User talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Thank you

Thank you for giving me a welcome AnmaFinotera. There was one issue that I want to raise with you. The see also section in Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks is related as t is the second special of the series - that is why I placed Bardock (the first special) and the other wikilinks there. So you see they are related. Also I'm a little confused about the deletion process. I meant no offence but why is it getting deleted? There is no other template for that portal. I modelled it from the middle-earth portal template. SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I just got your message. I've explained it here why I think it's justifiable for the template to exist. SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to respond at all? SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My dear SonGoku786--
Patience is a virtue.....
--NBahn (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It goes against the see also guidelines, particularly in that article where the appropriate links are also already in the DB template and within the article itself, so it was very redundant. There is no need for a see also in that case. Also, as noted, the template is unnecessary. There is already an official template in use for the Anime/manga portal links. So it replicates what already exists in a better form and only results in inconsistency. Also, as Nbahn noted, patience is a virtue. This is not an instant messenger system, after all, and while I generally answer messages quickly, I do step away from the computer at times as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess you're right. It's just that I thought I was being silenced by someone who has been on wikipedia longer than me, and who also had reverted my edits without explanation. I don't want to get on anyones bad side -- it's just that I thought you were ignoring me delibrately. SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should refresh yourself on WP:AGF. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My user page...

Hpw do you like my new user page? I revamped it. Except, I want to put the same thing as I did to the left, on the right. So then the userboxes will be in the middle. I'm not to sure how to do that... – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 22:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not bad :) So you are trying to do a three column like layout? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but it keeps throwing the third column to the bottom of the page, which drives me crazy! :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to make the width on About Me smaller, and the width on the userbox smaller. Its wrapping due to lack of screen room :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is how it turned out... :( – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look now. Is that what you were trying to do? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but no, I was trying to put the userboxes in the direct center. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you want About Me on the right? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I want About Me on the left side and some other information on the right, with the userboxes in the center. I want my userpage to be different. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you want on the right side? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, like a link to a page that has my barnstars and all that guyd stuf, which I can do. :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, just take the version I did, and flip around the location. With DIVs, they are put in order, so what you want on the left has to be above stuff you want on the right. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks! :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing though....you may want to decrease those widths as most people looking at it see stacked divs still, instead of columns :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Decreased by 10, how does it look now? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Still stacking instead of being side by side. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How much should I take off? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, I tried to see what it looked like on Firefox and it looks like trash! But if I decreased the size on my computer it would look like trash on mine... TT_TT – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I'm looking in Firefox. You might want to change to percentage widths, that way it will adjust to fit different monitors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpupetry

Hi, I'm being accused of of doing something, and I'm afraid I will be blocked. What should I do? SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 15:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You can post a response there explaining why you think it is a false accusation. Otherwise, just wait. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Shōjo manga

What happened here? Maybe you should take this to MfD. I'm seeing a number of reasons to keep it per Category:Shōjo. Unless of course, I'm missing something. Synergy 20:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A probable sock puppet basically made his own personal portal. See Special:Contributions/S2_Lovely_Boy and Special:Contributions/기름통휘발유. There was no discussion, consensus, etc for such a portal, and is extremely suspect for a "brand new" user. He also apparently made Portal:Boys Love and Girls Love previously, which was also deleted. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/S2 Lovely Boy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. Synergy 21:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes

Hello,

Someone keeps putting the filler tag into the epsiode title and number i keep reverting, they have went to talk and basically said they do not care about past discussion and other member saying not to do it, i have not revert 3 times within 1 day an di do not want to revert any more can yourself or another anime and manga portal member iterven as i say you have more due cause to revert it more than 3 times than me as you know the rules better than me--Andrewcrawford (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist and replied to the discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

About sockpuppet

User:나 탄광촌인데 is old account of User:S2 Lovely Boy.([1]). But not sockpuppet. (I use only one account.)  Bondage Boy  23:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations on your election. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello & good day AnmaFinotera--
I was nosing around your user page, trying to see just what election Scapler was referring to when I found that some of your text is covered up (with tags?). Anyway, you may want to fix it. Congratulations on just whatever it is that you were elected to; I'm sure that you'll do a great job!
--NBahn (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I was elected as a coordinator of the Films project. :) Which part of the text is covered? Are you looking in Firefox or IE? I can't see anything messed up in either one? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Now this is utterly fascinating: I use Firefox, but when I -- as per your suggestion -- use Internet Explorer, the tags/boxes move to the bottom of the page. Extraordinary -- I thought that Wikipedia was Firefox friendly.
--NBahn (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That is double odd because I do all my Wiki editing in Firefox. Hmmm...I wonder if its a different in theme or something? I've looked at it in Firefox 2 and 3 and both show fine on my screen. *scratching head* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Repel

Hello,

There are thousands of one-line stubs for French communes.

Why redirceting this one only?

Regards,

Vargenau (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Its the one I came across. One-line stubs are really rather pointless, particularly if that's all they ever will be, so should be redirected to a large topic that says the same thing within greater context/content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that very small stubs are not very useful. But stubs have been created for all French communes (there are more than 36 000). And I consider that havings stubs for all communes except one is not very consistent. You can easisly check that the 515 communes of the Vosges department have stubs, except the one you modified. Best regards, Vargenau (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Simpsons AfD

Could you please explain to me how it isn't a "keep"? It looks like there's a consensus in favor of keeping it to me. One (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a multitude of well argued deletes, backed by policies and guidelines, some saying keep but merge, also well argued, and multiple keeps. Discounting those that are basically ILIKEITs and not backed by any actual guidelines and policies, it seems clear to me that no consensus could be found, rather than a clear keep or delete. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Main page	Articles
White Dog (book)	Romain Gary - White Dog

I have no interest in any of these articles, but wanted to let you know that this was a possibility. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

True...the hard part would be the Gary article...I seriously suck at biographies. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhh...since the book came first, shouldn't the article about the book be named "White Dog" and the film be "White Dog (film)"? /:| – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 20:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, because the film is the more well known of the work, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Bob Ross.

I'm hoping that i am putting this in the right place, I've not done this before! Sorting through papers etc today, having just moved etc. I found my THREE copies of marriage certificates of Bob Ross. I will try and get a friend to show me how to add scans of them to Bob's page. I did warn you before about asking BRI for info!!

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewindmill (talk • contribs) 22:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Checking to see if this is considered usable. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Marriage Certificates -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning about vandalism -- I didn't vandalize

I received the following warning twice today:

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to List of Chibi Vampire characters, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that the edits I made are not vandalism; there were several name inconsistencies throughout the text (i.e. spelling the name "Maaka" as both "maaka" and "marker" at various points in the article). I'm simply consolidating the naming; this isn't vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay3205 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of reverting your revert AnmaFinotera, hope you don't mind, all the best to both of you, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I do mind because it is introducing factual errors to the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your edits were vandalism, but they were incorrect. Henry and Calera (the parents) and Elda and James (the grandparents) all continue to use the original, English spelling "Marker" of their last name; Karin, Anju, and Ren (the kids) have chosen to adopt the Japanese spelling "Maaka". Therefore, I reverted your revert, Spitfire. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 07:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As Dinoguy noted, these ARE their official names. They are not naming inconsistencies, they are how the characters are named in the series. I reverted as vandalism because I felt you were introducing deliberate factual errors, as some fans dislike that they use different names and change them all to Maaka regularly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggest someone to help ID this plot?

I'm trying to find this movie's title. Can you suggest someone who might be able and willing to help me out?

Vietnam War. Soldiers sent to recover the payload of a crashed helicopter. The payload turns out to be gold. The soldiers decide to keep it. When their commanders find out about their decision they send a B-52 strike into the area to kill them. One of the soldiers knows the area and they hide in a cave to avoid the strike.

I really appreciate any help with this.

Sorry to pester you on your talk page, I'm newish to WP:Films and don't know my way around. User:Pedant (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I couldn't find the title myself, but if you post at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment someone will probably know it. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the direction... I have found it here. Thanks for your superquick response. User:Pedant (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Charlotte's Web film socking

Given the comments in the protection log about consulting you before unprotecting the films, is Charlotteswebmedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of any interest to you? Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, highly likely its a sock, highly likely one of Bambifan101's since its trying to get one of its favorite targets unprotected, the changes he made to Charlotte's Web mirror those he's made under his IPs, and he recreated one of his categories. I've tagged him and the categories for CSD (one already deleted). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged the account, deleted and salted the categories, denied and removed the request for unprotection - and you've reverted the articles to their former state. So that's probably it for the moment, unless I've missed anything? Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. If he pops back up again, I'll do a page protection request for the book article, though he usually doesn't mess with it as much as the film ones. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Man does this Bambifan guy ever give up? I mean seriously, how many socks does this guy have? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

75 confirmed, and another 89 or so suspected (and highly likely, just not tagged as confirmed). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-wide, he's probably got more socks than Imelda Marcos had shoes! He's been turning up on cy: a lot recently (after a comparative lull), with various sock accounts and/or IPs (seems to have changed ISP - recent IP addys are for New Jersey and Alabama and outside his blocked ranges). Just thought I'd drop you a line and give an update, AnmaFinotera. Hope you're keeping well. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I figured he was. In one of his more recent hits where he actually attempted to "convince" someone to give him another chance, he basically bragged that he had created and/or vandalized Disney articles on just about every language Wiki there is. If you check out The Fox and the Hound (film), quite a few have been wikilinked by autobots. *shaking head* He said something also about "moving" soon, which might be why it changed. Doing pretty good, particularly this week, despite some of the wiki-zaniness :P-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've listed this latest sock at WP:SPI to see whether anything else can turn up; he said a few more things before I removed his ability to edit his talk page, which might (or might not) be of interest. Yawn... Bencherlite^Talk 00:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See what you mean. He even had the cheek to explain to one of our admins - who wasn't wised up at the time - that he "spent a lot of time trying to help improve" articles on Disney films. Got quite enthusiastic... Well, way past midnight here so I'll bid you nos da (goodnight) and wish you luck! Enaidmawr (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Good night! Hopefully the ca article he mentioned has been restored. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, he usual blather. His claiming he was going to "buy" Wikipedia gave quite a few folks some belly laughs last time he tried claiming that. I'm almost tempted to file RPPs for those pages he is claiming, because alas, he will probably hit them within a few days. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

← Hello, what you said about a vandal of Disney-related articles set a switch off in my head... can you take a look at the collaboration at The Rescuers and give your feedback? I was collaborating with Cactusjump (talk · contribs), and a brand new (but experienced) user TheRescuers (talk · contribs) popped up and got involved. Has also contributed at The Fox and the Hound (film). Do you think there's something fishy here? —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

From his user page, I'd say TheRescuers is practically screaming that he is indeed Bambifan101. Bet ya $20 a checkuser would match him to 68.220.174.61, another IP in his range who is co-editing with him. His comments on the Fox and the Hound talk page confirm it...he loves to talk about himself like that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, judging from his talk page edits linking to his "favorite" revisions of the Disney vandal's acts, very likely. Know any admin familiar with the situation so we can just address it ASAP? —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've sent to AIV for blocking (usually good about blocking now when filed) and filed more RPPs. May want to go check his edits he was able to make on the article, sine they are mixed with CatcusJump's too much to just revert. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Erik and AnmaFinotera. All the revisions being made to The Rescuers was driving me batty. Cactusjump (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Karakuridôji Ultimo move

Nihonjoe moved the Karakuridôji Ultimo to Karakuridōji Ultimo. The first is the official Viz title I tried to explain to him but then he said, "Just because Viz is retarded and uses an incorrect character doesn't mean we need to." You think you could help out. I can't believe this guy is an admin... – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it seems odd, but there is also precedence with Fushigi Yūgi. Will start a discussion at the project. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, discussion started. Feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Karakuridôji Ultimo and "correcting" English names -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Good Witch of the West tags

Hi! I notice that you restored the tags of The Good Witch of the West. 1. What is the cleanup tag for? The article doesn't seem to be unorganized. 2. Is there a talk page discussion in which there is a problem regarding "allcinema.net"? I haven't encountered a discussion in which that page is considered to be unreliable.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The character section is malformed. A talk page discussion is not required for the tag. It does not appear to be a reliable source, to me, and I'm asking someone to confirm it is a valid source. So someone who has confirmed this should start the discussion showing it is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I'll do a cleanup|section tag add for the character section to indicate that is the problem. Also I'll ask Angelfire3223 about the website. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Section cleanup tag posted with note asking the user to edit the talk page if he/or she disagrees and the rationale WhisperToMe (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Posted WhisperToMe (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User:76.116.23.153 responded at Talk:The Good Witch of the West WhisperToMe (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick Fix?

Hi! Something is causing the article Case Closed to be a little big, if you scroll to the right, you'll see something gray. It could be just me though. Could you fix it, since I don't know what's causing it. DragonZero (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'm not seeing anything on my end. What browser and resolution are you seeing it at? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

1280 x 800 with Firefox. It appears only on that article. DragonZero (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean

"Clerk declined" - so do I have to leave? SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It means the clerk has declined to use the check user function to investigate the case. It does not mean the case itself is decided yet. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

me again. I forgot to ask but what does "CU fishing trips are not appropriate" mean? (and whats a checkuser?) SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's basically saying that this particular case didn't have any really substantial/compelling evidence behind it. A checkuser is a user who has permission to look at an account's underlying IP addresses and to search those IP addresses to see if they have been used by any other accounts. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Then can I take that stupid thing off my page? SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, as the case itself is still open. It just will not using a check user to decide. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

When will it be over? Its been days and I want to edit. SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, an open sockpuppet case doesn't restrict you from editing unless something is actually proven or shown to be really likely. You should be fine editing again as long as you're careful not to do anything that could be mistaken for sockpuppetting or vandalism. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

So do I keep that banner thing on? Its getting really irritatying. SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 20:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It will be removed by an admin when the case closes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope, not love?

Why not both? =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Because love sucks, never really seems to have any good results :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should chuckle or feel slightly bad, reading that... =/ 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Do both :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Saiyuki

Hello! I (my nick is Bis_senchi) noticed that you reverted the changes I made on Saiyuki whereas I added informations about video games made with the characters of this mangas, and, event created a page for episode list and dvd reviews. What made you think that the page had been vandalised? —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC).

You made a ton of inappropriate edits, so almost all of them were reverted. Your moving of the Infobox template broke HUNDREDS of articles. Do you realize this? I undid your attempt to create an episode list because it was very badly and inappropriately done, and did not appear to be actual correct information from the bad language and messed up date formats. I reverted your edits to the main article as vandalism because you removed a bunch of valid information and put in bad information. I can only presume English is not your first language, from your writing in other languages in your edits (also not acceptable). As neither game was ever released in English, they can not justify or support standalone articles. I suspect you are simply enthusiastic and meant no harm, and perhaps are coming here from another language Wikipedia? In either case, you really should take some time to learn some of the basics of editing here. If you wish to edit anime/manga articles, in addition to reading some of the Wikipedia guidelines I left you links to on your talk page, make sure to look at WP:MOS-AM. The English Wikipedia has much more stringent guidelines and policies regarding editing than the French wiki. Also, please sign your posts properly with four tildes: ~~~~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't guilt-trip the guy; he didn't actually break any articles when he moved the infobox, because Template:Infobox animanga itself is not transcluded onto any articles - only its various components are. That being said, the move *was* still inappropriate. BTW, Bis senchi, if you're actually a girl, I apologise in advance for calling you a "he". =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

May I trouble you for a favor?

Could I trouble you to place a "Welcome to Wikipedia" message of some sort on User talk:Manly0102? I'm afraid that I'm unfamiliar with the process. If you're too busy, then could you perhaps direct me to a page that offers instructions?
--NBahn (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. To add one in the future, just use {{subst:Templatename}} with the name of the template. :) You can find a list of available ones at Category:Welcome templates, or if you edit using FireFox, you can install a JavaScipt helper like Wikipedia:Friendly that can make it easier to do by giving you a pop-up selection window and auto adding it when you pick one. Hope that helps. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

H2: Halloween 2

Firstable sorry for my english. Yesterday I created the page H2: Halloween 2 for the reasons the I haved esplained in talk (wher's finish the talk). I saw the in the template there is'nt a link to the movi but to the franchise. The question of the title it's another question, maybe will be H", but it's possible that will true what to tell IMdb (H2: Halloween 2). For me it's ok. But: wher's finish my job? And why an user rollback my creation of the article (he put a redirect to trhe franchise) and not H2 --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The film already has an article, H2 (film), which is why your attempt to create a second one has been repeatedly undone. IMDB is not a reliable source for its possible future name. If you think the article should be renamed, then start a discussion on that article's talk page and achieve consensus. Either way, please stop trying to make a second article for a film that already has one. Films do not need two articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hershey Creamery Company

Hi, I am reviewing your article Hershey Creamery Company and have left a few comments at Talk:Hershey Creamery Company/GA1. The article is very well done and interesting, and of GA quality in my opinion. I have temporarily placed it on hold while you address the comments. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Reading now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

GA issue at AN/I

You ask "Have there been any sock issues at GA of late?" The only one I can think of is User:ItsLassieTime with attendant ban discussion here but that doesn't look much like its area of interest. The rather plaintive user talk page is a bit reminscent of ILT but I doubt it's enough for a CU. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That was the only one I could think of too, and the articles passed don't seem like they would be in that particular person's normal sphere. Tis an odd thing for sure. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes think I should stay away from AN/I for a while – it drains one's AGF bucket and makes one paranoid ☺ Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 23:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:SonGoku786

Hello AnmaFinotera. There is an open SPI case claiming this user is a sock of LOTRules. It might be easier to close this if there were any evidence provided of disruption or personal attacks. You said something about that at ANI but did not mention it (yet) in the SPI itself. I admit that the behavioral similarity is close, but the lack of disruption is puzzling, since the previous two were quite annoying. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

He picked up the edits at that DBZ article right where the last sock left off. He made some inappropriate personal remarks and claiming the DB article should be split again (something LOTRules also supported I believe)[2]. He also explicitly supported LOTRules "suggestions" here[3]. His general demeanor and attempted edits just seem like the same guy, different names, but its hard to point to anything super specific. His edits are mostly just bad form, bad grammar as opposed to out right vandalism. His edits at Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks, for example, add a bunch of stuff that doesn't belong, but isn't really "vandalism" as it is factually correct, if less than NPOV. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Post Oak Mall

The article has passed, great job! View the talkpage for details. Keep up the good work, and have a great day! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 02:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your revision

I noticed that you revised my edits on the list of Dragon Ball characters article. I would first like to say that I have indeed posted a section concerning such edits on the talk page. After recieving no responses, I decided to get to work. While I acknowlage that my edits are very large changes to the article, I would first like to say that they were not finished, as well as the fact that they were meant to address some of the current problems with the article. Now I will wait for a short period before any further editing, as to avoid an edit war. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is NOT an instant messaging service. Expecting to get a response within a few minutes or hours is impractical, nor how Wikipedia works. At minimum, your suggested proposals need at least a week's time to allow responses as not all editors edit 24/7, or even every day. FYI, you have now received a response there, and a note on your talk page. As noted in both, you need to start an actual discussion on the character list talk page outlining your proposed reorganization and character cuttings. Yes, you boldly did mass edits. Now, per WP:BRD, it has been reverted and you need to, again, start a proper discussion and achieve consensus. If you "wait a short period", it will still be reverted. Again, start a proper discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tarzan

Just curious, what makes these edits vandalism? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

They were made by a indef banned sock puppet with some 100+ socks. All of his edits are reverted as vandalism, even technically "valid" ones as he is banned from editing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Patrick700 (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Hello AnmaFinotera this is Master6's other user page patrick700. I was just wondering how my edit to Son Goku was considered as vandalism ? Son Goku's real name is Kakarot, and he is referred by this name by fellow saiyans Vegeta, Raditz, and Nappa in Dragonball Z. Why shouldn't Kakarot be included in his list of aliases ? Patrick700 (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Err, why are you using two accounts? Be careful that you don't break WP:SOCK please. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 00:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Second this question. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Revisions to my edit to Bleach (manga)

You quoted Manual of Style in your reason as to why changing a right image to the left in order to get rid of white space. However, I found nothing in the manual of style that finds anything wrong with this. Could you please explain why you chose to revise my edit? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Per the Manual of Style regarding images, images directly under a header should always be right aligned. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I Saw It

I did some work on I Saw It. How does this look now? I added reception and fixed some sources n stuff. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A little heavy on the quotes, but a good start. :) BTW, the lit is unneeded in the lead considering its part of the English title anyway, and should note that ANN's encyclopedia section is no longer accepted as a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopedia section is user edited. Understandable. :) For all the reader knows, they could think that "Ore wa Mita" means something totally different from "I Saw It", so that's why I put the lit. there. Still working on the reception... o wou think that the comments on this article could be accepted as reliable? The guy who published I Saw It commented there and gave out a lot of good info. What's up? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

lit should only be used when it does mean something different. Otherwise its just redundant. No, the comments are not reliable, only the article itself. There is no way to validate or confirm that any of the commenters are who they say there are.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

*Jump Guru sits and waits, wondering...when will AnmaFinotera comment back on the I Saw It conversation, as he sits and reads a coffee table book...* – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 20:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

*Reminds folks she does actually work during the day and does have some semblance of a life, no matter how boring it is to most people* :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

*"Oh dang it! I need to get back to my work", says Jump Guru...* – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Since you are the film expert here on Wikipedia, I would like to know if filmcritic.com can be considered a reliable source? It seems like one to me but I'd just like to double check. Thank you in advance. 月と暁 04:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it is :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Now if you can do me a HUGE favor- whenever you the time of course. I'm spreading my wings on Wikipedia (so to speak) and moving away from J-pop articles for a while. There is this movie article that I'm trying to tidy up and maybe get it to a GA status, this is the film BTW, I have already written to the plot based on the work you did with the White Dog article but I just can't figure how to write a good reception section. So, can you write the reception section for me? I'll provide you with the reviews of course. If you are intrested in doing so I'll give you the link to my sandbox. Thanks for your time. Oh and if you could let me know if the reviews are reliable when or if I give them to you then that'll save time. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I'd be willing to take a look at it, but would rather wait until the rest is already at or near GA quality :)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay cool, thank you! here is what I started, it's not much but it's kinda more than what the original page has. It is very hard to find information on a film that's in a next language. But I'll continue to work on the article then if you still want to do the reception section later then I'll contact you. Also I'm not the best writer so if you see anything wrong with the plot summary feel free to edit it. Again thank you! :} 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 13:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Help a Newb (re U-Drop In/TexasEscapes.com)?

