User talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Heath Ledger

Could take a look at the conversation here about the Heath Ledger template {{Heath Ledger}}? Any comments you have would be helpful. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it should be deleted, same as the rest...sent to TfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Serena van der Woodsen

Looks like we undid your edit at the same time Thank you for pointing out it was just Lively, I would have never thought of it $©@®©Ξ 04:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No prob. You may want to get an admin to delete the original image, though, since its so different from the new one you uploaded (not sure if there are any non-free rules about that). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

MOS rv

Good day. I had added the prime characters in MOS:QUOTE as further examples of what not to type because I had actually found several at Alan Grayson (and changed them). Did you revert my edit because (1) I don’t have the authority to make that change? I figured since nothing prevented me from doing it I would try it. Perhaps (2) the display of prime glyphs looked bad on your system? Or maybe (3) you actually disagreed with my edit for some reason. Or was I expected to (4) drum up some degree of consensus on the talk page first? I thought the prime characters were an obvious negative example that no one would object to. Could you explain what was wrong with my edit? (I’d prefer if you reply here, rather than on my talk page.) Thanks. MJ (t • c) 21:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

With no response from you, I continue to guess at what the objection could have been: (5) improper use of red coloring, according to the guideline at Template:Xt? Or perhaps (6) you thought it was beans? (On considering this, I don’t think so myself.) Or maybe you just thought (7) it’s too trivial to clutter up MoS with? Whatever the reason, could you please do me the courtesy of explaining? I need to learn what I did wrong. MJ (t • c) 18:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to respond last night. Been a very long week. Changes to the MoS like that should be discussed on the talk page first, as it is a highly visible document that is applicable to every article on Wikipedia. While it may seem "obvious", it should be discussed to be sure that it is an appropriate addition, both to be sure it is accurate and that it is necessary as we also prefer to avoid instruction creep. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahha! Instruction creep – that’s the guideline I needed. I read about 20 policy essays yesterday but didn’t see that one. Now I understand it’s better to just fix rarely-occurring problems rather than add rules about them. Thanks very much for letting me know. MJ (t • c) 19:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No prob...just was sorry to see it turn into such a mess. Can't believe the stunts some people will pull online just because they are "anon" :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox

Hi, AnmaFinotera, To add parameters, need to edit all related templates and docs, at the same time?  — [Unsigned comment added by Ffbear (talk • contribs) 14:32, October 23, 2009.]

Please stop trying to modify templates you clearly do not understand at all. Those templates do NOT need those parameters, they are already in the header. Try reading the documentation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection

It expired on the 22nd. I can reinstate it, if you'd like. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh...guess for now I'll try (again) to go without. See how long it lasts :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, that's no problem. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Anime

OK, sorry about that, is there a particular website you would recommend? GiantSnowman 16:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always liked AnimeOnDVD's forums[1] as the folks there are very friendly, you usually get responses very quickly, and its very active so you'll get a lot of responses and well thought out recommendations. Plus it rarely has a lot of drama and arguments because political and religious discussions are banned. ANN's forums tend to be too rowdy and rude for my tastes, but they do also have a large user base.[2] Hope that helps. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's great, thanks very much, much appreciated! :) GiantSnowman 16:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:The Green Mile (film)

I would suggest letting the IP editor make his or her statement. The intent of the blocks and semi-protects was to stop the edit war in article space and to direct the editor to the discussion page. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

He has already made his statements about the genre. He is now doing nothing now but making personal attacks and deliberately block evading after having been blocked on three other IPs for the edit warring and disruptiveness. He isn't trying to engage is actual, useful discourse, but continue to be annoying and disruptive. Check his latest edit summaries[3][4] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I now see that one of the original comments (01:03, 28 October 2009) was restored at some point. I have now semi-protected the talk page for a short while. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...hopefully he will find some new hobbies now... *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs moar coffee

Thought you might like to use this userbox to warn others. –xeno^talk 13:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

{{User:UBXeno/needs coffee}}

Warning! This user functions at a sub-optimal level before their morning coffee.

Transclusions

Oh, yes, thank you :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AnmaFinotera ^^

Thanks for the help in the InuYasha The Final Act page. And I was wondering what the English title was cuz I wasn't sure.

When I watch the episode again, I'll think of a summary.

Again thanks! :D ~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Hajiru

No prob. Hulu puts the English titles up when they post the eps :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'll remember for next time. ~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Hajiru

List of Dinosaur Movies

"Thank you"--San Sanitsch (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Swamp Devil info delete

hi there, i'm the contributor and also the film's director. didn't intend submit incorrectly. which parts of the entry specifically can i resubmit to restore original article. best (Groundstar83 (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)) groundstar83

As you have admitted to being the film director - you are not resubmit anything. The entire entry was misdone. Please do not use Wikipedia to promote yourself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

hi there, apologies. to clarify i am not David Winning, i was an (asst) director on the film Swamp Devil but not THE director. I am obviously a fan of David Winning. I will submit citations as requested. (Groundstar83 (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)).Groundstar83

The problem is still the same. You have a conflict of interest and therefore should not touch the article at all. Your creation of the article was inappropriate and the "content" added was not in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not here for you to promote yourself, Winning, nor your works. Further, you have repeatedly claimed to be Winning, and yet now you say you aren't, os either you have lied for the last 4 years, or are lying now as you can't be two different people. Again, do not edit this article or any other associated with yourself or Winning. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Big Fish update

FYI... I passed Big Fish. Let me know if you see any problems, and I'll correct them. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Took a quick glance and didn't see anything. Glad someone fixed it up and was able to get it back up to GA :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lad, A Dog

On October 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lad, A Dog, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

JamieS93 07:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Manga and anime not under comics?

Hi AnmaFinotera. Not sure I'd agree that manga doesn't come under comics. That said, the current run is based on files which are only in Category:Comics images and sub-cats, and I checked all sub-cats to ensure they only contain categories which categorise images of or from comics. I also have the bot set not to tag images which already have "WikiProject Anime and manga" on the page. How can I improve on that? And is there an issue with having a comicsproj and an anime and manga tag on the same talk page? Hiding T 19:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• FYI I've stopped the bot in the hope we can resolve this speedily. If you look at Category:Manga covers it's categorised in Category:Comic book covers, so that's why the bot is hitting them. I'm failing to understand why it shouldn't tag them. But, what can work out here? Hiding T 19:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Per the consensus of both projects, they are separate projects and generally have little to do with each other, so it can be misleading, especially for newer editors, to have comics project tags on files that the project has no dealings with at all. If they are missing the Anime/manga tags, they should be added (there was an effort underway to do so, but not sure where it is). If you could filter it to not include anything in Category:Manga covers or Category:Anime and manga images, that would probably address the issue, as the category is currently a subcat of the one you are pulling from. I've fixed it on the cat, but not sure that would fix it for the bot? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we ever came to a consensus to be honest, but, yeah, I'll compare lists and remove anything in Category:Manga covers and Category:Anime and manga images. I'll build a list of images it's tagged that are in those categories, do you want me to simply remove the tags or do you want me to replace it with the anime tag? Hiding T 20:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if you could replace it with the anime one :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There's 64 of them. I don't mind tagging with the anime template, any specific fields as well? Hiding T 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, shouldn't need any. If you just pop in {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} it will auto detect its a file and categorize/class appropriately :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans. Hiding T 20:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, all done, let me know if I cause any other issues, okay. ;) Hiding T 20:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesomeness. Thanks again :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If I might pop in, I think I was the main one tagging images (could be wrong); I just haven't been doing much of that. ;) If it's not too much trouble, Hiding, would you mind making a bot run at some point to tag WP:ANIME's images like you did for Comicsproj? As for the relation between WP:ANIME and Comics, technically WP:ANIME falls under Comics' scope (so tagging stuff with both banners actually is simply an exercise in redundancy, unless the subject of the article very explicitly falls under the scope of both WP:ANIME and Comics), but in practice, Comics seems to basically ignore pretty much all comics outside of the U.S. and some European stuff. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I can run the bot through, yeah, prod me if I haven't within a week. We're hoping to work on the US bias at WP:COMICS, or at least I am, although we are the English Wikipedia so I guess that bias is somewhat to be expected. I don;t have an issue with the tagging except for the fact that if something isn't tagged with either it should likely be tagged with one. We don't go out of our way to tag manga stuff with the comics banner without good reason, but when there's no tag it's hard to work it all out, especially with teh way our categories overlap. Hiding T 22:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm currently running the bot, see User:Comics-awb contribs for details. I hope I'm logging it too, but I can never work out the logging feature. Hiding T 12:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Issues

User:Megata Sanshiro is objecting to some of the tagging I've done based on Category:Anime and manga images, namely that the bot is tagging images which are "NOT manga/anime-related but video game-related". Looking through, I think the problem categories are Category:Pokémon art, Category:Pokémon video game screenshots, Category:Pokémon maps and Category:Pokémon lead images. What's your take on what should and should not be tagged with {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} out of those? Hiding T 15:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

*headsmack* For now, I'd just skip all of those...the Pokemon area is one place few dare venture to clean.... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've just run through and removed the banner from all the images in those categories. Do you folks want me to look at any other categories? Hiding T 17:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that should be it for now. Much appreciated!-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Prod of Show=Tarou Harada

I tried to list the prod of Show=Tarou Harada on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga, but the "=" in the name seems to mess up the listing. You seem to have been confused and thought that it was a prod of an article named Tarou Harada, but that was not the case. I had the name right, and it was deprodded, not deleted. I'm thinking the way to fix this is to list it manually, not with a substitution thing, but maybe there is some way to get the substitution to work. Calathan (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have already fixed it while I was writing this. Thanks! Calathan (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There was an even simpler solution, actually, although it was rather obscure - the template {{=}} properly escapes equals signs so that they can be used in templates without trouble (notice how I had to use it here to allow the template link to work correctly). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow...so to get a 1 character, you get to type five :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Winning formula

On this and its edit summary: yes a biographee is allowed to edit the article about himself. He's advised not to do so, but not told not to do so. I haven't looked into the sources that he's added, but replacing "citation needed" markers with links to disinterested, reliable sources is commendable and it's one of the kinds of edits that a biographee is not merely allowed but actually welcome to make. (Suggesting such changes on the talk page is fine too, but a lot more work.) You've done good work on the article; but here, please revert yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will not revert. He has continued to ignore COI, and is notorious for copy/pasting his own contributions from IMDB here. Further, the first two I checked are NOT reliable sources nor disinterested. Filmbug is an open wiki - guess who edited it? SeventyMM is an "indie rental service" with a user edited section and the text they have is a straight copy of IMDB which he's already admitted he himself wrote...see where this is going? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah. So you're saying they're not "good-faith" edits. If they aren't, please don't say in the edit summary that they are; if you do, no wonder Winner will be confused. And again, he is allowed to edit the article on himself, even though this is likely to be a bad idea. -- Hoary (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

True, I shouldn't have used the AGF revert. Meanwhile, I've confirmed one of the other sources was RS and readded it properly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you were editing busily, so if one of your edit summaries wasn't the best, that's quite understandable. I was just starting to feel sorry for the man. Granted, he's relentlessly advertised himself, but when the claims are questioned and references demanded and he supplies them, having their supply reverted probably seemed too catch22ish. (As you've said, the references were mostly feeble, but I suppose somebody might argue that they were better than nothing, and added in GF.) ¶ I suggest that all the unsourced prose is simply removed from the article and added to a section in the talk page, and that people are there invited to source it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, its one reason I tried to do AGF, but at the same time, from looking at the history, it seems he's been doing this for almost 4 years, so kinda feeling like he should know better. Especially after finding he's still running around making articles for his own films, friends, etc. and my having attempted to discuss things with him before hand plus pointing him to COI. His response was to try to take back his claim of being Winning, despite his having done an OSRS for a picture of himself.... *shaking head* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello again!

Hey Anma, long time no see! I haven't had time lately for Wikipedia, had so much work to do and have been distracted by YouTube for a while which makes me sad. :( But I'm now getting back into the swing of things on Wikipedia, just revamped the whole Afro Samurai article. It will be easy to do the character section since it's a two volume manga. :D How are you doing? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, was just wondering about you last night. :-) I'll probably have less time myself next month as I have my annual NaNoWriMo crazy spell. Two volumes likely wouldn't need a character section at all :P Not doing too bad on the whole...wrote two new, from scratch articles lately on Wolf: A Journey Home and Lad, A Dog that I'm hoping to get to GA then FA soon. Have two more planned on two other canine novels. Wee! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. :) Have you been reading a lot of canine novels? So you're doing NaNoWriMo again? That sounds like a fun thing to do, but I am sure a God-awful writer. :P I'm already an artist, so why even bother. :) I've been making a lot of experimental work lately and also thinking about making an experimental art magazine. It will range from experimental art to experimental comics/manga, graffiti art, writing, vinyl figurines, you name it and anything that's quirky and weird and underground. :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, after manga canine novels are one of my favorite books :-) And yep, I try to do it every year, would love to "win" one year. Last year I missed by just a few hundred words. This year I'm going to work on a "manga/anime inspired" type story. Hope it comes out well. :-P I don't know how good my writing is, though people who read it generally compliment it (though who knows if that's being honest or just being nice). I also enjoy being creative and doing arts - I do oil paintings, photography, and crafts. Mostly 'scapes for the paintings and photography (landscapes, seascapes, skyscapes), and for photography also love shooting wildlife and flowers/plants. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. What's the story going to be called. :) LOL Yeah I hate it when people are afraid they're going to hurt your feeling and they just say "Oh, it's great". :P Oh wow, didn't realize you were so many things! O_O Oh yeah, that's one more thing that's going to be in the magazine - photography. :) Have you ever watched the TV series Lie to Me? I have been watching it since it came out on FOX...and later guess what I figured out? One of my old friends named Korey is the assistant director! :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Its current title is Aisuru, To Love :) I'm mildly flaky with hobbies and interests, so I jump between them a lot LOL. I almost never watch network TV, so hadn't heard of that show. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, good title. :D LOL I'm kinda that way too. Say, Moocowsrule hasn't been on here forever has he? :/ – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, he hasn't...looks like he disappeared in August...hope he is okay-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey! On his YouTube page it says his last sign in 23 hours ago. At least he's not gone for good. :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 05:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hel'o? :O – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 06:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like he may just be taking a Wikibreak then, hopefully. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Hey -- I just wanted to personally thank you. Because if it wasn’t for you (and your help), I would probably still be editing articles like I first did with the WildBlue article. I’m really starting to enjoy this place now, and people have been kind (helpful) to me – so far. :P I’m learning something new on here every day. My main ‘to dos’ are making Filmography tables for actors/and updating the existing ones. (See: Tobin Bell) There really isn’t much literature (policy) on how to exactly do it, so I’ve been taking FA’s as a guide. Ok enough gushing. Happy Halloween. :-) --Micwa (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you for your kind words. :) I'm glad I was able to help. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick question: Are the colors for this table OK? Am I allowed to change the colors (I tried to keep them around the same shade of color)? See: Roseanne. Thanks. --Micwa (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The colors look fine. You can change them some, so long as they have good contrast with the text, and are not garish (so no neon pink ;-) ). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

HAHA. Oh I wouldn't dare! :P --Micwa (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

from: Allen4names

I did not think I would have to ask, but just what are you reading anyway? Your comments at Template talk:Ann do not seem to match what I wrote. -- allen四names 21:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You are falsely claiming that my statement is an indication that ANN is not reliable, which is not what I said, or that the FAQ was blatantly wrong. It is neither right nor wrong, its just not completely clear because of the two named releases section, but the statement you point does support the idea that releases ARE user edited. Maybe only by "top contributors" but they are still just users and NOT ANN staff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

To quote you "Maybe only by 'top contributors' but they are still just users and NOT ANN staff.". Now back to the FAQ. The complete sentence from the FAQ reads: "But if that's not enough for you and you're near the top of the contributors list and you'd like to help out with the releases, lexicon, or editing and verifying data submitted by other people, please contact the Encyclopedist." In other words you need to both be at the top of the contributors list and contact the Encyclopedist. If this is not enough to hold at least one member of the staff responsible for the work of those you termed "just users" I will have to question everything that I know. -- allen四names 21:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you will have to question, because it does not say that those top contributors are vested in any, only that they need to contact someone to get the necessary permissions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If the contributors editing the releases page are not vetted then the responsibility falls on the Editor-in-Chief. (see Staff List) If his judgment is in question then the reliability of ANN as a source must be questioned. -- allen四names 22:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the responsibility does not. Again, the encyclopedia, the entire encyclopedia, section is considered user edited and is not a reliable source. That does not make the rest of ANN unreliable. And I'm done with the discussion here if it is just going to go back to what you are arguing at the template page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Afro merging

I have suggested that Afro Samurai: Resurrection be merged with Afro Samurai because I really don't think Resurrection is good enough to stand on it's own and there is not enough sources for a full article. What do you think about the merge? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 22:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Resurrection is significantly different from the original, just a pure sequel, so yes, I think a merge would be appropriate per WP:MOS-AM. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Merged with main article. How does it look? Man, that big dead space between the volume list and the description in the Manga section of the article is really bugging me. :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (Wow, that was a big sentence!)

Made a few tweaks. Not sure what is up with the template. I'll leave a note on its talk page...used to be just putting a width would work...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried to fix it but it's just acting weird... :( – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing something in the recent overhaul messed up something, just not sure what. Will wait for someone to answer at its talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Should now be fixed. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that Production should be merged with Manga? Otherwise, Manga is a really wimpy section and I can't make it bigger because there's no more info. :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, as they should have two different focuses. Manga needs to be filled out with more manga section - where was it serialized, tankoban releases, English releases, etc. Take a peek at Tokyo Mew Mew for guidance one what it should have versus production. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I'm working on it. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 20:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet or pesky editor?

Hello I am experiencing some kind of annoyance from an anonymous editor. The IP address 222.155.1.51 and I'm thinking that person is SophieIsoldaZoeOquist since the editing patterns are quite blatant. There is a repeated deletion of the "Officer Kaiiko" sentence at the hands of this editor. I know I should probably be posting this message in Sock Puppetry investigation page, but I've only recently come across the term 'Sock Puppet' and this is the first time I've encountered one. I would be grateful if the editor could be taken care of how you see fit. Thanks in advance. Deltasim (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but I'm not familiar with that one. Warnings need to be left when reverting vandalism, though, or the IP can not be blocked unless its proven to be a sockpuppet. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lassie Come Home. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. might as well warn myself too -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring WP:DTTR (heh), I'll echo this, leave the page alone. (I'm declining RFPP, you are both seasoned editors). tedder (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Does DTTR still apply when you template yourself? :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. But it's funny to see, though appreciated, as I came here to template you in fairness :-) tedder (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Duchess of Dantzic DYK

Thanks for the message. We have now added more references and a Critical response section. Can you clear it at the nomination's entry at DYK? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the fast response :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Carnosaur 3: Primal Species

Hi, I saw that you marked User:Scratte Lover's edit at this article as vandalism. I'm hoping that you could explain why you marked it as vandalism when it appears to be a good faith edit. Raptor could be seen as following this movie as it came out after and used some of the same footage. This looks like a really good example of biting a new-comer, as it was this user's first mainspace edit and appears to be good faith and not vandalism. If I am wrong, please tell me what your justification was for marking this as vandalism. Frmatt (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing biting about it. It is vandalism, pure and simple, as I have noted at the ANI where you mentioned my name (but did not notify my that you were discussing me). One of two sockpuppets, and done purely to falsify the article. A simple check of the article's history would have illustrated the repeated sock vandalism that has occurred there and with other similar articles.[5][6][7][8][9] It would have been appreciated, before you felt the need to begin lecturing me, if you had taken a few minutes to study the history to see why it was reverted. He is not a "newcomer" and it is far beyond being his first edit.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, you are exactly right that I should have notified you about mentioning you at ANI. I didn't think about it as I had only referred to you tangentially, but I should have left a notice here. I'm not arguing that there has been lots of vandalism, but WP:AGF says that we have to rely on a user's edit history, and when I looked at this user's edit history it showed only three edits, one of which was their userpage, one of which was a name correction on an article, and one was the edit that you reverted as vandalism. I have no history with bambifan, so the only history I can go on is the history of this user, and it didn't appear to be vandalism to me. All of that being said...if this is a sock, then thank you! Frmatt (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, it is...we have way way way too many to deal with lately. Where so many bored people come from, I'll never understand. In this case, Bambifan was very active during that time, including at least one confirmed, blocked sock, hence my suspecting its him as he usually makes several socks to act as sleepers before he gets rolling. There is an LTA on him if you want to read it...he's even managed to convince two admins from other wikis into editing for him, getting both blocked for some time, and I think one is still blocked indef. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Would another set of eyes on some of the problem articles help? Also, did you know your talk page shows up in a sockpuppet category? Frmatt (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Woops, fixed my link to the cat above. Unfortunately, with Bambifan, to watch the problem articles you'd have to watchlist pretty much every Disney and Teletubbie related article. That's why most are protected and range blocks are frequently employed as new ones are spotted. More eyes are always good though, on any that may be of interest :) For the sequel vandal, he mostly hits B-movies, like the Carnosaur and Raptor films, the Maneater series, Tremors sometimes, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I'll keep an eye out when those articles pop up on recent changes, and will watchlist the Carnosaur 3 article for a bit. Frmatt (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

More Afro stuff...

