ^_- That's how it is commonly reffered to by Stan and Viz. Sorry for the confusion. — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 03:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Is "Karakuridôji Ultimo" the official Viz title? Just want to make sure. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify...this is a single chapter story? -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 04:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It will be created into a full series in Jump SQ. Ultimo also has millions of sources, which makes it easy to write the article.: ) — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 04:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty. I've done some MoS and grammar fixes to the article. Here is another source. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 04:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The characters do exist. You can see them in many official pieces of art featuring the RCO and they are in the novels. You already know about Susann, amd Guderian is in ROM, but the book hasn't been released in America yet. Nothing I put was spam and I did not destroy the article. I simply added two secondary characters who fill out the remainder of the RCO's roster. The Trinity Blood series doesn't have that many notable characters (or many characters at all), but these characters are just as notable as some of the others on this page. I only ask that you let off this reversion thing only a little bit and stop reverting even the addition of a few sentences. It appears really controlling.74.193.217.105 (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
And so that you know since you haven't noticed miss: Most of that list page is unsourced!74.193.217.105 (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say the characters don't exist, but that they seem pretty minor. The list probably has more on the page that need to go because folks just basically added all of the characters from all three versions, though we've culled others before per the talk page. I've removed Wendy and Peter (as I agree with you there). And yes, I know most of the list is unsourced...its still a work in progress since the novels are last to be released but the primary work. If you want to readd, I won't revert again. The whole list will basically be rebuilt from the ground up anyway when all of the novels are available. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 06:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, I'll readd it. And Believe me: I am here to help and I understand how you feel. I don't think you are a bad person or editor, it is just discouraging to have even the edition of a word or pargraph reverted at the drop of the hat.74.193.217.105 (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and no problem. I mostly am just trying to keep out the excess stuff, ya know (and I'll admit, the first time you added it, I was like "eh? a werewolf??" :P). If you could put in some notes (either as hidden comments or as basic refs) noting which novel they are in, it would be helpful for later. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 06:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
What could help would be to add the official picture/roster of the RCO. I will see if I could add it later. We need a picture for them anyway74.193.217.105 (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
A single official image of the RCO would be very helpful! If you can find one, though, I believe Wikipedia is set up such that you'd have to register before it will let you upload it (or if you don't want to reigster, you can leave me a note with the link to it and I can can upload). -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 07:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cell (Dragon Ball). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Suntag☼ 08:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Now they called another group to see what should happen. I wonder what will happen? By the way, should now full dates be linked? Im a bit confused.Tintor2 (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep...seems like they will never be satisfied with a merge closing, so now they are attacking the AfDs because they aren't going their way either. And no, full dates should no longer be linked per the updated Date MoS to stop the majority of the date auto formatting. This includes in the prose and the tables...I haven't found a good answer about the infoboxes yet though. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not so much attacking the AFDs as attacking the AFDers. Ad hominem attacks are good arguments I heard. Suigetsu 02:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
True, though it seems like they are doing both. The AfDs both seem to be going to merge, IMHO, so now they seek to invalidate them by attacking the nominators. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 02:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
We should really merge them soon, since there obviously isn't a single valid argument for keeping the articles regardless of what the fanboys whine about. Suigetsu 02:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually they all already were merged, but the complainers undid all three merges, then went on the attack on the talk page. When the AfDs are done and, presuming they close as merge, they each have links to the merged versions for easy remerging. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 02:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Suigetsu, be considerate of what AnmaFinotera wrote at the top of this page. What you just wrote sounded very rude, also notice how she didn't respond to you. While you're at it, also try not to be so vulgar here on Wikipedia, as some of the vulgraty can be offensive to some users. Not so much to me, but just keep that in mind.: ) — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 00:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Its okay, I understand his frustration with the mess going on over there. I just didn't reply because that pretty much said it all :P -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 01:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. :nP I'm a hickalope. — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 01:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Alas, many of them are. A few are good though.:) -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 16:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I left a note on her talk page. One for you; even if you may be backed by policy in a matter, you're still not allowed to edit war. Since this is a content dispute, you can't just plainly revert edits as vandalism. Next time, come get me so that we can settle this before you guys make 50 revisions each, ok? :) Thanks, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!:) 05:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Will do. This is why I gave up editing most of the Lassie articles awhile back. *sigh* Too much drama, even if I do love the series and want to see it have pretty FA stars beside its name. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 05:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to give up; just a bit less conflict would be great. :D Anyway, do you think you can figure this out with Lassie or do you want me to moderate and help you guys reach a decision? Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!:) 05:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Abandoning them to their sad state is less stressful than dealing with her, as she seems determind to reject anything I do. I firmly believe this article (as well as the series article) could be fairly quickly and easily taken to GA and/or FA with some work, so I'm finding it very frustrating dealing with this kind of thing. The show has a ton of sources, and yet both are start class, and I honestly feel it is because the whole thing is "controlled" by a single fan who chases away other editors, including those experienced in the topic. When I took on editing Meerkat Manor, it was primarily "controlled" by some minor fans (uh, minor as in age not lessor importance), and they were far more receptive to discussing and actually learning from more experienced editors than ItsLassieTime seems to be. As someone who wrestled what was once a very badly done single lengthy fancruft piece into a featured article, two featured lists, a good article, and a featured topic, it is hard for me to deal with her complete lack of respect for other editors and her total disregard for many guidelines, policies, and other editor's experience.
You may notice from her talk page that after my nominating Ruth and Paul Martin's articles for AfD, she went on a pointy spree of AfDing obviously notable character articles. We went through stuff over and over on the series page, though then she acted fairly polite at first and eager to learn, but I finally just walked away rather than deal with that kind of thing over and over. Anyway, I've asked for an opinion from the TV project on which version is "best practices" for this article. Some moderation would be good, though, as I do still at least edit the Lassie articles and would like to not have to worry about her coming behind and reverting everything I do simply because she doesn't like me anymore. Kinda sad if ya think about it, considering I was the one who welcomed her here and praised her earlier edits. No good deed and all that...-- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 05:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I realize it may be hard to stay civil, but I find that the number one cause of these matters spiraling downwards is that people lose sight of what they're actually discussing and just begin a torrent of ad-hominem attacks or berate the other editor(s) for what they did that is perceived wrong, etc. I know it may be hard to try to keep working with someone who isn't exactly reciprocating, but hopefully Lassie will respond on my talk page and you guys can handle this just fine.