I'm a newb in all of this and, in all honesty and humility, am not asking this as a veiled complaint or argument: You removed my external link to TexasEscapes.com on the basis of WP:EL and WP:NOT, but I've re-read through those standards and can't figure out how they apply to my link. Could you explain and/or provide the subtype codes, please? Whatever you say, you won't hear another peep out of me: I'm just trying to learn how to do this right. TransporterMan (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem and glad you asked. :) External links should be kept to a minimum and should "could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy". While TexasEscapes is a valid magazine, its article on the U-Drop does not contain further research nor additional detail that would be relevant. If it did, it would already be in the article as a reference. Alas, everything it notes is already in the article itself from other more expansive sources. Its containing additional pictures are not, by itself, a valid reason for including it. Hope that helps. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey AnmaFinotera, TransporterMan asked at WP:EAR about this matter since apparently he was still confused on this matter. In responding to it, I reviewed the link in question and kind of find myself wondering if the extra photos might meet WP:ELYES as the photos themselves constitute additional detail (after all, a picture is worth a thousand words), and cannot be put in the Wikipedia article (apparently) due to copyright. I certainly do not think the link meets WP:ELNO in any capacity, so at the very least it would merit due consideration. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No prob (though he is a she :P). I did consider ELYSE, however I didn't see it as a really good reason since all except the lithograph can be replaced with free alternatives as the building is still there. Indeed, once I get a GPS unit I'm planning a day trip up get pictures for both myself and to add to its article. *grin*. There are also non-free ones in other sites, like some great ones up on Flickr, so I didn't see that these were particularly better than any others. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, see, the thing is that it's perfectly fine to include external links to non-free content; IMO it's one of the few cases where external links are particularly useful, since we can't put the content on WP. If the nonfree images of the landmark were uploaded to WP, they wouldn't have valid fair use claims. Unless what you mean is that the website itself is in violation of copyright, in which case I'd agree with you that it probably shouldn't be linked. And honestly, there's only one other EL on the page. I do agree though, that if we had free content just as good as what's on the website, it wouldn't be worth linking to it. I just think it's worth more consideration than your average page of pics. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know it is. I just don't see that it adds any value over any other picture site or that it adds any value beyond what the article would have if it were FA quality (i.e. its own pictures).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll defer to your experience then. Maybe TransporterMan is a bit clearer on the situation now at least? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of editing

Please carefully read the editting to the talk page of Dragon Ball Evolution. The controversy does exist and it was my intent to make it known to the public. I ask kindly that you would repeal the warning left on my talk page. It would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Unoispam (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I will not "repeal" the warning. You added unsourced information to the lead of the article that claims a controversy not backed up by any reliable source. That was not a constructive edit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If I were to add it in again, I would need to put it at the end of the article and properly source it. In this case, it wouldn't be deleted. Correct? Unoispam (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't go at the end. At best, it would go in the reception section, however it needs actual reliable sources, not blog postings. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

:D Hi

How have you been? It's been forever. I'm going to try to get more editing in and such, but I've been really busy with tons of things... Well I'll try to talk to you later and get some things done. Studyinggg!!! D: moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 01:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

New list

There is something I was curious. You told me that an episode of FMA Brotherhood is still unnecesary since it has a few episodes for now. However, Goodraise (who is well-experienced in these things) made List of Dragon Ball Kai episodes which has only 5 or 4 episodes. I dont get it very well. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

He did so without discussion and despite there being discussion specifically saying no to a new list yet. However, I'm guessing he did it because it is highly probably DBK will have some ridiculous number of episodes like the rest of the series. He also didn't bother updating the template nor the main DB list....-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If I may point out in the first Shonen Jump announcement, it was stated that the episode total would be a hundred episodes. Sarujo (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Of DB Kai? Yeah, saw that when I was smushing the two lists together. :) Has Broterhood's final ep count been released yet? ~brain dead at the moment~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. Especially since this series seems to be based more on the manga, which not finished it yet.Tintor2 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball character list

Concerning my edits to the Dragon Ball character list I would first like to ask what particular qualms you have with them. I ask this because you have only told me to discuss said edits first. If there are no problems with my edits beyond simple lack of discussion, I would please ask that you would stop reverting them. Both of us are acting in good faith to better wikipedia, so I hope we can reach an agreement. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have already stated in several places, you need to start a discussion before doing this to achieve consensus before removing characters, rearranging the list, etc. Trust me, there will be problems, there always are, especially if there is no discussion one can point to and say "here is where consensus is reached." More input beyond your own is needed before removing any character as "too minor to list." This is the current MO on all such edits of character lists for big series like this that have such huge casts of characters. If you look at the InuYasha character list, you will see it recently underwent this kind of edits, after a discussion first to achieve consensus on which characters should be removed and on reorganizing the list. (FYI, that is just an essay, and not really relevant, WP:BRD is, however, as I pointed to you before).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Except WP:BRD is also an essay so I don't see how that is more relavent. Also, no one else has had a problem with such edits, and if there are problems, then they can be addressed. Again, please provide me with a reason beyond no concensus why these edits are problematic. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

True..., but WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, as is Wikipedia:Editing policy, and not a negotiable one. You have made very bold edits to the article. They were disagreed with and you were asked to discuss it. And yes, lack of consensus IS a perfectly good reason for why the edits are problematic. You haven't discussed the issue nor allowed any additional input on whether specific characters should or should not appear in the list. Sesshomaru has also already pointed out to you that many of these were added from merges of individual character articles. Before completely removing the info, it needs to be discussed per policy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

However again, there are no reasons for keeping these sections and you have provided me no consensus which says that these characters should be kept. And there is no reason why I should seek consensus for edits that only one editor seems to have qualms with. While I acknowlage that consensus is a policy, I also acknowlage that it, like all wikipedia rules are not the end all be all, and can be Ignored if needed. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There IS consensus that the characters be kept by their having been there so long and by their having been MERGED there from standalone articles. You need to start a discussion to establish a new consensus that they are not notable enough to be listed. And please do not invoke IAR just to support your position...it also does not apply here. Just because I'm the only one to revert you does not mean no one else has qualms with it. Why are you so afraid to actually have a discussion? There is no deadline to fixing anything, and surely if you are certain that no one will disagree with removing any of those characters, you can wait two weeks while others are allowed to discuss it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, please provide me an actual reason why the minor characters I deleted should have been kept. It is not wrong for me to assume that no one else has a problem with these edits, because if they did they would have reverted it. I am not afraid to hold a discussion at all. In fact, we are having a discussion right now, instead I simply was cleaning up the article. Expecting me to wait two weeks for consensus on such a small issue is really not the best choice; just because we have no deadline, does not mean we should take extra time simply because we can. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already given you multiple actual reasons, you just don't like them. And no, this is not the place to discuss it with a community. There ARE multiple active editors on that list should should be allowed to have input. And yes, you are expected to wait an appropriate time for consensus on such a major edit to the site (it is NOT a small issue, which is what you seem to fail to grasp). Consensus has generally favored two weeks to allow time for editors who may be online less often to also weigh in. Just because you can IAR doesn't mean you should. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that this discussion isn't really going anywhere. So, I will put up a discussion for this at the article, and seek consensus, hopefully so that the list can be cut down. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of a Chapter List

I'm not sure how to go about convincing this person to not delete a chapter list I just put up. The guy says that chapter lists are utterly non-notable and rather useless so he has the right to delete them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Sayonara,_Zetsubou-Sensei_chapters Grapeofdeath (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like he just doesn't have experience with those. Left him a note and removed the tags. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Final Fantasy FAR

Just checking in to see what your thoughts are on the subject as Wikipedia:Featured article review/Final Fantasy looks to have stalled. Do you think Final Fantasy has been improved to FA standards again? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

Your friend

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LOTRrules is active again.--Otterathome (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also a strong similarity between new user Hopeuwinforever and a previous sockpuppet, mostly due to them asking me to make changes on The Fox and the Hound (film) and The Rescuers. Can you possibly investigate? Cactusjump (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's the Disney vandal again. He bugged Erik to try and get some more protected and unprotected. Sending a request for blocking and to have that page semi-protected. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. They were easier to id this time. :) Cactusjump (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, after awhile if you run into him enough he becomes very easy to spot. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Page needs immediate protection, as changes keep being made that have been already discussed in the talk page. Cactusjump (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Which one? He's been blocked, and I don't see any more activity on the Up article. The other two are already protected. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Rescuers. BambiFan seems to make this his #1 priority whenever he returns. Cactusjump (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the protection must have expired. I've requested it be reupped. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Cactusjump (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

← I'm hesitant to judge swiftly about Disney Vandal sockpuppets, though The Rescuers seems to attract the same kind of editors. What do you think of Legalnotes, powerbrokes (talk · contribs)? What's the best venue to report, so we don't have to bug you in the future? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, pretty sure that's him as well. Just report to AIV with a note specifying "Another named sock of User:Bambifan101" (or IP sock where relevant) and tag. (already reported this one) If he hits specific articles enough, file a note at RPP for long term semi-protection, also noting it is one of his targets. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Trying to adjust my DV radar. :) Will keep on the lookout. Kind of wish I never started collaboration on The Rescuers; seems like the activity caught the person's attention so he could have some uncontributive fun. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that was one of his targets before, he just started on it again recently because it was unprotected. It should now be reprotected to keep him from doing more than hitting the talk page. Worse case scenario, I think a case could be made to semi-protect the talk page as well. I'm glad it is finally getting some love as Disney has certainly made sure to release tons of production info. I've always waned to see the Disney articles brought up to GA/FA levels and thought it could be relatively easy considering the amount of content out there. Alas, one big issue with a lot of Disney articles now, though. Because of that brat, I suspect many good editors will avoid giving them the attention they need to really bring them up to high quality. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. Just wondering if you could clarify how to report to AIV. Since I've been tending to a lot of these Disney articles, I just want to be prepared for the future. Thanks Cactusjump (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you use Twinkle, it can do it automatically. Otherwise, go to WP:AIV and add a report in the user reported section along the lines of

*{{vandal|vandalname}} - . Another named sock of [[User:Bambifan101]].

followed by your signature. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Just learning about the vandalism/sockpuppet thing. Cactusjump (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like he's back. He reverted all of his comments that were deleted on Talk:The Fox and the Hound (film)‎. I tried to report to AIV but my edit was deleted. Maybe I did it wrong? Cactusjump (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

When doing AIV reports, you don't add headers, just the report :) Re-reported along with the named sock that popped up with it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew he'd retaliate once I started it... I'll report better next time -- because I know there will be a next time! :) Cactusjump (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

White Dog (book)

Sorry, I could not pass this as GA as the points I had raised were not addressed during the GA review period. If you need any help or would like further elaboration, or particularly help finding additional WP:RS sources - let me know and I will try to help out. You've done some great work on it so far. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't feel there was any way I could address those points, so I was expecting it to fail. Thanks for the review, though, and I will keep trying to work on it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dreampapertotalwatch

Thanks for the extra info at AIV; I have missed checking the deleted contributions. Thanks for your help!! — Kralizec! (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No prob. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind

About The "Nightmare" page, I already gave up, and I hope the notice you sent me you sent to the other user

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't send him one as he hadn't violated the 3RR rule. As someone else noted on your talk page, feel free to work on it in your user space, but the film just does not meet notability guidelines to have its own article yet. Nor is IMDB considered a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, you can only put a speedy deletion notice or a redirect, you can't do both I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, wrong, you can put both. Redirects can be speedied same as any other page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I need to clarify a few things. The article Hokage's Room and wether it should be deleted, and whether [4] is a reliable source. DragonZero (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should and already has been. And no, that is not a reliable source as it is just a fansite from apparently a self-declared "official" community. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, what would be more relible to source Case Closed air dates. toonzone.com or anime.futurizmo.com. DragonZero (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably Toonzone, but you may want to post at the RS Noticeboard to see if it meets RS. I'm almost sure the latter does not at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll use Toonzone for the first season, seeing as the schedule is missing episode 5. I'll use the second source for the second season until I get a reply from that the noticeboard.DragonZero (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. What are the wikipedia rules for users removing warnings from their talk page by blanking it out? DragonZero (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's your own talk page, you are free to simply delete warnings. However, many other users appreciate it if you leave them on (especially since it's a fairly common tactic for vandals to simply blank their talk pages after receiving warnings, in the hopes that that they can continue to vandalize without getting caught). It looks like you've simply been removing image deletion notices; these should be fine to remove (many other users also remove them when they've been dealt with). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 07:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto what Dinoguy said. Its basically "understood" that if you remove the warning you have read it, so its fine to clean them up (particularly image deletion notices), or move them an archive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well what I really meant the question for was this guy User talk:Wiki Master Dude. He apparently removed quite a few warnings, and from checking his history a bit, often adds unsourced information and blanks parts of pages, quite often.DragonZero (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Its still allowed, but it does not negate previous warnings so future warnings should continue to escalate as is appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

You reverted a couple of my edits the other day. I added the article DragonBall to the category Toonami, for animes that were shown on Toonami, and you reverted it and called it vandalism. Dragonball did air on Toonami so it therefore belongs in the category... just wondering if you had a reason to undo my addition of it to the category, otherwise I was going to add it back in. Thanks. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Only part of Dragon Ball aired on Toonami, but you also added it to other series which did not. Programming block categories are generally frowned upon and considered inappropriate unless the block had original programming, and then only that original programming should be included. My reverting as vandalism, however, was a misclick on DB. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cardcaptor was my fault, don't know why I did that, was tired. But DragonBall, DBZ, and DBGT all aired on Toonami, and that is the only block it ever aired on in the U.S. I didn't create the Toonami article or category, but cameacross it and noticed it didn't include most of the shows, which is my reasoning for adding it. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 00:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

With no disrespect intended, I had a good reason for reverting the article on Dragon Ball (artifact) from being merged back to being a stand alone article. Some people might want to know more about the Dragonballs, how they work, their origins, their history, and the history of wishes made using them. I don't think that merging many key articles about this important series into one page about Dragon Ball the series is a good idea. Kfn8r (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What you personally want is irrelevant. Consensus was to merge the article. They are a non-notable fictional element and does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for existence. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The skeptic poster

Sorry about that, nice catch. I don't even look once I know it's you know who... I've noticed that this little nuisance is so sick he actually seems to miss us if we try to ignore him. Sometimes this situation makes me want to puke. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he still gets reverted since he is banned, but agree, it is rather sick (and kinda pathetic) that he does this mess. His actively seeking me out now is getting really annoying, though maybe it will be enough for new range blocks to be implemented. I've posted a new thread at AN to try, again, for range blocks to be implemented. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

That little twerp just created an account at Simple under the same name. I don't have admin rights over there, so all I could do is blow the whistle. Why does this moron insist on coming to a place he isn't wanted and why is it the idiots like this have dynamic IPs? Sigh...--PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Just looked deeper over at Simple...and the idiot is all over the place. Same names. User:PeterSymonds clobbered most of them. Gotta run. Take care. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, he loves to brag that he doesn't get caught there as easily, and he is now hitting pretty much every language Wikipedia. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Skeptic (film)

		The Original Barnstar
		For taking the time to work on a minor article The Skeptic (film) and move it from a single sentence to a full-blown Wikipedia article. Nicely done and much appreciated. My hat is off to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) If the AfD is closed soonish, I'll probably send it to DYK. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have alluded to this AFD in a sort of brainstorming session that resulted in an idea I expressed at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Contest_2.3F. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes and sources

When I saw the edit summary of this edit: [5]

There are other entries in the infobox that have references. Are those references supposed to be removed too, or is there a special reason why the headquarters section has no reference indicated? BTW at some point I plan to photograph the AD Vision HQ soon. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The infobox should contain information sourced within the article, and generally should not need sources by itself. If there are other references in the infobox, they should be moved to the article as well. And cool beans...didn't realize you were in Texas too.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Are You In?: Nike+ Original Run

Just wondering what your opinion on the article is. :) It for an iTunes exclusive ablbum by hip hop group De La Soul. I'm a big fan. I'm thinking the reception needs a rewrite. :P By the way, what's new in your life? I just found this awesome used bookstore where I found a whole ton of 1993 official Taiwanese editions of Weekly Shōnen Magazine (keep forgeting what the Chinese name is) published by Tong Li Publishing, a out-of-print Taiwanese edition of Hikaru no Go which is probobly the most awesome out of all, published by Daran Culture Publishers (with a stamp by the company on the bottom!!), two 1991 Jump Comics, a Tong Li Comic of Yu-Gi-Oh!, a Spanish phamplet sized issue of Dragon Ball published by Planeta DeAgostini, and Star Girls, the officialy licensed Taiwanese version of Shōjo Comic. The store as you can see, is a gold mine, it also has every single issue of Life magazine going back to 1920. Sll of the Taiwanese manga are written that they can only be sold or distributed in Taiwan. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The references are a mess, and yes, it needs a bit of a rewrite. Too quotey. Nothing much new for me. Congrats on the find :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So I take out the quotes? What are the quotes for then? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

They don't need to be removed completely, but there should be more balance between summary and pure quote regurgitation. To copy from WP:NONFREE: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

ROFLOL, I had a dream I was a mountain goat living in a tree house in your backyard. XD How does the aticle look now? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 14:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 15:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

you have....uh...interesting dreams :P and article looks better. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

CCS Cards

If you would please be so kind to explain your reasoning behind the deletion of a very useful page that gave important depth to the cards themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.133.192 (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted by community consensus in an AfD as is clearly visible. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Return of DV?

Hey there. I reported this on WP:AIV, but just wanted to leave a message with you. It looks like Okapi7 is another sock of the Disney Vandal, as seen by the number of edits on The Rescuers (an old fave) and 'reviving' the character pages that have previously been deleted. I tried to revert as much as I could... And when I went to Okapi7's page, I noticed a whole bunch of other warnings issued. Just wondering what else I can do to get them blocked. Thanks. Cactusjump (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's him. Looks like he found an old sock to use. Checking the rest of his edits. Hopefully blocked soon. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to do my best to revert, but still learning. Appreciate your help. Cactusjump (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No prob. CSDed all the things he created. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if my DV radar is working. Evondral‎ (talk · contribs) seemed like a resurrected sock and was blocked per my report, but he was later unblocked. What's your take? —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs, particularly the earlier ones, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. His newer edits don't really send up any warning flags for me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Help?

Hi! Is there a way to fix User:A Nobody/awards so that on User talk:A Nobody's header is more consistent with your talk page? Something just doesn't look right with mine. Any help is appreciated. And again, good job on rescuing that film article; we could always use help rescuing others at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Mine is using a table within the div. You might want to try updating yours to do the same. If it is still running past the page width, I'd add in a row break around the Ron Obvious listing (though if intend to continue doing having your list alphabetically, you'll have to move that around when anything is added above it). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it a whirl, wish me luck! But forgive my ignorance, how do I make a row break? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In a table, have a line with |- :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have it (feel free to check!). Anyway, thank you for your time and help! Have a nice night! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, looks like its wrapping fine now :) Have a good night. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks again! If you would like, you can add a little life preserver to your page for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic (film). Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem and thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have updated it for you. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Its appreciated, but I don't keep those there, as I don't consider it rescuing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Only admins can have check-user, right? Leave a message back at my talk page. Thanks, Old Al (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct, and only under special conditions (not all admins have it). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's slightly inaccurate. CheckUser is a flag, like Sysop. It's given to a select few users. All Arbs have checkuser powers, I believe; not admins. We have around 1.600 admins at the time of writing and only 33 Arbs (I think) not including Wikimedia staff. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think being an arb is the prerequisite for checkuser, not adminship. Hope this helps. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 21:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

True on it being a flag. I don't think you necessarily have to be in ArbCom, though most who do have it either are or are former members. Non Arb-members can request permission, usually through the ArbCom list or discussion with specific Arbitrators (there are currently 8 or so non-ArbCom members with CheckUser). ArbCom does decide who gets approved, though. Also, anyone wanting it must establish their real identity with the Foundation. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... Has there ever been a non-admin checkuser? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 22:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Good question...I'd suspect not, but no idea how to find out :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

We Were There (manga)

Hi, I noticed your recent edits to the article and would like to ask where this copyrighted material would have come from. All I've found are mirrors and references to this article. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ANN, Multiply, blogs, and various fansub sites. Copy/pasted from all over. Better to just start fresh. Some that wasn't copyvio, was pure OR and inappropriate. I've added back in a redone character section (totally spoiled the story for myself *cry*). A redone plot section would be even better, but hopefully that helps fill it out more for now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

MASH AfDs

please consider that A), the LoE already covers all of these, and I edited a number of the more pithy LoE summaries to avoid cliffhangers and 'watch it and see' attitudes, as well as humor and informality. B)the article titles in many many cases are highly improbably search terms (Titles of episodes were not displayed on the episodes, except apparently the finale), so redirects would be fairly useless. ThuranX (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Good lordy...couldn't this have been done as a group nom? I didn't know that about the titles (never really watched it myself beyond snippets while flipping channels)...will rethink some of my views. Meanwhile, any change those episode lists can be fixed to properly use the normal episode format? :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for reinforcing my reversion of the attempts to move all the screenshots over to the LoE. I know that's been shut down repeatedly before, and have argued against it on some of the AfDs, but I can't move fast enough to get replies in to the cut n pasting of the multiple editors now editing the AfDs. ThuranX (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it couldn't. I've never seen a TV based mass deletion nomination go anywheres but hell in a handbasket. I'd hoped that by spending my nights for a month examining each episode, I'd demonstrate diligence on this, but now I'm being attacked for NOT mass nomming it, by the very inclusionist types who burn all the mass noms(you're not the only one whose mentioned that I should have mass nom'd). it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If you look back a couple days on AfD, you'll find another editor also looked over my efforts and could find no sources, but that's not helping me today. ThuranX (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, I totally hear you on the dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. Same folks tend to say "should have done a merge discussion first", but then when you do its, "OMG don't you dare merge!" while other editors who are ready to improve an article get annoyed that you are forcing the merge discussion to go on for a month so no one can say there wasn't enough time for comments. *sigh* If you get a minute, can you check Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television and make sure I got them all in there? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

go back to 12 may, for more. I think you missed those. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to withdraw them all, the TV project never deletes anything, and now that they're involved, it's over. No ppoint, it's the hivemind of inclusionism. ThuranX (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not do that. The TV project actually DOES delete things, and are frequently the most vocal advocates of getting rid of episode articles like this (I wouldn't be a member of it if it were like that). WP:AGF and let the process work. Grab a cup of tea (or I prefer a nibble of chocolate) and try not let the bad faith accusations of RAN get you too upset. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm logging out. I can't handle this. he's revising HIS comments AFTER I reply to make my replies look like I' m some kind of asshole. I can't take this. I'm either going to lose my patience entirely and then get banned or i'm gonna fling my computer. THis is bad faith in the extreme. If i could calm down long enough i'd take it to AN/I. i can't. Please stop him. ~!`~~

Oh good lord...pointing to his own essay and trying to claim it trumps "Other stuff exists"? That's so stupid...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

He did it everywhere. look at his contribs... hes doing this over and over and not stopping. closing my laptop now. This isn't fair at all. I'm being as civil as I can be and he's playing this nonsense? redacting his comments and acting like i'm the one doing wrong? ThuranX (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think walking away from the computer would be a good thing for now. This is obviously stressing you a lot, and its starting to show in your edits. There seems to be an AN/I thread about you a the moment, an dI'd hate for you to lose your tmeper to the point that you get blocked. I agree RAN is acting in some inappropriate fashions and I will note so there. For now, again, I urge you to get away from the site for awhile and let yourself calm down some so you can continue to maintain a cool, civil head rather than letting others provoke you into doing saying you'll regret later. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

End of yarn again

I'm now convinced that End of Yarn was faking the Quark review: they've done it again.[6] If you want to reopen the issue at ANI, I'll be happy to comment in support. In any case I thought I'd make sure you were informed. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I was almost expecting that. I'm not sure that he's technically doing anything wrong, though, as he hasn't passed it, only claimed he was doing a review (even if its a bad one). It might not be an ANI issue yet, though might be worth noting at the main GA talk page so other GA reviewers keep an eye on him. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My mistaken edit on Aria (manga)

Excuse me for deleting the external link to the official site. The link had the same general format as another external link that was spam. I didn't recognize, in the link you restored, that the word "Nozomi" was a company name. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Nozomi/Right Stuf is one of several US licensors of anime (with Right Stuf also being the name of their store). I think its important when doing link clean ups like that that you visit the link itself to see what it has and check the article for context. The lead clearly notes it is licensed by Right Stuf, and the site does indicate its ownership of the English version. Spam clean up is, of course, a worthy thing to do, just please make sure links being removed are actually spam. :-)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yah. It was a mistake on my part. I actually did visit the other link I mentioned that had a similar format -- I thought both were links to artist's home pages. I confess I'm a little leery of checking other external links in an article, once I've chanced across one that is completely non-English and illegible to me. It was only a couple weeks ago one of those tried to install a virus on my computer. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would generally make on leary! Glad it didn't work. For anime/manga topics, at the last, if you aren't sure feel free to pop me a note or ask at the project. We tend to be very good about removing bad links when we find them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You can also drop me a line; if I happen to be around (otherwise AnmaFinotera would probably beat me to the punch ;P ), I'll look for you as well. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 03:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Skeptic (film)

On May 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Skeptic (film), 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.