Found some new deletion material. I really do not think that an Afro Samurai template is necessary and I also found a Afro Samurai character list. The character list is barely linked anywhere and is incorrectly named and that template is just plain hideous. Maybe these could get some looking at... – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably merge the game and two soundtrack articles to the main. For the characters, for such a short series, it seems overkill. I'd probably do some massive clean up, then also merge to the main. The Template can then be sent for TfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think the video game and the two soundtracks can definately stand on their own. I've done research on them and they both have enough sources and info to make strong articles. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sent template to Tfd. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How have you been lately? :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Stressed, as usual, but otherwise okay, I'd guess. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi, is this article ready for the Featured Articles. List of Nightwish band members? Thanks.DreamNight (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say it would probably be better suited for featured list instead of article, but in either case, no, it is not ready yet. It has uncited statements (in FA/FL, everything in the body of an article/list needs a citation. The formatting is also not the most intuitive and seems to have excessive redundant images, even though they are free ones (an issue also pointed out in the main's previous FA delisting). The citations are not consistently formatted, and some would not meet highest quality (IMDB, in particular, is not a reliable source). Finally, there is the overall issue of necessity for the article. Its a five member band, with two relevant former members (the guest appearances are fairly irrelevant). It really should be merged back to Nightwish as it is very redundant to that article. If it is going to be kept as a standalone list, before attempting any featured level process, a peer review is required, but again, I'd strongly urge merging. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey there. Can you look at my talk page? An editor has been posting there and I am trying to be a helpful resource for him/her, but his questions are very suspicious. The editor may be Bambifan related. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm highly suspicious looking at his edits. New user, almost exclusively editing in Disney, and his other "accounts" are made up ones that have never actually edited on those Wiki's beyond making the same user page. His quick and intimate knowledge of Bambifan is also a serious red flag. I would urge a check user be done to confirm that he is or is not Bambifan101, along with the "socks" he has so "helpfully" pointed out. I've filed the SPI to get things going. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This pretty much cements it for me[10]. Same brat, same stuff, just another day. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, I thought that that little jerk was gone. >:( – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 22:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Alas, no...you'd think he'd grow up eventually, but apparently not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. And he's been around since 2006? Is he ever going to get a life? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

So might I inquire as to what a "reliable third party source" would be for information regarding films and their actors would be. One of course that would meet with your concerns. Neuromancer (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS defines what a reliable source is. It is certainly NOT user-editable sites like you have now twice tried to add to the article (TV.com's "summary"). Third-party, of course, means not affiliated with the actor (so no, her website or press releases cannot be used to establish notability), as per WP:N and WP:BIO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I was able to get onto the Sunda megathrust so quickly because I had just completed the 1833 Sumatra earthquake and I had also spent some time sorting out all the lists of earthquakes a while ago (so I understand the formatting - well more or less anyway). Above all else, it was an interesting page to work on, thanks for the suggestion. Mikenorton (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I'd taken a break from DYK so hadn't seen that. Cool that it was related :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's up at DYK itself now, combined with two other earthquake articles. Mikenorton (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Logo Upload Question

Hi AnmaFinotera, Can you help me uploading the City College (Florida) logo so I can (if possible) or you add it to the page. I have an .SVG file (xml in it). License is Non-free commercial. The .svg is here [11]. I appreciate your help and I hope you finish writing your novel. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myccedu (talk • contribs) 11:51, November 6, 2009

Logo uploaded and added to the article. Thanks! Hope I can finish this one as well. If I do, it will be my second completed :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A million thanks. We can tell you must love writing. Good luck with your "insane attempt at writing a 50k word novel in a month" Thank you again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.16.158 (talk • contribs) 16:06, November 6, 2009

DBpedia Template Annotation

Hi, why did you flag them? they are a direct contribution to improving Wikipedia, DBpedia will be used to support the Toolserver soon, What is your reason behind this? SebastianHellmann (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

They are not a direct contribution to anything related to Wikipedia, they are spam, pure and simple. If DBPedia wants to "extract" data, they can do it the same way any other mirror does, not by spamming their stuff here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

this is just your personal opinion, we work together with Wikipedians and follow the same goals. There is a great basis for collaboration. so it might not be just spam. Please consider that, before continuing. SebastianHellmann (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bull. It is purely spam, and advertising, which is why one of you has already been blocked. The rest are being reported now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Who do you report us to, can we talk to them?SebastianHellmann (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, you have to assume good faith, we did not intend to do any harm. We are strong supporters of Open source and Open knowledge and there is a common enemy called Freebase, that's drawing away users from Wikipedia(This statement was wrong, I was not well informed and I now think different, compare this). We really think that Wikipedia can benefit from DBpedia, when it comes to a clean categorization for example or structured queries over infoboxes. We really didn't feel as intruders and thought what we are doing is right. If the discussion is settled and rejected, we will help you remove any traces of our presence. SebastianHellmann (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the only one I see benefiting from this is DBpedia. Wikipedia doesn't "need" DBpedia or anyone else. It is up to those extracting data to deal with infoboxes (though they are not even the most important part of any quality article). Freebase is not a competitor to Wikipedia at all, and is certainly not someone drawing away users. Indeed, it would seem they are more of a competitor of DBpedia, which is between y'all. Whether you intended harm or not, or thought you were doing right or not, in the end, you did cause harm by wasting valuable resources to clean up the mess and having to deal with multiple discussions in multiple places on why Wikipedia should not be modified to help DBpedia alone with its extraction. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't "need" DBpedia to be one of the most successful community projects (btw. part of our team are also contributors/donators for Wikipedia and certainly regular users). However, DBpedia can help to improve the consistency and quality of Wikipedia. More generally speaking, Wikipedia should not completely close itself with respect to collaboration with other projects as your reply suggests. DBpedia also allows to query Wikipedia in new ways (hence it does provide something positive for Wikipedians). It should be noted that several man months, including discussions, went into the preparation of the DBpedia live extraction using the mappings provided on the infobox doc subpages before we made any edits in Wikipedia. The extraction from the Wikipedia database dumps was already working before we planned a closer integration with Wikipedia contributors. So, we did not try to make our lives easier (which is what you claim). It is also not completely clear why adding information to doc subpages of infoboxes is a strong promotion/advertisement of the DBpedia project, since those pages are not heavily visited (also considering that DBpedia is an open-source, non-commercial project). If you are worried about the space occupied by DBpedia templates in the doc subpages, we can adapt the template definition. Jens Lehmann (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That you is your biased belief, however absolutely nothing you did or want to do has anything to do with with improving Wikipedia at all. Adding bad templates purely for DBpedia's benefits does not aid Wikipedia. You can try rewording it all you want and continue trying to claim it helps Wikipedia - but it is purely for DBpedia's benefit. Wikipedia does not NEED those templates, it does NOT do anything to make the templates more consistent, it does absolutely nothing for Wikipedia. Again, your methods were wrong and this entire thing is inappropriate. As you already noted, you were extracting the data. Adding these templates did make your lives easier as you wouldn't have to track the infobox inconsistencies. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot deny that my view, as member of the DBpedia team, is probably biased. Indeed, we now realise why our modifications were perceived as spam and why you and others were upset about them. While this was clearly not our intention, this cannot be undone. We try to gather feedback from discussions and adapt our approach accordingly. So, I can agree with you on the first point (wrong initial methods). However, I do not agree that there is no value for Wikipedians. A simple example, e.g. organisations founded in 2008, shows that Wikipedians (and others) do indeed have a new way to browse and query information they entered in Wikipedia. I am not entirely clear whether your criticism is mainly targeted at such user interfaces, which are not located within the en.wikipedia.org website ("it does absolutely nothing for Wikipedia") or whether you belief that we should (in your opinion) continue to merge data from infoboxes internally within the DBpedia project. If the first is the case, then yo should consider that the goal of many Wikipedia contributors is to provide a useful resource for most people, which should apply to external usage of the data as well (appropriate licensing and usage assumed). If the latter is the case, then a tighter integration allows Wikipedians to have more control over the usage of the data (you can call it "making our lives easier", but this is quite negative and downplays the several man-months effort involved from our side). By relying on Semantic Web standards, we can ensure that others can use the annotations as well. (We did that from the beginning, but should have made that clearer.) Jens Lehmann (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but you all chose to waste time doing this programming to benefit your own site without thinking about or realizing that you had no business trying to or expecting to be allowed to modify Wikipedia for your needs. I realize there is no point in saying it as it is clear none of you are willing to understand the basic truth: you modified Wikipedia solely for YOUR needs. It does NOT aid Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not need modification in such a pointless and specific way to make it easier for YOU to extract data. The onus is on those who want to extract the data to properly program their own applications, and their applications alone. Wikipedia makes the data available. Consume it. And sorry, but the goal of Wikipedia contributors is to provide a useful resource ON Wikipedia. The software handles external distribution. Again, you had the data and by your repeated claims at how awesome DBpedia is, have shown that you were mining it just fine. You, however, didn't like our infobox structure because you had to have, in your own words, a database to map fields to your preferences. So you proceed to make a template that modifies Wikipedia to put your preferences in its data stream so you then do not have to do the mapping. You are not giving anyone any more control over the usage of data at all, just saving your site processing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, so this will be my last reply. You are right that a template called 'DBpedia Template' looks like it can be only be useful for DBpedia. Bad idea on our side. I'm sorry about that. You are right that we shouldn't have added these templates without a broad community discussion. Again, I'm sorry. You are wrong in thinking that DBpedia does not aid Wikipedia. (We enumerated the ways in which DBpedia is good for Wikipedia often enough, I won't repeat them here.) You are wrong in thinking that these templates make it easier for DBpedia to extract data from Wikipedia. As I said many times before, they actually make it harder and need more processing. You are wrong in thinking that we don't like Wikipedia's infobox structure. I don't know what you mean by "You are not giving anyone any more control over the usage of data". We never gave anyone any control over the data extracted by DBpedia - it is published under the same licenses as Wikipedia, so anyone is pretty much free to do anything with it. What these templates do is give Wikipedians more control over what data is extracted how by DBpedia and others. Finally: "the goal of Wikipedia contributors is to provide a useful resource ON Wikipedia" - that may be true for you, but thousands of other Wikipedia editors would disagree. If it was true, what would this site be for? Wikipedia data is used in thousands of ways, on thousands of Web sites. As a Wikipedia contributor, I'm motivated by the knowledge that I'm helping not only Wikipedia readers but many others as well. Good bye. Chrisahn (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting (and annoying) that you guys keep switching accounts to reply. Yu continue claiming the templates give Wikipedia more control over what data is extracted by DBpedia, but here is the big thing you guys continue missing, Wikipedia does NOT WANT THAT CONTROL! Any controls over data extraction are already in place at the software level. What you do with it is up to you. This is not at all about any false claim of giving Wikipedia any kind of control, but again trying to improve DBpedia by bloating and hacking Wikipedia for your own specific purposes. You can try to rephrase it all you like, but that is the actual result. Again, DBpedia wants to consume it, it is free to do so and already has all the access it needs. Use it as it is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "switching accounts": The posters in this discussion are different persons at different locations with a different background and own opinions (follow the links to homepages, workpages etc. to get more information). Jens Lehmann (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Erik

I was curious, what has happened to Erik? He was here through October 15, then sort of dropped off the radar, making all of 18 edits here in the last 3 1/2 weeks. I've been a bit worried. Any idea? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No idea...been worried myself. I know he has a busy message on his talk page, but he hasn't edited at all since the 3rd. Does he have email enabled? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He does. I'll drop him a line tonight and check up on him. We've worked a lot more together lately and I'm missing his input! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool...hope he's okay. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I heard back from Erik this morning. He said he's actually quite good but entirely busy. He started a new job which has greatly limited his free time, has a new girl which takes up more of it, but he's fine. He appreciates our wondering about him, said it made him smile. I'm sure we'll hear more from him soon, one way or another. I told him he was missed and so were his organizational skills, but that you and Nehrams have stepped up a bit on issues in his absence. I feel better. Sometimes on the internet, you get to know someone a bit and then they just poof on you and you never know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear :) Sounds like some great things going on in his life, which is always awesome. And so true...I've had a lot of online friends that have done that, and you are left wondering. Have a few on LJ now who either left without a word or said they were taking a hiatus, but still have people wondering if they are okay. :( Its especially hard when most of us know only screen names, so if something did happen in real life, may be ages before any of the online friends found out.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I knowwwwwwww. At some point, I started asking online friends, when we've gotten close enough for it to matter, if we could at least exchange contact information so that *poof* doesn't just happen. I have 4 or 5 that I can contact offline if (ye gods, hopefully not) if something happens or I stroke out (don't ask, it isn't pretty). I encouraged Erik to call it a wikibreak, relax, settle into his new routine but not to forget us or WP:FILM. Somehow I doubt he stays gone forever. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award

As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Rescuers

A question has come up regarding a recent edit to the article for The Rescuers. An editor has made a statement mentioning you, or rather your edits to the article, and I was curious what the editor meant. Rather than try and repeat it, perhaps you should look at the item in question and see what you think. Thanks. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Alas, he has a personal beef with me because I two AfDs, a CSD, and a TfD on some articles they were personally involved in (one was deleted). He went fairly postal over the whole issue, resulting in an AN/I being filed against him because of the extreme personal attacks he was making.[12] After he continued the incivility and personal attacks, he was blocked for first 24 hours, then 48 more hours when they came back and kept it up after claiming he was going to try to be more civil. Since then, haven't really run into him much since then, except occasionally on The Rescuers when I've undone Bambifan101 edits. Earlier this year, his actions on that article actually resulted in his being temporarily blocked as a suspected Bambifan101 sock. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The SPI report

Hi, could you direct me the archived ban discussion on ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs) on AN or AN/I, alleged sockmaster of Kathyrncelestewright (talk · contribs)? I was sort of intervening some minor disputes between K and another editor, so take an interest in the SPI case. In addition, I can't see any evidence or diffs that Kathyrncelestewright is ItsLassieTime except your assertion on the SPI page. So I would appreciate if you share your knowledge with me. --Caspian blue 06:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The ANI[13], and the archived SPI. User:Tonywalton is probably the admin most familiar with his/her overall behavioral pattern, having found and blocked other socks since then. My concern was drawn by her edits to Thumbelina that were similar to what ItsLassieTime and his/her socks did, and jumping in with DYK/GA stuff so rapidly with such similar wording and behaviors as to the blocked socks. Its partly gut, and if I'm wrong, I'll gladly apologize to the user, but it was just a little to concerning to ignore. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Aha, I vaguely remember the mother/daughter team on the horse! Well, yes, I also have some wonder as to how the new editor has such quick learning of all formality with DYK, GA and FA procedures. I've assumed the user may hop from her old account to the current one. Since you've known the user(s) much more than I have, I guess the SPI would be worthwhile, but Kathyrncelestewright has produced very valuable articles thought.--Caspian blue 06:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, though from what I recall, the validity and possible misuse of some of ItsLassieTime's offline sources were question. Hopefully not an issue with some of the articles being created here. Their lack of response to the SPI report is interesting...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you lend a hand?

Hello, I was looking amongst the WikiProject Films for an editor to help copyedit an article on the film director and screenwriter Harriet Frank, Jr., as part of GA review, when I noticed you were one of the coordinators. Sorry if you're too busy or this isn't the kind of thing you like to do, but I've always found you pleasant to work with whenever I've met you, so I was wondering whether you might be able to briefly work your magic on the article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. I made a few quick MoS fixes for the dates and and white space issues, but anything beyond that copyedit wise is really not my forte. Doing a quick scan for GAN purposes, though, I'd would note that IMDB is not considered a reliable source, and for a BLP you'll probably need to have everything cited to pass the GA review. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, the changes are still really appreciated. The IMBD issue is one I thought would come up in GAN, but my knowledge of it (from reading the policy some time ago) is that it is alright as a source in the sort of context I use it: for awards and other basic details (possibly because the alternative is to source the film itself). I will double check of course. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It really isn't okay for that either. It is user edited, so its basically similar to citing another Wiki article as a source. The one time it is okay is for one particular award that actually hosts its own list on the IMDB site. For the rest, they should be sourced to the award sites themselves or press releases as available. Also, the plot summary itself and the cast/staff can be sourced to the film itself (without an inline citation needed), as it is the primary source. Plot interpretation would, of course, need a third-party source, but to say Character Y did X comes from the film. See WP:FILMPLOT for more about that. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay thank you. So something such as this: Films Preserved by the Academy Film Archive would verify it for the Oscars? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, though for this particular actor [14] is even better as it shows the specific awards :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That is even better. Thank you for all your help; there should be another GA for WP Films soon! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Xqe

Thanks :) I was just about to do that, but you beat me to it. I'd had a number of complaints about WP:SPAs at AfD, and this one turned up. BTW, User:Zeleb is the same editor, also blocked - Alison ^❤ 03:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Nothing like a big AfD to bring them out of the woodworks, eh? :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

didn't realize that was a banned user i was unstriking, went to fix my goof up but got beat to it. sorry! Richmondian (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

El Puig

AnmaFinotera

why are you destroying my wiki page on my village el puig in Valencia? It has taken me months to investigate and interview the locals for the information. Also I have personally taken all the photos myself and I feel soul destroyed seeing you butcher the page and changing the correct facts. Please explain!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by M4ttred (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

First, it is not your page. Second, Wikipedia is not for the publication of your original research and personal interviews. Third, Wikipedia is not not your personal website nor photo gallery. If you wish to have a personal page about your village, please publish it to a web host. Any article here must follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is your edit has changed correct facts!! I think you are taking this too seriously and if you want people to carry on expanding wikipedia this is not the way to go about it. I am all for free editing of wikipedia however by doing a sweeping edit of this page you have left it with errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M4ttred (talk • contribs) 22:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I have not changed "correct facts" I've removed your inappropriate "research". Please read the policies I've linked you to, along with WP:V. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but you have left the page with errors, which in my opinion is worse than putting on alot of photos and personal research. It is unfortunate that wikipedia will loose its reputation as a serious research site when these sweeping edits are leaving errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M4ttred (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please point out a specific error you feel was left by removing your original research. Wikipedia is not a research site in terms of you being able to come along and publish whatever you want. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

now I see you have deleted virtually all of the page for el puig, which in my opinion is petty and very sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M4ttred (talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Really you should just delete the whole page then because it was all done by me and is my own research and work!!! It fact you should delete all of wikipedia because someone must of researched it personally at one time!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by M4ttred (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, watch the edit-warring (as I have just told M4ttred). If I see anymore back-and-forth from either, I may have to issue some blocks. Regards, MuZemike 23:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Is it still edit-warring when I was removing her advertising and the publishing of someone's email address saying contact us? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Blood+ Talk Archive

Sorry, didn't realize we were using a bot to archive the talk page. Argel1200 (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if a bot wasn't being used, archiving a discussion that just ended is not appropriate. It is way too soon to archive those discussions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tokyo Magnitude 8.0

Hi, where can I learn the proper formatting for articles? I don't want to make the same mistake again ._." Cowscanfly (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Start with the welcome links left on your talk page. For anime/manga articles, see WP:MOS, WP:MOS-AM, WP:MOSTV, and look at other series articles that have a class of GA or FA (as seen on their talk page). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Cowscanfly (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lad, A Dog (film)

On November 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lad, A Dog (film), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Dear AnmaFinotera: I applaud your participation in NaNo! Good luck to you. I am writing to ask you about your removal of my information on the TEEX page. That was written for the page, not taken directly from any of our information at TEEX. So, in a nutshell, how was it copyright infringement and how do I make it appear not so? These were cleanly written, newly formed paragraphs specifically done for the Wiki page for Teex. They are facts about our agency and what we have accomplished. Help me make it stay up. Share your knowledge with me. Thanks, Heidi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threezmom (talk • contribs) 22:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) I found exact sentences from the content you added in a presentation on TEEX[15]. Further, please be aware that Wikipedia has very stringent conflict of interest policies. TEEX representatives should not edit their own article, particular for the purpose of trying to promote the agency. If you wish to share links to reliable sources about the agency or make suggestions about the content, please post a note to the talk page or link them here and I will be happy to examine them and add any appropriate content per Wikipedia's guidelines and in a neutral fashion for you, to avoid any possible issues with neutrality. I have done similar edits for COALS, after a similar incident. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear AnmaFinotera: I appreciate your help. How can we get information about the agency up? The agency educates police officers, firefighters and is the parent agency for Texas Task Force 1 and trains first responders. There isn't anything to solicit or spam. There are lots of references and links. How would I link them here?Threezmom (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You can just paste the URLs here, if you like, either as is or wrapping them with [] to make them [16] links like that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I see the infobox, which looks great. Here's a very current link on Disaster City. [17]. Heidi Threezmom (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a history section. I'll work on incorporating that article soon. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow! It's looking great. Here is another story that is very new about Ft Hood.[18]Threezmom (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome :)+

Hi AnmaFinotera and thanks for welcome, re Winning page, was attempting to remove, research and improve the citations. from reading the previous your last edits this page already appears much reduced. Suggest making it only one much shorter paragraph, awards redundant etc. trying to take out some of the colorful language that isn't neutral. can you help me out or point to the correct tutorials? :) thank you(shelleyk 22:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelleyk3425 (talk • contribs)

ps, i think i just signed my own talk page!! new to this (shelleyk 22:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelleyk3425 (talk • contribs)

You added unreliable sources to the article and your edits appeared to return it to an earlier state as written by Mr. Winning rather than cleaning up the language. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

hi, thanks. Excellent will try better cleanup. So IMDB links to their awards records are considered unreliable sources? wasn't aware of that. It seemed like IMDB was referenced often. do i remove banners at top when editing cleanup or do you folks need to review first? thanks for the fast response.(shelleyk 01:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelleyk3425 (talk • contribs)

Please do not remove the templates. Its better if more experienced editors review the edits first to determine if the issues have really been resolved. IMDB does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines as it is user edited and has known accuracy issues because of it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand. thanks for clarifying. I will work on an improvement. Good luck with your book. now if i could just figure out how to sign this properly. I'm using the four tildes and all! best SK (shelleyk 02:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelleyk3425 (talk • contribs)

Your custom signature doesn't match the guidelines, so sinebot doesn't register it as valid. See WP:SIG. You need to, at minimum, have your username properly linked in your signature. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, trying again. Was suggesting removing the whole "awards" paragraph as it's nearly impossible to reference without IMDB. Unless you would accept multiple references from Houston for each different year. seemed easier to just delete all. hey, this is tougher than it looked. back to my drawing board :) Shelleyk3425 03:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelleyk3425 (talk • contribs)

How so? IMDB did not give him the awards, and if they are notable, the award site should have a website. And yes, individual references to the award giver would be appropriate. This is what is done with any higher quality biographical article :-) However you may always want to look at the talk page as there is discussion about which of those awards are actually notable enough for mentioning. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. I was trying to reference the specific Awards page on IMBD, ie. Chicago Film Festival for 1996, not his own bio awards. I will work on it with the film festivals offical sites per your suggestion though. The ones that arent' notable presumably won't even appear on their official websites. am now going to take the "how to fix your signature" tutorial. thanks for all of your help. Shelleyk3425 04:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelleyk3425 (talk • contribs)

No problem :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Trying again. I think i found official references. The Houston Worldfest International Film Festival has a page with Excel documents you can click on for each year. I've just listed one reference to their archive site for the eleven relevent years. Would you prefer to list each year separately? thanks, putting it forward now Shelleyk3425 05:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelleyk3425 (talk • contribs)

That should be fine. No need to do every year. As a side note, when indenting, you only need to add one additional colon to go in the next level. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Us Wiki-green people must drive you crazy. thank you very much for all your help. can we take the banners down or do you still need a review. much appreciation. Shelleyk3425 05:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelleyk3425 (talk • contribs)

Not yet, there are still prose/tonal issues. Have just cleaned up some. Will look through some more later. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Shelleyk3425 06:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelleyk3425 (talk • contribs)

CSD's

Why are you CSDing articles like The Snowman (fairy tale)? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It was created by a banned user – a sock of User:ItsLassieTime. MuZemike 05:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime‎. If you want to take on the role of validating that the content is actually factual and valid, feel free to remove. I CSDed all of the ones she made that she was pretty much the only editor of, per the notes in the SPI and her previous history of having an almost obsessive desire to earn GAs and the continued display of the traits of being a pathological lair, bring to question the validity of all edits they have done, particularly with their almost exclusive reliance on offline sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to do it, but something better than just deleting them should be done. I don't think any of the referencing has been shown to be false. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, almost all of them have been edited exclusively by the sock, so its probably no one has checked either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not move to them project space for whatever project does fairy tales? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Might be a good option for moving out to get them verified and then recreated. Something an admin would probably need to do, though, to then delete the redirects. Meanwhile, other editors have stepped up and taken responsibility for two of the fuller ones. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. It would just be a shame to delete them if the articles were actually accurate. Maybe put a notice at ANI? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Another BF101 sock?