Thanks for keeping your cool (for the most part :P) up 'til now! Cheers, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!:) 01:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Man, if I had just one more GA, I could go for Imperial Napoleonic triple crown *grin* Alas, my current most likely candidate needs a copy editing. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 04:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am thinking about going ahead and requesting the change to {{Film}} to remove the external links based on the community discussion. I would like to make sure that this does not deprive articles of links to IMDb, AMG, or the official site. Do you have any suggestions about setting up a bot or some kind of method to go through with this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...I'm guessing a decent bot editor could whip up something fairly quickly. The anime and manga project did a bunch of changes to some of our infoboxes recently, but I think a single editor just went through and changed all the articles using AWB. There is a page there where one can request tasks be done. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I did resent being accused of spamming, though, even if you were joking.:-( --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
When a redlink user adds an external link to a guideline page like that, spam tends to be my first thought. Didn't realize at first that you were an active editor. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 19:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Yeah, I get more than a few askance glances because I haven't bothered to create a user page. I guess I feel that it isn't that important who I am, I'm just here to edit. Anyway, no harm done. Thanks for responding. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
No worries...you aren't the first to be here for ages and make one. Then I see some just make one that's blank to get rid of the red LOL. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 19:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this like an early April Fool's joke? I feel like we're on Candid Camera or something. Suigetsu 00:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I wish. This guy is being total rabid. I suspect that unless an admin steps in and makes him, he is going to just keep restarting the discussion over and over and over until everyone gets sick of it and he drives all editors away so he can do whatever he likes. Either way, this is annoying and disruptive. No real work is going on with the list now because of all this mess.-- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Would it be insane to open up an RfA for this? (arbitration, not adminship) Suigetsu 00:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure...they are two requests for mediation now on the Cell and Tien S. merges. *sigh* I'd say a RfC/U, but those are pretty useless. Maybe the information arbitration, as I don't think they will take a full arbitration unless the rest have been done? I think something should be done, though. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, why are admins like DGG and GlassCobra supposedly supporting the articles and opposing the merges, or is that just a concoction by JJJ? Suigetsu 00:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Its mostly a concoction. They did both feel there was no clear consensus to merge on the Cell and Tien Shinhan discussions, which led to their being unmerged and taken to AfD instead. DGG has expressed no opinion on either article on the list page, while GlassCobra did note he supported keeping Cell separate and has been part of the discussion regarding what to do with Trunks and Future Trunks. JJJ999 however, has decided that this all means that the admins "yelled" at anyone who opposed the merges (false) and would help him save the articles (also false, both are fair admins who can put aside their own points of view to accepted a wider consensus). -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 01:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm amused that after the pages of personal attacks and out right nastiness he has displayed, he is calling you rude. *eye roll* -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 01:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
In addition to that, I'm surprised that he thinks it holds any weight. I mean, around here, saying I'm rude is like saying that water is blue. /facepalm. Suigetsu 01:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of this... I'm seriously having to restrain myself from going apeshit on this guy. Can you take over the debates for a minute while I have some water, or something to take my mind off of what is probably the biggest hit to my faith in humanity since Janet Jackson's Super Bowl flash? Suigetsu 02:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that until an admin actually puts their foot down, he will just keep up with the personal attacks. I'm rather disappointed that for a discussion with at least 3 admins, no one has done so yet. For the most part, I'm just trying to ignore him at this point and barely even read what he writes. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 02:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to fix the saga breakdown. The Namek saga is missing from the context. Can you help me insert it...the Namek saga ends in "Goku...Super Saiyan" and Captain Ginyu saga starts from the episode "Ginyu Assault". - Zarbon (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The saga is not missing. Funimation does not include it in its list of sagas, hence it not being there. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 02:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong. Actually, Funimation DOES include it. Did you manage to buy the season 2 DVD set? You'd see on it, it says "The complete NAMEK and Captain Ginyu Sagas". The Namek saga is not a part of the Captain Ginyu Saga. Please take note of this. I'd stake my life on it. Do I HAVE to show you the actual capture of the DVD BOX released by Funimation to prove this to you? Because NEVER EVER were "Zarbon Transformed" and "Escape from Dodoria" a part of the "Captain Ginyu Saga". - Zarbon (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
yeah, Funimation released a Namek saga box set. Suigetsu 02:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Look at the official Dragon Ball Z page from Funimation. They do not have the Namek saga listed. A reliable source is needed to say the Funimation page is wrong. Looking at the covers of the official DVDs, I see no mention of Saga's at all, it uses season divisions instead. Was that an older DVD release? -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 02:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Erm, although I begrudgingly agree with you, the "foolish" comment was uncalled for. In the future, remain WP:CIVIL. Suigetsu 02:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason to insult me here. The back does indeed say that, but does it say where the division is? -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 02:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure. I didn't mean to insult at all. By foolish I meant that my edit was dismissed almost immediately without looking into the actual item. No offence, alright. Here's the actual amazon listing as you requested. Just check the images of the boxart for your convenience. The Funimation website is delayed with much of its data and is lacking with too much to name. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000MTOM8A/ref=cm_cmu_pg__header - Zarbon (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The episode break comes from "Ginyu Assault" starting the Captain Ginyu Saga. It was only 7 episodes. - Zarbon (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I've restored your edits. Thanks for providing the source for that. Where does Namek start? You said its only seven episodes, but the division you put in gives it 27? -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 02:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Namek is not 7. Captain Ginyu Saga is 7. I said Namek is much longer my dear comrade. Namek starts at Friends or Foes...and ends at Legend Revealed a.k.a. Goku...Super Saiyan. - Zarbon (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay...you said It was only seven, I presumed you meant Namek. Gotcha. Thanks. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 02:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
There is some confusion regarding the sections. I placed your comments and all others in a section at the end of the page, as a "new" section. Hope you don't mind it. --LoЯd۞pεth 04:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you moved some of comments to totally different sections :P I undid then redid it per what you just said here. Is that what you meant to do? -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I made an edit on World of Naruto about the "ANBU", I changed it to "ANBU Black Ops" because that is the official English manga title. Then someone reverted it. I then put a section on the discussion, and nobody has responded yet... So do you agree with me? Talk:World_of_Naruto#ANBU_Black_Ops. Agree or disagree...Moocowsrule (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule
Answered there. It depends on whether ANBU is an accepted abbreviation/short form also used in the English release. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 03:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I have made a RfAR here with you as a named party. You are invited to make a statement in respect of the request (You may wish to review both the request and the main page before doing so.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The above is my response to your latest comment on my talkpage. I suggest that you give a brief but concise statement with regard to how you feel Abtract is interacting with you with one or two examples at most (the most recent ones you can find). The idea is that ArbCom should be convinced there is a case to look at, so huge swathes of "evidence" is not needed yet. Just state your case clearly. Hopefully this will be accepted, and then you can gather all the detail to "prove" your position. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I just hope it does more than the RfC/U did back in May. Half a year of this nightmare...*sigh8 -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Sigh8? Is that simply 1 level more than sigh7, or twice as much? LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL, its increased by a factor of 10 :P -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 02:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
You reverted with an edit summary of vandalism. This is inappropriate because the edit in question was reverting to an earlier version, just as you did. Presumably this is part of the long edit war that you are waging over this topic but your incivility will not help resolve it. Please use TW more carefully. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Removing validly sourced information is vandalism, and as thus far the only person who has been doing that revert is the Disney vandal who is indef blocked multiple times over, it is a valid claim of vandalism. Nothing edit war about it and there is nothing uncivil about calling a spade a spade. He is banned from editing here period. As per guidelines, all of his edits are reverted as vandalism. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 16:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw this Date audit, script-assisted; see mosnum | Delink common terms
And I'm wondering if you used some kind of shortcut instead of delinking the dates and such one by one.DragonZero (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm using a script to do it quickly. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 05:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