Paxse (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Help with Gryffinclaw

I know what's Gryffinclaw (talk · contribs)'s deal is, but he kept changing spellings on articles relating to Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch despite official spellings already established in official merchandise and the English-language manga and never backs up his edits. I've left him a message about him, but he insists on his own edits and always reverses my edits. I need your help or back-up on dealing with this guy. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

P. S.: I decided not to revert his latest edits, which was minutes ago, because doing so now borders on violating WP:3RR. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting is fine as it is basically vandalism - introducing deliberate factual errors after being made well aware that he is acting inappropriately. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what he left on my talk page to justify his edits:

"Manga and Anime are 2 different things, you need to stop confusing the 2 as one, what is used in the Manga does not automatically mean it must be used in the Anime. At the end of the Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch Manga, Mikeru's Clan comes for him, however, that part is not in the Anime, because Anime and Manga are 2 Different things, the name Mikeru is used at the end of the Manga, i have not read some parts of the manga but like in other manga's the name Mikeru would be mentioned the manga. The company translating the Manga changed the name to Michel, but the company that translated the Manga does not own the Anime, therefore the names they have changed to do not apply in the Anime. www.boukenshin.net is a fan made website, as Bignole also mentioned to me, information on fanmade websites is not useable, unless it is backed with solid evidence that the name Michel is used in the Anime, however, if you look on the following link you will see that the names used in the anime are as I said. http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=2289 please get your facts right, your Manga facts are right, but only for the Manga, however for the Anime you are wrong and inserting unnessesory information."

What can you say about this? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

He is still in the wrong. We use the official English names from the primary work. They are the same basic media. If the English versions of secondary works use a different spelling from the primary work, this is noted in one line in the character list, but that's it. For consistency, all the articles use one set of names. Also, ANN's encyclopedia is not RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, he even blanked all previous messages on his talk page except the welcome message. I don't know why, but I think he doesn't want to be reminded further. (I was supposed to post this immediately after the message, but the edit conflict came up.) - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

He has started again, BTW. Can we report him for disruptive editing? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left him a 3RR warning for his reverting on List of Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch characters. If he reverts either again, he can be reported for blocking. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have hard proof that the edits you make are used in the Anime too then you can keep the names as they are, but editing the Anime section with names from the manga is un-professional, why don't you create a manga section for said series and use the manga used names there. Oh, and i blanked my page because you deleted all the posts regarding this matter that i posted onto your page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryffinclaw (talk • contribs) 07:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, we use the official English names of the primary work, as noted above. It is not unprofessional, it is Wikipedia's consensus based guidelines. In this series, the manga is the primary work, so its English spellings are used in all the articles except where there is none (such as anime only characters). I explained this to you on your talk page as well. You are being disruptive and edit warring. If you continue, you will likely be blocked from editing all together. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is unprofessional, I am a professional CIW Webpage Design qulified. I know that if the need to use certain information arises then one needs to create a page for it, the Anime section is not for the Manga, from my point of view, it's like have identical twins and calling both with one name. it takes away indvidual rights, the manga has the right to use the english names, however the anime has the right to use the japanese names because the anime has not been dubbed into english as of yet therefore the english names are not yet to be used in the anime. --Gryffinclaw (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

So what? I'm a professional web application developer, but that has nothing to do with anything. Wikipedia has its own guidelines, which have already been been pointed out to you repeatedly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

@Gryffinclaw

You want 2 characters lists then ? One for the manga with Official English name and one for the Anime adaptation with Japanese names ? I doubt you will get much support for that.

Now the one list case: What are your argument(s) to have Japanese names superseding the Manga official English names ? --KrebMarkt 08:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you don't know how much confusion and hurt it is causing young children that are fans of the series to see something different written down and hear something else. when teaching young children to write we teach them through sound. i'm also a school teacher and i'm fed-up of you lot making children cry. The Anime should stay as the anime stop inserting manga data into it. --Gryffinclaw (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh gravy. I don't really care what you want to claim you are. Wikipedia, like any professional writing area, has guidelines. They will be followed, period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

@Gryffinclaw

Can you stop dodging. Our position is clear and based on guideline WP:MOS-ANIME. Yours is unclear and not based on a real argumentation. I learned more on your personal life or so than on the reasons to have 2 separates lists or Japanese names superseding the Manga official English names. --KrebMarkt 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism and edit warring

I think you are missing my point. If G is guilty of simple vandalism, all you need to do is report him to WP:AIV. Of course, you didn't, as you know full well it isn't. So don't use it in the edit summary William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but whether I should have labeled it vandalism or not does not negate his violating 3RR on three different pages and needing to be blocked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly?

I know that DVD is "commonly linked", but that doesn't make it correct to do. Do you honestly believe that there are many people who figured out the internet well enough to read an article but still don't know what a DVD is? WP:Overlink makes it pretty clear that terms understood by most readers shouldn't be linked. Redundant links are another issue and I removed the ones that are redundant again. I tried to be lienient on what is commonly understood (although I find it hard to believe the most English speakers don't know what the Pacific Ocean is without a WL either), but really......out of a million readers, how many would you guess have yet to figure out what a DVD is? On the positive side, thank you for not just doing a mass revert of everything. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before in other film articles and it was agreed that it should be linked. Nor are there any redundant links in the article. While you may find it hard to believe that some people don't know what the Pacific Ocean is, there are a frightening number of people who don't (same folks who think North Carolina is a country in Europe...seriously, yes, people have said it). And while you might think any one who can use the Internet should know what a DVD is, that doesn't necessarily make it true. It is still a technical term. There are lots of people who use the Internet who don't even know what a web browser is. I agreed with you undoing someone's overly excessive wikilinking (that really was quite ridiculous, just wish I'd noticed sooner), I do feel you went a little overboard in removing the links. Remember, English readers != US citizens. Also, links in the lead do not mean terms, particularly people's names, should not be linked again later in the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• A name linked just a few lines before really shouldn't be linked again. You could make the case if it was at the start, then not until the end of a lengthy article, but we are actually taking about the preceeding paragraph. Less than 5 sentences away. I wouldn't agree, but at least you'd have some reason. But the preceeding paragraph? That's really not logical. And I know there are SOME people who don't know what the Pacific ocean is or what a DVD is, but the vast majority do and that is really the criteria. If we were targeting the absolute lowest common denominataor, we should link pretty much every possible term. But we don't, nor should we. Dante's Peak was already in the article (and so was the La Brea Tar Pits), so linking is a second time is.....wait for it...redundant (as I understand the word). Same with the actors names. I'm not going ot get into an edit war over it, but I wish you'd responded here (or on the talk page) before another revert. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead is not the same as the proceeding paragraph in any article, it is its "own" section. Nor does it include every actor, only the headliners. Again, links in the lead are almost always repeated at least once in the article proper. This is done on many many FA level articles that are given extensive community scrutiny. Ditto on the term DVD being linked. And likewise on discussing rather than just reverting after I restored some of the links. No, Volcano doesn't have the best article in the world, but that's no reason to delink just to have to relink when it is fully fleshed out. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Anime and manga project

Hello,

The reason i am asking yourself the next question is a believe you are senior member of the project, if i am wrong a apogolise however i suspect you will still eb able to answer.
My question is i like to be a member/particent of the anime manga protal, only reason i want to be is so i can maybe take on a small project and try to work on it and bring it up to c class level and once i am able ot do that then work on it to get it near b class level, so after that a another member can work on getting it up to A and GA, i can could never do it due to my dsylexica. Just i am not sure if i can just add myself or whether there has ot be a vote or not? although i would need to be pointed in the diretion of all relvent guidelines relveent to anime managa articles so i coudl read up on them.

anyway thanks for any input--Andrewcrawford (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to be a member, you can just add yourself to the project by either adding the userbox, {{User WP Anime}}, or [[Category:WikiProject Anime and manga participants|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]] to your user page. The main project page links off to good resources, and its talk page is a good place for asking for help/advice, etc. The most relevant guideline, of course, is the Manual of style for Anime and manga articles which helps govern the style/layout/content of anime/manga articles. Its also good to look at current GA and FA level articles of the same type as the one you wish to work on for ideas. Hope that helps. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok thank you :) I think i will try doing the mysterious citeies of gold and imrpving that :) i will look at a similar show that is GA or FA to get a base on how ot format it--Andrewcrawford (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cite web redirect

Your nomination of Cite web for speedy deletion clearly disregards the discussion at Redirects for discussion. I would not object to your opening a WP:RfD. The discussion at Template talk:Cite web does not justify your action in my opinion. The fact that a prior consensus exists implies that deletion would be controversial and that speedy deletion is not appropriate. --droll [chat] 02:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see the previous discussion. Can't believe it actually closed as keep. Blech. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Kim Greylek

It would be easier to discuss the topic at hand if you hadn't deleted the discussion page that it was occurring on. You have redirected a character's page without prior discussion or consensus, merely on your own whim. I'm sure I don't have to tell you this is a controversial move that has resulted in arbitration in the past. Redfarmer (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not without prior discussion nor without consensus. It was done as part of the creation and expansion of the L&O SVU character list, along with several others as part of the clean up of the SVU character articles in general. It was done over a month ago without complain, so at this point it has consensus, particularly when it was done during active discussion. If you can show real notability of the character, please discuss it on the list page (after reading previous discussion) and provide the appropriate documentation to support your view that she is now notable. Also, I'm not an admin, so I didn't delete anything. This is not a "controversial" move, it is a merge as is appropriate per Wikipedia guidelines and policies regarding non-notable fictional characters. And considering the only thing "lost" in the merge was the infobox, I see no valid reason for you to suddenly complain about it now. Obviously it hasn't been an issue for anyone for a month. Banding around vague insinuations about arbitration is not conducive to actual discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because I haven't been around much for a month doesn't mean I can't complain about a move that, when you asked about it, only one person responded, and that was to disagree with your reasoning (this would be visible now but someone deleted it). There have been plenty of arbitration cases regarding fictional characters too so it's not a "vague insinuation." I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but I do not see you rushing to merge even less notable characters who were also in the credits, such as Nick Falco. It just seems like you're ignoring the fact that article survived an AfD as "keep," not merge. Frankly, if he could survive with only five episodes under his belt, then I contend that Greylek would easily survive a AfD or RFC. Redfarmer (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First, lets be clear. Are you complaining about the move or the merge, because you seem to be mixing the two. Yes, it is a vague insinuation as that arbitration has nothing to od with this. I only worked on the SVU character articles, not the rest of the series. Pointing to a 2007 AfD when guidelines have since greatly changed is not really supporting your cause. Since you insist on continuing to point to the FAlco article, I have looked at it, and yes, he is just another unnotable character and has been sent back to AfD to be judged against current guidelines. Again, point to actual, reliable sources showing she is notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reopened a split discussion for DBZ

Sorry to do this to you, but I've reopened the discussion regarding the merging of DB and DBZ. I feel that DBZ has established independent significance so it warrents its own article:) Valoem ^talk 23:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You can reopen all you want, but I have removed the tags. DBZ is not independently significant, it is the exactly same manga series. DBZ is purely a label used to indicate the two arcs of the manga, same as in Naruto. The anime using the label reflects the same. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

DBZROCKS's argument was legitmate if the manga is one series than I somewhat understand the merge however DBGT is not apart of DBZ should i put the tag for DBGT or should I just split it? Valoem ^talk 01:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither, you should discuss it. GT was also merged per consensus as it is still part of the same franchise. It may not be based directly on manga chapters, but its the same characters, same general world constructs and concepts, and is not significantly different enough for a split either.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dragon Ball

I believe that having each section link to their respective series (Dragon Ball Z, GT, Kai) etc. would be good for article structure, as it would be a bit easier to find each series respective episode lists. One may argue that the template handles this, but I think it would be a postive change to the article. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, think I'll go ahead and boldly do it since today seems to be bold edit day :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

infobox film vandal

Hi, I saw you left a message on User talk:Yashmanthegreat. I am pretty sure it's the same user as User talk:Yashman18 and the first account User:Yashveer r so I blocked him indef. He will probably create a new account soon though. Garion96 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Figures...an IP user said he thought it was a sock account. Blech...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Restless

I've seen you around a lot and I have to admit I'm a little confounded that you would prod Restless (1998 film) without, apparently, even a cursory glance around for sources. A 30-second search yielded pages upon pages of prominent sources, so I spend some time building the article up. I don't know—what's the angle here? Are there admins that will come along and delete stuff without doing the work I did, assuming the tagger must have done it? --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. The article was created as a copyvio, then deleted and recreated with no real information at all. From a cursory glance, it had no apparent notability. No major headerlines, not a major release, etc. Typically such a film is unnotable. I didn't have time to go hunting down sources and working on the article. A prod is a 5 day event, and does not stop anyone else from doing as you did and expanding the article to show notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I could have phrased that better, sorry. I'm just coming to the realization that lots of articles get deleted when they could get built up, although the latter takes a little effort on someone's part. --Laser brain (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree there. I have done some of that build up myself. When I'm editing during the day, though, I'm at work so I usually don't have time for the in-depth searching I might do in the evening. Suffice to say, I'm glad you were able to take more time to look for sources to correct the original bad article. Its still a bit stubby, but a much better start than it had before. Any ideas on what's up with the file uploader that's messing up its picture? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Find out who has the other half

		The Half Barnstar
		For your efforts in working cooperatively even with someone diametrically opposed to your viewpoint. Bzuk (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

I've been working on GA Sweeps for the last couple of years (unfortunately its taken this long), and this month we have expanded the number of reviewers. The process is to ensure that the articles that were passed before August 2007 still meet the GA criteria. I've noticed that you have performed some re-reviews of several GAs and delisted them. I was wondering if you would be interested in joining Sweeps and helping to review some more articles. We have about ~1,300 articles that still need to be reviewed (we started with ~2,800) and I believe it would be helpful if you could assist, especially with the anime and manga articles because of your knowledge/experience on the topic. However, any of the articles on the worklist are available to review. If you are interested in helping out, feel free to add your name to the running total page and I'll move your previous reviews to your total. If you have any questions, let me know and I'll be happy to assist. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to help, particularly with both Anime/manga articles and Film articles. Adding my name now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Table Help

I was working on the merged article for the Dragon Ball Z: Budokai series (which can be found in my sandbox here), and I wanted to do a yes/no chart for the characters, similar to the one found in Naruto: Clash of Ninja (series), but I then realized that I lack any skill with tables. I was hoping that you, or another editor you know would be able to assist me in making such a chart for the article. Thank you in advance. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can help if you want to get the basic frame work started (though easiest way would be to just steal copy the code from the Naruto one then edit from there :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Featured List Medal

		The Featured List Medal
		AnmaFinotera made great contributions to the following featured lists: List of Marmalade Boy chapters List of Meerkat Manor episodes List of Meerkat Manor meerkats List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters List of Trinity Blood episodes This is by no means a small feat. Keep up the good work! G.A.Stalk 06:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! That is one I hadn't seen before :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have no barnstar (I didn't know a featured list medal existed; it seems unconscionable that I haven't gotten it with my contributions yet :p), but I'd like to extend my congratulations over getting List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters up to snuff. Character lists are definitely the hardest among the main three types of lists (chapter, character, episode) that we have within WP:ANIME to get to FL, and you've definitely put a lot of time and effort in here. Best of luck in finding the sources to get List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes up to FL for your featured topic (BTW, syoboi is probably reliable as other users have pointed out to me, so that might solve your conundrum). Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, if I'd known there was such a barnstar I'd have certainly given you one (though it may have taken up your whole user talk page LOL). Good to hear on Syoboi! If it is, that would certainly take care of one of the two big obstacles (other being, I need to get my hands on that series and rewatch it to correct the summaries :P). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations AnmaFinotera. Good work with the character list of Tokyo Mew Mew. Finally there is another FL from characters. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

200 characters in cover volume

In the volume 32 from Shaman King there are a lot of characters featured in the cover. How should cover character be used? There is not a special group of characters to describe them in one sentence, so Im a bit confused. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it the last volume or something? That would be a lot to list! That said, it was fully listed for Rave Master 35, so for full coverage, it maybe be needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep the last volume. By the way, do you know a user who may add the romaji for the titles? There are also some that need kanji.Tintor2 (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You can use a converter to get the basic Romaji as long as you have the original kanji. Would probably need to post on teh project to find someone who might have the original kanji ones. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

How does it work? When I added the chapters list, it ended blanked.Tintor2 (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Where? I tried to check the contrib, but didn't see which edit it was (missing some edit summaries :P) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy

Why request speedy for an template that is in use? Rich Farmbrough, 16:59 25 May 2009 (UTC).

I requested speedy of an inappropriate copy/paste move. The valid template in use is still there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about Template:Infobox book series? Rich said on my talk page, "It wasn't cut and paste, it was the first stage in the merge." Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no sign it is being merged, and what does renaming it have to do with doing the merge on the Novel series infobox? Just not making much sense to me. It seems like he is planning to do the merge backwards, against what the TfD results were??-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I'm tried of dealing with Talk:Naruto: Clash of Ninja (series)#Naruto Shippuden:Clash Of Ninja Revolution 3. Can you post something to support my claims those site are not reliable for the games release? DragonZero (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Master Dude mentioned it being confirmed in his "ShonenJump Manga today" (dated the 23rd), which I'm assuming is referring to the July issue, which I also received. I'll check for any mention of Revolution 3 later today (I typically ignore the VG stuff) to confirm the veracity of that statement. ···「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? Talk to Dinoguy1000} 06:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I finally looked; page 14 discusses two Naruto games (Ninja Destiny 2 and Clash of Ninja Revolution 3). The Revolution 3 blurb says "The Revolution continues with the newest sequel in this celebrated series. Over 30 characters, including some new Shippuden ones, are here and ready for battle. The game, which covers the Gaara rescue story arc, has Wi-Fi multiplayer matches, over 30 fighting environments and an overhauled combat system. You can even have co-op tag-team four-player matches!", and is followed by a short list of information: "Title: Naruto Shippuden: Clash of Ninja Revolution 3 • Publisher: Tomy • Developer: Eighting • Platform: Wii • Release Date: Fall 2009 • Price: TBD • Rating: RP (Rating Pending)". ···「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? Talk to Dinoguy1000} as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Trinity Blood

Hi. I want to know why you persist to remove Shahrazad (a MAJOR one shot character from an entire arc who is more important than plenty of those who are there like Mirka Fortuna or Noelle Bor. She's as equal in importance if not more than the Marquis Gyula) and novel information of character from Trinity Blood's character list. Also why you support inaccurate information such as Trinity Blood having seven published manga volumes? There are eleven so far with another coming up soon.

This continuous removal is what makes Trinity Blood fandom regard the wikipedia article as abysmal in quality I let you know.

So please, I ask you to know why do you do this? Are you unfamiliar with the canon or the fandom beyond the Anime? Thanks. 190.246.150.25 (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why you continue violating federal laws and Wikipipedia policy by trying to add stolen, copyrighted contents from other websites into Wikipedia articles? If you want to make a correction, make a correction, but do not continue trying to add stolen content. Per WP:COPYVIO it will continue to be reverted as vandalism. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

'What' stolen content? I wasn't aware I stole anything from any website when I typed down that information. 190.246.150.25 (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

So you are telling me you typed that all up yourself, and it just happens to be word from word from another website? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, a friend of Germany and I were the ones who originally put up the first official correct information of Shahrazad in the net (previous one dictated her to be hired by the RCO which was incorrect) a couple of years ago. Then that was "deleted" because someone mistook Shahrazad for a "minor character" which she isn't, she's of equal if not more importance of Gyula, likely because they have only seen the Anime. I simply put it back, correcting the spelling of her name and all (because in ROM IV novel it's spelled Shahrazad). 190.246.150.25 (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say from an earlier Wikipedia article, I said from another website, period. At this time, it is copyrighted info from another site, and your claim can't be substantiated, so it can not be put back. As for the rest, she is still just a one-shot character, by your own admission. Any importance to a specific character's history can be noted in their section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's MY writing, if somebody else stole it and put it in a website up to them. I deleted the OLD Shahrazad description a while ago and wrote it from scratch from a modified the full version from my lj blurb and my rp character history to place it there. Lets remove Gyula, Mirka Fortuna, half of the Orden (Suzanne, the von Neumanns, etc), Noelle, Havel, Süleyman, and all the "one shot characters". She's not just one episode/short story one shot character, she's the protagonist of an entire ROM novel with Esther, ten manga chapters (one of the six manga arcs) and was so "unimportant" that featured in her own manga cover and several colored and non colored frontpieces. From which "website" this was supposedly "stolen"? May I ask?

I'm rather busy right now but tomorrow I'll type up a new blurb and I hope this one won't be mysteriously in another (unsourced) website.

