User talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Dealing with lg16spears

I noticed that you're receiving no cooperation with any of the admins regarding this editor. I've been battling with him regarding his fudging of the various martial arts categories. If you do file any further reports against the editor, please include me. Having two or more of us might somehow wake these admins up, instead of them thinking the issue is just editing conflicts or editing philosophies. Groink (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seems no one is paying much attention to that report at all, and he's continuing to add bad cats to stuff randomly and without response. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Old business

So now that volume 23 is out, thus completing the series in North America, interested in resuming work on the suite of Furuba articles? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, now that its out and I got to read it at last :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I got v23 yesterday, and will be doing a series readthrough this week, at which point I'll be ready to return to the chapter list. I don't suppose you've heard whether/when the second fanbook will be released by T-pop? It almost certainly has even more useful material than Cat. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

They were planning on it, I think, but with the way TP has been lately, seems more up in the air :( ~still waiting for Rave Master 33~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's slowing down everything but the blockbusters. *waiting for Aria 5* *waiting for Aria final season* *waiting for Yotsuba&! 6* —Quasirandom (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel somewhat privileged to live in France. FB ended last year in France and its publisher is extremely ardent on bringing any stuff from FB's author in French including artbook and others guidebooks. Slow decrease of the production here too thought, after a +1300 manga released in 2008, all due to market saturation plus near all cash cows licenses have been taken and catching up the Japan release. I will be gracious enough to provide French coverage for FB when asked in due time ;) --KrebMarkt 22:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you also be willing to help with a List of manga licensed in French whenever I finally have the time (and motivation) to pursue expanding the List of manga licensed in English coverage to other languages? =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Licensing for anime and manga images

Hello, as I mentioned at WT:FILMC, I was going through Category:Screenshots of films. A good portion of the screenshots were related to anime and manga, which I left alone due to my lack of familiarity in that area. I was wondering, is it proper to update the licensing of these screenshots with {{Non-free television screenshot}} rather than {{Non-free film screenshot}}? Or is there another template to use? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sticking my nose in, they probably have to be examined on a case-by-case basis, as there are a fair number of anime movies. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found it hard to tell which it even is, though, since it doesn't say one or the other in the article body. Any way to figure it out? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The infoboxes usually indicate anime (television) or anime film (film). OVAs are trickier because they aren't broadcast but released straight to DVD, however they also are usually episode length unless indicated as a full-length OVA. In cases where its unclear, though, we can take a look to see for sure which it is. I suspect most, however, should probably be cleared all together since they are usually being used inappropriately, but would have to be checked on a case by case as well. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're not too far in (or if someone else intends to go back through the category), would you mind tagging the talk page of each image with {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} (no parameters are necessary)? Might as well do that while you're there... =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 05:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Damn him, anyway.

Just when I thought it was safe to go back into the water after this little freak has wreaked so much havoc, here he goes again. I am going to simply delete the article, no AfD, no nothing. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I only AfDed it because the initial CSD was declined because there wasn't enough evidence yet. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done it, but I don't have the links to the templates in order to close it. I'll do it later unless another admin does it before I do. Thanks for all you do. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob and thanks for locking that page. Blech. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You got it. I found the templates, so I closed the discussion. Now all I have to do is to deal with that collateral damage. Most are just semi-protected. I only found a few I'd fully protected. Back to my break...I hope...PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. My Huggle trigger finger is sore from all that reverting. Good work, all Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 03:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the G4 speedy deletion tag from the article in question as I was (and in principle still am) unhappy with an incomplete AfD (it was speedied before a decision was made) being used to justify a G4. As stated above I was always happy with a G5 and from my quick reading round what's happened overnight (I'm in the UK) I'm happy with this being a G5 despite it being slightly unusual. Dpmuk (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered filing a long-term abuse report on him? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We're definitely preparing to file one in the near future. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, there is one at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Bambifan101. I also did an abuse report, but it went unanswered/unacted on. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I meant, we're preparing to file an abuse report. We're working on putting together another, more comprehensive abuse report. We've got some evidence that he's been mucking over at the Welsh WP as well, and we have an editor from there willing to help provide evidence (since, uh, I can't read Welsh... :)). Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your previous report, we might just want to take that, add to it, and push to get it investigating. It's quite comprehensive already! :) Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

He's also mucked a lot at Simple Wikipedia. I had a contact there for awhile who was blocking there as we blocked here, but don't know if he gave up the fight or not. From some of his own bragging, he's basically hit just about every language Wiki out there, some more than others. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Watsuki's opinion regarding the anime

User WhisperToMe has been adding some info about Watsuki's thoughts regarding the anime in Ruroken. Should that info be moved to a subsection from production just like it was done in Death Note? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For now, I'm inclined to say no. Death Note's is split up more because of the length than from a need to segment it out. If it gets much longer, then it might need subsections. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So you say it should be moved to production?Tintor2 (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Dur, sorry, I didn't realize where he was adding it. Yes, that should be moved into production and not be in the media section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob ^_^.Tintor2 (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sneaky Stuff

Hey there, just came across this. Man, did it get my blood boiling. Glad you caught it. If you ever see another plot to "trick" me, can you let me know so I can just report the little buggar when he tries to fool me? Grrrr... Cactusjump (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Sad thing is an admin joined in on the "fun" knowing full well what he was doing. That's just disgusting, to me. Sad thing is, all his bragging is mostly hot air. Hoping this time the abuse reports get his ISP to really deal with him. All his empty threats that his "daddy" is going to "buy" Wikipedia should have an interesting result if his parents lose their internet access. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't believe the lengths this kid (?) will go through to change an article. Seems too ridiculous that he has nothing better to do over the summer. Anyway, I'd love to be kept in the loop if it means helping to get this punk kicked off forever. Cactusjump (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we use the LTA report and its talk page as a centralized discussion area for this vandal, so as to be able to coordinate in blocking/reporting, but also to prevent feeding. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 22:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, though he does contrib stalk as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but he obviously checks out our user pages, seeing as how he knew when AnmaFinotera was away and when I was on my recent wikibreak. Cactusjump (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm certain he stalks my pages. He became rather active after I posted the fact I was going on break. Some doggoned break. I did in fact report that last IP to WP:ABUSE. At this point, I am more than convinced we're dealing with a high-functioning autistic; he's an Asperger's Syndrome patient at the very least. Look at the evidence: He's completely and totally obsessed with a single subject, in this case, Disney movies. I'd wager he hasn't even so much as seen a single frame of some of those movies. He finds an outlet for his obsession, namely here and other wikis. He may well be an idiot savant if he's bouncing back and forth to non-English wikis. His Russian wiki sock had a username in the Cyrillic alphabet. I can't read a single word of Russian myself. I'll bet he's a tad schitzophrenic to top it off since he seems to argue with himself at times. I pray for this kid if he is who he appears. I almost pity him, but damn it, it's time to shut him down because of the incalculable amount of time and resources he's wasted. Back to my break. Thanks for letting me rant. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Toni Turner

I cited a couple of things in WP:Articles for deletion/Toni Turner that you might find relevent. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

About a GAR review

I don't know if you saw this chat which I'm having with Tintor, it's just that I really don't understand the deletion of the hat at Death Note. So, what's up? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Setting

If we need to tweak the plot section, then that would make the setting section unnecesary since minor parts from the setting are explained in character lists such as the Hollows and Soul Reapers' characteristics.Tintor2 (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, that would be the best way. Setting usually isn't needed except when being done, like this, to supplement the plot, or if the setting is focused on in a lot of sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried doing the ones from Naruto and Bleach. By the way, should the infobox from Bleach also show the two OVAs and the light novels?Tintor2 (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for tackling those two! And yes, it should have the OVAs and light novels. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way I'm having some problems when I edit in wiki. If there's an error (for example if wiki is in maintenance or there is internet connection), I cannot recover the info I added even if I go back. I think it has something to do to with the fact that my computer is using a different explorer now.Tintor2 (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That is strange. You changed browsers or had to reinstall? It may be something in your settings? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that Internet Explorer is particularly bad about saving the content from forms when you navigate away from them (for whatever reason) and then come back (I say this because it sounds like you're using IE). If there's a server error that prevents you from properly saving the page, don't navigate away - instead, reload the page every couple of minutes until the error goes away. On each reload, your browser should tell you that to complete the reload, it has to resubmit the form and then asks you if that's all right. If, on the other hand, it's an error on your computer, try loading the page history in a separate browser tab (so you can still reload if necessary!) to see if your edit went through anyways. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Globalise Sailor Moon?

Not to be rude or anything, but I don't understand why you added the globalise tag to Sailor Moon, as the reception section covers France, Mexico, Korea as well as Japan and America? I re-read your article reassessment, and even then I was at a loss to understand why you added that one. Would you mind explaining further why you added the globalise tag, either on the article's talk page, or on the reassessment page? Then I can see about addressing your specific concerns - I hope you've been noticing the extra citations I've been adding to the article. Cheers. :-) --Malkinann (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it was related to the English section - which is very American-centric and over emphasis that version over all others. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There was only the DiC dub and the Cloverway dub, which are both at least partially American...? I'm not really seeing the American-centric focus in the section in the main Sailor Moon article, as it says that Sailor Moon is now off the air / out of print in all English speaking countries, not just in America. (Although functionally, as the manga was by an American company, out of print in America also means out of print across the world...) I do think the daughter article is American-centric, though - mind if I move the globalise tag from the main article into the daughter article? --Malkinann (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:User:Marktreut and OR

The behaviour is clearly problematic and I doubt there's going to be any change- it seems he is the kind of user who will happily resort to edit warring rather than discussion and has little interest in policy. Marktreut is of course allowed to remove messages from his own talk page, but those kind of comments are inappropriate. Without seeing specific diffs, I am unable to comment on the additions to articles. I would recommend you just keep reverting- any more outbursts like that, he can be blocked; any edit warring, he can be blocked. J Milburn (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and will do. Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As a note, he is also trying to get around the revert rules by logging out and editing as an IP, despite making it clear it is him. This, to me, seems like an inappropriate use of IPs. One has been blocked because he used it while blocked, and he's now doing it again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame to see someone who has been around as long as he has resorting to this type of behavior. =/ 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...this blatant sockpuppetting is just ridiculous. Waiting for the SPI clerk to reconsider checkusering to see just how many this guy has. Its really rather sad. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

He tried "discussion" but it got him nowhere, especially on the issues of how Kagome Higurashi tries to balance school and shard-finding. What's a shame is how so narrow and restrictive wikipedia is becoming and how contributions, even those based on very clear and reliable evidence, keeps being removed. There was a time when it "the more info the merrier", now it is more the case of "less is best".--Marktreut (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't try discussion. You ignored no less than half a dozen editors telling you to stop trying to add trivial information and original research to articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a fansite, a concept you refuse to acknowledge or accept. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and sock puppetry is never an appropriate response to not getting your way, even if you are clearly and unequivocably in the right (and I am not saying you are). Wikipedia is huge (almost 3 million articles), and there is a huge amount of work to be done - if you are even tempted to edit war and use sockpuppets to try and get your way on an article, you need to step back and look at editing some of the other articles that need attention, to cool down. If that doesn't work, it's time to step away from the entire project for awhile - Wikibreaks never hurt anyone. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Seventh Brother

I've been busting my balls getting this page deleted from every language project it was made on. It appears it's going to be staying at cs, sv, fi, and hu, but simple has a nice little AFD going on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Blech...its a shame the other wikis don't seem to have the same notability guidelines as this one. One reason I guess he is able to get away with as much stuff as he does. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You reverted several edits of mine

I'm not sure if you checked the history of the article The Joy of Painting before you reverted 11 of my edits (which took a long to hunt out links for!). I had actually gone through the links which were ambiguous and found the proper painting context for 8 of them -- the particular technical paints they were referring to (eg., "Phthalocyanine Green G," "Cadmium pigment," etc), and where not available, the specific colour, rather than the general colour [[1]]. I also added a link in the lead to speed painting (an article which does need a good cleanup, I admit). I'm not sure why you reverted all 11 edits if you didn't like the two redlinks (your edit summary: rv; excessive red links). I had simply redlinked those because I thought it appropriate under redlinking conventions on Wikipedia: two of the paints did not have appropriate articles, but I assumed someone more experienced/knowledgeable in this area could add them as subsections to other articles -- as I had linked, for example, Crimson#Alizarin_crimson -- but not to give them article of their own. I will revert the article to my edits and remove those two redlinks which you disagreed with, though I still do not agree two redlinks is "excessive". Peace and Passion (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You added a lot of red links and some seemed off, but rechecking i see that some were for specific colors rather than unrelated articles. Thanks for further discussing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and consideration. Peace and Passion (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Question concerning editing on behalf of banned users.

Dear AnmaFinotera,

I don't wish to be an advocate for OTF, let's him defend himself alone if he wants.

But the question of policies is of much interest for me.

I've read the Wikipedia:Banning policy#Editing on behalf of banned users (and the respective case) and it looks to me that the policy doesn't suppose that harsh actions in cases like that we have with OTF.

I would like to explain, why I think so. The policy reads: "for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus". Definitely, these were not are purposes of OTF. Despite he initially edited by request of the banned user, his edits were verifiable, and justified by his own interests and views (which correlate with the banned user's ones). (It wasn't evident that the cartoon is not notable enough.) Definitely, OTF is not a user that falls under definition "new users who engage in the same behavior as a banned or blocked user in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose".

Summing up, I would like to stress, that the policy, as I read it, is to avoid bad edits, not to ban for talking with violators itself. The policy doesn't forbid to make definitely good edits, as far as I see.

Frankly, I'm a bit concerned because I think that extending harsh policies outside their intended scope is very, very dangerous. And, as I see now, the actions (mostly not yours!) against OTF outreach the limits supposed by the policy...

So I would be happy to discuss with you in order to get a clear picture! Thank you in advance! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 03:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC) PS. I would like to stress that my goal is not to unblock OTF (let's him resolve his issues himself), my goal is to get a clear view on the specific policy and its enforcement in order to decide whether or not we need to change anything in Ru-Wiki.

I'm not an admin. I did not ban him, though I support it. He edited for a multi time vandal, nothing else. His claims that he was doing it on his own are not supported by the fact that he hadn't edited here in a long time before this incident, nor had he shown any interest in the topic. He was also asked and warned repeatedly to stop, and he ignored it and continued acting on behave of the sock. His edits were not "verifiable" they were direct copy/pastes of content Bambifan101 wanted here that contained, primarily, original research, and were not appropriate editions to those article. He knew what he was doing, its as simple as that. The policy clearly says "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user". The policy has not reached beyond its intended scope, it speaks exactly to situations like this. OTF knew full well that Bambifan101 was banned from editing here and had engaged in sockpuppetry. He agreed to make edits for this user at this Wikipedia against policy and without bothering to question the validity or correctness of the actions. He has yet to apologize for violating policy, and instead moved to hide continued communications with the banned user indicating his intention to continue editing for him. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:OckhamTheFox and Bambifan101 for the discussion regarding this and the decision to reban him by neutral administrators. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Saw this discussion, and will comment. Two points:

1. The policy clearly says the test has two prongs: they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. OTF can do neither: his changes are not verifiable, and it isn't an area that he seems likely to have an independent reason to make changes.
2. He's blocked indefinitely, not infinitely. If he would admit that he had done wrong, demonstrate that he understood our policies, and agreed to follow them, he would probably be unblocked.—Kww(talk) 04:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan101 sock?

I posted this on PMDrive1061's talk, but he is on wikibreak. I don't want to accuse anyone of sockpuppeting, but Ableblood369 (talk · contribs) has begun to ask me to make "mos cleaning to [ The Fox and the Hound ] when protection expires". It seems a lot like what former Bambifan socks would ask me. BOVINEBOY2008 15:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's him. This[2] is signature Bambifan. Needs blocking and a lot of reverting as he's been busy. Likely waited till I was asleep then saw that I was blocked and figured he'd get a lot done in a short time. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I love that he asked you to do MoS cleaning, considering it actually is following the MoS now (as opposed to his versions). :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101.—Kww(talk) 21:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he made plenty of mess before he was blocked again. Hope it has all been cleaned back up? Argh! Quite awhile back, he actually made a post to a talk page and put my signature on it![3] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he also managed to sneak in another sock User:Cody is Awesome! that got missed before. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Fifth Element - IMDB Ratings

Hey there, Hate to be a bother, but I'd appreciate it if you could weigh in on an IP's (repeated) addition of the IMDB rating to this article. I don't see any reason for it to be included, but apparently they feel otherwise.

Thanks! Doniago (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDB ratings should not be included. They are against WP:RS, being only user submitted and ridiculously easy to manipulate. Alas, I'm currently blocked so I can't leave a note for them, but if you check the Film project talk archives, there are very recent discussions upholding the consensus that IMDB ratings are not appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Sorry to hear you got blocked. Doniago (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed-- names problem with a strange twist

Some editors wants you to help us in solving Talk:List_of_Case_Closed_characters#Naming this question: it's not another part of that centuries long saga, but that we can't decide when Funimation and VIZ Media cannot agree on names, which should we use?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As the manga is the primary work, all of the articles should use the English manga names (i.e. Viz). In the character list, the Funimation anime names (and of course original Japanese names), should be noted. In other articles, if necessary add a footnote indicating the name changes. The one exception might be in the anime episode lists, which could use the English anime names for the episode descriptions and have a footnote indicating the manga names as needed. Hope that helps? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Following your report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit-warring at Lupin III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and for belligerently refusing to assume that others are editing in good faith: [4]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. CIreland (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

unblock requests - condensed for smaller page

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AnmaFinotera (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Did not violate 3RR - only reverted 3 times and stopped. Content was also removed by others. Considering he is currently under an SPI and the numerous other issues (easily documentable), I assumed as much good faith as I could, nor should my remarks there be a cause for blocking (no warning and I see nothing uncivil in my remarks). He has done this on NUMEROUS pages, including edit warring with an admin at Characters of The Adventures of Tintin , vandalized (and was blocked for it) List of InuYasha characters when he couldn't add his personal opinions to the piece, and is using IP and named socks to edit in a disruptive manner. Sorry, but there are limits to AGF. You'll also see that AFTER the 3RR warning AND the 3RR report, he reverted a fifth time[5] while I had not reverted again. Yet we both are blocked 24 hours? He continued edit warring with other editors, I left it the hands of the reviewing 3RR admin.

Decline reason:

This wasn't necessarily a 3RR block, rather a block for edit warring, which is disruptive to Wikipedia and warrants a block to prevent further disruption. If you wish to have this short block reviewed again, then please comment less on the other user and instead on why you should be unblocked. See the guide for more details if needed. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AnmaFinotera (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I do not feel that I edit warred. I was trying to help the main editors at Lupin III, who have spent the last 3 weeks working like crazy to help the article retain its good article status. Having inappropriate resources and incorrect information added to the article detracted from this effort. The reverts were done per the consensus on the article talk page, a discussion where we were both participating. If I had not reverted, as one can see, at least two other editors would have. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It was edit warring, this is a valid block. The other party that was edit warring was blocked, and had their unblock request declined as well. Chillum 18:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{Unblock on hold|1=CIreland|2=Edit warring: "when contributors, or groups of contributors, try to impose their view by repeatedly reverting each other's contributions, rather than resolve the disagreement by discussion" - Marktreut edit warred to try to get his way. Per [[WP:EW#WHATISNT]], "repeated posting of confirmed misinformation or repeated large scale removal of content is often considered vandalism". He was posting misinformation. Removing it is valid per [[WP:EW#WHATISNT]] and is NOT edit warring per that policy. If this is now correct, that should be removed. In the discussion on the talk page, he was the ONLY one who agreed that the content belonged. No less than FOUR editors tried to explain why his edits were incorrect, and that his additions made false statements. Again, it would not have mattered if I had reverted or not, and I ceased reverting as soon as I hit 3. I did not revert again after that, he continued to do so. My last revert of his addition was at 20:06. I warned him at 20:10. When he reverted again, I posted the 3RR report and did NOT revert! Two other editors have also reverted his additions both before and after. I attempted to follow policy by ceasing my reverts and warning him (mentally warning myself). It seems clear to me that he would have continued edit warring with the other editors without my being there, until he was blocked. While it is clear that I had stopped reverting to await administrative intervention. Blocks are supposed to be preventative not putative. This is punishing me for behavior that was not on-going nor an issue.|3=[[User:Nja247|Nja247]] ([[User talk:Nja247|talk]])}}

How many unblock requests are you going to make AnmaFinotera? Chillum 18:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Per my understanding, no one will answer if I don't use the template. That is the last one, however, as I know too many uses results in a talk page lock. Even if I feel it is completely unfair, especially when we get the same block when one (me) stopped and tried to follow policy, while the other kept right on doing it by reverting other editors. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not the job of an admin to decide who was right and who was wrong in a content dispute. We can't very well block one party and not another. How would it turn out if people could edit war with someone, then report the person and have them blocked but not be blocked themselves? You did stop, but it seems you did not stop soon enough. Chillum 18:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It would have been prudent to start putting the dispute resolution mechanisms into play as soon as you realised it was elevating into edit war territory, which does not necessarily mean 3RR. From my experience two reverts in a short span without any positive interaction from the other party on talk pages means it's going nowhere. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with the past experience with this user, his steps following dispute resolution efforts have always been fairly useless (attempted several times before, as can be seen on his talk page, my talk page archive, and some other user talk pages). He generally doesn't stop until he is either blocked or threatened with a block or when there are 4-5 editors reverting him. This time, he didn't even seem to care about that. I honestly didn't see the need to do much DR, though, as a single editor disagreeing with consensus isn't a dispute, to me, its one person being obstinate and refusing to accept consensus and to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. At least this block gave me time to do some needed house cleaning. I do hope, at least, that an admin will be watching that page for the next 24 hours. Last time he was blocked, he used socks to continue edit warring and pushing his opinions into articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello AnmaFinotera, would you agree not to edit the article for the remaining duration of the block and to refrain from making remarks that do not assume good faith such as, "Yes, Dandy moved it because unlike you, he is trying to help this article retain its good article status."? If so I will unblock you (or will not object to an unblock should I be unavailable to unblock persoanlly). CIreland (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Presumably this means you will be monitoring the page in question for when Markreut is unblocked/their block expires? It's important the article stays free of dispute to maintain its GA status, and I don't fancy ending up at 3rr for enforcing consensus. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree to that. I normally don't edit that particular article anyway, I only edited them because of the GAR I'm conducting on it and was doing some final clean up. And I apologize for the snippy remark you quoted, though I don't entirely agree I was not assuming good faith, as he has himself indicated that he does not care about an article being a GA/FA/FL in his other edits elsewhere as he doesn't like the "direction" of Wikipedia so he doesn't really agree with existing quality standards. I certainly could have worded it better though and let my annoyance slip through. For that I apologize. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping someone is keeping an eye on all of his edits. His candid and de facto lack of regard for quality and cooperation has been going on forever and it takes too much time to clean up his messes. HaroldPGuy (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