How do you use a script?DragonZero (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
You add it to your monobook.js file. If you aren't familiar with them, though, you shouldn't start with a script like this as its easy to make a boo boo. Usually one of the first scripts people use are thinks like Friendly (tagging and welcoming) or Twinkle (reverting, issuing warnings, filing ARVs, xFDing, PRODs, and CSDs). Once you have it installed, the script will add new tabs at the top of the page or maybe new links to the left side, that you can click for additional function. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 05:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Two more questions. Since I recently had a name change, I can't access my discussion page anymore and everytime I do it takes me to the usurped DragonZero. Another question is whether I should delink names in red that about voice actors or actors.DragonZero (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw when it was being done and I think the admin who did your name change didn't quite finish doing your talk page. You may want to ask him to double check that. For the voice actors, in general yes they should be delinked unless its likely they will have articles made for them. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 06:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you take a shot at it? I just tried to rework it a bit during some copy-editing, but I don't know, something about the lead paragraph seems wrong. Or is it just me? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Gave it a whirl, let me know if that's any better. In the end, I think it should eventually be four paragraphs, but its hard to do much more with it until the rest of the article is copyedited, as I had trouble understanding some parts. The reception info could use some info on the sales of the anime series, if available. So much more work needed...weee -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 04:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adjusting it. Off the top of your head was a copy-edit request already made? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
That isn't quite what I meant about it needing expanding (and you undid much of the redo I did). The article itself needs more work before the lead can be finished anymore. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 01:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Long title. Help.Moocowsrule (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule
I just re-read the WP:MJ and realized I was pretty wrong... so sorry, you can delete this...Moocowsrule (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule
O_O. OMG!!! Tōhō Project is more popular than Touhou Project according to Google! Revisit back on.Moocowsrule (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule
Left a response there, but seems Touhou Project is the more commonly used name. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 15:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that the release dates for the first four novels on the List of Blood+ light novels page are different from those stated on the ISBN pages of the original books, sometimes off by a whole month. I bought them as they were coming out, so I know the dates in the books are the correct dates, but they don't match up with the ones on the Kadokawa Shoten. Normally when this happens I just use the book as the reference, but since you've put a lot of work into this page, I wanted to ask you first. Grapeofdeath (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...not sure what to do there. I have never seen the books themselves used as sources for their release date, likely because the dates may be changed after the books are printed. Maybe see if another source agrees with what's in the books? -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 19:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure about this either. Perhaps it's best to stay with the Kadokawa site since it's an official source. I'll look around, but If I don't see anything else that agrees with the books, I'll stick with the site. I've used books as a source in the past, mainly when they're old enough for their dates not to appear on amazon.co.jp and they're not on any official site. Grapeofdeath (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I have done clean-up to Talk:Teletubbies.Is the Teletubbies article a core article?I was trying to mark it as such but if it's not I'll leave it alone.I put up a notice for sources too.I'd like to merge Teletubbies Say Eh-Oh! with the Teletubbies as well.Thanks
Moblieisanawesomecity (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not a core article. The project decides what a core article is, not a single editor. Talk pages of merged articles are not redirected. Project templates are removed and if they have existing discussion, it is marked as an archive. That's it. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Manga volumes should always be sited using cite book with page accuracy as they are not released the same as American comics.:) -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 16:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Even when yonkoma is more akin to the strip comics in the US?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Are they yonkoma from manga volumes or from some other medium? If they are in a regular manga volume, yes, still use cite book and cite the page. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 16:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
How did you set season two without summary so fast? It took me like ten minutes to copy and paste |List of Case Closed episode
Also for the second title, it's a direct translation of the Japanese words so should it not be beside the Japanese title since that title is not used for the episodes since they rename it.
Also I could probably get the summaries for the fourteenth series making it complete. Afterwards should it be turned into another page? DragonZero (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Search/replace in notepad is your friend (*grin*). For the titles, it follows the same format as the other similar episode lists. Dub title first, direct translation section but sharing the same line. For the rest of the season pages, one reason the rest haven't been split is because of the issue of whose seasons to use. I believe the first two use Funimations, and we don't know how they will divide the rest of the seasons yet. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 01:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
How about the season on tv.com? I think it's pretty reliable. DragonZero (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Nope, it isn't. TV.com is notoriously unreliable for anime series seasons (one reason it isn't considered a reliable source except as a last resort for airdates). -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 01:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a possible long-term project you probably would be interested in. — sephiroth bcr(converse) 02:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...interesting indeed. I suspect Viz Media itself will be the hardest. SJ is pretty much ready for GA except for a copyedit. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 03:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi collectian, can I ask you something? I saw you added to Dragon Ball and Tokyo Mew Mew production info about them? Does it contain production about Bleach or Fullmetal Alchemist? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The Anime Encyclopedia? No, it was published before either of those was released, unfortunately. I don't know if the second edition might have them or not, but I think it also came out before them. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
For fixing my massive cockups on several occasions and investing time into improving the articles in general when a simple revert may have sufficed. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry if I was a little snappy. Just totally threw me for a loop, but in the end this will result in a boost for the list. Take a look at the changes I made to see how to do the transclusion style splits that are now preferred (and I do agree, we need to put this somewhere, but alas, when I suggested it before as an addition to the MoS it was rejected). -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem. At first I was a bit WTF!?!?!?, but while I don't necessarily understand the ins and outs, I can see why it's better. It's frustrating for me because without anything to say how it should be done, I'm just going to think Wp:Bold and make the changes if I see no reason not to. I seem to be 50% do it right away and 50% ask first and then not actually do it. I was a bit eager to get it done so I could say I achieved something :p This "I break it, you fix it" seems to be becoming an annoying habit though... Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Long as ya keep learning from the breaks, its cool;) You have some time to work on the air dates and titles? ANN has all of them to use as a starting point. I'll start with season 1 if you want to hit season 2? -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 01:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually I've already started season1! Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, guess I'll do season 2 then :P BTW, don't forget the Romanji titles :P -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 01:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Only got a partial list for those. I'm doing one field type at a time to minimise mistakes Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys I think I made a mess while adding the theme song to the seasons. Just check the main list. What happened?Tintor2 (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Woops...somehow the closing onlyinclude got dropped on the season 2 page. All fixed-- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 13:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Would it be good if I replace amazon.com refs with rightstuff?Tintor2 (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
That shouldn't be needed either (remember, retailer sites should be a last resort, not a first choice). AoD/Mania or ANN should have all of the DVD release info. As a side note, when you do use Amazon.com or .co.jp links, make sure you clean out the extra stuff. The basic URL should be fairly short. Let me know if you need some examples:) -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 20:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Should a section about the OVAs and the film be added to the main list?Tintor2 (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
To the RK list? There should be a section for the OVAs as they are episodes, but not the film (beyond a brief mention in the lead). -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Have you ever seen Dragon Ball. You write errors and undo my corrections and do some tweaking based on my writing. The plot needs lot's of work and I may have gone in too much detail but you leave out what made Dragon Ball what it is today. By the way Cell didn't absorb the entire Red Ribbon Army. Andros Amatakis
(talk
First, the plot summary is based on the manga, not the anime. The anime is a secondary work. Your writing is full of grammatical errors and makes little sense, here or in the article. Your additions added excessive minute details that were unnecessary. If there is an actual factual error, please point it out, but do not just keep putting in badly written stuff. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 14:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
What grammatical errors? I didn't rewrite the plot from scratch, I tried working through your writing. I corrected mistakes and filled in the gaps.
