User talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Reference library request

Hi AnmaFinotera, hope you are well. :) I was wondering if you could please look up the Ai no Kusabi OVAs in your copy of "The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917", when you have time? Thank you very much. --Malkinann (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Will do. :) BTW, if you hadn't seen them yet, AoD (now Mania) reviewed all of the novels (and fairly trashed the DMP releases for the outright hideous translations :P ) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

All the novels? I was only aware of the first review, thanks! :) Have you heard that there will be an OVA remake of 13 episodes this year? --Malkinann (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure they did all three. Will double check when I get home. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay...in Anime Encyclopedia, the series is listed as Ties of Love, with AKA's of Ties of Affection and Bonds of Love. Director Akira Nishimori and Kazuhito Akiyama. Screenplay by Naoko Hasegawa. Produced by AIC with music by Toshio Yabuki. Two episodes. It has two paragraphs, the first summarizing the plot (let me know if any of that would be useful). For the second paragraph:

"Based on the novel by Reiko Yoshiwara, which was illustrated by Joker's Katsumi Michihara, ToL's society is reminiscent of ancient Greece; not only are the institutions of power restricted to a certain class, but women are completely excluded from significant roles. All the key power relationships we see, including sexual ones, are between men. Ironically, the Jupiter computer manifests as feminine: like Kusanagi in Ghost in the Shell, she's a man-made idea of the female in a world run by masculine elites. There is sexually explicit material but the violence is mostly emotional. Like all anime about homosexual love, this was originally made for a female audience."

And here is the ref:

<ref name="AnimeEncyc">{{cite book |last=Clements |first=Jonathan |authorlink=Jonathan Clements |coauthors=[[Helen McCarthy]] |title=The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917 |date=2001-09-01 |publisher=Stone Bridge Press |location=Berkeley, California |isbn=1-880656-64-7 |oclc=47255331 |page=401 |edition=1st ed. }}</ref>

Also, Anime Explosion has almost two pages on the series. If you don't have access to a copy, let me know and I can get you a scan of the pages. The author considers it to be the magnum opus of genuine shonen ai, and goes into the themes/social settings a bit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :D That's really interesting, what they say about Jupiter... Most of the synopses I've read of the story are really complex, (ours isn't any better) so the plot in a single paragraph may be very helpful. ^_^* Can I copy this info to the Talk:Ai no Kusabi page? I've read the Google Books version of Anime Explosion, which currently has the relevant three pages available. --Malkinann (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll try to type up the plot in a bit (my scanner is down so I have to type manually LOL) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comprised "of"

I'm not sure why, if you feel both "comprising" and "comprised of" are correct to "all but a handful," you've deleted two edits by that handful. Why not let the one everyone thinks is correct stand? Also, "comprised of" is considered incorrect. Check the OED, Webster's, heck, even the wiktionary. -steventity (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Because, it is not what EVERYONE considers is correct, it is what GiraffeData feels is correct. Comprised of is a perfectly acceptable and has wide acceptance within Wikipedia as a valid and proper phrase. He continues changing it out of his own personal preference, not any Wikipedia standard. "Comprised of" is NOT considered incorrect except by a few grammar cops. The the world as a whole, it is valid and should not just be changed because of one editor's personal preferences. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a personal beef with GiraffeData. I'm just saying, no one would say that "comprising" is incorrect, so why change it from that? In the end, its not that important to me, so long as people don't start doing the reverse of G-Data and go 'round changing it from the correct to the incorrect usage. -steventity (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one who changed it initially, he changed it. He changed it from a valid statement because he doesn't like "comprised of", which IS correct usage. He is changing it purely because he dislikes it, as his numerous talk page complaints have shown (and when its been repeatedly pointed out that consensus agrees that "comprised of" is acceptable usage, he basically tells people to tink off.). I don't go around changing his edits, I simply quietly revert when he changes it on articles on my watch list because the change was pointless and often reads less clear because he rarely actually checks context. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Luis José and poor drawing

LOL, I was sick today, so I was sitting on the coach watching TV. I was channel flipping and found some Spanish knock-off of The Jerry Springer Show called Luis José. It was hilarious, it was like Jerry Spinger only with Spanish people, and the same logo, only poorly photoshopped to say "Luis José". I tried to find an article here, but nothing. I also found another show, forgot the name, it was a drawing program. He was THE worst cartoonist I have EVER seen! He was drawing different genders, the little girl he drew looked like she crawled out of a gutter in Hollywood, her hair was all messed up. The guy was saying that with cartoons you can just go crazy with the hair, which actually is true, but not how he did it! The worst drawing advice ever, quoting from the poor guy: "If you're not good at something, its okay, just hide it behind something. Like hands, just put em' behind his back." It was so bad!, and i'm sure that didn't get me any better. : P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. :-| – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 20:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

hi! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh...hello. : ) *confused* – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, how ya doin? ~now just being silly~ Sorry I didn't answer earlier...didn't have anything to really say and its been a bad week. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm..it has? Not so good for me either, I've been sick.. : ( – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you feel better soon. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

D: I might be on and off for a while, my internet is being weird, and every time we have a power outage here it goes all weird and won't work at all. So I'll just do my editing and then like wait a few weeks till I can fix my internet... D: moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 06:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What kind of Internet do you have, DSL or cable? If so, and if you've had repeated power outages, they may have damaged the modem. I had that happen to a DSL modem once before and had to get it replaced. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

XD I dun know what those things are. I have wireless internet if that's DSL... I used to have cable but it was too slow, and so I got wireless. I have a wireless one downstairs for my laptop and then upstairs I have a receiver thing for my computer... *fails at internet lingo XD* moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 06:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I was searching for Luis José and found this... What do you guys think about that? It doesn't have any references and was probably translated from the Spanish wikipedia. I don't think it's a very good article... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 07:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a terrible article! And no, that is not the dude. According to the terrible website, his name is José Luis Ganzález. Rather than the show being in Mexico or Spain...its in Burbank. XD Just figured out! Yeah funny, the drawing guy, he was like trying to be all professional by saying, "I've been doing this for years!", hey, i've been pooping for years. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 07:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of horrible... It's a good attempt, but they sort of butchered the song... I mean no offense but their Japanese isn't that good... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 07:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh....I stopped in the middle...I couldn't take it any more... |-( They're Japanese isn't that good at all and the uploader said he/she loves their version. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I like the original more... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 17:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow... I don't even speak Japanese, and I couldn't bear to watch that past the first few seconds... =P 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

XD This is really funny... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 22:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes

Hi Can we talk about my edits on footnotes. I thought they made the article simpler to read. Can you tell me if you see it differently. Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry...I found it to be rather more confusing than less so, and harder to read/understand. In general, parentheticals should really be avoided in prose, I think, and with the switch from straight sentences to that, it ended up being the kind of distraction being discussed, to me. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I see your point. Happy to remove parenthesis. Can we take it step by step? I replaced: "they are used to add material that explains a point in greater detail" with: " First, to add explanatory material" . Is that OK do you think? Kevin McCready (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Will I make the change or would you like to do it? Kevin McCready (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Go for it :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought you might like to since you reverted. Hope you don't mind. Kevin McCready (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) please see talk Kevin McCready (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Saiyuki Reload Gunlock

Ugh, have you ever seen a manga article this horrible? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh...that was bad...restored its original redirect. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

*eyes get dried and fall out* Ugh, looking at archive. *faints* – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Bleach chapters

The FLC does not seem to be getting attention. Could you add your comment if you are free? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to my talk page

Oh, hi! Thank you for your edits to my talk page. I think you may have misunderstood the nature of my edits your user page. This was not just an experiment, but I'm sure your response was just an oversight. Anyway, I just wanted to help you out, because you seemed not quite to know what the word "random" means: i.e. haphazard, aimless; all results being equally probable. Your use of the word seemed more consistent with the word "indiscriminate": i.e. bearing no obvious relatedness. This was the reason for my amendments. I hope you don't mind. LaFoiblesse (talk) 2009-02-18 12h30 (GMT)

And obviously I did mind. I know what random means and I will use it however I want to. My usage there is perfectly correct. In the future, if you feel the need to "correct" people's word usage in their personal pages to your own personal preferences, I'd suggest asking rather than just taking it upon yourself to "be helpful". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Your usage of the word was not in keeping with its definition, so I substituted words that were more appropriate. I really don't see how that has anything to do with my personal preferences. Wikipedia, after all, is about documenting and sharing knowledge. Anyway, if you feel that your inaccurate word usage is justifiable (perhaps for some ever so cunning satire of the American teenage girl stereotype), then I suppose that I will refrain from interfering. LaFoiblesse (talk) 2009-02-18 14h45 (GMT)

No, it is purely your personal references. My usage of the word is perfectly in keeping with its definition and actual usage in society (and has nothing to do with American teenage girls). Your taking it upon yourself to change it purely because you thought it was wrong was beyond rude (as was your "correcting" my remarks above). You aren't a teacher, this isn't grammar school, and neither my user page nor my talk page is an article. Go read Wikipedia:TALK#Editing_comments and Wikipedia:User page and learn some manners.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I would say that this is nothing to do with my personal preference. I am very sorry if you feel I have been rude in correcting your errors, but I did think that it would make the page more understandable to other users, so I do hope you can appreciate this. Also, I would say that "usage in society" is a bit of a specious defence: many people in society break speed limits; swear; spell things wrongly; use words incorrectly &c. so it is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that just because something is done by somebody somewhere, it is appropriate that you yourself should do such a thing on an encyclopaedia. I have reread the pages you linked me to with great elan and I found this "In general, if you have material that you do not wish others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site" which I thought you might find rather pertinent to this discussion. Anyway, as I have said, I am sorry if you feel that your user page is above any attempt at improvement. Have a nice day, LaFoiblesse (talk) 2009-02-18 16h26 (GMT)

No, it isn't pertinent to this discussion at all . The material is not inappropriate for Wikipedia and has nothing to do with "what does not belong" on a user page. And yes, it is purely your personal preference and obvious complete misunderstanding of both that section of my user page and the purposes of a user page (and, frankly, the usage of the word). Go reread user again, especially "In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your userpage, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons." You made an edit to my user page for a trivial reason, rudely claiming you were correcting a word usage without regard for nor knowledge of the section at all. My user page does not need your improvement, thanks, and yes it is "above" such attempts. It is NOT an encyclopedic article nor part of the general Wikipedia content: "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, it also says at WP:UP#OWN, "Other users and bots may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others." But, really, the best option is to bring it up on their talk page and leave it up to them to change it if they see fit. Useight (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but really...trying to claim I was "misusing a word" just because he thought I was (and then continuing to argue that that its some super major problem instead of a trivial petty thing he did). Particularly coming from someone whose entire use page consists of "I'm I" (so grammatically correct there)??? Curious as to why he suddenly decided to edit my user page...he's never felt the need to correct anyone else's nor, as far as I can remember, have we interacted before.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I saw him make the edit on my watchlist and thought it was a bizarre thing to do. I agree that he should not have done so. I mean, I've got a section on my userpage called "Stuff". Obviously there are better words than that. But if someone came up out of the blue and changed it to "Miscellaneous" or "Information" or whatever, I, too, would give them a message along the lines of, "Um, what are you doing?". Kind of ironic, though, that his userpage says "I'm I" instead of "I'm me" (although both could be technically considered correct). I wouldn't have given him a templated message, though, but it was still not his place to make that change. It'd be one thing if he had made a change to an obvious typo. Oh, and I just noticed that your userpage proclaims that you are a "she", so I apologize if I've referred to you as "he", which I probably have. On the Internet, everyone is usually "male until proven otherwise." Useight (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...just weird all around. And LOL, its okay, I've gotten used to it since my username seems masculine (or so I've been told). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is particularly masculine. Perhaps if you signed with some feminine colors? I do recall User:TopGearFreak requesting to usurp User:Queenie (here), for that very reason. Useight (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is either, myself. :) I thought about making my talk page pink...but I hate that color LOL. I've used AnmaFinotera for so long, I don't really want to change. It mostly amuses me here (now, when it happens in real life, I can't help going ???) :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

@LaFoiblesse: AnmaFinotera doesn't have a problem with edits to her userpage to correct minor edits (in the same section, I corrected the misspelled section heading "Mispellings" (I thought it was funny as hell, too XD )). The big problem here is that you made a significant edit to her userpage without sufficient explanation, and then proceeded to argue with her over her own page. That's pretty lame, and I'd advise you to just drop it if she hadn't already banned you from this talk page. @the discussion immediately above: the name "AnmaFinotera" doesn't really have gender connotations to me, but AnmaFinotera's editing style can definitely come across as masculine at times. That's why I originally thought she was a "he"... =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of my responses

Once is bad luck, twice is just careless.. Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.LaFoiblesse (talk) 2009-02-18 17h38 (GMT)

See WP:BLANKING, "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages." Useight (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And it says the same thing ("On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments") at the link you provided. Useight (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What Useight said. Basically, you're uninvited from my talk page, and I'm free to remove unwanted comments from my user page per both guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For the clueless, I no longer welcome LaFoiblesse's posting to my talk page. Some posts retained due to subsequent responses. All new remarks from him are being summarily removed per my guidelines above and per WP:USER. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick note

AnmaFinotera, please don't shoot the messenger on this one, but while I can understand not wanting certain messages posted on your talk page, I encourage you to avoid such edit summaries as here that seem to invite further escalation and can be interpreted as uncivil in its own right. Anyway, don't let others cause you to react in kind. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but at that point, civility was not the first thing on my mind (and trust me, it was toned significantly down from what I was thinking) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, believe me, there are many times where I feel like saying far beyond what I actually say. :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Biting the virtual tongue, so to speak. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And there's no way that's uncivil... If someone doesn't want comments left on their page, then it should be there right to not have those comments left on their page... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 05:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Request to nominate merger of more Case Closed characters

Like in November, I hope you can be a neutral nominator the the merger of the majority of Case Closed characters.

The following to List of Case Closed characters:

• Eva Kadan
• Booker Kudo
• Vivian Kudo
• Serena Sebastian
• Jodie Starling
• Kazuha Toyama

and the following to Black Organization (Case Closed):

• Akemi Miyano
• Vodka (Case Closed)

Like last time, if someone raised something to prove their off-universe notability, you may retract the nom. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, will do after work this evening. The first one is showing up as a red link though :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Was just looking and I see that several of those were already in the last round of nominations, but never merged? You want to take care of those before starting the new discussions? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm hi-jacking this but there's a template error on the List of Case Closed episodes at the latest season and I don't know what's wrong, can you fix it?DragonZero (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It was using caps in the words. Template names are case sensitive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

About fair use

I am of course noticing the image reverts going on at List of Dragon Ball characters, and would like to know a little more about copyrighted files. For instance, I can not tell if Lupin III and Hell Girl are in violation of anything. Also, have you seen the newer pics at List of minor Sailor Moon characters? That page has been off my watchlist ever since this discussion ended. Perhaps the three aforementioned should be tagged with {{Non-free}}, again? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Lupin III is borderline. The soundtrack image isn't needed, nor is the manga cover really needed either. Hell Girl, definitely, all those soundtrack covers are not needed and go against WP:NONFREE. The list is also in violation of WP:NONFREE and overwhelming consensus that character lists should not have individual images. At most, 3 images, preferably group images, and really, for a minor character list, at most 1. Unfortunately, while the SM project is sometimes willing to follow guidelines, love of the series often results in stubborn refusal on some issues. Though, seriously, that list shouldn't even exist at all. I see they never did properly rename it to a main character list and rip out most of those minor characters. Seriously, even the musical characters? *sigh* Unfortunately, dealing with non-free images is a major headache, because people just don't get it most of the time. I'd tag all of them for issues, though, to at least see if people will discuss it reasonably. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the character image is more "disposable" then the manga one. I agree about the soundtrack one. But as I'm working on 3 complete page rewrites and a fairly large overhaul on another one, so you'll not see me touching the lupin page :p 06:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And that's not all, I've seen worse manga/anime pages. Guess that's why I stopped caring for many of them, I don't know. However, if this really is that big an issue, I guess I can somehow build enough enthusiasm to initiate something. Well actually it depends, what do you feel like doing? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly...the amount of trouble it entails, I'd just tag it and if assessed at B knock it down to C, maybe drop a note at the project, then just let it go. Unless/until someone actually wants to bother making them GA or FA, most of the time it isn't worth the hassle. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Coraline

Did you see this movie? I just saw it today! Total genious! Definatly not a kids movie though. : P They should like warn parents or something, that movie scares the crap out of children. I heard like five children in the back of me crying. : ( Other than that, the movie was timeless, i'd highly reccomend it. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 05:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not a movie that really interests me. I'm not into that particular style of film :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I really, I heard the novelle was good so I went to the movie. The story was totally genious and so was the stop-motion for that type of film. But I mean, seriously, that movie had to be one of the freakiest, most disturbing things I have ever seen. O_O It was ike straight out of a child's worst nightmare! – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 05:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it "Coraline"? moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 05:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. That's what I meant! – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Santa Inoue

How does the article look? I've been working on it for quite a while, and half of it has been created by Santa Inoue himself!! I wrote an invite message on his talk page when he came. *sniff* I got a really bad cold. *sniff* – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the entire thing is nothing but spam. I've tagged...tempted to send it to AfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

WHAAAT!!! I didn't write that, SANTA DID!!! Sorry, I really didn't want to erase his work!! But that doesn't mean he's non-notable!!! How could you possibly speedy-delete this!!! Santa is a manga celebrity!!! The notablity is IN QUESTION?!?! Are you joking!!!! I will clean it up!!! Do not speedy-delete it, please! Take that off! Look at the dude's flippin website! He's not a normal mangaka he owns stores and has made several manga... he owns an AIRPLANE!!! The dude has met hip hop celebrities!!! If this guy's non-notable how is Masashi Kishimoto? They're just as important!! – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I don't think he's that notable...the entire thing is complete and total spam. Just because he owns an airplane or met celebrities doesn't make him notable. Notability is determined by coverage in reliable, third party sources for people, same as it is for everything else. Right now, its his own promo piece and doesn't seem particularly salvageable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

He didn't only meet celebrities, he is one. : P And he's very very famous in hip hop culture American and Japanese. And yes he is "that notable." Masashi Kishimoto has no third-party sources and even less of sources all-together, I don't see him getting deleted. |: ( – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually Masashi Kishimoto does have a few. Most yeah, from his manga, but at least it isn't all just spamming his website links. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A mangaka who's written that many manga and owns a fashion line is probably notable... >.< moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 00:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, all the articles about the manga he's written are horrible, and seem extremely un-notable... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 00:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you're judging the notability of the creator by how stupid the series articles are? -_- Sure, I hate those articles, delete them if you like, except for Tokyo Tribes, that has sources out there and I will get to that article after Santa's. That series was also translated into English by Tokyopop. Wait a minute? AnmaFinotera, are you saying the sources are spamming website links? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, you have to let this go by. That's like deleting the article for Quicksilver. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean I don't see how you're judging the notability. If you judge by who they know, or how many manga they have written (none of which I have really ever heard of) then it really doesn't make sense... But I mean deleting the article is a little harsh. I think there are many other articles which are much worse. At least the Santa Inoue article has sources. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 02:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that all those articles are un-notable, therefore the mangaka is also un-notable. I've never even heard of Tokyo Tribes... XD But notability isn't judged on what I know... The Tokyo Tribes article is good; the Tokyo Tribe article quite plainly... sucks >.< moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 02:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does suck. : P I hate that article with all my passion and I want it deleted! XD The reason that you've probobly never heard of his series is because the stupid Japanese book stores always put them in some obscure corner in the seinen section due to sorting and all that crud. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey have you guys heard Bolero? It's Tohoshinki's newest single, and it's gonna be in the movie Subaru... :D It's prettyful... XD moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 04:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned...a bit

Is it looking better? Anything else I can do for it? Or is it just going to be deleted mercilesly? -_- – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello! :O – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD declined, but no, it isn't really looking better. It reads like a promo piece and every last source except one is directly from his website. Its spam. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

He didn't source anything. He wrote stuff, I didn't pay attention to whether it spam or not, then I put in sources over it. I didn't relise that he spammed the page until you told me, now I feel like a retard. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 05:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I can easily find more sources, I think you're getting things wrong. Before I asked for your opinion on the article, I wasn't done with it. I asked to see how good it was so far, which I agree is terrible. I'm still finding sources. Sorry, I blew up at you before. : P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 05:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL I was testing and I accidently saved instead of previewed! XD Then my computer needed to be charged and hibernated! XD – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Love the song! Favorited it on YouTube. :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 05:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned...really

How does it look now, I will cover the profile with sources, third-parties, etc. : ) Also wondering, is amazon a reliable source?, I never really thought it was, just curious. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 06:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazon is only a reliable source in terms of confirming a product exists or, if there is no official publisher sites and on press releases/news available, for publication/release dates of items. It should only be used as a last resort for that type of information, though.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So like I asked, how does the article look? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Added sources from ANN, Tokyopop, etc. : ) By the way, I doubt it was Santa Inoue who spammed the page. It was probobly some employee, I don't think Santa would go out of his way to make an account and edit his page. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't much better...sorry...the sourcing is still mostly his own stuff, its still badly written, and the "bibliography" is excessive and badly formatted (see WP:LOW) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Where else should I get sources? Name some places, I got ANN, official site, travie's blog, Tokyopop, planning on ComiPress, etc. I'd like your help. : ) Give me some advice on the bio. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not gonna wait all day, wait...I did wait all day. : P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Images on DBZ page

Hello. Please do not remove the two images on the page. This was already talked about prior for two years straight. And they weren't removed. Please see the image history and how it was decided that the images be allowed to be kept. Also, the images were there for two years now all of a sudden, they are non-free? That serves no rationale whatsoever. The person who initially removed them (Sarujo) gave no reference to policy or anything for that matter. They just removed the images and put another one up of their own preference highlighting the main cast. If I were to obtain manga images corresponding the same characters, then those images would be free use? It makes no sense what you are doing when reverting there, other than just being dogmatic. It is alright if there is more than ONE image to the page. I think it won't be a problem to keep the two images that have been on the page for over two years now (Zarbon and Cooler). - Zarbon (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera and I conversed the matter here. As per policy, read up on WP:NOTFREE#Policy and WP:NFCC. If you can find a group image that covers the villains, please feel free to upload it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to stop readding the images. They violate WP:NONFREE. Just because someone let you slide two years ago doesn't mean it isn't still an issue. Per Wikipedia policy (not guidelines) and the edicts of Jimbo Wales, individual images of characters do NOT belong in character lists. At most, a character list should have 2-3 group images, and even then some heavy justification is needed. You now have THREE editors telling you that it is wrong. And no, manga images of the same characters would not be free use. All images of the series are copyrighted, so all of them are non-free. There is no reasonably justification to have images of two individual characters on that list, none at all, and they will continue to be removed. As Sesshomaru suggested, feel free to try to find a single group image that could represent many of the villains, but not individual ones.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And besides that, what is your deal with Zarbon? He was never of any importance to the plot (I've read the manga and watched the anime, so I know what I'm talking about). As for Cooler... he's much better off being covered on the individual film/OVA articles (actually, that goes for most of the "Secondary" and "Other" characters, but I'm not getting involved in that mess =P ). At any rate, AnmaFinotera is right on the money as far as the images are concerned, and why should Zarbon and Cooler get individual images when none of the main characters do (on the list)? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was NEVER against all the other characters having their own images, in fact I'm still angered about the removal of them. I just wanted my favorite characters to keep their images. This only adds to the already built up anger I have for what has happened here. All the characters used to have their own pages with easy access and each had not one, but a few images. And now, NONE of them have images and no reference whatsoever. Now I have to search for a group image to upload when it was much nicer to depict the characters separately. I am serious about this for a few reasons. Exactly since when does it go against policy to depict characters separately? It is not only a better depiction and a clearer reference, but also more accurate. Another annoying thing is how the page is set up like a mess. It was much, and I mean, MUCH better when all the characters had their pages instead of three to four lines of basic description. And don't tell me that just because this isn't a separate dragon ball wiki, it can't have all the information accessible. I can find at least a hundred shows right now on wikipedia that currently showcase separate characters who have appeared in one episode or less. Is it because YOU yourself feel that this prevents clutter? It only creates a mess and accumulates to the detracting of information and pictorial references. Now I am left with no choice but to upload a photo of Zarbon, Dodoria, and Frieza together in order to depict the characters, although I would have preferred to have them separately available. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFREE. As Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, all images that we use that are copyrighted fall under free use policy. Specifically, images in a list need to follow Wikipedia:NONFREE#Non-free image use in list articles. I'll quote it directly here: "Images that show multiple elements of the list at the same time, such as a cast shot or montage for a television show, are strongly preferred over individual images." Further, "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section."