He's actually still editing, just under an IP now[6], making his block fairly null and void. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. In addition to adding OR to an article he edited his own page forgetting he was in as anonip and the ip is from England. HaroldPGuy (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Check user has confirmed he has been socking. Still waiting for further action to occur. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bambi, A Life in the Woods

On July 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bambi, A Life in the Woods, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sweet! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Movesby User: Divod

I am sorry. I promise I'll stop right away! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divod (talk • contribs) 21:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lupin III

Right, I'm actually quite busy at the moment in real life so my wiki editing will become more focused soon. I need to get this GAR finished this weekend otherwise I'm not realistically going to be able to finish it in due time. I've addressed the copyright issues properly, is there anything else missing from reception? Manga reviews are pretty much non existent in reliable sources, the section has been copy edited. Can we pass that part or is it pushing it? That will just leave the lead. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can get the lead fixed up, we can close as a pass. Apparently I'm too tough in my GARs, so my apologies :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

At least I know it's to standard if you are too tough :p Leads aren't my strong point though... Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Getting a lot of flack lately for wanting articles to be up to standard, since apparently the GA standards have been lowered again or something. One other note, on the new addition regarding the copyright issues. Is there any resolution there? Did Monkey Punch have to pay a fine or anything? How did they resolve the issue? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically as stated, the name was changed/dropped for some releases overseas until the copyrights expired. In Japan I think it was judged that the issue was raised after the work had been running for a long time, so it was too late. I haven't seen any claims of fines, or penalties. I'll see if I can improve the language a bit. Ignoring the edit war, hows the lead? Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Better :) Can Quasi quickly given it a CE? If so, once he's done, I'll close the GAR. Good work (and long patience!). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally :p Quasi did ask me to give him a shout when it was done, so I'll do that now :) Back to real life (waiting for a flat apartment application to go through), and Love Hina articles now the rest of the manga is here! Oh, and Evangelion :p Time to dewatch some items I know are in good hands! Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Real life? You mean we have those? *grin* Know the feeling though. My contacts want an LCD break, while I wait for some woodfill to dry on kitchen cabinets I'm repairing. Debating playing some Final Fantasy VIII, but currently on Ultima Weapon...damn thing killed my players so many times last night I was saying a lot of profane words. Not sure I'm ready to torture myself again :P Been working on Bambi, A Life in the Woods myself...just did a massive expansion of it and I'm waiting for some outstanding article requests from the A&M library for more reception info. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've raised the issue over the french name at WT:ANIME as I believe we require a third party, due to the identity of the involved user. On a side note, I never liked FFVIII, I'll take FFVII any time. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I also filed a 3RR on him. I haven't been able to get a copy of FF VII yet, though I plan to. I like VIII well enough, cause Squall is such a anti-hero :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the term you are looking for is "emo" :p The last time I played VIII was 1999, and I started hating it when it got to Esther..... On the otherhand I downloaded VII on the ps3 when it was released a few weeks ago. It still rocks :)

LOL, yep, I have a fondness for that sort of hero, and I do love how they did the visuals. I hate the whole voiceless CGI thing though. After the insane length of Persona 3 FES, this is almost a breeze now :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW after all the BF101/Marktreut/block drama that just rolled over this page ( =P ), I've never had the opportunity to play any of the FF games, though I'd very much like to. Unfortunately, all I have is an Xbox 360, so little chance of that in the near future... =( 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 08:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Awww...though hey, I believe Final Fantasy XIII is supposed to be released on the XBox 360, so you might get your chance then :) Hopefully its better than Final Fantasy XII (which wasn't horrible, just very long and I didn't like the ending as much as with most FFs). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Very long? I finished XII in less time then X (45hrs vs 85hrs), although I probably did more sidequests with X. I find 45hours an average time for most FF's, although I can finish VII in 25hours (although on my current play I'm 11hours in and only just got to Junon) Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, did you skip most of the sidequests? It took me 130 to finish XII! I my recent replay of X-2, it took me around 80/85 hours (damn Via Infinito), and around the same for X, I think. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, and it's coming out spring next year? So I won't have to wait very long! How does it sound versus other FF games, BTW (obviously a bit hard to tell for an upcoming game, but you should be able to at least make some guesses for me)? And I don't think I've had any 40+ hour playthroughs on the 360 (though I've undoubtedly had some on other games; Super Mario 64 probably took over 60 hours for me to collect all 150 start and beat the third Bowser, and then I did it again)... I'm on my third playthrough of Dead Space, with a total game time (yes, between all three playthroughs) of ~35 hours; Mirror's Edge can be breezed through in literally less than an hour (needless to say, I can beat it in my sleep by now ;P ); I beat Devil May Cry 4 after about 20 hours IIRC, and Portal is a lot like Mirror's Edge - short, and very fast gameplay once you're familiar with level design and the like. On the other hand, Mass Effect looks like it might be pretty long (haven't played it much yet), Half-Life 2 is far longer than I expected (and with Episode 1 & 2, looks like it could easily surpass 40 hours), and really don't know on Assassin's Creed, which I haven't gotten around to starting yet. If you want to see more that I didn't feel like bragging telling you about, look over that way (hmm, there seems enough history for me to start some sort of page on the matter, since I'm too lazy to get a blog and brag from there at a handful of people who really wouldn't care XD ). =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So far it looks okay, but the story details are still kinda sketchy. Seems in line with most of them, though. So far I've only had two FFs I didn't find up to par with the rest, being XII and one other IX I think). Of course, I refuse to acknowledge the online versions. :P Will warn you, though, almost all FFs have 60-100+ hour play times if you do all the side quests (almost a requirement for the best weaponry/skills/good ending when they have multiples/etc). You beat DMC 4 in 20 hours? Man, I can't even get through 1 :P Longest game, for me, has been Persona 3 FES with the insane 175 hours to finish both parts. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Kinda sketchy as in, not much detail available for scrutiny, or as in, looks like it might be diverging a bit much from the other games? I'd have to double-check (been forever since I played), but yeah, 20 hours sounds about right. If you want to get into "longest" game, though, pretty much *any* MMORPG takes the cake there, so long as new content is continually released (or if they have random quest generators). Personally, I dabble in RuneScape from time to time. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Kinda sketchy as in not enough detail yet. Most of the Final Fantasy's are unrelated to one another beyond having some common elements (and from what I've seen, at least some of those will continue in the latest iteration). The story is the key, though, for any FF game, and this one only has some basics given for now. :) I don't include MMORPGs when considering longest games, because they never really end it seems LOL. I also don't count strategy games...lord knows I've killed some 20-30 hours on a single scenario in the various Civilization and Age of Empire games. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I've never known if they all tie together plot-wise or not. I have always known, though, that their plots are a huge part of their appeal, which is why I've been wanting to play them so badly. =) Strategy, eh? I really don't have the patience for those (the only two I've ever really played for longer than a couple hours are Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis and Zoo Tycoon (blatantly ignoring the fact that neither is a straight strategy game)); I much prefer to be in the thick of the action. To return to a previous statement, I bothered to look last night, and was slightly shocked to see that I only have ~12 hours of gametime on HL2 so far (it feels like I've played for longer!). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In my Animerica vol 8, issue 4, there is a multi-page spread on Castle of Cagliostro that discusses the movie, including production, the characters including some commentary on how they differ between the film and series, critical commentary on the film, and the inspirations of both the film and series. Trying to get my scanner back online to get a copy since its a lot to go through. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, but I'll be taking a break from lupin articles for a while myself :p Exception would be the soundtrack article, but finding english titles for the albums already listed is proving difficult. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL, figures! Ah well, I'll add a note to the article's talk page later. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the agreement of my unblocking below, I'll close the Lupin III GAR tomorrow evening. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Animanga collaboration

I was going to comment on how we don't seem to have the critical mass necessary to sustain a collaboration (and especially not enough to sustain two), given that the subject hadn't received any further attention after my last comment, but it seems the relevant thread has already slipped, unnoticed, into our archives, which just confirms my assessment. A collaboration is definitely a nice idea, but we unfortunately barely have the interest to even keep all of our current project pages fully up-to-date as it is (same reason we decided against implementing A-Class assessments). It'd be nice if you could coerce politely request volunteers from WP:FILM to come over and offer us a helping hand (and even nicer if a couple decided to stick around and become regular project members). =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 09:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...we're getting stretched to thin, unfortunately and while we have lots of interest in great ideas, it seems like the ideas are often remaining that. *doh* Not sure if any films volunteers would be able to help much except on the actual film articles (which they do now for the "big" ones). While more active, it also suffers from some of the same problems of lots of enthusiasm, great ideas, but only so many hands to do. What might be good is to have our own animanga invite and welcome templates (similar to the film ones) to help recruit members and make them feel welcome (while also gently prodding them into good contributing from the get go by pointing out our MoS and relevant guidelines).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should leave it a few months and then bring it up again. I know I don't have the time at the moment (and im the one who suggested it!), and I think I can now finally get Love Hina to GA, so thats going to be my next focus (although aside from some ref formatting it should be fairly simple) Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

How many new members did you see as a result of the coverage in WP:SIGNPOST? (actually, probably not many, because the Signpost isn't actually very widely read...). And yeah, you've pestered me about making those templates before =) - I'm thinking of making them subpages of a now-nonexistant /Outreach page that can later be created as a hub for most or all member-centric activities, like an actual Members/Participants list to accompany the category, and a newsletter. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a good question...I'd be curious to know that myself. :) Not sure how I'd pull the numbers. Off the cuff, I usually see 1-5 new members listing themselves on the active participant list a week, though how many end up being really active is another whole issue. Newsletter would be good...and I rather like Film's notice box... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

How would such a collaboration be different from the cleanup department's article cleanup? Not to mention that the cleanup department is barely clinging on to live as it is? G.A.S^talk 06:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

More formalized, I'd guess, and with a set time frame and focused one one article, rather than just listing something being worked on and hoping others help out? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, from the sounds of it. We really need some more fresh meat new members to fill our ranks better, and breathe some new life into our project. A subject as popular as anime and manga, you'd think people would be crawling over each other to join up and help out - and then you realize, most fans with the inclination and expertise to edit are just here for one particular series or something. =P 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

*huffy british colonel voice* I beg your pardon, but I resemble that last remark. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So I've noticed (though you don't resemble it as much as some new editors; you actually edit pretty far outside your declared "territory", and quite frequently at that ;) ). Rest assured that I didn't have you in mind when I was writing that. =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Retiring Sock Puppet User:Divod2

I had accidentally created User:Divod2 before I knew sock puppets weren't allowed. As I don't need it or want it, i would like to ask you to help me retire it. Thanks! Divod (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Alas, you can't delete and account once its created. Since you did so by accident, you can just set that user's page to redirect to your actual account and then just not use it anymore. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that there are cases where using an alternate account is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of alternate accounts for more information. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page reformating

Give your previous involvement with this issue, I figured you may like to know about this discussion. (Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Reformatting) --Farix (Talk) 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Winxloverthoimaman

Hello. Regarding your AIV report for Winxloverthoimaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), can you show me which edits are copyright violations, and where they are copyright violations from? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They are a mix of summaries from TV.com, fansites, and the booklets that came with the episode box set. Its not the first time that sets been added which makes me suspect a sock or something. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Without specifics on the copyvios or a definitive sock match, I do not think I can in good faith block the account at this time. Hopefully the article protection will give him or her pause. If the editor persists, please let me know. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

InuYasha

Please revert your edit. Read WP:HEB. This is exactly like BeTipul, HaShminiya, HaPijamot, HaShidur HaMefutzal, HaAh HaGadol, HaMerotz LaMillion, Esti HaMekho'eret, Shel Mi HaShura HaZot?... Edenc1 • Talk 18:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It says "Use the Standard Anglicized name." and reminds you that "Some topics may have several common widely-accepted English transliterations". This is a company name and the article us using the common Anglicized name for it. Nor does that guideline say to ignore other guidelines regarding casing. Your examples are all television series, not channels and companies, which have different guidelines. Thanks -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. Could you look at this revision here for the article Naruto: Ultimate Ninja (series)? The user is doing this in good faith but I think he has been ignoring my comments about that site not being a good source to prove that an English release of that game is coming. I'm not sure what to do about him. Also, I've been reverting edits like those everyday, so do you think I am able to request protection on that page now? DragonZero (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just note that there are a lot of problems lately with IP/new editors adding rumors and unsourced content regarding the upcoming game. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Hey there! I come to ask some help. The Mickey's House of Villains is being target of apparent vandalism, as there is one or more IPs adding a unsourced list of characters, most of which obviously do not appear in the film, and some others that are invented. Those IPs have also added sections of "animals" and "servers". Could you protect the page please? --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so I can't protect a page, but I filed a request for you at WP:RPP :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What? I always thought you were an admin =) hehe but well, thanks a lot!! --LoЯd ۞pεth 17:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The request was denied. Said to use warning templates for the vandals and AIV first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Care to fire up AWB?

Hey, User:Jonverve briefly used a template for his signature. After telling him that it's against policy and asking him to change it, he agreed to do so, and now the signature template needs to be substituted and deleted. I figured you could take care of the substitution with AWB; all that's needed is for the template call {{User:Jonverve/sig2}} to be replaced with {{subst:User:Jonverve/sig2}} - a list of transclusions can be found at the usual place. After this, you can place {{db-userreq}} on the template to get it deleted, and if I'm around, I'll get right to it. Thanks in advance! 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 09:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, though I won't be able to do it until this evening :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ended up coming home early due to a massive chemical fire resulting in large-scale evacuations (I came home instead of going south like I was supposed to...wee). All done :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that sounds like fun... Page deleted, thanks for your help! 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Bryan, Texas

Hi, just letting you know that you're on three reverts at Bryan, Texas. Next one is a violation of WP:3rr; please use the talk page for discussion instead of edit warring. Artichoker^[talk] 00:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah yeah yeah, let's put false info even though its obviously wrong. Sometimes WP:IAR is all about common sense. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:IAR should be used very sparingly. In this case, I am going to take the Los Angeles Times version of the events over yours. False or not, it's verifiable. To quote the very first sentence of WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Also, I reverted this edit as it was entirely unsourced and directly contradicted the source already given. Artichoker^[talk] 00:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but obviously sources disagree. I've added the sources and no offense, but local news and the city itself is obviously a better source than some paper from LA. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to apologize. As long as the information is sourced, there's no problem. Cheers, Artichoker^[talk] 00:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My edit to InuYasha the Movie: The Fire on the Mystic Island

I did not mean for that edit to be vandalism. I'm sorry for the edit I made to that article. Abby 82 (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Cross Game ready?

IYHO, is it ready for a GAN? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep My only two questions would be is there any production info available (guessing no?) and does the character section really add anything above/beyond the plot?  :) Also, does setting really need to be separate when its only like 2 lines? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing productionwise has turned up -- not even a producer's blog. The two character entries discuss the characterizations of Ko and Aoba, including some third-party reviewer interpretations, so I'd say yes it does have non-plot material. As for the setting, I can take or leave that as is; Nihonjoe seems attached to it. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps August update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. 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) 19:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Demographic links

Allright sure I will add the italic and youre welcome, always good to make another's work easier for them when you can =). Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Another grammatical problem

Did you read or watched the Fullmetal Alchemist series? There is something that is confusing me. How should be written? "homunculi" or "Homunculi". Although the Homunculus article for the original concept does not use capital, various FMA articles use capitals. Sorry for bothering ^_^. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be homunculi with the lowercase, as it is not a proper noun but a species name. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked a similar question on chiroperan vs. Chiropteran on Blood+ waaay back when. It's the same basic idea. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan

Hi AnmaFinotera, what's the story with Bambifan101? I found his original userpage and just dealt with the report on AIV. I think I may have heard about him last year, but don't remember exactly why he was banned or what his usual tactics are. I'm happy to help out since I'm probably going to be more active on RC and vandalism patrol for a while, so could you give me some information? Thanks. Academic Challenger (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

He's been active for about 2 years now, I'd guess. He targets various Disney articles, and occasionally other cartoons, and sometimes hits articles from my recent contribs just to get attention. He also tends to vandalize talk pages. He has, to date, well over 200 named and IP socks on record. There is a fairly good summary of his activities and history at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Bambifan101. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see my note regarding your requests for protection. Essentially if one user is causing the trouble then report them to the appropriate noticeboard for blocking. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, this guy has over 200 socks and the only way to stop the trouble is by protecting the articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocking the socks as they're found is more effective and less disruptive. I personally watch a handful of articles that are targets of socks with close to this many known puppets. I block the sock on sight. Maybe an admin who's followed this for a while should do the same here. It may not be the best solution, but locking out all IP editors and new accounts is not the solution against one person either. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Its the solution that has been employed for the last 1+ year of actively fighting this kid. If you'd like to watch all 100+ articles he targets and become intimately familiar with him enough to recognize him on site, by all means, join the fight. However, he has managed to trick experienced editors here into editing for him as well as a Russian Wikipedia admin, in addition to the numerous socks. Rangeblocks have been tried, filters, abuse reports, etc. The only thing that has worked consistently is to lock every article he targets. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the situation, but I don't think protecting pages with one or two edits by a sock that is going to be blocked within hours (or minutes) isn't necessarily the solution. Now if the article were hit daily by the sock and there wasn't an admin actively watching to revert and block, that'd be different. I don't wish to get into a drawn out discussion on this, but honestly, if I had protected the two articles you listed, what good would it had really done as the IP was blocked and there's no history of long term severe abuse to those pages? Nja²⁴⁷ 13:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You did notice that he'd hit it twice in one day from different IPs, right? And yes, there is a history of long term abuse on those pages - abuse that stopped when they were protected. Soon as the protection expired, he hit it again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

I made a mistake by "blanking" the previous editor's comments, so I appreciate that you pointed that out to me. However, I really don't understand why it was important to you to remove the "collapse" template, especially since this is a convention I've seen employed on many talk pages.

The version resulting from your last edit is quite illegible, so I'm going to revert it to my version. If you have strong feelings about proper presentation in talk pages, I hope you'll take into account that I've spent many weeks laboring over this proposal and I would like it to be presented in a legible format that doesn't make me look stupid.

If you are going to revert this again, please send me a direct email explaining why. Thanks. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 05:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing the previous conversation disrupts the conversation and is unnecessary. Just restate your proposal if you feel the need to, or just respond to the last post with your clarifications. Attempting to restart the conversation seems wasteful and makes it annoying. Collapsing is generally reserved for very long conversations, which this was not. I have reverted it and sectioned off your new post since you seem to desire to just start over rather then actually answer the questions asked in a discussion format. Quite honestly, the lack of legibility has nothing to do with the original being collapsed or not, but with the proposal itself which still makes little sense. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Well, this is where the people at the help page told me to post. If you can suggest a better place, I'd appreciate it. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 05:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Your post is seriously concerning me. Please tell me you did NOT create 1000+ articles by stealing content from a public domain source? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand, what's the problem? These are high quality articles, and they violate no policies. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 15:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Erosion index

• Farm operating loans

• Farm equity

• Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990

• Food and Agriculture Act of 1977

• Food Safety Institute of the Americas

• Forest Land Enhancement Program

• Forest plans

• Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994

• Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9

• Global Food for Education Initiative

High quality?? In what fantasy? They are stubs, half of which are unnotable dictionary terms and of no real value at all. They are useless and certainly not high quality. You've done nothing but stolen "public" content and shoved it over here as if that improved anything. Blech. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Universe of Kingdom Hearts

I don't remember; it does seem to be short on citations, as well as use too many pictures and focus too much on in-universe detail. I'll see if anyone as WP:SE wants to fix it. --PresN 18:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay...well, if you had properly reviewed them, there should be a GAR page for them...but none of those have them. It seems to me then that these need to be removed from your list as having been reviewed and put back in the worklist. I'm also checking on this with the coordinator of Sweeps as they clearly have not been "swept". Also, per my note, I do not believe you should conduct the GAR on these articles as you are an active contributor to them, which makes you ineligible to review them.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say relist them if no actual review was performed. If a review did end up taking place, then bringing them to GAR would be the best option. If PresN is one of the active editors for the article than he can initiate a community GAR, as this will allow multiple editors to take a look. However, somebody else should provide an independent single GAR if a community consensus isn't needed, so if no community GAR is started then they should be relisted for another Sweeper to take a look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No reviews were done on any of them. He has now started an individual reassessment on the UKH, of a sort, at Talk:Universe of Kingdom Hearts/GA1, however it really isn't a helpful review, basically saying I urged him to do it so he's doing it. I'll take a look and post a fuller review on it. I've put the other three back in the worklist.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I have started a GAR for the article, and I'll update the sweeps list to reflect this. I would dispute the 'active contributor' tag- I've never once edited the article, or spent any time on any Kingdom Hearts article. In fact, I had not edited any of the articles I passed as part of sweeps before I reviewed them. --PresN 18:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that I also left a message about it at WP:SE. --PresN 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Except, you never reviewed any of them, and its clear you are a very active editor in the FF articles (and you are right, this one article you had not edited), leading one of those article's peer review and so forth. You still really haven't even reviewed Universe of Kingdom Hearts, you only parroted a short note I stated. Did you not read the process of Sweeps at all? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now posted a fuller GAR review to the UKH article so anyone interested in helping it retain its GAR status has a better idea of the problems that need fixing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Does editing similarly themed articles invalidate you from doing GARs now? I suppose you'll need to stop both writing and reviewing anime and manga articles then. None of the four articles in question has had a peer review either, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. And yes, I did read the sweeps process. Universe of KH was clearly a mistep- the article is not up to scratch, I agree- but the original purpose of sweeps was to run through the pre-2007 list in an attempt to make sure that all GAs were up to 2007 standards. It was born out of a series of mini-sweeps that focused on rapid-fire delistings of articles that should never have been promoted, even by the standards of the day. The fact that it has taken 2 years to get through the list means that while it has had a great effect on the older GAs, there are now over 1000 articles that need to be looked at from 2007-2008, and hundreds of 'swept' articles that were looked at 2 years ago according to 2007 standards that don't match 2009 standards. If the purpose has been retroactively changed to be "perform full GARs on every older GA" then that's fine- all GAs are open to GAR at any time, and you can go ahead and review them if you'd like. I, however, think that we should try to finish this thing off before 2010, lest we make even more of a mockery of it.