Might want to look at Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) and edits by User:Badhello and User:98.90.100.77. Something fishy. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, he is IP hoping like crazy. Trying to get a range block going now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out as well for a while. Thanks for your help. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A98.90.0.0%2F16 J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, didn't even see the section right above this :P J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just when I thought the internet's most clueless idiot finally gave up, he comes back. It requires someone to take the bull by the horns and do the damned rangeblock for at least one year. If it happens again a year fromnow, do it again. This just has to stop, Anma. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now, there is a bit too much collateral, but I am considering it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My head is spinning from all the ones he just did. Blech...hopefully between us its all cleaned up.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I just cleaned up a bunch myself. I love being an admin, but I have had it up to here cleaning up this monkey's messes. Daddy and Mommy really need to watch little Bambi's internet usage. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Trying to give benefit of the doubt, but 70.146.212.249 is looking awfully suspect. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, he flipped back to his other range. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

PMDrive was able to take care of it ... didn't know who was on who knows about BF101 and could stop him/her. Gonna keep reading about this one. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

One more at 70.146.227.32. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Joy joy...more range blocks needed....-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's back, see [19], Madness3, and Dsghsdfgd BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's him...look like he has access from school again. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Should probably watch Lionkingmoviefan (talk · contribs) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Shawshank Redemption

Thanks for that last revert. I think we are going to have to be united on this, and force the other users to the talk page for discussion. It is interesting and unfortunate that, with all the problems this article has, the only edits being made recently are to the plot section, which was not in bad shape. On the talk page, we can come up with a list of the important plot points, and get consensus on them, before the plot gets rewritten again (and again...). Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I know right? This article should easily be sourcable to GA or FA standards, but all anyone is doing is arguing about minute details about the plot. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true. Well, we keep on fighting the good fight. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy

can you copy edit family guy or help me get it to FA.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, copy editing is not my forte, and I'm stretched too thin this month to take on any more big projects. Some genearal things for any FAC attempt, though, is make sure everything is cited to reliable, high quality, make sure all of the references use consistent citation style, and do at least one Peer Review :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Is on it but every one says the same copy edit, and it is very hard to get an Guild Copy editors or something like that....to get to copy edit so it is quite hard but i took care of the rest...do me a favor if able when you have time can you halp out a bit on FG.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite true that copyeditors are a rare commodity. Best I can suggest is look at the list of PR volunteers for those in the copy edit area and see if any are available and willing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

question about InuYasha the Final Act episode list

For episode 6, didn't the English subbed version come out the day after the Japanese version like the other episodes? Just curious ~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Hajiru

Yes, it did. Corrected in the list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AnmaFinotera. See you soon! :D

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Hajiru

In regards to me being involved with SPI

Look, I made a very rookie mistake on the SPI dealing with Lassie. I didn't intend it to be that way, I saw your comment on my mentor's talk page and I just have to add. I did not intend that to occur, and I'm a new editor and we're bound to make mistakes.

I came here to comment to say, when the time comes, we cross paths again in a better situation.ThemeParker 19:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I still have my doubts, as no matter which account you were using, there was no cause nor reason why a "new" editor would even have seen that SPI, much less felt the need to comment on it. In either case, you operating three accounts on your own is not a good thing itself and I'd have personally blocked all three for that reason. That said, you have been given another chance. I hope you will use it and be a good contributor here and show that the community was right to assume good faith in your actions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user GA nom

Hello. The blocked user Kathyrncelestewright nominated The Nightingale here. I was wondering if I should speedy fail it because the user will not be able to make the necessary changes. Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 06:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are no other active editors, I'd say yes, but may want to post to the thread about it on the GA talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, will do :). Thank you. Airplaneman ^talk 06:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Great Work

		The Manga and Anime BarnSakura Award
		I hereby present this Barn Sakura for producing another excellent anime and manga featured article at Shojo Beat. Congratulations,you deserve it!

Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Now just need to get Shonen Jump to the same point :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, you need to help me rejig Excel Saga :P Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work AnmaFinotera.Tintor2 (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I can help with MoS and sources, but for now, working on some novel and their adaptation articles, after NaNo :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats exactly what i need :) Hopefully I can drag Dinoguy into it too as he said before about wanting to handle the anime :P After Nano is fine, all I'm doing at the moment is hacking out the rubbish. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just saw on the news page... Well done on another Featured Article and keep up the good work! ^_^ G.A.S^talk 04:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Afro image

Hello AnmaFinotera. At the Afro Samurai talk page me and some other user are discussing whether to change the image or not. The reason of which is because the image is not the first release of the series. The very first official release of the series was through the English DVD. So should we have a picture of that? Because the manga remake was created after the anime was released. The original dōjinshi was never released in tankōbon format. Does that mean we can use the first Nou Nou Hau cover with Afro Samurai on it or is that restricted to use magazine covers on series infoboxes? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The manga is the primary work, so that is what it should use. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no it isn't. I know it's confusing. Maybe you should go look at what I wrote at the talk page. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Still thinking :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Years later...I think this one might be a question for the project, as I'm not sure what the right answer is. The manga was technically first, but since it wasn't actually even in its early form (which would mean the image further in the article should be in the infobox), but it really wasn't officially released until after the anime...confusing... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, should we take this to the project talk page? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hope you're OK...

Looks like Bambifan broke outof his cage again. I've placed six-month blocks on both IPs. Yup, both BellSouth and both in Alabama. If you want to request another rangeblock, I'm right there with you. I can't take this little jackass any longer. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi there. Can either of you give me an idea of IPs involved and the range, and I'll give it a quick scan for BambiFan101 socks here ;) - Alison ^❤ 01:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is getting so annoying, I am damn serious. Anything I can help with? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

take a peek at my talk history, and you'll see the last three IPs he used :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, what a pest. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's still at it. Just hit again with 74.249.96.105‎ (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Newest IP 74.247.105.48 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) - active now -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I go away for a couple of days...

...and BF101 comes back to do his thing. I just blocked both those IPs for a year and I've requested that Alison impose a rangeblock. It is the only way at this point to be rid of him and I pray that the Foundation follows up with this once the blocks are imposed. Happy Monday! PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hope so as well. Hopefully that will cover all three of his ranges, presuming the other two have already been blocked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessment score

Hi. How do you get an assessment score done on an article (this one in particular)? I think it would qualify as C or B-class. Thanks. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 05:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The film project is actually doing an assessment drive even as we speak, so it will be reassessed as part of that since its currently start class. If you don't want to wait till we get to the S' though, you can also post a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment#Requests for assessment :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I added it to that list.  :) --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 20:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Teen characters

I've been looking over several character articles related to Gossip Girl and 90210. With the exceptions of Naomi Clark, Blair Waldorf, Adrianna Tate-Duncan, and perhaps one other that I've missed, many appear to simply be unsourced plot recaps. I know that they're tagged, but I was wondering if you had any plans/ideas regarding their future (since I recall you taking a similar action with The Clique novels). Should many of the unsourced pages (which no one appears to be improving) simply be consolidated into the "Characters of..." articles? I'm not expecting you or anyone else to take this task on all alone; just wondering what your feelings are. -- James26 (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think they all should be merged to the appropriate list of unless notability can be shown. I'm waffling on addressing it in The Clique mostly because of the likely hood of keeping it managed is a full time job with all the TV show fans. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. -- James26 (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Texas Engineering Extension Service

On November 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Texas Engineering Extension Service, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I thought you might be interested in this AfD that I posted tonight. The person who spun this out hasn't touched it since last week. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

hi again, re Winning page, anything else you can suggest to help clean up the current banner issues and satisfy the gods? thanks Shelleyk3425 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Same advice as before, find significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources (not from Winning himself), and add as is appropriate. See WP:BLP, WP:BIO, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. when i get time am hoping to attempt a rewrite with the same basic form, just neutral tone, lose any remaining advertising and maybe find more references to anything else notable (re third-party sources per your suggestions and) per the banner cleanup requested. congrats on the writing progress, that is alot of work! Do you publish this? Shelleyk3425 (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No, its still in progress. Once it is done, I will probably have it published in paperback form, after a quick editing. Will decide on full publishing after I have more time to polish, along with my first novel (still in editing). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Serena van der Woodsen

Nice work on cleaning up all of the crap in that article. ς ح д r خ є 08:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Per: this... "use references for less than 10; reflist should only be used when necessary (generally 10+) per guidelines :-)". Actually, Wikipedia:Footnotes says "The choice between {{Reflist}} and <references /> is a matter of style; Wikipedia does not have a general rule." In any case, your revert was a WP:DGAF vio :) ς ح д r خ є 01:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It also says (in the resizing section) "Some editors prefer references to be in a smaller font size than the text in the body of the article. Although smaller text has some disadvantages, it is common when there is a long list of references (as a rule of thumb, at least ten) to replace the basic <references /> tag with {{Reflist}}, which reduces the text size to 90%."  :-P I tend to be one of those who does the wait till 10, then 20 well-formed for reflist|2 -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

WT:GA#GA approved by sock of a banned user

Hello, your name is brought up to the discussion, so your participation is expected. Thanks.--Caspian blue 17:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Forgot she was the one to pass that GA, but not unexpected. Thoughts left there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem in List of Gin Tama episodes (season 4)

For some reason there is little room for titles in comparison to previous seasons' articles. Also, the next episode (185), which is going to be one containing two titles, is not shown in the list. Could you take a look? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem on the lack of room? For the titles, you'll probably want to ask one of the template gurus. I didn't know it could do that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Haeundae (film)

Perhaps I was unclear in my post at WT:FILM, but the image used in the article is not a UK dvd cover, it is an original theatrical Korean poster which has also been used for the UK DVD. PC78 (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay...now I'm doubly confused. So what is the one the other editor posted? I thought that was the poster? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, the other one is just another Korean poster. PC78 (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay...so neither one is the real poster, or the new one is the poster itself while the other is the same image from a DVD cover? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Like many films, there were multiple posters for the original release, so they're both "real". But only one of them ended up on the UK DVD cover. PC78 (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tarzan mergers

Hi there! While I support the merger of Tarzan characters, I think that at least those who appeared before the film should be merged into other articles, such as the main Tarzan article. I also think that Clayton (Tarzan) can be merged, because the character has appearances only in the film and in Kingdom Hearts (in which he plays a very similar role to that of the film). Any thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a split merge? The stuff from the films should probably be included in the film as well, but I can certainly agree on merging most of the ones from the original work to that work instead. And agreed on Clayton (adding the tags) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Blood+ and bleach

not too long ago, you undid an edit of mine because i removed romanized and placed "stylized" and "typeset" on BLEACH article though is odd that BLOOD+ has the word stylized and the GazettE has typeset. And since you are a fellow contributor to BLOOD+ i find it odd that you undid my edit. so i ask why?

Also the kanji is missing from BLood plus, do you kn ow anything about that?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't completely understand your question, but I fixed what I presumed you were complaining about regarding Blood+ and adding "typeset" or the like. As for why it has no kanji, because there is none that I know of. It was released under an English title. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i was in a bit of a hurry, when i removed Romanized and placed Stylized or typeset on the BLEACH article, you reverted my edit. Yet, BLOOD+ holds the word "stylized" and no edits were done for it. I was just rather curious to why the edit was reverted.

And yes many articles have been released under english title, but i find it odd that there is no kanji for it.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you could write it in kanji, but really if the original was released with an English or romanized title, and if they themselves never refer to it by a kanji name, adding it seems almost like OR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, AnmaFinotera. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...glad someone notified me since the OP apparently couldn't bother. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do whatever is necessary to reduce the tension in this dispute. I believe that I can help the two of you resolve the issues. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is much I can do here...I've already made my statements and why, and provided the screenies requested, and responded to your idea about the width. At this point mostly trying to ignore the drama and insults being slung around. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my screwup

I don't know how I messed up in editing Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons), but thanks for fixing my screwup. Eubulides (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Forever Knight page

Dude, I got all the facts about vampires from watching the original series. They were all true.76.255.214.133 (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not "true" they are original research and your personal interpretations and thoughts. Nor is such content appropriate for the article. Wikipedia is not a trivia site. Please stop adding your "research" to the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes

re Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes. Its actually still in production, but wont come out to 2011. So probably best just to delete it and someone will recreate it closer to its first airing once more information comes out. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lion King issue

At the show, they displayed Hd-Clips of the film Not the blu-ray copy. The diamond editions will be released until 2016. The lion King is part of the collection. Sorry for causing any problems. --HD12-21-12 (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source is needed to say that, particular the diamond edition bit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The source is in the Walt Disney Diamond Editions article. Secondly, i love the Lion king and The last thing I want to do is damage it. I edited the article properly but if you disagree, then I will back off. Sorry for any inconveniences, --HD12-21-12 (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, nor is that an appropriate article at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not combine all the articles in to one? --HD12-21-12 (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Combine all of what articles? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

All the character ones.--HD12-21-12 (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Playstation / PlayStation

The manual of style doesn't appear to forbid all stylizations of names. In fact, I searched around and found this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks):

Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable:

• OxyContin or Oxycontin—editor's choice

In the case of the PlayStation, consensus appears to have chosen the CamelCase version of the name. Since you objected though, I won't bother reverting it back to that capitalization. Reach Out to the Truth 06:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to something where this was discussed? A lot of times this kind of casing isn't really reflecting actual consensus, just what happened to be until it was discussed and corrected (such as with FUNimation and VIZ Media). If there have been discussions on renaming the main article and how it should be used, though, and the consensus agrees with PlayStation, then I'll revert myself and all articles should be updated accordingly for consistency. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

HTWAPS

Hi AnmaFinotera. This is a response to your [reversion of my edits to HTWAPS].
> Rv;
What does "Rv" mean?
> totally changed meanings
Could you explain what meanings I changed? I was only trying to organize and rephrase the content. Have a nice day, and feel free to respond after your novel project is finished. —Codrdan (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

rv = reverted; some of your changes greatly modified the meaning of some sections. Further, as this is a central essay for fictional works, such massive changes really should be discussed and done through consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User: Scratte Lover - I don't want to be BITEy, but...

I notice that Scratte Lover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created, among other things, a redirect for Happy Feet 2 in 3D today. This is in my watchlist after Ruby (Land Before Time) Lover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created an article on it, and that user is blocked as a sockpuppet of A4d49f4a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Like I said, I don't want to jump to conclusions here, but are you seeing the same pattern I am with this editor, especially given the names of the new account and the aforementioned sock? —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I have been watching him awhile and suspected he was, but his blow out today was the final bit of behaviorial evidence I needed. Definitely the same guy. Sent him to AIV already and am cleaning up behind him now to do the necessary G5 taggings. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As I looked at the taggings and saw how many of them had been deleted via G5 before, that was all I needed to see. I've blocked the user. —C.Fred (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep...noticed some of those too...guess he couldn't resist any longer. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kiss All the Boys

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kiss All the Boys. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Malkinann (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

71.68.211.187

Hi, AnmaFinotera. I think on reflection I may have jumped the gun on this: when I pulled up the IP's edits and saw a lot of Disney Channel-related stuff, I immediately drew the obvious conclusion: possibly prematurely, I tend to think now, having looked into it more closely. --Rrburke^(talk) 04:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm Confused and Worried

Hello, AnmaFinotera. I was sent a message from you saying I had done copyright violation. I am very confused and worried by this, as I don't know what exactly I copyrighted. I edited Jurassic Park 2's plot because it needed to be shortened, and I removed the most bulky text and rewrote to make it shorter with the remainding text in the synopsis already being there. Could you possibly tell me what I copyright violated. I am worried cause I've never intended on violating copyright, no do I ever intend to, and this incident might put me off from contributing to Wikipedia all together. Could you help? Thank you. Evilgidgit (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The text you put in was a word for word match with summaries on half a dozen other websites. Yes, the plot needs shortening, but this should be done in one's own words and not by using shorter summaries found on other websites, as this is considered a copyright violation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I assure you, I wasn't visiting any other websites at the time I edited the page, so it must be by chance if the text was identical, so I assume that they got the text from here. However, I apologise if I have caused any problems. I'll try my best not to cause problems in future edits. Evilgidgit (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Of the sites I found it on, yes, three were Wikipedia mirrors. However, Yahoo! Answers is not and that same summary was posted there three months ago in August[20]. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That looks exactly like the current text that's on the article's synopsis. Evilgidgit (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Book cover on Shotacon page?

Hi AnmaFinotera;

I notice you removed an image of a book cover on the Shotacon page with the following comment: "(→Shotacon publications: remove inappropriate non-free image usage - per WP:NONFREE book covers hsould only be used in their articles)"

However, the WP:NONFREE page gives the following standard for acceptable copyrighted images: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)."

As far as I can tell, this standard does not say that covers may only be used in the context of articles about that work, but that covers may only be used in the context of discussion of that work. As this image was connected to a (admittedly short) comment upon that specific work and its status in the US marketplace, do you think it would not be allowed by that criteria? - JRBrown (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item" - the shotacon article does not provide critical commentary of that specific book, not enough to make it valid for this particular purpose. It also really isn't necessary for the article. It would be better if a free image were made for it, similar to what was done with Lolicon. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Harold Saunders (actor)

Hello AnmaFinotera, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Harold Saunders (actor) - a page you tagged - because: Appearing in multiple films is a credible claim of possible importance. Please see PROD or AfD if the subject is not notable. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. ThaddeusB (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sent to AfD. Appearing in three "Z films" isn't notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability isn't the threshold for speedy deletion though. Anything that could possibly be notable shouldn't be speedy deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible BF sockpuppet

Might want to take a look at Special:Contributions/Pokemonwizard1. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tagged and reported. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, you are very fast! 青い(Aoi) (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like your AIV report got nowhere, you'll have to take it to SPI. Momo san ^Gespräch 00:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like J.Delenoy is taking care of it as he blocked Pokemonwizard1. Momo san ^Gespräch 00:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The username was blocked. IP I've responded to. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay... so it HAS been a while...