Also you deleted my additions of novel Caterina and novel Mary (that you can see were mine) and the corrections of Trinity Blood having 11 manga volumes. Why? 190.246.150.25 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In copyright violations, all edits are reverted, not just selective. When one violatse copyrights, there is no trust that the other edits are good. The correction on the number of volumes, however, has been rectified. Any actually Gyula was removed, several times, and I actually agree with some others being removed. Others did not and, if you check the talk page, consensus was to allow them to stay despite their minor nature. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that recently! Thanks XD!

I'm really surprised that Endre Kourza was allowed to stay in a giant blurb when he's just a one shot, one short story villain without weight or character development from RAM I, Emmanuelle D'Annuznio the villain from ROM IV is far more important and he appears in back stories of the Church. Or Baybars. He's like a cameo character in ROM III, but anyway... I will write a new Shahrazad's profile and added parts of her influence in the Esther's profile (because she plays a HUGE role in her development, in fact, she's the one who makes Esther want to change the world: take action). Sorry if I came out as snappy earlier, but I was personally annoyed when Shahrazad who thousands more important than those minor characters was removed for being a "minor" character or when my own writing was challenged.

Another thing: Why Lilith being Abel's lover was removed? (This was added ages ago). That's in the novels and remarked as an important trait of hers, likewise her being the Nania Sancta/Night Saint. Since the first one, RAM I, From the Empire and ROM I Star of Sorrow. Oh I noticed you asked for profiles in discussion page? Sunao actually published profiles and long backstories but in his book: Canon. Several of them were translated from his book (the four Krsniks and the Orden mostly). I also translated Antonio's recently. I don't know if you had been told of its existence, there's also a few chapters of the ROM novel Sunao was working on when he died and future history development notes that he couldn't write: like the new war of the Empire and the Outer world. 190.246.140.163 (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if whiel editing you added the cites to the specific novels/page numbers (if you aren't sure on formatting, just add as hidden comments so someone can fluff out the details later). I've only read RAM 1 & 2, but I don't remember that about Lilith. For the profiles and backstory, for the most part, no that shouldn't be added unless its a key detail that may explain something from a novel/manga/anime bit. If there are development type notes, though, like what went into creating/conceiving, those would be great in a new section at the top. Character lists needs to be brief, without a lot of in-universe and plot details. For ideal character lists, see List of Naruto characters and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters, which are both featured lists. Alas, the Trinity Blood character list has been sadly neglected and really needs a thorough cleaning. It was also built from the anime first, and with Tokyopop's history on light novels, its unlikely most editors will ever get to read all 12 of them. I did hear they had solicited the next volumes, though, so *crossing fingers* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

disney film vs home video

If you are interested, please join our discussion currently over at Talk:List of Disney theatrical animated features regarding what qualifies as "theatrical release" vs "Direct 2 DVD", as well as what qualifies as being part of the Disney "canon" vs breaking it out based on conflicting info from "official" sources SpikeJones (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Left some notes on the first. for canon...that seems really a odd discussion all together. It seems rather pointless, no offense, to even try to define a "Disney canon" unless Disney itself has, since its their film (and there is no Disney "genre") per se. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much the "canon" text, as the overly WP:BOLD set of edits by one editor who is basing (I'm assuming in good faith) their edits based on one official reference that contradicts a different, but equally valid, official reference. As you saw, we're trying to have reasonable discussions on the topic but they are refusing to bend to previously-determined consensus as they rely on their one source for all info. (sigh). SpikeJones (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...have you tried reminding him of WP:CONSENSUS? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rurouni Kenshin reception

Does the book Manga: The Complete Guide have something about the series that can be added to reception? By the way, if you are searching to improve the Card Captors Sakura article, a user has found a lot of production from Clamp as seen in Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it does. I'm without a home computer right now, though, so may take me a couple of days to get it added. Clamp is great about releasing production info, just have to get my hands on some (and sit down with the manga volumes to see what's in there too). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I finally cleaned up the lead of the article (a bit late, almost a year, hehe). Should the plot also mention the OVAs sequel?Tintor2 (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No, since they aren't part of the primary work. It would be more of the anime/manga adaptation change, but needs sourcing. Better to leave it to a short 1-2 sentence summary in the main, with fuller summary in the episode list/OVA articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Added. Additionally, I added Aoshi, Saito, Yahiko and Sanosuke to the plot section to give example of the enemies and friends. Should Misao and Megumi also be added?Tintor2 (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they should, as both play large enough roles, even for supporting characters. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My DV Spidey-sense is tingling...

Maybe I'm looking for the Disney Vandal since The Rescuers article has been quiet for a while, but Ducky78-88 made some suspicious edits recently on the page that previous DV socks have made, especially about Medusa. Can you give me your opinion? Cactusjump (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. He was blocked. :) Cactusjump (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Your spidey-sense is getting better ;-) I reverted a few edits missed that he did, but glad it was a fast catch. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm wondering if we can get a semi-protect on The Rescuers and The Fox and the Hound like Lady and the Tramp has. What do you think? Cactusjump (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Fox and the Hound is already semi-protected. Will request The Rescuers protection be reinstated. Also expanded on the new long term abuse report. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Cactusjump (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion...

Does this person strike you as incredibly similar to our old acquaintance Jupiter Optimus Maximus (aka Illustrious One, aka YourLord)? The contribution history seems very similar to me, with similar patterns (unreferenced psychoanalysis of fictional characters, adding categories related to such, concern over List of fictional narcissists, etc.). Also he identifies as being from Chester, England, and all of JOM's previous IPs trace to the same general area (Manchester, Liverpool, & Chester, which are adjacent to each other). There's enough of a similarity here for me to consider opening up a SPI, but I thought I'd ask for second opinions first. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

His recreating that deleted list sends up a huge flag in my view. I think a SPI would be good. The name and edit summaries are signature YourLord/JOM as well. His note on your page very much mirrors his comments in the last SPI. 22:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Case opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YourLord. Comments are welcome. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, even his "defense" sounds so familiar *insert eye roll* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as was going to do it.... Sees Me Through

You're fast girl. Can we get a serial hoaxer blocked of banned? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I reported him to AIV as a vandalism only account...two non article creations were total hoax edits as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Tai Michaels is a rabid Melissa McCarthy fan. Sheesh...even creating stuff to put her in. Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Azumanga Daioh GAR

How hard-and-fast is the 30 May deadline for the GAR? I'm going to be "out of pocket" (as my corporate overlords put it) this weekend and Monday, with limited 'Net access -- I'll be able to check in for messages, but not spend time editing. Given work has been continuing and most of the issues have been addressed, would we be able to get a couple days extension based on demonstrated good faith if things aren't completely finished by Saturday? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Since its being actively worked on, I was already planning to extend if it wasn't "finished" by then. :) But thanks for the heads up, I'll go ahead and make a note of that on the GAR page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'll be back and available Monday evening. Assuming I don't crash the minute I walk in the door. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully it will be a good trip :) (and don't say crash...I'm still working to recover from my computer's hard drive dying :( ) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, since I'm driving there and flying back, the verb seemed a natural ... —Quasirandom (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh fun...they couldn't pay for airfare both ways or something? And hey...it may be a natural verb, but hopefully not the desired result :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not for work -- I'm combining helping a friend with fulfilling some filial obligations. Crashing would be non-optimal, though. (Sympathies, btw -- I'm still finding holes in my system, after having to replace the hard drive over Christmas.) —Quasirandom (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Aladdin GAR

Please, point out what else is needed! Also, since anything you ask, I'll try to do, consider extending the deadline for another week -specially if the demands turn out to be many. igordebraga ≠ 02:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Leaving a note there. I'll extend until June 6, 2009. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit

I was wondering if you would be interested in copyediting Oklahoma City bombing. I would like to take it up to FA and am currently in the stage of asking various people to look at it and catch all of my errors (I can always catch everybody else's, just not mine!) and find any suggestions for improvement. The article is long, but if you notice anything that needs to be fixed/improved, I would appreciate it if you could point it out. No worries if you're not interested (don't want to pull you away from Sweeps!). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Alas, I'm not a copy editor. I notice big grammar errors or MoS errors, but I am not well versed in the nuances copy editors tend to notice. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but you've done well with your various contributions and GA reviews. You don't necessarily have to do a full copyedit, but I'm asking people who work on all types of articles to take a look since everybody notices something different (hopefully that's the best way to combat the varying FAC reviewers). Again, no worries, I'm open to all feedback. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, sure, I'll give it a looking over sometime this week. Any particular place you want thoughts posted, or is here fine? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No big hurry, I'm still waiting for the conclusion of the peer review. You can either leave your comments there or the article's talk page. Or if you want to keep this discussion in one place, feel free to post here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps June update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Fox and the Hound Talk Page

Hey there -- On the Fox and the Hound talk page there's an archives icon, but it doesn't go anywhere. Do you know what's up? I don't know enough about archiving to know the answer. :) Cactusjump (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, they didn't get moved with the article rename. I've moved the second one. An admin will have to move the first, so I've put in a request. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Cactusjump (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Rokushobey0001

Rokushobey0001 asked me to review his block by email, I left my reply on his talk page (the CU results are  Unlikely). -- Luk ^talk 08:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If not socks, they are definately meatpuppeting. Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioforce (Omni Books)‎. Tons of new accounts doing nothing but arguing against the article's deletion for this guys self-published book characters. Its noted there that he did post to his MySpace begging for people to go "save" his articles and presumably attacking me directly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

I know I have not been on here for a while now. That's because I have been on vacation! :D I went over to Utah to see my brother. I haven't had time to go onto the computer, which is good because I can hang out with him. :) Right now I am redoing the article for Speed Racer, man that article is a train wreck. :P So how have you been doing. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I hope you had a great trip :) I'm been okay. My laptop's hard drive died (with hideous crunching sounds), so having to get used to a new system. Did some good wiki work (TMM's character list is now FL!), making progress on my kitchen and yard work in my house, and switched to contact lenses for the first time in my life. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool. :) TMM = Tokyo Mew Mew?? /:S How does the article look so far. :) It's big. :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. All that's left is to get episode list in shape and then we can have a Tokyo Mew Mew featured topic :D For the article, its a little confusing. Is it about Speed Racer or Mach GoGoGo? The lead starts with the former, but the article continues using the latter. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it is kinda confusing. :P I'm trying to say that Speed Racer is the English title of the anime Mach GoGoGo, based on the manga of the same name... W-wait a minute, I could use what I wrote just right then! :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: Well actually no, because the basic concept of the article is the manga, not the anime. But what I am trying to point out is that "Speed Racer" was not originally the English title of the manga, but rather the anime. :| This confuses me. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Hello? Hello? :D :D :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Honey, if you are confused by your own article, I can't don much for ya :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking?

Are you aware that Joe, the author on the Omni Books article, has plastered your personal information on his MySpace blog? [7] His son has made the numerous edits to these articles, if his comment history on this blog is any hint. I think you should take notice, maybe even contact MySpace and have them remove it, because that's a little creepy. Thought I would inform you.

I usually use my real identity on here, but after this, I might show a little more caution. 71.72.162.219 (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't see the entry because it is friend locked. Not surprising though, considering his pathetic behaviors so far. Not the first time either, unfortunately, because people think being on the internet somehow gives them a free reign to act psychotic and conduct illegal activities they'd never do in real life. Of course, I wonder if he realizes that since he is "published" it is ridiculously easy for authorities to find him...hmmm...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Its me again. I was on his MySpace friend list and was aware of the contest for pictures and whatnot. I kind of wanted to avoid the drama, so didn't say anything. But when I saw he had posted your personal information, I told him he might want to be careful with that sort of thing, as it could hurt his credibility and I added that it was immature. His response?

Block/ignore. So now I can't see it, but if you want me to report it to MySpace for you, I will try.

I'm sure now he's probably writing a bunch of nasty things about me, and I was trying to help him realize the futility of it. So I guess there's no reason to hide my identity. Plus, the edit history on my IP didn't look particularly promising either, as I'm sure a family member screwed around with it when I had it open.

I'm a bit familiar with the deletion policy, as I usually only come on here when I feel an article needs to be deleted, leaving article editing generally for those with more time than I do. I wish they would listen to us. :( The man has real potential, but is wasting it by acting like a whiny, immature brat.

(P.S. I love Blood+ also) Drumpler (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, another IP "outed" you here but I had that oversighted in case you wanted to remain anon. I did send in a report to MySpace, but I don't think an additional one would hurt at all as you were able to see what he actually posted. Also agree...was rather disgusted to see his supposed age then his acting worse than most kids would. its all really silly, but I'm a bit disappointed that the instigators have now been unblocked despite the clear violation of Wiki terms in being a part to the whole issue. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I also submitted a report to MySpace. I will update you if I hear anything back. :) Drumpler (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the MySpace URL link ref'd above you has now gone. All the best Plutonium27 (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. Hopefully not too much damage done since it was friends locked. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked his profile. He wrote another one named "Haters" and I reported that to MySpace also, just in case it had more illegal info. It is also friend protected. Drumpler (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, from MySpace's report, he'd deleted it himself rather than their doing it, so he probably just did that to avoid the report working. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of when someone I knew stalked me on the internet. Scary. o_o – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, because of nutballs like that guy, I've had to change how I do some of my online profiles, pull my resume/portfolio, and lock more of my blog entries. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

His son, who was the primary editor of the articles, (correction: I'm not sure if its his son, it could be just a fan) is now stalking me on MySpace. I told him I'm going to issue a cease-and-desist if him, his dad or followers email me or mention me. This is creepy. Almost like a cult. He said that he is to understand I'm the one who got him banned, from which I corrected him, saying I only chimed my two cents in when I was banned from Joe's profile for giving friendly advice about posting someone's information publicly. Just do what I'm doing and start saving the emails. Drumpler (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is insane! Hope MySpace is helpful in stopping it :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm staying out of the debate as it is a) because of my identity and b) because I wrote him from another MySpace account (after he deleted me) saying that I would like to help him prove the notability (if it is there) and offered my advice on what to do if it isn't notable. This is the best thing I can think to do as an editor and now someone who is involved. I think a lot of people in this debate made poor choices all around and while I think they were understandable choices, I'm trying to pull as much venom out of it as possible. But I also told him if he can't prove notability, he's going to tread his path differently (i.e. not do things like provide private details about people), to protect his own name. He has 30,000+ people on his list, so I'm assuming he has plenty of fans, so maybe one day, his book might be considered notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. The point is that isn't now.

Maybe if he is serious about editing on Wikipedia, a mentorship could be considered? As for his son, who I presumed edited the article, if he can agree to be mentored on Wikipedia, that same "right" could be extended the same and his permaban lifted? Just some thoughts. Drumpler (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The guy who created all the articles, presumably his son, was unblocked already. He wasn't permabanned, just the socks were. he has left a note on the AfD saying he is okay with the deletion as he realizes he went backwards, but it also sounds like he intends to continue trying to add articles on the book here. Hopefully they will at least chill a bit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For keeping a cool head during an otherwise heated conflict, I award this Barnstar to AnmaFinotera. Drumpler (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Second that star. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Combining Talk Discussions Re Disney Film Lists

Dear SpikeJones, Kasper2006, Elikrotupos, SWatsi, Blitz Lutte, NealP, LtPowers, SofaKing381222, AnmaFinotera, Cartoon Boy, Casey14, Chris1219, NuclearWarfare, SkinnyPrude, and Parker 1297:

Recently, it appears that you all have been interested in the various Disney discussions regarding the proper categorization of Disney animated films. There has been recent activity regarding the proper structure of the various Disney feature length film lists. Unfortunately the discussions regarding the lists / pages are taken place on a number of talk pages. Before we get further into a long discussion regarding the various structural issues with regards to List of Disney theatrical animated features, Template:Disney theatrical animated features, Walt Disney Animated Classics, Category:Disney animated features canon, List of Disney feature films‎ and what ever other lists are out there, I would suggest that we somehow combine the discussions (both past and present) into one place. This will allow easy review on single page for users interested in this matter. It will also allow future users an easy access to whatever rational is used to support the structure of the various lists (including keeping or merging certain lists.). I believe that in placing this discussion in one central location, it alleviates repetitive discussion, allows issues are not constantly revisited in different locations and hopefully sets the future standard in updating the various lists with the verifiable sources. I honestly do not know if there is Wikipedia policy on this, nor do I know what the proper way of creating such a place. But I do believe it would useful.

I have posted this suggestion on the all the User’s talk pages above and apologize if I have missed any person who may be interested in this matter. If you know of a user interested in this matter, please invite any that person to discuss these issues. .If I have included you and you have no interest in this matter, I sincerely apologize and please delete this message.

cc:
Flair Girls, creator of Template:Disney theatrical animated features
FuriousFreddy, creator of Category:Disney animated features canon
Plainsong, creator of List of Disney feature films‎

Sincerely yours, Jvsett (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Page began, just because. See WP:WikiProject Disney/Animated Film Article Cleanup. SpikeJones (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

DV back again

I'm hoping you can help me. I filed this with WP:SOCK already, but User: 75.75.124.218 is obviously our friend Bambifan101, and he keeps going to my talk page to alleviate his boredom. Since you're familiar with the case, is there anything you can do to expedite the investigation? Cactusjump (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked as such. 48 hours, so they will likely get bored and reset their router in a little while... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. He was becoming annoying on my talk page and I had just about had enough. Cactusjump (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm, yep, that was him. For future note, though, in cases like this, just a straight report to AIV noting its "Bambifan101 sock" will usually get it taken care of quick. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That doggoned Bambifan...

I don't know if you saw the conversation I had with his latest IP sock, but there's no getting through to this guy. I have spent more time than I would have really liked semi-protecting his "pets" and blocking the socks. Why do the whack jobs all have dynamic IPs? Le sigh. Thank you for the good work you do and the sense of humor you show in the face of this problem. Hopefully, he'll get the message when everything he's interested is blocked. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...think the only way to stop him would be to get his ISP(s) to do something, but no one has had the time/desire to go that far. And good question on dynamic IPs. Be so much nicer if he at least had a single IP range. Thanks for stepping in to do all those protections. It has, at least, reduce the damage quite a bit from what he used to do. You'd think he'd be getting bored by now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What was the hurry?

Couldn't you wait the seven days you had given before delisting Anandabhadram? I know it can be submitted as a candidate again once the issues are resolved. But, this wasn't much of show of faith. Anyways, thanks for the hard work you put into the delisting. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I did wait the seven days. May 30-June 6th. My original note clearly stated what day it would be delisted on. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Scanner?

Just wondering if your scanner's fixed yet? o:-) --Malkinann (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my scanner was never broke. My home desktop was down :P I have finally got the new parts for it, but I haven't installed and gotten it back up and running yet. Should be within the next week or so though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I knew there was something broken that stopped you from scanning things... Thanks. :-) --Malkinann (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Death Note GAR

I tried making some changes you mentioned in the GAR. Im pretty sure the grammar still needs fixes, but is there any other part from the article that still needs fixes? Tintor2 (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Will take a look later this evening or tomorrow. I'm sick with an upper resp infection + sinus infection, so rather look when I'm a little less bleh :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Taken a better looked, and replaced death link and fixed refs.Tintor2 (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Fox and the Hound (novel)

On June 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Fox and the Hound (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.

Giants27 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you care for an online interview?

endulge my trespassing on your time. I'm a university student at Seoul National University, and I'm currently working on a research project on Wikipedia. Right now I am concentrating on understanding the 'Consensus' principle, and I realized that here statistical numbers or explicit talks would leave me without any clue... unless I first get a picture of the whole thing. So I'm searching for live voices, for accounts of active users.

I see you are highly active in Wikipedia, so I thought your experience and opinions would be a great help. Would you by any chance care for an email interview? You just have to answer several questions, but it will be of tremendous meaning for me. If you have the time, please contact me on my user talk page and I'll mail you the questions.

Thanks for reading.

Little Sheepherd (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I recently put this page up for deletion, and I was testing some of the tools so I'm not sure if I did it right. Could you check for me? List of Zatch Bell! minor characters. Also, is there a chance my deletion proposal could fail? DragonZero (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You did the prod fine (though always good to link to WP:N when noting something is unnotable). Since its a prod, anyone can remove it to "fail" it. If that does happen, I'd encourage tagging it for merge and starting a discussion at List of Zatch Bell! characters regarding redirecting it (make sure to leave a note on the project page as well). You can also send it to WP:AFD, which would then have deletion discussed and a decision reached by consensus. Most of the time, minor character lists are deleted as they are extremely minor and nearly impossible to source to reliable, third-party sources. You can also boldly redirected it to the character list, though if someone disagreed, then AfD or a merge discussion would again be the next option. Hope that helps. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Graphic novel Delisted

Thanks for the message. Don't really agree with several of the comments you make at the delisting, but then I find these reviews somewhat conflicting with WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks for your pointer though, and there's certainly meat to some of your comments that will help people interested in making the article worthy of a GA. All the best, Hiding T 15:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Unfortunately, the article was never actually given a proper GA review (which, to me, is a disservice to both the article and those who worked on it and nominated it originally). Hopefully my review will help anyone wanting to work on the article have some starting points. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

From memory, there wasn't a review process back when it was selected, the GA system was originally a lot looser. It was created as a less process heavy more consensus friendly alternative to FA. As you can see, it has drifted away from that origin and could be viewed as a disservice to both the process and those who developed it. ;) Hiding T 15:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah...I didn't know that. Interesting to see how far its changed. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Confused about FMA episode list

Some weeks ago, I asked about splitting a list from List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes. Now I became a bit confused about something. If brotherhood is splitted, should it be a sublist from the main FMA list? If that s so, the first anime should also be splitted? The two series have little relation, Brotherhood could count as a remake from FMA but with a total different plot. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think if brotherhood were split, it would be a separate list rather than a sublist since Brotherhood is a "reboot" rather than a sequel/continuation. Then just have both lists linked in the template.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

?????

How exactly is Barragan's weapon not constructive? It is a completely new weapon then his original. There are commments about Harribel, Nel, Ulquirra, and Nnotria keeping weapons after they transform. Why not Barragan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxomprice17 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is already mentioned. He uses an ax. How is it new? His ax changed. He still uses an ax. In-depth descriptions of the weapons aren't even necessary. For what your edit was called unconstructive, however, please see WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD. You added a statement and it was removed. You added again, it was removed again. At that point, you should take it to the talk page, not just continue trying to readd it every day. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

College Station page

I am a very new user to Wikipedia. I once tried to edit the College Station page to correct the ampersand (&) usage in the Reynolds and Reynolds company name listed on that page. Unfortunately, when I published my change, every hyperlink in the article disappeared ... though the only edit I was aware I made was changing the "&" to the word "and". The Reynolds name should never appear with the ampersand in print per the company's brand standards. I was wondering if a more experienced editor such as yourself could make the change or let me know what I am doing incorrectly.

Thank you.