Andros Amatakis
(talk
Everything you wrote was full of grammatical and spelling errors. It made for rather bad reading. Your message above is full of them as well. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 16:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to help out? you said you'd do the translations.: ) It's definatly not a one person job.: P I can tell you that much.: P So far I think the sourcing looks good.: ) — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 15:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Translations? If it hasn't been released in English, just use the kanji/romanji title? -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 15:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The reason I started putting lit. translations is because if it's just the romaji, no English person will understand it. They just see Japanese jibberish. — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 15:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
There isn't anything wrong with the Japanese language. Many tiles are released here with romanji names and readers are going to expect to see Japanese in an article about a Japanese magazine. Adding literal translations is getting too much into the OR realm, to me, for the unlicensed series. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 15:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, i'll erase them.: D It makes the page sooooo much easier!: ) The reason I wanted to add them is because when I show my artwork to people I give them the name of the series i'm working on: Shino Dorō wo Kuddate Ochiro Koto and they always ask for a translation. So I though I should give translations on the lists.: P — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 16:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL, true. But in our case, its better just to have the original except where there is an official English title. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 16:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Well.............................*_*......:D....you wanna help with sourcing? — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 16:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
All of the dates. ×_× — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 16:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Do dates not needith sourcing?: S — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 22:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it seems like the dates may be considered to be sourced from the magazine itself, at least that is my guess from Shojo Beat passing GA without any refs in the table. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Explain that a little bit better, I think I just misunderstood you. — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that the dates titles appear in the magazine may be considered to be sourced from the magazine itself without explicit addition of {{cite journal}} for every date. This is because Shojo Beat's article has no cites on the table, but passed GA without that being an issue, so I believe it is similar to plot where in it doesn't need the explicit site for that specific part. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
So basically I don't need the dates? — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
--I mean sources.: P — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 02:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd say no on sources (yes on the dates) :P -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 02:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, what do we need to make it to a C class? Let's start on making paragraphs. — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 16:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the little paragraphs in the decades section seem a bit ORy, and they should all probably be moved up to the lead, rewritten some to be more encyclopedic and note the exact dates of changes. The tables should be fixed up so they all use the same format and fixed widths so the appearance is consistent throughout. While the tables themselves shouldn't need sources, everything else does. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 16:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-AnmaFinotera/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-AnmaFinotera/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's just completely ignore that they're awful, have a strong POV, and sound like they're advertising the show (? and !s should never be used in Wikipedia writing). And the incredible size of the list. And the fact that TV.com and IMDB etc. exist. I guess besides those, I have no reason. - A Link to the Past(talk) 18:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Being badly written is no reason to remove them completely. Tag it for issues but don't remove them. The list is big because its a big show and splits are having to be done slowly due to the release schedule and Funimation not being consistent with season divisions. The existance of TV.com and IMDB is irrelevant. Episode lists here have summaries. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 18:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that on A.D. Vision's talk page you suggested merging Anime Network into AD Vision's article. I am not going to state my stance about that here but you referred to Anime Network being a defunct channel which is inaccurate. Anime Network originally launched on Comcast as a free Video On Demand service back in 2002 with the 24/7 channel being launched two years later and discontinued in 2008 . Anime Network still continues to support their original form as a Video On Demand broadcaster and their broadband online player, both are regularly updated. ♪♫Alucard16♫♪ 03:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Your three messages on the talk page were quite sufficent (and the sarcasm in them was completely unnecessary). -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 04:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I've removed prod notices from a few articles you prodded, as I don't really understand how your reasoning relates to the guidelines you cite. It is true that the articles could do with far more references, but I'm sure it is not true that there is "no significant coverage in reliable third party sources" about, say, Bagheera and Baloo, both characters that are so well-known to have entered folklore. There must be many critical studies of Kipling looking at the characters, and indeed works on adaptation of the book into film and other media (oddly, it looks like French wikipedia has separate articles for each character in film from in the books). It is instead that no one has yet added references to secondary sources. I think one should also consider that the primary source is itself a reference and a means of verification. WP:RS says "Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself (for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction)".
Also deletion of these articles would remove the content they contain, and other than the lack of references they look like good articles to me. Surely if it went to AfD, the result would be keep or at least merge into List of The Jungle Book characters or similar. If merging work needs to be done, proposed deletion doesn't seem appropriate to me. --Cedderstk 13:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
They are not notable characters at all, and I seriously doubt the "many critical studies" would cover some of the ridiculously minor characters that had articles made for them. Also, primary sources are NOT valid indicators of notability, as has long been established. These articles contain no content that have any actual value. They are plot regurgitation with excessive non-free images and OR. Since you took it upon yourself to deprod them all, please make sure you go back and put the oldprod notices on all of their talk pages. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 13:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I consider Kipling classic fiction. Unlike video, which is an area where serious research is just beginning, and many of the sources are rare or informal, this is an major area of conventional English academic work in English literature, and has been so for over 50 years. There are therefore innumerable book and articles--and academics do have the tendency to go into minute detail. gave a link to a few of the many books about his work--I think almost none of the separate articles in existence are for really trivial characters mentioned once in the background, so they will be treated . Agreed the articles are in rather poor shape, as so many of the fiction character articles are. This time, lets see what can be done to improving them. I can not do much myself to improve articles about shows whose very existence I think deplorable -- just encourage those who know about them, and keep the articles in existence until they get working, but this is something else, where I know how to find references and am familiar with libraries that have the print sources I may need--and even know a few of the actual specialists. In a sense, I try to help those other articles primarily in order to safeguard the classic fiction. However, I cannot work on this very fast, and it would help if you went rather slowly here until you became convinced. DGG (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
A few selected articles is one thing. Mowgli - obviously notable. Baloo, yes. Some other major, borderline without seeing some sources. I know we tend to have different views on what makes a notable character, but surely even you would have to agree that the [[Lahinis] are not a notable character (or even a character at all)? Whoever made these articles did not do some from the view of "these are notable fictional characters along the line of Shakespearean characters" rather they made an article for every last named (and unnamed) character to appear in the Jungle Book series. I'm not completely any character article, but I am against frivolous and excessive ones. I think most of these are just that, hence my PRODing, then tagging for merge when they were de-prodded. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, of course, but I think most of the characters are just that, characters, and should be covered in the list without their own articles. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 16:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
About that encyclopedia I asked you before, is there something about creation of Saint Seiya (aka Knights of the Zodiac)? I wanted to add a production section the article but all the interviews I know are from unreliable sources. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It mentions that series several times in addition to having a full section on it. I'm gonna go grab some dinner right quick, but when I get back I'll go through the mentions to see if anything could be of value to the article. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It will help a lot.Tintor2 (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it had no production-type info, but I have added some reception info from it to the article. Hope that helps some:) -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 03:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok but congratulations for you FA. Its amazing.Tintor2 (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The parties are directed to continue to comply with the existing editing restrictions detailed here until this case is resolved or until further direction of the Arbitration Committee. In the event of any disagreement concerning the scope of the restrictions, the parties should err on the side of caution and avoid any arguable violations. The parties are urged to present their evidence in this case as soon as possible and to indicate when they have finished, so that the committee can reach a prompt final decision which will supersede this temporary injunction. Nothing in this temporary injunction constitutes a ruling on the merits of the case or reflects any prejudgment that all, some, or none of the temporary restrictions will be included in the final decision.