I've already corrected myself to note you had not edited the KH articles, but you have edited and are heavily involved in the Final Fantasy ones. And I do not do reviews on an anime/manga article that I am involved in. Also, of course there isn't a longer review notice at Universe of KH- it takes time to do those things, and if I threw it up in 2 minutes I'd be just as guilty of screwing up as I was in improperly listing it as done in the first place. --PresN 18:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The sweeps has a clear process which does including doing a proper, full review or at least noting that it was reviewed. You did not do this. You seemed to have just said "passed" and moved on. That is not doing a proper sweep. Going through and just passing anything without a proper review does not help the Sweeps effort, it just gives the false impression the articles still meet GA criteria when often they do no. Sweeps is NOT to make sure the articles were up to 2007 standards, its to make sure they are up to CURRENT GA standards. Again, I ask, have you actually read the process that is to be followed for doing sweeps? You have only noted that you've done 6, of which we now see that 4 were not actually reviewed (even you yourself can't "remember" reviewing them and left no evidence behind that you had, in fact, done so). And, in case it is not clear, yes you are supposed to do a proper individual GAR on ever article you review. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In 2007, 'current' standards were '2007' standards. I agree that as it is now 2009, we review articles according to 2009 standards. Please see American popular music and Music of Barbados, two articles reviewed in the very first month of sweeps (August 07)- both were passed, one with no comment, one with just a "passed" comment. Arguing that doing the same thing now "does not help the Sweeps effort" leads me to believe that we might as well ignore all reviews done before May, when the process was kickstarted- if you feel that when sweeps is finished in a few months that the whole list will be up to 2009 standards, then you are sorely mistaken (though those 2 articles look fine). To restate- sweeps' purpose was to make sure that everything on the GAlist would pass at GAN if it were renominated. It has since morphed into a list of articles that are likely to need a full GAR to be brought up to scratch, and requires that full GAR for every article. The fact that we kept the same 'done' list for both versions of sweeps means that the stated purpose for both versions is now rubbish, and that saying that my actions are "against the purpose of sweeps" is also rubbish. If you would like the articles to receive a full review, go ahead, but don't go on a grand crusade about the "rules" of sweeps. --PresN 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, obviously you are not paying any actual attempt to the CURRENT standards of Sweeps which does require a full review, period. That is how it is done. That is part of making sure anything on the list would still pass if renominated. If you can't be bothered to actually followed the stated process, don't participate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

SPI case

I made an SPI case for the latest Bambifan IP socks, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bambifan101. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, though the second two in your list have already been confirmed and blocked in the last SPI filing :) the 130, definitely him.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP range is fairly close to one another, maybe they can block the /24 range for a little while to stop him from IP hopping. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Will keep my fingers cross. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Themes sections

There is something I have been wondering about these section. Are they referenced with comments from the author or with third-party source such as reviews? I was thinking of making one for Gin Tama since the series is episodic and there are already many themes I saw that in various reviews such as the parodies to Weekly Shōnen Jump. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Themes can be sourced by both, just not the work itself. So if the author states their theme was X, that is usable, and it reviews say the theme was Y its also usable. Can make for very good sections when you can have both rather than one or the other :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Done it. I don't know if it's okay. Could you check it and give your opinion?Tintor2 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a great start :) Nicely sourced and covers both sides well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Takayoshi Tanimoto

I've just declined (and removed) the speedy deletion tag you placed on the above-captioned article. It seemed to me as though this individual meets criterion #10 of WP:MUSIC, in that he's performed three or four theme songs for anime television programmes. However, it seems from the contents of your talk page that you're more familiar with this area of entertainment than am I; is there something you know that I don't? If you have any questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also per 10 "if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article" - and this is his only claim. There is also no reliable sources about this person beyond confirming he a song from a soundtrack. AfD may be more appropriate though. Thanks. Is it just me or does WP:MUSIC conflict with [{WP:ENTERTAINER]]?) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I did look at #10, and since I interpreted "only claim" as being for a single programme, and the article claimed that it was for three or four different programmes, I rather thought that was sufficient to assert sufficient notability. I tried to translate it into terms with which I'm more familiar and figured analogously that if a singer had sung a song used as background in a single episode of, say, CSI, that wouldn't meet it, but three or four different programmes would; and as near as I could tell, this individual is credited for what I think of as the theme songs. However, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to assess most of the citations that would be available for these programmes since I don't read Japanese. I haven't looked at WP:ENTERTAINER in some time, but now that you mention it, I will. What are your wishes here? Would you like to initiate an AfD, or add a PROD tag, or perhaps that I restore the article with a speedy tag and let someone else decide? I'm happy to consult with you in this area where it seems I'm a little out of my knowledge area, and thanks for taking the time to work with me to improve my understanding. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. In #10, I found "(But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)" and figured that since it would be impossible to redirect to four different articles that that was likely to denote sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. But again, I'm not sure of the intricacies of anime; these might all be one programme for all I know. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) No worries :) I did an AfD so it can be discussed further. And now that I've relooked at Entertainer, it looks like it now points to music. Interesting change. Be nice if these were broadcast :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you're right to take it to AfD and I do appreciate your extra effort in doing that. Yes, I looked at WP:ENTERTAINER too and it seems to just off-load responsibility to WP:MUSIC. Well, I've learned a new word today, Anison. <sigh -- the Japanese seem to make 'em up as fast as I can figure 'em out, but I am the envy of my middle-aged coterie for being able to discuss things like cosplay with any degree of assurance>. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious

I'm curious as to an aspect of your recent review and promotion of Cross Game as a GA. In the review, you wrote: "Production info would be nice, but thus far isn't available so is as broad as can be." I was quite surprised to see you passed the article without a shred of production info, as I was under the impression you believed that a production section is so essential to an article's completeness, that no article would be able to be a GA without one. I am curious as to what is your take on this now, and as to why the change in (personal?) policy on reviewing GAs. I was also confused on what you meant by "so is as broad as can be".--十八 02:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I still do believe this as I feel this is part of meeting the GA criteria for broadness and completeness, however I think I've always balanced this by acknowledging that information that just isn't available can't be included (and if at some point I did not, I'll apologize in advance). I was already aware that this particular series has no published/released production information to speak of from earlier discussions, so I could not hold it against the article for not having it as it doesn't exist for Wikipedia purposes. If an article has no production information but such information was actually available, then I would not pass the article without it being included. I am also attempting to be less strict in my reviewing of GAs due to the recent issues of being heavily chastised for being "stricter" than the actual GA criteria requires. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that explains something, but coming from you, it's still strange. It's no secret you're a strict reviewer, it's a part of the package of working with you (as I myself have found out first-hand on multiple occasions) but that is not your fault, nor is it a fault in the system. I always likened your reviews as closer to what A-class (or nearly FA-class) requirements asked for, but knowing full well that I cannot argue with you without 1) The possibility of one of us losing our cool and 2) Knowing just how difficult it is to compromise with you, I have as-of-late opted not to do anything of the sort, and just meekly go along with it. You may have noticed that while I may have brought up certain concerns over your review as recently as the Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl GAR, I did not contest them, knowing that the faster the GAR gets done with, the better. You've never been one to compromise in my experience, and indeed, I do not believe I've ever compromised over anything with you, nor have I won any arguments, despite the fact that I've offered to compromise as early as some of our first heated encounters at Kino's Journey and Ballad of a Shinigami, the latter of which, mind, is the second-highest on my list.

What does all this mean? Okay, you are strict, but I agree that it was doing good on Wikipedia, especially when you consider that the GAs you have large-in-part passed are much closer to being A or even FA class than most GAs out there. However, that does not discount the fact that you certainly have been rocking the boat quite a bit, still quoting guidelines as if they were policy and using such language as "violating" in regards to such guidelines as you did with the Cross Game review: "Its very short length violates WP:Layout regarding subsections.", which I still feel is one of the reasons it is so difficult to not only argue with you, but also reach a compromise, even if any compromise, if reached, will invariably be more lopsided in your favor, or so I've come to experience myself.

Further, this whole thing also makes me think of all the GANs or GARs you reviewed which you failed based on your strict qualifications, especially your very early bold delisting of Air which I still feel a bit resentful for to this day, bolstered even more by the fact that if you had even given me the chance of the 7 day holding period, I know I would have improved it to your standards, but you didn't even give me a chance. I personally believe the bold delisting sub policy is not there to be used this way. It should only be used in certain circumstances when you know that either 1) The GA review which caused the article to be a GA was most certainly flawed or biased or 2) You know no one is going to come calling and try to improve the article back to an improved GA quality in the 7 day time. And then even if case 2 is the case, I still think that a polite notice and 7 day holding period is the least that editors can do as a sign of common courtesy to not only the editors that originally got the article up to GA, but the original GA reviewer, and any other editors that, if had being even given the chance, might have improved the article in the 7 day holding time. Just to be clear, I am not resentful that you originally delisted the Air article, I'm resentful that you didn't give me a chance. As it is, the article became a GA about one month after the delisting, but that brings me back to my original thought which started this extra paragraph.

If you hadn't been so strict in your GA reviews in the past, would some of those GANs and GARs you failed passed? The recent Cross Game review had me curious as to this theory, especially since you yourself now admit to trying to "be less strict" in your GA reviews. I just have one question: Why the change of heart? Even while I do not profess to know you, it does not seem like something you would do, even against some of the most oppressive opposition. I doubt you would have done all the things you've done on Wikipedia, which have caused you to have your own user pages to be semi-protected indefinitely due to constant vandalism, if you were not doing something you did not believe was right or for the good of the community. I mean, you cannot honestly believe that becoming less strict in GA reviews is going to be good for the community, do you? Maybe I've just had a different opinion of you until now, but you can't really blame me considering our past experience together.--十八 02:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite true on our part arguments, and, in a way, one thing that has always saddened me in editing because I believe we both butt(ed) heads because we both are quite dedicated to improving the project, particularly anime/manga articles, and our disagreements often seemed to come about over relatively minor issues and my own admitted stubbornness. I have no intentions of being obstinate, and dislike that I have such a reputation for never ever compromising (despite feeling I have done so at times, even if its reluctantly). As for my using language such as violating, I really do not mean to use it in an off-putting way, its just the term that comes to mind and I hate just saying "failed" over and over. I guess I could say "goes against the guideline x" but violating is shorter and, to me, means the same thing. If you have any ideas on better wording I could use, feel free to let me know. I do believe some guidelines need to be more strongly adhered to than others, though, and as such I do tend to quote them with the same level of...hmm, can't think of a good word, "strength?" as I would some policies.

Probably far too late, but I do regret the entire Air debacle and my, at the time, misunderstanding how individual GARs worked (and the lack of clarity at the time which has since been corrected). And I agree, I should have given the normal seven day wait time and given the article a better chance. For whatever it may be worth, I am truly sorry. That said, it is the only one of the GARs from that time period that I would do differently if I could turn back time. I was glad (and happy for you) when it was relisted later. I also no longer do individual GARs in that manner, except for making a similar mistake at Sailor Moon recently, in which I was called to task for my GA reviewing methodology. On the whole, I do still stand by my previous GANs and GARs, particularly those from the last year or so. I do not believe most of the GARs would have passed, as many went unaddressed. Do I believe my stricter reviews, as a whole, helped the articles, their projects, and the community - yes. As you noted, many of those articles I have passed are near FAC quality, even if many have never been taken in that direction. Do I believe being less strict will be good for the community? No, not really, but I'm also older, I'm tired, and I'm sick of being seen as some evil person for trying to do what I felt was right by the article, which always comes first to me, and for apparently being too harsh and too unyielding to be of use to anyone but a few hardy souls who somehow manage to tolerate me even while noting I'm stubborn. :) I came to Wikipedia out of a love of writing and researching and a desire to apply those skills to helping improve articles on topics of interest to me. To steal your own words, I'll just "meekly go along with" the minimal desired rather that going overboard and adjust my reviewing style appropriately. In the end, I'll likely reduce my reviewing all together, unless asked or where I think I can do a review that will not be too controversial (which I'd hoped Cross Game would be, but alas was not). As for what prompts this change: the Sailor Moon issue, the Air issue to a lesser degree, my own continued attempts to be a proper Wikipedia citizen, and perhaps changes in my own personal life over the last year or two that required me to make a paradigm shift in how I think and work in my professional career. Hard to put a finger on it really...but that's the best answer I can come up with. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's actually kind of funny what happened with Air, and I'd like to make something clear. Back when I first joined Wikipedia, the Air article was one of the first I edited. About 3 months after joining Wikipedia (when I was still hugely inexperienced in the art of article building) there was this huge dispute over that article between User:White Cat (at the time he was known as User:Cool Cat) who butted heads with User:Ned Scott which left the article and it's associated many articles in utter shambles for about six months. I also took part in the argument, but was mainly just rooting for Ned and taking his side, he being more experienced. The whole thing was so bad, I neglected the article for those six months until finally I was sure I could build up the article up to GA (as enough time had passed, and I had gained more experience on Wikipedia). Shortly after the article got to GA and everything seemed fine and in the past, who should reappear but Cool Cat who started refactoring the episode list, and re-creating separate episode and character lists had had since been phased out and merged. Ned got back into the argument and things fizzled out again for a few more months. Then Cool Cat comes back a third time, again trying to recreate the episode articles, which again were stopped by Ned and myself. This probably was sometime around the time you joined Wikipedia. Then I met you, we butted heads, and you delisted Air about a month after that. Some of the resentment was from the old history I had had with that article. It was like "what, again?" so it probably hit me harder than if it had been anything else. I've gotten over it though, even though the memory of all of the bad things associated with this article has still left a bad taste in my mouth. In comparison, I still hold a huge resentment for Cool Cat, and could never work with him. I like working with you though, when we agree on things.--十八 04:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why does that conflict sound familiar? If I'd know that before, I suspect I'd have probably run from that article too ;-) And thanks, I like working with you too :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As I was writing the account, I had the sneaking suspicion that I've told you this all before. :P Anyway...

十八 wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

--十八 19:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The continuing Bambifan101 saga

I am SO sick of this little jerk and I about blew a gasket when I saw he'd come right back to The Fox and The Hound the minute the block lifted. It's now under permanent semi-protection. I swear, I am just about to fire off a letter to the Foundation over this. It has to stop. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...he apparently is off at his grandparents or something. Someone IP blocked that range for the duration of his visit at least. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Man this sockpuppet never stops does he? *sigh* – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope...you'd think eventually he might grow up or something. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeeeeah. I was looking through his sockpuppets and one of them said "AnmaFinotera Is Crazy." Wow. I think it might be the other way around... – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 19:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

-meaning, that Bambifan is the crazy one. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Lion King Character clean up

Sorry for the other day; I really did not in anyway mean to undo your comment on the discussion page, I give you my word. I was extremely tired and I meant to hit edit instead of undo. I must have been oblivious to the confirmation afterwards, and everything else for that matter. It had been an extremely long and terrible couple of days and I was running on fumes. That in no way excuses the accident, its just an explanation for them. Once again, I apologizeLargoss (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit on resident evil extinction page.

i wanted to get your opinion on my editing of the resident evil extinction article and see if i have contributed or done something wrong. (Cepreeper 19:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

So far, you are doing fine :) I did undo your last edit, though, as we generally avoid putting in the lead. If you want some tips for addressing some of the articles problems, I'd suggest reading WP:MOS-FILMS, which is the guideline that discusses how a film article should be arranged and what content is desirable. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Kenji Yamamoto

Hey we were discussing your reverts on the talk page. I thought you might want to weigh in. Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No Country for Old Men

Hi Anma, it seems you have been involved at some point in editing No Country for Old Men (film) (if not, feel free to ignore this). I left a bunch of cleanup suggestions at Talk:No Country for Old Men (film)#Plot rewrite and would appreciate your input if you have time. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but my only contribution was minor trying to help with a discussion. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. I just saw your name mixed up with that of the user who reverted me last time I tried to edit that page, so I figured maybe you weren't an aactive editor there. Thanks anyway! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Content in character lists

Hi again! I wanted to get some feedback on creating character list articles. I'm following the structure of the list of Tokyo Mew Mew characters (which you wrote) while rewriting the list of Last Exile characters. Particularly, I'm wondering about the appropriate amount of plot content that can be included. So far, I've completed the lead to the Silvana section and the Alex Row section. If you could check to see whether those are appropriate, it would be much appreciated, along with any other tips you may have. Thanks! Arsonal (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

See also: List of Naruto characters

During the peer review it was mentioned that plot detail should only be included to provide contect.

Personally, I find the "Silvana" lead a bit short as it includes no information about the crew, only information about the ship. Alex's section seems a bit short as well, see List of Naruto characters#Naruto Uzumaki for instance (especially since much of Alex's content is out of universe (I never thought I would say that—it is usually quite the opposite))

You may also consider using {{anime voices2}} instead of {{anime voices}}, as is done in the current FLs. It flows better with the text and I find {{anime voices}} to be distracting.

G.A.S^talk 05:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I will take that as a compliment. :) I'm going to try and trim as much as I can for now to see what I'm working with because in my view, adding in-universe information is much easier than trying to trim them. I was concerned with overdoing in-universe information due to the high degree of interaction among the characters. I will also try to conform to using something similar to the protagonist/antagonist format. (I assume this is the norm?) Thanks! Arsonal (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for a more appropriate out of universe method of organizing the lists, the switch to protagonist/antagonist/supporting is key :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia (and the cookies). The links you provided, along with the WikiProject Anime and manga page, have answered any questions I have had thus far. I suspect I may need some additional guidance when I start trying to clean up the Fushigi Yuugi episode summary page after I finish writing the episode summaries (I'm writing them as I watch the series).

Deathagent (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem and glad to hear it. The FY list has been on "to do" for ages, but I just haven't been able to find the time to rewatch to do the summaries. I look forwarding to seeing more and once there in, I'll be glad to assist with cleaning up, doing the lead work/sourcing, and prepping for FLC. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Corrections

I just finished watching the anime Princess Tutu. I then went to it's page on wikipedia. When on that page I noticed that through out the entire Princess Tutu section, the main character was misnamed. I do not have a wikipedia account and I don't know how to cite, but I edited the name anyway to the correct name. The name on the page was listed as "Duck". The main characters name is "Ahiru". Japanese words do not always translate exactly into their meaning. To leave Ahiru's name listed as Duck would be like going into the Naruto page and changing it so that everywhere instead Naruto it said "whirlpool". "Whirlpool wanted to rescue Sasuke." sounds stupid and is wrong. That is the same as "Duck and Fakir fell in love". I'm telling you this because when I edited it it told me you reverted it. If you could somehow fix the page so it says"Ahiru" instead of "Duck" I would be grateful. If you have to you can confirm what I said on a differnt site. I am sure that I am right, and that as a moderator I can trust you to fix this. Thank You very much. SAM.

My first thought when I read the bit about "Duck" was "vandalism"! Lucky for me, I kept reading. ;) In any case, are you sure the character wasn't renamed "Duck" in the English dub/sub? If it was, that would be justification for reverting your edits as vandalism, especially since you didn't provide edit summaries on any of your edits. And just so you know, Wikipedia doesn't have moderators, although regular, experienced editors (such as AnmaFinotera) occasionally do act as moderators, as situations require. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Her name is Duck per the official English versions (both sub and dub), not Ahiru. I'm guessing you did not watch an official legal version (no comment), which may be why you did not realize this. The article needs no correction as it is correct. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Summary length

Just wondering what the recommended length of a manga summary is. 400 words? Extremepro (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, about 200-400 words per volume. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

List of InuYasha characters

Seeing that this article has had lots of vandalism and nonsense edits and all your efforts to revert them, I requested page protection and got it protected for 1 year. The last protection only lasted one week at the end of June but the IP vandalism and nonsense edits just kept coming after that based on the edit history. Happy editing! :) Momo san ^Gespräch 03:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

May I Request A Favor?