I have been quite tardy in acknowledging THIS. Accept my belated thanks. It has been a pet project to which I have been meaning to return. HERE's another that is on my list. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Did wonder if it had been abandoned though :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits on "Energy Brands"

Hello AnmaFinotera! First off, thanks alot for making sure that all entries follow wikipedia guidelines. For your previous comment on on my entries, I'm wondering if you can show me which part exactly is the "promotional/advertising". My main source of these information is from a market research paper. Is stating facts in regards to the market / marketing strategies not allowed? Please let me know and thanks again for your help and guidance. gobegogo (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The paper was not a reliable source, and appeared to be a self-published work. As it was your only edit, it tends to make people wonder if it was your own work being cited. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I added the revised edition of my entry. Let me know what you think. In regards to the citation...I've included the 2 sources to back these information. The first one is an article with an author (ps: im not that author), the other one is the "Market research" that I told you about. This market research is from "packaged facts", a company that gives consumers insights on the market. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by gobegogo (talk • contribs) 21:35, November 30, 2009

Please observe WP:BRD and refrain from continuing to add the entry without consensus. IAmInvestor.com is not a reliable source. While Packaged Facts may be a reliable source, its lack of accessibility makes it fairly unusable. No offense, but I find it hard to believe you paid the $1500 price tag to get a copy of this report, so how can you be sure of what it says? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt know about the BRD consensus thing. None taken, it is hard to believe isnt it... Anyways, I searched on google and apparently the report is out there. Here is the link: [link removed]. Let mw know what you think. Thanks for your time. gobegogo (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2009

As the report is clearly copyrighted, its being published like that would be a copyright violation, so we could not use it as a source as it violates WP:COPYRIGHT and couldn't be linked to; and we have no guarantee it hasn't been modified. Looking through that PDF, it does use some references for some of its remarks on Energy Brands. If those original sources are more accessible, they could be used to note the products increases in sales over time. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the reason why I didnt put "Market Trend" as citation before. Question: the IAmInvestor.com gives the article that I want from "Advertising Age". I can't really get the article from Advertising Age because there is a fee to get the article. Thus, there is really no way for me to post the info from "advertising age"? I cannot site the "advertising age" as:

Stephanie Thompson. (2004, October). Vitamin Water banks on 50 as its Formula for success. Advertising Age, 75(43), 6. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 729130771).

gobegogo (talk) 30 November 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Not without being able to verify what the original Advertising Age article says. Maybe see if the article is available through a library? I can check A&M's library tomorrow. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting....Then what about wiki pages such as "Ku Klux Klan in Inglewood, California" or "Continent". Some of their citations are from Proquest or other journals. These journals are not easily accessible. I noticed some of the citations say "library card are required". Thank you very much. Your help will make me better understand how this wiki citation works. I really appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobegogo (talk • contribs) 08:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Proquest isn't a journal, it is an online library. Personally, I don't think linking to those adds much value, however the actual citation is a normal journal which is accessible to most people through their local libraries or the like. Accessible doesn't mean no registration at all, but $1500+ goes beyond the realm of accessible for most folks. That no reliable source seems to have ever cited this report also makes me question its veracity a bit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Since the Marketing Report is not accessible to most people. I cannot use it. So, can I use proquest source or not? Thanks. Gobegogo (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey

How are you doing AnmaFinotera? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Rushing to finish my NaNo. At 47,135 words and just under 3.5 hours left! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No way did you actually win??? :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 05:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I finally did it! :-D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Congrats for winning. Extremepro (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Now I have 6 months to edit it and decide if I want to try self-publishing it or submit it to a traditional publishing house. With this one's particular story, I suspect traditional publishing would be difficult...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Self-publish like best-selling author Matthew Reilly. Extremepro (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is he actually a best seller? Looking at the novel articles, seems like he does have some devoted fans at least :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That is so awesome AnmaFinotera! I'm so happy! :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Allison Gilbert

Hello AnmaFinotera, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Allison Gilbert - a page you tagged - because: there is no spammy content in this article, it's irrelevant for G11 that the author has a COI. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 17:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that after the article was tagged, he went through and removed large amounts of it, and per the article talk page he has made it clear that his only purpose in creating the article was to get his wife's bio somewhere beside's per personal page. That is advertising.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just when we thought it was safe, too.

Thanks for adding that IP. BellSouth, Mobile, Alabama. As usual. I dropped a one-year block on it and so help me, I will do so to each and every one of this idiot's addresses. Thanks for everything.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No prob :) Hopefully another range block will be forthcoming. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan

Which one is Bambifan? At the article, the talk page, what? :( Cirt (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP that played around with the ELs on the article :-( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tarzan mergers

Hi AnmaFinotera! Do you think it is good time now to close the merger discussions of Terk and Clayton, and perform the mergers? In the case of Terk, only one person has opposed (against three) but the argument does not correspond with notability guidelines. Regarding Clayton... there has been no opposition and more than one week has passed. I think that, to avoid WP:WAF, the mergers might take the form of redirects since the contents of both articles are just plot appearances of the characters, and the article on the film devotes an entire section to plot. Kala and Kerchak need some more time though. Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that should be fine. More than enough time, and agree, most just need redirects. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan sock?

Hi, this user appears to be a Bambifan sock: [21]. Triplestop x3 23:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, probably the named sock from that last IP. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga

Hello, I was thinking about getting Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga to a GA status. I would just like to know how can I do this? What are some of the things I need to do to get it to that status. It's already at B class. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

First, take it through a peer review :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. :D So did you get any awards from NaNoWriMo? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, by "winning" you get a certificate, which I plan to print out, and I can get a free proof copy of my novel from CreateSpace. That's about it other than the awesome satisfaction of knowing I have now written my second full-length novel to start editing :-D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's awesome AnmaFinotera. Also, I forgot...how do you make a peer review? :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Add {{subst:PR|topic=langlit}} to the top of the page. Click the link and follow the instructions for finishing the request. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you lots. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I peer reviewed it. You can see it here. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So are you gonna go to Anime Expo this year? Or do you go to a Texas-local convention? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 06:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I've never gone to any anime/manga convention (or really any convention of any kind). Doubtful that I ever will, even though they hold a local convention over at A&M each year. I dislike crowds :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The 10th Kingdom

So there I was merging the Character List into the Main article ... I did the merger, and one pass (of at least three) of editing the article, when you suddenly revert the thing and state that (1) it already was merged and that (2) I've done a bad job of it.

Since I wasn't finished, clearly the results are hardly what anyone would approve of. But it's hard to believe that what I came upon was the "after" of a merge. To begin with, the old list hadn't been deleted and altered to a redirect. Further the "merge" templates were still there. Also, some information that didn't belong in the List, but would have been useful in the Main article, wasn't transfered.

So, go do whatever you want to. As it stands now, I certainly wouldn't want my name on it. B00P (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

All of the appropriate, sourced information has now been merged. I did not state that it "was" merged, I stated the merger was misdone. I then redid it, and noted it was now properly merged. Simply copy/pasting the entire article was not the way to merge it in any good way. The bulk of the list, which is just a repetition of the plot, was not appropriate for just sticking into the main article like that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your input is needed

...at User talk:Tanthalas39#Unprotection?. Rettetast (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Home Alone table

I was just about to remove that table, actually I was in an "edit conflict" with you, since you removed it while I was trying to. :-) --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 05:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL Great minds ;) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Shojo Beat is/was

I'm placing this here because I don't think this is an issue with the article, but rather a query to you which I would like clarification for. Reading the article, I saw the opening sentence used "is" and not "was" to denote the magazine, which I thought was incorrect, and was going to change it, but then saw the hidden note you left. I tried looking on WP:MOS, but there was nothing I could find that was related to how something should be denoted based on if it "is" or if it "was". Which part of the MOS states that it should be "is" and not "was"? And how long would it be for it to be changed to "was"? Until all issues don't exist anymore? But then what about really old magazines where only a few issues still exist to this day? Would those be denoted as "is" or "was"? I'm using that example because I don't think there should be a time frame, as there is no way to know if issues still exist or not, but it is verifiable if a magazine is still in publication or not. Would someone 50 years from now who reads the Shojo Beat article think of the magazine as an "is"? What about 100 years? I doubt it, even if some issues may still exist in someone's basement somewhere.--十八 06:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed frequently both among the magazine and the television projects and so many places I can't even remember all the places anymore. Its been argued up and down and the consensus has remained clear. It IS a magazine. It exists. Whether it is still in publication does not change that, hence it being IS a magazine that WAS published. The same is true for all television series. Whether they are airing or not, X IS a television series, that airs on Y or that aired on Y. So to answer the question, unless this consensus changes, the article will never be changed to Shojo Beat WAS because it always IS a magazine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, as long as it's been discussed in the past.--十八 20:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

IP editors

See User talk:PC78#IP editors. There is nothing wrong with his user talk. Garion96 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay...though that IP is seriously annoying. I would have thought IPs were not allowed to "claim" a user talk page like that, but if its cool, its cool. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe this.

How is it that we managed to get saddled with an autistic, unsupervised and malicious little brat with the IQ of a bag of hammers and a dynamic IP? You just keep letting me know if you see him and if I'm online, he gets the boot. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Wish we could at least get another IP range but not getting any responses on the CU pages. Unbelievable that he has spent two years at this. You'd think maybe mother nature would kick in and he'd grow up sometime. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• The "Bambifan101" persona is at least two years old. I think the sleepers on his very own long-term abuse page go back farther still. One can only hope that Mother Nature does in fact kick him where it counts.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

We can hope, but alas, he hit again at Special:Contributions/70.146.213.192. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP got blocked 48 hours, i'm sure PMDrive1061 will change it to one year. Momo san ^Gespräch 20:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, figure AIV will get it a fast block at least, then PMDrive can change to a year when he's online :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Check this one out: could it be him?. Momo san ^Gespräch 22:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And new IP too. Momo san ^Gespräch 22:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Even more: AttackoftheTeletubbies and 70.146.213.121. Momo san ^Gespräch 23:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

All him. Sorry, I went out shopping for awhile. Looks like all have been blocked and reverted. Good work. Maybe now someone will do a range block, but I doubt it. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well at least we know what new articles need to be protected now. I would keep an eye on them since he's hit some of them more than once today. Momo san ^Gespräch 23:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Beeblebrox has come up with a conclusion about protecting all those pages, see here. Momo san ^Gespräch 23:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Again we get a user account and a IP: 70.146.227.149 and user account. I already tagged the user account. Momo san ^Gespräch 01:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I keep talking about this but he had the audacity to impersonate an admin using User:Beetlebrox which impersonates admin User:Beeblebrox. Momo san ^Gespräch 02:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up behind him. Make sure to tag the user and IP pages so they go in the list for later use. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone at WP:RPP (see here) got one of the pages that he was socking on protected but didn't know about the whole case. So he set up a new SPI, if you want to add the other socks to the new report, you can do that. Momo san ^Gespräch 03:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like others got to it first, the good news is that I was able to get 70.146.192.0/18 blocked at SPI. Lets see what happens from here. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it on the range block and thanks for handling all that while I was away. Unlike the brat, I have a life :-P, so I was out enjoying Christmas lights ;-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, enjoying the lights must have been fun while the little brat here wants to be a Christmas grinch lol. Momo san ^Gespräch 17:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This one has me scratching my head and maybe wondering if I heard a quack. Got another "maybe" here that popped up on an IP I issued a note to recently. The response is signed by User:Hellboy10, which comes up as a known BF101 sock, but the edit was made by the IP (66.63.88.209). I noted this on PMDrive's talk page, too. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure on that one, because of the IP. I suspect, though, it is actually the other Disney vandal who sometimes deliberately tried to confuse folks by acting like Bambifan101 (fun eh)? Someone better with IP traces would need to see if it goes to Atlanta or his other haunts, though. It has been blocked before for socking in either case, though, so I'd be inclined to block it again to be safe.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a simple WHOIS search on the IP, and it's not resolving to BellSouth or anywhere in the Southeast. I'll keep an eye on it, just the same. Thanks for the quick reply. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked it further, it traces back to Maine. Another one that was a maybe was a CenturyTel IP but that Geolocated to Missouri. Momo san ^Gespräch 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just sent a complaint to BellSouth

Well, good news. I now have internet access at my new home and I just broke it in with a complaint to AT&T over that dingaling in Mobile. I am going to see this through, I assure you. None of us signed onto this project to babysit this little nincompoop and I for one have been pushed beyond the limit. I'll keep you posted, believe me. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it (and yay for internet access :-) ). Hope they will respond this time. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets hope AT&T does things right here, this has gone on for way too long. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Amen, my friends. I did get an automated response with links to other AT&T contact sites which might be of help if necessary. I may hold off on contacting Wikimedia directly, at least for now. Doggone it, I wish that I still had Jimbo's e-mail address. He's been incredibly helpful in the past when it comes to serial vandals. In the meantime, we simply have to grit our teeth and play whack-a-mole until BellSouth pulls his plug. That will be a day of celebration. The worst part is, he isn't even an intelligent vandal. I've only encountered one really smart one in all the years I've edited this site. All the others have been either little kids playing on daddy's PC, obvious spammers or adolescents who have at least a modicum of imagination to coordinate attacks offsite. If he really is fifteen, he needs a lot of help. All I could think about at that age were girls and turning 15 1/2 so that I could get my driver's learning permit! Kiddie flicks were the last thing on my mind; I can't even begin to imagine being obsessed with the Teletubbies at that age had they existed. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not over, he came back tonight on a new IP range around 00:00 UTC (7pm EST), see PMDrive1061's talk page about it here. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Pics in Notability section

Hi, Thank you for your message. I would like to discuss the picture issue. You have indicated that you feel that pictures clutter the guidelines. As well, you indicated that pictures could confuse new users. I wish to point out that there is a precedent for using pictures in both policies and guidelines. I tried to find a policy on pictures on policy or guideline pages, and I was not successful. Could you direct me to the policy if I have missed it. WP:Images says that images have to be substantially relevant (or some similar language) to the article topic. Moreover, that same section states that you can illustrate intangible concepts with pictures. It would seem that "Notability in film" is an intangible topic. The pic for Guns and Roses tied in with the point about the 2008 GNR album and it served to draw attention, in my opinion, to the example (Chinese Democracy).........I believe that while your argument about cluttering could have merit in certain situations (e.g., if a person put a picture in a place where there was an infobox, a navbox, a sound file, etc)...but in the case of the Peter Pan pic and the GNR pic, they were not cluttered locations. Now, as far as confusion, how does the Peter Pan pic confuse a reader? And how does the GNR pic confuse a reader? Thank you.. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

First, Images is speaking to the article space, not the Wikipedia space. Further, what possible "concept" is a random commons poster on a random film add to the notability guideline? Nothing. You can't illustrate notability with an image, and the notability guidelines do not need pointless images for decoration. The images also can be confusing because some newer editors may make the wrong presumption that if an image exists then it must be notable (people can be rather foolish when it comes to that sort of thing).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I cheerfully think that we disagree on whether you can illustrate intangible concepts with pictures and whether pictures are helpful or useful. To move beyond Wikipedia, I bring your attention to a typical university psychology textbook, in which a section on affection will have a picture of people hugging, and the section on conflict will have a pic of 2 people in a shouting match. Arguably not needed, since we have all seen a hug and an argument, but it illustrates the concept, and it can be used to draw attention to an issue, as I tried to do in the GNR caption (to draw the attention of readers to the Chinese Democracy issue). Your statement about pointless images suggests that you don't like to have illustrations in the Wikipedia space. However, there are illustrations throughout the Wikipedia space, even in the Policy section. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We are not discussing books nor other websites. We are discussing Wikipedia and its policy pages. There are not illustrations purely for pointless decoration as the ones you added were. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My edits (Foluwaso)

Hi AnmaFinotera,

I've noticed that you have removed a few of my edits and just wondered why? Is there anything I should be doing to ensure my contributions are not deleted?

Thanks in advance for your time.

Folu

(62.49.6.51 (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)) Foluwaso (talk · contribs)

Your edits were removed as spam. Please cease promoting your website here. Thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, but it's not actually my website, just one I found and started going to... I was trying to get the hang of Wiki by posting a few links, but will stop now.

(Foluwaso (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Tags on Winning article

Hello, I thought the tag issues had been delt with. HALOMISTRO (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No it has not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I couldn't set up the archive bot for Talk:Zatch Bell! correctly, could you do it for me? Thanks. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. You had it mostly right, just needed to fix it from Case Closed to Zatch Bell and reset the counter :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! When will the bot activate to remove the clutter? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The bot usually runs a few times a day. It should generally hit within 24 hours though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Marvelous, wonderful, incredibly good news!

I just heard back from BellSouth; they are going to investigate the Bambifan101 matter! I provided them with some of the info they requested and I promised to provide more if necessary or to forward the matter to the Wikimedia Foundation. We are finally moving forward, m'dear. If he shows his anonymous mug again and the address resolves back to BellSouth, please let me know. Hopefully, the range blocks will keep him at bay but given his history, he may find an open address or port and exploit it. In a way, I hope he does. It'll be the final nail in his coffin. Oh, and Jimbo has his e-mail reactivated on his user page and I took the liberty of dropping him a note and telling him about our efforts in this matter. I have a feeling that a really naughty little boy in Mobile is going to have nothing but a lump of coal in his stocking on the 25th.  :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Glad to hear it. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A question

Hey AnmaFinotera, I have a question for you. I know this is out of the "Film Project" (at least I think), but it's about a "YouTube celebrity" (and I use that term very loosely) known as TheAmazingAtheist. If you see his article as a AfD tag on it, but the AfD is from March 2009 and the result was to delete. Ok, so I go to the talk page and ask why is the article still standing if the result was to delete, and I get a short response from someone stating that he meets #2 on WP:ENTERTAINER, because of a "cult following". The only "cult" I know that follows this guy is on YouTube. He's only appeared in the "mainstream" news once for some video he did about a school shooting. Anyways, I thought if consensus was to delete an article, then the article should be deleted and not left with the expired AfD tag to "get more sources". Is this normal policy? Thanks. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 04:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That is really weird. I have tagged it for CSD since it was clearly to delete and still has the old AfD tag...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention it looks like the whole page was started as some joke:

(cur) (prev) 09:14, 11 May 2007 ERmiEff (talk | contribs) (202 bytes) (←Created page with 'TheAmazingAtheist, Terroja Kinkade, makes Atheist videos on YouTube. He pwns dipshits all of the time, and does a good job spreading Atheism. He is overweight, we...')

I don't know how it survived this long. lol Thanks for your prompt action. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 06:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't either. It should have been CSDed months ago. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it

I don't see any vandalism here, here, here, or here. Is there a reason these edits were rolled back? --Closedmouth (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A seemingly random IP made mass redirects on over a dozen articles without explanation nor reason given. All were rolled back as its faster than trying to do an undo for each. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And the problem with the redirects? These are novels being redirected to their author's article, I don't see how this action suddenly becomes vandalism when it's performed by a "random IP" over more than one article. I'm just trying to understand the logic here. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

They are not being redirected. A few were selectively redirected by one editor. We've had a lot of problems lately with IPs following my contribs, in particular, and just doing random things like that. I didn't revert as vandalism, I just undid. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

External Links

i have added one External Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Hard#External_links in this movie, http://popcorn.oneindia.in/title/3586/die-hard.html this is the link which i have added in external link yesterday but they have removed my link from that page i want to know how to add external links like how imdb having. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanveer86 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple, you don't. Wikipedia is not here to promote your site. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Eclipse (2010 film)‎

OK, I did the move. Can you please clean up the double redirects for me? I will not be able to do those for a while since I have other things to do. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My Edits

I was just wondering why you reverted my edits on the three pages? 1st, even though the film series link is in the box, we can add it into The Twilight Saga's articles because it would make it easier for everyone (including us) to just click on it on the top of the page, rather then scrolling through the whole article to get to the box and click on Open and then the link. I don't think we need a concensus on that, its just improving the article. Second, the edits I made about filming were to add more information into the lead, similar to any other movie on Wikipedia. It does not break any guideline, infact, it is encouraged by WP:MOSFILM. These edits I made were trying to improve the article, not destroy it. Maybe you can at least look at what I was trying to do, and improve on my edits, thats how Wikipedia USUALLY works, instead of looking at my edits, saying "oh, I don't like them" and reverting them.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I explained my edits in my edit summary. And at this point, you aren't improving the article, you seem to be reverting and edit warring with anyone and everyone just to do so. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

For this. Very impressive. :) @Kate (parlez) 02:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: user:IceAge2:TheMeltdown

I'm not sure their redirects are valid deletes (you'll need to prove socking first, which is a tricky point for quick CSD). Why not just keeping them as redirects? They seem harmless (?) Materialscientist (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

He is a banned user. The socking is already proved by his own actions and by a quick look at the parent's sock (notice a trend? IceAge this, that, and the other). A check user is not needed, its very clear and obvious. He does this repeatedly. The redirects are not "harmless", they are edits by a banned editor and only one is a reasonably search term (the rest are disambigs). CSD and ban are clear, edits by blocked sockpuppets should be deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not questioning socking. Please take your time and explain me what's so bad with those redirects? Materialscientist (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, he is a banned editor, period. The redirects are useless and not plausible typos. This seems like a clear issue of needing to block, delete, and move on. Why you are making this into a huge production, I do not understand, much less why you are giving him time to vandalize some more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, spending too long at AIV spoils our souls .. Smile :-) and calm down please. Rollbacking is just one click, a block can't really be "reverted" - that's why. Many hate WP for this. Materialscientist (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Its not like he is a new editor or misguided. He's been at this for months. I'm calm, just confused at the response. 23:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No slight to you - you are boiling in this topic and see hints where I don't - its just too easy for an admin to make a mistake at AIV, and many do. I was going to delete those redirects, but its not that straightforward - they are not that implausible - when you type a string in search window you see the choices. Yes, maybe disambigs are better, but anyway, it takes some time to figure out deletion with those tags on those redirects. Merely setting up those disambigs is not vandalism. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

He is a vandal. Period. Doing some "okay" edits while also vandalizing does not make him less so. His other edits were vandalism, as usual. Evading blocks is vandalism. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As you're making a strong statement (potential indef to a user), you'll have to prove it. I asked the user to talk first at their talkpage before any further edit. Materialscientist (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Its already proven, even if you haven't followed the trail. I'm sure he appreciates you AGFing, but in this case it is sorely misplaced. There i no question as to who he is. He is as easily identifiable as Bambifan101. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Also this user was redirecting the faux "Ice Age: Th4w" to Ice Age film series. There's no such thing as "Ice Age" Th4f", and until and if an Ice Age 4 is announced, then there should not be any kind of redirects, esp for fake titles/articles. Is there any chance that this user is Babifan? --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 23:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this one is a separate vandal. I usually call him the "fake sequel" vandal, because he does that a lot, mostly with anything with dinosaurs and B-movies (other favorite targets are the Carnosaur articles and the Maneater series articles). He's officially identified by the A name because the original believed parent was too old to confirm. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, AnmaFinotera. I know you get way more than your fair share of crazy vandals in the segment of articles you edit. For this particular vandal, can you please give me some more information about why you think this is him? I'm just not seeing it at a glance; perhaps a SPI would be a better avenue? Kuru ^talk 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* This is really getting crazy. Scratte has been created multiple times by his socks, his edits to Ice Age "Th4f" are consistent with his multiple socks, the user name is dead on with all the rest, and his edits to Carnosaur to add a fake film sequel are consistent with his other sock edits as well. SPI has already been done before confirming the initial batch. New ones really are not needed. I realize he is not as infamous as deer-boy, but he is still very consistent. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this seems to be a contentious issue all of a sudden, I've filed a new SPI to confirm all the known socks, including this one, and maybe we can get a range block out of it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was looking for. I had checked the deleted history of several of the articles created, but not all the way to the one at Scratte. That article being created twice before by the scokpuppeter, along your general observations, is certainly enough for me. Just as unsolicited advice, if you're wanting to use AIV to block socks you may want to include some direct information about why; other than just suspicions. Otherwise, SPI is your best bet to start with. Maybe a userpage with some history would help; certainly not necessary, but it would help admins unfamiliar with every fruitcake theme vandal out there.  :) Kuru ^talk 01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

With him, I usually just note he is another of the socks, with the original's username, which is usually enough. Was surprised at all the response for this one. :) Guess it was time for a fresh SPI...and at least reminded me that the first one needed moving to the right name. :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I should have known a name like "IceAge2:TheMeltdown" that something was not right. The worst part is, that these vandals are probably adults. Just tragic, just simply tragic. :-S --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 01:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Benedictus books

For what it's worth, I've been through almost all of the articles about books by David Benedictus that you prodded, and I think most of the prods are good. If I found squat for coverage, I supported the prod. If I found one or two reviews, I left it alone. I only removed the prods for the ones where there were several reviews or other significant coverage. The big surprise was the antiques book, which I fully expected to find nothing on. The only one I'm still researching is his autobiography. --RL0919 (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

PRODs

From WP:PROD: "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith.". Everyone has the right to remove a prod tag, even vandals and socks. So long as the removal is not vandalism in itself, then the removal stands. Yes, the article is unlikely to survive an AfD, however, that's not for us to judge, if the prod is contested, then it must go to AfD. By the way, sorry I didn't notify you, my brain hasn't been operating particularly well today.
Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Where then?