Also, shouldn't we move this discussion to the actual page's talkpage instead of bothering AnmaFinotera constantly with yellow "New Messages" bars? NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 21:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically they're orange bars. ;) Regardless, Zarbon, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia is not a fansite. The state of affairs you describe and desire is fine for a private (or public, or whatever) fansite, and even for a Wikia wiki, but this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Most of the characters that have "three to four lines of basic description" don't even merit that - at most, they should be mentioned in the appropriate episode or manga volume summaries, and on the articles of whatever films/specials/OVAs/video games they appeared in, assuming they are significant enough to the plot to merit mention in those cases. As for "at least a hundred shows right now on wikipedia that currently showcase separate characters who have appeared in one episode or less", need I point you to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, people disagree on that -- to the extent that it has been so far impossible to obtain consensus at WP:FICT, afd, or anywhere else. The compromise view seems to be that basic description of all characters with any significant role in the action belong in a paragraph within a combined character article as a default, unless there is enough material to justify separate articles,as there is likely to be for the major characters. (The main failure of consensus is about those separate articles--with the sticking point being whether or not they need to meet the general notability guideline of two significant third party references to them in particular. I have a view on that, but I do not think there is really consensus for my view or anyone else's.) Even minor named characters can still get listed and identified. The central character in a single episode would need to be also mentoned in the summary of the episode for it to be intelligible. DGG (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of consensus that minor characters don't belong in lists, as shown by actual high quality lists, not low quality ones. Minor characters are one of the first things that are slated for removal during peer reviews for FLC. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now done what you had originally said is required to maintain an image. A group shot as you said. I uploaded one of Zarbon, Dodoria, and Frieza together. That's the best way I can incorporate them since you don't want them to have separate images. - Zarbon (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if we weren't clearer, but a group image in this case still isn't needed. A group image of the MAJOR villains would be an appropriate image, not of three villains, only one of which is fairly major to the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But that doesn't help! I want there to be a depiction of Zarbon and Dodoria. The main villains already have images, I'm not interested in uploading more of them. It's my favorite characters, Zarbon and Dodoria that I want to depict through an image and since you said no single images, the best one I could find is with Frieza. Either way, ONE image showing them should stay as opposed to nothing. - Zarbon (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Zarbon, we all get that you are fans of those two characters, however, that does not mean that your personal preferences get to override existing guidelines nor policies. Multiple editors have now told you that they are are minor within the series as a whole and that an image of Zarbon is completely unnecessary. Please stop trying to find a way around this. You can download images of them for your personal viewing all you wish, but they do not have a place on Wikipedia unless it is within a much larger group show that, primarily, is of the main, most notable, villains. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - It's not a matter of what you want Zarbon. Have you not learned anything yet after getting blocked time and time again for WP:OWNERSHIP issues? Let me be frank, I really think you should calm down and look over our image policies a few times. We're sorry if we weren't specific on groupal pictures before, but AnmaFinotera made it clear now didn't she? I don't see why you're getting so worked up over this. If you have any questions, comments or concerns, go ahead and convey them. Edit warring will accomplish nothing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What is there left for me to convey? You both know how important it is for me. For her, it isn't. For you, it isn't. But I already expressed that it's practically the single most important thing on wikipedia for me to maintain one image. I'm feeling too suicidal to answer anything else right now. All those years of struggling were in vain if at now I can't even maintain one measly image. What a tiresome affair this has been. - Zarbon (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't get why you feel it is so important to have an image of this one character on Wikipedia. There are plenty of other places it is more appropriate, including the DB Wikia. I'd also caution you against saying things like you are feeling suicidal. Wikipedia admins take that very seriously. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight, I have another idea of how I can appropriate him to an image. However, I will not make any further edits until I get your consent. Is it alright if I were to manually create an image that has literally all the primary villains along with the supporting villains (in order for me to put them in: Zarbon, Dodoria, Cui, The Ginyu Force, Dabura, Android 19, etc.) the same way the current image has all the hero characters. That way it will have about 30 or so characters in one image and it can have the three main ones (frieza, cell, buu) as well in order to fit under your current consensus. They'd be all villains though, as opposed to all heroes, and it would be a good contradiction to the current image. I think we could establish all the characters with just two images, one for all heroes and one for all villains. What do you think? Should I compile that image? - Zarbon (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, as that is considered a copyright infringement (and from discussions in non-free, would be considered 30 different images as it was a self-made compilation). It needs to be an official image. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, you're right about that. What if I were to locate an official image that had all these 30 or so characters together? Would that do well? - Zarbon (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can find an official image that has a majority of the villains together, yes, that can be used. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerning User:Zarbon

Heh, I noticed you also distributed a 3rr warning after I gave Zarbon a "customized" one. But seriously, this editor, who has quite an unfortunate reputation (both here and on other wikis), has not shown much change in his/her ways since their ban was lifted (again). I'm starting to lose patience with this individual, moreso after this. Do you think we should let one of Zarbon's blocking admins know about this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Did i not just respond to you about that? I'm not going to fight over the image. But I just wanted to convey to you and AnmaFinotera both as to how important that was to me. - Zarbon (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nolan Gerard Funk...

This article is horrible! Do you think we could delete it per WP:SPEEDY A7? moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 19:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagged...it makes like no sense...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

People keep on removing the tag... It makes no sense at all. It could be deleted per SPEEDY G1 or SPEEDY A7, or prodded, or brought to AfD. What do you think? moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 04:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly not a G1 (please read up on the criteria) and does not fit A7 as notability is asserted (nominated for awards). Your best bet would be to take it to AfD. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 05:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the CSD was denied (and it was not removed by the article creator), AfD is the next choice, as NocturneNoir has noted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever... I just don't see how it asserts any notability... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 05:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It was nonsense... Finally someone changed it... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 05:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it just needs references and it will be fine... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 05:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That has to be the worst referencing I have ever seen. Go look for yourself. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The filmography section is pretty bad too. It needs to be in a Wikilist... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

...??

Who put you in Charge of Dragonball Evolution? Cause your taking over everything and it would be once in a while if you could let people do their jobs they want to do rather than you taking over. Without us, you wouldn't know a thing on this film. Goku1st (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As a neutral I can safely say that AnmaFinotera is an experienced editor of Film related articles and knows a lot about creating good articles in general. You don't need to be an expert on a subject to create or edit a page to the required quality and established guidelines. At a glance there is nothing wrong with her edits Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As Dandy Sephy, I am an experienced film editor and an experienced editor in the anime realm. I'm not "in charge" of the article, however I am helping to watch over it to ensure it isn't taken down bad roads by less experienced editors and fans of the series who hate it. And sorry, but I don't need "us" to know anything about this film at all. That is why one of Wikipedia's core points is WP:V. I can (and have) written entire high class articles on topics I have little knowledge about specifically because articles must have verifiable content, not just whatever you feel like sticking in. As for the PG rating thing, you are the one displaying WP:OWNership issues by trying to continue to demand it has any place in the article against Wikipedia-wide consensus that it does not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't take charge of an article, you can keep track of it, but never take "charge", that's like owning the article. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

... editor as in working with peices of film and all that or film editor in the wikipedia area? Goku1st (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball (film)

About that AnmaFinotera, the 1990 film was actually called "Dragon Ball", whereas the upcoming movie was "Dragonball". Didn't we have a conversation similar to this before? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that I can recall. While yeah, the 1990 film was "Dragon Ball", people don't always write it the right way and, of the two, the latter is obviously far better known around the world. I'm not sure why an article for that 1990 thing was even created (or recreated...didn't it exist before and was merged back to Dragon Ball)? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's actually never been created before (so far as I know). But yes, I see you're saying about the name. Regardless I think there are still enough items to bring back Dragon Ball (disambiguation). What are your thoughts on that? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Only problem there is it would all still be DB stuff, which I don't think is necessary. Could just redirect that to List of Dragon Ball films which has all the films, both anime and live-action. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

But I really don't think it matters if the majority of items are "Dragon Ball"-related (it's sort of the point of the page anyway). Anyways, here's what I'm thinking:

Dragon Ball is a Japanese media franchise. Dragon Ball may also refer to: Dragonball or Dragonball Evolution, [description] Dragon Ball (artifact), [description] Dragon Ball or Dragon Ball: Curse of the Blood Rubies, [description] Dragon Ball (1990 film), [description] DragonBall or Freescale DragonBall, [description] ==See also== ...

Not so certain of the order and descriptions, or if redirects would be preferred over the direct links, though that will all be taken care of later. So, compare this potential dab with the likes of Goku (disambiguation) and Son Goku. Convinced? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You know more about disambigs than me, so if you think it works, go for it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo

The Bobobo talk page had some major forum problems, I deleted all of the entries. What do you think?, look at the history. Terrible. Must have gotten no attention from real editors like forever, it needs major work. O_O – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It needed some archiving...did that. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just gonna say. So what's new with you, I finally got over that cold. :-D Also, quick question, is it okay to source directly to WorldCat rather than having it within a source? :S – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad you're feeling better :) Not much new with me. Bored, lately, but such is life. Continuing to work on my house. Determined to finally get some of my precious books out of boxes and into bookcases, particularly when I've already added 28 to my collection this month alone, with like 10 more on the way. Bought two of the six 5 shelf ones I expect to need and now I just need to get them out of my trunk. They weigh like 70 lbs each, so getting them through the house will be a serious pain! Also painted a glass doored one I have for my fragile books...need to do the shelves and doors and it should be ready for use. Alas, the mist from the spray can got on some of my books...not bad enough to discolor, but enough to turn my fingers black when I touched them LOL. What do you mean on the WorldCat? Can you give me an example? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, WorldCat, the database: "Cobra". Cobra. WorldCat. Retrieved 2009-02-22.. I'm rewriting the Cobra article, I need to source a part of the WorldCat page. However, WorldCat is often linked within sources when you type in the OCLC and such in the Cite book or Cite journal. Get it? : ) New with me: I'm going to soon get my own artbook! X-D I will serialize a series on my YouTube channel. Didn't get to many new manga though. :-| LOL, I commented on an official video for Daytona 500 on YouTube, entirely made of Speed Racer clips: I said that that it was weird that he chose that for his video, very straight forward. Then some guy responded to that and wrote, "Iz like weed n the pipe smoking it then blaze up listening to this man you wanna spit flow". XD – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you sourcing WorldCat though? Cool on the artbook!-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sourcing a section of it for the Cobra article, it has some information. Go look. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 05:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

But what is it sourcing that can't be sourced elsewhere? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm...I guess I could source the first issue... But I don't want to source too much publications, I want to stick more to web. But whatever, I guess I could source it by the book. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 05:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with sourcing to the publications long as you have page numbers. Indeed, those are considered better sources over web sources where available. :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You see, that's the thing. I don't have the page numbers, because I don't have the book. :-P Heh...heh... – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 05:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, then yeah, you can't source the book. But, again, what is WorldCat stating that can't be sourced elsewhere? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

But I do have the seventh issue which has the credit information on the second page, which i'm assuming is the same on the first. :D By the way, this is back when manga were put into issues like American comics. These are rare issues. WorldCat stated that Marv Wolfman did the English adaptation and that the comic book issues were under the Viz Select Comics line. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much every Bobobo-related article I've seen is in need of some real editor love... The highest-quality one I'm aware of is the chapter list, and that's only because I cleaned it up a few months back... it still needs work itself, though (particularly in regards to the plot summaries). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I only glanced at the main one then quickly run away screaming refusing to get drawn into anymore long clean up projects for a series I don't even know :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

White Dog

Somehow Erik didn't notice I selected this article for review yesterday (or he chose to ignore it). Anyway, I've added my comments to the GA review page and made some copyedits. Let me know when you've addressed the issues. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Done :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to see that movie, it looks good. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've done a slight edit to address issue 1 of my GA review. Please let me know if you can live with it :) How far have you got with the MPAA review? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam Fuller

Thanks for reminding me about the articles you have. Feel free to get in touch by email so that we can move ahead. Sam Fuller is in pretty bad shape. Have you seen it? Stetsonharry (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Will do this evening (I have the PDFs on my home comp). And yeah, it is...I have it on my watch list but I'm just not into biographies at all, so mostly just watching to revert any vandalism and try to help with small things like MoS issues or discussions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Manzai Comics

There, that's better. Anyhow I'm looking for more sources - I can tell it's widely published, but I'll see if any Japanese sources mention it. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've CSDed it as it was properly deleted in a very recent AfD. I don't understand why you would even recreated it when it was deleted just last month, when the recreated article is no different from the deleted one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to make it different. As for Atsuko Asano http://mainichi.jp/life/today/news/20090210org00m100011000c.html?link_id=TT004 she may have won a prize from Shogakukan (if what Google translator is saying is true) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It still isn't notable per Wikipedia guidelines, hence its being deleted in the AfD. There is no verifiable notability. For Asano, from other recent manga-ka AfDs, that would not make her notable because those publishers literally give out dozens of those every year as part of their "try to find new artists to work for them." They generally aren't significant nor major awards at all. Without knowing specifically what award it is, its hard to say. Either way, though, that alone does not make her notable enough for an article.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Asano's not that recent of an author. http://www.jbby.org/en/books/s16_Battery.html - This says she received Noma Prize for Juvenile Literature in 1997 for Battery. Now, this source also says "Japanese Association for Writer for Children" honored her for Battery 2, but I'd have to dig more into that. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That speaks to Battery's notability, again, not her own. See WP:CREATIVE. She does not meet any of those criteria. The novels winning awards might make them notable, but not their writer. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• 1. WP:CREATIVE says that one can be notable if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - So does this mean I should search Japanese newspapers for reviews of this book? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Speaking of which, Battery is a film. I dunno how long it is, but if it's feature length that too would support the criteria. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• 2. As for the Manzai Comics series, what I'm trying to figure out is this: http://journal.mycom.co.jp/column/ebook/077/ - is this a person's blog or if it is a column from a respected publication about the Manzai Comics series. If it's the latter this can save the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Being adapted into is not the same as being the subject of. And that is a blog from the looks of it. The article has already been deleted, and one column does not meet WP:BK. It needs significant coverage, as in multiple full reviews. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes staff members of websites have blog-like pages, but because the people writing them are staff members of a newspaper or another RS, and the blog is hosted on the newspaper/RS website (so therefore the blog entry is a publication of that paper/RS) then it does not count as a blog. That's what I'm trying to determine. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Blood: The Last Vampire, Live Action

Sorry for not supporting my edits recently - I've got a starting reference and once the full publicity of the UK premiere hits I'll update the link to point in the right direction. And sorry if this not the right place to say hello. Cowfish (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think a Twitter feed meets RS, though, so if there isn't an official site or the like with it, might be better to wait to another source is available to confirm it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Twitter feed is currently the main news outlet for the festival, as the official site is still waiting on the full programme before release. *I* know it's reliable, but I agree that Twitter doesn't really meet RS :). I'll keep poking the people who publish such things to get their acts together and put out an official source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowfish (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Since its pretty obvious now its true, and that article isn't a GA nor FA, I put in a shorter version of your comment without the source for now. One can be added later when its confirmed on the official site or press release. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Emure

Emure is a city in Nigeria, it is in the Ekiti State, it is not the Ekiti State so stop changing it to the Ekiti State.--Chicagobearz (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is neither notable, nor does it need two articles. Stop calling valid edits vandalism. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comodo Firewall Pro

Hi, I'm not good with tables, so can you fix the article Comodo Firewall Pro's table? I'm not sure if it's suppose to be using a table also since I never worked on a computer program article. DragonZero (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It really shouldn't be a table, nor should every minor version be noted. A paragraph or two of prose giving its major version history would be preferred. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm wondering if this page should be requested for protection Naruto: Clash of Ninja (series). Apparently, people like to change the tables and add false information about release dates, change the name of Naruto Shippuden: Gekito Ninja Taisen! EX to Naruto revolution 3. Mostly it's the table that I see vandalised mostly. It seems the vandalism has begun since December and is still going on. DragonZero (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...you can try, but I suspect that because it isn't happening every day, the request would be denied. Are editors having trouble keeping up with them? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really, but I have to do long chains of undos at times. DragonZero (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not good with tables, and this will be alot of work, but can you fuse the dates to a table already made on the articles that have been expected to be merged? If my words are confusing, seeing the article will make more sense. Japanese Beyblade DVD. Thanks. DragonZero (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'm not fully getting the question. That article needs axing though....ewwww....With that many volumes, I'm thinking just do prose summary rather than tables at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What about the article MegaVideo? Eversince it installed the time limit, many people have been angry and posting ways to get past it or other sites to use instead of it. DragonZero (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Blech...tagged it for CSD as it doesn't appear to be a notable site. Back on the 5th/6th, it probably could have been protected as well, but seems to have calmed now and its mostly just one IP, so probably better to just report them for blocking if they come back. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Love Hina

Two points really. Fullmetal Alchemist (GA) has a section for merchandise. Normally I'd not refer to other articles as a reason for keeping something, but aside from having a lot of information to go in that section (thanks to using some of it in a character sandbox, I have most of the references handy), a GA is hard to ignore. There are others too

Kanon (also GA) has a "Music" section rather then "Soundtrack" section, and WP:MOS-AM doesn't dictate a suggestion for proper naming, merely suggests it under other media (should possibly be clarified). I personally chose to rename it due to the semantics (Soundtrack implies music used during the game/show/whatever, whereas Love Hina has a lot of music not used in the show itself), plus I was planning to expand it, which would take the meaning away from "soundtrack" even more. Also some of the cds have drama tracks, so it would have been renamed again anyway (I can't justify a seperate section for drama, so either "Music and Drama' or "Soundtrack and Drama" possibly).

Music, well I would prefer it be "music", but not to the point where I'm going to make a fuss (thats the day I need shooting). Merchandise just seems a sensible thing to include, although for character articles it does come under Reception on MOS-AM. MOS-AM doesn't even mention it for series articles. (which suggests its neither expected nor to be avoided, so could probably go through discussion) Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

FMA is GA, not FA. Tokyo Mew Mew is FA and has no such section, nor does any other similar article. Also, FMA's section is under media and is basically an "other" section (and really isn't needed and will likely be axed if it goes for FA). Kanon is not primarily an anime/manga article, its a visual novel and generally falls more under the music guidelines than the anime/manga MoS. Also, it is again not FA, only GA. CDs would be an acceptable alternative, rather than Music as obviously drama Cds aren't music either. Or drama CDs can go under the "other" section. Personally, I don't see the point of having a merchandise section in the series article at all. It seems to encourage excessive minor details and trivial information, particularly as almost all manga and anime series have at least some kind of merchandise made for it. I think it should be discussed before trying to make it a norm. In either case, as there was no content yet, it seems pointless to even put in a separate section in Love Hina and just encourage people to come put in all kinds of stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually hit save instead of preview, if you'd been 5-10 minutes late in editing, I'd have pasted a start from an existingsandbox. I agree that "CDs" is an acceptable compromise. If you wish, I can sandbox a merchandising section for you to decide for yourself, it's not a problem. Dandy Sephy (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at our current FA's for some idea of the difference between GA and FA and also some ideas for editing Love Hina, and noticed Madlax has a merchandise section. Admittedly that was passed in early 2007, but it went through a overhaul to prevent it losing FA status last year. Thoughts?