Good work on the article. I had just suggested expansion if there was any other relevant information you think you could find. I did a brief Google search myself and only found reviews. I would recommend still keeping an eye out, but it looks like you've exhausted the information currently available. When advancing to GA, be sure to stress this. If possible though, see if you can mention something about the music/soundtrack (if any) within the film, or any potential DVD releases in the future. Anyways, good luck, and keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Will do and thanks:) So far, they don't seem to be doing any soundtrack releases for these "Maneater" films. I saw a hint that they were re-releasing them in DVD sets, but I haven't been able to confirm it yet. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 20:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not having a chance to back to you. I thought this section would be a good one to reply in since the title seems to convey the situation. Concerning the attack, it looks like since it dealt with talking about the article at hand a bit, it should remain unless s/he decided to revise it to something more respectful, which seemed to occur in this case. If it were to occur again, you can just point out your side of the argument, remind the editor to assume good faith, and ignore the content. It would look worse for you to attempt to remove it, and the other party attempt to readd it, and the issue go back and forth. You're not going to appease everybody (I've definitely pissed off a lot of people for various reasons, but never tried to escalate the situation, knowing that it wouldn't be constructive). If you think you acted in error, be open in pointing it out, and work to improve collaboration in improving the article. If not, just move on. I hope that helped, and let me know if you have any other issues (or when you got another article ready for B review). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and no problem. I was glad he willingly removed the remarks himself and went back to just the issues.:) -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 01:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The Anime and manga BarnSakura
For your excellent work on upgrading Tokyo Mew Mew to featured article status, I hereby award you the Anime and manga BarnSakura. Congratulations! G.A.Stalk 14:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Aww, thanks!:)
Crap, I was beat out on the barnstar. Nevertheless, congrats on all your hard work, and I look forward to more FAs in the future;-) — sephiroth bcr(converse) 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I suspect Wolf's Rain or Escaflowne will be my next attempt, but first, the TMM lists. :D -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 17:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Congrats on the featured article, it's about time our project had another one (what with Mana (series) not being in our scope, and Excel Saga being downgraded and all...)! ^_^ —Dinoguy1000 17:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed! We kick butt on featured lists, but would love to see more FAs to our name :P -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 17:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
You've got a new blanket to have a picnic on! — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 00:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL, cute! 00:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know those were ribbons until I saw the image title. :P — J U M PG U R U■TALK■ 01:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Um... What? Care to explain it more? 189.136.41.54 (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
That category you added to a lot of articles does not exist. Before adding categories to article, they need to actually exist. Not saying its a totally bad idea, but it should be proposed at the anime/manga project first as I believe there have been recent discussions regarding appropriate names for such categories. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 22:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, I was trying to create it, but can you do all the burocratic mumbo jumbo for me? I don´t know anything about all that. 189.136.41.54 (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I see you keep reverting that IP. I don't really think that counts as vandalism, imo. But it isn't correct. Next time revert as a AGF revert and leave a message. Thanks, CWii(Talk|Contribs) 03:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm reverting as vandalism because he's been vandalizing the article for days under multiple IPs ripping out the plot section. He's been left messages on all the IPs, but ignores and keeps doing it. Now he's trying to rename the section, despite also being told (on the article talk page and his user page) to stop. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 03:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
There's about a million things wrong with this article. Well, what are your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Ummm...I'd be inclined to merge that to a list if there is one, or to the main series article. That isn't not a notable character at all. Though considering the main article....ewww....its one reason I ran away from soaps ages ago :P -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 04:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
While there are certainly problems with the edits it seems you may have seen a browser problem and then rejected everything about the changes.
Negatives:
collapsed paragraphs - I think most likely you saw this and thought it pure vandalism; it is bad, but might be possibly just a bug smashing the paragraphs together; the editor should have noticed the bad effects, yes...
removal of the articleissues tag; maybe they thought they were helping 'enough'?
added wikiquote link that does not actually exist (yet?) (maybe they got the link name wrong?)
Not negatives:
linking to existing articles on people
changing image size (or that is, letting original image size through?)
moving categories to bottom (not standard, but not vandalism)
correctly sorting the inter-wiki-links ('he', 'ko', 'ja' were out of order)
Basically I just can't see the 'vandalism' part of this. Some bits definitely badly done, and in checking now I know that inter-wiki-links go after categories, but I just don't see the maliciousness. All in all, don't you think rejecting all the changes and slapping a "identified as vandalism" comment on these edits was disproportionate? Which of these changes would you not want? (category move, collapsed paragraphs, etc.?) Shenme (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
No, no browser problem and was not being harsh (or no harsher than necessary). That isn't a random editor. It is a sock puppet that has been indef blocked some 30+ times. Whenever he comes back (almost daily), all of his edits are reverted and he is blocked again. Also, many of his edits are reverting articles that have been cleaned to versions that are weeks and/or months old. He also loves to refactor talk pages and has bragged that he only does all this because he is bored and likes to see how long it takes for his next IP and/or username sock to get blocked. We've been dealing with him for months here and on simple Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 03:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, sorry. Later on yesterday the thought popped into my head whether that was the "Disney bandit" or whatever. It is very hard to track _all_ the varieties of people 'round here. I mean, the Serafin Polish-fanatic is famous enough not to be missed, or at least mistaken. (sigh) Sorry to have not thought of it earlier. Hmm, could there be a standard way of notating reverts, such as done for blocks? Or would that transgress WP:RBI? Shenme (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Usually just revert as vandalism (or if the edits are obvious vandalism like some of his are, I'll sometimes do a regular rollback with a note that its a blocked sock). Otherwise, though, its generally just revert, report as soon as he's identified, and then let the sock be noted on the user page and the block log. I keep a list of his known IPs and socks at User:AnmaFinotera/Links#Disney vandal. Generally, if the IP is one of the ranges he has used before and hits Disney articles reverting them to old versions or refactoring talk pages, its him. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 02:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
To be specific, they apply to chapter and episode lists, although the description of List-class also covers "pure" lists (stand-alone and navilists). If you'd care to write something up for character lists, that'd be awesome too! —Dinoguy1000 16:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure, will take a look after my nap. Just came back from a 4 hour drive to pick up the newest member of my family :D -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 20:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, do you know the story behind the many ip edits on Disney film articles. Like today the IP 70.146.254.92. Making weird edits on article and discussion pages. I noticed you reverted them a couple of times before. A lot of times even, it seems a long time issue. Garion96(talk) 19:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
He is un-affectionately known as the Disney Vandal. He does a lot of bad edits to a lot of Disney and Teletubbies articles, refactors talk pages, and does out right vandalism. He's been indef blocked under some 30+ IPs and usernames. When spotted, I generally just revert all of his edits and report him for blocking. I've requested many of those be semi-protected, but so far the request has been declined.:( -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 19:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I see a lot of the articles are now protected, good. What's with all those IP's and Disney articles? A year or so ago there was one who liked to add false information to Disney articles, like adding Mel Blanc to (almost) all Disney films. I will keep an eye on it too, and block on sight when I see them. Garion96(talk) 22:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
No idea. This particularly one claims to be a bored 13 year old kid who also likes editing on Unecyclopedia and who just hates his life and likes to see how long it takes us to catch him. Wish he would find a real hobby. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 23:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Finally I found some conception about Reborn!here but I think this source is pretty unreliable, isnt it?Tintor2 (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Am I allowed to mark the pages full of [citation needed] so it would be easier to reference for the next person?DragonZero (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
You are, though if the page needs a lot of citations, its generally considered tidier and better to just flag the whole article as needing citations, and maybe popping a note on the talk page to note why. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 05:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Courage of Lassie. 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. Self-warning. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 08:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