Hi, I recently made a post on the policy page looking for an adviser for a site I'm working on. You took it down (no problem -- I understand why). Can you recommend a better place to ask the same question? Preceden (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there really is a good place, as that isn't the point of Wikipedia. At best, maybe Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. MediaWiki's site is the software site, which might be a better place. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Texas Task Force 1 wikipedia page

I'm a bit new to wikipedia, so forgive me if I'm not up-to-date on commonly accepted protocols and procedures. I am the public information officer for Texas Task Force 1, specifically I am tasked with reviewing and updating information about the team. Currently I am working to update the content of the wikipedia page such as the deployments that we have done over the years to help the citizens of Texas and the nation. I make the updates and they are removed shortly afterwards. Do you have some connection to TEEX and to Texas Task Force 1?

Thanks, Brian David Smith Public Information Officer, brian.smith@teexmail.tamu.edu Briandavidsmith(talk) 22:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As such, you should not be editing that article at all. Wikipedia is NOT here for you to promote the team. Wikipedia has very strict guidelines about editing your own articles. Your edits were reverted because they were not appropriate and they will continue to be so. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are these rules located? How is that different from the historical information contained in wikipedia on military units and their deployments and actions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.160.92 (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A note about them was left on your talk page (if you log in). WP:COI and WP:NPOV are two of the main ones that deal with any PR/PI person trying to edit their articles for their work. The historical information is relevant. A list of all of its deployments is not (and please remember, not all articles on Wikipedia are high quality, many are in the cracks that are also not in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines). Its most significant deployments (as in received significant coverage about them), such as 9/11, would be appropriate to be mentioned as part of its history (in prose form), but not every last one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Serialization template

Seeing as how the thread kind of died, I don't see any more reason to respond there until I try to get the ball rolling, but I do not have experience making a template of this design, and am unsure I would be able to make a suitable one without help or without an example already laid out for me that I could copy. I was wondering if you could give me some advice on where to start, and I would also like your input on the template's design. I think going with what's at Shojo Beat would be okay for the first version, and then I can post another thread on WT:ANIME to get more people involved after that. About the design, would you think that adding in the kanji/romaji would be helpful (as is such at Weekly Shōnen Magazine), or should that normally be left out? Also, would the color-coding found at Shojo Beat still be viable, or would there be a better way of visually representing series that are still ongoing?--十八 01:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I suspect getting Dino involved to help with the templating code would be a good idea. He's really good with that stuff :) I think the kanji/romaji should be left to the main articles rather than including them in the lists for the magazine, as they are not necessary to understanding the topic and would just make the template more cluttered, though it could be an optional thing for Japanese only magazines. The SB format and coloring seemed to be okay for the FAC, so I'd say start there and then tweak as we look at other articles to be cleaned up? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

Dear AnmaFinotera,

Why did you delete my edit?
I think it would be nicer to just tell me where i am suppose to ask it :).
(I am currently unable to login. - Browser problems.)

Kind Regards, HiddenKnowledge - (talk)
94.208.4.89 (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your post was confusing and appeared to be unrelated to the actual Friendly application. After rereading it, I have restored it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Differences in manga and anime, perhaps?

Seriously, and I'm being very serious here, maybe we have got our wires crossed. I've seen the Inuyasha anime but never read the manga. Have you read it? Does Kagome travel backwards and forwards in time in the manga as she does in the anime or was it an additional aspect of her life that the animators put in? I've known that to happen in other series or movies so did it happen here? "Editor clearly doesn't care about actually changing his behavior - just posting his opinions and fancruft": editor actually cares about facts and passing knowledge on to others.--Marktreut (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually she does travel much less in the manga than in the anime, and most of the scenes of her interacting with her classmates are not in it. This is one of many reasons they are not even listed in the list. They are so minor in the manga as to be forgettable. You must remember, the InuYasha anime in particular has a **itload of filler in it while the manga, though long, does generally keep the story moving. If you have not read the manga yourself, how can you claim you are passing on knowledge when its knowledge you yourself lack? Facts without verification are opinions, and your owns. Wikipedia is not here to pass on your personal knowledge, but verifiable information from reliable sources. That is the point you continue to miss. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"how can you claim you are passing on knowledge when its knowledge you yourself lack": I'm passing on knowledge of the anime. If it is not that common an event in the manga then why don't you say so instead of just undoing my contributions? You could have corrected my statement with something like "In the anime, Kagome faces the additonal dilemma of balancing the search for the shards in the feudal era and pursuing her school studies in the present." That way we would both be right. Part of wikipedia is to build on the knowledge of others, not attack them for not knowing the full details. I once came across an article in which the most recent contributor had raised an important point but got some of the details wrong. I didn't just hit "undo", I actually went to the trouble of correcting these details and noting the sources. I didn't offend him by undoing his work, I simply corrected it. Why can't we do this here?--Marktreut (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't belong there. Period. The manga is the primary work. Minor irrelevant bits and still your worthless opinions do not belong on the article. The series NEVER states "she faces anything" you are presuming based on your view. When you stop adding your made up BS to articles, maybe they will be retained, but thus far all you do is add your personal analysis and view points which have no actual basis in reliable source nor the primary sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that it occurs in a number of episodes I would hardly describe it as "Minor irrelevant bits" and there are articles which raise the differences between how a cartoon or film version of a story differs from the canon.--Marktreut (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A "number" is extremely euphamistic considering the number of episodes versus the length of the series. They are minor, irrelevant bits, minor enough that the characters themselves were removed by consensus. Raising MAJOR differences (which actual reliable sources, not just Marktreut's observations), is far different from raising minor ones that, in reality, have absolutely no bearing on the story at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

But such episodes do occur quite frequently, especially in the early part of the series. They illustrate Kagome's frustration at having to save the feudal era on the one hand and keeping up with her studies on the other. Shows a responsible attitude. Something really irrelevant would be pointing out the somewhat absurd fact she is always wearing that silly schoolgirl uniform, whereas some proper travelling clothes would be more to the point.--Marktreut (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Frequency is in the eye of the beholder and they are not that frequent. And no, they don't illustrate anything except apparently to you. They are filler and comedic relief at best. It doesn't show a responsible attitude that she occasionally goes back and attempts to pretend to keep up wiht her school work. More amazing than her traveling in the school uniform is how she managed to pass with so little school attendance despite the rigors of the Japanese education system. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that she has some books in that bulky rucksack of hers. But of course that is just my imagination and we all know your views regarding that.--Marktreut (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that it was shown several times that she crammed it full of food for InuYasha and the others, and I believe medicine. I can't recall her every being shown to have brought books except maybe during one two episode span (before InuYasha comes out of the well to come get her because she left for an exam). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Shawshank

I was hoping you would chime in over there. I could not figure out what that guy was up to. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. He doesn't seem to do much with movies. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He seemed to be making a chart for the awards he felt they should have won? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Allison Vernon-Williams

Is there any reason this page exists? I figured I would ask you, someone who is well versed on the WP policies, before doing anything about it. The article has no references and repeats what either A) should be on the film page or B) shouldn't even be on wikipedia. Thanks for the help --Peppage^tlk 21:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Because no one noticed it until now? :-) Redirected it to the film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How should I normally go about getting these articles removed, like Alonzo Hawk? --Peppage^tlk 05:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If its unnotable, generally just a redirect. If its contested, then start a merge discussion or send to WP:AFD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Cast/Crew in navigation boxes

Any comments you could add here would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Added...meant to comment before but didn't think there would be any disagreement that they weren't :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

happy holidays

hi AnmaFinotera, i added three series that were notable that already have Wiki pages in existence - Street Justice, Neon Rider and Nightman. Two of the added movie credits also seem to have pages preliminarily started Black Swarm, and Don't Look Behind You. advice? thanks, happy hoho Shelleyk3425 (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar and Metacritic

Pardon me for moving your comment to the film article's talk page. Let me know if this is an issue. Erik (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No prob :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're om ANI

Cheers! [22] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Help on Stitch!

There is some sort of an edit war on the article because the English voices listed currently in the article are correct, further proven by screenshots of the credits here as reported by Busspedia. But some user, 96.239.231.189 (talk · contribs), has kept adding and removing names without any proof, save for some pages. Need your help, assistance, or assistance on this article. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 22:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd revert all as vandalism, give the appropriate escalating warnings, and if he continues, report to AIV for blocking. Would also advise cleaning up the article per WP:MOS-AM. Cast tables are not appropriate. The voices should be listed with the characters using {{anime voices}}. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the guy is the same person even if he used another IP (the guy did the same thing, this time as 96.239.234.216 (talk · contribs) Cleanup might go into it later, but is reporting the page to WP:RFPP also appropriate? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, report the new IP to AIV (evading block) and a request for RFPP noting that there is on-going vandalism from a person on a dynamic IP would be good. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, AIV doesn't apply here; 96.239.231.189 is not yet blocked. But I still reported Stitch! to RFPP with the user's IPs taken into account. I don't know Nihonjoe will help this because of events happening to him offline. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, then leave the next level warning on the new IP. Since its clear its the same person, no need to restart at level 1. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, the article is now semi-protected for a week. Might add the cleanup template on it later because of what you said above about the voice lists. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

No disrespect, but I removed the prod tag from San Francisco Film Critics Circle Awards and have begun sourcing. I believe the awards' being written of and cited in numerous reliable sources show their notability and impact. Care to lend a hand? best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to put {{oldprodfull}} on the talk pages of articles when you remove a prod notice. People noting they won the award and repeats of the press releases of the awards are not significant coverage. Nothing you added seems to be about the awards themselves, but hopefully you intend to expand it to include more than just a repeat of their website. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sine it is not something I regularly do, I did not know to use {{oldprodfull}}. Thanks for the heads-up. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Figured this one out too

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from San Francisco Film Critics Circle Awards, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! .Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

After continued work, I now think a merge is perhaps best

Seeing that they are both short articles, I believe that the article about the awards might be best merged into the article about the organization... a reasonable place where one might expect to read about the organization's awards... all eggs in one basket as it were. In anticipation of a merge, I have duplicated my own work... but a proper merge will give proper attribution to the others who worked in the awards article. Shall I be the BOLD one? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Go for it and a merge is a good way to deal with it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your blessing. :) Keep warm. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Fourth wall

You might have noticed that some guy has created a category for Fourth Wall. That's not necessarily bad in and of itself, but as with the main article, there are often no specifics about where and how the fourth wall was broken. Like Airplane!, for example. I have a vague recollection of the main character addressing the audience or at least giving them a look - but without a reference point in the article, it's kind of shaky. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 22‎#Category:Breaking the Fourth Wall :-) He basically took a bad example list that was in the [[fourth wall] article and just added the category to all those articles, even though most don't fit and they were all unsourced. He added it to Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers which is how I noticed it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad to lose the examples, but the question becomes, which half-dozen or so would be appropriate ones to keep? The more I think about it, the more the list becomes endless. I was watching a Woody Woodpecker cartoon the other day, and he was talking to the audience just the way Bugs Bunny and his WB pals often did - which arguably goes back to Groucho Marx and how he would directly address the audience (as with this entertaining clip, a few seconds in:[23]), or the way Laurel and Hardy would mug to the camera. The most blatant example of breaking the fourth wall might be the scene from The Purple Rose of Cairo, where the character steps out of the screen and into the theater. On the other hand, WB was doing that in its cartoons in a "fake" way (with silhouettes presumed to be audience members) back in the 1930s. So this is really a widely-used device, much more common with comedy than with drama, it's fair to say, although Purple Rose was not a comedy as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

A Serious Man

I wanted to ask you about one of your edits to the A Serious Man page. I had created the awards table to keep an accurate record of the critical awards and nominations that the film has received. I did so using the same table format as other 2009 films Nine (film) and Up In The Air (film) and would like to add the info back to the page. I would prefer to have the info in table format as I feel it's the most organized way to keep track, but do you have any alternate suggestions as to how to cleanly keep a record of awards and nominations without the table? Thanks! SOM123Wiki (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The awards table was badly formatted, and most of what you added were not notable awards nor even wins. Please note that neither Nine nor Up in the Air are high quality article, so they are not appropriate ones to look to for how to do a good article. Prose is the best format for this particular film which does not have that many actual noteworthy awards to list. See 300, which is a high quality film. Note that its awards section is purely prose, and does not include minor awards.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I see however, that as I keep looking it seems more and more film pages (particularly ones that are closer to A Serious Man than 300; eg:The Hurt Locker, Precious (film), An Education, and Julie and Julia) have the awards table and list awards other than the few major ones. I think it's really important to show a record of the awards and nominations, even if they didn't all win, and I was not able to find anything on Wikipedia that gave guidelines for posting awards and nominations. If I clean up the table formatting and even add in resource citing, do you agree that the table would be informative and could remain on the page without being removed again? I could put it in prose instead, but the list is rather lengthy and I'm afraid it will look less organized and be harder to read without the table. Stacey123 15:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOM123Wiki (talk • contribs)

Again, all of those are low class articles, and not higher class ones that have actually been cleaned up. See WP:MOSFILM for the film style guideline. Prose should be used, and only the major awards should be included. More minor awards should only be noted if it won and not for a nomination. Film festival awards, except the major festivals, are not notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't mean to be difficult, I had looked at the reference you pointed to earlier and all of the specific awards guidelines have not been filled out with details. There is a section for lists about "Film Awards and Festivals" but again, no specific guidelines have been set. I can put the awards into prose (I do see older films with tables as well, but perhaps they are just not cleaned up yet), but since the film is currently winning and being nominated for awards, I'd like to argue that the smaller awards actually are notable and should be included. Stacey123 16:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOM123Wiki (talk • contribs)

Nielsen ratings

I posted a question about this at the WikiProject Television, but it doesn't seem very active. I've seen you've answered questions there, would you mind taking a look. Thanks. --Mike Allen 03:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"since when is twitter a reliable source?" I figured since it came from the showrunner, it would be valid. Looks like you cleaned up some of my mistakes. I'm about to add info about Bill O'Reilly's crazy-angry video over the episode "Anchor". Since it's a video, would this be a valid source, which provides a transcript of the video? --Mike Allen 04:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

May want to check on RS. Not sure if Twitter counts, even being from a showrunner. And yep, that would be a valid source since its FoxNews' own release of its video. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The last time I checked it out and searched for "twitter discussions" it was one of those grey areas. Some people thought it would fine as long as it came from a reliable person associated with the subject. The only thing that people seem to have a problem with is of course a lot of accounts can be fake. Twitter now has it where notable people can verify their accounts and it will display "verified" on their page. Even though Neal doesn't, his twitter feed has been posted on the NBC website. I figured, I guess as in my opinion, that Neal is the showrunner who decides what order episodes are 'planed' to run, but NBC ultimately decides 'when' they air.

Since we're on twitter. I cleaned up the Resident Evil: Afterlife page and someone posted that filming began on 9-29-09 (which was unsourced, and I tried to add the only source available for that, aceshowbiz.com, but it's blacklisted), and then someone put that Milla finished her scenes 12-11-09, which was taken from her twitter feed. I removed it. I don't know, it seems since Twitter has become such a big thing now, one would think it may be considered a RS on these certain occasions, especially when reliable websites re-post the twitter feed. lol --Mike Allen 05:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Might be good to bring it up on WP:RSN to get some consensus that "official" Twitter feeds are RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have here. --Mike Allen 23:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

06:28, 23 December 2009

Your comment in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 22#File:Anime barnstar.png of 06:28, 23 December 2009 is a bit confusing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

on should have been in....-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Christmas! :)

Mike Allen is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

About CSD notice

Hi AnmaFinotera, I saw that you notified me of a CSD a couple of days ago. I'm just curious as to the reason that you notified me about The Times Of Earth? It's deleted now so I can't see the history, but I don't recall ever editing it. I do quite a bit of random article copy editing, which probably explains any involvement with that article, but you've made me curious.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It was done automatically by Twinkle...if I remember correctly, you had moved it to correct the capitalization, so it probably thought you were the creator. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

huh... well, I hope you had a Merry Christmas!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Mysterious Cities of Gold changes you've made

In the last several months, you have made many alterations to this page concerning the classic Anime series.

One change was to remove the synopses of the various episodes of the series. I took the trouble to write these out from the narrator's own words at the end of each episode and thus to give an impression of what each episode consisted of. Did you remove them because they could be interpreted as spoilers?

Another change was the removal of the image of the main characters which had remained for a long time. I contributed the image in the first place, although I doubted at the time a still from a copyrighted production would be such a problem, and I gave fair dues as to where they came from. But you removed it. How are potential viewers meant to gain an impression of what the main characters look like if the only image of them is removed from the page?

Anyway, that's all I wanted to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foebane72 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

They were removed as a violation of the policy against copyright infringement WP:COPYVIO. Your "taking the time" does not make them appropriate. You should have taken the time to actually write summaries in your own words instead of lazily stealing the words of someone else. The image was removed as it violates WP:NONFREE. A graphic is not required of the characters to understand the basics of the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Series question

Just 2 questions. re Winner page: Three of these series you reverted as unnotable already have wiki pages -- Street Justice, Nightman and Neon Rider. Also i'm beginning to understand that IMDB and TV.com are now not considered 'reliable' by Wikipedia, yet are very frequently used anyway in most external links as main references. are they to be limited to just the one basic reference per page? Thanks Shelleyk3425 (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

None of them had articles that you linked to. External Links are not references, nor are the IMDB and TV.com links in the External link sections intended to be any kind of reference. They are simply external links. Reviewing WP:EL and WP:RS might help in clarifying the difference. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Whew! Back to the drawing board. There is some hope to this learning curve for me with Wiki. I'm trying to cleanup (improve/make better/etc) pages for a couple of directors i'm following (not literally). i will study your suggested pages. thanks. Hope you had a good christmas. Shelleyk3425 (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Overtagging on The Shawshank Redemption

A cleanup tag without discussion on the talk page why it needs cleanup? A two paragraph lead needs expansion? Yes it could be better but does that really warrants a huge tag placed on top? This really is overtagging. The only thing the article desperately needs are more sources. Garion96 (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That is your POV, but the tags are all valid and none of them require a discussion on the talk page to go along with them. And yes, it does warrant having the tags. The lead is really one paragraph randomly broken into two. The article needs clean up to better follow both WP:MOSFILM and the general WP:MOS - including fixing the pathetic "list" style reception section, the random see also and "real-life imitation" sections, the mix of reference formats, the lead, the external links, the excessive footer templates, incorrect section orders, etc. Would you rather it have a bunch of tags for those individual issues, or a general clean up tag. I'd think one is better than a bunch. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs to be improved but it really is not such a bad article that it warrants a huge tag placed on top. (except the sources tag) And two of the tags are obvious for editors but what you just said regarding the cleanup tag really should have been on the talk page. That way editors know what to fix. But that's also because I like talk pages more than just placing huge tags on articles. Except of course for really bad articles, which this article is not. Garion96 (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it really is that bad. There really is no excuse for this particular article to be in such bad shape, considering the wealth of material available. I will copy the note above to the talk page for any future questioners. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

GBP and USD currency for British film?

Hey AnmaFinotera, I was refereed to you to ask you this (hehe). Since the film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is not a US film (it's a UK film), should we add the GBP currency (with the appropriate USD after it) next to the budget/gross within the infobox and within the Box office section? That's the way I have it in the infobox now, but wondered if I should be consistent and use only GBP within the article or GBP along with USD? --Mike Allen 02:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest...I'm not really sure anymore. I see US numbers on a lot of foreign films, some with just the original currency, and some with both. I would think, that as it is a british film, just the GBP should be used in the article, but might be a good question for the project as a whole to get some clarification. I was just wondering something similar earlier for Blood: The Last Vampire (2009 film) and Howl's Moving Castle (film). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Stephen King-related merges

I fully support your call for merging the various little-known unpublished Stephen King works into one unified article, Unpublished works by Stephen King. However, I cannot support merging of articles of novellas from Different Seasons, as that goes against all other articles we have on Wikipedia for Stephen King's collections, where each different piece of fiction has its own article, be it a novella or a short story. They are all notable enough on their own, especially the novellas from Different Seasons, some of which have been published separately from the collection, and have been adapted to acclaimed films. Jmj713 (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

None of the novella articles show any sign that they need separate articles. They are primarily ridiculously long plot summaries. They can all be covered in Different Seasons easily. If they are all individually notable, then it would seem like the Different Seasons article is unnecessary, however in looking at the individual ones, it seemed to me that merging them into its article rather than deleting the Different Seasons article was the better course. Further, just because it was done this way on other collections does not make it necessarily correct. As it is now, all four could easily be merged into Different Seasons with no loss of valid content, once the plots are properly reduced to a more appropriate length. I think one strong article on it, versus five bad ones, would be a better setup. If at some point any one novella has enough content to support a full article, it could still be split out later. As it is now, though, they don't. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Two Things

Firstly, Love Hina's GA is currently on hold as the reviewer has taken objection to the lack of cites in the plot section (despite it not comparing to the adaption, and my pointing out that other GA's don't always do this either). Have you got any input on the matter? I doubt the reviewer will change their mind as they are going by the letter of the law as it were, but I can't see a solution that would appease them short of referencing the entire plot... As you were the one that suggested removing them in the first place, have you got any feedback?