I understand the "excessive minor details", but you can see the sort of thing I mean in the reception on my WIP Naru sandbox on the bottom of my user page: a generic comment about lots of merchandise, with a trio of official refs, and then the only merchandise with any real notability outside Japan, sourced from a very reliable source. The only difference is it will cover all 6. If you remain unconvinced, fair enough, we've both got article quality in mind Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see your sandboxed version id (sorry I didn't reply sooner...going a bit sideways this week LOL). The more I think about it, the more I can see both sides...TV does include a merchandise section in its articles after all, I just want to avoid people going crazy on listing every keychain, figurine, etc (we know how the fans get ;-) ). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You can just see the reception section on the last sandbox on my user page (for stupid reasons I dont want to post my sandboxes on other pages - yes I know people can do it the hard way :p) - the difference won't be massive, just include 3 more examples. I did think about the random keychains etc, but the 3 refs nicely prove they exist and you can easily summarise random stuff like that in 1-3 sentances. Love Hina doesn't suffer from crap being added (since I removed all the OR all those months ago), just the odd vandalism (most of that should stop after the removal of the short character list) Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool...I'll hunt it down later this evening. I've actually noticed that it seems to be something of a trend. Lower quality articles seem more inclined to be vandalized than ones that are either being actively improved or are already GA/FA/FL level. I wonder if anyone has done any kind of studies on that... ~wanders off on a tangent~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point there, in fact I've often been puzzled that certain pages managed to reach B or GA without being destroyed through vanadalism. Every Naruto page in those ranges for example. It helps a lot of editors are likely to be keeping a close eye and insta-revert much of it Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, aside from the lead and plot (the plot is being done as I reread the series for the first time in years, along with some related articles. The lead will be the last thing), how do you think the rest of the article is doing? I can double the size of the soundtrack/albums/music/cds section (might be worth rediscussing once I've done the expansion, "cd's" still doesn't fit) Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

*bump* Sorry to pester you, but I know how quickly stuff vanishes to archives given the size of your talk page. Did you ever take a look at the sandbox? Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Woops, I forgot...been a rough week. Will try to get a look at it tonight. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, for a character article, that looks fine :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob Ross

Just FYI, I reverted your edit here on the Bob Ross article. The entry was not vandalism and contained a citation. It just needed to be cleaned up a bit. I also added an additional citation. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And I have removed it again. The entry was vandalism as the guy was spamming his forums here, nor is the entry appropriate nor relevant to a biography. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

o.o

Editing using the iPhone is hard... D: moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

ROFLOL!! I know it is!! XD I finally got an iPhone and then I tried editing and I was soooo disapointed! – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

XD I think I'm gonna just like... use my regular computer. D: I don't like AT&T though.

They messed up on my iPhone, and somehow I ended up with my moms cell phone number and my mom ended up with my cell phone number so we had to take our phones back (my mom got a Samsung) and switch the numbers. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 01:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow...I don't think I could even try that! Too small a screen for me :) (I just got a new cell phone too, but its a Nokia 6301 :) ) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You can zoom in, but not that much... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 01:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

XD I wonder if I could have an edit conflict with myself... (editing on my compy and on my iPhone XD) moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 02:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you talk to me first before the TfD?

AnmaFinotera...you are all for the removal of the IMDb and TV.com links from the television infoboxes, yet, when I make a template to make life easier for those who are actually going to work on it, you TfD the template. Do you want those links removed from the infoboxes or not? Why are you making my work more difficult? LA If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 05:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

One has nothing to do with the other, nor is it "your work." You created an inappropriate template for your own sake (not other people's) and did so without discussion nor consensus with either project then began mass replacing existing templates for no valid reason. Whether you can remember them or not is beyond irrelevant. There are existing templates for those links which are vested, have consensus, and are the default methods to use. If you can't remember TWO simple template names (and that is ALL that the discussion even covers), then either make notes or let someone else deal with the movements when the time is right (which is not now, as there is still not clear consensus to remove the links from the infobox). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hikaru no Go

Would you suggest tagging this one with {{article issues}}? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"cleanup", "refimprove", "or", "plot", "prose" (that voice list needs to go), and I'd add a merge for the media list back to the main (inappropriate split per project consensus). What is with that silly Go box? I'd so take that out. Eww. I's also tag for "external links" (needs cleaning) "and intro-rewrite". Oh, that series box at the bottom should probably also go...looks like its broken anyway. I'd TfD it with only 3 articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... why the hell is the Hikaru navbox displaying broken like that? I cleaned it up myself (will XfD it in a sec, since I've been reminded to its existence =) ), and there's nothing in the page source that should be breaking it like that... *scratches head in confusion* 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the template TfD is at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 27#Template:Hikaru no Go. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Um, you did notice I quickly removed the warning? So don't come complaining. TJ Spyke 01:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not that quick that I saw it, and I will "come complaining" when you left a warning for absolutely no reason at all beyond apparently not liking that I reverted back further than you did. Its ridiculous, and you should NOT have even reverted it as vandalism to begin with. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cobra article

How does it look at my sandbox. Looks much better from the past article doesn't it? : P I was thinking about merging OVA and anime movie into the anime section to make a nice strong section, because if they were just left alone they would be one paragraph. : ( – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The manga section needs to be broken up into a least two paragraphs :) Other than that, looks better except still not demonstrating notability :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah its not done. :P I knew I was missing something, it needed to be split in paragraphs! XD So, uh...how can it demonstrate notability...I forgets...cuz im stupd. XD – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 19:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple reviews in reliable sources or other significant coverage; awards, things like that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew it, I knew it! It was at the top of my mind. Reviews, I think ANN has some for the movie adaptation. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 20:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I put in a reception section! :D So what do you think about having the OVA and anime movie merged into the "Anime" section. Oh poo, I just noticed that the plot section is copied from ANN that I took from the main article. Grrr.... >_< – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's fine to have both under a single anime section since there is little information available about both. Obviously that copyvio plot needs to go :P The reception...its only one source, so doesn't show notability...also a little too much from that one source, I'd think. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I was starting to think so. : P Might need to find more reviews. Yeah, if the sections were just left alone then they'd just be like, say one paragraph long. -_- – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

To survive an AfD, I'd suspect it would need at least three. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I found one from sci-fi channel, just need one more. Also, do character sections need sources?, I think so. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they do :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Would the IMDb user star ratings count as a third review? : P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No. They are not reliable sources and shouldn't even be mentioned at all. It must be a legitimate review from a reliable source (and an actual review, not just a short commentary) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just checking, because the ratings at Rotten Tomatoes are reliable source, as far as I know. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. Some people use the RT critics ratings as a valid bit of referencing, but it really doesn't add much and it has to be from the critics "fresh rating", rather than user ratings. I don't think it adds any actual value to article, though some do. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The article's up. Found two more reviews and one more, but haven't added. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference library query

Just wondering if you've made any headway on your scanner yet? The current discussion on WT:ANIME about series being licensed in LOTE made me think of the Zetsuai 1989 series, which may be in your copy of The Anime Encyclopedia. --Malkinann (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Alas, no. I got a new power supply for my comp, but its incompatible with my older motherboard, so I'm gonna have to get a new motherboard too, which means a new CPU and memory and maybe a new hard drive, so it will be down for awhile yet. If it isn't too long, I can type it in manually, otherwise, I can probably scan it in at work. In Zetsuai's case, it as four paragraphs on it on pages 460-461. For the article...the first paragraph is plot summary, the second notes that an image video, Bronze Cathexis was released in 1994 with five popp promoses featuring Koki. Paragraph 3 is on Bronze: Zetsuai since 1989, released in 1996 and directed by Yamazaki, on Izumi's pondering of their relationship after Koji doesn't show up to see him off for his soccer tour (not realizing Koji was in a car accident). Probably the best bit would be the final paragraph:

"Based on the ongoing 1990 manga in Margaret by Minami Ozaki, Zetsuai is one of the greatest icons of shonen ai-gay erotica for a female audience. The video versions show only a tiny segment of the angst-ridden multicharacter story, and though there's not much explicit sex, there is a lot of blood—accidents and self-inflicted wounds abound. Koji and Izumi have become shonen ai's Romeo and Juliet, and a similarly tragic ending probably awaits. 'Everylasting Love' is Ozaki's preferred English title, either through deliberate irony or simply poor translation."

Hope that helps -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that does help - thank you!  :) --Malkinann (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Zetsuai 1989 needs a lot of work. It only has 3 references, and has no section on characters or OVA. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 09:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A character section isn't a necessity, particularly if its a smaller series or one where the plot can cover the basics. I'd imagine Malkinann is asking about it, though, because they intend to work on it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just another question, AnmaFinotera - did the entry discuss the art style at all? Aestheticism.com and ANN both talk a bit about the art style, you see. --Malkinann (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, they don't mention it at all. Not for the main nor the two other videos.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Malkinann (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Kai

Concerning that, wouldn't it be better to just redirect it to Dragon Ball without the need for section linking (like we're doing for Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Could be...feel free to change if you want. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, Sarujo reverted. ATP, why don't we just link to headers for the other redirects? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, because technically Dragon Ball Z, at least, can be the manga and the anime. GT is just anime so it could have a section link, Kai probably the same.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to them, but would you oppose if I made Dragon Ball Z link to Dragon Ball#Media? That way, the manga and anime referents are included. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine, I guess...though the whole article is really about DB and DBZ's manga version, including the plot summary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Vanilla Mood

I tried improving this article (but didn't do a very good job D:), and think it should be deleted. What do you think? It's not a very good article... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 09:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for CSD...don't see anything notable about the group. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

SPI case

Hey AnmaFinotera, long time no talk. :) I added another suspected sock to your case. Synergy 21:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh fun fun! I suspected he would have more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Trinity Blood

Okay, I just recently did a little fine tuning of the Trinity Blood page today and you keep shutting me down! Why? Changing two words! What the heck! What is the deal here? I merely added her codename (which everyone else has) and fixed an actual grammar issue. Why is this a problem. Please tell me that?Rogue Commander (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I am talking about the character page.Rogue Commander (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The code name doesn't belong as it is excessive plot detail (nor does "everyone" else have it, only some and it really needs to be removed from almost all of them). And the grammar fix was kept in the second revert. This is per discussions and peer reviews/FLCs on other character lists. Of course, really the entire thing needs redoing, but trying to at least keep it from going further down roads that have been deemed "useless" (i.e. would just get cut when doing preps for higher classes). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily; the only characters I can see that don't have nicknames are those that lacked them in the first place. Their is no reason the codenames shouldn't be kept and they generally don't hurt the page in the long run. And one word isn't "excessive."Rogue Commander (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they do hurt the page in the long run, as obviously they are making at least some editors feel they "must" be included. Yes, one word can be excessive when it comes down to the difference between low quality and high quality. The codenames add no value to the article and are not necessary to understanding the basics of the character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Though we are going for including the most info on the character's backround without diving into the story excessively (which will be hard to do with a list like this) the codenames are not the problem. The names themselves are used throughout the books and, while not as nessasary as other info, their is simply no good reason to not to include them, other than to say you didn't include them. The codenames can be used as not to steal quality away from the article, and in truth, don't. What takes away from the article is the large quantity of info in some areas with a lack of it in others, the articles overall length and the dubious organization of the page. And even if there are people that feel they are necessary to give some info, that alone is not a reason to exclude them.Rogue Commander (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, details about their backgrounds is also not appropriate. Short summaries of their personalities/nature is all that should be included. See List of Naruto characters for the eventual goal. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is not far from our current position. A little bit of tremming (and adding) is needed, along with reorganization, to get to that point, but it is duable. But more to the point, you still haven't given me a good reason not to include the codenames.Rogue Commander (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, it is very very very far from our "current position." Its well written, with sources, proper organization, and focuses on the characters, not the plot. I know its doable, but suffice to say it also takes time. Its taken me nearly a year on the Tokyo Mew Mew character list, and then when I thought it was near there, was told "nope, still too much plot summary." And, again, the codenames do not need to be included because I do not feel that they add significantly to the basic understanding of the characters, particularly on characters like Noelle who was short lived and had a little overall role in the story. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll concur for now.Rogue Commander (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Kuroda Iō

As the creator of the page, I thank you for the notification on the AfD on Iou Kuroda ... I have not had time to visit Wikipedia lately so I missed the voting, but fortunately it was kept.　　I am just puzzled why someone who apparently has an interest in (and hopefully knowledge of) manga/anime would entertain the thought of deleting the page without doing basic research into the author's notability. The article itself clearly needs some TLC, but that should not be grounds for deletion. In any case, I am pleased that others came to the article's defense, but in the future I would ask that you comment on the article's talk page before taking the drastic step of nominating it for deletion. Just my two cents, no need to reply unless you feel the need ... CES (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. There is no requirement to "leave a note" before taking the step of nominating it for deletion. I didn't feel he was notable, and frankly I still don't, but the guidelines have holes and people managed to fill them enough to barely denote some notability (which really isn't Kuroda's but his books. Turning your final note around, in the future, if you want to avoid articles being nominated for deletion, create it in such a way that notability is clearly established from the beginning. (also, for future note, AfDs are NOT vote based, but based on arguments). AN dyes, I have both an interest in and knowledge of both anime and manga, but that does not mean I feel every last author is notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Leaving a comment is a common courtesy here on Wikipedia ... but you are correct, there is no requirement for courtesy. Notability is always a subjective matter, no matter how many guidelines are in place, but the outcome of the vote and arguments left no doubt. I don't find the argument that a person can create notable works and yet not be notable him/herself persuasive ... to me, that implies a degree of hair-splitting which would likely wipe out 95% of the pages on authors and artists in any genre, certainly in the manga/anime genre which seems to be your interest. There are many people who would argue that 95% of all manga & anime pages should be deleted on the grounds of notability, so I was just puzzled to see the source of the speedy delete attempt of a respected manga artist was a manga & anime fan. My intent was just to see what your motivations were, but while I disagree with most of your opinions, I see that you had honest intentions. That is enough for me. Best, CES (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really even a matter common courtesy. It is a natural presumption that the article creator, if still interested in the article, would have it in his/her watchlist. Now, if it isn't really clear, I'll usually tag it for notability first, but this one seemed pretty clearly not notable to me, so I CSDed then AfDed for further discussion. Others disagreed...it happens. I don't agree with the outcome but I will yield to consensus (of course) And yes, many authors are not notable, even if their works are. In manga, this is particularly true in the English arena as many people read the series and couldn't even tell you who wrote it. Its actually quite true in other genres as well. Oh...I don't have it on me right now, but was reading a book for writers the other day that talked about the different types of readers with genres. Some know a few favorite authors, but mostly just go for the genre and couldn't list more than a handful of writers in it. Anime/manga is one of those genres. Of course, the lay person isn't really a decider of notability, its very simply significant coverage in reliable sources. He had none (and still doesn't, really). Conferring notability on him because of his minorly notable works is a disservice to the overall idea of Wikipedia's core notability guideline. Granted, WP:CREATIVE isn't nearly as bad as WP:MUSIC for incorrectly allowing notability to be inherited (which is, again, against the core notability guidelines), but I do think it should be addressed and corrected. In either case, yes, I am a fan, but I do also attempt to look at all pages within the project neutrally. While 95% is a bit high, there are probably a good 30-40% that do need to be deleted, redirected, or merged because of notability, which the project is very very slowly working its way through (mostly character articles, but also series splits that shouldn't have happened, articles for every album, etc). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sailor Moon

Maybe you can help me understand this. Was there a consensus or something to take off all of that sourced content? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the section had been duplicated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But do you think the user took off the right one? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No idea...I can't tell the difference between them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Well, does the current layout meet WP:MOS-AM standards? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Its better than it used to be, but not completely no. English adaptations should not be split out like that. And the "Story" section is all wrong and should be rewritten and renamed Plot. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Luther Duncan

I was puzzled when I saw your name on the speedy deletion request for this article, as I have previously seen lots of quality work by you. A look at some of your recent contributions suggests there is a deeper issue - promotional editing by a cooperative group? If so, that's obviously a concern and I wonder if there been some centralized discussion of this issue?

As it is, I can't see that the Duncan article could qualify for speedy - being a president of the predecessor to Auburn University seems a clear assertion of notability. However, I would be interested to understand more about the underlying issue(s). Cheers.--Kubigula (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I missed his being president of the University, so totally agree on your declining the speedy. Ran through that one a little fast. For the underlying issue, User:ACES-wikiman began editing in June 2007 on Alabama Cooperative Extension System. I think I first stumbled on the article in 2008, and noticed the username, which seemed a pretty obvious COI declaration. I noted so, and ACES admitted that they are a news/PR person for the Extension service.[1] Wanting to give them the benefit of the doubt (and still admittedly not having much knowledge on dealing with that particular issue), I tried to guide them on how they could edit in a neutral fashion[2] and they seemed to respond in a positive fashion.[3] Foolishly encouraged[4] I took the article off my watchlist when they seemed to have calmed down. I just happened to revisit it today and curious, checked to see how ACES was doing. To my shock/horror, I found they had been very busy creating lots of seemingly self-promotional pieces for the Extension service on its various directors, all heavily sourced to their own writings. I've been going through the template ACES created and checking each to check notability/npov issues and trying to tag accordingly. I CSDed some people article's, AfDed others, and tagged even more. Any views you have on this would be much appreciated (though I just noticed another admin blocked that account now for its COI issues). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah - that's an almost textbook example of why we have the COI guideline. On their face, these articles look quite good - Duncan in particular. However, having a PR person writing these articles obviously opens a can of worms as to accuracy and neutrality. The main thing is to get the person to stop adding the COI content, and Orangemike has addressed that for the time being. After that, it's a bunch of tedious tagging and cleanup. If any of the articles are kept, you may want to drop a note on the talk page with the admission diff - it really helps clarify the issue.

Anyway, kudos on spotting the problem and making the effort to deal with it - that definitely outweighs the minor error in tagging. Feel free to ping me if a sock or another COI editor shows up.--Kubigula (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do and thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

White Dog

On the GA review page, you said: "That works fine for me :) For the MPAA rating, yes it is for the film from 1981 per some news reports about it back then." Could you work the MPAA rating into the article and cite those sources. I think it's pretty much ready for promotion after that. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't include the rating, though, as it would go against the Film article guidelines to include the MPAA rating in a film article unless it is controversial or otherwise heavily discussed, which this one isn't. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Can you point me to that guideline? I'm unable to find it. (That said, I don't think this is a particularly well-considered guideline. A rating is a standard bit of information that needs to be covered to make an article comprehensive, especially for films within the United States.) Also, if the film was accused of being racist, I don't think a PG rating would be entirely uncontroversial anyway. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It is long standing consensus for film articles. Generally it is as being American-centric and adds no actual value to an article to anyone who isn't American (and even then, not most of them). Attempting to avoid systemic bias by including every rating results in an extremely indiscriminate list. This consensus was upheld very recently with the deletion of {{Infobox movie certificates}}. Its deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 20#Template:Infobox movie certificates, includes links to several of the most recent discussions upholding this consensus. As for the rating on White Dog being controversial, so far it doesn't appear to have been. It was rated PG for the violence. I don't think MPAA counts racism itself (though racist language could influence a rating). Even The Color Purple only is a PG-13 :)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd think it would be reasonable and non-centric to mention the rating in the country of origin, but this is only a minor point. I'm not going to make this article wait until the guideline is changed. I've now promoted it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Great and thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

COI for Crunchyroll Page

Dear Sir/Madam;

Could you please explain to me how there is a conflict of interest on the page when everything has been supported by documents and is purely informational based. Is there some type of wording you have an issue with? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasewang (talk • contribs) 23:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because you support it with documents doesn't make it less COI. It is purely self-promotional in nature and none of those were valid edits, even with sources. You are also attempting to created multiple pages for your company pushing your products/services by trying to claim your list of partners and list of series are notable, when neither is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dream House/Home

I realized and was in the process of removing it myself, but hit an edit conflict (you're too fast). Shall the infobox remain? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No prob...I was just leaving a note on your talk page about it. If the infobox credits for actually certain to be for this series, then adding it is fine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Infobox info is for the show with this guy as host. I put them back. No biggie, as I tend to agree with you here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he just narrates so correcting that :) Interesting...it looks like the show had two more seasons, but I never see it on air anymore (tangent)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well.. you do have a couple other things to keep you busy. :) If others find that it was interesting or popular enough to get some coverage, they'll find it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it probably ever did. It mostly aired in early morning (I almost always caught it at like 4 or 5 in the morning :P). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't Delete My Articles

It almost seems as though you have something against me - trying to get about half of my articles deleted at basically the same time. They can be improved! If you were going to mark any others of mine for deletion, please don't. There are worse articles - I've seen some. Mollymoon (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You called attention to your contributions by applying for adminship. It is nothing person. I looked at your contribs, noticed the many unnotable articles you had created (as you stated "the articles you created" were some of best Wiki work) and began taking the appropriate actions. If you do not want articles deleted, I'd recommend you take some time to learn Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which you seem to have no knowledge of at all from your responses to the various CSD and AfDs here. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also not a valid argument against deletion at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Crunchyroll Partners and Crunchyroll Online Catalog

Hi, AnmaFinotera. Was just about to notify you about the new AfDs I created, but I see you've already commented on them. I would encourage pursuing a topic ban, at the very least, against Chasewang (talk · contribs). He has overstayed his welcome by repeatedly breaking COI. I saw you posted on WP:AN, but I doubt that will garner many reads. WP:ANI seems to be the improper venue as well, as his edits are disruptive, but not highly disruptive. I'd pop a note at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, but again, I'm really unsure as to how much can be done in this case. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{( t • c )} 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure what else to do either. Other than a block or topic ban, not much to do but clean up after him I guess. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Something that may interest you.