I would like to send a message to all of the people on this list. I have been told that the most efficient tool to use is the Automated Wiki Browser; however, not only does it look complicated, I don't have permission to use it. I see that your name is on the list of people allowed to use it. If you're able and willing -- I don't want to impose upon you -- then may I trouble you to process that list with the Automated Wiki Browser?
--NBahn (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I don't mind. Just need the message with the header, contents, and your signature at the end. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How's this?
--NBahn (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Is the list of folks it needs to go to done? If so, I can go ahead and run it through now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be quite grateful if you would please do it now.
--NBahn (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

65 of 67 notices delivered. For some reason, was unable to deliver to User talk:Dank and User talk:Hersfold -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I made sure that they both had the information. Again, thanks a bunch!
--NBahn (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Bleach anime series finale

This could have been reverted as vandalism, just so you know. December 21, 2012 is the most commonly cited date in 2012 doomsday predictions, due to it being the most commonly calculated end date for the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. Interesting stuff, and I appreciate the humor here, but vandalism nonetheless. ;) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Curious, in 2006 people used to make a similar predition (about the world) concerning the date June 6 or what would happen on December 31, 1999.Tintor2 (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, June 6, 2006 was because of the 06-06-06 thing, and one of Nostradamus's predictions was that the world would end on December 31, 1999 (coincidentally, Sgt. Frog has a supporting character, Angol Moa, whose role was supposed to have been fulfilling that prediction). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I hadn't even noticed the year! :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

CfD

Please see my action re: your renomination here. I wasn't really happy about doing this, but I honestly don't think repeating the previous methodology will be productive. If you renominate in a way where both issues can be addressed separately (delete arguments isolated in one section; rename arguments isolated in another), I think we perhaps could see some consensus on at least one or maybe both issues. I hope this makes sense. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm very confused. My CfD was not a repeat, it was purely a rename to match the now renamed novels one. That people came in and started going delete anyway is not something I can help. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I know—I'm not faulting you for having done something wrong. The problem is that usually in a CfD anyone can change the parameters of the debate and start calling for deletion when all the nominator proposed was renaming. So I suggested setting up to parallel discussions where both can be addressed. I see that someone else very quickly started the debate again and divided the previous comments into the two sections, so no harm done. (You should probably re-add your opinion there to the new discussion.) It's possible that there would be no consensus for deletion but then consensus to rename if there is no consensus for deletion. This can be tricky to evaluate unless we segregate the separate issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

IP sock

There seems to be a new bambifan sock. 69.156.124.230 has been sympathetic to User:Femalesrule's edits, using language that an ip address usually doesn't have. BOVINEBOY2008 13:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it weird that it traces back to Canada? I thought he lived in the southern US. Looks like he's moving around too much. Momo san ^Gespräch 15:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

64.231.200.217 vandalised your page and I got him blocked, but it's only for 31 hours. Momo san ^Gespräch 15:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if he's joking or not, but he's made an admission that he did move to Canada. see admission. Momo san ^Gespräch 15:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt he has moved. He may be on vacation (again), learned some new tricks, or its one of the other repeaters who is just using Bambifan's name or the like. If it is him, it would be a new thing, since he normally would not do that kind of vandalism (and I honestly can't remember him every spewing that kind of language in a page). A new low for him if it was him. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well a checkuser request could be filed to see if he really was using those IP's. Momo san ^Gespräch 17:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A 64 IP vandalised your page and I had thought I reported him, but i'm not sure what happened but somehow it mistakenly reported you. I made the reversion after I noticed the mistake. I'm sorry and I thought you should be aware of it. I guess these sockpuppets are getting to everyone's head. Momo san ^Gespräch 15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Universal Century character overhaul

I have begun a complete overhaul of the List of Universal Century characters. Feel free to merge any and all character articles, including the ones that I started, from the Template with the List. Thanks. Shaneymike (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball Page

Why is it inappropriate to post a link on the Dragonball page to a Wiki site whose sole purpose is Dragonball? It uses the same rules as this Wikipedia, and has quite a lot of information. Why don't you take a look at what I mean and then think about relinking the site. --Darktower 12345 19:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikia does not and it is a clear external link violation. Wikia sites are nothing but fansites, including that one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please elaborate on why you think so, or what source you are getting that information from. I believe that if you go to the site, and explore, you will find that the over 2,000 articles are a great source of information, and most likely the largest on the web. The site is contributed to by fans, but this is not a negative. Did you know that most Wikipedia pages are contributed to predominantly by fans of those pages' respective content? --Darktower 12345 20:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Under the section about external links to avoid, I noticed that number 12 is: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. By taking a brief look at the Dragonball wiki, it is a simple matter to see that it has both. --Darktower 12345 21:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It fails Realible Source so shouldnt be used. there no sources ot eh site and the oens that are are also realibnle. There might be otehr reason why it doesnt get added but that is one i can think of :)--Andy (talk - contrib) 21:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be able to link to the Dragon Ball Wikia, you're going to have to get it vetted at WT:EL. Nothing less (and certainly not a discussion on a user talk page) is going to satisfy everyone who might challenge the link's presence (even that won't satisfy all of them, but it's impossible to please everyone). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The DB wikia does not have either, not by a long shot. Consensus on these things has consistently been no, they are not appropriate ELs. And please do not make blanket statements about Wikipedia pages without reliable sources and pointing only to actual quality articles, not crappy ones that have escaped notice. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong about at least two things. First, there are a ton of editors, and you would have known that had you checked. Second, you are mistaken if you think Wikipedia pages are not looked after by fans of their content. --Darktower 12345 02:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A "ton" is not substantial, and you are mistaken if you believe that fans look after all content. More commonly, fans mess it up, get blocked, and end up at Wikia. If you approach an article from the viewpoint of a fan and not an editor, you're likely to not contribute in a useful fashion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to defend the DBZ wikia, comrades. Wikipedia in and of itself has grown to dislike having trivial information, and it's community has a certain stigma for "main" information only. It's fine to assume that notable information should remain only, but I can clearly disagree in terms of actual factual material now present on the DBZ wikia. I have been both very cordial and proper in my administrative time on the DBZ wikia, and I can say without a shred of doubt that it has now become an accurate, encyclopedic, and factual resource. In the beginning stages, of course, it was a source for much spam. I myself, along with my comrades who have also assumed administrative duties, have personally removed much of the fan gibberish and have limited the wikia itself to a very encyclopedic and factual arena for information. Much of the information wouldn't pass wikipedia's grade of "notability" but that's merely because it's intent is to have an overwhelming universe of correct information. While this wikia does concentrate solely on factual material and is officially NOT fancruft, due to me and my comrades daily protection and avid screening of the pages, it has maintained this reputation quite well. But, we do allow all the factual information here, whereas wikipedia is highly limited and doesn't allow all the same amount of information, it is very "summarized", so to speak. Straight out, the DBZ wikia is no longer what it was when it was first originated. Now, evidently, it is a complete and concise resource, and all in the similar format to that of wikipedia, but to be honest, a much more accurate resource in the context of completion. There's all the information (factual only) and it's significantly more than that of wikipedia. So for people who are wondering as to whether or not they should link to the wikia as a resource itself, I'd recommend it, in consideration with the fact that all wikias themselves have articles in a constant flux and change. I can't promise that you'd agree to allow this as an accurate resource, my dear AnmaFinotera, but I know for a fact that I've tried my best to retain a very accurate and encyclopedic resource in the radius I've spent as an administrator on the wikia. In hindsight, it has been transformed from complete fancruft to a purely factual resource. So my personal opinion of the matter is that this is now a highly encyclopedic and factual resource mate. - Zarbon (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is doubting how much work you and other editors have put into the Dragon Ball Wikia, or the quality of resource it may be by now. However, as I stated above, you'll still have to get it vetted as passing WP:EL if you want to see it added to EL sections of Dragon Ball articles here. And @Darktower: there are things on my watchlist that I am a fan of, but at least 90% of it is stuff I've never read/seen myself or stuff that I actually don't like or even outright hate. However, to be a quality contributor here, you have to stop being a fan as soon as you click the "login" link (or bookmark, or browser icon, or whatever is appropriate for your situation); letting your personal feelings on a particular series influence your editing only clouds your judgement and leads to the basic chain of events AnmaFinotera laid out. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be pretty sure of your methods, but I respectfully disagree. Being passionate about something, even just something minor like a Wikipedia page, always leads to better a quality result, when working in that area. --Darktower 12345 05:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am quite sure of my methods. I was only speaking to being a fan, not of passion in general. I am passionate (to a degree) for improving Wikipedia, and I am also passionate in being a fan (or an anti-fan) of certain series. Each of these passions has a proper time and place, and while they can occasionally overlap without problem (and even with benefit), allowing too much crossover results in any number of issues. This has been shown countless times on articles of all subjects across Wikipedia; it is not exclusive by any means to television and literature. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ay my dear comrades. I never said I let my own passion construct the article's format. If anything, I remain neutral to the extent that the articles are factual and aren't "opinionated" so to speak. I think you must have misunderstood what I was conveying to the extent that you assumed I allow my own love for the series to guide my editing. That's not necessarily true. I've maintained a resource far from personal opinion and/or view. It is clearly non-judgmental in pretext and context. The articles are meant to be encyclopedic, and that's pretty much what they are, factual and reliable. I do agree with Darktower to the extent that a fan of the series can remain neutral and still have that passion. I hope I've conveyed what I'm trying to say. To that extent, in regard to article editing, I do remain neutral mate. - Zarbon (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lupin III in French Round 2

You are invited to participate the discussion here --KrebMarkt 06:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that and started to revert, but figured I'd leave up to someone else. Is it just me or is that pretty much the same stuff he tried to shove in before and got blocked for? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

More and less. The GA re-assessment & Marktreut's two weeks block put the issue in hiatus. Now we are back at it. Dandy Sephy was against it because we should not list every single localized name for Lupin III and i was opposing Marktreut's edit because the added statement was not supported by the references. He managed to drift the information from the references, from potential legal issue to certainty of legal issue.

I'm trying to convince him for a more accurate reading of the references and have him to abide the consensus to be found on whatever the statement he want to add is relevant to the English article.

I'm really sorry to do it in a such procedural & consensus seeking way :( --KrebMarkt 20:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Its okay and don't blame you. He's basically running through and restoring his BS edits from before he was blocked, presumably intending to once again edit war. He just did it on The Fox and the Hound too. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Facepalm. Yea, he was clearly looking for tailored sources to support his statements disregarding accuracy & NPOV because in his process, he simply ignores any sources that may contradict or nuance what he want to write even if it comes from RS. --KrebMarkt 13:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What's it going to take re. that idiot in Mobile?

I tell you, I have had it. I didn't sign onto this project to have to dodge and parry an idiot savant in Mobile, Alabama who happens to have a dynamic IP and is in serious need of professional help. I'm sick and tired of having to defend this site when the highers-up don't seem to give a tinker's damn. The result: The little shit keeps heaping abuse on you and I find myself blocking sockpuppets and protecting articles. I think it is high time this is taken to the foundation. Either that, or I will personally place a call to Bell South on Monday and be done with Bambifan101 once and for all. Thanks for leting me rant. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No prob (re letting you rant) and don't blame you...the foundation or someone should do more about long term ones like him. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I promise that I will see this through if it's the last thing I ever do on this site. I've put in too many hours of volunteer time to see this freak burn out a couple of good users, namely you and I. Have a great weekend. Lord knows you deserve it. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but this edit is a bit weird. A canadian meatpuppet you think? Momo san ^Gespräch 03:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I asked for page protection to that page I linked to (Scooby-Doo (film)) to stop the socking from going on. Momo san ^Gespräch 03:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Got an idea, judging from the page history of Scooby-Doo (film) and my talk page (yes he vandalised my page too), it may be possible to impose a couple range blocks on 64.231.200.0/19 and 69.156.124.0/17 since the ranges are pretty tight. Just another thought. Momo san ^Gespräch 04:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Its either him or someone messing around pretending to be him or a fan. I've submitted a new SPI to get it checkusered and confirm if its the same IP as those socks, or some twisted idiot of a "fan". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe the CU will tell us if he really did move to Canada, but I really don't know. This is really confusing all of us. Momo san ^Gespräch 04:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt he moved. At most he is traveling, but I suspect he actually managed to recruit another idiot to edit for him again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 11:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

New one just editing, Contributions. Momo san ^Gespräch 14:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and thank you for the vandalism revert to my talk page :) Momo san ^Gespräch 14:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No prob. You may end up having to do an RPP for awhile if he's going to keep this up all weekend. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Just made a request, I think a few days will do it. Momo san ^Gespräch 14:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your input is requested at an ANI section I made about the new Bambifan socks, Please go here. Momo san ^Gespräch 14:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I sent PMDrive1061 the same note too, for his input as well. Momo san ^Gespräch 14:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

69 IP blocked, but that sure won't last... Momo san ^Gespräch 14:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he's changing fast today. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Great news, both IP ranges blocked for 1 month. Momo san ^Gespräch 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with blocking, but I'm willing to do page protections if I happen to be on while Bambifan is up to his crap. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Nishkid64 performed a CU on the new IP's from ANI and it showed that it wasn't Bambifan101 that used those IP's, it was another blocked user ScienceGolfFanatic. See here. Momo san ^Gespräch 20:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I figured something was off...while he is a pain in the ass, he isn't usually a potty mouth like that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Doraemon: The New Record of Nobita: Spaceblazer

Found this one by accident, not sure we need Chinese and Indonesian randomalia, please have a look. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope we don't - only the original Japanese and English versions need that much detail. Other language should, at best, be a once sentence mention of it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101 NW (Talk) 18:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, it was already closed while I was on the plane. I did still feel a check user would be good to detect sleeper socks and to confirm that it is bambifan and not someone else. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you know about this?

The below are located in this section. Quite amusing, really.
--NBahn (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know and really don't care that much...glad it amused some, I guess. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Spice and Wolf

"Much time has been spent on if the name of the wolf deity in the series should be spelled Holo or Horo. Sources have been provided for the spelling as Holo, but this continuously gets changed back to Horo due to popularity of the spelling in the anime fandom community. A lengthy discussion has occurred on the issue which would even make your Engrish teacher faint.
[...]

"Vi[za/so]r(e)d(s)

"A Japanese author with a habit of inventing 'foreign' names whose spellings harken more to H.P. Lovecraft than anything in English creates a group of characters called the vaizādo. The term is supposed to be some word in English, but nobody's quite sure what. Should Wikipedia refer to them by the archaic and wrongly pronounced but fan-favorite vizard, or by the grammatically awful but officially supported visoreds? Editors take the official line, thousands of IPs disagree! The article is eventually semi-protected, but it doesn't stop edit wars over the spelling on the dozen-odd other pages in which it appears."

Mashmakhan articles

Hey AnmaFinotera, I have been working on a lot of article for this obscure 1970s rock fusion band called Mashmakhan: The main article for the band, Mashmakhan album, The Family, "As The Years Go By," and Mashmakhan/The Family. I'm soon going to ask the guitarist of the band if I can use a picture of the band for the article. :) Whaddaya think? Sorry I haven't talked lately. :( – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool and good luck with the picture :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Wow, I'm pushing out articles by the dozens, I just made the article for Nou Nou Hau. How have you been lately? :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 20:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay for the most part and good to see you branching out :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Should I use the tool again but not use as many suggestions?

I could re-scan the article and avoid the dates and less related links I used it to add.----occono (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If you like, though really I didn't see that it suggested many that really needed linking and most of its suggestions were a little off. The identity theft link was a good one, as was Happy Meal and Georgetown University. That's about it. Its usually better to just look for yourself...most of those tools go overboard, it seems. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I manually re-added those, and Virtual economy. Better?----occono (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment Request

I did majors edits to Expiration Date (film) so can you please do a reassessment. Joe Chill (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessed to stub as it has very little actual content if you discount the infobox and headers. You could remove all of the headers and would have, at best, two small paragraphs of info even with the sources (some of which are not really RS - the covers of the DVD should not be sourced for claims of 33 awards - the awards themselves should be detailed and cited); plot should not need a source - the film is the source. RT needs an explanation with the rating. Hope that helps. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

Thanks for the info. Joe Chill (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I added more to it and replaced unreliable references. Do you have anymore ideas? Joe Chill (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Eventually, it should have a proper plot (beginning, major events, and end). DVD should be refactored to "Release" and include the first major film festival premiere as well as the DVD info. Other than that, just keep working on expansion. Study WP:MOSFILM for ideas on additional content, as well as some GA and FA film articles. Expand out the reception sections to tell more than just a one-line summary of the reviews. Expand the lead per WP:LEAD and the MoS. Good luck! :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The link is red. Joe Chill (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

Hi there. I know from past experience that you don't listen to my advice, such as looking into information which I assert is correct. However, it is true that when referring to works of fiction, such as video games based on anime, anything that happens should be referred to in the present tense. For example, "in level 2, Goku flies to the city," or "the main character is a hero." I am not going to try and fix the page, since I believe it will be reverted back to the incorrect form it is currently in. I just hope that you will look into the information I have once again asserted, and consider looking into its validity, rather than blowing me off. Thanks. --Darktower 12345 21:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your edit and it made the article grammatically incorrect. You changed "Goku appears" (already fine) to "Goku has appears" - grammatically incorrect. You changed "He is also featured" - correct (and already present tense, FYI), to "He is also been featured" - grammatically incorrect. You did not make good grammatical changes, you introduced grammatical errors. The sentences, as written, are the present tense that you are arguing for. Your changes were half way changes to past tense, which would be incorrect. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok, I see that I was mistaken. I was actually looking at a different edit that I had made on that page, and thought that a correction had been undone. The Goku page needed a lot of work that day, and I made a number of changes, one of which was apparently not so well thought out. In any case, thanks for taking a second look. --Darktower 12345 00:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Death Note#Plot

What's up with this section? I happened to peruse it because of some semi-tendentious editing and I found (or rather, my Firefox browser identified) a whole slew of typos.
--NBahn (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, many articles have them and I would guess that it has not been copyedited recently. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry for being hostile, it's just i want to make, sure that when i post a link or a title, that you won't say something like "More Proof, not enough" something like that, so i'm sorry and won't be hostile, or mean, i was worried that if i posted to much too soon and it's not on the site yet, that you would think, i'm doing it wrong. you don't have to reply back, i just want you to know,--LeafGreen Ranger (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You're putting in the sources, which is fine. On that one, adding the Netflix link was good since it had the DVD cover, but otherwise, no need to worry so much. If I question one, I'll ask, promise. :) Seems like they are getting really lax on updating their site, so its good you are spotting these. When you do add more to the list, though, its also good to add it to the template :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and i agree there need to update, big time. but thanks for all of the info, so thanks and i'm glad i keep finding them, mostly by accident, i look around and find one DVD with the Cover and i go, there's another. i won't be surprised if i found 10 more titles in a month, lol, well thanks and wish you the best--LeafGreen Ranger (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

YuYu Hakusho yaoi?

Hey AnmaFinotera, recently someone added a statement to YuYu Hakusho claiming the series may be overtly yaoi and offering references to Manga: The Complete Guide and Robot Ghosts and Wired Dreams to support it. The statement itself needs to be rewritten and moved, but I was wondering if you could confirm the Guide mention? The ref claims it's on page 502. Thanks in advance! 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, though I won't be able to check till Sunday when I'm back from the conference. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

*anti-archive bump* (yanno... in case the post-dating doesn't work for some reason, since I replied to it or some such) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Gratsi :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

*nudge* Didn't forget, did ya? ;) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I did...will check it and the request below tonight. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Checked and page 502 and looks like a serious misstatement. 502 mentions YYH as an example of a series featuring yankii in the definition for that term, but it does not mention YYH at ALL in the yaoi definition below. I also checked the main entry for YYH and it also does not mention yaoi at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks for your help. The statement was previously removed, so all's good (for now). =) I went ahead and un-postdated your above post to allow this to archive now. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale

He this is User:Rishabhchandan here. I have given a fair use rationale for my uploaded file you commented on. Please remove the warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhchandan (talk • contribs) 09:37, August 21, 2009

It is also unused and not an appropriate image for inclusion in any article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

2001 Nights review in Manga: The Complete Guide?

Would you care sharing what Manga: The Complete Guide has to say about 2001 Nights? It won't help with notability (which KrebMarkt is trying to show), but it's reception nonetheless... =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

He gave 2001 Nights a four out of four star rating, and notes it as being 3 volumes, seinen, and states it was published by Futabasha in Monthly Super Action from 1984-1986. He also notes that the Viz edition was published without numbers and that the correct ordering is 2001 Nights, 2001 Nights: Journey Beyond Tomorrow, and 2001 Nights: Children of the Earth (close paraphrase there). Some quotes/soundbites:

• "This serious, even stodgy science fiction anthology consists of linked stories about the human exploration of space, starting from the space shuttle and the Cold War era, to the far future when humans use technological advances to colonize distant planets."
• The series intentionally gives homage to Arthur C. Clarke's 2001, including jokes about HAL.
• "The plots often involve cosmic meditations on future generations, life in the emptiness of space, and God"
• "Not all of the tales are great, but they gradually form a sort of novel-in-stories, returning full circle for a satisfying ending. Hoshino draws it all in a super-realistic, Western, gekiga style, focused on the human body, a bit more Ryoichi Ikegami than Katsuhiro Otomo."