Secondly, could you check out this Excel Saga rewrite for me please. Do you think thats fine for a B-class or have I missed something? (I'd rather get it to that point before moving it into mainspace) I'm mostly concerned about the short plot length, most of the details that occur up to the point I'm at in the manga don't really affect the plot as a whole, but if I need to fill it out a bit I can give it shot. The series is still running in English, and I'm only halfway through the english volumes. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note there. If he does fail it purely for that, I'd suggest filing a GAR as neither GAN nor FAC require in-line citations on plot summaries. And the Excel Saga rewrite looks like a massive improvement! I think it would likely be B class or very high C class. The plot is short, but as it is still on-going, as long as it covers the major plot points through now it would be good. If you can get the summary from the other half of the released series, that would be great, but its certainly launchable now. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As for Excel Saga, I've now replaced the old horrible version and asked for reassessment. Depending on how that turns out I'll get it peer reviewed after and see how much work GA would need. Might as well make it my next attempt. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good and good luck with the future GAN :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lad, A Dog

The article Lad, A Dog you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lad, A Dog for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Contested prod

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

Alrighty. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

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

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

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

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

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

The 10th Kingdom Plot Summary

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

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

Hi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EW/3RR reminder

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

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

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

Speedy deletion declined: D. J. Cotrona

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

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!

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

GA Sweeps update

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

Avatar template

Hi. I noticed your deletion of a template at Avatar and I should preface my inquiry with my feeling that I don't have a position on it one way or the other. Just for my own information, I would appreciate your thoughts on the inappropriateness of the template so that I can consider whether or not to take similar action if I ever encounter a situation like that elsewhere. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The template was made by a user who did not realize the film project had discussed and rejected that type of template. Reception information belongs in prose, and only two of the aggregators in that template have consensus for inclusion in articles. For the ratings, it encourages random numbers lacking context, when we generally don't even include the scores in reception prose, and the inclusion of unreliable sources. It was used only on that article and is currently at TfD-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Video game templates

Hi, it looks like you've added the deletion discussion for these templates directly into WP:VG/D. Don't you need to list them at WP:TFD first, then list them at WP:VG/D using the Wikipedia template? Marasmusine (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I listed the discussions only at TfD. If they are appearing at WP:VG/D, that is someone else's doing, and not mine. Looking at its actual history, it looks like S@bre did a copy/paste or substitution of the discussions there[24]. I've taken the liberty of undoing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see, my apologies. Marasmusine (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the {{VG Reviews}} template has greater staying power because video games are different from films. Films tend to have more of an "industry" built around commentary. Video games don't really have a similar industry, in my experience -- people look to the scores more frequently than statements. Erik (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So it seems, though I disagree that it has any validity or use. I find the "scores" no better in a template for video games than they would be in films, but it seems the entire video game project is out in force to defend it and the other which isn't even used that much. *sigh* One of many reasons I tend to just avoid working with game articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year!

Ah, I see we both just paid a visit to a sockpuppet with a thing for the Ghostbusters.  :) Nice to see you here as always. Our long-term pest seems to be quiet since I reported him to BellSouth. There's only been one half-hearted attempt since then and I blocked him before he could do any damage. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

howdy do...I keep wondering how I managed to run into these nuts :P It has been nice and quite on the other front at least. Hope your year has started well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's started out great, but my vacation's over...! Gotta go back to work tomorrow, but I have a couple of late Christmas presents arriving Tuesday. Still unpacking here at my new house and I don't have a place (yet) to put the ol' artificial prelit Christmas tree which has always been way too large for its storage bag.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I hear you on going back to work. After two weeks off, getting up early again sucks. New house is great, congrats! :) I have a few outstanding gifts yet to come in myself, as well. Ton of manga and a video game. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Atta girl. Week and a half for me, two weeks for my wife. I'm turning some Christmas cashola from my parents (God bless them!) into an R/C model plane. Used to have a marvelous little park flyer-sized Yak-54 electric which, well, "yakked." A poor repair of the motor mount (my bad) resulted in a crash. The motor went one way and the plane went straight down the other way and believe me, I miss that little model. It performed aerobatics as cleanly as on a simulator. Found another Yak by a different manufacturer/same distributor which calls for the same electrics, so all I needed was the airframe which will give me something to fly at a nearby all-electric flying field. Can't fly my nitro planes there, sad to say. Ordered a new motor for an electric helicopter as well; I'm applying a rebate from my renewed cell phone service toward that rather unexpected problem. It ate a non-removable $3.00 bearing which resulted in the need for an entire $53.00 motor. Such a hobby...anyway, I need to log off before this turns into a novel. Later and thanks for the congrats on the new homestead! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

After splurging on a Canon Rebel T1i during the Black Market sales, I still got myself a Wii Fit Plus for Christmas, and some new boots. :-D *ouch* on the crash...not good when they go in different directions. Cannibalistic motor eh? ;D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI...

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Further Adventures of Lad

On January 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Further Adventures of Lad, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks! Wish I had time to do more DYK reviews again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Windows Odyssey. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. .

I note that you have ceased, and now nominated the article for deletion so do not see the need to take the matter further at this time. However, I would urge you to be more circumspect in future. In addition, you were clearly not reverting vandalism, so it was also unwise to accuse others of vandalism simply because they disagreed with you. Please assume good faith, and use the talk pages in order to resolve disputes. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 18:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning noted. Please also look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Users AnmaFinotera, and SchmuckyTheCat... regarding the issues with possible meat/sockpuppetry and underlying problems going on here. In particular, one of the reverters has just boldly admitted to engaging in meat puppetry. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I am not an admin. Had a quick look though, but very few diffs have been given to support the accusations (on both sides) and I don't feel inclined to delve deeper into edit/contribution histories, so won't be commenting. I'm sure one or more admins will be along in due course to help you all out though. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 19:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Don Giovanni

Sockpuppeter or not, ItsLassieTime seems not to have fabricated Don Juan (ballet). I have more than a passing familiarity with ballet and music but am on vacation and will not spend any more time on this till I get back to NY at the end of the month. -- Robert Greer (talk)

If you can validate the sources, feel free to do so and take responsibility for the content. As of now, though, until this validation is done, the tag needs to remain per the lengthy discussions on their edits (and findings of fabrications and incorrect claims on other articles they did with the same sock). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

I am having trouble explaning something on Talk:Aurora_in_Four_Voices. Could you have a look, please. Debresser (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Dark Dreams

I noticed that you cited Dark Dreams: A Psychological History of the Modern Horror Film in Night of the Lepus. I am exploring a revision of Psycho (1960 film) to become a Featured Article in time for its 50th anniversary this June. My project sandbox is here. Do you own the Dark Dreams book, or any of the ones listed there? And could I call on you to provide details from the book(s) when the moment comes? Erik (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alas, no, I don't own that one, just the Videohound book. However, A&M's library has a copy, so I can get you copies of the relevant chapters if I have the page numbers. :-) Oh, and thanks for this[25]. I couldn't remember what sample size was considered too small to be relevant, and meant to look back at the old discussions then totally forgot. Do you think it might be good to mention some kind of minimum in the MoS?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It is kind of done, but the wording could be better: "These will be more reliable in retrospect; closer to the release, review aggregate websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews. (Caution: reliable review statistics may not be available for older films. Appraise the sample size in conjunction with other reliable sources, using best judgment to determine consensus.)" The sentences in parentheses indicate what I meant, although the last sentence could be tweaked somewhat. It's not just sample size, either... for example, I did not use Rotten Tomatoes at Fight Club because reaction was more divided when it came out, and RT didn't provide a snapshot of that. About the book for Psycho, that would be great! I just need to see how good the current article is; I suppose I like personally verifying all content to "trust" it. Erik (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't blame you there. I tend to do that too, especially if I'm working on getting up to GA or FA, as I've gotten burned before for not doing so and finding out it didn't quite match the source :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Maneater series

My error. Reference #22 already existing on the Maneater series page is regarding DVD release of Something Beneath. It's also listed as being part of the series in at least three sources i found. But none of them from the official Genius site, which doesn't include it. It may have been part of the series at one time and punted. Thanks. Shelleyk3425 (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, it was never intended to be part of the series from the official sources of its launch and later press releases on new releases. I suspect the three sources stating it was all got it from the same single source that erroneously thought it was. I'm inclined to go with the official releaser here as the authority on which are in the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop reverting databook entries from the Naruto articles

Those stats are confirmed. They're from the databook. Kindly undo your edits, please.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That isn't relevant. The stats are excessive minute in-universe detail of no real relevance to either the series itself and to the real-world notability to the characters. I see you have already been warned repeatedly by others on your talk page that Wikipedia is NOT a fansite for Naruto or any other fictional work. Such content may well be fine in the Naruto Wikia or the like, but it is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia character articles per guidelines. Now kindly stop trying to add them to the Naruto character articles are such edits are not improving their quality and only causes more work for other editors who have to remove it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Re the old Viking

Madame,( OR MISS), I appreciate your advice with regard to my additions to the article on Viggo Mortensen. However, it was he who said it himself, in an interview with Letterman late in 2009, so I was only adding what he had actually said. If he were to take offence at that, I cannot understand. Unless even this is not to be done. If I had erred, I do apologise, and perhaps what he said on the show was anecdotal, and may not even have been true, and perhaps indeed not meant to be on the article about him. But certainly I did not make it up, if that is what anyone thought. But thank you, and I shall be sure to be more careful in updating things. The Russian.C.B.Lilly 08:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

Talk:Home Alone

I believe this[26] was added to the talk page because it is accepted as a "Christmas theme film" and is supported by the "Christmas Taskforce". There was a discussion somewhere before Christmas about this. I think on the Film Project page. Oh, and don't you love being called "rude" when trying to explain something to an amateur? Happy edits, happy edits. :) —Mike Allen 02:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• DISREGARD My mistake, I mis read the history. I don't know why Christianity was there. LOL —Mike Allen 02:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

NO worries :-) I could see the holiday one, but the Christianity one was just odd...certainly nothing in any of the films overtly or even subtly religious :-P And yep, I do... :-D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR on Home Alone 4: Taking Back the House

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Home Alone 4: Taking Back the House. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Your bold merge was clearly disputed by more than one user. As such discussion should have taken place before you reinstated the redirect. It is always best to follow WP:BRD rather than engaging in an edit war. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I noticed that you reverted this edit as vandalism. While it may not be encyclopedic, it does appear to be in good faith. I have changed your warning for User_talk:76.227.145.52 to a welcome template. Thanks. Keegscee (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

VG reviews template

AnmaFinotera- In light of the recent TfD, I was hoping we could discuss possible improvements to {{VG reviews}}. While we disagree in the template's usage, I think we can both agree that there is room for improvement. Some of the specific comments from the TfD I'd like your input on are: require a ref parameter and better documentation.

I plan on starting a discussion at WT:VG to weed out excess publications (particularly ones that would be deemed unreliable) and any new changes we think up here. Once the template became popular, editors started adding their favorite sites to it until it was protected in May 09. Hopefully all this will address some of your concerns, which are shared by others. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

Glad to hear that. If it does result in the template being improved and strengthen to weed out the excess and improve referencing, then it was worth enduring some of the snarky remarks left by others during the TfD. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Good. How about starting with a "ref" parameter?

Currently using PUB NAME = SCORE in the template will display the appropriate publication name in a left cell of the table and the review score in the right cell. References have simply been added along with the review score to display them.

For example, the current code

1UP = A-<ref name="1up"/>

Displays "1UP.com" "A-"^[#] in the table cells.

The only way that I can see to require a reference is to nest the publication parameter in a second parameter, PUB_ref. If PUB_ref is blank, then the publication content won't display regardless if it has a score listed or not. Of course, the ref parameter will be used for <ref> content, and it will display it next to the score.

For example the proposed code

1UP = A- and 1UP_ref = <ref name="1up"/>

Displays "1UP.com" "A-"^[#] in the table cells, identically to the above version.

The concerns with this is updating the relevant pages. Updating the template will be tedious, but updating the 1000+ transclusions is daunting. To be honest I'm not sure how that will go over with others. :-\ Any thoughts or suggestions? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

That sounds like a good plan to me. Maybe see if a bot could do the updates? I would think it could do something like that, considering some of the other things they've been able to do :-)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Any bot suggestions? Are there any that deal specifically with template updates? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Alas, I do not know of any specific ones that deal with templates. Probably the best place to check is Wikipedia:Bot requests. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I'll try to post a question at Wikipedia talk:Bot requests to see if the change I have in mind is feasible.

In the mean time, how about we tackle the template's lack of useful documentation? I plan to add some content next week. Any suggestions? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

Considering others from the video game project seem determined to continue with the uncalled for hostility and personal attacks, I think it best if I remain uninvolved in anything related to it. I do wish you good luck in getting it overhauled and hopefully redone in a way to address the concerns myself and others expressed about its usefulness. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought the TfDs closed already. Are VG project members commenting on the matter to you still?

I hope you reconsider because I think an outside view will really help improve the templates. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

They closed today, with the unused one deleted, and the other two kept. One of the ones who was insulting during the TfD felt the need to leave me a note saying calling me idiotic was not a personal attack.[27] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the edit history, CR4ZE looks to be a new editor working on video game articles. However, he is not affiliated with the Video game project and does not speak for it or its members.

So again, I hope you reconsider as I think your input would improve the template. If not, I'll understand. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

Cookies

YOU TOOK MY COOKIES AWAY!!! Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Gave you some fresh ones :-D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• *om nom nom nom* Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Case Closed Season 17 FLC

Needs a revisit when you get the time. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

An old WP:SBL request

Hello AnmaFinotera. Sometime back you made this blacklist request. It appears an anon has requested one of the sites be delisted. This has been declined previously, and am inclined to do so again. however your versed well in this area and perhaps you could look it over?--Hu12 (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to jump in here, a second opinion can never hurt :p The reference the user makes to Anime News Network is incorrect, and I offer the suggestion this is intentional. The Crunchyroll site used to provide copyvio materials, but since Jan 2009 has only provided content for which it has permission to host from the companies who own the material and/or license it from the people who do. ANN also have a license to host legal content for streaming, some of which is shared with Crunchyroll. All of which is easily verfied.Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it should be denied again. The user is making false claims and AnimeNFO should continue to be blacklisted. While it has apparently been redesigned, it does continue to have the same issues, same as anidb, and as it has no value for articles as an EL and RS because it continues to violate WP:COPYRIGHT (as well as WP:EL in general as they now apparently have issues with spam and hacking). They also clearly are lying, as Crunchy Roll does not offer fansubs/dubs anymore. In its past, it did, however they got a ton of venture capital and are now a legitimate online distributor same as Anime News Network, Veoh, and Hulu. It legitimately distributes legal, licensed works from many English companies as well as Japanese companies. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, clearly the site is unfit for inclusion. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

in the interest of full disclosure it appears I got the sites mixed up. However i'm still not seeing any reason to unblock the site, as it will result in the abuse of an unsuitable source and a questionable External link. The Crunchyroll thing still stands though. Dandy Sephy (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd give you a barnstar if I knew how!

Hello AnmaFinotera! We don't really know each other at all, but I've seen you around pretty much since I've been registered, and I just wanted to thank you for all the good work you do! (You do so much!) :3 Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 01:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Its much appreciated. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Templates you recently marked for deletion

Please follow up at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 14 #Please don't mark these citation templates for deletion. Eubulides (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

They will not be removed. Thank you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thank you for helping me over the last few days. I am new to editing, but thanks to your help it hasn't been all too difficult. I was also wondering if you might have a look at this new article about podcast novels that I wrote last night, and tell me what I have done wrong / what needs to be improved. Thanks again.
-- Fl1n7 (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

PS - I saw on your user page that you have won NaNoWriMo several times. I am a NaNo veteran myself, although I have only done it for two years and only won last year. Sorry that is unrelated, but just wanted to shout out to a fellow NaNo novelist.
-- Fl1n7 (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite welcome. I'll try to get a look at it this evening. NaNo rocks! I'm working on editing my two completes now for possible publication, and I plan to try to be our regions ML this year :-D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That is really awesome. I'll have to read your novels if they get published. I am working on the novel that I wrote last November. I didn't actually finish the story, only the wordcount goal. If I ever finish my novel, I might podcast it, or something. And thanks for looking at the article.
-- Fl1n7 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yay! I'll remind you of that if I ever get them published - would like more than 3 readers (mom, SO, and a friend) LOL ;-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Animerica

I have acquired Vol 1 Issue 0 from ebay, is there anything you are looking for to use in the article? Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Does it have any articles/info on its start, format, plans, things like that? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The executive editor opens the mag by explaining the state of the market at the time and a general introduction to the concept, but the rest of the mag is pure content, and no different in format to the other early issues I have. There are two manga chapters, and the non news related content is related to Macross, especially Macross II. It's not actually that exciting in a current context, but was probably a big deal in 92. I see if I can scan the 'from the editor" page over the weekend. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Shawshank Redemption

Please Think carefully before you remove a link altogether—what may seem like an irrelevant link to you may be useful to other readers.Assianir (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not link to common terms. You are linking common terms which do not need wikilinking, per guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

List of My Family's Got GUTS episodes

I think you were right on that, it's too late in the nom process to put it in. I'll probably nominate it on it's own. Nate • (chatter) 05:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful

You recently reverted a good faith contribution as vandalism on Discovery Channel. Please make sure that what you're reverting is actually vandalism in the future. Thanks! --Swarm^Talk 07:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really good faith, I'm thinking, as he is completely ignoring the note on his talk page and instead going through and reverting all attempts to clean out these logo galleries without so much as an edit summary. That said, my reverting as vandalism was a misclick. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, that's perfectly understandable and nothing to worry about. Although at a glance it appears that they're trying to act on your warnings by adding the images to articles. Swarm^Talk 07:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sort of...he's reacting by restoring the images, which were removed as violations of WP:NONFREE. Ah well. Those he is reverting I'm sending to community deletion discussions instead.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, good idea. Swarm^Talk 07:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

I only added in to serve as reference to the biography article that somebody else started about me and to agree with the question on notability in discussion.

Please feel free to contradict any of the biographical material about me that I provide. As the subject I'm obviously not the authority needed to provide that information. Nlowell 2010 (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and we appreciate your being transparent and honest in your editing :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Time for another CU...

It would appear that it's now time to block a new IP range. I'm wagering that Bambi managed to sucker a friend of his into allowing internet access; too bad, says I. Thanks for alerting me. He managed to slip through the cracks this time, but I intend to seal that crack. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'm placing permanent semi-protection on this latest spate of articles. It's worked to keep him off of his other pets up until now and the fewer targets he can access, the better. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that, oddly enough, from the CU that they are now saying the A4d49f4a‎ set of socks are Bambifan....which is rather disturbing as A4d49f4a‎ has always seemed to be separate and from Indiana rather than Atlanta. I'm checking with the CU to be sure....because if so, then he's got quite a few that he managed to get past us, and apparently has even worse issue than we though considering he was edit warring with himself.... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi AnmaFinotera. I noticed that in SPI cases you've filed, at least in recent ones, you've given a summary of what the suspected sockpuppet is doing, but are not including diffs. I understand that's a pain in the neck to do, but it makes it so much easier for CUs when they can just look through a couple diffs versus running through an account's contribs. If you could include diffs from now on, that would be awesome. Thanks! ceranthor 17:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

General references

The citation to the volumes of Ninja Scroll has been in the article almost since its inception - just because it wasn't used inline doesn't mean it wasn't used as a source. Per WP:CITE#General references, it may be included - to exclude it just because it 'messes up' the sources is misleading and wrong. --Malkinann (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Its unnecessary, messy, and pointless. The work is OBVIOUSLY the source of its on plot, which is why a plot summary does not need a citation. Nor is it now the source for the majority of the article, and it is not applicable under CITE when in the article has some 18 other references. The only thing the volumes in general, which that citation is not a proper form of in any way, shape or form, is the plot section. The character section requires specific, explicit points, not some one liner for eleven volumes of a series. That "cite" is not a valid general citation for anything in the article as it is, except the plot summary, which doesn't need it per overwhelming community consensus. So kindly stop readding it and messing up the citation section, and instead why not focus on doing proper cites on the character section or expanding the article or something. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You've removed non-inline references from articles before, so I thought that you'd decided that it wasn't valid at all. Just because the format is 'messy' or it's not inline, doesn't make it any less of a source. I've never read the work, so I can't be of much help with the article. --Malkinann (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't "removed" in-line references, I have moved ELs of purported references to the talk page for use when someone has the time. In such cases, those are clearly not general references, rather just links popped in to the article, usually in the wrong place. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about removing further readings to the talk page, I'm talking about items in a general references section. It's not appropriate to remove items in a general references section, as the implication is that they have been used in the creation of the article. It's better to tag the general references section with {{Somefootnotes}}, or specific things in the character section that need referencing with {{fact}}. --Malkinann (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is an "implication" but often not the actual case as is usually discoverable by just looking at the article history. In this case, of course, it doesn't matter either way as it was unnecessary in multiple ways as a plot summary does not need a citation. I am, however, a bit concerned about a possible copyvio issue...as I just found that same plot summary on a scanslation site, and its impossible to tell which came first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You interested in being an admin?