WP:ANI#History of quaternions Once again, Dream Focus is interfering with article cleanup with his antics. But this time, he may have bitten off more then he can chew. --Farix (Talk) 04:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I was waiting for that to go to AN/I after seeing some earlier hints of it before. *shaking head* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Book of Time (novel series)

It now meets WP:BOOK. A bit of a problem... written in French.... published in France.... so I didn't even try for those versions. Then translated into English and published in the UK, and the the US. THOSE, I found and sourced. The troick was to take the books one-at-a-time, as its not yet a trilogy. Reliable sources, multiple reviewes. Oh, it can use more work.... but it's not my article. It belongs to wiki and its now a keeper. Best, and keep warm... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See my reply in the AfD. I'm not seeing any actually reliable sources. Of those you added, one is a wiki, one is a pay-to-get reviewed site, and the other appears to be one of the books itself. Where are the independent, reliable sources? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

see my comment there about the easy way to search for these. Though we often do not agree about other things, you are usually much more careful than this whole group of recent nominations. . DGG (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my nominations (and I do know how to use Google, thank you). Now responding to those searches. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

apparently not, if you used Google instead of Google News archive. if the material is there, and its there on the search I showed, and you didnt find it, that is further proof that you didn't search right, or more likely did not look through the results patiently enough. I have asked you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heir Chronicles to specify just how you did search. DGG (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've detailed it for you there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You continue to surprise me

... must be why I like you even when we bump heads. You go girl! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, thanks :) You know...it would help if we knew the original French name, or maybe it was originally published with an English title?. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

D.Gray-man characters and the English voice actors

I'm sorry to bother you, but there is a discussion going on at Talk:List of D.Gray-man characters regarding the cast of English language anime adaption and whether they should be added to the article. Your comments would appreciated. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 23:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Rescue Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		I am quite pleased to award you this Barnstar, as very few editors would nominate an article for deletion and then, based upon input at the AfD, spend the time to actually turn the sow's ear into a silk purse. I love such pleasent surprises... so thank you very much. You go girl! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) (Post Oak Mall is another one I've done that too LOL). Done with the article for now...still need to work on some of the reference formatting and finding the originals, but really tired. Been a long week and my brother is here with his kids, one of which is sick...fun fun! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Check it out, girl

DYK for The Book of Time (novel series). However, the table does not count toward a 5x expansion. Once the reviews are expanded and more added, it will hit the mark. I wanted to get it in the loop before it got too old. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Even better might be to look at that interview with the author to fill in the creation/conception. I was gonna work on that tomorrow after I get some rest. So tired now trying not to do too much major editing anymore tonight. It also needs an overall plot summary for the whole series. If it helps The Clique series is a similar type article that I work on that I was using as a model for some of my edits. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Surprise! Its done. Great minds think alike. We're now at a 5.5x expansion. I think you may be more successful in creating an overall plot summary than I, but I'mm willing to take a stab at it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool...I'll give it a bit of light copyediting tomorrow sometime, and maybe add some more...see if I can extrapolate a series plot from reviews and what not. Feel free to give it a whirl if you want though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Gave you some text to work with. You might move it? Use it? Tweak it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do and thanks. Meant to work on it today, but my brother is still here with his two kids and they are being bratty and I'm getting no sleep. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could keep you busy. I just know you didn't want to rest anytime today. You note the nice comment by the admin who approved the DYK hook? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah...who needs rest. Long stressful, emotional week and I get no weekend. Wee...they will be gone in the morning, at least, so maybe I'll get a few hours of relaxing before another long stressful week. Surprising I managed to do any editing at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Teletubbies

FYI I dropped this (3 month old) protection, hopefully the socking won't be a problem anymore, but it can always be reprotected. Just letting you know since you asked to be informed in the protection summary. Also I notice you protected your talk page at about the same time, you should really unprotect it in case a non-autoconfirmed user needs to contact you for some reason. Cheers! Prodego ^talk 03:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I had it protected because of a mass round of vandalism. Just gets annoying after a while, but probably should be unprotected again. I didn't realize it had been so long. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot summarys

Blimey these are hard to do. It might be easier to edit someone elses work then write it from scratch myself, but ignoring or downplaying significant plot points for the sake of simplicity and being concise is still hard! Theres little other I can do until I reach those points in my reread, doing it from memory is tough! For a supposed 'harem' series (a red herring as far as the manga goes) it has way too much detail in its plot :p

Still, I can move onto the anime differences now! Actually, thats going to be just as bad! Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why I don't write plot summaries (well, that and I've always been horrible at summarizing - I never know what to summarize, what's not worth the time and space, etc.) - my whole time on WP, I think I've only written summaries for a single manga volume and a single OVA episode. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the ironic thing is that I've started summaries for lists you created :p But then, thats what wiki is about :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh?! I dunno what you're talking about! *hurriedly shoves Love Hina chapter list behind back* XD 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, I know! I think part of it is practice...I look back at some of my first plot summaries and just shudder[5][6] [7](and make a note to one day revisit and correct LOL). One thing I started doing is writing my initial summaries in MS Word. Check the word count and go through hacking away. Then step away a bit, try again in a few hours/days. I can usually do better to cut down after writing it the long way than trying to write it short from the start. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about writing my next summaries for List of Love Hina chapters in sandbox, but tbh I'm not convinced it's worth it as I have no faith in my ability to write a FL-quality summary, so the result is probably going to be the same. I do the write/leave/edit thing a bit already, and that was my plan for the plot section from the start. Thankfully I was saved from the hardest part of writing it from scratch (thanks random IP!), but it doesn't make keeping it concise any easier. Theres a good chance it will get bigger before it gets smaller..... I think I'll focus on the main page rather then trying to edit 2 pages and a sandbox at the same time. The main page is the quickest one now to finish. I might enlist your assistance on the lead though! Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Depending on his work load and interest, Sephiroth is pretty good at hacking down plot summaries, so if he has any interest in the series, maybe he could help edit back if you are willing to do wth initials. I can also do some basic culling, though I have never seen the series, so I can only do rough chopping. :) Do agree, though, doing multiple large projects can be straining. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was originally skeptical at your initial culling popping up on my watchlist, but you got it bang on the money! :p An entire paragraph for two chapters of content was way too much! I've only just finished vol9, and have no more physical copies of the english volumes (I sold my original set a few years ago - which I regret now of course...). I do have digital copies, but it's really not the same! Should be ok, but not optimal, for reading the rest of the series and for the plot summary, but for article work print copies work so much better! Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want to pick those volumes back up again, RightStuf is doing a Tokyopop sale - 33% off current prices. So could get them for about $5 each *grin* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Right Stuff is on the wrong side of the world from me :P I'll need to use ebay uk or Amazon uk Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah...I thought they shipped to the UK, with a larger minimum order for free shipping. Might be thinking of another site though LOL. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They might, but it will probably cost more after shipping due to the rubbish exchange rates these days. I highly doubt I'll order enough for free international shipping. Although saying that, prices on Amazon have gone up since I last bought manga from them (a few years ago!). Still cheaper then trying to find them at retail though, and they do free shipping after 3 volumes - I need 5, so im good there. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm tackling the anime differences section now. Unfortunately the only B or Higher article I could find to use as a basis is Fullmetal Alchemist. The FMA differences are well written (as is the whole article), but there is a clear turning point and clearly defined events. With Love Hina, the first 6 or so episodes are heavily based on the equivelant manga chapters, but those chapters cover 3 volumes, with stuff the anime left out. After that point, some episodes are adapted (but often heavily changed), others are completely new. Aside from the central relationship between the two leads, the events vary from similar to completely different. My problem is that there isn't really a comparable article, so I'm not sure how to write it in terms of in/out of universe and tone. Presumably "after 6 episodes the series diverges heavily from the manga, but returns to the manga for episodes x-y, before being completely different again" is to be avoided?

In other news, I think the manga plot summary is pretty much done now. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question...that is one of the hardest sections. Wolf's Rain is another B class article that does have the differences summarized. The main thing, I guess, would be to make sure its a summary without too many excessive details. Not sure of WR's is that good yet. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it's the reverse, but I think it's a good approach. I'll give that a go. Can you just have a quick look over the article to see if any obvious issues are still there? If I can get the differences done in the next hour I can send it to peer review unless you've any immediate concerns. The lead might not be finished, you are a better judge then me. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I may as well send it to PR as it is Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

done Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That's cool...sorry, being kind of lazy today. Went and bought the first part of Ghost Hunt and been sitting and watcing it. Alas, BestBuy didn't have part 2...would have been nice to get it for 50% off to :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball manga volumes

I was just about to revert this but had second thoughts. See, Viz released "Dragon Ball" and "Dragon Ball Z" separately right? And Japan had it all in one collection. Which are we supposed to be following? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe its the English volume numbering, since we're using the English volume names, with a footnote about it. Not sure though. The graphic novel template doesn't have an option for two numbering schemes like the English one. Could maybe do both 1/42 with the appropriate header or something as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Discuss away ^^; I'd very much like to know your reasoning behind keeping the Viz manga numbering (and I'm not trying to be rude or anything of that sort, I'm simply curious). 4RM0 (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Because we generally go with the English names, etc, using the Viz numbering seems appropriate. However, I also think perhaps this shows why it might be good to have an "altvol" number parameter, since on episode lists we do use the original episode numbers first, and then use the alternate number field for dealing with differences in English numbers. Primarily, I think this should be discussed on one of the talk pages before a wholescale change is made on way or another. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Cobra

The new article is up! The heading just needs to be filled out and it also needs a plot. The plot would be kinda hard considering I haven't read much of the manga yet. : P I found two more reviews (added to the last two), and recently found one more, but still haven't added. Other than that, it be good. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty. Not bad :) Minor notes: image is too big; remember, infobox images should be 200px in general, not 250. Lead is too short (tagged for that) and needs a copyedit. In the character section, voices should go at the end in sentence format since the manga is the primary series. Per the MoS, the quote in the reception section needs to be worked into the sentence. It isn't long enough to justify a breakout. Way way way too many Els. :)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I can fix that. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I did some copyediting. How do you like it now? Fixed some grammar and typos. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

HEY. XD – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Still need to fix the character section format and put some of the voices at the end of the descriptions. Other than that, maybe break reception into two paragraphs. Then still need a regular copyedit :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, the voice thing was a mistake. : ( I put all the voices at the bottom of the paragraph, but accidentaly left one up at the top, fixed. : ) Breaking reception. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also should be formatted as bullets instead of a definition list, I think :) Other than that and a copyedit, probably a peer review. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean? :-Þ – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I redid Cobra's entry as an example for you :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that's what you meant. : ) I think that's only with film articles. :| – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at MoS, actually you're right, changing. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the picture to the literal first volume. Man, that artist sucked when he first started! He's an amazing artist now. Ah, the wonders of the 70's... ^o^ – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Hey, after 20 years if he didn't show improvement, that would be scary ;) (minor note, domestic is probably the wrong word there) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

At least he's not like Initial D, now that artist sucks like crap! XD I changed the caption. By the way, I expanded the heading, it should get larger when I put a plot section. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey ya, I expanded the heading. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking an admin to write the plot who is familiar with the series, since I haven't read much. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 05:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Manga section was getting too big, I split some of it into a "Sequals" section, now it looks pretty good. Should I take the heading tag off? The header pretty much sums up the whole article. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed it to rewrite. :) Random side note...why do people act like Joost is so awesome? I'm sitting here watching Ghost Hunt and there have already been like 3 darn commercials! Blech. I'd planned to watch the first 2-3 episodes of it and Jyu-Oh-Sei to see if I wanted to semi-blind buy the DVDs during the big Best Buy sale. The commercials make it rather frustrating though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote it, I hope you're pleased. ^_^ Are they really that bad? z:P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 06:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. How do you like that emoticon I made! I made that by accident and I was going to erase it!

I started watching Ghost Hunt and it seems pretty good so may just go buy the thing, but yeah those commercials suck! They are all public service announcement type things, which isn't so bad, but there are like 4-5 per episode. They even put one right at the end of the episode, with only like 2 seconds of show left! Its silly, and they don't make any effort to not break up conversations or action scenes at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Man, that's cheesy...and annoying. : P Why would they do that? To advertise a show you're already watching? -_- Anyway, should I delete the notifacation at the top of the page? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried watching anything on ANN yet? They're not much for selection ATM, but I like their player. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching these on ANN's site, but they are fed by Joost. I don't know which ones are actually ANN hosted? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Aah, I kinda forgot that ANN embeds videos... I'm not sure that they host any of their own. I've been watching Girls High (gah! more ditzyness than Azumanga Daioh! @_@ ) and Angelic Layer; do you know who they're embedding those off of? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Angelic Layer is coming from Joost. I think Girls High may be one of the ones they got a licensed to host themselves. Ghost Hunt was good...I went to BestBuy and picked up the first DVD set since they are doing that whole 50% dump our anime sale. Alas, they didn't have part two. Grrr...wonder if they can order it :-P I've heard someone people have been able to request them and still get the 50% off price. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the whole page and corrected everything I think is wrong. How do ya think it lookie? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 20:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Will let you know when I get a chance to look. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, kay. :) I need to get some work done too. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't talked to you guys in a while, or been editing as much, I've been really busy D: moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 23:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Its okay Moocowrule. I haven't been editing that much lately either, I need to get caught up on some work. By the way, I'm at the AppleStore using this computer right now, its so awesome! I'm using a MacBook. Only problem, its hard to see what I'm writing... D: – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So yeah, anyway, when you have time please stop by and take a look. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, tag needs to stay. It still needs a copyedit. You can't really CE your own work well (you as in the general you; I can't either :P). Its always best to have a third set of eyes with good grammar rule skills. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the major help. I thought EX was a webzine? Does taht still mean it should be under journal? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

While it is an on-line only magazine, it is still a magazine, so cite journal is a bit better to use as it as the appropriate options to include the volume/issue numbers. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Should the pages Mega Man Battle Network (series), Mega Man Zero (series), and Mega Man Legends (series) be deleted? DragonZero (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh....that one, I think I'd have to defer to the video game project, because I can't even quite tell if they are standalone games, subseries of Mega Man or what...and I'm not too familiar with the game series at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, can you check this talk and see if those two articles should remain separate? DragonZero (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, where can I request an article Doege-Potter Syndrome to be created. Also, I'm wondering if it's note worthy enough to be created. DragonZero (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles would be the place for an article creation request. It looks at least marginally notable, though not sure if it wouldn't be best served as part of a larger article on pleural fibroma. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Want to see something scary?

User talk:Dinoguy1000/to-do - feel free to add more stuff for me to do. ;) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw! That's a LOT! Thought about adding "archive your talk page" :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I like having an insanely long talk page - makes me feel important or some such nonsense. XD And not only is my to-do list long, but some of those items are really BIG projects... *looks at the "List of licensed anime/manga" entries* 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, that's why you have 16 archives! *grin* Yeah...you do have some seriously big projects on your list! I have a to do list, but I keep forgetting its there and getting side tracked. :P Of course, now that ANN's Encyclopedia is no longer RS, I guess one of my biggest project (The Tokyo Mew Mew featured topic) will be done much faster since the episode list can never be FL :( )-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean, that's why YOU have 16 archives. ;) I'm half afraid I'll keep forgetting my own to-do list (even though I've linked to it in my sidebar via some monobook.js trickery), considering how neglected the mini-list on my user page is... As for the whole ANN Encyclopedia debacle, I'd personally continue using it as a last resort, but I really don't usually do work that requires me to cite ANN in the first place (more because I don't go actively hunting for material than that I purposely steer clear of it =P ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, fortunately I found that my existing anime ep FLs actually weren't using it (yay), but TMM just has nothing anyway. Silly airing channel didn't include dates in its episode lists. I'll probably still give it a whirl, but I suspect it will fail. :( Of course, first I need to uh, acquire, those eps to fix the summaries cause some of them seem rather incorrect. :P Reminds me...I need to finish at least redoing the summaries even with the potentially incorrect summaries.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Book of Time (novel series)

On March 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Book of Time (novel series), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 04:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations girl! Well done! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and back at you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sharing Accounts

For AnmaFinotera: I didn't necessarily let him use it. My user was already logged on whenever he uses Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorseNinja (talk • contribs) 21:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Allowing the same account to be used by more than one person, regardless of the reason, is against policy and will get you blocked if it continues to happen. Make sure your brother understands this and advise him to register his own account on Wikipedia. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ai no Kusabi tags

Last year, you added numerous tags to Ai no Kusabi. I have done some work on the article which I believe has decidedly improved it, so if you could please revisit the article and remove the tags which no longer apply, I would appreciate it. Thanks. --Malkinann (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently, I'd say all three still apply. The media section is badly formatted and is missing the actual novel information. The refs are not formatted properly at all. The character section has too many minor characters, and is completely unsourced. Its much improved, but still has some work needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, at least the content of the article has been improved. Formatting isn't my strong point. I disagree that the character section has too many minor characters in it. I suspect that the summary I reworked came from the OAV, which Aestheticism says greatly simplified the story. The Aestheticism novels summary/review only omits Daryl and Mimea. --Malkinann (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it definitely has improved! Possibly. I honestly couldn't stomach the translation enough to get through the first one...its still sitting somewhere in my boxes of books :P Glad DMP seems to maybe be getting better with those. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's horrible! "Ai no Kusabi" should be moved to "The Space Between" (in the "note" it says 'translated by DMP as "The Space Between"', which I'm assuming is in reference to Digital Manga Publishing.). I disagree with the note, the translation should be located in the template, as it is with almost every other article, and the article itself should be moved to "The Space Between". moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 18:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Or not. It appears that's only a translation. The official title is "Ai No Kusabi". moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The series is being released as Ai No Kusabi. "The Space Between" seens to be a subtitle of sorts. It only appears on the cover though, and is officially referred to as Ai No Kusabi in solicitations and on their website. The article is in the proper place.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that Ai no Kusabi is even listed in the Anime Encyclopedia under an aka - "Ties of Love", perhaps more of the unofficial akas are warranted in the article? --Malkinann (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the note for Anime Encyc. Pretty sure that was fixed in the second edition however. They have listed some other licensed series under unofficial fan names though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That bleach list

I understand it has been a while since this happened but last April you moved List of Bleach media "per consensus". It seems that the consensus doesn't exist. I still find myself wanting to see that page again but I only recently realized it was still in a page's history (I didn't know Bleach media and materials was moved to List of Bleach media before it was deleted). Please direct me to the consensus before I try and restore the page. Kanjo Kotr (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an established Wp:Anime consensus for such moves/merges. I strongly suggested you don't restore the page, you will only cause unnecessary arguments and it will be undone. Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As Dandy Sephy said, it was merged per consensus to the main article, Bleach (manga). This was done with project consensus that such media pages are completely inappropriate splits and should be merged back to their main articles, which was done. This was also discussed explicitly on the Bleach talk page, as can be seen in Talk:Bleach (manga)/Archive 6 again showing consensus. So, second do not try to restore the page, as it will just be seen as disruptive, particularly attempting to undo a merge that was done nearly a year ago. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It will also need to be in it's current form if the article is re-promoted to B class or Good Article status. Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Film coordinator?

With two of the standing coordinators not running, there's a bit of a paucity of candidates for the film project's coordinators election. Would you be interested in running? Given your experience with assessment and other tasks (hell, you're basically fulfilling a coordinator role for WP:ANIME right now unofficially or not), I think you'd be a good candidate. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never quite understood what the coordinators due, exactly? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically all of the project wonkery. Aside from participating in discussion at WT:FILMC, we manage task forces, conduct assessment runs, keep {{WPFILMS Announcements}} updated, make peer reviews, discuss possible changes to relevant guidelines before bringing it before the community, act as a source for questions and advice from the project members, and in general, represent the project. Your work in the Tag & Assess drive for WP:ANIME—something WP:FILM is probably going to have in the near future—and a decent amount of quality film content that you've cranked out were the primary reasons I thought you'd be a good candidate. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I'd be willing to give it a whirl then :) Would like to be more involved with Films, even if I do mostly prefer to work on those wonderful Sci Fi channel B movies' articles ;) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Feel free to sign up here then. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dragonball Evolution

You should stop with your ownership on articles instead of asking me to stop edit warring. Weather the article does not need or needs soundtrack is not up to you. This is an encyclopedia sites. The matter is that the soundtrack is available and MUST be mentioned. Iam not sure what do meant by "Nor are you even formatting it or positioning it correctly if it were to have a soundtrack section." --SkyWalker (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with ownership, but with following guidelines, of which you are violating several (including WP:BRD - you were bold and attempted a merge, it was reverted, you don't keep trying to have you way anyway). The soundtrack is already given an appropriate mention in the merchandise section, including its release date. This is an encyclopedia, not a sales catalog. Including the tracklist is unnecessary and adds no value to the article. This is the overwhelming consensus among film articles, not just my personal point of view. Adding an album infobox is against the manual of style. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I will agree with Sky. I mean you removed the amount made. Its not much. So what! It will increase through the coming days. Atleast it's giving the film a bit extra added to it. It may not be much because that was when it was opened in South Korea and just some of the box office openings. Dude, give me a break for once! Goku1st (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWS. Doing updates every few hours is really excessive, as it giving the first few minutes of its opening box office numbers. Let it at least actually finish opening first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

-_-' Fine. Goku1st (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just David

I hope you don't mind if I don't read your reworked plot summary, since I'm only in chapter 8 right now and I want to keep it a surprise. David is learning to live the life of a Puritan and he doesn't like it much, nor do I. Listen, I am not aware of any referencing guidelines. I use reflist|2 because I like the looks of it. If that's not right, please tell me where those guidelines are--cause this is what I use all the time. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to the book--David is about to peruse the bookshelves at the Holly house. Did you know his father taught him French and German? Smart kid! Drmies (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I see that you are childfree--if I were still childfree, this awful sentimental novel wouldn't make such an impression on me. You should read the whole thing; it's an excellent education in how America constructed its children. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. :) Feel free to tweak it when you're done reading it, I just quick skimmed it from Gutenberg, particularly the ending, to get the full summary in. For the references, the guideline I was mentioning is the guideline on resizing references. In general, an article should use <references /> unless and until it has enough references where resizing them to a small font size is at least somewhat justifiable (per consensus, this is usually requires at least 10 references). Two column format should be used sparingly and only when there are so many references that it is beneficial to the few users who can see it (again, consensus generally goes with at at least 20 well formatted references). See Wikipedia:Footnotes#Resizing_references and the subsequent section on multiple columns for more on this. You might also want to read the talk page, which has several discussions on the whole multiple-column issue as they are a bit controversial and there have been discussions to remove the option all together.