Lrgood1 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not edit with regard to any company's brand standards. We have our own style guides regarding dealing with company names and what not. In the case of Reynolds & Reynolds, the source that verifies its status as one of the largest companies uses the ampersand, so that is what is used here. That said, you did not make any error in your edit that magically removed the links. :) I'm not sure why you thought they did, but they are all still there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

MovieCodec Forums

It was previously issued for a speedy deletion but after explanation of it's significance the speedy deletion was dropped. Please drop this one as well as I do not wish to have to re-explain this. But for a hint on why it is significant, it has been featured in 3 newspaper including the New York Times.Omegakingboo (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd looked at MovieCodec Forums for possible speedy deletion when it was first created. However, the coverage in mulitple news sources was enough of an assertion to exempt it. Accordingly, I removed your speedy tag. I think discussion via AfD would be the appropriate venue to consider and discuss deletion of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear for me that sockpuppets were made to spam this article here. The reliable soruces mentioned seem more significant to the one person and the "I am lonely" thing rather than the actual website itself. Will look at them more though and see if should go to AfD or just be tagged with COI issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, your AfD nomination is one of the best-written ones I've seen in a long time. I hate to just say "delete per nom", but I was really hard-pressed to find an angle you hadn't considered. Very nicely written. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) I tried to look at it from all angles and be fair in my view of it despite their methods. Interestingly, reading their thread on it shows that they have an appalling lack of understanding as to what Wikipedia is and seem to think just anyone can add anything as oppose to understanding there are guidelines and policies here. *shaking head* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, not everybody who comes on here takes the time to understand. Too many people just go about doing what they want until they get themselves blocked. *sigh* That's why, if I can help it, I try to explain what should be done rather than just say "No! Don't do that!"

Also, I hope you don't mind templated gifts. This is a new creation. Somehow, it seemed a better choice of a thank you/well done token for you than a plain ol' cookie. ;) —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I don't mind at all! I *heart* strawberry pocky! :-D I tried leaving a note on one of the two forum members talk pages here who are not blocked explaining things more clearly that this is not a social site, but they don't seem to even be bothering to read them and just keep complaining in their forums that they are being "abused".-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, I chose right! (Actually, strawberry pocky was the only free image at the pocky article, so I didn't have much choice. :) Although now I'm craving pocky; there may be a run to the Asian supermarket in my future this weekend. ;) ) And I've made an olive branch offer to Omegakingboo to allow him to be unblocked, but with the caveat that he's on the zero-revert rule at the MCF article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

C.Fred has given you pocky! Pocky promotes WikiLove, and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else pocky, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of pocky by adding {{subst:User:C.Fred/Pocky}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

DYK for The Lover (film)

On June 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Lover (film), 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.

Mifter (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Kraken prod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Kraken: Tentacles of the Deep, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Eldumpo (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay...though it would be useful if there are RS reviews available, if they had been added to the article, or at least links left on the article's talk page to show them. Also, please make sure to put {{oldprodfull}} on the article's talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Films WikiProject

Thank you for the greeting. I will strive to contribute to the best of my abilities for the project. I think that this is the only project that has ever taken the time to welcome me. Thanks again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite welcome and hope you enjoy! If you need any help with your work on film articles, feel free to ask or to post at the project talk. We're very active, so you'll generally get an answer pretty quick. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check

I don't suppose you have a moment to check out this and offer an opinion as someone with experience in these matters? —Quasirandom (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, left some notes there. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankee. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Original research in Elliot Stabler article

Hi! I don't understand how my edits to Elliot Stabler are original research. I took the unsourced dates of birth of Elliot Stabler's five children and provided references, as well as corrections where necessary. How is this original research, especially when prior edits didn't even include sources?

Thanks, Spanish lullaby (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You extrapolated based on various episodes, not actual episodes saying "so and so is x". Of course, really, the ages of his kids are fairly irrelevant beyond "teenager", "pre-teen", etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I included references to actual episodes, though: "Maureen Stabler is said to be fifteen years old in episode 'Wrong Is Right'", "Kathleen Stabler is said to be nineteen years old in episode 'Swing'", etc. I used the episodes to source the years of birth already included but unreferenced in the article. Are you saying it's because I included stuff like "putting her date of birth in late 1988 or 1989?" Sorry, I'm just trying to understand what I did wrong so that I can fix it.

Thanks, Spanish lullaby (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, including things like that is OR. We presume the series is set in the "present" but trying to give year contexts and exact years for any of the characters birth without specific references that state exactly "she was born in X" is original research. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Wikipedia

Thanks a lot for contacting. I'm sorry I saw the message so late. There were couple of exams and I couldn't find time to log in. I'll post the questions here. If you think they are alright, I'd really appreciate your opinion. Basically, the question is this: how much and whence is Wikipedia's way of settling matters different from simple majority rule? I deemed Consensus to be the clue, so I'm digging deeper there.

-What exactly is consensus? How is the term different from majority rule?

-What do you mean when you say 'consensus is the rule on Wikipedia'?

-How do you determine consensus? How do you know when consensus is formed? What conditions must be met?

-In general, is consensus smoothly developed?

-How do people arrive at consensus? Is there a typical procedure or stages?

-What do people do when there are difficulties coming to an agreement? Have you seen many such cases?

-What happens when some people defy consensus?

-To what degree do you think is the consensus principle('consensus is the rule') conformed to? Little Sheepherd (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hello, im new to this whole thing and started doing wikipedia about a week ago. You can delet Armored Core Tower City Blade, I barely find all that. Anyway I saw your user page and you look like you know what your doing so I was wondering if you could give me some pointers cause i'm lost. A True Patriot (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Yamcha

It appears that DBZROCKS choose to do this rather than archive. Well, do you care enough anyway? I kinda don't ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I added back the article history, and tagged as an archive. Generally the article history stuff should be kept for merges. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what he merged from Yamcha was only three lines.Tintor2 (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Was there more that should be merged? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Various traits such as his skills, that relationship he had with Bulma, etc.Tintor2 (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd go ahead and add anything else you feel is relevant then. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Added a bit, by the way AnmaFinotera, does the book you are using to add reception and themes to Dragon Ball may have something about Rurouni Kenshin? Would a themes section be suitable in such article?Tintor2 (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is reliably sourcable info, then yep, a themes section would be suitable. And no, neither of those two sources has RK. Some other issues of Animerica may, or other sources, though. I have about 6 or 7 more issues I bought recently that I need to go through and check to see what each covers. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Jarry1250/RFC

I'm curious about these episode articles you mentioned that use odd headers for transclusion purposes, and I hope you will give an example or two at User:Jarry1250/RFC. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 01:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Flu Bird Horror

The reviews of the film, even the ones from reviewer sites without their own Wikipedia articles, all seem to bemoan this film as one of a bunch of crap being pumped out by Sci-Fi Channel. I added that to the lede because it is covered in the reviews. Is it neccessary that I source that lede sentence as well, even though in the body of the article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Did any specifically say it in the way it was worded? If not, then it does need a source. I'd also question it being notable enough to note, since that is the general feeling of almost all Sci Fi original films, so not sure its a important statement to make versus giving a better summary of the reception which summarizes specific criticisms noted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll do some digging. Thanks. The imediate ones are pretty deprecating of Sci-Fi Channel. I generalized in the lede rather than quote specifically. Of the major reviews, we have

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/dvd/reviews/article_1434503.php "However the beasties in this Sci-Fi Channel film makes them more critters from Land of the Lost." and "Flu Birds is potentially some “nature on the rampage” goofball fun and a lot better than Ghouls, but it’s still not a quality film. Not that you’d be expecting one with Sci-Fi Channel emblazoned on the front. Flu Birds is potentially some “nature on the rampage” goofball fun and a lot better than Ghouls, but it’s still not a quality film. Not that you’d be expecting one with Sci-Fi Channel emblazoned on the front."

http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/flu-bird-horror-2008 "Though I can't wholeheartedly recommend the film, I will say it's still more entertaining than a slew of recent Sci-Fi Channel original movies of late I could name."

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/34772/flu-birds/ "...the sticker on the cellophane wrapping the case with the script AS SEEN ON SCI FI. Yes, that's SCI FI as in the Sci-Fi Channel, the network that revels in low budget creature feature garbage. Fans of the cable channel are well-versed in the notoriously low quality and amazing plentiful movie output Sci-Fi is, in part, responsible for. Flu Birds falls in the lower end of the spectrum of these movies"

Again... I was simply summarizing an obvious sentiment. It will be perhaps more useful for readers to read the complete reviews themselves. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I wasn't clearer earlier. Most people familiar with Sci Fi's movies are used to them being panned, so a more general summary of the reasons this particular one was critized would be more useful than just noting (basically) that is another sucky Sci Fi b movie. Remember, one of the reasons for summarizing the reviews here is to give the readers a good overview. They could go read the total reviews, but they shouldn't have to if they just want a quick idea of what reviewers said. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcoming

I hope to improve movie articles and more. Thanks Ricardoread (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Treading close to the line

Please see my comments here - you were treading very close to the line. –xeno^talk 05:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw :-) Trying to write out a 20+ page training module before I get some sleep, so was just keeping an eye but waiting to respond until I was taking a break. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

AB Groupe dub of DBZ Movies 2 & 3

I understand why you removed this, but this dub is indeed real. I have heard that it only aired in Britain. I came across it when someone played clips of a certain scene from movie 3 in many different languages. When it came to English, they showed five versions: Ocean Broadcast dub, Ocean Uncut dub, Funimation dub, Malasian english dub, and AB Groupe dub. Someone (a British Person nonetheless) also made a top 10 worst dubs list, and the AB Groupe dub of DBZ Movies 2 and 3 was the third worst dub on that list. Someone also posted sound clips of this dub on youtube, titled "Real Dragon Ball UK Audio". This dub sounds unreal, but believe it or not, it is (note: this didn't include the clip used in the video that compared different dubs). All of that proves that the dub is real. Thank you for your patience. If I was too complicated, please let me know. later--Geoffman13 (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If the dub is real, a reliable source show be available indicating it is. Either way, calling it the "worst" is OR and inappropriate unless sourced to a reliable source (and not just some random person's website/personal site). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize ma'am. It's just hard to call the dub good if you're sitting at your computer laughing your head off at the clips. And I'm not even a dub hater.--Geoffman13 (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it doesn't suck, it probably does. But you can't say it sucks in a Wikipedia article without a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, can I at leased put on the article that it exists?--Geoffman13 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not without a reliable source, no. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for this. I know it's tiresome to deal with but I appreciate you taking the time to revert. See ya 'round Tiderolls 03:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Is it just me, or are those three (or more) IPs coordinating their mess here? Seems really odd...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't noticed tonight. I've seen that before, though. I think it's 4chan-ers coordinating so's to avoid blocks. No worries...just a click and it's handled. Tiderolls 03:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Rumor

1/2 of it wasn't a rumor. The top half was what James Marsters has said, so the top half could have stayed. Goku1st (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Marsters basically said "maybe, kinda, sorta." Until its actually happening, there is no need for a section nor even mention that he kinda might wanna maybe. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

bfan101, huh?

thx. didn't pick up on that, but wasn't bothering to followup on the other edits either. Cheers. SpikeJones (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just waiting for the named and IP socks to get blocked. I think I got most of the damage reverted. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, not again...! I was just coming over to tell you that I'd blocked that IP doing the page blanking. What did he do this time? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Guessing he wanted to be caught really fast because he came to my page and a bunch of admin pages and RPP trying to get articles unprotected. On his userpage he listed his favorite targets, and he hit a few pages that were either unprotected or whose protection had expired. He also made a new fake article. When he saw the account was about to be blocked, he switched to his IP and began undoing the reverts of the vandalism, then started vandalizing my talk page (now protected again), and basically throwing a tantrum. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: If it'll cheer you up, I am going to get some pix real soon of some rather interesting props used in the filming of the "Alvin and the Chipmunks" sequel...or "squeakwel," if you will. :) I talked to the owner today and he's looking forward to seeing the props here on the site. I won't say what the props are just yet beyond the fact they're commercially available items, but I have seen them in person. Interesting and really fun stuff. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be cool! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like.  :) I'll e-mail you the details. I don't know if I can reveal what they are just yet. As for Bambifan, jeez. I thought he'd given up. I told Cactusjump that I was reminded of the Brad Paisley song, "I'm Still A Guy:"

• When you see a deer, you see Bambi/I see antlers up on the wall.

Time to go and protect the latest round of articles (sigh). --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I do NOT believe this. What the hell is it going to take to get this obsessive little ass blocked once and for all? No matter what anyone says, I am placing a three-month minimum block on any and all pages he touches and at least the same amount of time on an IP. Period, turn the page and I am going to get the Foundation involved if it's the last thing I do. I didn't sign up to continually dodge and parry the idiocy of some socially stunted monkey. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't blame you. I think its just some folks don't realize how frustrating this is and that he's been at this for well over a year. The range blocks just aren't working when all the IP ranges can't be kept blocked. If he really is who he says he is, it would be nice if his family would get a clue, but no one has ever followed up on the ISP reporting. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you thoughts of edits (the "Dot" ones) similar to this entry, this entry, or this one being related to B101? SpikeJones (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now, I'm thinking probably not, unless he found another new IP range. But I'd keep an eye on him all the same. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me as if Ireland has their own Bambifan101.  :) FYI, I have just completed an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. I wish I still had Jimbo's e-mail, but alas, I don't. Believe me, I am staying on top of this. I haven't put in literally years of time and effort to expand this site only to wind up dodging and parrying this dinglefritz. Don't let him grind you down, girl. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh joy! I know there is another Disney vandal out there as well, who delights in messing up the release dates and changing various home media releases to claim they were anniversary releases when they were not actually released as such. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Nose-picking/Archive 1

Hi. Just a quick note that, contrary to popular belief, pages created by banned users don't have to be deleted. The way I see it, G5 was intended more for unproductive pages. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That was an unproductive page. He didn't actually archive discussions, just selectively deleted a ton and threw one or two there claiming it was an archive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Selective archives are usually acceptable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not in this case. He isn't doing it to be proper or all, its just User:Bambifan101 doing his usual BS and vandalizing pages to amuse himself. There is no validity in it at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:The Lost World: Jurassic Park

Someone has requested a GA reassessment of this article, but they seem to have botched it. Since you are more familiar with the process than myself, do you think you could take a look? Cheers! PC78 (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a newer editor who got confused or something. Can't tell if he was trying to send it to GAN or just wanted feedback. I've reverted it and tagged the bad GA for CSD and left him a note. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you take a look at Talk:Dasavathaaram as well, please? Same user. The article in question has never been a GA so far as I can tell, just a failed nomination over six months ago. PC78 (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

UGH. Looking back further as his contribs, he "passed" an article as GA after noting it failed several points (Talk:Max Payne (film)/GA1). I've tagged it for CSD to reset the GA. *sigh* He's also running around making joke user pages and stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove the section I just added?

I know you're not interested in TOTW, however, so far there are so many candidates not decided whether to become TOTW or to be removed from the list, and I know you're such an excellent editor, so I hope you check the candidated shown on the Metawiki page.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because I'm not interested in it. I glanced over the list and nothing really even caught my eye, and with the number of candidates I had no desire to really look at the thing more in-depth. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

O.K., I understand. But you're not interested in what? The Metawiki TOTW concept, or the candidates on the list?--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Both, really. Never heard of TOTW before and didn't see anything there that would make me interested in it now that I have. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, TOTW is for non-English Wikipedians to translate articles from English and other Wikipedias to expand scope and stimulate other translations. Maybe you rarely check non-English Wikipedias and Metawiki, so that you don't know TOTW's importance. As your reply, I guess that you're not interested in the topics the candidates on TOTW nelong to (You're main interests are anime and manga).--RekishiEJ (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I rarely look at non-English wikis as I have no real reason too. I have a wide range of interests, but here I primarily edit Anime/manga and Film articles. From what I saw in the list, it was only for very short articles, so nothing really interesting that I would deal with as I rarely deal with stubs unless its to expand them. That said, there are several novel articles we have here that are better than the ones at their original language Wikis...those I think should be translated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

L&O Templates

Too specific? But each template (police and DA's office) covers more than 20 characters pages each. The already existing template of L&O character is too poor in terms of providing information. These updated templates that I made disobey which Wikipedia rules? Cheers. Takeit10 (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no need at all for a template for each type of character, nor did you bother discussing to get consensus for such templates. The current template does suck, and should be properly replaced with Template:Infobox character, not with another template. And removing CSDs from templates and articles you've created is a violation of Wikipedia policies. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know about the removing CSDs violation. My mistake. "Each type of character": that would be only two. One that works for the police and one that works for the DA office. That would make the discernment of the reader a lot easier. It would cover all of the L&O franchise characters. So we should start a discussion to get the consensus about which template should be used. Takeit10 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Separate templates is NOT necessary, period. Your template doesn't add anything that the current proper Infobox character template does beyond stick in obnoxious color code and excessive in-universe information. Character articles that exist should be from a real-world perspective, and not a repeat of wikia style articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Beverly Hills, 90210 franchise

Hi. A little while ago you made a comment on the Beverly Hills, 90210 franchise article during an assessment. You mentioned that you thought it was short of B-class. This is not a challenge, but I was just curious as to what more you would've liked to know/see in that regard. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is missing sources on several statements, is violating WP:NONFREE with all the logos (and even the free images are more decorative than useful/necessary), is using content from the 90210 wikia which is not a reliable source at all (nor is it an appropriate EL), TV.com is not a reliable source for episode summaries and credits (user edited), and it fails basic Wikipedia MoS Guidelines with the bad bolding in the lead, ELs being above references, bad reference formatting, etc. Its also lacking in real completeness. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciated. What are you referring to specifically regarding the completeness? -- James26 (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The production and talent sections are a bit spartan, and there is no section really discussion the reception of the franchise as a whole. Some of the individual series sections seem like they stop partway, particularly the 90210 one which starts to discuss the changes made midseries, then nothing about by the end, etc. Each of the series sections should be a proper summary-style lead out to the main articles, as well. See WP:SUMMARY for more guidance on that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

I'll implement some of those changes. Thought I'd mention that the specific content taken from the wikia (also written and researched by me) is actually complemented by citations here -- mainly to Yahoo and TV Guide. The wikia reference is only there in accordance with policy on citing work. I appreciate your suggestions. -- James26 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

All right...after an exhaustive effort I can say that I've removed all TV.com references, implemented the new ref format, removed the decorative images, and increased the sourcing. If I can ask for one last thing, regarding your mention of "It is missing sources on several statements," can you give me a current example? I'll see if I can remedy it afterwards. Since not every sentence can be followed by a citation, some of the sources are held until the end of paragraphs. Anyway, thank you again for your comments. -- James26 (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still seeing the excessive non-free images which are not being used in a way that meets Wikipedia policies. For the statements, I've fact tagged those I noticed. I'd also drop the Wikia thing. Again, Wikia is not a valid reference. If there is any specific word-for-word text being used from that, it should be noted separately, not as a declared reference (and preferably, the text examined and rewritten or removed as is appropriate). There is also way too much reliance on TV Guide for sourcing. While it is a reliable source, being almost the only source causes other problems (WP:ONESOURCE). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You definitely deserve one of these...

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For all your hard work maintaining the lovely Disney articles, I award you this Barnstar and all the honors and bragging rights that come with it. Thanks for all that you do! Cactusjump (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Aww, thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! If there's anything we can do to get some of those Disney movie articles to FA status, I'll do it! I think The Rescuers is pretty close...as long as it doesn't get vandalized again. Cactusjump (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As you're referring to the Disney film articles, you'll want to drop Alientraveller a note. AT has a pretty good handle on what it takes to take a film article to that level. SpikeJones (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Mostly just need for attention, sourcing, and clean up. Then going through a peer review and maybe GAN first. Disney has so much available info out there, there is really no reason they can't be FA. I tried to get an effort started by the film project about a year ago, but I think most wanted to avoid the eventual run ins. Aladdin would be a good one to start with since it was a GA article until I delisted it earlier this month. The GA review has some pointers of where it needs fixing up. The Lion King would be another as its up for a GA sweeps and has many of the same issues, and it is also a failed FAC (so should have pointers there too). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

More recent examples of articles that should only need little cleanup (and have recent, fairly solid citations) would be Wall-E or Ratatouille (film). SpikeJones (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at all of the above and see what I have in my Disney ref library. :) Cactusjump (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, congrats on the Barnstar! You are SO deserving. Before I dropped off the project for nearly two years, I helped bring Disneyland Railroad to VG status. FA is one of my short-term goals, so wish me luck. I just told Cactusjump that a regular user who represents the Wikimedia Foundation is aware of our little scourge. Not much they can do on their end, but we're doing the right thing by clobbering him at every turn.PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and glad to know more folks are at least getting informed. I'd like to bring the The Fox and the Hound's novel article to FA, but finding reviews of the original work is very difficult because of the age, and many of those records not being in microfiche. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball

About that, the anime-related links are already categorized there (see Category:Funimation Entertainment). So, and correct me if this is all wrong, wouldn't adding the cat to the Dragon Ball article be redundant? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you did the same thing on Lupin III. Were you aware that its anime equivalent was already take care of? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The main article should be in the category, not just the redirects, since the main article is the one that actual covers the topic. For Lupin, with all that hideous fracturedness, it could be removed since the anime series have their own articles for some reason. ~goes to scrub eyes after looking at that article~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why remove it from Lupin III and not Dragon Ball? It's the same case, is it not? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Dragonball's article covers all of the franchise in the one article. Lupin III does not, it only has a brief note then links off to three main aticles for the anime series. If those articles were properly merged back to the main, then it would be the same case and Lupin III having the category would be a better fit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh joy, *adds to list* Although I'd argue that with Part II being released in North America, theres enough coverage to ascertain independent notability for a separate page for that series (although the name change complicates matters). As Lupin is fairly high up the remaining GA sweeps list, I don't suppose you want to do a sandboxed GA review/tag for issues for me so I can start work on it? I have a suspsicion I'm the obvious candidate for sorting the article, and I need to start gathering material :) Unfortunately I have no reference books this time :( Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Giving it a quick look over - fails WP:MOS-AM big time (that would be one of the biggest pings), excessive non-free images, plot seems overly brief and doesn't appear to cover the whole series while characters is excessive (no possible split with so many series?). Other big issue is the whole thing is really badly written. A lot of snippet paragraphs instead of well-flowing prose. Also needs a lot of merges done, as there have been quite a few bad splits. I'd look at List of Lupin III animated theatrical features, Strange Psychokinetic Strategy, and the various anime articles. Sources need checking and formatted more consistently. In addition to it using ANN's encyclopedia, I'd also question the validity of the Lupin III Encyclopedia, which appears to be just a fansite (even if it is apparently written by an anime/manga reviewer). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I did bring up Lupin encyclopedia a while back, but no one issued any concerns. We do have existing examples of what are essentially fansites being blessed as RS by concensus, (Rumic World) springs to mind. I think discussion on that subject should be made before the review, I used it to replace the ANN refs that were in use there, and I highly doubt they would be easy to replace again. Certainly not enough to save the page if the other issues were fixed, but I could probably source some of the more recent events on ANN's news and Mania. I'm pretty sure I fixed all the ANN Ency refs (there are some news items in there), although I've not had a close second look yet. The plot is only ever going to be brief, it's not a long twisty plot, it's very much "Lupin and Co go after a new treasure, Zenigata shows up, Lupin and co either get the treasure or fail miserably" episodic stuff. That doesn't mean it can't be fleshed out, but it would really be just rewordeing things rather then expanding it. I could merge the seperate character articles into a seperate, linked character list, but really 5 characters isn't enough for that - any other character is usually a "baddie of the week". Non free is easy. Writing, well I'd need to give that a closer look and I don't think of myself as much of a writer anyway, but I do my best :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Two pages redirected (nothing worth merging that wasn't already covered). Removed several images. I think I'll be able to make one of the TV anime pages notable in its own right, but I'll merge the other two now. I should be able to continue doing small changes here and there over the next couple of days. Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, Jinnai agrees that Lupin Encyclopedia is a useable site, as the site is run by a AoD/Mania reviewer who has reviewed 12 lupin dvds for the site(plus whatever other franchises) so can be classed as an expert. There have been no objections or comments by anyone else, so I'll leave it a few days. Aside from formatting the refs some more, and removing some, that should address most of the issues so far. I'll give the article a fresh look tommorow if I remember. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Max Payne