I've seen your work--especially in keeping Bambifan on a short leash--and I'm thinking about nominating you for adminship. Would you be interested? Blueboy96 00:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Its flattering for you to ask, but I'll have to decline. I do not believe I have the right temperament to be an admin as I have a much lower tolerance for disruptive behavior and vandalism than AGF and Civil and Bite generally prefer. ;-) There are also more than enough folks who dislike my editing style, personality, and/or philosophies that any RfA would quickly be derailed into something really ugly and nasty. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad someone asked you this, because I've been meaning to. For a long time I thought you were an admin. :P I've run into a few admins that weren't too pleasant, with one dropping the f-bomb in an edit summary towards me, etc, and you're not near as that blunt. LOL —Mike Allen 00:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope you change your mind someday. I can't think of a better admin than you. BTW, was a new rangeblock imposed on that latest Bambifan nonsense? It was endorsed but closed, so I assume that a CU led to a rangeblock, but there's no indication on the archive page. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I'm not sure if one was done or not...doesn't look like it, which is a bit worrying. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

i do believe one of your articles is todays featured article :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep it is :-D Screenshot it and plasted it on Facebook LOL -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just saw on the front page and thought by myself ~wait a minute, I know whose article that is~. Congratulations, AnmaFinotera! G.A.S^talk 04:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

speaking of meercats, even seen these? Oh and I will do that Anmerica scan one day, I spent most of the weekend sleeping :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw it too. Congrats. --KrebMarkt 21:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see another film article up there, good work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all :-) did kind of amuse me that it got on the front page, though Meerkat Manor itself has been an FA longer and never has been :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Night of the Lepus

On January 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Night of the Lepus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks :-) Now to finish the review additions for its GAN. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on another good article! Thank you for your patience with me throughout the reviewing process. Also, congratulations on your featured article yesterday; I noticed it because the picture was cute, but the article itself was very good. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Me Again

Can you take a look at Urusei Yatsura please, I've done another complete rewrite in one night again. Seriously, it's getting a habit, but I've got the bug :p I don't see any obvious reason not to submit it to GAN, but I've been working on it for the last 9 hours so could do with a second opinion. The assessment page isn't really much use these days it seems. Amazon Japan - It's awesome for finding release details of 30yr old manga :P

Oh, and you receive my admiration for tackling an Evangelion article and hacking at it quite a lot!

Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for the ridiculously long delay. Will leave some notes on the PR now :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Move discussion close

Your request for the move of Fushigi Yûgi, its talk page, and talk archive has been completed, and the histories were merged. You might want to double-check some of the links to make sure everything still works with the new name (I added a redirect at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fushigi Yûgi/archive1). Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks! — Kralizec! (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks :-) Everything looks good. Much appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello again

I suppose I'm back, as a few months off was a much-needed break, so I was curious as to any updates, differences, or big discussions I missed concerning WP:ANIME that you probably were well-involved in. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Welcome back! Hope you had a good wikirest :-) Hmm...for some quicky bullets:

• all of the Tokyo Mew Mew articles are now featured and a featured topic; Shojo Beat is also FA and that sort of lead to the creation of a new {{Serialization list}} template for listing the manga serialized in an anthology[28]
• a lot of stuff was delisted from GA and FA during the GA sweeps[29] and some FARs as well; alas, Seasons of Bleach was demoted from featured topic status
• the network_other/publisher_other fields have been deprecated, flagicon's no longer encouraged, and all of the templates redone to a simpler naming method
• there was lots of discussion about reviving the collab project, but it went nowhere
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources has grown quite nicely
• Category:Lists of manga chapters is now Category:Lists of manga volumes and chapters
• Progress has been made in cleaning up some of the Mobile Suit Gundam and Evangelion stuff, though much left to go
• {{Graphic novel list}} has been completely overhauled with cover characters removed, and the template made so that the chapter list can be split into two columns if needed; also now has params for titles. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 39#Trivial data in manga lists and Template talk:Graphic novel list#Formatting change for the discussions)
• We now have Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Popular pages to see what pages are popular
• More general, images now require "alt" text before can pass FA/FL, and usually GA as well
• Seemingly annual discussion occured in various places to try to get rid of "spoilers" by getting rid of plot (failed), and to try to get rid of most notability criteria (failed) or make Google hits and being a claimed "best seller" the only thing necessary (mostly failed)

And I won my first NaNo! (okay, not project related, but felt like noting :-P ) Of course, I stepped on toes and probably annoyed folks as usual, but we still mostly are chugging along with cleaning up articles and trying to get some improvements going. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That mention of the collab project got me thinking, I'll address the subject on the project page when I get some time. Good to see Sephiroth back, you could come in very handy :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, Sephiroth! To add a couple of points to AnmaFinotera's rundown, G.A.S and I finished a complete cleanup of animanga navboxes (though there are a number of small ones ripe for deletion), and editing rates are down - markedly for myself (haven't actually made a logged-in edit since December 22), but also for G.A.S and AnmaFinotera, and I don't know if it's just me, but it feels like much of the rest of WP has slowed somewhat recently as well. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

More questions

Hello, I replaced File:Detective conan cover 1.jpg with File:Detective Conan Volume 1.png since it seemed to be glitching after a user re-uploaded the English cover. Anyways its not problematic if I delete the old picture right?

I also have a question about Wikimedia Commons. Is it a good idea if I deleted all the pictures I uploaded to wikipedia and re-upload them to Wikimedia Commons and linking them from there? Thanks DragonZero (talk · contribs) 06:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I can reply those ones ;)

You can't replace one file with one which isn't from the same type here Jpg instead of png.

Wikimedia Commons is exclusively for files not under copyright so current manga/light novel covers (under copyright) must never be uploaded there. --KrebMarkt 07:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the first question, if the jpg is not in use anymore, it may be deleted under WP:CSD#F5 if it is not in use for a period of seven days. G.A.S^talk 07:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Merge of Just Ella and Palace of Mirrors (novel)

Since there are really no other active editors recently contributing prominently to either of the articles, is it necessary to discuss merging them or could I just do it? I've never really participated in a merge before, so I'm not sure if that's the kind of thing a consensus is needed for. Thank you! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It can be boldly done if desired. See WP:MERGE for the basics. I'd also note that when merging, the infobox for Palace of Mirrors should not be merger nor the general structure. Instead, you'd create a section in Just Ella, take the sourced content from Palace of Mirrors, and include a 2-3 sentence plot summary instead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I will do it as soon as possible. Thank you. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Nonlinear narrative films

LostLikeTearsInRain (talk · contribs) created Category:Nonlinear narrative films. This category seems awfully broad, and the films to which the editor has added the category seem to involve flashbacks and not a full-blown nonlinear narrative like Memento. What do you think? Any grounds for this category? Erik (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...good question. Many of them seem to be sourced in nonlinear narrative, but I didn't check the sources to see if they specifically used that phrase. Personally, I'd say it is a bit over broad and, much like "wire fu" an attempt to categorize films by techniques used rather than clearly definable criteria. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it just seems like just as an overwhelming number of films will be nonlinear to varying degrees in their narrative. If the category is to be kept, I think the criteria needs to go beyond mere flashbacks. Erik (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it should have a much stronger criteria for a truly non-linear film, which I suspect is much smaller in number. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about Award table on BLP articles

Hi AnmaFinotera. I have a question regarding what kind of Award table to use on Mariska Hargitay's article. What kind of table format are we supposed to use and is it the same as a films' award/nomination tables? Can you direct me to a good article to use as a guide. I think that section would benefit with a table and some sources. Thanks. —Mike Allen 02:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably go with something similar to what is used for the films, but I don't really work with bios much so not sure what the guideline would be. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your revert at Wikipedia:Citing_sources

In a good-faith effort I attempted to restore a part of the previous consensus that had been changed as a probably unwanted side-effect. Your revert of my edit restored this problem rather than improving the fix.

If you have a different understanding of the status quo then please be constructive and change the text accordingly or preferably discuss the issue on the talk page before reverting. The current version does not reflect any consensus. Thanks, --EnOreg (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the current version DOES reflect actual consensus by usage and previous discussions. Accessdate AND publicationdate are valid parameters and can be used together. There is no consensus to remove accessdate at all, nor to hide it. My revert WAS constructive, by restoring the actual community consensus by usage, rather than the views of a small number of editors who clearly just dislike accessdate and are trying to quietly hide it away. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Animerica

Apologies for the lack of the promised scan, I'm getting ready to move soonso I'm a bit all over the place.

However I think i can make up for it, I just received a 2005 issue which ha a lovely retrospective on the magazine and its history :) i'll scan it when I get chance Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sweet! :-D I'm still behind on the request above too -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Blood the Last Vampire

Just thought you might want to know there is a Lewis in the movie, at least according to the voice credits at the end. I think you only see him in the beginning as a partner with David. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood:_The_Last_Vampire&diff=335490193&oldid=335477491 Grapeofdeath (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...wonder if he was unnamed. I don't remember David saying his name the one time I watched it. In either case, the Lewis in the film is not the one added there, which was the TV series one :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they never say his name, but they mention it in the credits and in the artbook. For some reason I can't find a picture of him anywhere. Just think of him as a skinny version of TV series Lewis. :) Grapeofdeath (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Lad PR

Sure, be glad to. I'll take another look tomorrow (Friday) and add my comments to the PR page. Finetooth (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sket Dance

Just to drop you a note that I've started a deletion review on Sket Dance now that it has won the 55th Shogakukan Manga Award. —Farix (t | c) 21:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay...I don't think that alone is enough to support an article, but it seems to be back and forth on which awards are just publisher vanity things and which are actually important. *shrug* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

InuYasha: The Final Act

Um, just a heads up, but the episodes tend to be up officially on shonensunday.com before they're listed on Hulu, but they're still the official Viz releases/titles, which is what happened when I edited the list earlier today. I wasn't too sure about Syobi though, so fair enough on that front. Kelakagandy (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't claim it is sourced on Hulu when it isn't, nor Syobi. Better to wait until both are actually updated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

More than fair enough on Syobi, but if it happens again, would it work to source it to shonensunday.com? Kelakagandy (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, or at least note that the title is listed there in a hidden comment. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons billboard gags

Hello, I find this comment that you made in the afd for the page, "way time Simpsons stuff came in line with actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies instead of constantly skating around with content that would be unacceptable for any other series", to be unfair. Those of us in the Simpsons project have worked as hard as we can to try to bring pages up to guidelines, and we have also tried to get rid of some of the cruftier pages (which is not always easy). I'm curious, what are some of these "unacceptable" pages you speak of? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Really do appreciate the backup. Hey, I haven't seen you in quite a while though, how you holding up? Busy as usual eh? See ya around ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No prob. Not doing too bad. Actually starting to discover the joys of life outside of Wikipedia, though still doing tons of edits. Mostly backed away from the Dragon Ball stuff and most of the other big series to focus more on some other series and some novel articles :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I just HAD to look...

I thought I'd pop by and see if that ridiculous lump of flesh known as BF101 swung by; it seems my worst fears were confirmed when I saw your edit history. Time to contact BellSouth again. I blocked the latest range for a year; if he shows up again, I'll do the same. Back to the break.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks for protecting the musical article :-) He's probably quite happy knowing that his stealing my WIP stuff pissed me off to the point that I moved it all offline. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is a way to properly edit and view things as they would appear on wiki, I'd be very tempted to do the same. Not for any immediate reason, I'd just prefer to work on some things in a way that is a bit more secret then being found via contribs. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You got it. I swear, he's 80% of the reason I'm hitting a wall over here and since BellSouth has apparently done zilch regarding my TOS abuse report, I don't want to edit Simple because blood is going to shoot from my eyes if I see him there. I'm not an admin at Simple and all I can do is rant and rave...and I'm sick of that, believe me. Not to worry, though. I promise to make you my center of attention when I do swing by. If the little freak shows his face, he and his entire IP range are gone from this site, I assure you. Talk to you soon. Keep up the magnificent work. All the best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and I don't blame you for needing a break. He's annoying enough to make a person think rather violent thoughts about him. Wish Simple could do more to block him, as well as the foreign language ones. Alas, I think MediaWiki continues to decline to do a system wide range block. It may seem extreme, but I think blocking all of the Atlanta BellSouth range would be the only way to really get the company to get off their buts and enforce their policies. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with you on the "violent thoughts" part and I've prayed to think otherwise and for this kid to pull his head out of his Teletubbies-fueled fantasies long enough to feel remorse for the hundreds of wasted volunteer hours and wasted server space he's left in his wake. There are evil children on the loose as sure as there are evil adults. All I know is that I've done all I can and beyond including offers of mentorship and taking the initiative to contact the IP. Best I can do is to block a range if he shows up as an anon. If he signs in, whoever runs a CU can do it. The idiocy of this sick little boy is appalling, but the silence and apparent lack of interest by MediaWiki may be worse. It would be unfortunate to block a legitimate user, but one has to break eggs to create an omelette. Bambifan needs his eggs scrambled and I can't do it myself. Worse, I'm almost to the point of not caring. Sad, but true. Anyway, let's both think pleasant thoughts and when I get back from my break, I plan to return to editing Simple and uploading some photos to Commons. And yes, I'll have your back now as well as then. Take care.  :) Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Owe ya somethin':

		The Special Barnstar
		For her absolutely peerless editing on anime and manga-related articles as well as for incredible perserverance in the catching and reversion of a particularly mindless vandal, it is my honor and privilege to bestow this Special Barnstar on the one-and-only AnmaFinotera. You are truly an asset to this project and I admire both your diligence and patience. Yours, PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Smells like

a dirty sock to me [30]. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be worth a filing an SPI to check both Drdkar and Mrdkar (the same type stuff) with that focus on Disney articles. If it isn't brat boy its probably the other one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

:( – this was posted before I realised they were a sock (and then blocked them). So much for thinking I'd welcomed a user nicely! matt (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And from reading other comments on this page, I didn't realise it went further! matt (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You are the subject of a discussion at WP:ANI

This is not a new editor, so appears unlikely to be Bambi/Disney socking. I note that despite editing for a few years they are not aware of the requirement to notify other parties, or that you are female. I note that their editing is generally related to film subjects, so I am surprised they are not familiar with you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he did notify me but I removed it. Honestly, I noticed him quite awhile ago and my first thought was User:ItsLassieTime, but they never showed such a crazy interest in making templates. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I didn't check your talkpage edit history. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. How have ya been? Haven't run into you for awhile :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good debate

With regards to Ride a Wild Pony, I think you're right and the article won't be much more than it is today in six months. Unlike in real life, on WP - and particularly in deletion debates - I tend to try to stick to the policy/guidelines as closely as I can. I get tired of keep arguments based on emotion, ignorance or a lack of understanding of what this is all about and often find myself arguing delete positions on random articles quite strongly. With this one, I thought there might just be enough for a keep and decided to go at it a bit harder than usual - maybe because of the novelty of having to defend a keep position. In any case, thanks for the good faith debate! I won't take you up on the $20, because if I did, I would probably spend a crazy amount of time trying to prove you wrong! ;) Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for at least finding real sources, versus the usual ARS keeps based purely on their whole "OMG don't you delete anything" shtick. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the two reviews = notability criteria sets the bar a little low. Can imagine that many long-forgotten and otherwise insignificant fims can be too easily defended... Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Of course, I'm a fairly simple person. Basic guideline is always "significant coverage in third-party sources" which just two reviews really is not it to me. So now we have several films about which we can have two sourced sentences basically showing it exists, then probably 3-4 paragraphs of plot that will usually get added, and nothing else. I'll never understand how anyone thinks that aids Wikipedia. </ gets tired of Wikipedia being a laughing stock because of such articles> -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Another BF101, maybe?

Thought you might want to take a look at this edit history ... maybe I'm being alarmist, but I'm starting to hear quacking. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Quacking good and loud too. Reverted, tagged, and reported. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. Knowing that PMDrive is still on a wikibreak, I thought that you might be online and able to look at this. I was trying to give the editor the benefit of the doubt, but going after so many Disney articles at once got me concerned. I've looked at the case file and I don't immediately see this as part of BambiFan's M.O., which is why I'm glad you have the experience to know what to look for. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries and you had good instincts. His last post to his talk page pretty much made it clear you were right on target. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that one ... a week-old editor wouldn't attempt to call out two particular editors they probably haven't even seen before. ;) Thanks again for your kind words. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Now just waiting for an admin to block his talk page. He's done the insult, the death threat, now is demanding I make edits. Like I'd even listen to him. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Anything else I can do to help? I can keep an eye on his talk page and free you up for other activities until it's protected, if needed. Hopefully the protection will hit soon. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Never mind, C.Fred just modified the block provisions. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep :-) I have the SPI in to get the IP for possible range block. Personally, I think it would be awesome of Wikipedia would put its foot down and block all of BellSouth Atlanta until they do something about him. He's been reported enough times. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't blame ya for that, but the collateral damage issues are still there. Still, this vandal just won't go away until something drastic is done, I'd wager. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

C.H.O.M.P.S

What does one do about a deletion decision that doesn't take into account Wikipedia policy? With C.H.O.M.P.S, there was not a single valid argument, in my opinion, to keep the article in the context of policy. Many "I like it" and "It has to stay" "arguments", but nothing of any substance. We are told that the deletion debate is not a vote, but it certainly appears that the decision is made from a headcount. Seems very lazy to me... Wikipeterproject (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are correct. The policy and guidelines say AfD is not a vote, but the large majority of admins will simply count the keeps, even if no actual valid arguments are given. If folks like ARS can round up enough folks to come scream keep and not enough real editors care enough to make legitimate arguments, the AfD ends in keep. Alas, ARS has gotten very good at silent canvassing to most AfDs, particularly any I'm involved with, as they wikistalk and use various tools to track any AfD as a quick "one stop keeyp vote" stop. Very few of them ever actually make legitimate edits to the article nor show any actual valid notability of a topic. They frequently throw out non-RS sources, BS claims of "google hits" and for books "its in X libraries" or "people read it" or "it exists". They do even worse in BLPs. Its starting to reverse some of the progress Wikipedia has made in removing many of these unnotable topics that will never be anything but unsourced stubs, but nothing is really being done about them. They have enough sympathetic admins on their side who will defend them, close AfDs as keep for them, and let them get away with making attack pages and repeated disruptive behaviors that they think they are "winning." Suffice to say, there isn't much one can do about it. You can try a WP:DRV if you agree it should have been deleted, but I suspect it will just end as endorse closure because too many admins lately are either scared to actually enforce policy or are ones raised to admin status by ARS's ilk specifically for the purpose of getting such AfD's kept. </rant> Sorry, just a bit bitter and annoyed at the whole thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a dumb-newbie question, so pardon my ignorance, but assuming what you say is true, what is the negative impact of that? (i.e. of having a bunch of stubs that are (relatively or entirely) un-sourced or un-notable? It seems like storage capacity is unlimited and if nobody cares about these articles enough to edit them, fix them, or add references or look at them ever, they just exist in a state of limbo. I can see that they don't do Wikipedia any good, but I do not yet understand what is the harm or negative aspect to their continued existence that elicts such a strong reaction in some "deletists". Could you please explain? thanks. (I am not arguing, I just want to appreciate the reasons). (P.S. I do understand that lies, libel, nasty accusations or such has no place on WP, that I can see. What I am unclear about is a stub about a non-controversial topic). For example, CHOMPS looks like a dumb movie and an non-controversial subject for an un-remarkable article, but what harm does it do? (just as an example)--Mdukas (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and in addition to having a core policy of WP:V it has policies and guidelines about what it is WP:NOT. Space is irrelevant, as is reader interest. Unnotable topics do not belong here, anymore than they would belong in any other encyclopedic work. If an article can not be properly referenced and expanded to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, it also does not belong here. Existence along is not a valid inclusion criteria, and Wikipedia is not (and should not be) just another IMDB mirror. They harm Wikipedia by their existence because they cannot be sourced, cannot be expanded, and have no potential to ever be REAL articles. This is different from a stub on a notable topic that simply has not received attention yet. Such stubs have potential and can be more with proper attention. Stubs like this which cannot be reliably sourced to ever do more than prove something exists simply do not belong. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to answer. I do see you all over WP, and I admire your efforts to make improvements to WP in multiple venues. --Mdukas (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem and thank you. I probably seem like I'm taking a very hard line stance, but its only a matter of time before people use some of the same arguments used in some of these discussions end up resulting in the most random of things being allowed in. By some people's standards used as "keep" reasons in AfDs, I am actually notable enough for a Wikipedia article. At that point, its really a sign that folks are going overboard, ya know? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOHARM is part of a Wikipedia essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It gives some good discussion to Mdukas's question, "what harm can it do?" Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, not all admins are "populist". We had a really good result with an article on a recent Australian victim of crime, one Herman Rockefeller. The "vote count" was 10-6 in favour of keep, but the admin (NuclearWarfare) made the call on the basis of the discussion and deleted the article and commented "The keep side has not been able to successfully refute the statements by the delete...". Need more like that! Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and yep there are some great admins who really do properly apply consensus and evaluating the arguments in AfDs. Just wish they could close all of them :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And, look, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.H.O.M.P.S has been reopened for discussion by none other than NuclearWarfare! My faith in collaboration and the Wikipedia project as a whole has rebounded significantly in the last 15 minutes! Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see it, and wow, I hadn't even noticed the person "closing" it was a non-admin who had no business doing so. It seems he also closed another one I did that shouldn't have been closed as multiple people had said delete. Ugh....I really really wish they would get rid of the whole idea of non-admin closures. I've argued against it in the past for this same reason, but no one listens. :-( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm astounded that there is such a thing as a non-admin closure - I had just assumed that such responsibility would rest with administrators by default. The delete debates go to the very heart of what Wikipedia is and what it will be in the future. Odd that a non-admin can make the call. Is it "just anybody" who can perform a non-admin closure? Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much anyone can. See Wikipedia:Non-admin closure for the basic framework. Supposedly, they are only supposed to close clear snowball/speedy keeps/redirects/merges, or for housekeeping (like someone withdrew it or the page was already speedied). It used to more explicitly state that if anyone opposes keeping, it can not be closed by non-admins, but that was since removed[31], and they should only be closed early in a clear snow situation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd support any attempt to change that. I have no problem with clear-cut cases, and understand that anything that can ease the already heavy workload of administrators and prevent huge backlogs is both good and necessary, but where there is debate, the decision should be made by an administrator. For me, it's a no-brainer - but that's just me :-) Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Akiza Izinski