And yes, I am child-free, but that does not mean I have no interest in children and young adult novels. If you scan my library shelves, you'll find a good two dozen, at least, that I purchased purely for my own reading pleasure. Some classics I've read dozens of times even at my age. I do, however, tend to prefer animal-focused stories over human ones, apart from some Lynn Hall works and a few select others. From the quick scanning of this novel, I was thinking it would make a great anime series :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear AnmaFinotera, why are you so dead set on removing that reference to that section from The Book Mart, "Chronicle and Comment," 494-96? Have you done that twice or three times now? Maybe you are you a big fan of Seventeen--that section talks at length about how they alternate in sales, and I know I shouldn't be interpreting, but it seems an obvious conclusion that it's a big deal to them, big enough to write about and publish in what is deemed a reliable source, yes, WP:RS. Or is the intent really to bring down the number of separate references as much as possible? I mean, I assume you removed the reference to the The Continuum Encyclopedia of Children's Literature (under the guise of "one can't talk about other books") for that same reason. But you can sure cite policy... I'm waiting on your response to my citing policy, in the AfD. And on your explanation of how The English Journal is unnotable. Later! Drmies (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Could care less about Seventeen, however it is completely irrelevant. Just David was second and third, that's all that needs to be said, not throwing in all the details about another novel. Just making the prose concise, per Wikipedia editing guidelines. The same reason I've been rewriting a lot of your additions, as well as to fix basic tonal issues and way too much "gushing" going on. Prose should be written concisely, neutrally, and summarizing only what is said in the source, without adding any personal views, conclusions, etc, no matter how "obvious" it may seem. This is a fairly basic tenet of Wikipedia editing. As for the removed source, it seemed to only be about Seventeen. As the line was removed, the source should be as well. And it has nothing to do with "bringing down the number of references" (a little WP:AGF wouldn't hurt here), but just throwing in unrelated references does not do the article any service either. The English Journal isn't notable if it doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Just because its published by a notable group does not make it notable. I've replied to all of your questions in the AfD itself as far as I can see. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Domain Auction Scam

Hello, actually everything is so confusing here for a newbie, its taking sometime for me to understand all this, so please bear with me. Regarding the article Domain Auction Scam, I don't know what to say. If you think its ok to delete, then as you wish. Alok Sharma (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Rescue tag and Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer

There's some duscussion of the Rescue tag and Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer here, you might want to look in on it. Artw (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not the first editor to remove the rescue tag, as an FYI. DF asked for consensus first after Farix removed it, so I backed up its removal. As you noted there, though, both of us are extremely active in the anime/manga project. A third person has now removed the tag, but DF removed it again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tsubasa

ROFLOL Oh my gosh, that is just too hilarious!! Look at this revision to Captain Tsubasa. Notice how (s)he changes Footer to Soccer! XD – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, that is just sad. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's quite funny. *goes off to create Template:Infobox Animanga/Soccer* XD 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi girl!

You know I have not one bit of bad feeling toward you, and plenty enjoy working with you. I can understand why you removed the tag at Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer diff, but we already know that sometimes we can be wrong. I've tried to save articles that got deleted... and heck between you and I we saved an article you yorself originally thought unsalvagable. A nice DYK too. All someone tagging that newer article means is that they thought it might be saved and are asking for help. No more. No less. If they are unable to do so before the clock ticks down, it will be gone. No denying that. SO it doesn't hurt a thing to see what they can do with it. And I hope you are pleasently surprised if they make it a winner. If they don't..... well... don't gloat too much (chuckle). With best wishes, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't supposed anyone at the ARS has yet to correct Dream Focus' false statements that I was the first to remove the tag, not mentioned that I was not the last? I was simply supporting someone else's removal of the tag since ARS claims that rescue should not be used on every last AfD article, but only those that are salvageable (pretty sure that was part of the whole crux of its current deletion discussion). Particularly in this case, where he tags screams keep at anything and everything irregardless of actual validity (even yelled keep for a HOAX!), removes every prod and CSD, and basically refuses to acknowledge or accept the real notability guidelines. Three different editors removed that tag as being unnecessary and a waste of time. As a side note, I really hate being referred to as "girl".-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

About The New "SyFy" Logo...

It was already up on The New York Times web pages, and the new URL portal of http://www.syfy.com was introduced, so I ask to revert if you please. NoseNuggets (talk) 6:30 PM US EDT Mar 16 2009.

No. First, that logo was already uploaded under another file name, which came before your's, hence its being tagged for CSD. We do not have multiple copies of non-free images. Second, history has shown that the logo can and probably will change before July. While noting that the name is slated to name is one thing, adding the logo right now can NOT be justified under WP:NONFREE. This has been upheld at previous discussions where organizations, companies, and channels were releasing new logos, including Animal Planet. Until the new name and logo are officially launched, images of them are not to be included in the articles. Nor is there any valid reason to link to the new website when its nothing but a press release per WP:EL -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators/Election 4

I have responded to your question on the election page. Thank you! Limetolime ^{Talk to me • look what I did!} 22:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

I think Mobile Suit Gundam SEED C.E. 73: Stargazer and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny should be merged into Mobile Suit Gundam SEED. Should it? DragonZero (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

At first glance, I'd say yes, but may want to pop a note over to Farix as he's been kind of taking the front seat on dealing with the Gundam mess. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Will removing minor characters that do not affect the plot be allowed? They have voice actors listed for them DragonZero (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, such minor characters, especially any that are one-two episode ones or ones that are just background ones should be removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I need some help. For the article Naruto: Clash of Ninja (series) I'm really tired of people posting rumors about Clash of Ninja Revolution 3. I find that the source with it is not reliable and I'm not sure what kind of warning to give to the user. DragonZero (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted and left him a warning welcome that discusses reliable sources. If he continues, the warning would depend on the site. Usually the general unsourced warning still applies for unreliable sources, though if its a site that violates copyright violations, then he receive that warning instead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help answering the questions on the Gundam Seed character lists. I wouldn't be able to answer the questions based on wiki standards. DragonZero (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for tackling that second list :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC/U with Dream Focus

As that discussion on my talk page wasn't really going anywhere, I think you would be better served by taking the issue to RfC/U and illustrating your issues in a bit of a more cogent manner. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Alas, RfC/Us seem to be useless for the most part, and not sure it would do any good. Activity there seems kind of sporadic. Sometimes something gets lots of discussion, sometimes nothing, but I believe it would be non-binding in either case? In the end people will still just say "y'all just need to get along" and he'll be allowed to do what he likes. It is one of the unfortunately weaknesses inherit in a community-run site. Not that ignoring him does any good either, despite neon_white seeming to think that's the best answer. He'll still just run around and attack people, not even just myself, but he also goes after Farix some and some others. And his user page, despite seeming to be an attack piece, is apparently okay because its just talking about "evil deletionists" anyway. Basically any place there is any merge discussion because of his twisted idea that merge's must either mean a complete copy/paste or its just deletion, he'll show up, usually following me around I guess in case he missed some. Sometimes that whole "right to vanish" is very tempting, if it weren't for not wanting to lose my edit history or have to "start over" again as an editor. Thanks for trying to resolve things though. It is appreciated. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My immediate response to treat him like A Nobody: he has a crackpot view but he's in the minority in most cases, so don't worry that much. Leaving him be in terms of WQA and ANI reports is probably best unless he's doing something rather blatant that needs reporting. Yes, it's annoying and obnoxious—especially because he has practically no significant article contributions whatsoever—but it's probably the best way to deal with him by minimizing drama. And please, please don't vanish. We (namely a lot of the editors of the anime/manga and film projects and elsewhere) do appreciate your contributions. A lot. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, for now will continue to just try to ignore him and try (harder) not to respond to his baiting. Will, however, not decline to oppose the silly idea submitted to WP:N (though I see it has renewed Pixelface's running around again *ugh*). :P On a more pleasant note, the TMM character list peer review has closed, but I don't think you'd gotten a chance to respond to whether I'd address the plot issues so it can be CEed and go for FLC? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Aidan Gould

I found this article for some obscure child actor. He played a minor roll in one obscure movie. I do not think he is notable. : P I looked him up on Google and the third thing that came up was a Facebook page, a definate no. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That is like classic A7 CSD. Tagged. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Usonian

I'm sorry if you find the U.S.A. demonym Usonian as "ridiculous". I suggest you read this article published in July 12, 1915 [[8]]. Also I suggest you read the origins of the word, located here[[9]]. It's good to educate one self every now and then. Thanks -- Douken (talk · contribs) 04:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, AnmaFinotera is right, "usonian" doesn't belong in place of "American" without some major explaining and determining of consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Published in 1915? Seriously...uh, no thanks. Wikipedia consensus is we use American, not an archaic term. It is ridiculous which is why no one but you apparently uses it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga

Most of the remaining requests on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga have been tagged dubious by KrebMarkt. Should I move the remaining requests to the Refused Archive Extremepro (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If additional sources haven't been found, then probably, but may want to ask KrebMarkt as well to see if he had something in mind for those. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:FILMS Coordinator Election

Hello there! Thanks for the advice! Yes, I think I know how it works. I was voting for coordinators, but then I realized that it is also for the election of the lead coordinator. So, I decided to remove my other votes. I'm sorry because one of those was for you :(. I think that the voting process is little good. IMHO, a two-round system, with a second ballot for the lead coordinator could be a better solution. Anyway, I'll take a look at the results before the end of term. And, "probably", I'll give you my vote again. Cheers and good luck with your election! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 16:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. I can see your point on the lead coordinator as well. Might be a good thing to suggest for the future elections to make it a clearer process. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Editname

I found another sockpuppet to Journeey. See. I actually think that all the others are sockpuppets to this. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Minorly?

MINORLY? I noticed that you are now beginning to create new words, I do so relish the thought of what is yet to come... perhaps, these new appendages to language could be gathered somewhere (suggestion: the AnmaFinoteraly Compendiumly Librarly). I have to quit for now, as I am chokingly on the tonguely in my cheekly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

LOL, I guess its a southern thing. Anything can be made -ly just by sticking the ly at the end (and yes, I've used the word chokingly too :-P) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

100 Minutes?

Where did you find this out as i thought it was 89 minutes as thats what a lot of the cinema websites tell me. Goku1st (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be all over the place, but 100 minutes is what Box Office Mojo listed, so I changed it to that. If more cinema sites are saying 89 though, change it back (maybe add a hidden note to that affect). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thing is though, box office mojo isn't realiable also because of the fact: It says the films grossed $16,500,000, but if you total up the gross below it, it doesnt make $16,500,000 due to the fact they haven't updated it, making it (in a way) unreliable. I'm just saying. Things like that can be unreliable also. Goku1st (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh P.S. A lot of people feel the film was rushed so many it was a shortish film (89 mins)... maybe :P Goku1st (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Could be...or could be a sign of different edits floating around. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

THINK OF THE POSSIBILITIES XD Goku1st (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, after reading that ANN review, not sure I want to :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I read that review too. Based on it, I think the only good thing to be said about the movie is that it completely surpassed fans' expectations (in the worst way possible, of course). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

ANN interview? Is that the one on the page? Thing is, many people are just comparing it too much with the series when this is completly different. Watch my video on youtube and you'll see what i mean. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Ffd9ogTbs - AnmaFinotera, remove the link if you dont want it on your page :P But watch it first xD Goku1st (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Its inevitable that most people will compare it to the series. Of course, seeing as how I've never read or watched it, I might end up liking the movie LOL -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Its strange though (i say though alot. Lol!). People didn't compare transformers when it came out and there were many changes. E.G. The name of the main Character. Its stupid how people compare Dragonball but don't compare Transformers. Goku1st (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? I heard a lot of people comparing Transformers and complaining before it came out. Petered out after it came out though because while different, it was good. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh? Well what would i know? I didn't really watch transformers, though i knew it and when i heard it was coming out, i thought to myself as a non transformer fan, that looks good. Went to see it, came out of the cinema.... FANTASTIC! Was looking so forward to the sequel and then i heard one has been made for this year. I'm so excited :) Goku1st (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a fan, but also loved the movie. Looking forward to the sequel as well. I think it comes out at the end of June...so guess it will hit DVD in August or September. Yay!-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Too soon. (Whatim going to say maybe disturbing for you...)High School Musical 3 came out in October worlw wide and didn't get released onto DVD until 4 months later (February), so Transformers most likely wont be released to DVD until October/November time. Dragonball Evolution wont be released until around August/September :P BTW, we should like find a place on wikipedia to constantly talk as we're using up alot of space on your talk pages and randomly changing subject xD Goku1st (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

True on HSM 3 (is it sad to admit I went and rented it that weekend? :P). So maybe will be something for my Christmas list on Transformers. :) And now worries on my talk page...I'm used to it LOL (~wonders where the other usual suspect is...~) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

For a female, its not sad to admit it. For a male, yes it is. I mean i have the triology of the series and people take the mick. So what? Musicals are great! And i'm not gay btw :P Goku1st (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

InuYasha Characters

InuYasha is the main character of the series. Kagome Higurashi is one of the main characters but the second protagonist after InuYasha. My edit wasn't a error.Souta (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That is your personal point of view and you've already made it abundantly clear that you have some anti-Kagome bias. In the end, the series is about her first, and her relationship/adventures with InuYasha. Just because his name is the title does not mean he is the main character and should be first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Titular character != main character. Generally, the two go hand-in-hand, but every once in awhile, you run across something that completely flies in the face of your preconceived notions. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Speedy Deletion Pages Flagged

You can actually delete both of those pages. I agree that they are not right for Wikipedia, and the content is better suited on personal domains.

Thanks for the help!!!!

--Mediclink (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing and stating that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Since he created the article both times, I'm trying hard not to think that the only reason he's so agreeable now is that the edit war today was over rather bad press that the company has received, apparently some legal troubles have ensued. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that, but I've yet to find any WP:RS backing up those edits (or most of the stuff Mediclink put in either beyond the bit on it being a fast growing business in St John's back in September. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm having the same trouble. I'm thinking Afd is the way to go - it will get a thorough look then; it is entirely possible there are sources out there but we're not finding them. OTOH, if its deleted at least I'll know it was not because no one looked at it thoroughly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

With it edit protected, can't even clean out the "references" that go no where. :P Thus far I've found quite a few press releases from them, but nothing else. If it were an older company, I'd think it was from archiving, but its too recent not to still have something up if there was any actual coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I only protected it for an hour, OrangeMike upped it - if you're willing to see what you can do iwth it, go for it. I'm reducing to semi now. There is another editor who was adding unsourced content; if that starts up again pls drop me a note on my talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Am I the only one wondering if a checkuser was done, how many of the redlink SPAs that hit this article will turn out to be the same person? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, so far only two RS. One directory type thing, and one that's an interview with Jonathan. Interestingly enough, I can't even find a single source (RS or not) to verify its really closed beyond its website being gone :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you've done a lovely job of cleanup, given the (lack of) sources and the mess you started with. What's your feeling on it at this point? Leave it for a few, see if any more sources are located? Afd, see what the community thinks? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) I'm saying AfD at this point (just did, actually). Even the local St. John paper has not a single article on this company, and I went through the journal databases including ones like Lexis Nexus, and not even one hit. So I'd say at this point, let the community have at it. Spelled out all that in the nom, so hope that's okay. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, and thanks for cleaning it pre-nom; as the original was a puff piece I don't see how the topic could have gotten a fair hearing without some effort in that direction. I especially respect your efforts as I see you are more a deletionist than an inclusionist, so your ethical commitment to this is all the more admirable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No prob. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

HeMan5

Howdy and thanks for the note about User:HeMan5. I took his request to be in good faith, so I went ahead and deleted the pages he requested. If you notice that he has used the deletion to some nefarious purpose, let me know. I will keep an eye out as well. In your experience with this editor, do you think some further action is warranted? Thanks again and keep up the great work. Best, --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure...if he actually does leave like he said, probably not, but if he returns to be disruptive again, especially now that he's changed his name, I think something would need to be done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? What did he do? o.O Goku1st (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

He changed the DVD release table at The Pretender (TV series) and I reverted because it was excessive detail going into a series article rather than the ep list, then went ahead and removed the old table as well to replace it with the more appropriate prose version (per TV project consensus, FAs, etc etc). He edit warred over it a bit, but finally stopped when others from the project stepped up. Then, after saying "I'm leaving this place" and throwing a cyber-tantrum, he went through dozens of TV series articles and ripped out the DVD tables without bothering to replace them with prose summaries and saying he was following the TV MoS "policy." *sigh* Someone else sent it to AN/I because it was obvious he was being WP:POINTy instead of actually seeking to improve those articles (which need improvement, but that's another whole issue :P )-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What a douche. Thing is though, a lot of people want to try and do things their way (not offending or critisising your work). Lots of people want to do it their own way and really the only things they can do that to is their own page. I pretty much take control of an article (i just happened to be around a lot on Merlin and i've added a page for every episode (like Doctor Who and Heroes). I love doingit that way as it keeps me occupied.... im making no sense am i? :P BTW, sorry for all the hassles we've had in the past over DBE. I've just a hardcore fan of the series and sometimes i like to get my own way but don't so i take it out on the one who edits it. Lol. Sorry :) Goku1st (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing is, he never edited that article before. He was just running around going through a bunch of TV articles and putting in complicated tables just because he liked them. And yeah, I hear you on doing things "your own" way, but the problem is when that way goes against consensus at a place like here. There are some guidelines I don't necessarily like or agree with, but I follow them because its a community edited site and part of being in a community is following the rules :) And makes perfect sense, though will bite my tongue on making episode articles :P And no worries, I usually try to be understanding when I recognize someone is a fan of the series. Long as it doesn't descend to personal attacks, incivility/harassment, its all good. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Making episode pages are fun. It makes people feel jealous as they may have wanted to do them before hand and you beat them to it. Also, it keeps you occupied for the next 15 minutes per episodes. :) Goku1st (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No...was thinking more like making them means breaking Wikipedia guidelines and causing headaches for those of us who have to go smerge them back to the episode lists because they aren't appropriate :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Merlin episode list is in the style as the doctor who episode pages, and Heroes. If you wish to remove, feel free (but i worked so hard on them /cry) :P lol Goku1st (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, just because other stuff exists...blah blah blah. :P See WP:MOSTV for the relevant information, but generally the "good" thing to do would be to go ahead and merge the plots to the episode list, then redirect to that list -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Too much reading for me :) Where the heck do you get time to read every bit of detail? lol Goku1st (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Partially from being a fast reader. Also helps I've been a member of the project for about 2 years now and helped craft large parts of it :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that may explain a lot :P Goku1st (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also have lots of free time LOL, and work with Television articles so much that after awhile you remember most of it. Ditto with Films and with anime/manga's MoSes and guidelines. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Girls do love their Mangas and Anime. I know a girl in my Year who can't stop drawing Manga! No wonder you like editing mangas a lot :P Goku1st (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

*cough*hate being called a girl at my age*cough* And unless she's Japanese, technically she isn't drawing manga :P Lots of males like it too. But yeah, I like editing manga and anime related articles because the subject interests me and because I think its project is one of the better ones for supporting its editors and really being willing to tackle the headaches of trying to enforce guidelines and policies when fans may not agree. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh cmon, your not THAT old. If your in your 20's, your still considered a girl xD Also, about Dragonball Evolution, i made a survey and so far within 2 hours, 2 people have answered. One person rated the film 1/5, another 4/5, so it maybe a fairly mixed film... o.O http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=Fi9ziygfoOf66mBxkn8_2bDw_3d_3d <--- Thats for if anybody has seen it, which i know some has, as they went to Japan o.O Goku1st (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly...I'm in my 30s, so not a girl anymore :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

0-10 - Baby, 11-20 Teenage Girl, 21-30 A Girl, 31-40 Lady, 41-50 Woman, 51-60 Grumpy Woman, 61-75 Pensioner, 76+ Dead as a rat xD - But seriously, i play a game called World of Warcraft, and even 50 year olds play on it. Trust me, i've met one :P Goku1st (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Lady is acceptable, even if I ain't one :P (and 76 - starting second life) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, i prefer dead as a rat xD Goku1st (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

When you hit your late 20s, early 30s, trust me, you'll change your mind. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Gross

DAMN YOU! YOU KEEP BEATING ME TO THE GROSS!!! I'm so glad you didn't moderare the Merlin pages when i did when it was showing on UK TV xD lol Goku1st (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL...have you ever noticed how long I'm online and how fast I type/click? *mua ha ha* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have tbh. Your like on your profile every 2 minutes :P Goku1st (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Now i've beaten you on gross xD Goku1st (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really...someone else updated, but they didn't update the dates, so I reverted it :P I usually only update when BoM updates their "as of" date rather than doing near daily updates :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well i uploaded the gross ($18,055,651) (check history) but didn't change the dates as the dates were not changed on the "as of" list. But i forgot to change when they were last recovered. Soz :P Goku1st (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Good and DYK thingies

Hello! I notice you have some Good article and DYK stuff on top of your talk page. If you see on my talk page, I have some rescue things, but anyway, please note [10] and [11], I wish I could have the Good and DYK items up there as well. Could you please add them to my talk page with the lifepreservers like what you have on your talk page? Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. I usually find its easier to main those if you have them in a separate page and transclude (mine transclude from User:AnmaFinotera/MiniBrags). Also keeps visitors from accidentally messing with them :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! I will keep your suggestion in mind as well. My next hope is to get some kind of featured credit as I have discussed at User_talk:Durova#Featured_sound.3F. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! :) I haven't tried the featured media (sound/image) as I don't do much with either, and it always seems so much more subjective. So a difficult task, but certainly a worthwhile one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: User page protection

 Done by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 13:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for White Dog (book)

On March 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White Dog (book), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday to me :) Thanks! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting in The Land Before Time.

Good day, AnmaFinotera! It's been a long while since we last communicated; I hope that you've been well?

What I am calling about is this: I have made some copyedits to The Land Before Time, which you can see in the history of the page. I hope that I did the right thing in doing so, but I'd appreciate it if you look it over when you have the time, as I trust your viewpoint on encyclopedic writing better than I do my own. Also, I left a few comments to other editors on the talkpage, under 'Cleanup in "Production"', which I think might be important.