Hope that helps. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, looks promising. =) Out of curiosity, just how much space did Thompson devote to 2001 Nights? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Only a small bit, maybe a paragraph and a half or so. About the only thing I didn't include above was his example of the plot themes. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks for your help. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

le sigh

[7]

I for one am getting tired of the one man disruption and ignoring consensus campaign, it's time we considered further action on this. It's impossible to WP:AGF now, and WP:Pointy was passed a few edits ago if you ask me. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...I see he's been doing the same stuff on some other lists too, disagreeing with clean ups and continue to revert attempts to remove excessive plot and what not. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

71.120.174.216

Hello. I went ahead and blocked 71.120.174.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 12 hours as per your request at WP:AIV. However, if I may make a suggestion ... unless you plan to report the IP to WP:SPI, go ahead and issue warnings every time you revert. While I have tremendous faith in your anti-vandal work on Wikipedia, even I am hesitant about applying longer blocks to IPs with few -or in this case no- warnings. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

He had no warnings because it is the same guy, hopping IPs and doing the same vandalism to a small set of articles. If you check the Maneater (series) and Template:Maneater history, you'll see his weeks of work. The template is now semi-protected, but protection keeps getting denied on Maneater. He is also hitting a few Land Before Time articles, the Anaconda articles, etc. Would an SPI report even be useful for an IP hopper? He has made at least one named account, at least, so I guess it could tie to that, but it really isn't the "master". A long block isn't too necessary, though, as he usually jumps IPs each time he hits. He's only reused two that I can think of. I'll go ahead and file and SPI to make sure its not some blocked user who is bored. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well well well...while looking through the IPs to do the SPI report, I discovered the block sockpupetter User:Potterharrymorion who has multiple socks in this IP range and was doing the same sorts of behaviors. Coincidence? Will file a new SPI on him to confirm these are his socks so they can get tagged and make it easier to report the rest. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! — Kralizec! (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Question on Anime/Manga Page

My question has to do with the Dragon Ball Kai episode list, but it can pertain to all anime/manga series and their Wikipedia pages. When you make an episode summary or use a character's name from the series, should you use the American dub names or the original translated Japanese names? For example, in my latest update on that page, I made an episode 20 summary and used the original names "Kuririn" and "Freeza," while the dub uses "Krillin" and "Frieza." Thanks in advance and I hope I'm not considered a "harassing editor" because I don't think I am! :) DBZfan29 (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You should always use the official English names per Wikipedia's naming conventions. So you need to use Krillin and Frieza. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I've already changed the summary. It's really a shame how the translated manga and anime are different things. It can get confusing!!! DBZfan29 (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag and assess drive

If interested, could you weigh in at the discussion for the tag and assess drive so we can get this started at the beginning of September? Thanks. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Coming...I kept meaning to respond and kept getting caught up in other stuff. Been a busy month :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem at List of Gantz episodes

The season one template became very small and I don't know what is wrong. Could you check it? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone added a width attribute to it. Fixed that and made some general MoS corrections as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Jurassic Park III

Hello, I was not logged in when I made the last change to the page Jurassic Park III. I was wondering why my edit was removed. You stated it was considered vandalism, but I don't see how. The edit was TRUE. The original text was "the third and final film", but I changed final to "latest", because Universal Pictures is currently producing Jurassic Park IV, however, it is currently on hold. Can you please explain to me how correcting the information is considered "vandalism".

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesozoic Pictures (talk • contribs) 07:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No, UP is not. There were talks of it, but reliable sources now indicate it is unlikely, if ever, to happen. Unless and until it is actually produced, JP III IS the final film of the franchise. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball Evolution

I've reverted your edits, seeing that the passage doesn't break down Foreign takes. Listing both Domestic and Worldwide take without a breakdown of Foreign takes doesn't make sense and is confusing in the long run.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really, it just requires basic math, but I have no problem including the breakdown. The moving of #1 in Asia to a parenthetical as if it were an afterthought is what really bothered me. I've redone it to include both your breakdown and to properly place the #1 in Asia in context as the Asian openings came first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Princess Mononoke and The Castle of Cagliostro

I now see that you were the one who placed the tags on Princess Mononoke and The Castle of Cagliostro. There's nothing wrong with a general clean-up tag, but when you place so many tags all at once without any explanation on the talk page, it will strike some people--like it did me--as borderline vandalism. For example, you have an original research tag on Princess Mononoke. What is the original research? If you don't explain that on the talk page, then the tag should be removed. Same with that article's tone or style tags, or the NPOV tag on The Castle of Cagliostro. If you can explain on the article talk pages about these issues, I will not remove the tags and will even try to fix the issues. Otherwise, they should go.

BTW, please check out a person before you place a generic warning/welcome on their talk page. Like you, I am an admin and am familiar with Wikipedia policies and procedures. To place a generic welcome comment like you did on my talk page is insulting (although I realize you likely didn't intend it that way). Thanks.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The tags are self explanatory and do not need explanation on the talk page, nor are they required (the one exception possibly being the NPOV tag). Removing them for no valid reason is inappropriate, and the tags on Castle of Cagliostro were discussed in its related Lupin III article. As a member of the anime/manga project, I frequently tag articles in our realm for issues to help us get them in our clean up lists and call attention to them, particularly two major works like these which need a lot of work. I do the same for Films as both a Film member and a Film coordinator. Neither of which I believe I have seen you working in, which may explain why you felt they were not obvious or wrongly presumed that was any kind of vandalism. If you did remove the tags, I can pretty much promise they would just be readded as part of the Films project's up and coming tag/assess drive. As for your BTW, I recommend you do the same. 1 - I'm not an admin, however I have over 80,000 edits and am heavily active in the two aforementioned projects (as well as Television). Having someone just randomly remove valid tags from an article because they wrongly think they "require" an explanation is just as insulting (again, like you, I'm sure it was unintentional, along with your remark that adding any kind of valid tag is somehow borderline vandalism). You could have first ASKED for the explanation if you really felt it was not as glaringly obvious as I feel they are before removing tags. However, as you have now actually asked, I am now posting more detailed explanations on each article's talk page and ask that you leave the tags in place until the articles are actually fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting more detailed info on the tags. I now understand that you are tagging the articles for work by people in your group, who will likely understand merely from the tag what the problems are. But please remember people outside the group might not understood the issues unless they were spelled out.

BTW, my view on this issue comes from the following places:

• The NPOV policy at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies..."
• Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. While that is not policy, it also advocates that editors shouldn't tag pages without explaining the problems.

Again, thanks for explaining what the issues are with the articles. Apology for mistaking you for an admin.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As you note, Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems is purely a personal essay that is neither required, inline with actual official guidelines, nor worth noting as it has no meaning nor value nor seeming consensus. While it may match your point-of-view, I stick with the actual guidelines, which clearly state that tagging is not required. Also, keep in mind, that pretty much anyone cna find an essay here that meets their views, as they are rather a dime-a-dozen and pretty easy to write and published. Most are personal essays with little traffic and attention. Only a few have anything close to approaching community consensus as a "best practices" document. My additional 2 cents... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Meerkat Manor

Good job on another FA, we now have a great example for others to follow for similar types of film. Keep up the good work, we continue to need more FAs for the project with the recent delistings. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Hope I can help get some more articles to GA and FA this year. Have a few more I'm working on :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

AWB template run?

Feel like doing a template replacement run in AWB for me? Specifically, I need all article-space instances of {{Yu-Gi-Oh! Directory}}, {{Yu-Gi-Oh! characters}}, {{Yu-Gi-Oh! GX}}, {{Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's}}, and {{Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's Directory}} replaced with {{Yu-Gi-Oh!}} (if there's more than one of the templates present, they should only be replaced with a single instance, of course). Thanks in advance! 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, will work on it this evening :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! ^_^ 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

All done :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for your work! =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Universe of KH GAR

Hey, what's up? As of now, we're still having a bit of trouble finding the original sources of the interviews, but I was wondering if you could take a look at the prose again to see if anything else needs work. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, meant to do that last night and got distracted. I'll take a look this evening and update the GAR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Axem Titanium (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Just curious

Hey there, I was just wondering about this edit. Could you explain what the difference is between the two, or rather why {{reflist}} shouldn't be used if there's 3 or less citations? I wasn't aware of any reason where in certain cases <references /> should be used rather than reflist. I've always used and considered reflist to be preferred because of the smaller fontsize and easier columns formatting. Am I missing something? Thanks for any clarification. -- œ^™ 05:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

reflist reduces the size of fonts, and should only be used when necessary. Per WP:CITE and previous discussions, the normal references tag should be used for references when you have less than 10 or if you have more than 10 but they are not well formatted. Two columns should only be used for 20+ well-formatted references. 3 or more should never be used because of issues with it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes.. I managed to find this discussion that confirms what you're saying. Thanks. -- œ^™ 01:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No prob :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Tintin

Your edit summary for this edit is incorrect in that it states, "No sources added - misleading summary". As I added two good sources to the article, your edit seems unhelpful - please revert. Note also that there is discussion at the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I will not revert. The list was properly cleaned per the discussion on the talk and Wikipedia guidelines (as you yourself noted). You did not just add two sources, you inappropriately aided in an on-going issue with a troublesome editor by reverting the ENTIRE clean up, hence the summary being misleading. You restored massive amounts of excessive, unnecessary plot and OR that is not appropriate for the list. There is plenty of consensus for the removals per actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies, as well as the well established consensus of what a character list should and should not contain and what format it should be in per our featured characters. There is plenty of support for the clean up from the appropriate projects, who actually are working to IMPROVE the list, not just bloat it with fancruft. If you disagree with the article's clean up, get consensus don't just restore bad content without having any history nor knowledge of the issues or topic just because you think you need to jump to the "rescue" for is already being helped. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Got your back!

I have to tell you, seeing you reported as a vandal was one of my life's more surreal moments.  :) I've removed the "nomination" and warned the other user. Not to worry; if he hassles you again, let me know and I'll have another word with him. Gotta run, but don't let anyone grind you down. You're too valuable. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, say that and appreciated it. He restored it, though, so for now I'm just going to ignore him. His edit warring with his IP and the continued personal attacks will likely get him blocked soon enough anyway. I swear I think Wikipedia would be better off without allowing any editors under 18 unless they can show they actually are mature beyond their years. I know there are a few good editors who are minors, but most *sigh* BTW, should his user page be reported for oversighting since he is self-identifying as a minor and giving far too much identifying info? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

At least he isn't giving a last name, but yes, I'm concerned about it as well now that you point it out. There was an editor here a few years ago who wasn't more than about 13 and he was one of this site's truly great assets. Doesn't happen often, though. Most of the vandalism comes from kids that age it seems. I'll delete his page with an explanation for his own good. Thanks for alerting me to it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've spoken to him again; looks like there are some content dispute issues...and I know precisely near-zero about Dragon Ball Z, so I can't be of any help. I've suggested that he cite his sources in order to prevent an edit war. If he's adding bits and pieces of fancruft, it should be reverted. If he can add some canonical facts and back them up with some real third-party sources, he should be OK. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically he added some content to the list with a source, however in addition to what the source actually said, he added his own OR "background". I removed the background and shortened up the prose a bit to make it tighter, and fixed up the source format. He reverted saying he's shortened it in his own way, restoring the OR with the edits. That's basically the whole issue. He wanted to add unsourced stuff with the sourced stuff, claiming its relevant "background" and wants to add excessive details about the new sets, and refuses to allow anyone to shorten it. Instead of providing a source for his "background", he resorted to claiming I was reverting because it was him (I didn't even revert his first edit, I just cleaned it), and as if things were annoying enough today, apparently one of the rescue people feels the need to stalk me today and inject himself where he doesn't belong. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Lousy way to spend a Saturday, girl.  :) I've asked him to log off and calm down; I'll alert him to what you just wrote. I'm way over time here, so I'll say goodbye for now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...going to enjoy some nice B-movies on Sci Fi for awhile. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to move in about a month. Off to go through drawers and closets. Enjoy the B-flicks! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yay for moving :) Though the packing and unpacking not so much...I moved over a year ago, and still have like fifteen boxes left to unpack! :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball Z episodes

3RR much? At least the last few reverts (all that I looked at) were not vandalism. I've protected the page rather than handing out blocks. Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...just a bit :( *sigh* Gave up talking to him after the personal attacks, and when PMDrive tried to talk to him, he started attacking him too. Then he kept reverting even going against the source he himself had added. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the frustration. I see PMDrive took care of things too. Toddst1 (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's what I do.  :) I tried to reason with him and the last thing I wanted to do was to block just him and not you as well, but you didn't do anything which would have required a block. He left me no choice but to give him an unscheduled recess for the next two days. You were remarkably calm in the face of this, I must say. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (both of you)...considering my current mood, can't believe I did stay calm :P Hopefully the forced break will calm him down. ~shaking head~ Until then...gonna cuddle my kitten and drink some chocolate milk and play some Facebook games. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's that time again

Almost exactly one year after my first edit on the page, 48 weeks and 146 edits(!) after starting to work on the page properly, I think Love Hina is finally in a position where it can be nominated for WP:GAN :p I did some copyediting and stuff, but it needs another look as I changed a bunch of refs to use something more official after going archive hunting. If all is well I'll nominate it, if not I'll give it some more tweaks. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Taking a quick look, the only major issue I noticed is that "Differences in anime adaption" is unsourced. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is plot, which doesn't need sourcing? ?Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Its comparing the plots between two medium, so yep, it needs sourcing. Only straight plot summary does not need an explicit source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's literally only what happens in the specials. Could I rename it? I purposely avoided comparing the two. Although, the opening line might comprimise that :pDandy Sephy (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...if its just the summary of the specials, it probably should be removed all together, unless they are supposed to be the conclusion of the series. In which case, yes, it should be renamed :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, after actually looking at it (:p) you are right. Presumably I could do a few cite episodes without timecodes as it involves the entirety of two eps and two specials. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If its comparative, the sources need to be non-primary sources. If it is just a summary of the OVA, then it does not need sources, the section name just needs fixing to reflect what it really is. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions? It's not comparative, it just says "after this event, ", without saying anything has changed. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If the events don't change anything with the main story and isn't really a conclusion, I'd just drop the section. The ep summaries of the OVA should be in the episode list, so unless its relevant, no need to repeat there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll think about it, the events go from being mostly different to completely different between the two versions, until you get to the spring special and ova. Theres room for expanding it if a suitable scope is found, dropping it would make it "less complete", although the manga summary is [i]very[/i] brief to what it could be as I avoided the later details that aren't shared between the two, apart from the finale.Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible Bambifan?

I hate to bring this up, but there is a strange new account I reported at the admin noticeboard...and at least one other user thinks it's Bambifan101. Doesn't look like his MO, but I've seen this single-minded editing before on the kid's TV show "Arthur" without the slightest acknowledgement of other users over copyvio issues. The account is User:Angiex3. Can you run a CU and see what turns up? Thanks much. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the real parent was found before I could answer :) But yeah, didn't seem like him. The only time he's done copyvio (so far) has been when he was vandalizing anime/manga articles to get my attention. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but it would appear the real culprit was found as a sock of the equally bizarre User:The Chubby Brother. Thanks for checking into that for me and we'll chat soon. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are there are a lot of weird socks these days? :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Note

I just wanted to let you know that when you revert an edit, like the one you did to InuYasha the Movie: Fire on the Mystic Island, you should check to see if what the edit you are reverting to has any typos/incorrect spellings. I had to fix the word "Disappearing", since it was spelled "Dissapearing" in the edit that you reverted to. I know you may not have meant to leave it like this and never thought to check, but I just felt that I should let you know so in further edits you will check to see if there are any typos, even if you do that most of the time and just forgot to do it just this one time. Thank you. Abby 82 (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You did not do a typo fixed, you completely changed the sentence. So next time, just fix the typo, and don't use an edit summary to add a silly chastisement when your initial edit was completely different and not a spelling correction. Thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome magazine!

Check this magazine out, its called Scribner's Magazine. I just figured out about it, its very little known, but...just read the article. I recently revamped it and I think its a pretty good article. I just recently found an issue of it at a collector's bookstore, and I found a March 1926 issue of the magazine in very neat condition, so I decided to buy it. I researched it expecting it to be some zippity do-dah magazine, "that was founded by some company on some date and ceased publication in some year because it sucked" kind of magazine. :P No! This magazine is very interesting. You should check it out. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool...quite a few magazines from those times are rather interesting - they had actual articles and content, not just ads and fashion :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you're right. They do have more content now that I think about it. :) And when they did have ads, they actually made you want to buy the product. :P Do you like the article, its probobly one of the best I've written. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks great and way better than many magazine articles out there, even if it is brief :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

re: Official Bleach Page

It might be, I'll stop reverting it, but the Wiki-link checker keeps picking it up as a redirect as well, sorry. --Lightlowemon (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The wikilink checker is not 100% accurate, you should always check it yourself first. Sometimes it calls something a redirect when it really is not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag and assess drive

All of the individual issues have now been organized in a recap, please weigh in if you can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Done (noting for myself as much as anything :P) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User page rendering

Your user page and talk page aren't rendering properly for me with either Firefox or Safari. The stars at the top are overprinting the unified login note making it unreadable and they are also on top of your edit instructions box. I haven't had this problem on any other user with similar pages. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Odd. I do not seem to have the same problem (Firefox 3.0, 3.5, IE7). G.A.S^talk 06:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I found it. It's caused by the "Beta" interface changes. Even in standard monobook, the stars overprint if the window is too narrow, so I suspect this might not get fixed. Nevertheless, I've reported it to the beta development team. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that awhile back when looking at it on narrower screens. Just can't decide how I want to fix it - make them smaller or go to two rows or both. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, absolute positioning acts differently between Monobook and Vector (it's much better now, though; when Vector was first released, they were miles apart). Have you considered playing around with {{top icon}} for them? Icons using that template (or the topicon class) should act pretty much the same between Monobook and Vector. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't heard of that one...just gave it a try, but it stacked all the icons on top of each other? Maybe missing something in how to use it? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You've probably already noticed, but I went ahead and updated with {{top icon}} and company for you (you need to use |icon_nr= (or its alias |number=) to prevent stacking). I ddidn't feel like playing around with offsets a whole bunch, so I dropped the custom image sizes, but I can fool around with the DYKs if you want them smaller (they are a bit ugly at 15px, aren't they?). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed and appreciate it :) Its fine with the DYKs...not gonna worry too much about it. On the whole, they are much more compact :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, now I've just gotta create a {{DYK user topicon}} so I can make about half of those even more compact for you... =) (and how the heck did you get an edit conflict when you were editing a different section? o_O ) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No idea...it was weird and I didn't realize it did it until I'd already closed so had to rewrite :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy

Do you have a chance to look at Family Guy? I have been working really hard at doing a general clean to it. It still needs some expansion on casting and positive reception, but any suggestions you would have or articles/sources you would recommend would be really helpful. Thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to take at a look at it by the weekend at the latest. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I am kind of taking a step back from it for a while, so no rush. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

One thing I'd say it really needs work on is just general, overall structure. Its a little over segmented and the "Production issues" seems like something that should just be part of production and restructured a bit. A bit of tweaking towards WP:MOSTV would also be good, dropping that DVD table, and fixing some reference formats (oh, and drop the wikia spam in EL). Other than that, as you noted, the "Characters" section needs a few more sources, and much more reception would be good (for such a large series, I'd think there would be much more available). Google News, of course, would be good to go through if you haven't already. Its getting about 25k hits there. Also Google books, which lists several books discussing the series, including Brian Griffin's autobio, and several books on prime time TV. Do you have access to a journal database through a local school or university? If so, you'll probably find more articles there. With Family Guy, finding sources is likely something that will take a long term effort due to the sheer amount of material to go through. If you have help with the article, dividing up the work would be a good idea :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you a lot. I am already going through and formatting the references and right now I am trying to go through Reuters archives for good articles. I will have access to a library when I get back to school so that won't be a problem. Do you have any suggestions on how the Production section(s) should flow? It is difficult to include the usual creation stuff and then include the issues too and have it all flow nicely. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably merge in production issues into production by moving Cancellation and renewal up, merging the writer's strike section into the writing section, and moving Lawsuits down to Reception since it really isn't production related. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:CharR to list entry

Hello,

Since the TfD is now over, I am going to follow up on renaming Template:CharR to list entry to Template:R from character. The template would basically retaining its existing functionality, minus the word "list", and would now following the normal redirect template naming convention. I would then rename the 2 other templates that follow the unusually naming pattern. If you don't object, I will just go ahead and BOLDly do it. If you do object, I will list them on WP:Requested moves.