Hi. I am tempted to nominate this for AFD but I am concerned of facing too much hostility. Is this an acceptable article or potentially a valid article? Luna (Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's) too. "Luna tends to get tired right after a duel. She has the ability to communicate with duel monsters after having spent ample time with Duel Spirits in a different dimension while in a coma." All in the opening lines to the article. It means absolutely nothing to anybody other than fans of the series who enjoy having a platform to write about their favourite characters as it is fun. To myself and I'm sure many others it barely legible let alone encyclopedic. I try to keep an open mind to much content on here and conceive that many articles could be consisderbaly improved, I am generally an inclusionist. But articles like these I think have no place in an encyclopedia. If you think of things froma neutral viewpoint and how this article might look to the random encyclopedia user outside of the Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D or even anime context it looks bad. If there is an abundance of reliable sources to write a good article I might be more lenient.... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

For dealing with characters, its generally recommended to propose a merge of a trimmed up summary to the appropriate character list first by tagging it and the list and starting a talk page discussion. Usually for an unnotable character (which she certainly appears to be), the project does tend to be good about reaching consensus to do so. We've done so with many other character articles, including many from Dragon Ball. You might find it helpful to look at Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters and its archives for some of the previous merge discussions started for those merges to get an idea of how they are framed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Something like Jack Atlas. That way we will have a category which can gradually redirected when the project feels like redirecting it in a more casual less antagonistic fashion than an AFD. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 17:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

InuYasha

If I am not mistaken Anime News Network is a reliable source and they often use animeanime.jp as a source for their articles. So if this piece can be used in a Wikipedia article (Karakuridōji Ultimo) then what makes it the actual site unreliable? This revert was not necessary. I know you re-added the content back but why didn't you just merge the information back together? Also about this comment, I haven't used any "low quality" as a guide for the article. All the article whose examples I chosen to follow (Bleach, Soul Eater, and Fullmetal Alchemist) are better written that InuYasha. MS (Talk|Contributions) 14:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I said specifically that the ANN Encyclopedia is unreliable, not its news. This is per project and Wikipedia consensus. The encyclopedia is user edited and not staff written articles. And yes, those are all low quality article. The first two are only barely C class. FMA is GA, at least, but the one bit you applied from it to InuYasha is not the same. Brotherhood is a complete remake of the anime series, not a straight up sequel that is really just another season. And yes, reverting was easier than trying to smush it together and see what was removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So all of the sources from ANN should be removed from the article then? Compared to InuYasha those article are in way better shape. I guess you and I just have difference taste when it comes to low quality. MS (Talk|Contributions) 15:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Being in better shape does not make them good models to follow, particularly two C class. The MoS is the guideline to look at, and GA/FA articles. And again, no. InuYasha does not have any ANN Encyclopedia references in it that need removing. Again, the non-RS is very specifically - ANN ENCYCLOPEDIA, i.e. anything with the url of http://animenewsnetwork,com/encyclopedia, and NOT ANN news articles, reviews, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I never asked you if ANN ENCYCLOPEDIA was a reliable source I was talking about the NEWS articles, that is why I linked it. Did you even bother to click on the link? MS (Talk|Contributions) 15:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I just said, for the fourth time, that yes it is. You asked why I said it was unreliable. I didn't say it was unreliable. I said their news articles ARE reliable. I don't need to click the link to see that. It is a NEWS article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Things got confusing, so let me make it clearer. ANN new articles are reliable sources, I get that. You tagged the animeanime.jp source questioning its reliability. I linked to the ANN article to show you that they use animeanime.jp as a source and since ANN news articles are reliable sources doesn't that make the site they are using as a source reliable also? MS (Talk|Contributions) 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay...so why didn't you just ask that the first time. And no, it does not make all sources they use reliable. ANN itself is a reliable source so it has editorial discretion in choosing its sources. The ANN news article would be a reliable source to use, over the AnimeAnime one, which does not itself appear to meet RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I did ask the first time... The way I phrase it must have confused everything. Thanks for replying. MS (Talk|Contributions) 16:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr paul harrington...

... and review whether it might be a candidate for an early closure? The only reason I ask rather than let the process run its usual course is I'd like the substantial improvement reflected in the article to be eligible for recognition through the Did You Know? process, and by the time the AfD closes naturally it will be too old for DYK. Early closure would appear to be non-controversial in this case but it would require someone of experience who hasn't participated in the debate to make that judgement. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suspect at this point it would be eligible for a snow close, but as I strongly oppose non-admin closes in any AfD, I'd suggest posting a note at ANI asking for an admin to do a snow close. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 101 Dalmatians Musical

On February 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 101 Dalmatians Musical, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits using {{Cite journal}}

You forgot the pipe "|" character between "volume" and "issue" in at least two of your edits. (Diffs [32] [33]) If you are using an automated tool you may wish to inform those who maintain it. -- allen四names 15:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not and that happened because it was the same ref in two articles someone else added. I copy pasted the templated version from one to the other so the mistake carried over. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. -- allen四names 00:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there some auto tool that generates empty cite templates? :-D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know of one but I found out about reflinks recently so such a tool may exist. -- allen四names 01:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in on someone else's conversation, but just in case you didn't know, if you go into My Preferences, then Gadgets and select refTools, it adds an additional button in the edit toolbar which gives you a data entry screen to input information automatically into cite templates. Has saved me a bundle of time. Miyagawa (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that. I remember I looked at that once before but something about it I didn't like. Maybe its better now :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK Flag for WPDogs

Thanks for adding the flag on the 101 Dalmatians Musical article. I've asked for it to be automated when the DYK templates are added to the talk page, but it doesn't seem to have happened yet. Miyagawa (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sam Savitt

My change to the Sam Savitt entry was NOT vandalism. In fact, it was YOUR vandalism that I was trying to correct. And if I could figure out this Wikipedia, I'd fix the damage you did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvink (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits were vandalism. You removed validly sourced content to restore unsourced, non-neutral content. That is vandalism. Calling my clean up of a bad article "vandalism" is laughable at best. Would I be correct in presuming you are the IP relative of Savitt trying to fluff his article in inappropriate ways? I think so.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Inchon (film)

Thank you very much for commenting with regard to this matter. Your continued attention at WT:FILMS and at Talk:Inchon (film) would be most appreciated - as (unfortunately) the matter with regard to the other user appears to not be resolved. :( Cheers, Cirt (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It looks as if things are solved, at least for the article, though I'm not sure why CB seemed so upset and to be taking it very personally. I wish you luck in mending the bridge though I'm still not sure how it got broken.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried. He blanked out his talk page from that thread. Not sure where to go from there. ;( Cirt (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Help me!

Hey on the InuYasha article, someone changed a lot of the info, especially the plot and the info under the manga pic and other parts of the article. I don't know how to revert it and I don't remember all the original stuff that was there. Please help me, my friend. T_T

I have a feeling it's vadalism cuz of the weird names in places of the original.

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Hajiru

It was vandalism and has been restored. To revert, If you click the "Cur" Link beside the last good version, you can then click restore to restore it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much, AnmaFinotera! ^_^

I owe you one. I'll know to do that the next time I see it.

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Hajiru

The Mysterious Cities of Gold

My summaries were not stolen from another website, as I am writing them as I am CONCURRENTLY watching the series. Nor were they useless, if you will notice, because the episode list is actually out of order and my summaries were intended to explain this. There was no copyright infringement. I respectfully request that you reverse your revert. 24.9.152.205 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that claim? The list is in the correct order. When it first aired in English, a single episode was aired out of order, but that does not mean the episode list is at all wrong. And yes, your summaries were useless, as they were not plot summaries. We don't add notes like "introduces the character" to episode summaries, nor claims that they aired out of order and do we do not do "teaser"-style summaries. Please see WP:MOSTV for how to write a proper episode summary if you want to supply real ones. An episode summary should be between 100-300 words, and cover the major plot points of the series, and remain in plot without out of universe extraneous information added. I've also watched the series, and there was nothing wrong with the flow. Finally, your summaries suffered from an insane amount of wikilink glut. Only wikilink a term or character on the first use, not every use.. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I figured that out as I went along. Otherwise, your characterizations of my efforts are uncharitable, as it was a work in progress. You pulled the trigger rather quickly, and as a result, I am not going to be the one to write these summaries. Since you know so much about it, why don't you do it? 24.9.152.205 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Its on my list of things to do. I've done many episode lists. Doing them well takes time, and I currently don't have a computer at home with sound so I can rewatch while I write. That will be fixed in a few weeks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing new Dragon Ball Kai developments

Funimation has announced the casting for the English dub for Kai known as, Dragon Ball Z Kai. And a few of the cast member have been replaced. For example, Bulma will now be played by Monica Rial instead of Tiffany Vollmer. My question is, can we use Funimation's blog as source for these developments? Sarujo (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Their official blog? Yes, as its used as a "news release" system by the company, unless there is some kind of disclaimer on it that they do not control the content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

IRC?

I'm currently on #wikimedia on IRC as 'jps' to find out the guidelines for sponsoring development and extensions project. Can you join? 99.22.95.61 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I don't do IRC and I can't really help with the question anyway. I just know the post to Proposals did not appear to be on topic or appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me the reasons. You know that Wikiversity was created to house interactive content including quizzes, and that the Foundation sponsors some Mediawiki development, right? Can you please say which aspects seemed off-topic or inappropriate? 99.22.95.61 (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you propose an edited version which would be acceptable to you? 99.22.95.61 (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

hi

need a bit of help with a certain user. he constantly believes that I'm there to insult or harassing him when he really just doesn't understand. For one, i keep reverting PSUpedia because it's unstable wiki. But he claims that it is. And every time i leave a message at his talk page he threatens to report me>Bread Ninja (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this isn't your job, b ut you would be a great help.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It fails WP:EL and there is no consensus to have it. You may want to ask an admin to have a word with him, as his threats and silly claims of harassment are uncivil, at best. For now, I've removed the link again and left him a warning for edit warring. I see you were already warned by HalfShadow for the same, so I won't repeat. When dealing with contentious editors, you have to try to be careful not to let them draw you into breaking 3RR, even when you are correct, as you will get punished the same as they (speaking from experience here). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you very much.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Zhang He...

He did stop when I warned him he was edit-warring. HalfShadow 19:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw your note after I warned him. It seems like its been going on for days, though, with the EL just being the last issue of dispute. That isn't good for either of them nor the article. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

the problem is that he doesn't want to listen to me, despite me following the rules. we had an edit war over the links of the characters. and i told him that making non player characters section is just trivia and should talk it over in the discussion page (i told him more than once) but he ignored me and took me personally. then he created a characters article which is just a table. i warned him on his talk page that if he doesn't add more than just a table, the article might get deleted. but he reverted my edit.it is really difficult to talk to this person by myself. also halfshadow, you came in late. edit war was over by the time you messaged me and him. so when you say he "stopped", he already had the last edit. not really stopped, he just didn't have a reason to edit anymore.

anyways.....AnmaFinotera, is it me, or do i remember WP:ELNO a little differently. I'm pretty sure we aren't suppose to use wikis at all due to being almost the same thing as wikipedia but with trivia and no sources. and substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors doesn't sound like something wikipedia would ask for in a external link.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, we aren't. Almost all wikis fail WP:EL, however there are some folks who have begun arguing that having 4 users is "stability" and that 10 is "substantial". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure what you mean by "nope, we aren't". but yeah, the whole 4 users 10, idea doesn't make sense. usually it takes a lot more than 10 users to be substantial. I wanted to go on WP:EL discussion to see if we can change consensus on it. you think it deserves change?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Figma wiki page

I noticed you've been reverting all my figma edits back to the original post. I've spent an entire day trying to fill the page with info that is both accurate and fairly detailed. I planned on adding more information in the morning, but my edits keep getting reverted back to the same information-less page.

I know the references are in Japanese, but that's only because figmas aren't sold in the United States so there isn't much info in English besides the official website which only lists the products. I know all this information to be true since I follow all updates about this product line and I own over 25 different figmas.

Since I'm new to wiki, I have no idea how to edit these pages correctly so if you could help me out rather than delete all of my hard work, that would be excellent. All I want to do is make this wikipedia page more accurate for anyone out there who might be interested and fill it with relevant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hongkim (talk • contribs) 05:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for the publication of what you know. That is called original research and it has no place here. You added excessive, unsourced, and minutely detailed information that is not appropriate for inclusion. I have merged some of the content you added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I added information about the built material and the joints, all of which can be found on the official blog in one of the references I had added. I want to post an image I got from the official website's concept page, but I'm not capable of doing so. The image can be found at http://www.figma.jp/concept/img/04.jpg. Also, I understand that the sources might be in Japanese, but they are legitimate. Also, the only reason why the edit summary wasn't detailed was because I didn't change it after noticing you had reverted it back the first time.

If you find my sources to be unreliable, I invite you to Google for more information on figmas and find out if my information is false or not. All information I have placed can be found on the official Japanese website which I referred to along with in the individual pages of the individual figmas found on the official English site. All information about build quality and joints can be found here http://www.figma.jp/concept/concept.html and further information about the flexible material used for clothing can be found on any figma's product page, such as this one http://www.goodsmile.info/product/en/2774/figma+Yui+Hirasawa+School+Uniform+ver.html where it states in the second bullet "A flexible plastic is used for areas such as the blazer and skirt, allowing proportions to be kept, without compromising posability." It also states that "Specifications Painted ABS&PVC posable figure,not to scale, approximately 135mm in height" further adding to the credibility of what I wrote about the build material.

I removed the extra information about the build quality of the accessories since it is extraneous. Also, I listed the correct Japanese spelling of the product and you reverted it back to the incorrect version. In Japan, Katakana is used for words that are Japanese pronunciations of English words, such as figma or computer. The Japanese spelling I listed is the Katakana version and can be found here http://www.figma.jp/concept/concept.html in the heading after figma. The spelling used in the previous post is the Hiragana spelling which is only used when spelling Japanese words.

I would add images of my own figmas if possible, but I'm not able to so nothing can be done about that. If this wiki page is considered for deletion just because you can't accept official website information as reliable sources, then that is unfair to those who have tried to make a wikipedia page about something they care about. You might as well leave this page up since it's not hurting anyone if it stays there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hongkim (talk • contribs) 06:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The company's name does not need a referene. STOP reverting to your bad version and work with the current one. You are continuing to readd tags that are not necessary and continuing to revert to bad formatting. Again, if you want to make corrections to the name, do it wiht the EXISTING article, not your overly detailed summary. Excessive detail on the joints and quality, from a blog, is not necessary. This article is up for deletion because no one but the company talks about it, and no, we do not just leave articles up because 20 fans like it (and that's about all that ever view it). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for somthing long ago

Hi there, my apologies for when I was, how should I say it, acting stupid with this [[34]]. I really was not thinking back then, and now know what a mess it was. PLease, forgive me for those actions.

With all due respect,

Buggie111 (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No problems and glad to see you've registered :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember what you said about He-man

You may remember a few months ago we had a debate about overhauling He-man articles [35] well I took the decision to be bold and nominate a few articles for deletion see below if you wanna join in the debate be my guest.

Jitsu (Masters of the Universe), Ninjor (Masters of the Universe), Scare Glow, Clamp Champ, Gwildor

Dwanyewest (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So are you interested? Dwanyewest (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at them when I have some time. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Resource Request

Hi AnmaFinotera. Thanks for the effort on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Verify_text resource request. Unfortunately that was not the article I was looking for, I was looking for one specifically from August of 1990, which is not available in the online archives of Dynamic Chiropractic. Thanks again for the effort. DigitalC (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That is the one my library sent in response to the request (also sent in offline form). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Two more Bratsocks

Hello again, AnmaFinotera. I wonder if you could deal with - or pass on to someone who can - two new sockpuppets of the Brat? One at least is active here, editing at 20th Century Fox and elsewhere, i.e. Sega Shaheen. Worked in tandem with the second sock "Chicks67" on 'cy' but doesn't seem to be used here yet. Both now banned at Welsh wikipedia after edits to 20th Century Fox. Best wishes, Enaidmawr (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying something

Thank you for clarifying something at Wikipedia: Village pump about when proposals get archived. I now know that it is seven days after a last comment is made regarding a proposal. I had noticed in the past that messages at the Village Pump did not stay there forever - what you say has explained things well. So, many thanks for this clarification. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable anime reviews

Do you know if we have a list of reliable and unreliable review sites for anime and manga? I wanna see if I can build an article for Haruko Haruhara. Sarujo (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, look at the top of the project page. There is a link for internet sources which indicate which have been validated as reliable and some that have been confirmed unrelible. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Romeo Must Die Soundtrack

Is there a logical reason as to removing an article that listed important information on the Romeo Must Die soundtrack? If anything, merging separate information on a soundtrack into a poorly written and condensed section wasn't necessary and made a mess of things. Please explain why as I had planned to undo that change and would like to know why you merged it?Carmaker1 (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The soundtrack is not notable. Per guidelines, it was merged to the appropriate film article. This is per consensus of both the music and films project for handling such soundtracks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the FA nomination for the film The Rookie (1990 film)

A well intentioned newbie editor nominated the Rookie (Eastwood/Sheen) for FA (second time), and it was again archived fairly quickly. The editor doesn't seem to have a grasp of what the film project is trying to accomplish with the articles, argued with reviewer comments, etc. You can see the archive here. I doubt this particular film is high on the priority list, but someone might drop in on this and take a look at what he's trying to do. Both Adewit and I told him the same things, which he didn't want to hear, and he insists that there were no themes of note, etc., to discuss, that he covered all the reviews (the review section is a hash). I have fixed some of the problems on punctuation and capitalization, but he really doesn't have a good grip on these things (when to capitalize a word, for example, at the beginning of a sentence....? Or how to put things in quotes. He seems to want to do the right things, but doesn't know how to go about it. I saw your name on the film project, and remembered you as being a reasonable woman from our contact in another project/article (not sure what). Hence my dropping this note here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

While the article is not FA quality (IMDB is not a reliable source at all, unsourced content, aforementioned prose issues), a section on themes and style is not required. If no significant sources covered the themes, then there are no themes to note. To try to add them without sources would just be OR. It looks like there has been some attempt at adding themes, but the article is not following WP:MOSFILMS. Themes has nothing to do with production, and should be moved below plot. It is also inappropriately using the film itself to support original research and those "themes". The article is also clearly not comprehensive as there are hundreds of mentions of this film on Google books, particularly in Eastwood-focused works, that have not been evaluated and added to the article. It looks like Mike Allen is stepping in to help, but I'll also note these comments on the talk page as well as a few other notes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Rookie

Hi, I've made some minor corrections on the page; like removing the "themes" title and removing some bits of OR. I have plans to include a great deal more content to the production section within the next few days. Will that include "hundreds of books or publications"? The answer is No. I don't have the time or resources to do that. I will do my best to try to improve it through some featured magazines in print from the early 90s, and then I'll take it to Peer Review for a copy-edit and advice before a 3rd shot at FA. We'll see what happens. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. Keep in mind, though, that for FA, one of the criteria is "comprehensiveness" so if reviewers feel that major sources have been left out, it will not pass. It can take quite awhile to do an FA level article, primarily because of the amount of source reviewing and gathering it requires. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to say one other thing on something you mentioned earlier. You were saying how the critical response section should not be positive and negative paragraphs and be generally in chronological order. Well, I changed the formatting a little bit by breaking it into 3 medium sized paragraphs, and taking out pieces of OR along with it. I tried not to imply like its two separate mediums between positive and negative. In addition, I mixed a little of both types of views within the paragraphs. But in reality, over 90% of reviews for the film were negative. And chronologically, if I understood what you meant, all the reviews were submitted around the same time on that first weekend of December in 1990. I hope it looks better and a little more cleaned up. Its pretty much the best I could do with it. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For chronologically, basically by publication date. If several have the same, then just arrange in whatever way reads best. Mixing them up is good, and its being primarily negative is fine (see Grizzly Rage LOL). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm pretty much finished with that. I think I did a good job. I mixed up certain reviews that had content which sounded similar. Like for instance, I bunched up two reviews, positive and negative regarding the subject of "buddy cop films". I also bunched up two positive and negative reviews surrounding the topic of a "plausible dumb sounding plot". And as one last example I bunched up two critics who had positive and negative reviews on the film's "stuntwork". And chronologically as you said, indeed 95% of these reviews were released on the same weekend in 1990. I also forgot to mention one other issue you brought up. It has to do with the sourcing involving IMDb. I checked this myself, and out of about 44 citations, only 5 are referenced from IMDb. And one of those five, was partially referenced with another source too. So its like 4 citations out of 44 that use IMDb. I realize that its not the best source, but it doesn't appear to be a major cause for concern. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is never a reliable source, so it is a cause for concern. Having unreliable sources can really be worse than having none because it gives casual editors the false impression that it is sourced. They need to be removed for the article to get to B class or higher. All of those should be removed and the sources replaced. The article can never past GA nor FA with them there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahah hah haha HA HAh HAh ............... Well thats going to be a problem. I don't know where I can re-source those facts. For the time being, I don't want to remove them. It might make the article look a little dry. But I will remove that partially referenced one....lOl....Mike Tompsonn (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

NEW RESPONSE Hey, I have some Good News and some Bad News. Good news is, from the 4 IMDb citations, I was able to get rid of 3 of them! I resourced it through the DVD. Check out the page now. Bad news is, I still have one IMDb reference left! ....lOl.....I'm hoping through my magazine research I can clear that one out too. But it will take a few days. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)