See ItsLassieTime's talk page for the warning and explanation I left there. I'm willing to mediate the issue if you wish. cf38talk 08:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, though I suspect it won't help much from what I've seen in our earlier scuffles. For now, I've asked for the page to be locked as we have both violated 3RR. I also earlier asked a different admin if he'd be willing to step in and take a look at the issue since we don't know when Master of Puppets will return. I had made the suggestion that to avoid conflicts, she stick to the Lassie TV articles and I'll stick to the film, but her response was to start editing a film article I had on my to do list. *sigh* Meanwhile, it would at least be good if she would stop adding incorrect information to the article. Its technical vandalism, but I've refrained from warning her because of our previous issues. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 08:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll keep an eye on her contributions. Don't sink down to her level, because she sounds like a stubborn 8 year old. If she continues to violate policy, report her to WP:ARV. Well done in seeing the 3RR rule, and temporarily locking the page. If I find that specific one, I'll give you a barnstar for your quick thinking and excellent desicions :D
cf38talk 08:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been trying to avoid responding in kind after MoP reminded me to stay within civility even if she doesn't. But its very hard when she keeps making so many personal attacks. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 08:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
She's just left a note on my talk, saying that you are stalking her, etc... I don't believe that's true, but I'm going t tell her not to edit Lassie articles until she's cooled down. cf38talk 08:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, she started making those claims after the whole Timmy character article issue from a few weeks ago. Completely unfounded and, frankly, a bit over the top and hysterical to me. I've had many Lassie articles in my watch list before she ever even had an account. Loved the series as a kid and had many of them on my to do list to fix up. She decided that because I do like ALL other editors, and review edits that pop up in my watchlist and make corrections or reversions as needed, that I'm somehow stalking her. She has also falsely claimed I was using a sock puppet to claim false consensus and that I had canvassed and acted in collusion with others. Every admin whose seen her claim, including MoP, has basically been ignoring her accusations because they are totally false and unfounded. During our last round of conflict, she didn't act nearly this bad, but was bad enough that I walked away from all the Lassie articles for awhile (unknowing that she had apparently done the same thing, or I'd have gone ahead and fixed up a bunch of the articles). -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 08:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Peace
Well done for your quick thinking in the Lassie issue. I hope it's given a chance for both parties to calm down. Nice one! :D cf38talk 09:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, the RPP hasn't been answered yet, so she reverted the plot again, then put false tags on the article, obviously copied from one of the character articles I tagged weeks ago. *sigh* For now, I'm just gonna let her dig her own grave (so to speak) and get some sleep. I have a 4 hour drive to make in a few hours to take my new puppy back to the rescue group I got her from because she was exposed to parvo and has to be isolated.:( -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 09:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I left a message to stop editing and to cool down on her talk page, but she really is that stubborn to ignore it and you can say she's continuing to 'de-wikify' an article. I'm gonna keep an eye on her contributions, and if it's too much I'll ask for admin intervention. Good luck at the rescue center:) cf38talk 09:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Gonna be a long drive. Meanwhile, I've given up on the Lassie articles, again, until an admin can step in and do something about the whole situation. I'm sick of her personal attacks and her laughable claims that I have ownership issues when she will not let anyone edit any Lassie article and refuses to even comply with the guidelines of Wikipedia that she dislikes, including the Film MoS, no trivia, requirement for reliable sources, cooperative editing, etc. It sucks that none of the Lassie film articles will ever be more than start class while she has ownership of them, but its not worth the time to try to get them to GA level with all her rabid attacks and edit warring going on. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 15:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you please find where it needs improvements, including sub lists. Also for the episode list, is there a shortcut to re-order the dates because I don't want to go through 145 episodes to re-organize the dates. Also for the episode list my ref for some Japanese site does not seem to be working. DragonZero (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...the main needs a lot of work. I wouldn't call it a C class article myself and have correct that. First, the article needs to meet the MoS. The character section should have one main link, to the character list. That list should have the rest of the links to subarticles. That section also needs a "lead out" - i.e. a summary of the list. The anime and manga sections also need them. Cast should be removed - voice actors should be noted on the character list, not as a list in the main. There is a broken ref, and the whole article needs more references. When done, the lead should have few to no references as it should be a summary of the whole article. Tokyo Mew Mew can be a good inspiration for most of this work. With its length, though, it should have a separate character section, unlike with TMM which merged the characters to the plot because it ended up being redundant.
For the sublists, I'd recommend cleaning up all of the team lists to remove excessive plot detail and address some of the in-universe info. The same should be done on the main list, with any minor characters removed. Then look at merging the team lists to the main. There shouldn't be a need for so many lists. Eventually, the list needs sourcing, and sections on conception/creation and reception (and a real lead). List of Naruto characters would be a good model to follow for improvements there. The tournament articles should also be removed. They fail all notability guidelines. At most, a short summary might be appropriate in the main article, but that's about it. List of Eyeshield 21 chapters needs a proper lead, with sources, and the notes should all be removed. The chapter table should have a pure summary, not extraneous notes. Most of the notes appear to just be trivia or OR anyway. List of Eyeshield 21 episodes also needs a proper lead, though is in slightly better shape, but missing sources. The two episode articles need to go. Project consensus has agreed, there are maybe two episodes of anime that are notable enough for their own articles. The plot summaries in the list need expansion, and maybe discuss possible ways to split the list. How is it being released in English? Any official season divisions?
I fixed the dates in the ep list using a script.:) Hope that helps some. Might be a good idea to add it as a clean up project for the clean up taskforce as it might get other editors to help out.:) -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 09:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you delete the tournament articles? I don't think Blanking the page would delete it. Also my work might become undone.DragonZero (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd recommend redirecting them to the main, with an edit summary noting they fail WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. If its undone, they should be AfDed for the same reasons. They can't just be deleted, though, without the AfD, so a redirect is a good alternative (and avoids red links). -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 02:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I also have no clue on how to redirect a page. Also what will happen to the page if it's redirected. Will it be blanked?DragonZero (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Basically, yes. I've redirected them. Looks like they were already tagged for merge anyway, but don't see that they have any content worth merging. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 06:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sigh... if this continues I'm going to have to look into a topic ban for you guys. The main issue isn't even the information being put into the articles, but how you're reacting; like both of you have acknowledged, one makes an edit and the other reverts, and then that continues for a while. That has to stop. I don't support LassieTime's allegations of stalking, and I understand that you are just trying to do well, but please, don't edit war. Discuss the changes. Seeing that that hasn't really worked up 'til now, ask for a third opinion. Hell, I'll even start reviewing edits. Just stop edit warring because all that's happening is you're both getting increasingly stressed. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!:) 00:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
First, welcome back (though sorry it is to see how bad things went):) Hope all is okay? (its she, BTW). And I agree. I've tried hard to temper my responses and avoid edit warring, but she aggravates the heck out of me. Her repeated personal attacks are just so over the top and frantic, her reaction just makes no sense to me at ll. Now, she won't even let me edit any Lassie article now. When I expanded the plot of Challenge to Lassie, she reverted for no reason at all, then started up again with the claims that I was stalking. She even went back and removed edits that I made months ago from The Painted Hills for no valid reason I can see other than I made them. I reverted it once then took it off my watchlist. I've also gone ahead and removed the remaining Lassie articles from my watchlist (except for the episode lists, which I personally spent days creating) and will basically just walk away from them until things are resolved. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome, I got caught up in work, and yeah, all is well now :) Anyway, thanks for trying; she probably just feels pressured/cornered and is reacting to a perceived threat. Also, her reverting your edits is very interesting given that she was complaining about you stalking her... well, this is getting complicated isn't it? >_< Well, if I could ask you for a huge favour; just don't revert any of her edits until she's responded here. If you do then I have to restrict your editing and blah blah and power trip and whatever, and I hate doing that! :P Of course, same applies for LassieTime. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!:) 00:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem and will do (or, uh, I guess not do *grin*) Unfortunately, it seems like in the end, the only solution was for me to just abandon all the Lassie articles after all, as she is now happily ruining editing them all without any care or concern for Wikipedia's guidelines at all. So I guess the lesson learned here is: act hysterical enough and even if you break dozens of guidelines and policies, you can take over ownership of an entire topic. *sigh*-- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs)
I need some help, again.