What's going on with article?! --Peppage^tlk 04:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The person who "reviewed" it didn't really review it and falsely passed it. He has done a bunch of fake GA and GARs (see the Lost World section above), hopefully just out of not knowing any better. So the article needs to return back to the GA q for a proper review. I've left a note at the Films project and the GA project asking for someone else to give it a proper review. If no one else gets to it later this week, I can go ahead and review it if desired. Also, if you'd rather, the article can be kept "GA" from the bad passing and a GAR started instead to basically rereview it. I chose to roll it back so it went through one fair review, since I didn't think it would be fair to have it possibly be passed then (possibly) quickly delisted as it currently doesn't pass GA. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Unfortunately, an admin refused to deleted the false GA, so I had to delisted it instead. Sorry about that. I left some notes detailing where it fails the GA criteria. Feel free to renominate it for GA (and hopefully a proper review) when those items are addressed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

God dammit, this is my first GA. It would be best to renominate? I could attempt to adjust the article based on your notes although a fair review would be helpful. Renominating it so soon isn't going to be frowned upon? --Peppage^tlk 05:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend implementing the suggestions and try to get it copyedited first, then renominating it should be fine. Renominating it very quickly would normally be frowned on, but since its first review was fake, it should be fine (I made sure to note in my delisting that its first review was fake). Sorry your first GA experience had to be ruined by someone running around playing games :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Re your edits to the various Naruto: Shippude episode list talk pages

Sorry, didn't know that!, so when the article includes episodes summaries is not list anymore? Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, so this isn't a list? or this reversion was wrong? Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much all episode lists are not rated as "list" (though you can add the "type=list" option), to allowed project members to better evaluate how close a list is to being a potential FLC. That doesn't mean they are not lists, just that they are not given a "list" class. The only episode lists that are rated as "list" are ones like List of Bleach episodes which just transcludes from multiple season lists. And no, List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes isn't classed "list" as it is mix of transcluded and regular episode lists. When the series is finished and the list fully split, then List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes would probably switch to list class. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No prob. It can be a bit confusing at times, particularly since the TV project still uses episode lists for all lists except FLs :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If I might butt in here, I would strongly discourage setting |type=list in the project banner. This parameter doesn't actually do anything, and personally, I remove it whenever I come across it (as do several other WP:ANIME assessors). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I remember way back we discussed using the type attribute for things like list, series, company, etc to aid in sorting, but didn't know if it was ever implemented or the idea was scrapped. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely remember a conversation like that a long time ago (I think...?), but I have no idea how long it went on for or what any of its conclusions were. However, I'm familiar enough with the banner's code to tell you from memory it makes no use of any type parameter. =) (this has actually also been suggested for project banners in general, and rejected as adding unnecessary complexity, as well as allowing ridiculous assessments - C-class redirect-type, anyone?) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Tokyo mew mew is a featured redirect;..." G.A.S^talk 09:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jump in Dot vandal strikes again

This time, from 213.202.177.21, with this edit, and at least one other similar. It's continual, but from where or whom? SpikeJones (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that one is the same Irish guy jumping IPs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to start a page over at User talk:SpikeJones/Jump in Dot to try and track them all to see if there is anything consistent. SpikeJones (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Curious why you reverted this edit to Blood: The Last Vampire. Certainly, there was no citation, but it's hardly a clearly malicious change, and the information provided is supported by even the most cursory Google search. - Estel ^(talk) 03:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It contradicts the currently cited source and was changed without explanation nor summary to indicate the date may have changed nor a new citation to back up the change. I'm also not seeing any reliable sources stating it changed? Can you specify what Google search you did where you found a source?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Michael Jackson

Did you hear about the death of Michael Jackson? I met him once with my friend who worked in the movie business. Hands-down he was the nicest man I have ever met (everything they say about him in the media n' stuff is just all crap). ;_; – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was watching CNN when it was announced that he had died (originally reported he was in the hospital, then in a coma). Very sad...I grew up watching him :( Its so cool that you got to meet him! Most famous person I've ever met in any sense is Ben Forta. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, its just so sad that he died with the media being so mean to him... :( – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 19:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Official myspaces are okay to link

You said: "unnecessary link and fails WP:EL even if it is official - still just a social networking thign"

It passes WP:EL. Let's look at WP:EL. The entire section "Links normally to be avoided" says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:" WhisperToMe (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The official site link is included. Official MySpace pages do not add value to the article nor do they get include purely because they are official. Recent discussions at EL agreed that just including the social networking sites because they exist is not within the guidelines nor useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Question, just because I like to butt in - is it *an* official page, or *the* official page? If the person/band/thing in question has no other official site other than MySpace... which can happen... then there shouldn't be a problem listing the MySpace page under EL. If they have a number of different official sites, then we link to the primary one. From there, the chances are fairly high that the visitor can find the MyTwitFace links they need to find. Remember, while official pages are allowed per the EL policy, WP also WP:NOT a website directory where all such pages are to be listed. Hope this helps. SpikeJones (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I read the section about WP:NOT, and that section specifically warns against having too large of an external links section. The text says: "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." - With the first official website and the official Myspace those are two links. As per WP:NOT this is not an excessive number of external links. AnmaFinotera, somewhere there was a discussion about linking to official Myspaces, etc. in addition to the main website. Lemme see if I can find it. please read this discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_23#Linking_to_multiple_official_sites_and_social_networking_sites - There was no outcome here that stated that one should only link to one official website in all instances. You said: "Recent discussions at EL agreed that just including the social networking sites because they exist is not within the guidelines nor useful." - This recent discussion here is specifically about official social networking websites and other official websites, not just random Myspaces. Are there any later discussions specifically about official social networking sites that I am not aware of? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the Myspace link itself ( http://www.myspace.com/shonenjump ) what it includes that is not readily visible from the main home page ( http://www.shonenjump.viz.com/ ) are dates in which VIZ Shonen Jump staff members will appear at anime conventions and some promotional offers related to the magazine itself. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not the official site, just one official social site. We also don't shove links to official YouTube channels etc in articles just because they exist. And considering Viz itself does not even bother linking directly to it, how can you confirm it is the official site? And what makes it notable if the company itself doesn't acknowledge it? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

1. The discussion I linked above states that one can link multiple official websites, and that the WP:EL guidelines should not be construed that only one official website is allowed in every circumstance.

2. VIZ printed a link to this Myspace in its magazine (this is how I first learned of it). Shonen Jump #80. Volume 7, Issue 8. August 2009 Page 6.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

One "can" not "one has to" or "one needs to". Common sense and consensus also come into play. The link does not add any valid content to the article. Appearances by staff members at conventions and what not is not a necessary component nor does it satisfy the basic requirements an EL should satisfy. They printed it one issue of the magazine but don't link to it online? Still don't see how that's really promoting it as having any use. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, common sense comes into play. What I was saying was that the WP:EL guidelines by themselves do not prohibit linking multiple official websites. Therefore one has to fall back on the other criteria.

I looked at WP:EL and referred to the section "What Should Be Linked" - This states "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. The official site should typically be listed first." and "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." - It would be inappropriate to put anime convention dates into the Wikipedia article. But people interested in the subject (Shonen Jump USA) would find the links useful. In other words, external links can be, and are used to link to material that should not be posted in the article itself.

One can find the Shonen Jump Myspace via a google search. Lemme check shonenjump.viz.com to see how/where to access the Myspace and what links I would have to click to get to the Myspace link.

EDIT: Doing a google site search I found it was announced in the news releases: http://shonenjump.viz.com/news/newsroom/index.php?id=83 - One would go to the newsroom first before seeing the particular news release: http://shonenjump.viz.com/news/newsroom/

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It also states, right at the top, that ELs are for "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy". The travel schedules of the staff is nothing that would ever be included in the article becauses its news and trivial, not anything encyclopedic. Nor is it "meaningful, relevant content". Nor does links to include give any exception to social networking sites just because they are official. A MySpace page which is not the company's only official site (nor even a heavily used one) does not meet the only stated exception of being "an official page of the article's subject"-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What you referred to is the "amount of detail," which is a reason to add external links - The examples given for this are "professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks" - For instance athlete statistics and TV credits would be too trivial to put into the article itself, but there are people who are interested in them, so you would have an external link for that. It's a similar principle for SJ.

You said: "Nor does links to include give any exception to social networking sites just because they are official." ***WP:EL explicitly and clearly exempts official websites from "Links normally to be avoided," including the "social networking sites" criteria.*** The "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject" (this is bolded at the page WP:EL) makes this clear. - WP:EL exempts official social networking websites, full stop. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not. And this is not an official page on the article's subject, its an official page on the travels of the article's subject's staff (which is not the same thing). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL's exemption is here and it stands. You said: "And this is not an official page on the article's subject, its an official page on the travels of the article's subject's staff (which is not the same thing)." - An official page on the article's subject is one managed by the article's subject (Shonen Jump VIZ), and Shonen Jump VIZ clearly controls the Myspace page. The convention information is what Shonen Jump VIZ posted on the Myspace page (of course there is other information - I just cited the convention info as an example of what is encouraged to be linked as per WP:EL) - I am going to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links about this particular issue. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia_talk:External_links#WP:EL_and_the_official_Shonen_Jump_Myspace_page - Hopefully having third, fourth, or fifth opinions will help resolve this WhisperToMe (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for RRP filling mistake

Sorry about the mistake I made, I had my web browser still set to automatic refresh when filing it to keep track of the vandalized page and I think it screwed up the content --Zhanzhao (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. :) I once accidentally rollbacked an entire page of contibs (including my own!) because of a browser tool that checked all the links on a page. *doh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Death Note b-check list

I agree that the article still needs some copy-edit, but in the b-check list you left it as C even though you have left the Dragon Ball article as B whenit has a copy-edit tag. In coverage and accuracy is marked as x, wasn't the soundtrack section expanded, the yonkoma was moved to the manga section, the light novel was also given notes about dates and publisher while copycat and crimes was roughly left as prose.Tintor2 (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi?Tintor2 (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I did the Dragon Ball check list. For Death Note, some of the stuff was done, but not all. However, I've looked at it again and changed criteria 2 to a yes, though the films section is still needing work and overall it is still a C though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What wasnt done apart from the grammar fixes?Tintor2 (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not until now :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Can you check on the recent edits done by an ip address to World Embryo? Thanks. DragonZero (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. Same IP vandalized some character lists before. His undoing to add back OR and "unknown" is just silly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also this user User talk:72.235.54.223 hasn't been editing summaries as acutal summaries of the episode. I'm not sure whether I should continue warning him and risk getting him blocked though since its in good faith but he doesn't seem to be paying attention to my messages. DragonZero (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...tough call. He's done a few good edits, but he's also vandalized stuff. I'd warn when he continues doing factual or disruptive edits and AIV as necessary. Good edits just don't give an excuse to mess up articles like he did here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm thinking of splitting the character's Lloyd Irving and Zelos Wilder in the article List of characters in Tales of Symphonia. The issue is mostly size wise due to having quotes as references. I can't establish notability of the characters besides for other appearances and receptions but those seem too minor. DragonZero (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are the quotes really necessary? I can't see splitting them just because of the quotes, though, it would just end up with them at AfD or being remerged if there isn't enough info to establish notability. Appearance/reception can be put in the general section (which should really be merged into one called Reception for now). For dealing with the size, I'd start with cleaning up/culling down the plot info and the minor/other characters first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Philipp Hildebrand

He's notable, set to become chairman of the Swiss central bank by the end of the year. Not a speedy. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How does that make him notable? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes him highly notable in Europe, his position and influence are now on a par with Timothy Geithner's in the US. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Geithner's article shows significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. That is what shows he is notable, not his position nor influence. Hildebrand's article just has a bio from his own bank and a single Bloomberg article, however I looked around some more and see he has been quoted frequently from his current position. Again, it is this coverage that makes him notable, not his becoming the chairman of a bank. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

At that level, one leads to the other. Thanks. Also, you might not have been aware that I wholly rewrote the article after the sock created it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Ice age lover

So if he or she's a sockpuppet, why don't you get them blocked? You know more about this than I do. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 00:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already send in the AIV requests for both the sock and the IP he's jumping on. Meanwhile doing the usual clean up *sigh* I wish this brat would find new hobbies. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And now blocked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For making me feel stupid (in a good way:))

Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 00:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) I've updated the LTA on him to note this new tactic since it wasn't recorded there before. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll watch my back even more closer now. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 00:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

More antlers for my wall

I couldn't agree with you more. This little Bambifan brat needs a hobby. At the very least, he needs some serious discipline. If he's for real, he may also be in need of some really serious professional counseling. I've just spent the better part of 45 minutes cleaning up after him and protecting his latest little spate of targets. Thanks for alerting me. The sock is blocked and the IP has been blocked for a year. It geolocates to what I believe to be a computer store in Mobile, Alabama. That's a nice part of the world; you'd think he could find something to do other than screwing up this site. I sure can think of a lot of things I'd like to do other than mopping up after this ding-a-ling. Thanks again for the notice. You are truly one of this site's most precious resources. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, agreed on the need for counseling and parental attention. Its too bad Wikipedia can't do more. :( And thanks, that's sweet of you to say :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. I meant every word. I just spent some time unwinding by actually editing some articles...! Feeling much better and I have some ideas for new content which I'll add soon. Gotta run, but you take care and thanks again for all you do. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I was suspicious but thought I should give the benefit of the doubt. Good catch. Garion96 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

You'd see the reply eventually, but I'm kinda wanting a speedy reply here... =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, was in my weekly meeting then had gone across the street to get some lunch :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine; would you care to take another look? I've got the templates edited and ready to save; I'm just waiting on one last bit of input from you. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

replied :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki project films

Im new to Wikipedia and don't know what people are talking about half the time on the talk page so what should I do The Movie Master 1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

If you're confused or not certain what's going on, just ask :) Most people aren't going to bite you for it. You can also try going through the Wikipedia tutorials if you haven't already, as they cover a lot of the basic concepts of Wikipedia. You can find those at Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks I'll try it The Movie Master 1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

Also, when you post to talk pages, you need to "sign" your posts by ending it with four tildes ~~~~ so your signature shows. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know but on the wiki tutorial it said I could post just using 3 tildes it would just leave out the date The Movie Master 1 (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You can, but SineBot tends to come behind you and add the date, since the date tends to be important in discussions. You can also do five to give a date only, but those options should be used more sparingly and not in general talk discussions :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sig

Your sig is using "color:#5342F" - this isn't a valid color :) --- RockMFR 16:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Guess the second F accidentally got dropped somewhere along the way LOL -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball Z episodes‎‎

How does this article have good structure, and how is it well written? It's basically a giant article, full of nothing but detailed episode summaries. And it's well over 200kb. Sure, I'm happy to discuss this, and I really have no interest in the topic (I was browsing articles, clicking on links) and saw this article, which is quite honestly an eyesore, and I, as a reader, wouldn't bother reading it, as it's too long. TL;DR, basically. I'm happy to work with you to fix the article up, but you've gotta help me out here. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It follows the proper structure of an episode list. The lead is well formatted per guidelines and contains everything it needs except some referencing. It has the episode table and brief summaries (all of which in that list are well within the guidelines for episode summary lengths are not excessively "detailed"). This is good structure for an episode list. The class assessment was done by those who are familiar with the structure and requirements of anime episode lists (i.e. thos eare are both familiar with and interested in the topic and who have crafted FL level episode lists). If you disagree with a specific assessment, please be more specific, but downgrading it to start when you do not appear to be familiar with the basics of episode lists seems a little over-reactionary. As for splitting it, we (anime/manga project) are already discussing this problem, however there are technical issues which prevent its being split at this exact moment. Your offer is appreciated, but we are already well equipped to "fix" the list, as time and resources permit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wish you the best of luck. Happy editing, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, re-reading my message, it seems rather snippy which wasn't my intention. I do appreciate your note and prodding, which will result in some long overdue work being done to get this ready for splitting and it reminded me to check on the status of the technical side of things (basically an issue of the sublist with episodes being transcluded twice). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I myself have been slack, and I co-ordinate the wikiproject that I mainly edit in. And believe me, there are far too many articles in that project that need serious work on, which I have neglected for too long, for me to list. Have a great day, and feel free to take me up on that offer if you wish, whenever you wish. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found, that in the past, I've used {{Cite episode}} when citing articles that mainly involve plot. Perhaps you could use that template and use some of the episodes as citations for the article? Best, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, love that template :) However, episode plots don't need citations (its considered to be the episode itself without the need for an in-line citation, just as is done with films, novels, etc) :) Its the lead materials and the airdates that need citations. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps they don't, but I've always done it. I guess it just looks better, or I'm too thorough. But with a long episode list, I guess you don't want 500 citations. Not sure where you would find references for the lead...can't help you there. Best of luck, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Meerkat Manor episode list

Hi : ) I've just signed up to Wikipedia, and am brand new. I love your episode list, as it is helping me order my growing collection of "Meerkat Manor", which I adore. As I am recording to hard drive every episode as it plays on Animal Planet US, I have been watching each episode without commercials closely. Although I haven't spent time fact-checking your list, I couldn't fail to notice when episode 1.10, "Flower Power" failed to progress according to expectations. I then watched 1.11 "An Awfully Big Adventure", which progresses substantially differently than your list implies. I enjoyed Meerkat Manor when I first saw a few episodes 2 years ago and really appreciate it now that I have rediscovered it, especially with the help of your list. I have little time to devote such an massive project that you have undertaken and I hope that you have the time and energy to review your list further. Thanks Psycotria (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you like Wikipedia's list and thank you for the corrections. In the future, when making edits its helpful if you state your source (i.e. watching the episode) when making corrections, and try to avoid adding excessive minor details while making those changes. Some of the earlier first season episodes may be slightly off in their summaries due to their primarily having been written by others and based on reviews rather than first hand watching. Thanks again for your corrections and sorry if I seemed to be reacting badly to them. We've had a lot of issues of late with vandals trying to change stuff because they didn't like the episodes or want to make it match the real life meerkats, so I'm sometimes a little edgy :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. 1.) People are allowed to edit talk pages under their name, such as my own. 2.) Don't misuse templates on talk pages. I am not a newbie. 3.) You say I "remove maintenance tags without fixing the issues just because you love the show." It shows you are simply throwing out accusations to harass another user. I can't "love the show" since it has not aired. If you don't have constructive edits, please go elsewhere. Assume good faith of other people. Be civil. You know the rules. 4.) If you wish to post huge templates at the top of pages, you need to justify them in the talk page. If there are issues, discuss them in the talk page. (WHAT is confusing? WHAT needs cleanup?) Otherwise, it is just a nuisance. Such edits are disruptive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Brandon (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

For someone complainingg about the alleged misuse of templates, you seemed to have missed the irony in your method of bringing this to attention. Theres no need to justify such a template on that article, the whole point of the template is to alert users that the page needs improving and has several issues. All of which are justified, and the probem can be seen by just reading the page. Theres no need to discuss the issues, or leave a note on the talk page, the template speaks for itself (the whole page needs cleanup, and is written confusingly). Calling such edits disruptive is a bit of a joke, it's a standard practice of cleanup. Dandy Sephy (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You were warned for refactoring MY coments, which you are not allowed to do. You can remove the whole, but not change what someone else has written just because it is "your" talk page. And if you don't want to be treated like a newbie, stop acting like one (though really, you are; you haven't even made 200 edits; just because you made your account in 07 doesn't make you an experienced editor). As an uninvolved user just noted above, the issues are GLARINGLY obvious. You can't even bother yourself to actually attempt to do anything constructive on the article, yet you whining about "nuisance" templates which clearly point out the flaws in the article. If you don't understand basic templates, such as clean up (the page is badly formatted and not following appropriate MOS guidelines) and its being confusing (keeps jumping back and forth on topic and which show it is actually about), then I can't help you there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter

The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps July update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters

Since you have read the manga I thought of asking this. Are the summaries' length okay? By the way, I added the CD cover from the first Death Note film to the article in the CDs section. Is it suitable? I heard that images featuring real people are harder to upload. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the lengths look fine, though a few near the end are a bit short. There were a few I noticed that need some copy-editing, and some minor additions (like in the first, it would be good for non-readers to know who/what Yahiko was rescued from). :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Some days ago, I noticed had made of mistakes in grammar.Tintor2 (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering for something some unnecesary but I have a little doubt about punctuation. How is it written: "Best Anime series". or "Best Anime Series." That doubt was bothering me. Sorry for the pointless question ^_^. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If its an award and the official name, then "Best Anime Series". And no prob :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but if we talk about a phrase such "the series contained a plot blhaha" or "creating this character was a pain" is the dot used in the end?Tintor2 (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you meant the full stop/period. It depends on the quote. If the phrase is from the middle of a sentence, then you do "creating this character was a pain". but if the phrase is from the end of the sentence, then its "creating this character was a pain." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, it depends if the full stop (or other punctuation) is included in the original quote or not, and if the quote is at the end of a thought (okay, so I explained it more abstractly than AnmaFinotera... ;P ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 06:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Mike Ginn

Thanks. I was in the middle of a mess in a different article and didn't get back to ProDding the Mike Ginn article until just now. Turns out you already did it. Good work staying on top of it. —  X  S  G  07:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing Real Ghostbusters external links

I guess in you're world, any link that remotely gives a more in-depth overview of the episodes in question (there was only one link there anyway, being the one that I just added), is forbidden! Get a grip (nobody can be that ridged and controlling on Wikipedia)!!! How exactly am I "advertising" (in a negative way I suppose) the Wiki site centering on Ghostbusters!? TMC1982 (talk) 1:02 p.m., 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It violates WP:EL. Links to fansites, which include wikia sites, is not allowed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I am always happy to be so pleasently surprised. Your work on Kraken: Tentacles of the Deep, an article you yourself originally prodded for possible deletion, was absolutely superb. Good job. Good save. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you though it wasn't really a "save" since it wasn't up for deletion and likely would not have been nominated since it had sources, they just hadn't been added (hence the tags). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was a phenomenal save. That it had not (yet) been tossed to the acrimony of AfD does not diminish the fact that you turned a sow's ear into a silk purse. The barnstar was well deserved. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Refs