See you around! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good so far. :) Are you planning on working with it extensively? I think it should be quite possible to take it to GA or even FA as it was well covered in third-party sources. If so, a few other notes in that the layout/content needs a little tweaking per WP:MOSFILM: quick notes would be Development should be Production; Soundtrack section should not have a tracklisting and can be merged with the "Legacy" into a straight Media section which also notes the sequel film/TV series; cast should be removed since its in the plot, plot needs culling to met the guidelines, and reception of course needs much expansion fixing (BOM's rating is meaningless, etc). I cleaned up the ELs already. Might also want to find a better quality version of the poster for the infobox. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Land Before Time? I forgot about that! Haven't heard of that movie for years. ^_^ – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 22:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to AnmaFinotera) I wasn't really planning on that, not yet. I'm mainly there to keep the article tidy, and free it of cruft. But one of these days I might get around to taking it further. Thanks for your help!!! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No prob :) If you decide to take it further, let me know. I can probably find some older news sources through my uni's journal searching. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My edits on Blood+

I've noticed that you reverted my first edit on Blood+ because it lacks a source (it is actually being aired here in English on the channel indicated). I've reinstated the information you reverted, but this time provided a source (from a reliable website). Is the reference enough? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I've tweaked it to move the reference out of the infobox and into the prose, for neatness. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Final Fantasy references

Hey, I had a quick question regarding citation style. I've been going through sources for a rewrite of Final Fantasy and there are several web ones which are quite lengthy. If it were a book, I'd duplicate the references but differentiate them with page numbers and chapters. Should I take similar approach with this GameSpot article? It has separate sections and subsections, with most spanning 2–4 pages.

Another tricky one is a series of GameTrailer Retrospective videos. It is divided into thirteen parts, with each part about 20–23 minutes long. Some I only plan to use for a single citation, but a few I plan to cite for various things. Should I divide them based on the time frame the information appears in (like citation 1 Part IV 2:15, citation 2 Part IV 15:45, etc.) or keep it simple? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Just cite the GameSpot...I'd probably consider each page to be a separate references, rather than one whole piece. Just use the full title of each, like The History of Final Fantasy: The Main Final Fantasies: Final Fantasy. For the video, however, just cite each video as a whole, not by time frame/stamp, same as would be done with a television episode. Consider each part to be separate refs, of course :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the quick response. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Dragonball Evolution

From WP:FilmRelease

"Its first release dates in majority English-speaking countries only (because this is the English Wikipedia); e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc."

This means that the first release of each English-speaking country should be listed, not the first out of all of them. BOVINEBOY2008 14:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not mean the first release in EACH county, it means the first English release period. This is the consensus of the Film project. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Release dates in infobox for very recent discussion on this and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Release Date clarification where I have asked that the guideline be clarified since some editors are apparently confused by the current wording. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. BOVINEBOY2008 17:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

On the election results and your new position as a film coordinator. Looking forward to seeing you frequent the discussion at WT:FILMC. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In any case, you probably can put this on your userpage: {{User WikiProject Films|Coordinator}} ;-) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :D I've added it to my watchlist and will be reading over it soon. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday!!!

When I noticed the message above I felt I ought to give a birthday congrats to you. I looked all around, but this was the best cake I could find. I hope it works!

Happy Birthday, AnmaFinotera!!!

Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and hey, can never go wrong with chocolate ;) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Its your birthday? HAPPY BIRTHDAY....... (Ill just use your username :P) AnmaFinotera!!! How old are ye today? :P Only kidding :P Have a great day! Goku1st (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday to you... Thanks god nobody can hear my voice. Happy birthday AnmaFinotera.Tintor2 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday ! Peace, rkmlai (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! ^_^ (it was either that, or a prequel manga/film for Ring, sorry...) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday AnmaFinotera! :D I wish I got a WikiCake on my birthday... :( *sniff* – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Aaah, I missed your birthday!? Happy belated birthday! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 18:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

D: Sorry I missed your b-day, but happy [late] birthday! moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 18:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Azkadellia

How was my edit unconstructive? I was of the impression that an avatar was a victim of possession and Azkadellia's possessed by the spirit of the Evil Witch. --86.138.73.176 (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI AnmaFinotera, this is obviuosly User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus (aka User:YourLord) back for his occassional block evasion. Same type of behavior on same families of articles (Tin Man, The 10th Kingdom, & Skullduggery Pleasant-related articles for example), same IP range, same behavior (category cruft of the fictional foo variety, OR psychoanalysis of his fav fictional characters [12]), same snarky attitude. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Figures. Reported for blocking.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Lover (2004 novel)

On March 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Lover (2004 novel), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Double awesome! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wassup

What's new with you? I just got engaged! Yippe! *joking* And I'm 12 years old! *joking* Some new manga I got include 5 Raijin Comics issues and the first volume of City Hunter, both rare. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing much. Got some more unpacking done (finally), overhauled/organized my bathroom at last (yay), and tried to destress during my spring break. Ended up doing weird Wiki editing :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No seriously, I just got engaged. (the *joking* thing was reffering to the 12-year old thingy) What was the weird Wiki editing? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 22:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, cool, congrats. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You get any new manga? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In general? I bought 41 new volumes last month, seven have arrived this month. If you mean new series, I started reading Hell Girl. BookCloseOuts.com put all their manga on sale for 99 cents, so I picked up the first volume of Pearl Pink and the first five volumes of Ultra Cute (along with vol 8, they didn't have 6 * 7), and vols 2 & 3 of Platinum Garden (got vol 1 ages ago). They are still in route, though, along with the latest volume of Fruits Basket. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I just got JP volumes 1 & 2 of Bakuman and 2 & 3 of Tegami Bachi. Tegami Bachi has the most amazing artwork ever! It makes me so mad that stupid ol' Viz had to go and replace all the Japanese FX with goofy typefaces and edit out the *gasp!* D-word! Well, Bakuman also has really good artwork. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Another Furuba has been released? *goes to check chapter list* EDIT: Woohoo, so it has! And RPLS already has a copy! *requests* =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep...now just have to wait till July for the final volume. Both a sad and an exciting thought. Have you tried her new series,Phantom Dream? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Aah, yes, the love/hate melancholy of a series finale... ='( I believe I've read the first chapter of Phantom Dream, and I have volume 1 requested, but it's still in cataloging. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I read the first chapter two (didn't it preview in Shojo Beat?) Man your library gets stuff relatively quick :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't relate to anything you're saying now! :D *nose bleed* – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Hey, least we aren't talking yaoi :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I read the first chapter when it was previewed in a different manga volume (though what volume that was, I've forgotten completely... maybe Forbidden Dance 1? hmm...). I've read a few issues of SB (someone's been donating back issues to my library! ^_^ ), but that's definitely not where I read the preview. It's not my library getting Phantom Dream 1, but another one in the Rolling Prairie Library System (RPLS), which includes several dozen school, academic, and public libraries throughout central Illinois. I'd still have to agree, though, that *was* pretty fast... most of the time when an RPLS library gets a volume so soon after release (or preorders it), it's a big-name series like Naruto or One Piece. As for yaoi... I'm not so sure about the serious stuff (Descendants of Darkness was absolute torture when I watched it on Ani-Monday, but that could be more because of bad voice acting and a rather stupid (or at least poorly executed) plotline IMHO), but I love the comical yaoi in some series (like the twins from Ouran XD ). BTW, AnmaFinotera, you need to get the semiprotection removed from your talkpage so I can reply from home without having to log in on my ancient behemoth! ;) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 05:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It couldn't have been Forbidden Dance as that one was released ages ago and I think is now out of print :) ROFLOL at Descendants of Darkness cause yeah, that voice acting was so hideous I couldn't even watch one whole episode. For the semi-protection, I'd put in a request but I guess I messed it up because I just discovered my user page's semi-protection was removed instead of my talk page. Asked the admin who fulfilled to switch it around :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(yay massive indents! XD ) Not Forbidden Dance, eh? Hmm... I'll have to think on it more, than. And as for Forbidden Dance being out of print... well, that's rather disappointing, I've only read vol. 1, and none of the libraries in RPLS have any other volumes. =( Descendants of Darkness... I wanted to shoot the characters so often, it wasn't even funny. Just so long as Sci Fi doesn't decide to reair it for some asinine reason, like they insist on doing with Sword for Truth and Psychic Wars (Vampire Wars on the other hand, I don't mind so much, since its plot is actually quite interesting, even if a single hour-long OVA episode doesn't do it justice...). Hope you get the protection straightened out quick! 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 07:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Should try to find the other three...its a pretty good series and packs in a great story despite its short length. I've seen several of the volumes making the rounds in the remaindered book sales...oh, if its still going on check the Bookcloseouts.com 99 cent manga sale. They had some earlier. :) Isn't Sci Fi torturing people with the English dub of Rave Master now? (love the manga, but after 3 minutes of the dub, decided I'll skip the anime until its released properly :-P) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could, but I have no funds... =( Yeah, SF is running Rave Master, and I was actually looking forward to it (back when I was still naive and didn't know Tokyopop had dubbed it (I didn't know T-pop even *did* anime dubbing!) =P ). I missed the first two episodes, but then I got to see episode three, and I was like, WTF? I *know* the manga wasn't this stupid and annoying... Even Blue Dragon wasn't that bad. Still, I guess I'll soldier through it, just so I can say yeah, I've watched it, and I know firsthand how bad it was. Beyond that, though, I wish Sf would rerun GitS: SSS already, I really like Ghost in the Shell (for the awesome technology, the kickass story, and the killer animation). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I only recall Tokyopop doing Initial D and Great Teacher Onizuka. They don't do much anime. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read some of GTO, but never seen the anime... I'd hate to see what T-pop might've done to it. =P 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

D: Sorry I haven't been editing, or talking to you guys, I'm pretty busy with school and stuff, almost the end of the year, and there's a lot going on... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 18:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you again, Moo! Don't worry, if it's school, that's obviously more important than work in WP. ;) Good luck with tests or whatever you have to do! 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I finally put a plot section on the Cobra page. Its still kinda rough, but we got the main idea. How do you like it Anma? Any suggestions?, I typed it kinda quick... : P Its actually a very good manga : ), if you can get past the really skimpy women... :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 20:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What the Hell is this?

Have you finally gone completely mad? Yes I realise I really shouldn't be block evading but what is your rationale for reverting my perfectly constructive edits to Nemesis the Warlock, Azkadellia and List of characters in Skulduggery Pleasant? You'll notice that in the third of the above mentioned edits I was in fact reverting vandalism which now thanks to you is back in the article. It's Jupiter Optimus Maximus by the way. --81.159.154.160 (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reported for block evading. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 15:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Saving God

I followed up on your work and made a few tweaks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball Evolution Lock

I 100% realise this wasn't you, but any idea why the user who locked it until April 4th did lock it? Was there really any point? :S Goku1st (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was me, in that I requested the page be locked due to the continuing arguments over what dates should be in the infobox and what the release dates are. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am embarrassed ;'( But i got a bit riht that it personally wasnt you who locked it. You got someone else to do it :P Goku1st (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

*grin* Kinda have to since I'm not an admin ;) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you should be an admin :P Goku1st (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not tolerant or patient enough to WP:AGF with vandals, sockpuppeteers, and the really annoying disruptive people who run around trying to make a point and force their views through ridiculously excessive arguing until everyone gets sick of them and stops reading their conversations, or keep changing policies and guidelines then arguing it has "no consensus" just because they don't like it :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Oh My Goddess! chapters lead

Hey AnmaFinotera, I just attempted a rewrite of the lead of List of Oh My Goddess! chapters; however, it still needs lots and lots of work. Would you care to read through the second paragraph and give your thoughts as to how it should be restructured, and what information should be cut out or added (yeah, I know, it's still *really* ugly)? (this goes for anyone watching this talk page who happens to have a few minutes, as well) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. BTW, if you're working on the chapter list, this may interest you[13]. Jump, you have a source for that? :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I knew about Super Manga Blast! already, see SMB 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (hmm, was linking to all 13 issues really necessary?). I was thinking about how to mention it in the list, but hadn't gotten to working on it yet. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well :-P List of Marmalade Boy chapters has an example of noting an English serialization :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL... That works well for a release history as clean as Marmalade Boy's, but I'll have to see how the serialization info fits in on OMG's chapter list (and I need to somehow get ahold of serialization details, such as exactly what chapters were serialized). --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL, true true. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My Progress

Hello AnmaFinotera. I'm particularly pleased with my progress so far. Sorry about the vague editing descriptions earlier, but I was rudely interrupted by a persistant editor. I'm aiming to edit fair and square without any conflict. I have no wish to overwrite anyone's articles unless they're grossly incorrect. Perhaps soon I can look out for requests to fulfill. Do you have any advice on how I may be able to insert pictures? I look forward to hearing from you. Deltasim (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Having looked closer, I do agree in theory that your reverts were fine, they just needed to be explained that the new summaries were too long and detailed (keep in mind, Admiral Maxtreme is also a newer editor). I can't remember what the current rules are on how old an account has to be to upload images. The first thing, though, is to learn the image guideines: WP:IMAGE and especially WP:NONFREE, and look to good articles for examples of appropriate images and how to properly note a rationale and license for using non-free images. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No...April Fools...

Wow...sorry... : ( It was just a joke... : ( Didn't really mean any harm to ya... : ( Heh... – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello...... D: – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just really hate April Fools and all the silliness associated with it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess that you really don't like April Fools, but man! What was that edit summary! Jeez louise! I mean seriously, I imagined you turning into Beelzebub when I read that! That was really flippin' harsh! – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well...got my point across now didn't :-P (and hey, I have to spin my head around 360 now and again to keep my powers *mua ha ha* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I guess you'd absolutely hate this and this. =) --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 :  Chat  00:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes to both, and I finally took ANI off my watchlist because of the absolute stupidity going on there. *sigh* At least Google sticks to just one, official and very obvious prank. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

List of The Pretender characters‎

VANDALISM, HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF VANDALISM. I ADD FACTS AND INFORMATION LEFT OUT AND BETTER CATEGORIZE THE INFORMATION—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Grave (talk • contribs) 22:16, April 1, 2009

No, you are once again being disruptive and trying to implement inappropriate changes and add original research to a character list. You have pulled this crap before and it will not be tolerated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I put a lot of work in fixing that page, stop screwing it up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Grave (talk • contribs) 22:17, April 1, 2009

You are the one messing up the page. I'm the one who FIXED the page, you are just trying to revert it back to a crappy version. You have had this explained to you AD NAUSEUM on multiple other lists. Just stop it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the first im hearing ive done this multiple times. All the information i have ever added on this site is 100% fact. Dont ever, and i mean ever, lump me in with those idiots that but in those random and personal opinions in as facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Grave (talk • contribs) 22:21, April 1, 2009

Sorry, but when you stop doing it, you'll stop being lumped with them. And yes, I know you've gotten away with it on other lists, but please do not act like you've never been warned. Your talk page history doesn't disappear (and, in fact, the warnings are still there) and I was involved in some of those earlier warnings. To point you yet again: WP:OR, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, WP:MOSTV, and WP:CONSENSUS. And learn how to freakin sign your message.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A message from the lead coordinator

Hello and congratulations on being elected as a coordinator for WikiProject Films! As the lead coordinator, I look forward to helping set an agenda for the WikiProject for this term and beyond, and I hope that you will actively participate in working through our agenda's objectives. I ask you to take a moment and review the goals of WikiProject Films (listed on the WikiProject's front page and reiterated here):

• To standardize the film articles in Wikipedia
• To improve Wikipedia coverage of films by adding, expanding and improving film articles
• To serve as a central point of discussion for issues related to Wikipedia film articles
• To provide the necessary framework to assist in bringing all articles within the project scope to the highest possible quality

Since you have stepped forward to take on the responsibilities of the coordinator position, my expectations are for you to play an active role in most coordinator-related discussions and to bring new ideas to the circle whenever possible. Since all seven of us will collaborate in discussions, I ask you to take a moment and leave a comment here about your background as an editor (I provided my own background). Outline what you believe your strengths and your weaknesses are, and summarize what you want to accomplish for WikiProject Films this term. ——Erik (talk • contrib) 12:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Wow, who was that masked woman? I wanted to thank her....Thank you for the quick response on Mr Daniel Jones re Hershey's.

If I may ask a question, as I'm rather confused from what I've read on the official pages...how do I change a REDIRECT? I've written an article on Neisner's (the American dimestore chain) and a previous Neisner Brothers redirects to 'Variety Store'. I'd like to change the redirect to the new article. TaFoofbun (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

When you are redirected, at the top of the page there should be a link that says something like "redirected from". If you click that, it will take you to the actual redirect, then you can access the edit tab. It should have something like #REDIRECT [[Target page name]] and you just need to change the name between the brackets. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about split

I think that some of these days (months), List of Bleach chapters should be splitted. However, how the lead and images from the splitted articles should be? Also, should the main list stay as List of Dragon Ball manga volumes or List of Naruto manga volumes respecting the Graphic novel list template? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead needs to be rewritten for each split article to focus a bit more on the volumes included. The lead image can be carried through, or maybe for the first list, split at volume 21 and have it have the first box set image instead. I believe they have now made it possible to do the transclusion's on the graphic novel list template the same as with episodes, so that would be the preferred option. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. The volume 22 starts a new story arc, so it could be easy. I see that List of One Piece manga volumes also made that translusion, but adding both Japanese and English volume titles (The volumes titles from Bleach are directly in English, so I think could be like the Dragon Ball list. However, I think only one the volume 1-21 list should be split for now since there are only 38 volumes.Tintor2 (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, chapter list transclusions are now possible, thanks to Goodraise (talk · contribs) making {{Graphic novel list/sublist}} (he beat me to the punch! =O ). I still have yet to look at the source in detail, to see what improvements I might be able to offer, though. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Started discussion at Talk:List of Bleach chapters#Splitting. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you do that?

why did you remove the samurai champloo logo and replace it with a picture of the characters? that looks unprofessional in my opinion. anyways if you didnt like the logo you could also put the DVD cover case as well. that will look much more professional.DeathBerry talk 16:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A link to a diff or something would have been useful, particularly when you are asking about something from THREE months ago. Logos are not a useful nor appropriate image in the infobox. I moved the promotional image up into the infobox because it was the only other one in the article, and better than the logo. Its fine for illustrating the series for now. Eventually, yes, the DVD cover would be better, but no one had bothered to upload it yet to neither the main page nor the episode page and I didn't have the time to hunt it down. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Very well then, i'll go and search for it. though the promotional image isn't that good either.DeathBerry talk 17:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball

I was checking amazon.com and I found that the Dragon Ball Z series had season divisions of the digitally remastered series. Is this a reliable source? DragonZero (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Amazon itself is not a reliable source for the season divisions, but the actual DVDs are. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, should the List of Dragon Ball Z episodes be re-arranged and maybe have separate season articles? Since Amazon lists what are on the disc and what episodes they are. Also could you check SolanaRanger's edit to Rune Factory 2? DragonZero (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Rearranged, possibly, but separated? Hmmm...I guess it needs it because it is 270k...but I really don't want to deal with it :P It took ages to get all of it merged back and cleaned up into two lists and get summaries added. For now, I'd just go with the rearranging and split if there is a large consensus. I just don't know how the main List of Dragon Ball episodes would end up if its doing double transcludes....ewww.... technically, per size its fine. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Anime Encyclopedia

Am I right in thinking you have the revised edition and not the "properly" updated book (the black one)? I'm just hovering over the checkout button on Amazon, although I'm loathe to give Clements any money, £13 is a bit of a bargain and as a resource it's damm useful. However it's been a looooooonnnnngggg time since I threw my copy of the first edition out so I can't remember if it gives start/finish dates for the shows?  — [Unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs) 08:33, March 31, 2009.]

Yep, I have the first edition (white cover). I keep meaning to get the newer one, but waiting for it to be a sensible price here :P I can't remember if the second one has start/finish either though...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ordered yesterday, and thanks to the surprisingly low price on quick shipping, should be here when I arise this afternoon. However they used a crappy courier and I'll be asleep most of the day, so I expect it'll be monday... I also ordered Manga: The Complete Guide, although I'm guessing it won't have Japanese publication dates :p Let me know if you need anything from either Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans. I also actually ordered Manga the Complete Guide. It should arrive in a few days since it finally shipped earlier this week :D When you get that copy of Anime Encyclopedia a check on what it has on Wolf's Rain would be great. I looked at it in a store, but was couldn't remember what I read LOL -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and remember! If not, just drop me a message and I'll take a look Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have them! The wolf's rain text is surprisingly long, I'll have to do it at the weekend. Also thanks to the manga guide, if I vagueify (new word? :P) the serialisation of Love Hina, it may be able to be submitted to GAN after all :) I should probably do a new PR though, the last one focused less on the content and more on copyedits of the media and refs section. Or should I just tidy up a couple of the references (the epsiode refs need filling out more) and submit it as-is? Aside from adding a production related image I don't see anything that needs doing after this ref. Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Guessing you don't have a scanner (I use mine for long bits LOL). For the article, the main thing it needs is copyediting. I saw several instances of spaces before a reference, and other minor things like that. Also make sure to fix those all cap refs. :-) I think that and what you already mentioned would be enough for GAN. Before trying FAC, though, I would say go with another PR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wont bother with a scanner (damage the spine on my brand new book? no thanks!), I'll use a camera if I go that route. Space before refs is actually something the automated review gave me, but I forgot about it :p As for FAC, one step at a time! I get the feeling it means rewriting half the article again. Oh and I blame the Japanese for the cap refs, thats what I get for copypasting the page names Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL. A friend of mine said he got a camera that can also scan books for the same reason. Its a Nikon, I think, but don't remember if he's tried it out yet. Actually, I suspect you'd be fine for an FAC...usually the main thing is a more thorough copy editing and likely heavier examination of the sources (and the project getting to defend some again :-P). But yep, GA first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

All done, and production image added. Still looks a bit barren visually, one or two more well chosen images would be alright wouldn't it? I'm thinking an anime related image (dvd cover or other image of the anime character designs such as a random promo groupshot), and one of the reference books or soundtracks Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, those would violate WP:NONFREE; remember Wiki is still primarily a text encyclopedia so articles generally might look "barren" but that's fine. TMM did have such images, and they all had to be removed before its FAC. The production image, unfortunately, might also have to go purely because it might not meet the quality guidelines (can see the spine and all). If my desktop were up, I'd offer to go find that volume in the library and rescan it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You'd have a job, unless they happen to stock the japanese reference books :p The other comparative images (in the japanese and english vol1) are all too similar and don't show the vast changes made (the design is completely different, the other images available are just variations) I'll try and scan it tommorow, I tried taking it with my camera and one hand holding the book at the same time :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, LOL...guess that one hasn't been released here yet. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Image updated (much better I think, and the best crop I can manage due to the spine and small parts of other items showing up when using a softer crop). Assuming you have no objections I'll reread the article for some copyediting (I know a sentance in the lead needs tweaking) then submit to WP:GAN Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Much better and cool :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bah, where I'm not cropping out so much on the bottom compared to the previous version, the image and the caption now clash with the next section (on my browser at least). Any ideas? Adding extra whitespace seems like asking for trouble, I can't really change the cropping and I've already tried rewording the caption. other then making the caption vaguer, I'm not sure how to fix it best. A right alignment may help, but the infobox is there Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It matches perfectly on my screen. Exact same size as the section. Though I did shift it to the right since the guidelines say not to have left aligned images right under a header. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

ARGH Found some ANN Encyclopedia refs I missed before *head explodes* Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

re Talk:Bob Ross and User:Proxy User

Anma, first off - don't revert other peoples talkpage comments as vandalism. Calling you a Wikinazi is violation of policy, and can be dealt with such under WP:NPA, but you have seriously compromised your position by removing Proxy User's comments as vandalism. You would have been justified in redacting the term wikinazi, and warning the editor per WP:NPA. You would also have been justified in removing any attempt at re-introducing the trivia section per WP:BRD, and as you say it is for the editor wishing to include disputed material to provide sources and indicate consensus for recreating a section that has not existed since 2007 (consensus for its removal is proven by the fact that its removal has not been challenged in over 15 months). As for Proxy User issuing a complaint against your actions, I suggest that you invite him to bring it on - I was going to summarily block him for NPA violation for a day, until I saw your response (I would then be required to block you for edit warring on the talkpage) - since he is by far more the sinner than sinned against.