Let me know which you prefer, ThaddeusB (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I do object. The TfD did NOT close with - rename existing to the new name, it closed as redirect yours to the current. If you feel it should be renamed, start a renaming discussion and get actual consensus to support your views. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will do that, but there is no need to be an ass about it. I really don't see what the big deal is about bringing a name inline with standard practice. Geez. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is being an ass about anything. The TfD did NOT close with supporting of the renaming. I'm asking you to therefore follow proper procedures and actually get consensus to rename a template that has not had any objections to its name for almost two years. I don't see why you find it such a big deal if you believe it shouldn't be a problem. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a bit over the top, but your comment seemed condescending as I clearly know how the RfD ended ... and I don't think making the name change as part of the discussion was really even a possibility. "Proper procedure" is to be BOLD and not start a pointless discussion when an issue can be resolved without one. I came here to try and resolve the situation by asking your "permission" to move it, since I was unclear about whether you would insist on a move discussion or not. Personally, I don't see why you are objecting. The old names will still work and the new names are both more clear & follow normal naming patterns. Do you actually have an objection other than the age of the templates? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the current names which actually reflect their purpose and current usage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Gundam ZZ list

1) The lead wasn't changed by my edit (with the exception of some kanji here and there and a note about the premiere date). 2) The titles are *SUPPOSED* to be literal translations; it has nothing to do with OR. 3) I typed this list in a long time ago and TheFarix missed the old page when he created the list. JoeD80 (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead was changed to follow a dated method and the inappropriate addition of the kanji. The kanji goes in the main article, not the episode list lead. The title notes were unnecessary nor can any one translation system confirm a translation. Your title changes are also inappropriate and should be discussed on the talk page. The version I reverted to a more appropriate translations and more accurate. The title is clearly ZZ and not Double Zeta, and trying to enforce an incorrect name does not aid your argument. As for the merging issues with your version and the current, take it to the talk page, but do not continue edit warring and inappropriately trying to do a copy/paste move. Merging of anything from your list should be done carefully and with discussion. Your having created your list a long time ago is completely irrelevant to the issue. Its being "older" does not automatically trump the newer, more appropriately named, formatted, and written list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it really more accurate? I don't think so, and I have five years of college Japanese and several months of living in Japan to back that up. I didn't change any titles, I followed the project guidelines to use *literal translations* when I wrote the original article. There aren't any official English titles. Also, the Japanese name *IS* "Gandamu Daburu Zeta". It's right there in the title cards on-screen! Why should I be in trouble for copying/pasting when that's essentially what happened to the old article? There were legitimate references and episode descriptions that got obliterated as well and I was merely trying to restore those. JoeD80 (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Partially copied from my talk page: Translation of Japanese is not an exact science, so to say that your translations are literal is misleading. Three editors can look at the same sentence written in Kanji and come up with three different translations. However, Bandai uses Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ as the official English title of the series, as seen on their Gundam Offical website. I'll leave the episode translations to Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) and Doceirias (talk · contribs) to haggle over. --Farix (Talk) 01:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

GT Episode List

You've got your proof, where should I put the reference? It's mistakenly written as "Black Star" saga on DVD, but official trailer notes it as "Black Star Dragon Ball." DBZfan29 (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I corrected my own revert of your first edit. The Season 1 DVD box set says "Black Star" which is the more reliable source than the trailer (which may have been made before the set was pressed and the final title decided). Do you have the box set? Do the materials within the box set use the longer name? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Might sound like a fool saying this, but sadly I don't. I sold it to get ready for the long-awaited "Dragon Boxes." I'll look for it now, though. DBZfan29 (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't find anything, but, when you think about it, "Black Star" doesn't really make sense. "Black Star Dragon Ball" originated from the Japanese "Ultimate Dragon Ball" arc. I know my own fan knowledge won't do us any good, I just wanted to point that out. Another thing, don't use the GT site as a reference for any name changes because it hasn't been edited and still says "lost episodes." Oh, and, even though FUNi doesn't mention it but the second season contains the remainder of the Baby arc as well (ep. 35-40). DBZfan29 (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We have to go by what the box sets say, which does not mention the remaining of the Baby Saga (though from the original divisions that is what it appears to have). "Black Star" makes as much sense to me as most of the saga names :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you aren't a DB fan so I guess it would make sense to you :p. Also, I'm pretty sure they just forgot the rest of the Baby saga. How do you think that would have looked - "Contains the remainder of the Baby saga and Super 17 and Shadow Dragon sagas." They could've just said "contains the remainder of the GT series." The set also included the GT TV special, so adding Baby saga would have probably been impossible! DBZfan29 (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Without a reliable source saying otherwise, we can only presume they moved those episodes until the Super 17 saga. Noting that on the DVD set would not have been impossible, so it seems like a deliberate move on their part. They could have also just kept the remaining episodes with the first set, but they chose not to. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Even with the Z sets, they kept the original saga names, so you can presume that it was just another mistake. They only dropped the saga names for the new DB sets. Also, the set read "Contains the Super 17 and Shadow Dragon sagas and the GT movie A Hero's Legacy" so it would have been confusing to add the Baby saga, too. DBZfan29 (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. But I agree, you need a reliable source. (And thanks for taking the time to explain it this time.)Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 03:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you can not presume they made a mistake. They specifically note which sagas are in which season set. Again, without a reliable source, do not change this. And I'm really disappointed in you for switching to your IP to make an edit you knew would not be appreciated. You do realized that is against policy and could get you permanently blocked, right? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, stupid me forgot to log in again. Again, FUNi is known to mess-up so we can presume they did. The season sets themselves were a mistake! Anyway, even without a source, if we get enough people (two or three more) to agree with me can we then make the change? Also, I started a discussion towards merging the Saiyan and Super Saiyan pages at the SSJ page. Could you drop by and comment? I feel you have a bit more authority and can draw others into the discussion! DBZfan29 (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, no, we can not presume anything. It doesn't matter how many people agree with you that Funimation may have made a mistake. They own the license, they can do with it what they want with their releases, and we can only go by that information. They determine the official English titles and organization of the series, not fans, not personal opinion. Unless and until actual reliable sources (not fan opinion) state otherwise, we can only go by what Funimation's sets say. Even if a reliable source does say Funimation split the saga, that would only be worthy of a footnote and not a valid reason to change the list organization. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Reminder with List of Dragon Ball episodes (series) and User:DBZfan29

I'm sure you know this already, but please remember to focus on the edits, not the editor. Please don't make any comments that could be construed in any way as "fueling the fire" between you and him. —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm just tired of this kid. You've tried, Gwen has tried, eight other people have tried, and I have tried, and he still keeps acting like this. And yes, I know descending to his level does not help, its just *argh* Especially with his immediately screaming that I reverted him (no, I didn't) and throwing another tantrum. *sigh* Going to go eat my Chinese and hopefully calm down enough to try, again, to deal with him like the rational adult I am. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Something that might intrest you

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A9%E7%8D%84_-HEAVEN'S_PRISON-

It appears that heaven's Prison is on Japan's Wiki. I dont think what was posted on the page is it's "official site" and that Heaven's Prison had vandalism done quite a bit ago. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2009 (AT)

Yeah, I went with the ANN dates when I updated it so thanks for finding those links. The link at the bottom is the official site, such as it is. :) And yep, the article has the interwiki link for the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

*Shrugs* Oh well delete it for being non notable then. I looked on english google and found very little. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2009 (AT)

Yeah, the JA wiki is pretty much all plot with a little release history, but no sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with character articles

Don't know if you noticed this but there is a discussion about characters articles in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Problem with character articles and I think your opinion would be very good. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Senna

My apologies, wasn't aware of that. My main problem was the deletion per "no context"; it's fairly obvious what it's about. I'd advise either a prod or letting me redirect and tagging it as "redirect of an implausible typo/whatnot". Ironholds (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It only has context if you're familiar with the series, but a redirect is fine...though I suspect he'll just keep recreating. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

DBZfan29 ++

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt with his new incarnation as D4c3nt3n0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, if I see him going down any paths in editing articles that he's been before, I'm not going to start with the 1-level warnings with him. He should know better, but if he's truly reformed, I'm willing to not make an issue of his past. Clean slates are fine; dodging a warning history is not. —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Works for me...thanks :) Will take his admitting it, and updating his user page to note it, as a good sign.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that. So yeah, he's being upfront about his history, which is good. —C.Fred (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible Bamibfan socks

Could you look at User_talk:Bovineboy2008#Help_me_please.21? The user look pretty suspicious to me and I have no idea why they have come to my talk. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, both of them are socks. Tagging the newer one and reporting for blocking. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And now he's off stealing articles I wrote (GA ones at that) and trying to put them on the Russian Wikipedia as his own "good works". *sigh* Figures the little brat can't do any real good editing so he takes credit other people's efforts. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What I can't fathom is why there hasn't been any real action against this scourge. He has easily become the worst vandal on this site, bar none. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having been the target of a certain other disgusting vandal, I'd rank him second ;) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW: I just went over to the original Bambifan101 talk page. That account was blocked one year ago today. You'd think a solid year of getting booted off this site would have sunk in. No dealing with morons, I guess. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

More Bambifan socks. [[8]]Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 21:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• sigh* Might be time for another check user to see if he's back home and do some more range blocking. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

His latest sock - he helpfully tagged a bunch of other socks. How nice of him. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

His latest (and if I have my say, his last since I've contacted someone who can possibly put the brakes on this idiot once and for all) had the nerve to ask me for help. I don't think this other guy was him. I have honestly had it with Bambifan and I fully intend to hang his antlers on my wall. Stay tuned. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If Mamasasa wasn't him, it must have been that new "fan" of his ~shaking head~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, dear Lord, I didn't see that one. I have now looked into the face of pure insanity and so help me, I am going to get this settled once and for all (strongly supressing the urge to write some really obscene things to describe him). --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You know more about BF than I do, do you think that Lighteningluster (talk · contribs) is a sock also? Looks fishy to me. Javért  |  ^Talk 00:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, highly likely its him. Restoring many of his old edits yet again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thought so. Thanks for your help. Javért  |  ^Talk 00:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I filed another SPI report so we can see what IP range he is on and hopefully get it blocked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey AnmaFinotera, 173.73.9.176 which is tagged as a suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101 has made some suss edits. Since you're the Bambifan expert, would you mind checking if it's him. Thanks. - kollision (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably not him...not his pattern and he's never done any other edits from that IP range. Plus his last round of socks just got another IP range block. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Another one at 72.254.166.143, calling your reverts vandalism. Gotyear (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that one is definitely him. Revert all. AIV report filed. Looks like the last SPI couldn't block that range. *sigh* Wonder if it would be any point in filing new RPP requests? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of White Dog (book)

The article White Dog (book) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:White Dog (book) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Cirt (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

IP warnings

Just to let you know, this is not vandalism. It is an act of good faith in changing spelling from American spelling to using the type the rest of the world uses. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 02:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No dictionary entry found for "palaeontologist" nor is it a recognized word from what I can find. Seemed like a deliberate misspelling to me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter about dictionaries. The article Palaeontology redirects to the american spelling of Paleontology and the article itself states in the first sentence "Paleontology (British: palaeontology)". Numerous scientific articles and journals use this spelling (see name of this journal [9] and this one [10]). What do you mean "nor is it a recognized word from what I can find." It's clearly in the article, and it clearly complies with Commonwealth spelling conventions regardless. Not a deliberate misspelling. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 03:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, hope I'm not being to harsh. I need to get some sleep and I'm cranky. :) --Spotty ¹¹²²² 03:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Googled it and almost no results. I didn't look at the Paleontology article. And no worries...cranky myself cause my TV keeps turning itself off and changing its channels-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there; the English language as used on the eastern side of the Pond does contain a number of words containing the "ae" diphthong which have not carried over to the American side of the water. Other examples are "orthopaedic" and "paediatric". There are a large number of others. Both are correct in their own frame of reference; by wikipedia convention articles written with American spellings are not altered to British spelling, and British spellings are not altered to American. The only exception to this rule is if there is inconsistency within the article, suggesting the presence of spelling error. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

List of InuYasha: The Final Act episodes

Hello. I would like to know why it's too early to create new pages for InuYasha: The Final Act? Is it considered too much of a spoiler? I do not think it's any early since the anime will be released early next month. Btw, I took some time creating those pages, so it's a shame to see all that go to waste. Will those pages be put back up again?--Weils (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2009 (GMT)

For one, the series has not even started airing yet. It has nothing to do with spoilers (Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone), but creating an episode list for a non-airing show is ridiculous and premature. Its due to air, doesn't mean it has aired. For another, even when it does start airing, it does NOT need a season page. It gets a single page. Season divisions are only done for length and when a seasonal division can be confirmed, not by default. I'm sorry you wasted time creating the pages, but you really should have discussed it and learned the proper method of making such pages before doing so. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss with who? With you? Apologies for using an extra page, but you could have revised it back to a single page or informed me to revise it. And how is it ridiculous and premature? The episode titles are out on the Final Act's official website. Even if you take it down now, someone will put up later. And what difference does it make by deleting it? Since some information has been out, I think the page should still be put up.--Weils (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2009 (GMT)

Start a discussion on the main article page or the main episode list. And it premature. No episodes have aired yet. Just because some information is out does not mean it needs publishing. All you had was what is already in the main InuYasha article, even starting the article by copy/pasting from the main. The only other bit was a false claim that there are seasonal divisions, and two episode titles. Nothing needing another article. Nor is there any idea yet about how many episodes there are. So far, reports have only noted 13. That can easily go in the main InuYasha episode list without a split needed. If its decided it does need its own page, then it will be split, but not before.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

God of blue moon

Just a quick note - the author can contest a prod by removing the tag; it should be taken to AfD in such cases. And you e/c'd with me while I'm completing that AfD nom. It's all fixed now. Tim Song (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I checked the timestamps and hadn't seen the AfD finished after like 30 minutes, so figured it was an error. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Romain Gary Issue

AnmaFinotera - I accept your reversion to the article on the film "White Dog", but wish to point out that my removal of the reference to Jean Seberg's death, does not qualify as vandalism by any means. While finding the article to be an excellent one, I was not satisfied that the discussion of Jean Seberg's death was relevant, and acted in good faith in removing this reference.

Furthermore, I was correct in changing the date of Romain Gary's death. As the article Wikipedia: Vandalism states: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Regards, --Bagration1944 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You removed source content from a GA article without discussion nor seeming reason beyond feeling it was incorrect. In the future, it is better to start a discussion instead of just removing reliably sourced content, particularly those at GA or FA level article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, I mean no disrespect to you or the article, and I should have discussed this matter before acting. However, there are numerous reliable sources to the fact that the causes of Seberg's tragic death were firmly established. Furthermore, the year of Gary's death was incorrect in the prior version, Good Article or not. If you like we can continue this discussion in the talk page for the film. Again, I apologise for acting before discussing the issue with you.--Bagration1944 (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but when was the cause of death established? The time context is relevant for this particular segment as it deals with the production of the film and its release (or lack there of) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the LA Times, Sept. 9, 1979, French authorities were quoted as saying that she apparently committed suicide. This link is to a LA Times blog containing copies of the old articles. This would indicate that the cause of death was known in 1979. Again, I am sorry for changing the article without discussing the matter with you first, but I hope you accept that I was acting in good faith, and with more reason than a mere hunch.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2009/03/the-jean-seberg.html --Bagration1944 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the link and my apologies for calling it vandalism. My AGF was a little low today :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries - I should have been more careful with the editing in any case. Cheers! --Bagration1944 (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Could use your help or referral

There's a loose quote on No Country for Old Men that isn't sourced properly. It's been sitting there a long time. Is there an easy way to determine which editor first put it up? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I already showed you the diff, and the source. I don't see what more is needed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes...basically just going back through the history to find when it first appeared. From going back, its been there since the article's creation where other quotes were included.[11] Beyond that, I would say it should be removed unless it can be sourced. If it can be sourced, it should be made an in-sentence quote and moved into a themes section rather than plot. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Saiyan. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--Aqwis (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AnmaFinotera (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Blocked without warning and after already taking measures to deal with the issue. Did I violate 3RR. Did 3 reverts, not 4, and had already taken dispute resolution steps including requesting editor discuss on the talk page to deal with dispute and requested page protection to enforce need for discussion. His response was to leave nasty messages on my talk page Completely unfair. [12]

Decline reason:

You made five reverts to Saiyan between 22:18, 10 September 2009 and 19:23, 11 September 2009, thereby violating WP:3RR. None of the reverts reverted vandalism. As WP:VAND makes clear, not everything you disagree with is vandalism.  Sandstein  12:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• If you have a link in your unblock request the format changes. It is then {{unblock|1=your reason}}. Regards, Javért  |  ^Talk 20:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I was a bit surprised to see this block, but when I checked the history I do see five reverts over about 2 days. That being said, I see no warning, and the other editor has been behaving just as badly. I would say unblock with the understanding that if another one of these editors revert they'll be blocked again right away, but I'll ask Aqwis for his opinion first. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I saw no need to warn for a 3RR violation as blatant as this one. However, I am not necessarily opposed to unblocking the editors if they do in fact to try to work out their differences - including putting an end to off-article "nasty messages" from both editors. --Aqwis (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, I suppose an argument could be made that an administrator shouldn't need a warning. I see that you gave the user a 3rr warning, but not until relatively late into the edit warring, and I don't see any attempt at discussion before that; the user's edits may be irrelevant, but that's a content issue, not vandalism. I should probably take no action on this and wait for a more experienced admin to evaluate. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • AnmaFinotera has been warned/blocked for edit warring numerous times in the past; I feel a warning for every incident is not necessary at this point. I am not inclined to accept this unblock request. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with denying the request. Not only is it disingenuous to put a 3RR warning on another other user's talk page while at the same time doing one's own 3rd revert (and asking right away for protection!), it also does not qualify as "tak[ing] dispute resolution steps". Please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. — Sebastian 21:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I am not an administrator, and I gave him a warning after 3 reverts today. Didn't even think about stuff from yesterday due to his having not sourced it first and my own neglecting to ask him not to post copyvio material to the talk page (and was it really five? I saw only one from over 24 hours ago). As far as I'm aware, he is the only one who has done off-article nasty messages. I asked him to please discuss why he felt the information was anything more than trivial, particularly when the article is slated for redirecting anyway. As he was a newer editor, I was giving him more chances, but of course doing so always bites you in the butt because then you are "edit warring". 3 blocks is not numerous, and two were quickly overturned after discussion and agreeing to not revert, despite the situations usually involving disruptiveness or vandalism from the other editor. Funny, to me, that I get blocked without warning, yet if you check ANI, a far more abusive and disruptive editor has not despite his having edit warred over an article for nearly a year. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • You don't have to revert the same person to breach 3RR, if my understanding is correct. I just want to point out here that you are reverting w/o explanation a bit too often. Just today, you rolled back a new entry to the AfD log added by an IP, because the nomination was not completed in an hour (hardly surprising; I left a message on the IP's talk page; before xe responded, I read the article and was completing the nom; and the IP responded to me a couple minutes after the nom was completed). And you used TW to revert the removal of PROD and maintenance tags as vandalism without removing the PROD afterwards. The result, on God of blue moon, is that the PROD was added three times before I finally removed it. Tim Song (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        • It was the same person. Reverting vandalism, only other revert today that I can think of, is not counted in any 3RR that I know of or the vandals would have a field day. And 30+ minutes is more than enough time to do the AfD, I figured he hadn't understood the process so I reverted his adding it to the log page and his adding the tag to the talk page. And yes, you are right on the prod, but you'd already fixed it by the time it was brought to my attention. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
          • It's much better to check it out with him/her before reverting the tag, IMO. And you should have known about prod a long, long time ago. Tim Song (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

While there are admins watching, anyone want to deal with this vandalism[13] and this one since no one seems to have noticed it yet? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done - rolled back both, no admin action needed. Tim Song (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Gratsi. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To dos

Respond to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Manos: The Hands of Fate/archive1, TfD this thing, prod

At this point, I'd say add something to Fruits Basket about the final volume's now 9 week run at the NY Times Best Seller list[14]. 19:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Darna (2nd TV Series)

Hello AnmaFinotera, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Darna (2nd TV Series) - a page you tagged - because: I'll take responsibility for this one; it seems fine to have this redirect; IMO. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 05:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Of all his actions with the sock, that was about the only one that was more borderline. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock

Hi, do you think User:Tigerpawz is a Bambifan sock? Garion96 (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely...happy reverting. Looks like he's messed up quite a few articles very quickly...probably saw I was blocked. Hopefully can get it blocked quick and can get the damage undone - make sure to check for IP edits from his ranges to see if he double hit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it helps much, but I just reverted all his edits (mass rollback). Regards, Javért  |  ^Talk 19:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Tnx, figured you are the bambifan expert here. :) Account is now blocked. Garion96 (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, and not by choice. Still trying to figure out how I got drawn back into it after I finally got away from it. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Remakes notable?

can you help me? do remakes or re-releases of a film should have a serperate article when only the name and release time has changed? it would have to stay within the main article since it holds the same information. I dont realy know if remakes deserve notability. oh and do external links count as notability?Bread Ninja (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the remake. Generally, if its the same plot, style, director, and producer, I'd be inclined to say it can/should be covered in a single article. I can not think of any such remake, though. Is there a particular set of articles/films you had in mind? It isn't an issue of "deserving" notability. Both may be very notable, but if they have the same info, no reason to have in separate articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Did.... did you just delete my entire Sketchbook characters page?