The lead does not need ref since everything is sourced below. What are those amounts that need ref? I don't see them.Tintor2 (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, now I understand since the ANN refs were unreliable. But still I can't imagine merging the hollow and soul reapers with the main ones. Lots of info must be cut due to all those weight issues, and I don't know how it could arranged.Tintor2 (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right on the lead, however there are still character's whose sections are unreferenced or only mildly referenced (mostly with voices or just one or two statements out of whole paragraphs). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

a favor?

can you add Incidents at Disney parks to your watchlist for a few days while the monorail news is still new-and-exciting to those trying to add uncited or WP:OR info to that (and related) articles? Just would like an additional set of eyeballs to assist. Check the history to see the types of edits that are being made, updated, etc. Once the fever dies down, we should be back to a normal dull roar over there. SpikeJones (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure :), though might be good to do an RPP if its getting bad. They are usually granted for news things like this. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Did that earlier today, but thanks for the reminder if it hadn't been done. SpikeJones (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thx for archiving. Oy. SpikeJones (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite welcome :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Lupin III

Do you want to start this GA review now? I'm on a week off from work, and I'm not planning to do a great amount except play some games, watch some anime and learn some bass. So really it's perfect timing. Lupin Encyclopedia as a source is discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Lupin Encylopedia. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, since I haven't done my ones for the week yet. Will start after I nibble some dinner :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done ~ducks!~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

See, this is why I picked this week to do it :P It's far easier to do with a list in front of me. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, hopefully the bulk can be done this week :-) I think some of my Animerica issues mention Lupin, so I'll make some time this week to go through them during the week and post any notes that might be useful for expansion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the hardest part will be a soundtrack article, fixing the parent article is childs play in comparison :p Lupin encylopedia lists 42 albums for crying out loud! Thats without singles, and doesn't include the vinyls! And heres the kicker, I know stuff thats missing from the list.... List of Lupin III soundtracks not already existing is actually quite surprising, given how popular Yuji Ohno's jazz stylings are. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

@_@ That is insane. I suspect that list doesn't exist yet cause no one wants to tackle all those soundtracks :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, lucky me :( The question is, will a simple list be able to achieve notability in the same way as a character or episode list? Because theres no chance I'll make anything more then a simple list right away. And it's highly unlikely I'll be able to do it in prose in the main article :P Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably work on it in your sandbox first so you can take your time working on it. It would need a decent lead and at least some sourcing for the various soundtracks with the release dates at the least to show its a valid size split. I think trying to do a full blown soundtrack list would be a long term challenge :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the obvious candidates are the main Tv soundtracks and the Movies (say 6-12 albums). The tv Specials, remixes and compilations can wait :P Do we have any good example pages for albums? Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The various Final Fantasy discographies are all (or almost all) GA, though I can't say I fully agree with it. List of Final Fantasy compilation albums is a featured list, and Discography of the Final Fantasy VII series is a failed FAC (primarily failure issues were prose and formatting), but is currently a GA and an A class. Those might be good ones to look at for dealing with this type of discography/soundtrack listing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For some intra-project examples, have a look at List of Aria (manga) soundtracks and List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle albums. KrebMarkt is responsible for both of those (with some help from Quasirandom for the Aria list), so he may be willing to help on a Lupin one as well. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, I misattributed one of the lists - Tsubasa was done by AngelFire3423, not by KrebMarkt. =P 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks man, these will all come in handy. Dandy Sephy (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen my comment on the GA about the games? Dandy Sephy (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, going to reread now (and respond) now :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a checklist to the GAR to make it easier to see what is left to do. I've left some comment and would like you to go over some of it to see if you agree. If you agree specific issues have been addressed, go ahead and strike it. If not, either leave hidden comments in the article to highlight them, or leave a comment. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And we now have a basic sandbox for the soundtracks! I'll probably get the movies done, sort out a basic lead then move to mainspace. I can do the monotony of adding other albums gradually via sandbox then move them over a few at a time at a later date. It gets funnier everytime, because not all the cds are released by one pubisher, and Lup Ency only lists the ones by VAP, and not Nippon Columbia. I'm oddly grateful I can't find reliable sources for everything, otherwise I'd be doing 60+ albums + rereleases (including on different media). Although I really want to find a reliable source proving that the anime was released on Betamax! Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fun fun! Good luck with the Soundtrack. Betamax? Oh man...talk about ancient technology! I'll see if I can find anything too. I'm still going through my various Animerica issues for anything as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Syfy

Deleted as per your request. Plastikspork (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you also perform the move as Sci Fi Channel (United States)‎ is currently move protected? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I inadvertently performed a "double move", which helped clean up the SyFy redirect as well (as you probably noticed). Let me know if I can do anything else to help. Plastikspork (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the move protection is really necessary any more; the reason it was originally applied was because of move warring between Sci Fi Channel (United States) and SCI FI, but since the station's been renamed, that shouldn't be a problem any longer. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 08:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather it stayed awhile, to avoid people trying to move it to SyFy like someone tried to do before it was properly moved. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Syfy logo color

I don't see how the shadow is a part of the logo, the on-screen Syfy graphic currently being used on the channel is just a white version of the logo, with no shadow whatsoever. The shadow is not a part of the logo. Gage (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The logo is white, and the on-screen one does have a shadow, just not as large. Please just STOP trying to change the logo. You continue trying to change it to a misrepresentation of the logo, which is not appropriate. Syfy released an official logo to a multitude of media outlets. All of them where completely white, with the greyish background and the drop shadow. Leave the proper logo in place. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Fox and the Hound (novel)

The article has PASSED to GA. Congratulations, and thank you for a well-written article! Best, Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: File source problem with File:Syfy_logo.svg

Sorry about that, AnmaFinotera. However, I did create the file, yet it is under copyright of NBC Universal. All I used was Adobe Illustrator to create the file. However, the way I recreated the slogan wasn't perfect enough.

However, I have one question: What font was the slogan "Imagine Greater" written in?
~~LDEJRuff~~ ^{(see what I've contributed)} 14:58, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

No worries and no idea on the font. The current logo just uses the official one released to the media rather than a recreation to ensure accuracy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Old logos

Hi! I would like an explanation about why displaying a no longer used logo would violate NONFREE. Is there a previous discussion that you could reference that would state this? From my understanding it is perfectly acceptable to post the various logos used previously. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because it is no longer used does not negate any copyrights or trademarks. And no, it is not "perfectly acceptable" to post the various logos, even if it is a long standing problem in lower quality company articles. Unless the logos are discussed critically in reliable sources itself, it is not appropriate nor useful to post the image, and it violates the requirements of fair use and WP:NONFREE. The logo does not convey any significant information nor does it have any historical significance. "It is generally accepted that company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on commercial companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria" from Wikipedia:Logos#Uploading non-free logos. "When a historical logo is used, the caption should indicate this, and there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale" from Wikipedia:Logos#Logo choice. From WP:NONFREE: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Acceptable corporate use of logos is only for identification, not illustration. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay... The text in the logo caption stated it was an old logo, but the text states "and there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale." What are typical "good reasons"? Is there a discussion I could see that explains more about this? In addition I will see if I can find any reliable sources explaining the logo change. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of any discussions as no one has yet come up with a good reason that meets consensus except for historically notable logos, and even then I can't find one example where that was adequately shown in any quality article (note, I'm not looking at low quality articles as good examples, of course, because they frequently contain a range of policy and guideline violations). Simply saying "the logo changed" doesn't really meet the requirements either. Like any non-free image, it needs critical commentary or sourced statements showing it is significant to the readers understanding of the article, not just that it existed or was changed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Historical_logos - There's something about Mike Godwin stating that "properly documented historical images" (in User:dhett's words) are okay for Wikipedia. Lemme read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_8#Weigh-in_from_Wikimedia_General_Counsel_on_logos WhisperToMe (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

After reading Godwin's opinion I looked at American Broadcasting Company as an example. There is no substantial body of article text with the word "logo," but historical logos are plastered throughout the article. The article has no extensive discussion about the significance or meaning of the logos, to my knowledge. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There are also many discussions about that discussion at LOGOS. The opinion that it is not illegal does not mean it meets Wikipedia policy, and also came before the major changes in Non-Free and the stronger enforcement of those policies. American Broadcasting Company is B class that failed FAC, in large part because of the numerous MoS issues, and that was two years ago before non-free was even considered an issue. It is certainly not a quality article to be looked at as an example of what one should do. Again, violations in other articles is not a valid reason to perpetuate those violations in other articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I decided to look for more discussions. Godwin's letter was from April 2008. I think the gist of the discussion is that if one can legally display a series of historical logos according to U.S. fair use laws, then it fits Wikipedia's fair use system and is permitted in article. When I read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_8#Weigh-in_from_Wikimedia_General_Counsel_on_logos, which took place in May 2008, that discussion stated that it is kosher to display a series of historical logos to show the change of an identity of a company (in this case a TV station). I looked at the recent Wikipedia talk:Logos page and searched for the word "histo" to find discussion on historic images. User:dhett stated "Second, logos change from time to time, and use of a historical logo doesn't jeopardize the owner's potential to profit from it" in a post at "Changed to essay" on May 20, 2008.

When I looked at the "Proposed rewrite" from August 2008 Hroðulf asked about the "good reason" for historical logo phrase. J Milburn, who started the "Proposed rewrite" section, replied "I think we can all agree that we should be careful about the rationale of allowing such images- I just wanted to help clarify that the 'this is a logo, therefore it is allowed in articles' philosophy just isn't the way we should be thinking. I don't think specific policy on how much historical logos are 'allowed' is something we could just slip into a rewrite." - So far I haven't found a particular section where users concluded that historical logos must have an in-article section discussing their significance. On November 1, 2008 User:dhett stated in the "Historical logos" section "Mike Godwin, legal counsel for Wikipedia has been consulted and does not believe that the use of properly documented historical images violates any fair use laws. See link to discussion with Godwin's response." WhisperToMe (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Its very simple. WP:NONFREE. It still applies, no matter what the minor discussions which were mostly about station logos and sports logos, say. Its no different from any other non-free image. And the policy changed AFTER all those discussions. If you want to check current consensus to see if I'm right or if the use is allowed, ask at the non-free talk page. Until then, please leave the image out. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I started Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#How.2C_when.2C_and_why_for_historical_logo - I will also link this from the WP:LOGO talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Good...its probably time for a revisit of the issue. Meanwhile, thanks for catching that error on Viz's site. I had removed some other OR, but hadn't had time to check that the sources were sourcing what was said! *doh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to say hey cause I haven't talked to you in a long time...and keep up the excellent work :) Cruise meerkat (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thanks. Hope you are having a good summer. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Viz Mail redirect

Even though it was deleted, after a discussion here User_talk:Jclemens#Viz_Mail the deleting admin said I could re-create it. It doesn't fit any of the speedy criteria ("Viz Mail" was not a typo or a misnomer), but if you want you could use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on this matter. What do you think? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the deletion was valid and the redirects are beyond useless and silly. If you want to recreate despite the deleting admin showing you how it met policy, find, I'll take to RfD. No one uses the term VizMail for Viz's short lived thing except apparently you, and the actual usage for the B2B marketing is far more common, such as it is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

It did not meet Speedy deletion criteria for a redirect, which specifically allows deletions of implausible typos and misnomers. What the admin showed me was a reason why it could be used as a valid reason for deletion, but that would only be the case during a discussion on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. The particular reason is not included in the speedy criteria. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It is ready for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, the venue which should be used in cases that do not meet the speedy criteria for redirects. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So basically, you realize they were deleted validly, even if you disagree with the reason, and just felt like being POINTY and wasting people's times by forcing it thorough an RfD first? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No. The admin agreed with your rationale, but it does not match the specific speedy criteria for deletion, so the admin should not have speedy deleted. As for your "POINT" arguement, I think the redirect should be kept, and I am going to post a rationale why the redirect should be kept. Speedy deletion is reserved for specific cases, and for redirects one of them are implausible typos and misnomers. Whenever a redirect does not match the reasons for speedy deletion, the redirect is kept. AnmaFinotera, there are specific instance when one can use a speedy deletion; every other time you must use the regular deletion processes. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I stand by this being a valid speedy reason. It is a useless redirect and a misnomer. VizMail is a company and a product, not some old Viz email service. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Misnomer: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misnomer "a use of a wrong or inappropriate name b: a wrong name or inappropriate designation" - "Viz Mail" is being used as a redirect of a name of a branded service operated by a company to the company's page, not as a redirect from an implausible wrong name to a correct name. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Viz Mail is NOT a branded service that is operated by Viz Media anymore. The name has other, more valid uses and is there for a misnomer. Quoting me a dictionary as if I don't understand the term is rude and insulting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll continue this on the discussion page :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going off topic on CLAMP

Nothing about direct editing :p

I went to the French CLAMP exhibition and it was great. The bad was taking picture inside was as usual forbidden and i could take shoots of original Card Card Sakura art works (fanboy uber sad). I took a shoot of the outside of the exhibition but i had to cut half of it in order to upload in Wiki Commons because of a big xxxHolic derivative work in the outside. There is a catalog/art book of the exhibition CLAMP in Paris. This art book wasn't available for sale at the entrance of the exhibition because the event was not made to make any profit but you can get everywhere else. Crazy logic there.

Less trivia there are 8 pages on CLAMP in the July-August issue of the French Anime Land. I might do some translation duties to improved CLAMP article or Kobato stay tuned. --KrebMarkt 05:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done with Mike Ginn

I'm finally finished with Mike Ginn on Wikipedia, you can check it out--Lg16spears (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You considered that done?? He's still unnotable. Nothing but a bunch of bit roles you copy/pasted out of his resume. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Kajome's use of modern equipment

I'm about to re-insert the details of Kagome's use of modern-day material in the feudal era, like her bicycle. Now, before you go and undo it please consider the logic of removing all reference of the USS Enterprise from the bio of James T. Kirk or Batman's use of his Batmobile. Just because you and I know about this aspect of Kagome's character does not mean everyone else does not have the right to know as well. It is not as if I am revealing the entire plot of the story, just some common, everyday observations about a major character. A bit like stating that the US President's official residence is the White House. Cheers. --Marktreut (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For the last time. It does NOT belong this. This is not a biography, nor is Kagome's use of modern-day material relevant to the story. Character lists are NOT repeats of plot summary. Your "logic" is ridiculously flawed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. I give up. There is just no reasoning with some people. One condition though: prove your point. Go to every wiki entry on Batman and remove every single reference to him living in Gotham City. After all, where he lives is, by your sense of reasonning, irrelevant to the character and his background.--Marktreut (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comparisons are completely nonsensical. Captain Kirk was the captain of the Enterprise - it's an integral part of his bio. Same with Batman and the Batmobile, and him living in Gotham City. All of these are very important to the plot of their respective universes. The stuff Kagome brings from the present day, however, is incredibly trivial to the overall plot (even when it is focused on, it's almost always either when Kagome is in the present day anyways, or to provide comedic effect (much like InuYasha's necklace)). The only time these items really come close to playing a role in the plot significant enough to warrant mention is in the second movie, when Kagome's bandages allow everyone else to move around when Kaguya stops time. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotham City = Kagome's bike and chips? Get real! As Dinoguy said, you are continuing to make seriously nonsensical comparisons of apples to prime rib. Kagome's modern items are almost always nothing but a minor comic relief moment in most chapters/episodes. Go look at actual QUALITY character lists to see what's there, and trust me you will not find such trivial, minor details. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading a sience-fiction story in which the heroes discover that the course of history has changed — and not for the better. When they try and trace back what caused this change, they discover that it was a woman who said something to her husband that he didn't like. Thus they go further back in time in order to ensure that the wife says something nice and the husband is pleased, thus saving humanity. Small, innocent remark alters the course of the human race. Sounds like I'm in the part of the wife here: doing things the heroes don't want me to because it will the end of civilisation as we know it.--Marktreut (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Day Earth Stood Still

I nominated this article for GA and the same guy from the Max Payne article reviewed it. Is he reviewing articles the right way now? I would rather not having to go through the same thing as last time. --Peppage^tlk 18:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no he isn't. He marked stuff as "passed" while making comments that said otherwise, and most of his comments were fairly useless for actually helping correct any issues. He also marked stuff as failed when he claimed it passed. He did not allow you nearly enough to address issues (1 week is the norm) :( I'm going to post at GA to see if I can reset the GA review for you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised and infuriated he almost messed up another one of my nominations. I saw that you posted warning him and I appreciate it. Thanks for all the help. --Peppage^tlk 21:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Another editor is doing the review again and it looks like you're in good shape for it to be GA after fixing a few minor points :) Congrats! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

don't delete mike ginn

I already make the mike ginn page on wikipedia just look at it.--Lg16spears (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't make anything useful or notable, much like the fake categories you keep spamming all over the place. He's a completely unnotable "actor". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Lupin

Any chance of an updated review? I've added basic reception information to the review, there is a lack of manga reviews online at reliable sources, the soundtracks are now linked with a very basic soundtrack list, and Quasirandom has only got a few bits left to copyedit. And I want to move on to other things for a change :P Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure...let me just finish my expansion of The Vision of Escaflowne. Found a three page spread in one of the Animerica issues I've been going through! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

POTC 2

I'm really sorry about my edits on POTC 2. I was too interested with linking the script on the article. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 05:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

How can you identify my edits on Syfi as vandalism? All the problems with the exception of one is not solved, get another banner --TIAYN (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As you noted, none of the problems have been addressed. Do not remove maintenance templates without actually fixing the issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Network decay"

Remember this edit? Apparently, Sim found the concept of network decay important enough to create an article for it. It's sourced to TVTropes (definite no-no for a topic like this) and a blog that I didn't bother checking for WP:RS passage (but I doubt it does). Thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a silly made up term from TV Tropes and article should probably be AfDed or prodded. Looks like it was prodded then the prod removed after the "sources" were added. I AfDed it. :) Is that the same guy who was trying to get that site declared a reliable source and valid EL? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thought about mentioning the PROD while I was clicking "submit". ;P No idea about whether he's the same (acutally I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, so...). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgot

Forgot to mention it in my edit, but the sentence I added to Naruto Uzumaki was something that happened throughout a few volumes but the end of such fight still was not collected in a volume.Tintor2 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks for putting it in the correct place. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My Neighbor Totoro

Hiya, AnmaFinotera.

I found a minor quirk in the aforementioned article and didn't want to rush ahead and edit it; since the talk page is kind of dry, could you possibly give your two cents there?

Cheers, —Coralmizu (Mizu onna sango15)^{Drop a line} 06:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC).

Kagome and the shards

Can Kagome detect the shards from a distance or not? Please just answer yes or no. Thank you.--Marktreut (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You are adding your own guess as to how/why she can detect shards. She has a "bond"? Its even blatantly wrong OR. And define "at a distance"? Most of the time, no. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Then correct my error. Instead of just removing my version because you disagree with it, put it in a form of words which gives a more correct interpretation. A bit like you did with the beads issue.--Marktreut (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There isn't anything from there that needs to be added, period. Thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't consider her ability to locate shards a major characteristic or plot element?--Marktreut (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Her locating the shards is already mentioning. Your random guess that she has a "bond" with the shards is neither a characteristic nor a plot element nor reality. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It mentions that she sets off to "retrieve the shards" but not how she locates them. Pure luck, detective work, what? OK, I was wrong, slap me on the wrist but can we have some kind of explanation, please?--Marktreut (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

She can sense the shards. This is explicitly stated in both the manga and the anime. Most likely, this ability stems from the fact that Kagome is Kikyo's reincarnation, but this is not explicitly stated in either the manga or anime, nor is it suggested in any other RS I've ever seen, so adding it - or any other interpretation - would be unsourced speculation, which has no place on Wikipedia. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. How about this: "She can sense the shards and their presence in the areas she goes through, though it is not stated how." ? Sounds good enough an explanation. Permission to include it in Kagome's entry?--Marktreut (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No. An adequate note has already been added. Now go away. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Took a while to get it though, didn't it? A day-long debate for a simple sentence. Sheesh.--Marktreut (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kraken: Tentacles of the Deep

On July 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kraken: Tentacles of the Deep, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 09:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool...guess someone else submitted that one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It was me :) ! The article went through a 22x expansion in 24 hours and the contest for naming was a terrific hook. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Never even thought to check the expansion length. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ADV

I do appologize, I did some further digging on my own: ADVnation isn't actually run by ADV; it *is* run by a friend of theirs that is a moderator on TAN's forums and who has insider press information, that's why its so up-to-date, nonetheless its not affiliated with them; they seem to be focusing on TAN's website and such. So that was my mistake; I saw AICN reporting using it as news and it seemed like something ADV put up. Anyway, we have to figure out what to use on their links section: I think we should still put a message saying that the ADV website hasn't been updated since mid-2007 (multiple ADV convention panels during Q&A have had fan complaints about this, and you need only check the news section to see it wasn't updated)....and then I don't know, link ADVnation but say it's an independent fan news portal, or link stuff from the animenetwork's website.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We never put a "not updated" on any official site, even if its blatantly obvious it hasn't been. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

...that is the situation. Then were does one suggest a change? Further, unrelated but I'm not sure where to ask: is there a policy on romanization in the title; for example the article on "Alucard (Hellsing)", the whole "R vs L" thing. What I'm asking is, is there an official policy that says that we must slur it as "R"? There's a video on youtube where Crispin Freeman infamously is debating with a fan who thinks "the proper form is "Arucard" and he says "no, its Alucard", and its set in London. She persists in saying "it's Arucard" and ultimately he points out that "Alucard" is *obviously a direct loanword from a language foreign to Japanese* ("Dracula" spelled backwards). He said this problem extended up to the anime licensing people, who when he tried to explain "it's Dracula backwards" they said "yes, it's "Dracura" backwards!" (they were slurring the name as "Dracura"). Freeman and their company eventually went all the way to the manga writer, who instantly and definitely stated that yes, it's "Alucard" with an L because its a loanword, he's sorry he didn't correct the "Arucard" mistake earlier but was very busy with other work. I want to change all the "EvangeRion" references to "Evangelion" because its obviously a direct loanword from a foreign language, and further, prominent English spelling on-screen consistently spells it with an L. Is there a policy against this?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It really isn't anything to change regarding the site. It is their official site. It is up to viewers to determine timeliness and all. For romanization (in the Nihongo template yes?), see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Romanization for the official guidelines on which method to use. Might also be good to ask in the project as there are several folks active there who are very good with understanding all that (way better than me) who can probably help navigate (and enforce) what changes are needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

About Arina Tanemura's OneShots...