Finally, WP:TRIVIA is a guideline - to be followed by application of common sense and disregarded if there is an overwhelming need demonstrated. Information that is notable should be included in the main content, and non-notable content need not appear; it is only where either WP:UNDUE would be applicable, while notable including some material in the main body would give it too much emphasis, or the article is so long that a list of more minor achievements/facts is best held in a separate list. Consensus that it should exist outside of that or similar criteria is insufficient. I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're right. I keep forgetting that even if its extremely insulting, it can't be considered "vandalism" by itself and that my response was no more appropriate than his. And understood on the trivia. As hard as it is to even find reliable sources about his life, as he was apparently a very private person, I can't see how they could source most of that stuff that was in the old section. *shaking head* Meanwhile, he is now claiming that because the one person he canvassed agreed with him, that "consensus will soon be reached." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now commented at User talk:Proxy User#re Bob Ross and matters arising. I am watching both talkpages should there be any need for clarification or other assistance needed. Any discussion regarding the return of the trivia section (or its contents under another title) should be at the article talkpage, and again if input about the appropriate application of either WP:TRIVIA or WP:Consensus is required please let me know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, and will do. Think I'll hit the A&M library again...I keep hoping one day all these tons of reliable sources on his life will appear :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of Law & Order characters#Wholesale edits of article

The owner of this sprawling list has offered a set of questions and answers for others to read. Enjoy. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed...blech. I replied there and updated the Television project. Looking at his talk page, he warned not to do it 2 years ago and apparently just ignored people then as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

and he's reverted us both again, now. I left him another warning/question. It's well into evening here, so this is your call. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering that, including the folks in the TV project discussion, he is the only editor saying "leave my list alone" I'd say he's being very owny and have restored. If he keeps it up, may file RPP. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I EC'd w/you re WP:PEOPLE and wasn't saying much other than what you did, so I didn't post a dupe. I don't even understand his last comment, but he's risking a 3RR, which I warned him about on my talk page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

He actually just did revert 4, so I've left him an official warning. *sigh* As long as he's been here, you'd think he'd just plain out know better. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the 4 years now; ya, he really should know better. I expect he's stop given the multiple warnings. If not, there's the usual way. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just one question: which of you is going to be giving me my time back? I've been working on that article on an almost daily basis since May of 2007. Taken all together, that's days out of my life I'll never get back, and now you two smartasses come in and say, without bothering to be so much as polite about it, "Hey, you know all that work you did? Forget it. It's gone. It doesn't meet our personal, totally subjective standards for what does and does not count as a good article. Oh, and if you disagree, we'll block you." And so, with less than two hours' debate, all that work is rendered null. So, do I get that time back now, or do you just tack it on to the end of my life? -Craverguy (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No one is giving you your time back. You have been here more than long enough to realize that yes, Wikipedia does have policies and guidelines that govern both editor behavior and article content/existence/etc. You choose to violate guidelines having been warned before you started your efforts that it was not appropriate. You choose not to learn or to ignore long standing guidelines on character list formatting, content etc. It has nothing to do with "personal, subjective" standards, but community-wide consensus and standards that you, again, either never bothered to learn or just choose to ignore because you feel this is your personal playground (which, of course, it is WP:NOT). You also apparently have not bothered to learn WP:CIVIL in your 3-4 years here, from your need to call people smartasses because they actually are attempting to improve an article. And you were warned for editing warring, not disagreeing. It is not less than two hours of debate, more like 12 as the discussion started with the overseeing project. It is not just three people who disagree with you, but closer to six. Big difference between that and a bold edit that is disagreed with by a lot of people. Also, look at the bottom of the screen next time you edit: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...by others, do not submit it." Might also want to read WP:EFFORT. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I really have no idea why someone would spend two years of their life on such an ephemeral endeavor; that is beyond the fanaticism at the root of the word 'fan' and I expect there's a large dollop of hyperbole included. This is a great project, but it is discriminating. My suggestion is to redirect your efforts into areas that have long term value. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bambi

Hi AnmaFinotera, thanks for the headsup re Tellytubbies. ϢereSpielChequers 20:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No prob...pretty much anything from that 65. or 68. IP asking for unprotection is likely to be him. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you name the heading "Bambi"? :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The original sockpuppetter is User:Bambifan101 :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Kami-sama and Kame Sennin

I can't find a precise source (besides the Japanese Wikipedia) that states whether Kame Sennin was based on the Dr. Slump version of Kami-sama, but here's an artwork of Kami-sama from a DVD cover of the Dr. Slump anime. He really does resemble Master Roshi (even moreso in the original manga) and I don't think the fact that Miyauchi Kouhei voiced both characters is a mere coincidence. Do you happen to own one of the Daizenshu guides to verify this? Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Visual comparison without a reliable source doesn't equal verified, however, nor does their having the same voices. And no, I don't own any of the guides. Maybe check to see if anyone in the project library has them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy AnmaFinotera's Day!

AnmaFinotera has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as AnmaFinotera's day! For your excellent contributions to anime and manga articles, enjoy being the Star of the day, AnmaFinotera! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 01:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC) If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

Wow, thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy AnmaFinotera's day! :D I wish I had a day... :^( *tear* – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts

You wanna add your two cents here? I don't think I got the point across well enough. Hell I'm not even sure if I made a point. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 05:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball Evolution

Hi, refereeing to your comment about reliable sources from User_talk:Moon-sunrise, Ain't It Cool News is a reliable source and the person who run it, Harry Knowles is is a member of the Austin Film Critics Association, so it's as reliable as Anime news Network. I'm not citing the information from only "blogs", If you say Sankakucomplex is a blog, Ok it is! I am citing many sources so User:Moon-sunrise could have just erased the blog's references, but why all my contribution? That's my complain.--Otakusama (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First: you basically reposted the exact same text, just sticking on different references. That seems to indicate you just tacked on different sources to try to justify your personal view point, rather than actually properly using the sources. I fully support Moon-sunrise reverting you again. In either case, none of those are reliable sources. Sankakucomplex isn't a blog, per se, but it is also not a reliable source. Ain't It Cool News is a self-published source, so even if it is Knowles, its nothing but his own giant blog. To cite something about himself in his own article or to quote interviews, it would be acceptable, but that's all. See WP:RS (again) and this recent discussion. The Reel Movies page you point to is a user review, not a critic review.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I didn't reposted the exact same text, you can see it at the history: I added lines, changed words and erased other things every time I posted that contribution (I said that if there were a problem about my writing I'd improve it to match wikipedia standards). I am not justify any personal point of view (although I agree with it of course), I am using those sources to expand more about the reception this movie is having all over the world. I can't resume all what those reference tell, that's why I am citing them. I know Knowles is pointing a user review, but if he is doing so is because he may consider that that user point of view is important, many professionals do that(as you said it's mentioned by a third-party). A professional film critic's review it's supposed to be reliable, isn't? --Otakusama (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Knowles pointing to someone else's opinion is meaningless, particularly on a non-reliable site. Again, that site has repeatedly been rejected as a reliable source for any actual content beyond the interviews, and even those are treated with a heavy grain of salt. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any trouble this time, I'm using the citing that the article already have and that's considered reliable. It is'nt an original research, I'm just complementing what it's said in the article and is actually explained at the source.--Otakusama (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you are NOT siting anything from the current source, you are continuing to try to add in your personal opinion and analysis. Please just stop this. You will only get yourself blocked for edit warring. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I understood which sources aren't reliable and I corrected it, as any other good faith contribution. Honestly this is not subject to rejection, sorry if I'm buttering you, but it's not fair. It's not an personal opinion as I have citing all what I have writing, I'm NOT trying to add a personal opinion... we know that this movie is controversial and that fandom is divided, and is something that should be accentuated on the reception section of this article. It is the only contribution I have had this kind of troubles, really, it's unbelievable! --Otakusama (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't correct it, you just continue adding inappropriate material. Again, this is personal opinion, and knowing is not the same thing as verifiable (nor do some blog postings make anything fact). It is not something that should be "accentuated" anywhere unless and until reliable sources actually discuss it with significant detail. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I did, everybody can check the History, I corrected the sources one by one while all of you were explaining me which ones weren't reliable and I altered my writing to match the only reliable source, that's the prove. I be grateful if you stop accusing me of making personal opinions, I was just reflecting this movie reception and everything I said is verifiable (maybe at the begging from unreliable sources, but at my las edit I was only based on the only reliable source you accepted). All of this is really disturbing, so I quit, it's impossible making an agreement with you. It's unbelievable all the obstacles that a Wikipedia user impose to slow an improvement at an article.--Otakusama (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

James Laughlin Award

You tagged this article regarding its notability. I've added some additional references; please take a look and see if you're satisfied. I was surprised that you tagged it; this Award could be among the top 10 most important poetry awards given in the U.S.. In fairness, there are very few references that literally rank poetry prizes; I've looked. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Greywolf press source is a press release - so just a reprint of promotional material from Academy of American Poets. CLMP is just a directory, no different from many that list every last award or item in existence without filtering, so it isn't significant coverage. The New York Times article only mentions it briefly, again not significant coverage (and only goes to show that the Academy basically makes fake bestsellers by buying up tons of copies of their "winners", which is one of many reasons sales figures are not a notability standard of books on Wikipedia). I would suggest it would be far better to merge all of these awards back to the Academy article, sans the lists (which are completely unnecessary). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a couple more references to indicate that this Award is considered "major". The research was useful. I'd already noticed that early recipients of the Award got it for their first published book, not the second; it turns out that the criteria were changed in 1976. Anyway, did you have a specific example of the kind of references you are looking for on prize/award articles? I looked at Pulitzer Prize for Poetry, since it is manifestly notable, but it's unreferenced. There is a good conversation that should be held here. Not all poetry prizes are notable, but especially for early-career prizes, it isn't obvious which are notable, and which are not. One criterion could be the percentage of winners from a decade or more back who have Wikipedia articles!

Regarding your comment that the list of awardees is "completely unnecessary". I disagree with your view. I personally use these lists to identify poets that might interest me, and I imagine that other readers of poetry do the same. It is inconvenient to be sent to external webpages for this information, and of course the external webpages don't link back to Wikipedia. Red links act as checklists for missing articles, which is how I happened to create the Kay Ryan article just a couple of years before she became the current Poet Laureate. Easchiff (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed

Hi, I've been checking the Bleach episodes and realize that for the Japanese titles, the only thing remaining of them are the romanization of the Japanese Kanjis, so I'm wondering if I should do the same for List of Case Closed episodes and remove the translated title so only the dub remains. DragonZero (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? Bleach's translated titles and sub/dub titles are close enough so it only needs one. Case Closed's are very different, right? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait...now I see. Someone did that in December, seemingly without discussion. Let me see why that was done before I can answer properly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the same on the Naruto episodes. Also how come the Naruto episodes each don't have separate season articles? DragonZero (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For those, it was discussed on the talk page that those combined need splitting, but it hasn't been done yet. For Naruto, are the titles greatly different? That's about the only reason I can think of that there isn't a translation, as the official titles are close enough to not need to list both (which is actually the case with most anime series). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dragon, its the same for all animes. Pokemon, Dragonball... all have an episode list but dont have their seperate articles. My opinion, each episode is around 20 mins long (commercials removed) and because theres 20 minutes, there will be wayyyyyy to many atricles for one topic. You really want to keep it at a minimum. Things like (andi use them again) Merlin is good as its only had one season and every episode is 45 minutes long AND theres something to write about. This is in my opinion so AnmaFinotera, i dont want you linking an... MSMEDIA or something xD Goku1st (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't asking about separate episode articles, but about the titles that appear in the episode list and why there was only the dubbed title and not the translated title, which are different for some series (see List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes for an example of this). And NO television series gets individual episode articles just because of the length of the episode or whatever, as you already know. :P A 45 minute episode can be summarized within 300 words, same as a 25 minute one. ~should probably go deal with those Merlin episode articles, just don't feel like it (or so she said then ended up doing a little cleaning an tagging) ~ The Anime project is just better about stopping that mess than the TV project is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not very, just small differences like "The Summoning Jutsu: Wisdom of the Toad Sage!" was the dub while Ero-sennin jikiden Kuchiyose no Jutsu dattebayo!(Perverted hermit something Summoning jutsu dattebayo). Also seeing the dragonball article, why are they divided in arcs? It seems messy. DragonZero (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's probably why then. If the differences are minor, both aren't used. You mean the main Dragonball article or the episode lists? If the latter, its following the official English arcs because of the lack of verifiable season divisions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, apparently this episode is a special separate from the running series and the ova, should this be placed in a separate section called "Special"? DragonZero (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Orig. Ep#	Title	Original Airdate
TBA	"Lupin III vs Detective Conan" Transliteration: "Lupin Sansei vs Meitantei Conan" (Japanese: ルパン三世 vs 名探偵コナン)	March 27, 2009
Conan runs into Lupin on his attempt to steal a treasure. Ran is later involved with a royal affair

It actually aired? Interesting...hmmm...yeah, for now I'd say a special section would work. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, on the List of Case Closed episodes list, someone split Conan Lupin episode from the other OVA's and I don't think it deserves it's own space just because it was aired on television and is longer than 30 minutes. Like Bleach, the OVA's have no order and are not numbered. DragonZero (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe rename the section to "OVAs and specials" to clarify it has both? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Final questions. For the List of Shaman King characters, I changed many of he character's names to their English anime names but have been told their names remained unchanged in the manga so I just left it alone and assumed they're right. Recently, a person moved the article Rio (Shaman King) to "Wooden Sword" Ryu, which I assume is completely wrong since that's his nickname from Japanese partially translated to English. I'm not sure what his English name for the manga is, but it should at least be Rio or Ryunosuke Umemiya. Thanks for your help. DragonZero (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

They should all use the English manga names, however I'm not sure what those are as I don't read the series. I have undone that move, though, as even if his English name is Ryu and not Rio, we don't include nicknames in the article names. May want to post to ask at the project to get someone else who has read the legit copies of the series to confirm the English manga names. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I can get many of the English names from my back issues of Shonen Jump, but most of the newer characters you'll have to ask someone else about, since I never got past the first volume (RPLS didn't have vol. 2 last time I checked). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, guess I won't run out of questions. For List of Case Closed episodes (season 1), I can't find any sources to replace ANN. The official Detective Conan episode list on that page is not achieved below 24X so it can't be used to source the dates. I also could not find reliable sources that confirm the directors of the series. Also the only sources I could find more the opening theme were in the credits of the opening and closing of the episodes, which I'm not sure if they can used as sources of the article. DragonZero (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The credits are indeed reliable sources for the directors, et al, as long as they appear there. So just use cite episode to site those. For the airdates...yeah, it seriously sucks. One of my featured lists will likely be defeatured because of it as well. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, what would be the next steps to improve for the article? Do I need to find names for the suspects from the anime for the short summaries? Also I think some references may need to be fixed such as (Case Closed anime ending credits) but I'm not sure on the format. DragonZero (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bat-Manga!!!

Holy! I went to my nearest Books Kinokuniya and found a limited edition hardcover Bat-Manga!. The honkin' thing was $60.00! Of coarse I got it, had to break a nice little $100. When I looked inside...it was signed by Chip Kidd and Jiro Kuwata themselves!! Incredible!! I think that was definatly worth the price!! – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yō? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my talk page has been busy of late. Congrats on the book find! I love it when I come across ones like that :) (random minor notes on the article - no volume list is needed for a one volume book, and Critical reception should just be Reception) :-p -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, me sorry. Understandable (I just love writing "Yō?" XD). I hid the volume list because there is going to be a second one released too. :) I was looking at Chip Kidd's official site: in his blog it shows pictures of him actually signing the mother sheets of Bat-Manga!, and apparently there were only 7,000 released!! – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I don't know if you have been watching ItLassieTime's talk page. You may or may not want to participate there. - Josette (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I hadn't been...I hope they don't buy all those "apologies" - she's pulled that mess before, then turned around and went right back to the same behavior. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Real Ghostbusters

Just wondering why you removed the new synopsis's from List of The Real Ghostbusters episodes. I cannot find them at TV.com, IMDb, or other GB sites, they seem to be new.

Dr. Stantz (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary was lost. They appeared to come from the books in the DVD set. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

re. "Fruits Basket"

Please consider how much of the good faith edit is also true. My original source was one of Peter Payne's, of jlist.com, regular news-items from Japan, in which he wrote about "fruit" and "flute", which would be pronounced identically in Japanese, so the Japanese give them different terminal mora to tell them apart. "Fruit" became "furuutsu" not because Japanese doesn't have a "tu" (it is a recent addition to their language) but because Japanese doesn't have a terminal 't'. It could just as easily have ended in "to", except "to" was given to "flute". "Furuutsu" would then be properly transliterated back into "Fruit", except that the manga translators chose to transliterate it as "Fruits". You choose how to rewrite it. I am not coming back to it. C2equalA2plusB2 (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't assuming bad faith, only asking for a source. Additionally, its really excessive detail, particularly in a lead. People reading the article don't need an indepth lesson on Japanese language history, just a quick idea of why its Fruits instead of Fruit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schlund

The decision to delete the article Dan Schlund is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3. Thank you. You seem to have been overlooked. I copied one of Esasus's notifications. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

/cheer

Looking at the rotten tomatoes reviews (i wont add this to DBE yet) and there are 2 positive and 1 negative :P Could be an even out film to critics... maybe.... :P Goku1st (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Just remember, only professional critic reviews count, not user ones :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

They're all critics from newspapers and tv magazines and tv channels... Donna: "Yes, I know that bit" xD All the reviewers we see are those type of criticsm not users :P And its raised 2 rotten, 2 positive... hope positive explodes.... please... Goku1st (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL, hey, it could be good, especially if you aren't a fan of the series (or can separate one from the other). Sort of like I Am Legend - people who loved the original movie complained about the Will Smith one...having never seen the original, I love the Smith one. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I never saw the original... saw the remake tho... made me jump a couple of times, but i liked it. It was good. You'll se in about 30 years time... they'll remake DBE into something better :P (ill be creeped if this does happen... CAST ME AS GOKU XD) Goku1st (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh a question, how do i add the "Contribs" to my siginature? You have: Talk • Contribs. How do i add that? Goku1st (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. Basically, you go to your preferences and customize your signature in the "Signature" box, check the "Raw signature" checkbox, and save (and test, of course). =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Or they could do the Hulk route and only wait two years :P Neither one of those was spectacular, IMHO, though did have to say I actually liked both some. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, ill do it Dino's way xD Goku1st 06:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK... his way didn't work as it removed the "Talk" :l HELP! Goku1st (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Try pasting this into the "Signature" field, and work from there: [[User:Goku1st|Goku1st]] ([[User talk:Goku1st|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Goku1st|contribs]]) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It worked! Thanks so much Dino! and you AnmaFinotera :) Goku1st (talk • contribs) 10:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film)

Hi.

Per your semi prot of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), and your comment "Persistent sock vandalism. Please consult me or User:AnmaFinotera before unprotecting";

I note it's Dec 2008, and am raising this as we've had a few SPER on it; would you pls consider releasing the semi?