That's pretty messed up, I spent like 19 hours or something on that. I was feeling pretty proud of it, I'll be honest. It looks like the chapter list is gone-O too. I put my heart and soul into that stuff. I never realized Wikipedia was such a rough place.--Nine Elms (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel you put a lot of time into it, but it was unnecessary and an inappropriate split with nothing but excessive minor plot bits and excessive WP:NONFREE images. It was not an appropriate character list, and had little encyclopedic content. Contrary to popular rumors, Wikipedia does have actual guidelines and policies about articles. Links to some have been left on your talk page. See also my reply on the talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarify

Thanks for your comment on the discussion at Template_talk:Cite_news#Accessdate. Could you please explain, what it is you disagree with? With hiding the accessdate parameter or with removing the text that said to hide it? Debresser (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done...hopefully made it clearer? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for taking the trouble. Debresser (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No prob and sorry for not being clearer the first time :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikilink

While working in List of Gin Tama characters I came to have a few doubts about links. How many times a character can be linked in an article (I don't mean in the same section). Also in the Bleach episodes, is it okay to wikilink words like zanpakuto, bankai, etc. when they all go to the same section? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I'd go one per main section (i.e. level 2 heading). For the Bleach episode links, since none have their own articles or even their own section, such links would seem excessive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FLRC delegate election

Hi AnmaFinotera! I'm just dropping by to let you know of the FLRC delegate election that begins on Tuesday. You may run in the election by following the instructions on the page. If you don't wish to run, please come and vote sometime next week! The election starts Tuesday and ends Saturday. For more information, check out the opening section of the page. Cheers, iMatthew ^talk at 19:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, after Sephiroth's disappearance (I haven't even been able to rouse him via email... hope nothing bad happened to him), we seem to have lost our representation amongst the FLRC delegates (and, indeed, among the entire FL process). Doubly unfortunately, I really can't think of anyone in our project who would have the necessary free time and expertise/experience to step up and run for a position. =( 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, been worried about him too...I know he was cutting back editing some, but now he's totally vanished :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

He disappeared at the end of the spring semester in a way that implied he was going on summer vacation, but aside from five minutes of comments ... nothing. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... in that regard, he could be on summer vacation somewhere where he would almost never have access to the internet (or would almost never want to access it). In any case, I'm still hoping he'll show back up sometime in the next few months (regardless of how much editing he does at that time). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

displaytitle

I was unaware of a specific consensus against (especially given, to the best of my knowledge, the ability had be well wanted for a while at the time of its implementation). I would not even have know where to look for a consensus (when you mentioned a discussion, my first wonder was as to which of the 5 or so concerned project you were talking about). I was simply assuming the lack of implementation was due to a lack of will and a certain lazyness (as is the case with plant articles). Circeus (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I've already reverted all of implementations of it, so no harm done. Feel free to join the discussions Rambo's Revenge gave you the links to, but as of now, community consensus is against the use of that template anywhere outside of the taxonomy area. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator

I regret to tell you that I will not be supporting you for the coordinator position. While I enjoy collaborating with you on articles or in discussions, I am concerned about your demeanor toward some editors, particularly those who are not established. I read what you said at WT:FILMC, and I agree with your assessment of the coordinator position. I believe that you are fully capable of the qualities involved. You are a reasonable voice among fellow coordinators, but I feel that being a reasonable voice toward all outside that circle is just as important. While we are all human as you say, and we all have our moments where our temperaments are less than ideal, I believe there may be too much biting involved on your part. As long-time editors, our actions are based on policies and guidelines, so we should be able to justify them this way in a polite tone and suggest alternatives to better contribute to Wikipedia. I know that you will likely be a coordinator again, but I felt compelled to withhold my support for this particular election to make my point. I harbor no ill feelings toward you and hope that you will consider how to better approach contributors who make problematic edits. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for your honesty. I'd honestly feel better about having readd myself if people could oppose rather than being limited to just withholding support, because, as someone noted on the project page, it just means winning by default when there are not enough candidates. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Gunslinger Girl episodes

Hello, I'm wondering why it is that you don't think that the Plot Summary in the opening paragraph of the List of Gunslinger Girl episodes page should be changed in order to reflect the fact that it is about a number of characters, not just a couple.--79.67.229.198 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The central focus of the series is Henrietta and Giusseppe, with spotlight episodes on the rest. Further, the article was passed as a featured article with the current summary. I do not feel it should be radically changed without consensus, discussion, and proper tweaking to actually have it reflect the high quality prose required of a featured article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

But it's so misleading. It's like saying that the X-Men is just about Professor X and Wolverine when there are so many other characters involved. They may be the most important and popular, but there are also Rogue, Gambit, Storm, Beast etc. How about something like "it's about a group of girls turned into cyborgs in order to act as government assassins, with particular focus on Henrietta and Giusseppe", or words to that effect?--79.67.229.198 (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The first season does focus primarily on them. I believe it is only in the second season that it really expands, though I haven't seen those episodes myself to know. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind if we continue this at the actual talk page of the article in question? I've put my answer there. Thank you.--79.67.229.198 (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your prod tag at list of suicides in fiction

I wrote an explanation on the article's talk page why I have removed the {{prod}} tag from List of suicides in fiction, 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! --Cyfal (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oroonoko

Hi, question for you here in case you miss it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

After the hostile responses from the other two, I will not be responding to that talk page anymore. I've already started the FAR and will let the community deal with the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really the way these things are meant to work. Rather than tagging an article, a person should ideally try to fix it first, and particularly if you've started a FAR, you shouldn't just move on and force others to deal with it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, that is how it works. Tagging does not require the tagger to fix the issues. Starting a FAR certainly does not require the person starting the review to fix the article. That would be both assine and ridiculous. People start FARs and GARs because they feel the article does not meet the relevant criteria. It is up to those who actively edit the article or others who are interested in the topic to correct the issues. It is not my job to fix another articles horrible sourcing issues. I am doing my part by calling it to community attention so it is not falsely labeled as a featured article, i.e. the best of the best, and give people a false impression that other articles should be inspired by it. Just because some people want to falsely believe that just because I noticed its issues I should have to fix them is does not make it reality. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

When I last checked the guideline on tagging, drive-by tagging was not allowed—because it's basically like spraying graffiti on a page—and drive-by FAR-ing is not appreciated for the same reason. Otherwise, what you're setting up is two classes of editor: one that goes around adding tags and trying to have FA's delisted, and another that's expected to do the actual work. That kind of division would be very much against the spirit of Wikipedia.

I ask that you reconsider your position on this, and help Oroonoko keep its FA status. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Drive-by" tagging is nothing but a derogatory and insulting phrase and the claim that it is "not allowed" is, quite frankly, BS. There is absolutely no guideline nor policy that requires that anyone who tags an article for maintenance issues must fix the article, nor that it is "graffiti". Anyone has the right to tag an article for issues in good faith without being attacked for it or called a vandal. Removing such templates without actually addressing the articles is what is a warnable offense. Indeed, projects have had tagging drives, where members review large sets of articles, tag for issues, and that's that. Nor is "drive by FARing" at all a legitimate term or even reality. Go look at any FAR. The person initiating is not obligated to help fix the article, and most have no relation or editing on the article at all, and continue to not edit after the FAR is started. Nothing in the FAR requires the nominator to aid in fixing the article, and claiming it is "not appreciated" is again, BS. Your claim that I am somehow setting up "two classes of editors" is, again, false and BS. I have worked hard on bringing articles to featured level, and doing "actual work". Claiming that people who tag articles and starting FARs is somehow not real work or against the spirit of Wikipedia is so false and wrong and just plain out insulting I can't believe you even believe it. Having an article listed as FA when it is clearly not is what is against the spirit of Wikipedia.

You are not the one who gets to decide how editors choose to contribute to Wikipedia. There are editors who primarily tag articles for issues. There are those who do little but add infoboxes and categories. There are those who only create stubs and leave it to others to finish the article. There are those who do nothing but merges and deletion discussions. Every last one is doing REAL WORK whether you agree with it or not. Do you also attack the editors who toss rescue tags on every last article for deletion without actually fixing the article or rescuing it? Do you attack every editor who starts a FAR or GAR or even who makes a negative remark in a peer review if they don't fix the issue? Why haven't you shut down the GA sweeps effort? Hmm? Its whole purpose is to note articles that no longer meet GA criteria and delist them, or confirm it does and relist them? Lots of articles delisted there and the delisters have not fixed any of those articles. Are you basically saying you would never tag an article for having a problem unless you yourself will fix it? (And WTF is the point of tagging an article if you are going to turn around and fix the article?) Sorry, but your claims are so blatantly wrong, I can only imagine they come from your own personal opinion and not the actual spirit of Wikipedia, nor any real guidelines or policies. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Best practice has always been not to engage in drive-by tagging. The NPOV tag page says, for example: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies ..."

Imagine: I am driving past your home, and I see you've painted your front door a dreadful colour. I knock on it, and I say, "Hey, do you realize the colour of your door isn't the lovely chocolate brown you probably thought it was in the store, but a kind of nasty shit colour?" You thank me for the input, and reply that you might change the colour when you have time and money, or you'd welcome my help in changing it. I say, "Sorry, I don't care enough to help," and as I leave, I throw a bucket of red paint at your house, just to make sure you've got something else to fix. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV tag is a different issue all together, and the only such tag except disputed, which does request a talk page discussion. No other tags require this. And the house example is ridiculous. You complain about the color of my house's door, I'd tell you to piss off, its my house and what you think is an ugly color may be exactly what I wanted it. You throw a bucket of paint on it, I'd have you arrested for vandalizing private property. Such actions, however, are not remotely comparable to tagging an article for issues. Neither you nor anyone else owns these articles. It is not your exclusive private property, but community property. As such, if one person in the community notes it has issues, they can and should note so. Tagging the article for that issue is NOT akin to throwing paint on the door, it is a legitimate and accepted method of indicating the article has problems. Claiming that because it was tagged by me I am somehow now responsible for fixing it is also, again, incorrect. I didn't break it. In your silly example above, your throwing red paint on the door would be you deliberately breaking it (aka vandalizing) and then it could be said you should fix it. However tagging an article is not vandalizing an article by any stretch of the imagination. The thing I really don't get is your reaction to this, and KC's, when neither one of you has done any editing on this article at all. So its not like I've thrown paint on your door either. I noticed an article that was listed as FA, noted it had almost no citations, tagged it as was appropriate. When the tag was questioned, I did leave an explanation on the talk page (which, FYI, means it is no longer "drive by tagging" from your own note. I pointed to specific issues and I have met all sensible requirements for adding the tag and supporting it. That it continues to be removed because I won't meet KC's ridiculous demand that I list every last sentence in such a lengthy article that has no citation, instead of nothing sections and paragraphs, is what is silly and ridiculous. Anyway, I'm done with this conversation. Why the pair of you suddenly decided to jump on me for entirely appropriate actions on an article neither of you would appear to have any vested interest in is beyond me. I have tagged hundreds, if not thousands, of articles, I've started many FARs and GARs, and never had such an openly hostile and negative reaction that seems based purely on personal dislike or attacks, as I noted that neither one of you has yet to actually show that the article does meet FAC or that my notes that it is not properly sourced is wrong. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Image orientation in Nightshade - and Wiki in general

Hi there.

Whereabouts does it state that an image should be right-aligned after a header? I've checked MOS, and can't see anything that states this. Just curious - not picking a fight or anything. a_man_alone (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

See MOS:IMAGES. Images should be right aligned when they directly follow any second level heading, though this is apparently now disputed and being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Question (and it appears it was removed prematurely but is back now) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Gundam related articles you reverted.

The articles in question (METEOR (Gundam) and Support ship Eternal) where revised to remove bad merge templates. There is still no discussion of the merge and the templates have been there a long time. Please consider the possibility that the placement of these templates may have been an act of vandalism. It is my understanding that there are two options to merging. First: Merge the articles without discussion. Second: Use the relevant merge templates and start the discussion with the reason why you believe that the articles should be merged. 97.115.129.240 (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A discussion is not required with the merge template unless the merge is controversial. And no, the placement was not vandalism and there is no valid reason to even think it might be. As the templates have been in place for such a long time, it seems clear that there is no actual opposition to the merging and the merge can be done at any time without discussion. However, as neither is notable, they have been tagged for deletion instead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The placement of merge templates without providing a reason is at the very least rude, and yes I did note the WP:PRODs (Proposals for deletion) on those articles. 97.115.129.240 (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really rude...and a reason may have been noted in the edit summary when they were placed (I didn't check the history to see). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it was Silver Edge (talk) who placed the merge templates. 97.115.129.240 (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be an established editor, and very active in the video game and Gundam areas. Looking at his contribs around the time, it seems like the tagging was done as part of a lot of clean up being done in the Gundam articles with many being tagged for merging. Most likely, they were just forgotten during these efforts. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, and thank you for your time. Allen 97.115.129.240 (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome letter and instructions!

Dear AnmaFinotera,

Thanks for the welcome letter and instructions! It would be my honor to learn from you and other members. I will definitely ask your expert advice and help.

Thanks again for your contribution to Wikipedia and the world!--Garbolia (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite welcome. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Templates indicating problems on an article don't mean anything, so there's no need to worry, as the owners of the article have already been made aware of what people think YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty...here's hoping the FAR stops the personal attack stuff and actually gets back to focusing on the article :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Brief

...semiprotect because of random IP abuse. Let me know if you'd like it lifted sooner, or if you don't want it at all. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and definitely wanted. Any way you can delete those edits from the visible history? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think so. Let me try. If your user page has more than 5000 edits it blows up, but let me check... Antandrus (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"This page has a large edit history of over 5,000 revisions. Deletion of such pages has been restricted to stewards to prevent accidental disruption of Wikipedia. Please contact one for assistance." -- Evidently there's been a software upgrade since the last time I did this (I don't do as much adminning as I did, say, three years ago). If you really want them to vanish you might want to find a steward at Meta. Antandrus (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay :( Thanks anyway :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Deskana (talk · contribs) is online, and I believe he can oversight those revisions for you, if you'd rather go that way. Regards, Javért ^☆ 00:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'll ask. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry About the Vandalism Case

Sorry about that. I thought the red vandalism link led to a page about vandalism. Didn't even know that was gonna happen, I swear! Well, at least I know how to revert vandalism now! I always learn something new everyday! Thanks... sorta. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the Twinkle docs before using...it is a very useful tool, but also powerful and those who use it are held accountable for errors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know I was using Twinkle until I saw your message. Please forgive me... D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Just make sure to take some time to read the docs. Its what added those new links :)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Satan or Hercule?

This has to do with the character discussion, but I would like your opinion. Since the season sets use a dub where Mr. Satan's name is what it is and not "Hercule," can we change it?? D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

For now, I'd just wait, let the discussion finish. Remember, there is no deadline :) If consensus is to use the manga names, they will all be changed anyway. If not, then can bring up the issue of the dubbed names on the different sets. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FUNimation's re-dubbing process was just a mess. They fixed some parts of the dub (like Hercule to Mr. Satan), but forgot to change some things. The GT sets didn't get a newly-revised dub, so Hercule was used in it. In both of the dubs, it says "don't miss scenes from the next episode" many times throughout the sets but NO previews! D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Alas, not surprising. At this point, DB is a huge cash cow that they don't really have to put a ton of effort into to get sales, especially with it being one of the few anime series every Wal-mart will carry and that otherwise non-anime fans enjoy (like my brother LOL). It really sucks for fans, considering Funimation has done some seriously awesome releases for other stuff (first season of Gunslinger Girl, for example) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

They're releasing the "Dragon Boxes," right? The only bad thing about that is the dub. If they decide to use both FUNimation dubs (which has been stated at a convention), we'll lose video quality. Hopefully they can pull it off! D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR award

Thanks for your nomination. In order to keep the queue short, we ask that all nominators review a nomination for promotion if possible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: FT image

Sure, I'd be happy to take a stab at it. What did you have in mind? Are there any motifs that we could create a free image out of? The article itself only has the characters, which isn't the best for trying to create a nonderiv option. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe something with strawberries? The main character is Ichigo, and strawberry or berry is used for pretty much all of her attack and weapon names, and on many of the covers of the manga; the character from the sequel is also berry. Could also go with a motif that plays on the endangered species for each of the main characters, or something similar - Iriomote Cat, Ultramarine Lorikeet, Finless Porpoise, Golden Lion Tamarin, and Gray Wolf. The species do effect their behaviors, particularly Ichigo's, and are reflected in their transformed appearances and attacks. What do you think?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at the articles, do some image searches, and then do some sketches, you can decide where to go from there :) I'll try to get back to you ASAP, but I am crunching on an animation project so it might take a little longer than usual. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

cool, much appreciated :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You can see some of my starting thoughts here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool! I like the strawberry and the bell combo, as both are reflective of the main character, as her love interest gives her a bell on a ribbon to mark her as his :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So do you think an arrangement of a strawberry and bell is the avenue I should pursue? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that would work well. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Need Your Help

I would like to learn how to request that all "CSI:NY" individual episode pages be deleted since they aren't really necessary. Some episodes are missing, pages are being made in advance revealing details to a cliffhanger season premiere (that one really isn't a reason, but does give away some things for me!), and overall the info on the pages are also on the season pages. Could you post a tag or something? Or teach me what to do? Thanks... :] D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally, you would start by tagging them all for merge to the relevant episode list using the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} templates (former on the episode articles, later on the episode list), and starting a discussion about the reason you feel they should be merged. That said, the reason of it giving away details is not a valid reason for deleting anything (see WP:SPOILER - Wikipedia is not a spoiler-free zone and content should not be removed to avoid them). Generally, the main reason to merge episodes to the list is that the large bulk of them are not notable, failing WP:N. If the same information is already in the season pages, all the more reason to merge and/or redirect as is appropriate. WP:MOSTV discusses episode lists as well. Once you've started the discussion, you may want to post neutrally-worded notices at Television project and the Fiction notice board to request views. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, so I'll have to put a "merge from tag" over 20 times each page for the episodes...? D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you'll need to put a merge to on each individual episode article. For the list, if you're going to suggest they all be merged and they are categorized, I believe you can just do {{merge-from|Category:blah blah}} with the actual category name, of course. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I want to keep the season pages. The actual episode list contains the titles and the season contains descriptions, too. There isn't a category for each season, so I do nothing on the page but start a little discussion to see if people agree...? D4c3nt3n0 (talk)

Sorry, meant the season pages. You can (and should) start a discussion on each season page. The tags are just a good way to let anyone watching the individual pages know the discussion is taking place. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Cali boi16 and Death Note

Hey AnmaFinotera, since User:Cali boi16's block expired, he has returned and is much calmer now - it seems a good night's sleep helped him clear his head, and he's apologized for his personal attacks and edit warring. He has also started a topic about his proposed additions at Talk:Death Note#I appoligize and wish to move forward, and is discussing it quite civilly, true to his word. Would you care to stop by and weigh in on the proposed addition? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

While he's being calmer and more civil, it seems he is determined to argue points to death and is back to claiming bias because I disagree with him. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bryan Collegiate High School

It was not 100% copied. And even in some hypothetical situation it was; you redirected it without leaving time for me or someone else to improve it to Wikipedia's standards.

Yatesman (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

99.9% copied is close enough, and minor changes do not negate that you stole someone's content and tried to claim it as your own work and put it in an article. The article was redirected as without the promo material, there is nothing to say about the school and it is not notable. Redirecting to the district page is the appropriate course of action. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

FL red link criterion discussion

See here. Cheeers, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Media Blasters Cat

You tagged VS (manga) with the Media Blasters category even though it is licensed in NA by CMX. If there's a source that says VS is licensed by Media Blasters, I'd like to see it. Extremepro (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to undo if its wrong. I was going off the licensed list on MBs page, so had some errors I'm sure. I caught some but not all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Big Fish

01:30, 22 June 2009 AnmaFinotera (talk | contribs) moved Talk:Big Fish/GA2 to Talk:Big Fish/GA1 over redirect ‎ (Move doesn't make any sense to me - there is no other GA 1 - no need to move

Is that right? GA1 is located at Talk:Big_Fish#GA_Pass, and was created in 2007, prior to the advent of the subpage. I'm currently working on GA3, but you moved GA2 to GA1. Should I be working on GA3 or GA2? Viriditas (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its right, because the first GA was not done on a separate page as it was done before that method was implemented. So yours should be done at Talk:Big Fish/GA2 :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if that is standard procedure, I'll move the review. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR award for Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, could you check whether removing a section in Tales of Vesperia was appropriate. The User 92.237.14.190 wrote the whole section with sources that I don't think are reliable. The Sankaku sites seem to have done original research by themselves and the other two sources were blogs. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'd agree removing that was appropriate. None of those are reliable sources at all, so their commentary on the game is not valid for referencing here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, there's been a dispute of edits at Tales of Vesperia. Could you create a discussion at the article place with suggestions on what to do with 92.237.14.190's edits? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 22:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The article appears to already be protected but protected as a dispute? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but I have a feeling someone would try to put it back onto the article and I still don't know how to argue against this. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

They are unreliable sources per WP:RS, consisting of fansites, blogs, and other non-usable sources. Inappropriate content that is deliberately defamatory of the company and game and violates WP:NPOV as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Copied pasted, thanks. I'll be back if/when I need your help with the dispute. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 22:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you tell me if this page could be speedy deleted and for what reason? Naruto Shippūden: Ryujinki. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 20:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Alas, no. Would need to prod or redirect unless it is a pure hoax. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If I prod it, what reason would I give to back it up if someone objects? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 22:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Unnotable, unconfirmed game; fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick google says its out in November. The information and confirmation are definitely out there. A prod using crystal seems a bit silly as it can be recreated in a couple of weeks. Notability could easily change around that time too. I'd say tag it now, go back to it around release time and see if anything has been added or if any reviews have started emerging. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If its confirmable, I'd just redirect to the appropriate main article or list (can't remember if there is one for Naruto yet) noting its way too early for a standalone article -- AnmaFinotera (talk ·contribs) 22:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems sensible. It's definately confirmable. [15] Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What kind of speedy delete does this need? File:Psyren-char.jpg. The fair use rationale is lacking, and the picture is a scanlation, which is illegal I'm pretty sure. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 18:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be speedy, but "semi-speedy" with tagging for image deletion for copyvio issues. It isn't a "blatant" violation, per se, though depends on the reviewing admin as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD

I know you have had interest in date formatting in the past, so thought you may perhaps have interest in following or being involved in the discussion of the YYYY-MM-DD format that is ongoing at [16] at the moment.-- Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it has now moved to here--Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Another AWB request...