Hi. I know a lot about Arina Tanemura's manga, and I'm just saying that her OneShots are very important works of hers, one of which is her debut work. I'm not sure why you deleted my changes, and I certainly don't want to argue. But I would like to know the specific reason you deleted it. If it's because I didn't cite references, sorry, but I don't know how to do that. :( You can see the references at tanemura.info. Anyway sorry if I came off like a jerk or a know it all. Didn't mean that. Bye. Unlocked Heart (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your knowledge is not a reliable source, nor is someone's personal fansite. In general, one-shots are not notable and aren't included in bibliography listings. Her debut one-shot is noted in the article all ready, and the rest were not sourced. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions

Per your advice, I added a "Reception" section to Beverly Hills, 90210 franchise, and also expanded the "Talent" section. Might not have done that if you hadn't proposed it, and I admit to liking the article better now, so thanks again. Bye. :) -- James26 (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I readed your message

I readed your message on Sam Hargrave, Kevan Ohtsji, Ninja (film), List of actors who have played animated characters and Video game. I'm not such if all of this will be deleted.--Lg16spears (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you see this?

A new Inuyasha anime following the manga!. This seems to be the year of remakes and sequels.Tintor2 (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen it...blech...guess it will be nice to have an animated ending, but it was already stretched so far with no actual progress that I dropped the anime long agao. I probably won't bother watching this one either, except maybe if it airs on Cartoon Network later. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't this originally announced last year as the manga was coming to an end? Takahashi's new series has already been running 3 months.[8] Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually never watched the first anime's ending. In fact, the last episode I watched was one of those in which nothing important happens.Tintor2 (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the whole anime series about twice, and some episodes I've seen 3 or 4 times. I am still keeping up with the manga, though (personally, I don't see where people are coming from when they talk about Takahashi losing focus after the first anime was cancelled, but I'm just weird like that...). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way somebody added this source "Otakuzine Anime Magazine. Psicom publishing. 2009. pp. 30–31. ISBN 1656-7862. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)" which says that the new Fullmetal Alchemist series will last for 51 episodes? Is it reliable? The isbn does not seem to be complete.Tintor2 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

They messed up the template, it should be cite journal and that's an ISSN not an ISBN. Fixed version:Otakuzine Anime Magazine. Psicom publishing: 30–31. 2009. ISSN 1656-7862. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) However, for now, it is still not complete as it lacks the article title, author, issue, and volume. I'd also tag is as unreliable as the ISSN given doesn't exist nor is it a real magazine. It appears to exist in some form[9], but I'd call that more of a fansite than a legit magazine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Exciting...but its not "new" its the final third of the manga that never got adapted.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...for fans who stuck it out, I just hope they keep the new bit short and to the point. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again

What's the matter? Can't take a little constructive criticism? I'm well aware that this is not a fansite, but neither do I think it fair to deny others knowledge. I've never claimed total ownership on any wiki article, not even the ones which I started from the beginning, so neither should you. An encyclopedia is supposed to inform not suppress.--Marktreut (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What you need to realise is that character lists are supposed to provide a brief overview. The details in this issue don't seem that necessary to understand the character. Unless I'm mistaken the bulk of the series occurs in the past (I've only watched/read a little), Kagome's wish for a good education and being "off sick" doesn't seem like massively important information in a brief summary. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not very important. Most of the series is set in the past, and the times when it specifically focuses on Kagome in the present day, most of her troubles are used for comedic relief with no consequence for the overall plot. Her grandfather's habit of using increasingly obscure and serious illnesses as excuses for her absence from school is one of those comedic effects, and it is also just a plot device Takahashi probably used so she wouldn't have to bother with Kagome's classmates and teachers always wondering why she isn't at school. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably to avoid another insanely sized cast like Urusei Yatsura and Ranma ½. Most of UY was set at school, and much of Ranma was too (in the early days at least). Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Constructive criticism is fine. Whining from someone who continues to ignore attempts to education him on what is and is not appropriate content in an encyclopedic article is not. And I'm sick of having you spam my user page every time you get reverted. I haven't claimed ownership of that list or any other article, I am just one of many experienced editors who are actually working to make it into a good quality piece rather than a bit of fluffy, useless fancruft. As Dandy noted, your newest attempted addition is again pointless and minor in relation to the series as a whole and does not belong in the list. The list should contain a BRIEF overview of the character, not details on every minor nuance of every minor event that ever occurs, nor a repeat of the existing chapter and episode lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"I haven't claimed ownership of that list or any other article": you could have fooled me. "Your newest attempted addition is again pointless and minor": I'm trying to make the characters more interesting, fill in more about their backgrounds (see the previous notice that you removed). "I'm sick of having you spam my user page every time you get reverted": I'm sick of being reverted and having to get into day-long debates over short and harmless sentences which actually tell a reader more about the characters and their backgrounds. Just because you know everything about the series and the characters does not mean other should be denied or restricted to basic knowledge.--Marktreut (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"make the characters more interesting" to who? Only people who are avid fans of the series. Those unfamiliar with the series do not need to know nor want to know such ridiculously minor details about a fictional character. The sentences are neither short nor harmless, its excessive fancruft and, primarily, your own personal view points and not legitimate content. At least on this one you attempted to throw in a source, but that doesn't make it anymore notable nor worth inclusion. I'm not the only one who has reverted your additions. And yes, the list will be restricted to basic knowledge because this is an encyclopedia, a fact you continue to ignore. People wanting detailed minor info are welcome to go to any fansite or the InuYasha wikia where such stuff is welcome. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is still trivial. None of it adds to the understanding of the character, i'm not a fan of the series and it's quite obvious that its not required to understad the character. The issue here is your lack of understanding of what a character list should be. If you don't want to be reverted, stop adding trivial information. It would be more relevant on a specific character article, but you'd need to prove that the character is notable enough in "real life" to justify that. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"Those unfamiliar with the series do not need to know nor want to know such ridiculously minor details about a fictional character": how do you know? When I buy encyclopedias or search wikipedia the purpose is to find out more about subjects, not less. And if that is the case then what is the point of mentioning anything about the characters at all? What makes your versions of them and their lives enough, while my contributions are minor and trivial? "Primarily, your own personal view points and not legitimate content": then how about re-writing my contributions to be more in line with how you think they should be rather than simply taking them out? That's what I do when I see entries that I do not agree with. "the list will be restricted to basic knowledge because this is an encyclopedia": and an encyclopedia in supposed to inform not suppress, and this is getting stifling. "People wanting detailed minor info are welcome to go to any fansite or the InuYasha wikia where such stuff is welcome": why there and not here? It's like China restricting searches in their version of Google (see Censorship by Google). I think people can make up their own minds as to whether or not they want to know how Kagome balances her life at school and in the feudal era: they're at liberty to skip through it or read it.--Marktreut (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Because that is the appropriate place for such info and not here. This doesn't have a damn thing to do with China's censorship and I really wish you'd drop the overly dramatically and badly chosen comparisons. The character lists are intended to give a basic overview of the major characters in the series for those wanting a little more knowledge about the series, not every minute detail only fans really care to know. If someone does want that sort of in-depth knowledge, they can turn to the original source material (*gasp* read or watch the series), or do their own research. Wikipedia is not intended to provide the full scholarship of every aspect of a topic. That is not what an encyclopedia does. Just because you think something is relevant doesn't make it so, not even to most fans. Trying reading some of the many policies and guidelines you keep ignoring that multiple editors have pointed out to you. Whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, Wikipedia does have them and, if you are going to edit, you are expected to learn and follow them. If you make good contributions, they will only be tweaked, but so long as you continue to insist on trying to shove in the most mundane of minutiae, it will continue to be removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In her wiki entry InuYasha's creator Rumiko Takahashi is mentioned as having been taught "to create well-thought out, interesting characters, and this influence would greatly impact Rumiko Takahashi's works throughout her career". It seems to me that you are dead set against that philosophy. There is a lot more to Kagome than just being a girl who goes from this world into another one. The impact it has on her life in her own time period is the focus of many episodes. I'm sorry to say that I find this restrictive attitude rather sad.--Marktreut (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And what does Takahashi have anything to do with anything? It is not about Kagome or any other specific character. And sorry, the impact on her life is used as nothing but comedic relief and not for any real plot advancement. And again, sorry if you find it "sad" but, again, if you don't like the atmosphere and philosophy here, I suspect you'd be much happier editing at Wikia which could certainly use more editors wanting to write about every detail of each character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit to TMM

I presume you have not yet seen this? O_o G.A.S^talk 23:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, nope, I hadn't seen that! For some reason, it never showed up on my watchlist. How weird...it only showed up after I reverted...I wonder if the article somehow was accidentally removed from my list or something. Thanks for the heads up. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was very strange—you are usually very quick at this;) I was on my mobile at the time, and it was already very late, hence my not reverting the edit. "showed up after I reverted"—why do you want to see your own edits on your watchlist? It is much shorter excluding them:P G.A.S^talk 05:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I meant the original edit didn't show either, but I do like to see my own edits as it helps me see where I am in looking over my list (and sometimes catch my own boo boos :P) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I find that My Contributions works better for the latter:P G.A.S^talk 07:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sailor Moon delisting

Thanks for the notice - I've opened a group reassessment of Sailor Moon to get a second opinion. I don't feel your reassessment is detailed enough to be helpful in fixing the article, and it has too much reference to the anime-manga manual of style rather than the GA criteria. --Malkinann (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Suit yourself, however I stand by the delisting and a GAR is not intended to point out every line that is problematic. The large problems are more than enough to keep it from meeting GA criteria. If you felt more details were required, you could have simply asked. Frankly, this seems like a major time waster and a bit of a sour apple reaction. If you think its GA, you could have renominated it in an GAN, but a pretty much guarantee it would fail unless it was not properly reviewed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the proper procedure if one disagrees with a delisting is to take it to a group reassessment as quickly as possible. Please note I am trying to address your concerns, where I understand what it is that they refer to. --Malkinann (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the references style

It may a bit too late, but I would like to apologize for changing the references and saying that "it looks better". You were right about the style the references are supposed to look like, and I will try to be more careful next time. I'm also sorry for being rude and disruptive, by doing edit warring and not writing any changes in the edit summary (which is something I will have to work on.) Please do accept my apology. Anyway, keep up the good work! --User:Commander Shepard (Commander Shepard) 20:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you :) I do think you do some great work on fixing grammar issues and some often overlooked issues, but I do encourage you to work towards discussing things more with other editors when someone disagrees with you. Often, a lot of problems are "fixed" just by talking it out to hear both sides, and then, if necessary, seeking additional opinions if you just can't agree. :) In case you were wondering why I reverted your changing Wyvern's infobox to the television film box (when normally, yes, that would be right), I think its better to have consistency among all the Maneater series articles. The two GA ones from that series use the regular infobox as they were not aired first on Sci Fi, nor were the other 4 films that started off the series. I suspect some of the others had the same treatment, but haven't been focusing on getting the rest of the articles done as much as I plan. I hope that helps explain things more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Whopping merge shenanigans

Greetings, I have some "fun" planned to keep us WP:Anime editors busy (consider it a trial run for the collaboration project). Currently we have Neon Genesis Evangelion redirecting to Neon Genesis Evangelion franchise. We also have Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime), Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga), plus List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media. Now, clearly this violates WP:MOS-AM, not to mention just looking awfull. My idea is to merge the seperate pages to Neon Genesis Evangelion, and then make proper articles for the appropriate splits if justifiable (I've already got a working soundtrack article in sandbox)

I'm currently doing a very rough sandbox collecting the information from each page into one article, leaving out clearly trivial information and making some quick chopping of nonsense. I don't think this is particulary controversial, but I should probably start a discussion on it before doing it in mainspace. What I need is some of your clean up expertise to just help me make it look a bit more manageable, and check over/add some maintainance templates before starting the discussion. I'm trying to get the Eva task force properly involved in improving the Evangelion articles, but they really need showing how to do it, because they won't get anywhere if they keep going as they are. The information will need quite a rewrite, but the spine of the article needs to be in place first

Interested? Thoughts? I'll be along with a sandbox link a little later. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You are a closet masochist aren't ya? j/k I think it would be a great first project for the collaboration effort, though would be good to have the collaboration set up finished before really going into it. Happy to help where I can for clean up and template additions. I have some more sources in my Animerica issues that I can provide as time allows...I have really got to get my desktop back online...or find a wifi adapter that will let my laptop access my scanner remotely. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You joke, but I do keep taking on new projects... I need to get them done before the remaining vols of Love Hina arrive, and I go back to writing character articles ;) The collaboration thing isn't really progressing at the moment, and I've been meaning to do this merge for ages. Anyway, here is what I've done so far. It's not a bad start, it was easier then I thought because most of the anime article is either original research, irrelevant trivia or just total nonsense. Saved me going through all those ridiculously oversized and badly formatted references. I don't think it's a bad place to start from, rewriting the plot aside, a lot of it is going to be spamming ANN for news, gamefaqs for the games, and I already have a soundtrack merge article developed (thank you lupin :p). At the end of the day, the page just needs to be at a point where it at least looks like it follows MOS-AM, is free of obvious OR, and can be developed by people with more time on their hands - i.e. tell the eva task force what they need to do, give example pages and let them do their share. We can still use the collaboration drive to improve the article to high B/GA and handle some of the other pages in the group. I've got a few sources here myself, plus I recently got some of the newer printings of the manga, theres some stuff in there. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a very good start. The lead needs some rewriting, but overall its a very good place to start with. Now just needs the second phase of clean up, ton of referencing, and getting as much of that "further reading" into the source section as possible. :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

So worth sticking in WT:Anime? Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring

I've moved the thread at WP:Good article reassessment/Sailor Moon/1 to WT:Good article reassessment/Sailor Moon/1 (the associated talk page) in order that the main thread stays focused on the article. I hope that is okay with you: please direct any comments about the article to the reassessment page, and more general or meta comments to the associated talk page. Many thanks for all your contributions to the GA process and the encyclopedia, Geometry guy 18:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw and had no problem with it :) Just pausing to eat some very late breakfast *grin* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Late breakfasts are why Sunday was invented :-) Geometry guy 19:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL, true true. :)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

DBZ character talk page

Hey mate. I'm asking if you'd be interested to check out the section I opened on the DBZ character talk page in regards to merging. It deals with moving many of the characters listed in the secondary section to the other (tertiary) section, as many more influential and important characters have now been merged or deleted. It would only be proper to sustain and maintain the same consensus on the entire page; I haven't made any changes as of yet as it may not be considered constructive to move characters without a proper debate. Those that are debatable, I've listed them in the same format and hope to get your vote for keeps and merges into the other section. I've only listed the ones I've found to be primarily lesser appearing characters and who are limited to one or two sagas at the most in their appearance, or remain background characters for the most part. As many of the characters who are listed in the secondary section are actually much lesser than those in the other, I was hoping to hear from you and get your votes on the matter. - Zarbon (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the section, but I'm really not knowledgeable enough about the series to fully respond there. However, my general few is that if a character is not a protagonist, antagonist, or a supporting character, its a minor character and shouldn't be included in a character list at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gunslinger Girl

You just won't let up will you? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. If you watched a few episodes of the series you will find that the emphasis is on the relationship between the girls and their handlers, the missions and the concept (little girls turned into cyborg assassins) being secondary to the issues of how they are treated by the agency and their supervisors.--Marktreut (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've watched the series, thanks, many times. Read the manga as well. That's no excuse for adding spam to an article. Nor is it your place to interject your view on the themes of the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the link out, but it's clear what the "themes of the series" are so I don't see why it cannot be emphasized.--Marktreut (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is your interpretation of the themes of the series, not something stated in the plot nor reliably sourced in the article. It is not a plot summary, it is interpretation and it doesn't belong. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Françoise Rosay

• File:Françoise Rosay.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Apologies if you're already aware, but you've been mentioned at WP:AN#Unexplained replaceable fair use tag. Your comments would be appreciated. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware. Thank you for the notice. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The Seventh Brother

I removed your G4 tagging of this article as in my opinion it's not eligable. G4 states "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion" and in my opinion this article has bever been deleted via a deletion discussion as a decision was ever reached at AfD - it was speedied before it could be. I would not object to it being tagged with another eligable speedy tag if one exists. Dpmuk (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I strongly suspect that is a resurrected Bambifan101 sock who created it as well. I've sent it back to AfD however. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought that might be the case hence the "another eligable speedy" comment as I'd seen you'd originally added a G5 tag but as I didn't know whether they were a sock or not I didn't feel happy adding it back myself. If the outcome of the AfD had been really obvious I wouldn't have been picky but given there were some keep votes it seemed best to either proof it was a sock or finish the discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The Fox and the Hound

AnmaFinotera, please explain your actions [10], [11]. OckhamTheFox (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

First as a MoS violation and inappropriate edits. Second was an accident - reverting vandalism and had to go back further. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

additionally, in case you haven't figure it out yet, editing for a banned sockpuppet by proxy is also vandalism. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

MakeLove91

Please take a look at MakeLove91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and tell me what you think. I suspect he's an old friend of yours.—Kww(talk) 19:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I can't tell or not on this one. If its him, he's changing behavior patterns, though being annoying nonetheless and appears to be making several hoax articles today. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lg16spears

I've slapped him with a custom warning. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just writing up an ANI...he seems to be operating an unauthorized bot of some kind to keep hitting so many at once, plus he was already blocked for this crap before under his name, and numerous times under IPs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference library request

What ho, me again - any chance of you looking up Sailor Moon in Manga: The Complete Guide and your issues of Animerica, December 2001 (Volume 9 Number 12) and November (Volume 9 Number 10/11)? Do you know of any other readily available sources which we should be using in the article but aren't? --Malkinann (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can check those. I also have many other issues of Animerica, almost all of which have something on Sailor Moon because it was being released at that time. Have you requested checks of all the general references in the library? At minimum, I'd expect The Complete Anime Guide, Anime: A Guide to Japanese Animation, and Ä-ni-mé: The Berkeley Journal of Japanese Animation to have coverage, and I know all three of the books I have do. I'd also check with the other mags that were active during that time and that people have copies of. Google News also has nearly 3000 hits for Sailor Moon, of which I suspect there is a good quantity of material. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, please look for anything that seems relevant. I asked Nihonjoe a while ago for some SM stuff, but he's got real life keeping him busy, so he won't be able to help me out with Sailor Moon refs. (and isn't he nearly 90% of the reference library on his lonesome? ;) ) --Malkinann (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It will probably take me quite awhile. Also have some real life stuff to do, and that's a lot of gathering (and typing). Will post what I can as I can. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. :-) Most of the 3000 hits ( I get 2400 after spam) in Google News only give Sailor Moon the briefest of mentions and so aren't as useful as you think. I've mined Google for references before this. --Malkinann (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What about the many Google Books hits? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at them in the past, and we do use several of the books available via Google Books in the article already - many of the others suffer from the same problem as the news links, being very limited. --Malkinann (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson: The Stripped Mixes

I know I haven't been on here in a while, but I think i'm getting back in the swing of things. :) I made a new article for Michael Jackson. So how have you been doing lately? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Um...hi? :( – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, watching Glass Mask and getting near the end :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of the new article I authored. The heading definately needs some work though. The article should get bigger as more information is gathered. :) I've read a bit of the Glass Mask manga, its a pretty good series. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 06:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Better than most new album articles, I'd guess...but lacking in reception info? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL Most album articles are just an infobox and a list of tracks...which doesn't really help much if you can see the names of the tracks on the back of the CD case. :P There really is no reception or reviews for it right now, but in no time the web will be flooding with reviews. :) Same happened with Are You In?: Nike+ Original Run, anotehr article I authored. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the latest? ^_^" – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing much. Launched a major new version of my biggest web app, so I've spent this week extra stressed while dealing with a few minor remaining bugs and stupid users (had one person complain because their new account's password wasn't a word!). Blech. Also annoyed because I have been anticipating going to a big conference next month, but now it looks like I won't get to go because of lack of funds. :( Wikiwise, I've slowly been going through my various Animerica issues to add content to various articles of interest. Got to really expand The Vision of Escaflowne, now if only I could get around to doing the plot and reception sections, it might be ready for a PR then GA! :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That sucks... :P I wonder when they are going to make a new Animerica issue. Seriously, are they just going to stick with the Fall 2008 issue forever!! How many issues of the Best Buy version have they made?? I didn't know that existed until I read the article for Animerica. O_O Am I missing out? or did they just release it?? I don't want to miss an issue!! Well that's cool The Vision of Escaflowne is going for PR? Awesome! ^_^ Lately I got a whole BOATLOAD of Vietnamese versions of Dragon Ball and Yu-Gi-Oh!, one of the first Japanese versions of City Hunter from 1987 and a version of Ninku from 1994. Before that, I also bought a Thai language bootleg of Dragon Ball published by something called "World Book", from before it was licensed officially to a company called NED Comics. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Good question on new issues. I don't go in BestBuy much, so don't know if there is a new one there. You aren't missing much with those, they are dinky and mostly just little ad mags for various Viz series. Cool finds! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's true, its basically a collection of ads. :P I also found one of the first Speed Racer VHSs released by VidAmerica and some 1980s National Geographic issues (such a great magazine). What new stuff did you get? Any rare finds? :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 05:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a whole crapload of NatGeos... I think my earliest issue is from the late '70s... =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

My earliest goes back to 1961. =D I'm losing so much room! D: How have you been Dinoguy? :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I find it interesting to get to see how the cover design has changed over the years. And I've been fine, though I seem to be in a perpetual state of almost-wikibonked-ness... ;P 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yō? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No rare finds, but no real disposable funds. Mostly just getting new volumes of stuff except where stupid Tokyopop changes the release date at the last minute like they did with Chibi Vampire 14 (or just outright kill all solicitations like they have done with the last three volumes of Rave Master (cry). I'm still working on getting my laptop back to full operating status, so I'm way behind in recording my new stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate Tokyopop... I like the manga they put out, but the design on their stuff is terrible. They just grab a picture and throw some goofy typeface at the top (I guess that must be a logo). I mean come on people! Put a little more effort... That's why I like Vertical so much, they put work into their releases. Also Tokyopop labels everything "Manga" even if its a manhwa. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, maybe that was a bit too negative. But seriously I have seen way better design. So did your laptop break or something? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 06:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The hard drive suddenly suffered massive drive motor failure and died within hours of showing symptoms of a problem. Wasn't even able to get a backup done before it went, and recover efforts by two different folks failed. So nearly a year of my life. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

T-Pop really didn't put much effort into their stuff for most of the 90's and early 2000's, as I understand it, but recently they do seem to have started caring more (at least a little). Now, if they would just fire whatever moron seems to think that people actually *want* more Princess Ai spinoffs... =P 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL How many spin-offs have they made? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No idea, but one ANN feature from a few months back (relating to T-Pop's downsizing, IIRC) specifically mentioned it, saying (almost exactly) "... a big middle finger for continuing to publish Princess Ai spinoffs." *should really try to find that article again* 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)