I just made an episode list but I'm not sure if it's good enough to not be deleted.
I'm not sure what to do with the broadcast stations.
I need a shortcut so I don't have to through one hundred hamsters renaming them to this format. Hamtaro (ハム太郎, Hamutarō)DragonZero (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No reason it should be deleted. An episode list is a valid extension of an article. I fixed a few minor issues with it, but otherwise seems fine. Do what with which broadcast stations and where? For the Hamsters, in the episode list, only the English names should be listed. The full nihongo should only be on the character list. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 06:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. I declined your request of moving SCI FI back. You mentioned in your request that consensus was not for the move but I cannot find any opposition to it within the last 5 months. As you know, silence may imply consensus, so I think we can assume that there was no consensus against it at least. I would prefer if you could discuss the matter at the relevant talk page(s) and request db-move again when discussion took place. Regards SoWhy 13:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
There hasn't been any discussion on that article period since even before the first move. But I've posted a discussion on it.-- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 13:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Can I request that you remove your comment from the RfC. The only reason my comment is there is because the RfC instructions say to leave a neutral comment there for people to read. People who were involved in the discussion shouldn't take part in the RfC, unless it involved rebutting new arguments (even then, it's best to leave it all to third-party editors). I have left a comment on Termer's page stating the same thing. The reason I am asking is because it's just fueling people who were already in the debate to come down to the RfC and clutter that up with the same arguments. The point of the RfC is to find new people to leave their opinions, and as Termer has proved, if one of us starts leaving comments there then everyone will feel they have to assert their opinion all over again, defeating the purpose of the RfC. BIGNOLE(Contact me) 17:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. Didn't realize that RfC's couldn't include those already in the debate. I've removed it. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 17:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Generally, they don't because they want to attract new blood to the debate and not rehash it from the same people. I appreciate you remove your comment. Termer apparently believes that my neutral statement about what the RfC is for is actually "not" neutral and refuses to remove his comment unless I remove mine (ignoring the fact that RfC actually tells me to put that comment there). Anyways, again, thanks for removing your comment. BIGNOLE(Contact me) 17:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking, should I make the hats at Naruto and Sailor Moon be set up like the second one in InuYasha? Maybe it's good to reference title characters, even if a disambiguation page exists. What do you think? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I think both should note that "for the character" similar to InuYasha. Both are just as likely to be what someone is searching for as the series itself. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 21:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, is there a difference whether it is 'title character' or 'titular character'? Perhaps the latter should apply to the Naruto one. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it pretty much means the same. Titular just sounds fancier:-D -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi AnmaFinotera, could you pay a look at List of Reborn! chapters and adress your concerns? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
And of course, there are the numerous sockpuppets/ip's of User:Skymac207. Can't imagine I forgot him, even got a nice collection of FY e-mails from him..... I blocked the latest IP. Garion96(talk) 20:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, can't forget him either. At least the Disney kid isn't as good at block evasion as some of our more infamous vandals (like Mr. "Break You Now" who keeps several user talk pages in a near perpetual state of semi-protection :P)-- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 20:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, quite an impressive protection log you have there.:) Feel free to nag me to extent the protection when/if needed again. Garion96(talk) 20:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks:) And speak of the Disney devil, he hit again with another IP and another named account (and found another account that missed being tagged, wee!). -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, kind of interesting. First skymac's new ip followed by the Disney vandal. Do they coordinate this stuff?:) Garion96(talk) 15:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL, sometimes ya gotta wonder! I put in a report at abuse to see if someone will take up the next step of talking to the kids ISP, see if maybe they will step in and smack him a bit. Not sure if it will really help, but worth a short. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 16:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
bah you picked up on that a little too well. The ref was glitchy in preview because of the apostrophe in the url. It was ok once I hit submit though. unfortunately I don't think we can change the statement? Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
and then just now I found a completely different reference that was wrong as well! Somehow someone duplicated a reference I added the other day, but changed the url and title instead of using <ref name=*referencename*> to recall it Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Nope on changing the edit summary, but no worries. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing it:) For the second one, if they changed the URL/title, go ahead and just take the name off unless its still the same actual source? -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 20:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Can you email me please, ASAP? It's re. the Disney Vandal. Please don't re-add that data to ANI, in the meantime - Alison❤ 00:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
With regards to your revert here, I am just curious why Pokémon is only of Mid importance? Could you tell me, or point me to a relevant discussion of this. I just can't see why such a famous, influential franchise that spawned a craze lasting for years would not have a higher rating. Thanks, Artichoker[talk] 18:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It is determined by the anime and manga project. The guidelines are here Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#Priority scale. For any article to be top or high, it must be done by consensus of the project, and series are pretty much never considered to be top priority as the scale is based on readers as a whole, not just the project itself. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 18:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Best, Artichoker[talk] 18:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
This caught me a bit by surprise when I saw it, too, but I could definitely see how Pokémon (as in, the main franchise article) would be only of Mid-importance to the animanga project, even after asking for project consensus to bump it higher. —Dinoguy1000 19:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It might be worth a discussion, if one wasn't done already (can't remember...too cold *brrr*). I would say it should be rated as high as a series can be rated...which currently seems to be mid, but that might be debatable. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The priority scale you linked to above seems to indicate that the highest rating a series can receive is 'High' (e.g. Gundam) I think it might be worth a discussion to see if Pokémon could also be changed to High. Artichoker[talk] 19:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Will hit both this afternoon after my monthly volunteer service:) -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 14:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I got carried away and I apologize for that, but apologizing to Saintvlas22 is something I won't be doing as his behavior is, quite frankly, disgusting (and what got me to being snarky in the first place). JuJube (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I won't ask you to. He is being something of a *insert bad word*, just to try not to respond in kind (and yes, I realize the irony of this coming from me LOL) -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 14:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
That's very fair isn't it - I get a bunch of reprimands for being uncivil, yet JuJube (well, i guess he/she did) and Masamage don't seem to be being hassled the way I am - are you reading what is going on, or not? I'm being told off for instilling 'personal attacks', yet some I have just been responding to based on Masamage triggering them first. Again, I can see this system is quite fair also... Saintvlas22 (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, you're not *supposed* to respond in kind to personal attacks, you're supposed to ignore them, or get a neutral third party in there, depending on the length and severity of the attacking. Of course, many of us have problems with that, but that's because we're human, more than anything. =) —Dinoguy1000 16:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can't just help but feel favoritism is being leaned towards here - I get heckled with threats of being banned while the other person doesn't get much of any mention. It takes two to argue, as they say. I'm just feeling that I'm getting the shafted treatment because they haven't bumped elbows with me before, and I'm difficult (which I never said I wasn't). I hardly think AnmaFinotera is in any position to be a 'neutral' party - he's made it known what he thinks of me to his buddy, so I think my apprehensiveness of getting any fair outside treatment is justified. Saintvlas22 (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Try looking at it from AnmaFinotera's POV: because of how she edits, she tends to rub a lot of people the wrong way when they first encounter her, and to complicate matters, she doesn't have the best anger management skills (no offense