Ta,  Chzz  ►  00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so I can't unprotect it myself. However, I would strongly oppose its being unsemi-protected due to the continued activeness of the vandal who caused it to be protected in the first place. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I take it it wasn't just one account then? Some sock related stuff? I only asked because I saw it's been some time, and there are some semi-protected-edit-requests.  Chzz  ►  16:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep...at last count at least some 100 IP and named socks have been identified in the last year. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename

After the rename there is a time span where a user can usually login to their old accounts while the edits are being reattributed. I just don't know why it's not working in this case. I will bring it up at the crat noticeboard and see if we can figure this out. bibliomaniac15 16:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. :) Would it be good to drop him a note asking him to just stick to one while its sorted? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It smells fishy to me too...it seems more serious than we may have thought. I think we should monitor them some more and if more evidence turns up, file an SSP or ANI report. bibliomaniac15 18:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do and thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Academy of American Poets/ James Laughlin Award

I was wondering why you put the Notability tag on the article regarding the Academy of American Poets and the James Laughlin Award. I must admit that I had not heard of the award before reading the article, but it does seem to be a rather prominent award. As for the Academy of American Poets, I am even more confused since this is a very well established organization. I was wondering if you know more than I regarding these topics and if you can shed light on the tags.Mrathel (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability is established through significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Except for one minor statement, the AMP article is entirely sourced from AAP itself. Hence both the notability and neutrality tags. I wouldn't prsonally call it a prominent award, its just one of my bones thrown out by one of many "pay for a good name" type places like the "International Library of Photography" where everyone is published, as long as you buy a copy of the book. The scam aspects are also not mentioned, which is another mark against neutrality. For the award, if you check the actual sources, almost all coverage is trivial, a mention by name and that's it. I suggested to the article creators that merging it (and the others) back to the AAP article might at least address some of those issues, and that the lists of winners being in Wikipedia was unnecessary, but he disagreed. For future note, notability tags do not need "explanation" before being placed, nor should they be removed just because you disagree with them if you aren't even sure why they were placed in the first place. Discuss first.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If the notability tags do not need to be explaned before being placed, then the template itself needs to be changed because it clearly states that a discussion is taking place on the issue, and no discussion was present on the talk page where the tag tells the reader to look. As for the "scam aspects" not being mentioned, I feel there is a big of false logic there in that the article itself is "not neutral" if all claims are not verified while at the same time you are asking the article to contain information without yourself giving evidence that such a scam exists.I dont personally care if the article contains the list of winners or not; I simply felt that there were unexplained tags on them. I do agree that notability is not necessarily inherited and regret making that argument, but I have to disagree that you can tag an article as POV based on a lack of sources because if a lack of outside sources always results in POV, then there would be no reason for a POV tag to appear on a page taged as missing outside sources given that it would be implied. Mrathel (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Should be noted, it isn't tagged for having a POV violation, but that someone else needs to check the POV to ensure it is neutral and not overly self-promo/advertising-like. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss

Please discuss the inclusion of the link on Talk:Manga: The Complete Guide. --Malkinann (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Views added there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. :) --Malkinann (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wolf's Rain

Still want that text from Anime encylopedia? Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes please :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

urgh, I just typed half of it out, only to lose it when I accidently pressed a button on the wrong window, pressed back and lost the entire thing to the ether..... I'll try again tommorow! Is it for a review or fact checking? Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Woops. I hate it when I do that :( Mostly for review, though if it has any info that isn't in the article or that isn't sourced, it would also be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's mostly review, although it does talk about the 4 recaps. Due to the way it's written I'll keep that bit in. The camera method wouldn't had worked, my two lenses would have made part of it hard to read as all the text is next to the spine :( I'll give it a go tommorow, i'm off to watch some anime as I've only watched one movie since Sunday! Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool and good to know (on the review and the recaps). Yeah, taking pics of books is hard to get readable text. I've tried that while out in a bookstore when I saw it on the shelf but didn't want to buy it :P I just came back from renting Bolt and The Day the Earth Stood Still (the new one; got the last copy that was in the return pile LOL)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference library query

Does Manga: The Complete Guide have information on "gay manga" - yaoi by and for gay men? --Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has a two paragraph section on it in its yaoi section. It briefly discusses the Japanese attitude toward male homosexuality and the "gay boom" in Japan, and and overview of gara (gay manga) magazines (particularly Barazoku) and the few translated titles that deal with gay themes in a "more or less realistic manner". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Highly worth the 'further reading' then - I'm kind of hoping that I can scrape up enough material to make a stub all on its own for gay manga. Are those realistic-ish translated titles 'by and for women' or 'by and for men'? I wasn't aware that any gay manga was commercially translated... --Malkinann (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

They are all shojo titles. According to him, no true bara has been commercially translated in English. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

RFAs

"Not a self-nomination - sorry, but if you're a good candidate, someone else should think so first" - so this means you would oppose me if I nommed myself? =) *notes in sekret plans that AnmaFinotera may have to be ...dealt with... for the rise of the New Wurld Order* XD 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL, in general, yes :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

And if you refer to this section, you will see that "Context determines whether the 12-hour clock or 24-hour clock is used". The Merlin article already uses 24 hour time, and so in fact the 12-hour format leads to a difference in style. The 24-hour clock is widely used when a formal tone is required; unless Wikipedia isn't a formal source? 81.154.28.104 (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

24 hour time is not formal tone, nor does the context of this article make it more appropriate. Normal time in this article should be expressed in normal time, 12 hour clock. Nor does the article "already use it" except where you tried to put it in place. Again, please stop your inappropriate changes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7738132.stm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/7994616.stm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7186110.stm
• This article..
• ...and this...
• ...and this... (...)

So then why do these formal news articles, and other Wikipedia pages, all use the 24 hour clock? One is not more "normal" than the other - even my computer at this moment is using a 24 hour clock, as is practically everyone else's. Train times and tickets are universally announced using the 24 hour clock.

Secondly, the article did use 24 hour time notation, as you probably noticed, in the viewing figures table. It was there long before my edits.

And thirdly, I agree that the article should not be a TV guide. :) 81.154.28.104 (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not the BBC nor do other articles here. They are very rarely used in Wikipedia, especially in media articles (including featured articles). War articles, yeah, that's a normal context for 24 hour time. Being used one time in a bad quality article with so many other issues I had to CTRL+F to even find it also does not support your case. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Other BAD quality articles are not a reason to repeat. They are not as accessible to the bulk of readers, so 12 hours is best as it is more normal for the majority of readers. And yes, I spotted the times after leaving my message and removed them, as they weren't appropriate anyway. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm just pointing out that the 24 hour clock is equally as normal as the 12 hour clock, and its usage is quite widespread, not just limited to "bad quality articles". The times in the user signatures, in fact, are displayed in the 24 hour clock format. --> 81.154.28.104 (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is why the guideline says "depends on the context." Discussion of war history or the like, a normal context. And yes, the signatures use 24 hour time because it uses UTC and its easiest on the software. Media like television series, films, etc. 12 hour is far more prevalently used, including in Britain. This is a television series article, so it is best served using 12 hour time. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I get your point, I'll back down here then. :P Good night. 81.154.28.104 (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA thanks

My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've voted support. If you've any suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Have a nice day. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

150p

Aaah!

Grrr...damn it! I was just about to source my hardcover Bat-Manga!, and then I realized....there are NO page numbers!! :O And this is a really stinkin' BIG book!! *_* Do you think I could just put the heading and source that...after all, not many have the hardcover... :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 22:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No page numbers at all? How odd....what are you trying to source from it? Does it have chapter names? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope none at all! "XD But yes, it does have chapter names. I am trying to source the Bat-Manhua section, exclusive to the hardcover. WAAAAY at the end of the book...so I would have to count...all the way up to the end of the book! :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, in that case, use the chapter names in the chapter parameter and skip the page numbers. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I found a solution! I know the amount of pages in the book, so since its at the end, I could subtract from that. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■}

Except, of course, that published page counts aren't always accurate or done the same way you might do them :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking that... :P I started subtracting and MAN, that book is HEAVY. Major headache!! ~_~" I guess i'll just skip the number thing.... *blurrrp* :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball

Explain to me how it is not clear to you that RottenTomatoes means nothing for Dragonball but it does for all the other films in hollywood, and that the movie does not generally have negative reviews?

Osh33m (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't mean anything for "all the other films in Hollywood" either. An RT score is beyond useless to anyone except those who are already heavy users of the RT site. Real reviews are what goes in the reception section, not some random, arbitrary "freshness" rating. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting legitimate comments on Talk:Shugo Chara!

Actualy, I didn't delete the comment. I moved a closed discussion to ShugoChara Archive1. --<The Integer Conundrum> (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like I accidently deleted it, then didn't move it to the Archives. (I'm almost sure that I did move it...hmmm) I'll make sure to correctly relocate it next time. --<The Integer Conundrum> (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I did move it, according to the History of Talk:Shugo Chara!/Archive 1 --<The Integer Conundrum> (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In the future, make sure you note in the edit summary that you are archiving something (it would also behoove you to start using them all together). However, in this case, archiving that discussion was completely unnecessary. It isn't old, not was it outdated. It has now been undone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

question

you reverted my nomination for deletion i am new to twinkle but can u tell me why i it was considered worngRockiesfan19 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You do not nominate an AfD discussion for MfD. It is disruptive and extremely inappropriate to try to have a deletion discussion deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry i was unaware that i was deleting the thread. I thought i was nominating it for deletion my apologiesRockiesfan19 (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You should not use tools like this unless you know what you are doing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I will unlink twinkle till i know what i am doing. Sorry for incident Rockiesfan19 (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Cobra issues

Someone keeps "rewriting" the Cobra article. Which I guess in this persons view means putting a completely unsourced character and publication history section and a two sentence long heading. Maybe you could help out. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked his contribs and left a note on his talk page. Hopefully it will help him understand why his edits were not useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Happy Easter! – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) It seems that guy is now just totally ignoring the messages on his talk page. I've warned him for 3RR and filed a protection request. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor characters in Bleach

I was wondering if you could explain to me why you removed Chizuru Honshō from the list of characters in Bleach. You say her role is small, but compared to other minor characters (like Mizuiro Kojima who DOES have his own article) she seems to have had at least some impact on the story (even though it was only in the anime filler). Is there some guideline I have overlooked maybe? Arnizipal (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Mizuiro needs to have his own section (not article) either. Seems pretty minor. Character lists primarily should have protagonists, antagonists, and major supporting characters. The Bleach list has been greatly cleaned up in the last week, but it is still a work in progress, so there are still plenty of flaws in it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

But is it really needed to delete all of those sections of side characters? I came looking for info on Chizuru after last week's episode because I wanted to know when or where she became spiritually aware, but I realised all of her information was gone. If I can't find that information here, where am I supposed to look? I know it's impossible to have a full list of all characters that ever appeared in a long series like Bleach, but could the information on spiritually aware side characters stay at least? Those characters usually have a larger role besides being comic relief or being saved by the heroes. Take Don Kanonji for example. He was one of the main characters for about half a dozen episodes, but his section has been deleted as well. Arnizipal (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place for a summary view of the series and not overly detailed coverage of minor characters. If you are looking for such detailed information on minor characters, you would be best served at a fansite or the Bleach wikia, which is the place where such information is generally more appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. Could you point me to some sort of guildine or document on how to decide what is considered addworthy and what isn't? It would be a great help for future reference when I want to add something new. Thanks. Arnizipal (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS-AM, WP:WAF, and WP:NOT are good starting points. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. Sorry about all the questions. I recently returned to wikipedia afer a couple of years absence and it seems a lot has changed around here in the mean time. A lot of cleanup is going on and it pains me to see articles or sections I've worked on being abridged, moved into lists or cut altogether. I'll read up on those links you provided and keep them in mind before adding new stuff. Arnizipal (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Any idea for a good organization of the list? Most Visoreds (except Shinji and Hiyori)are very minor characters also (although they could have a bigger role in the future)Tintor2 (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably would be the unpopular opinion, but I think the list needs to be organized in the more standard way of protagonist, antagonist, and supporting characters, all minor characters dropped, and the rest cleaned up to one paragraph summaries (except the central characters who might need two); then we can look at the sizes and see if some of the splintered lists can (finally) be merged back in. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that I try it is very hard. Still, do you think hollows should antagonists? There some like Nel that are good.Tintor2 (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be on a case by case basis...some are antagonists, some supporting, many don't need mentioning at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

U-Drop Inn

Hi, I am reviewing your article U-Drop Inn for GA and have left some comments at Talk:U-Drop Inn/GA1. You have chosen to write about a gem of a building and once you add the architectural details, it will be a fine article. Please feel free to contact me with questions or concerns. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I gave them a quick scan and will work on addressing those issues this evening when I am back home where the source materials are. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

curious on minor characters

Why do you oppose mentioning minor characters who appear in a few episodes of a show in even the character list? or as a redirect. What harm exactly do you think it does? Don;t you think it would be a usable compromise. (Im thniking of [14] DGG (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Minor characters who only appear in a few episodes are not notable even within the fictional series, much less without. In preparing character lists for featured list status, that is one of the first thing that always goes, minor characters, per WP:WAF, WP:MOSTV's few guidelines, WP:PLOT, and WP:STAND. No, I don't think it is a usable compromise to put a minor character in a list that it would only later be removed from (and only leads to certain people claiming the "deletionists sneakily" removed it later and thereby went against consensus). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Flyers

Are we able to source flyers? I have a ton of flyers from conventions n' such in my collection that could make great sources. :) But i'm not too sure... :S Also, how was your Easter? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am fairly certain those would fall under the self-published sources clause and not be considered reliable for anything except maybe the dates of the events. It was okay, mostly just boring since everything was closed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the ones I have are from Viz Media, Funimation, and Digital Manga Publishing. :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

curious

I noticed your post at WP:V. I'm not sure I understand why it's unfortunate that I made a valid point? — Ched :  ?  06:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it is sad state of affairs that an editor trying to adhere to WP:V must instead back down and allow unsourced and possibly incorrect content to avoid conflict. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh .. OK. I wasn't sure how to take that. You bring up a very key element here too. Not so much the unsourced part, but rather the incorrect content issue. Perhaps even more to the point would be the contested part. Are you familiar with the show? I'll admit that I'm not, I simply saw a reference (via a website) that supported the episode numbering, and supplied it to the contributors of the article. I was actually hoping to resolve the conflict there - but to my dismay, my efforts failed. If there is reason to believe that the show was indeed produced under a different numbering scheme, or that the UK air dates are not accurate, then that opens a completely different scenario. It may well be worth investigating. Personally though, as I read through the article talk page, it appears to me to be more of an agreement among multiple regular editors that the numbering scheme is accurate, but that Thor was/is saying "prove it", without any real substance to doubt the consensus. It appears to me that great pains were taken in early discussions to AGF and explain the reasoning; but, it does seem that patience has worn a little thin in recent posts. Prima facie evidence would indicate, to me at least, that Thor's demanding of a reference is little more than an attempt to prove a point, and I think that a few of the other editors are seeing it in that light as well. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that a few may even consider it to be getting downright disruptive. I don't know AnmaFinotera, you make some very good points indeed. I think I'll watch the remainder of this from the sidelines though - I can't envision this moving in a positive direction any time soon. Oh well, I appreciate your time, and thanks for clearing up the "unfortunate" thing. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't a snide remark about me personally. I hope you have a wonderful weekend, and a great Easter (if you celebrate that as a holiday - if not then I hope it's just a great another day of the year). ;) — Ched :  ?  08:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with it myself beyond the name and commercials, though I am heavily into editing TV articles and I know that the bulk of "prod codes" in articles tend to be just copied from TV.com without sourcing, and then when checked against an official source (where available) tend to be wrong. One of my featured lists had those codes, and during its FL they were removed as unsourced, which is correct and could be where Thor is trying to go. If the article is aimed at a higher class like GA or FA, it would fail without sourcing of that. It would be nice if one of the editors had the DVDs, as companies do often put the prod codes in the materials with that, or if there is some published episode guide? Alas, I suspect you are right that it will not move in a positive direction, and that Thor's post at WP:V will probably be considered both disruptive and enflaming. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Young lady, your kindness and consideration reminds me that there is more to life than facts and figures - and for that, I thank you! Later this week I'll make a concerted effort to find some supporting references to help resolve the questions brought up by Thor. I can't always promise to agree with you, but it's obvious to me that you are a good person, and I look forward to working with you in the future. ;) ... All my best — Ched :  ?  12:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and likewise :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

At last!

Wolfs rain!
"only after tragedy and suffering will the four young wolves attain paradise - which, in a typical anime twist, soon turns out to be more than expected, with the science-fictional nature of the original setting also alluding to a secret past that links humans, wolves, and another, even more sinistar foe. This, however, can stretch the viewers patience a little - despite a relatively low running time, the series suffered from production delays and scheduling conflicts that led to it's broadcast in several different slots, with hiatuses that led to four recap episodes. If the makers had spent less time recounting the story so far, they might have had more than enough space to finish the entire run within the requisite 26 episodes. Instead, the story wasn't finished on TV, but on Video, numbered as if to compromise TV episodes 27-30. Yoko Kanno's musical team and the Warsaw Phiharmonic do a beautiful job od supporting the atmosphere and character development. The art and design are moody, dark and understated, making for a technically unadventurous but attractive series. Original creator Keiko Nobumoto, who similarly documented a loner's quest in the future world of Cowboy Bebop, delegated story and art duties on the manga adaption to Toshitsugu Iida. On a historical note, wolves were worshipped by northen Japan's indigenous Ainu race, but were wiped out in 1905 - the extinction of wolves regarded as a sign of the march of progress and dismissal of the old gods, in the style of princess Mononoke. "

And thats without the summary of the plot! Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Will work on getting it incorporated tonight. What page is Wolf's Rain listed on? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

728-729 Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Aftershock: Earthquake in New York

At the risk of being glib, the issue is indeed trivial and due to the fact there are only two editors in the entire universe who are even remotely interested in the topic, might I suggest a time-out (back slowly to the doors and grab a breath of fresh air). I think since both of the editors have either breached 3R or skirted up to it, now is the time to leave it alone. But then what do I know? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

Hey, the movie wasn't that bad (well, comparatively speaking LOL; do need to see if I can establish some notability for it before someone decides to prod it.). I did ask for additional input from both Films and Television projects to get some consensus one way or the other. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User page

Thanks for welcoming me. Could you put a box on my user page too? I'd like to fill it in a bit. The Wurdulak (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to bud in. Could you direct me to help making a standard user page? The Wurdulak (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User Page Design Center is a great starting place. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good help page. Is there nothing simpler? Like a simple template I could just use? Thanks. The Wurdulak (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...not really, though I think from that page you can find a list of people willing to make you a basic page to get you going. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. I will have to ask them. The Wurdalak (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Real Ghostbusters

Source is the episodes themselves. Title cards. I can add web-sites if we really need them. The "&" is by WGA rules -- writer's that are a team that are combined with "&" are considered 1 writer. I can change the ones with "and" to commas, but "&" is part of the WGA credit. JoeD80 (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! Just wanted to be sure it wasn't coming from TV.com. While & may be the WGA rules, for Wikipedia style purposes, it needs to be and or commas, not an ampersand. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall somewhere around wiki writing teams being discussed. If it hasn't it probably should, because it does count as 1 writer. In other words the credit is "Len Janson & Chuck Menville" as if it were one person's name. If you just list it as commas you won't see the distinction between writing teams and separate writers. Where is the style guide for teleplay/screenplay writers? I can't seem to find it. JoeD80 (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally when listed in infoboxes and tables, they are either separated with commas (for 3+), the word "and" or with a line break. Though checking the Manual of Style, I see ampersands can be used for the word AND in a table if space is an issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Changed the ghostbusters page to commas. I think I got everything in there. JoeD80 (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for filling all that in! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible Signpost interview

Would you be at all interested in undertaking an interview for the Wikipedia Signpost about WikiProject Films? As you have recently become a co-ordinator it seems you are the ideal subject for such a feature. If you are interested please answer my draft questions at User:Garden/int. Thanks in advance, AnmaFinotera!  GARDEN  18:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, sure! I'll take a look tonight and start working on answering then :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Make us proud! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, done I think. Let me know if I need to clarify any answers :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, sorry, I didn't see you'd finished already! Thanks a bunch, the answers look really good! Keep an eye on the Signpost to have a look at the fully formatted story. Thanks again,  GARDEN  21:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No prob and it was fun :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been wondering when/if WP:ANIME might end up being featured in the signpost; that could be an interesting column (depending on who actually answers the questions, of course). =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Just out of idle curiousity.....

I noticed on the Anime/Manga Portal Talk Page that evidently references to Anime News Network must be removed from all articles. I was wondering what the reason for this was.
--NBahn (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

*invades AnmaFinotera's page* Thats not entirely true, just the Encyclopedia references as they are user content and considered unreliable. Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What Dandy said :) Only those in the encyclopedia rae being removed as they do not meet WP:RS. ANN's reviews and news articles are still fine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh owner of Manga: The Complete Guide

Would you be up for adding its comments on Town of Evening Calm, Country of Cherry Blossoms to that article? —Quasirandom (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, will take care of it this evening. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankee. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of quoting going on in that section :P I tried to find the right place, but feel free to move it around. That section needs some fixing though, as its claiming a "website" said something instead of "reviewer so and so", stuff like that.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankee. Is that the main point of the cleanup tag? or were you pointing to something else? (I personally prefer reception sections that summarize, using the quote= parameter for the fuller wording.) —Quasirandom (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That and minor formatting tweaks. In general, the quote parameter shouldn't be used like that, from what I've seen in GA/FA discussions and PRs. In particular, for an article that size, its making the refs dominate the page. If people want to read the fuller wording, that's why they can go see the source :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name‎

Hi. When looking for established consensus for the redirect, I found Talk:Bleach (manga)/Archive 7#Bleach Fade to Black (Movie 3). Were there other discussions? Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there were, but I don't remember where now. That film had so many pages made under so many names, not sure if it was on one of them or somewhere else. Gave up looking. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A search using the prefix Talk:Bleach returned nothing else relevant. Maybe the redirects' Talk pages were speedied WP:CSD#G8. It's moot now. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think all the relevant previous names have already been redirected from Bleach (manga) to Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone should probably fix the article to go to Bleach: Fade to Black as that is the only current official English name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Film notability

I reverted the guideline changes for the meantime, because I think it needs some more discussion first. Just a heads up. My reasoning is not a pro/anti stance, but simply a process one. More on the talk page. Let me know if you have any concerns! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Wondered if anyone would revert. I don't agree with it myself, but at this point, just trying to go with consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Can you check whether the new season division List of Case Closed episodes is reliable? I based them on the DVDs and I plan to get them separated into separate articles if the format is fine. DragonZero (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, they look fine, but I don't know if they are accurate as I don't watch the series. If that's how the DVDs are setup, though, that should be fine. Is that the Japanese seasons, or Funis?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Japanese as Funimation has not gone past Season 5 yet. DragonZero (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood episodes

Im planning to make a episodes list from the new anime from FMA (see User:Tintor2/Sandbox 2-2). Should the list be a subslist from List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes?Tintor2 (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Only four episodes have aired, so it should just continue to be a subsection of List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes (which needs to have that movie removed as it is an episode list). Unless it ends up spanning some 26+ episodes, no reason for two separate lists right now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I see thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Four? I count 2. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Doh...I just scanned the titles, not the dates :-P-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know where the "Brotherhood" came from? As far as I know, it's still known as "Fullmetal Alchemist"... the main website uses "鋼の錬金術師 FULLMETAL ALCHEMIST"... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 07:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the official English title, and is being used by Funimation, and the Asian licensors. Dandy Sephy (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Mm kay. XD I was just wondering... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 05:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)