intended, AnmaFinotera;) ). Unfortunately, most of the people bothered by her are ones who aren't familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policy, either, and AnmaFinotera also tends to have problems with properly explaining herself - it gets rather tiring having to explain something over and over to different (and sometimes the same) people (I know this firsthand =P ). She's quite familiar with guidelines, though, so she generally knows what she's doing, and the project keeps an eye on her to make sure she doesn't step too far out of line. And BTW, AnmaFinotera is a she, not a he (something that lots of people mess up on, so don't worry so much about it;) ). —Dinoguy1000 16:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Editors like her usually need to be taken down a notch - that no, they don't have final say and they're the same as everyone else. Her response of usually just throwing links for policies and guidelines at people as a way of explaining herself is crap - if she can go happy-crazy on her editing, she can make her point clear and NOT be lazy. it goes both ways in responsibility. As one much wiser user said: 'everyone can interpret the policies and guidelines differently' and 'you must be careful to explain the policies and guidelines rather than just shower someone with links'. Maybe she should tone it down if she can't yet explain why she does what she does well enough. And meh, as you can probably tell from my tone of writing, I'm about as abrasive as using sand paper as toilet paper, so I don't really notice. Saintvlas22 (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, when did this become about me. I left you a warning for the personal attacks, AND I left Jujube a warning for calling you an idiot. Your responses have been extremely uncivil, yet I did give her a warning as well. I didn't leave Masamage a warning because they didn't make personal attacks. And yes, I am in a position to be a neutral party. Just because I expressed an opinion in the discussion does not mean that I can't ask EVERYONE to be more civil. If I was being unneutral I'd have just reported you and had you blocked already, but I've been trying to give you time to calm down and be more rational, but apparently you can't. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 19:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'm a boy. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
ROFLOL, I get called a guy when I'm a girl, then a call a guy a girl. Gotta love it! :P -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
On 25 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Animerica, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, I wasn't logged in when I edited Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 8), but I understand. But the synopsis I edited for the fourth episode wasn't copyrighted, so can I put that back? Candyo32 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you can put that one back since its just editing the existing one. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 19:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I know we've talked about it before, but what happens if those "non-notable voice actors" are sourced and/or have Wikipedia articles, like this one and these? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. They should not be listed in any of our character articles as far as I know. Only the original Japanese actors and the English dubs. The other languages should be listed in their respective Wikis, but not here. If they aren't notable, I'd also question why they have Wikipedia articles except for creations by fans. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 03:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I had, then I took it off again after getting annoyed by all that drama over the character list merges. Will readd it. Also left a note to the editor who was going around adding them to a few places. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 04:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, AnmaFinotera, I saw that you'd reported Sjakoj(talk·contribs) at WP:AIV. However, to be honest, I looked through the contribs and didn't see anything that looked like obvious vandalism, so I removed the entry. Looks like it had been sitting there for a couple hours, which is usually a good indication that other admins are perplexed about it too. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying it's non-obvious to someone (such as myself) who is unfamiliar with the situation, and AIV is normally for pretty blatant stuff. If you'd like to be more specific though, I'll take another look? --Elonka 02:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
He is a known sockpuppeter with over 30+ IP and named socks and has been indef blocked numerous times. He doesn't get more chances just because he behaves at first. He always reverts back to his usual behavior, and right now his main vandalism is adding bad interwiki links to articles he's creating under sock accounts. I usually report him straihgt to AIV because its way faster than continuing to update his sockpuppet report and so he can be blocked as soon as he is spotted rather than letting him be disruptive for the days or weeks an SSP can take. He has been refactoring talk pages (which is vandalism the way he does it). See also the section above which is also about him. He's been hitting CY Wikipedia as well. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 02:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, can you point me at the sockpuppet report, and is he listed at Wikipedia:Long term abuse? --Elonka 03:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry if it seems like I'm asking dumb questions here, but I'm really not understanding how what he's doing is vandalism. For example, you diffed this, but it looks like a reasonable edit to me? What am I missing? --Elonka 03:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh, so you're reporting him at WP:AIV because he's evading a block, and not because he's vandalizing? --Elonka 03:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, multiple indef blocks. Also, if you look carefully at the CY links he is adding, they are all false. Each one has a deliberate spelling error to point to a fake article rather than the real ones. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 04:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you supply a couple diffs? I spot-checked a few, and they seemed to point to legitimate targets. --Elonka 19:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
and if you check the CY version and Simple versions, you'll see he specifically created these articles, generally in conjunction with Iluvteletubbies (and already identified sock of Bambifan101). Also note he has yet to refute his being tagged as a sock. He was quick to point out when one account was tagged as a possible sock that wasn't him, but he generally accepts being identified then just keeps doing what he wants to do until he is blocked again. He is also copying articles from here to the CY wikipedia so he can post his preferred versions that all of his socks try to revert to rather than the cleaned up ones. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 20:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
What about his most recent edits? Such as this which is now blatantly obvious showing that he is a sock? Will someone step up and finally reblock him?? -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 00:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I back AnmaFinotera's comments. This user's edits, hiding behind a veneer of apparaently "innocent mistakes", are at best obviously disruptive and at worst pure vandalism: his incarnations Iluvteletubbies and Sjakoj are now perma-banned from Welsh Wikipedia. I think en. should follow suit and would like to see some action taken for the global accounts (Iluvteletubbies and Sjakoj and possibly others) as well. (See also section above). Enaidmawr (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
By agreement of a majority of the involved administrators, the restrictions here have been amended in the following way, and come into effect at the conclusion of this arbitration case:
Important Notice These restrictions are imposed upon the above named editors, and are not subject to further amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".
Abtract(talk·contribs) and Sesshomaru(talk·contribs) are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. This restriction may only be enforced if violations are reported directly by either Abtract or Sesshomaru - it does not apply if violations are reported by any other editor(s).
Further remedies concerning Abtract, AnmaFinotera and/or Sesshomaru may be enacted to include banning interactions with any other user, if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.
The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should any of these 3 users edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).
To whom it may concern, the above was discussed and agreed upon here by a majority of the involved administrators. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Think there's something odd here. Is it ok to promote watching animated videos on YouTube? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not, even if possibly legit (which I'd doubt in this case), we do not distribute those links. Mentioning that Funi has released the eps to YouTube or similar sites is fine (with a source), but that's all that should be said. The pricing and what not is unnecessary. I also removed the Hulu link. There was a HUGE discussion about Hulu.com on one of the EL sites and pretty clear consensus that it doesn't belong here. Fails multiple EL criteria. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 03:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hope when we bump heads over at Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb you don't raise too many lumps. In the meantime, I hope you've had a great Christmas and trust your New Year will be better than could ever be wished. Best to all, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 09:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
No worries there, its already failed so nothing to bump heads over, even if a handful of people refuse to accept it. Christmas was good, I got to see my mom for the first time in seven years. Her visit wasn't long enough, but was glad we got to have it. Been sick the last two weeks, but ah well. New Year...nothing but a day to post a ton o freflective type posts on my blogs and keep my babies inside. -- AnmaFinotera(talk·contribs) 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.