This time for Digimon. Care to replace all instances of {{Digimon savers}}, {{Digimon Savers}}, {{Digimon tamers}}, {{Digimon01}}, {{Digimon Adventure}}, {{Digimon02}}, {{Digimon Adventure 02}}, and {{Digimon frontier}} with {{Digimon}}, once again removing any duplicates? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, will try to work on it this evening. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Weee! With this one I actually managed to get AWB to clear the dupes for me, rather than me doing it manually like last time! All done :) Approximately 100 articles touched. I will now go scrub my mind of all those character articles that had tons of HTML as if copy/pasted from fansites, the spam, the trivia sections, excessive non-free images, and Template:Digimon Wiki... :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, managed to save yourself a bit of time and sanity, right? =D In any case, the Digimon articles are years overdue for a good scrubbing, but at least with everything on one template now, it becomes a bit easier to work through it all. =P 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you wonder why I asked if you are going to tackle Digimon next? It is actually on my to do list. someday. G.A.S^talk 17:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL, having looked, now my no thanks is much more emphatic ;-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You *wish* I was that masochistic... =D I'm not ruling out the possibility of doing random work on random Digimon articles as I feel like it, but don't expect a concerted effort out of me. =/ 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

I'm aware of your current crusade against Bambifan101, and while any of his accounts should be blocked, and meatpuppetry does happen with administrators of other projects, if they make the edit then the content is generally their responsibility. I haven't looked in much detail, but unless they are directly copying and pasting new versions of articles he builds up on other projects so they can be posted on en.wp, they probably should not be blocked. Other than that, you should know about m:Steward requests/Global.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case, he did exactly that. Bambifan101 made copies of the articles in his user space there and gave him explicit requests to copy/paste them there except for one article where he pointed to an old revision and asked to have it restore (way way old one). He also told the editor in question exactly who he was, pointed to the LTA report, and the editor still did edits for him. Good to see on the Global. That one was blocked here awhile ago, but guessing that was before Meta started doing global blocks on his socks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've still not reviewed most of this, but please be aware the Revi is not just a bureaucrat, he has seven such bits on other projects and CU and oversight on id:wp; he a reasonable fellow. I've had a lot of talk with him. I'm certainly not arguing a get out of jail free view here, just a plea for better dialogue. Bambifan speaks Indonesian, as does Revi, so there is probably more to learn here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd highly doubt Bambifan speaks Indonesian or any other language, and have yet to see any evidence to show he does. Can you point to such? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's over on id:wp from last year. I could find it if I mucked about a bit. And I know Revi and Bambifan have spoken in Indonesian; I've seen it (over there, too). I recall seeing Bambifan edits in Thai, too. I'm certainly not trying to defend Bambifan; I've not seen much of what's gone on, but get the drift. Revi is a decent fellow and seems to have had some dialogue with Bambifan. We can learn something here and possibly sort the larger problem. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The larger probably is pretty much already known (see the LTA). Bambifan is a bored kid seeking attention with too much time and not enough parental attention. Nothing we can do about that. Bambifan101 has edited almost every language Wiki. I seriously doubt he speaks allof those languages...most likely using translation software. I know on his talk page edits, he's frequently asking for translations of articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen enough to know that Bambifan is a serious problem and is unlikely to be sorted; certainly not without growing-up a bit, first. I had not considered the translation software idea. Revi is one of the good guys, really. It may be that he was taken in by a creative troll, but that's it. fyi, he's not in Indonesia; Europe. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Grawp is a problem. Bambifan101 is a menace. Seriously, what the hell is it going to take to get Mr. Wales and his merry band off of the pot and onto the phone with BellSouth? I cannot believe this brat is so bored that all he does is mess around with the same subjects ad nauseum on every damned wiki on the internet. This has gone beyond the "poor little bored child" stage. I for one am sick of cleaning up this freak's messes. Thanks for all the good work you do, by the way. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Book/doc

You undid my edit on {{Infobox Book/doc}}. Please click on any link accompanying the |oclc= parameter. It does not take you to the OCLC website. It, in fact, takes you to the WorldCat website. (WorldCat is owned by OCLC.) The |oclc= parameter was poorly named initially. My edit to the documentation clarified all this. I will not put my edit back but, after you have examined the issue, you might like to. (If you respond, please do so here as I prefer to keep my Talk page blank.) HairyWombat (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The number is the OCLC number. Where the link goes to is irrelevant (ISBN also goes to WorldCat). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: image

Sorry to be holding things up... you can always slap in a placeholder so they'll pass the thing in the meantime, right? (I'll leave a note on the FT page) I'll try and have some more refined concepts for you by the end of the weekend, but I've got to turn a Scion xB into a Cord 810 by Tuesday, so it's taking a fair amount of my graphics time :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries :) I'll pop up something to act as a placeholder until then. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Verlaam

I posted on the talk page. He has major issues in terms of ownership and attacking other users. Everything stems from the ownership issues. He's convinced that he "runs" several pages and therefore can dictate how they look and operate. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Johnny Test Cast Poster.jpg

Hey, is there any rule that states that this image can't be used in a character page or section? If so then I'll be glad to refraim from using it. Sarujo (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be most appropriate in a character list. Trying to use it in a single character's page would be more difficult to justify a valid FUR for since it doesn't focus on any one character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling but wasn't too sure. See the user Warmpuppy2 has reverted the image claiming that the image was not used on Wikipedia due to images as such provide unencyclopedic information and that it can be seen on the Johnny Test Wiki. The later sounds ridiculous to me. Sarujo (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's silly. The image if an official image and can be used here so long as it is used properly. Sounds like someone being pointy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Great Work

		The Manga and Anime BarnSakura Award
		For your great work in promoting Tokyo Mew Mew and it's related pages to Featured status, and for achieving Featured Topic status, I present this well deserved Barn Sakura. What are you tacklling next? :p

Thanks :) Still contemplating. Considering Cardcaptor Sakura, and agreed to help with Fruits Basket though thus far I've done little on that one :P Also working on finishing up List of Kare First Love chapters for an FLC, and want to get back to working on the Viz manga magazine articles...weee-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, AnmaFinotera! *sees all the work being handed out* Umm... that reminds me... I've got to get back to this, so if you don't mind... *runs off* =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that Fruits Basket may be the better choice of the two, it's just the sort of thing we can use for establishing the viability of a collaborative project. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome work! Congratulations for the FT. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Mathemagician57721 sock

I see another Mathemagician57721 sock has appeared on the Pokemon articles. I've already reported it to WP:ANI. —Farix (t | c) 01:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he has another named sock too. Reported to AIV and doing a new SPI. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Blair Waldorf

Lately I've been working on the Blair Waldorf article. Do you know how I might go about getting it rated? I left a request or two for it (and Kelly Taylor (90210)) on Project Television months ago, but haven't seen a response from anyone. I figure it's because they're probably busy, or I left the request in the wrong place. -- James26 (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You left it in the right place, unfortunately the Assessments area is sadly neglected by the project. I've gone ahead and assessed Blair's article at a C. You've greatly expanded it, which is great, and added lots of references, however the lead should be a summary of the article with few to no new facts being cited, and the plot is still overly extensive. There is also excessive/undue focus on the television character, an adaptation, versus the novel character (the original), and the summaries of the two media need sourcing. On the right track though. I'd suggest putting in a note on the main project page asking someone to assess the other one and maybe reminding them that the assessments area needs attention. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're lightning. I turn my head between football and the screen and it's already graded. Thanks a lot, and thanks for your comments. -- James26 (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No prob :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

TFatH

He moved the talk page, moving the article with it. I've move-protted the TP now so that he doesn't try this stunt again. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh...that seems like a bad bug that it was able to go through :-( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've seen move-prots be circumvented in this manner, so when I looked into the pages that you were being notified for and noticed they were move redirects, I also deleted the TP redirect and, seeing that the TP hadn't been move-protected with the article, did the honors. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing the edit-summary for your revert of the move of The Fox and the Hound I got curious, to me it looks as simple as this: the page was protected with move=autoconfirmed August 5th, [17], and the vandal would have been autoconfirmed with an account registred 5 days ago and 10+ edits in the sandbox. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like he set that account up deliberately for that purpose and just waited to get autoconfirmed to get around it :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-autoconfirmed can't move pages, last I checked. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 00:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nailing Bambi's hide to a boxcar door and watching it roll off into the sunset

Hi. Bambifan's hide, really. I take a meta view of things and this seems ripe. I've floated a version of the above notion about and would welcome email from you. We can talk here, some, if you'd prefer. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Will email :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. It's afternoon here ;) UTC+8. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Actually, just kidding. Beautiful new article and Jack's unexpected comment above just sent me into a laughing fit. You da best.  :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

:-P Thanks! :) About to send it for DYK, wee! First from scratch one I've done in awhile, versus expanding a stub...and people say there are no valid and notable topics left to write about on Wikipedia ;-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest the same thing re. DYK. As for those red links: Heck, I can think of at least two famous exhibition drag racing cars and at least three drivers needing articles. I found a bunch of red links while writing about Wild Bill Shrewsberry. Good luck on the DYK; I'm glad at least one of us is actually writing instead of shooing off errant deer. :) Gotta shoo myself. Best, PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

True true. Hard to believe some large newspapers and magazines even still have just stubs or no articles at all. Gotta get the writing juices going (or maybe just trying to get stuff done before November when NaNoWriMo makes me forget about doing any real editing ;-) ) Take care! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts yet on what you'll write this year? =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not yet. I'm still editing last year's novel. Don't know if I want to jump ahead and work on the sequel to my 2007 novel, revisit an old idea from my list that I haven't done anything with yet, or do like I did with this one and go into something almost totally new reusing a few characters from old works, with a bit of tweaking. I do have one new idea I have floated around, but not sure I could translate it to a novel as, in my mind, its more of a manga(-inspired comic) or anime(-inspired cartoon) :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Template_talk:Did_you_know#The_Other_Economic_Summit

I did a minor rescue of this article for DYK - can you check it out if someone else hasn't already? ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Already did and replied :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've made an alternative hook proposal if you want to see what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note

Just wanted to clarify that I have recently opened a mediation dispute case with the editor who popped into TfD to dispute every template I nominated today with suggestions that it is my opinion. This is basically part and parcel of why mediation has become necessary. Though, I'm not sure what brought him to the TfD. Strike that, I didn't realize the Jim Carrey template was something he made, but I would have nominated it for deletion anyway. Thought that might be enlightening. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Good to know. I suspected he was only arguing against the others because he made the Carrey one. Calling it your "opinion" was an odd defense, for sure. *shaking head* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Internal link bracket

Hello! At Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MLauba#Oppose, I think you may be missing the brackets at the end of your internal link to your userspace criteria. I am not sure if we are allowed to fix such things in other editors' posts and so am just bringing it to your attention instead. Cheers! --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello again

IP address84.58.121.9 has been adding German release dates to the Case Closed films. Am I suppose to undo them, and if so on what rule? And I'm wondering if that rule will apply to the characters too, as IP addresses have been adding Spanish information about Jimmy Kudo such as his name in Spanish (Bobby Jackson) and another user has complained about the lack of theme music of Case Closed in other languages. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

They should be removed per WP:MOSFILMS and the consensus of the Films project. Only the original release should be covered in film articles, along with major English releases (in prose). For the characters, all of that should be removed as the articles should only include the original and English character names and voices. Ditto for the theme music. Other languages should be covered on their respective Wikis. They are not covered here unless they are highly notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Bread Ninja

I like your opinions on some of Bread Ninja's comments. At Talk:Sailor Moon#a few questions, they are starting to become disruptive. And the whole discussion at Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion: Angelic Days#Unreferenced and Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime)#Manga and anime of nge is overly confrontational and shows and unwillingness to accept a consensus that differs from her own opinions. —Farix (t | c) 21:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'd agree, she seems overly confrontational and in strong need of a lesson in both civility and consensus. That she continues to disregard consensus (even if I myself also disagree with it) is just not acceptable. The forum shopping that she seems to be doing with NGE is also not appropriate. From her earlier edits, she seems to be something of a recovering vandal, and I'm not sure she is doing well with completely mending her ways and be productive, but so far she still is not understanding the basic concepts. I left her ye ol' welcome template, since no one ever has, to try to encourage her to do some reading and a personal note to encourage her in the right direction (hopefully). Beyond that, all I can suggest is continued patience and trying to explain to her repeatedly, if necessary, the concepts of consensus and all. If she acts against that consensus on an article, then the usual escalation steps up to administrative actions would be appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Free image

In Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist a user said that he uploaded images from FMA in wikicommons. one of them is a statue from Alphonse Elric's armor at Japan Expo. Is there some way to use it in such article?Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool image. It might be usable in the article on Alphonse in the reception section, however I'd double check on its meeting fair use regards first. There are some funky rules about pictures of statues and, from my understanding, pictures of them are not considered fair use like pictures of anything else. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Better late then never...

So... sorry for taking so long, but I figured after I completed my school work I should actually work a little on a logo I've been contracted to do for a nonprofit, so real life took some measure of priority :P Anyhow, I've created a rough first draft of what I was thinking at File:Strawberry mew-mew.png. There's some spacing things I'm going to fix later, and obviously at the work resolution of 60px the text is going to have to be made more legible, but your feedback is what I'm looking for right now. I've got a bunch of "reading days" coming up so I should be a little more prompt in replies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Very cute! I love it and I think it goes well with the topic. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Masters of the Universe

As you can see I have made a mass cull of information on He-Man and the Masters of the Universe and need to do more but the one thing I really need to know for the characters. He-man and She-Ra are these the correct character inbox if not what format should be used I can see its gonna be a long road.

Dwanyewest (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Its the correct infobox, however the cruftiness needs to be cleaned out, such as the alignment, affiliations, powers/skills, and weapons. I'd refer to some GA/FA character articles that passed in the last 6 months or so for the appropriate bits to put in a character infobox. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me an artilce with a GA/FA character inbox to make a break from the past

Dwanyewest (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Did you know...

Hello! I noticed that you've been reviewing a lot of nominations at the DYK suggestions page. Thank you for your help, and I hope you will continue to contribute! As you know, you don't need to be an administrator to review hooks or to move hooks to Preparation area, so your help is more than welcome.

You may already be familiar with the DYK rules by now, but in case you aren't, you can check out the official rules and the Additional Rules. You may also want to look into some useful tools that can allow you to review nominations more quickly: the Cut & Paste character counter is a helpful JavaScript to calculate the length of hooks, and DYKcheck is a script you can install on your own Wikipedia account for more heavy-duty verifying.

The best way to learn is by doing, but here is also a quick reference of the things to check for each hook you review:

Quick Reference Is the hook under 200 characters? Was the article written or expanded within the past 5 days? Is it over 1500 characters long? If it's an expanded article, is the expansion at least 5x? Does the article have an inline citation for the fact? If there's an image, is it free to use? Is the hook interesting? Are there any other miscellaneous problems with the article? Useful Links DYK suggestions DYK discussion Preparation area DYK templates

Thanks again for your help! I look forward to continuing to work with you at DYK, and if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me or anyone else at DYK. Now get to reviewing some noms! -- –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 06:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you didn't get this earlier, but a belated welcome to DYK and a thank you for helping out. :) –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 06:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL, talk about ask and ye shall receive ;-) Thanks! This is very useful!-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :) Hope to see you continuing to be active in the DYK process. Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 07:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Wolf: A Journey Home

On October 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wolf: A Journey Home, 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.

Giants27 09:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC) (talk)

Motor Age 1912

Hi. You suggested clarification of image use for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Motor_Age_cover_1912.jpg. I've changed it to public domain, which I think is correct for this 97-year-old content. Is that right?Proscriptus (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that should fix it, thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Big Fish review

Hi, again. I'm trying to finish up the Big Fish review and I had another question for you. In your last review, you had valid concerns about the use of DVD Active as a reliable source. Would you have the same concerns if I replaced those links to either The New York Times[18] or All Movie Guide[19]? The NYT site uses the AMG data, but I would prefer to link directly to AMG, which to the best of my knowledge is considered a reliable tertiary source. Any objections? Keep in mind, I'm just using it to support data about release dates and product types, so there is nothing controversial here. Viriditas (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

AMG should be fine as I believe its basic info is considered reliable and, as you note, the particular info it is citing is fairly basic. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That clears up at least one issue...I'll add the links now. Viriditas (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks

i already read some of it by experimenting with WP:.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging

Hello. While I was editing the ViaSat page to put the inuse tag on it, I noticed you did an edit. I was following these steps:

Save the destination page. (Edit summary of "cleanup after paste/merger" is appropriate.)

I was about to remove the infobox and "cleanup". Just FYI.

Thanks and I'm trying! lol --Micwa (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I wasn't sure if you were going to do more after that, so I went ahead and cleaned it up :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was being bold! ;-) Now I see how you summed it up, should I do the same with the other sub-visions, esp. the ones with their own articles Scientific Atlanta and Lockheed Martin. Even though the Lockeed article is pretty large, perhaps it meets nobility guidelines to stay it's own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micwa (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For now, both should have a section with a summary of the main article and a {{main}} link to the full articles would be more appropriate. Lockeed is definately notable, SA should have some time with a notability tag to give time for anyone to look at to see if they can kind some sources, similar to WildBlue's being tagged before merging. For the rest, it would be great if they were delinked, converted to sections, and we could get 1-3 sentences summing up something about them to get the section filled out more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines

I put a list of my Weekly Shōnen Jump issues on the page, but there are so many of them! When I finally laid it out, it went of the page. :P The list is hidden at the bottom of the page, but you can unhide it in the preview. Maybe you could help format it a bit better... ^_^" Oh yes, by the way, what do you think of this new article I authored, called Scribner's Magazine, it is hands-down my best article. Do you think it could get up to a B-class? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Very good article. Its pretty near B class now, though more reception information and a summary of its features would be great. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You see, that's the problem. I can't find any more reception information. :P What should I do? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked through Lexis Nexis or the like? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is at LexisNexis...just checked. :( – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have access to a University journal database? I checked A&M's and found some possible sources. In particularly, Journalism History has some articles that mention Scribner's. v. 24 no. 3 (Autumn 1998) has an article called "The popular art of American magazine illustration, 1885-1917" in which, per the summary, "The writer looks at the role of such magazines as Cosmopolitan, Scribner's, and Century in the promotion and treatment of illustration as art, arguing that American magazine illustration represented a significant part of American journalistic heritage." Also found one from The New Yorker (v. 72 (June 24-July 1 1996) p. 73-7) that appears to discuss the Hemingway issue some more. All of those hits came from the OmniFile FT Mega (H.W. Wilson Company) database. Got 39 hits total on a general topic search, with several others looking promising. If you don't have access to that kind of database, let me know and I can pull the articles for you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't find em... :( Why don't you just pull them here, that would be nice. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay...will take a few days...will let you know when I have them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Golly gee willickers! Thanks! – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Library db was being bratty tonight. Will try again tomorrow. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So what's new? :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 20:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing much. Had my first root canal Friday (wee), otherwise just working lots and being frustrated at not being able to buy as much manga as I'd like lately. Did get to pick up the first few volumes of Kitchen Princess, and looking forward to get more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Unarchived so I don't forget I still need to do this :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Currently have one article full-text, and requests in for the texts of seven other articles, including one that is a critical history of the magazine. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome thanks! :D That helps a lot, thank you! :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they have all come in. Will download tonight. Do you want them via email or download online? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

~poke~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry! :P I would like to download. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[20] is the URL. Let me know when you have it downloaded so I can take the file back offline (the link will expire tomorrow either way :-) ). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh...uh....sorry. I was at my family cabin for a while, guess I should have told you. :P The link expired...that sucks. Can you re-open the page? :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Link and all should be the same. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AnmaFinotera. :) (just downloaded) Those will definitely help. :D So how have you been doing lately? :) I need to get more manga... D: Man, I will never forgive Viz Media for what they did to Tegami Bachi...grrr... >:( – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool and glad to help. I've been okay, though tired of this cold, rainy weather. Managed to pick up a few new volumes this month, including the last volume of Chibi Vampire (cry). I'm still pissed at Tokyopop/Kodancha for the Rave Master thing. Having to wait another year for the last three volumes because its now going to be done by Del Rey? Grr...also annoyed at myself for missing a great chance to pick up the Ghost Hunt manga volumes at a good price and I missed a Viz manga sale. But will get it later :-)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. Yeah, that thing Tokyopop and Rave Master sucked... :( Did you see what Viz did to Tegami Bachi??? That series has some of the most brilliant manga artwork ever, the artist, Hiroyuki Asada, is a genius (who also got into the Robot artbook), and I've loved that series ever since it came out in Monthly Shōnen Jump. Do you know what they did? They took out all the Japanese sound effects and replaced with those goofy typefaces they do on EVERYTHING! That just completely butchered the artwork! I have never been so mad over a translation....EVER....I had to call my dad up and tell him everything (he's also a fan of the artist). :( – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar with Asada or that series, so I can't speak much about what they did. Not unexpected, though. I don't think Viz ever leaves in the sound effects, do they? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, never do. That's why I don't support Viz Media, they just butcher everything I like and collect and make it a joke. :( I will occasionally collect some English volumes, but not that much. I usually get the Japanese, why have to worry about all that stuff when I can read it perfectly how the creator wanted it to be. :) To get an idea of the guy's artistic talent, just go and look at the Tegami Bachi Japanese cover on the Wiki page here. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been following Tegami Bachi in Shonen Jump, I'll agree that it's an amazing series (and I love the Japanese covers ^_^ ). Insofar as Viz is concerned, I try to look at their stuff as its own work - if it weren't for them, there'd be a lot of stuff that never saw the light of day from an English publisher. Also, if I recall correctly (don't usually pay attention), the SigIkki series have, thus far, still had the original Japanese sound effects. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'd much rather half of the series Viz release to never see the light of day. But...do you realize that Hiroyuki Asada is one of the most talented manga artists in history and Viz had the nerve to butcher the guys artwork? They didn't even give his art room to breath! If you saw the original Japanese version, maybe you'd understand what a genius that artist is. But Viz just covered up all of that. :( – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocking the Brat again?

Hi, AnmaFinotera. Hope you're in good shape. I'm here again on the perennial subject of our friend from Georgia. He's been very active over on cy: recently, alas! I wonder if you have experience with range blocks? Trouble is that the wiki range-block finder doesn't seem to be working of late. The range seems to be 68.208.0.0 - 68.223.255.255 (original IP in this case = 68.220.175.94). Now, the problem is, without the help of range-block finder how do I convert that to a format to use in blocking here on wikipedia (on cy: I mean)? It's the first IP addy followed by a forward slash - e.g. 68.208.0.0/xx - but what should it be in this case? For all I know that might block every Bellsouth user! No big deal on a small wiki like cy: maybe, as we have few contributors from the States, but still a bit excessive perhaps! Can you help or do you know someone who could? As you are probably aware, we're a just a small team on cy: and so he can be a time-consuming pest, which is probably just what he enjoys. Ho-hum, when's he going to get a proper hobby? Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about range blocking. You may want to ping an admin here with CheckUser rights, as they generally would have the most knowledge about those, I think. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, AnmaFinotera. Following it through a whole series of wiki loops and some highly technical advice ('First convert the IP address(es) to binary...' etc!) I eventually ended up here - which is where the rangeblock finder link should take you to in the first place but doesn't - via here. Result : a nice [not so] little rangeblock for the Bambi-besotted One. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Characters' age

Hi, AnmaFinotera. I sort of remember a discussion or two somewhere about why it's a bad idea to give the age of a character, but I'm having trouble locating them. Can you help me, please? All the best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_11#Age_fields_in_fictional_character_infoboxes :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries on Gossip Girl, warnings and possible edit warring.

I am confused by your edit summaries for these edits: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] and possibly others. None of these are clear vandalism and so deserve a proper edit summary. I'm surprised that an experienced editor such as yourself is willing to leave such edit summaries given that they're likely to inflame the situation. This warning also confuses me a bit - it's far from clear to what action it refers and there's no obvious insertion of copyrighted material. It also seems an extreme warning for a first warning. It would appear to me that you may be letting your disagreement on content affect your other actions too much. This is clearly a content dispute not vandalism and lack of edit summaries and unexplained warnings are not really appropriate. I also think your showing signs of owning the article and think you're getting very close to edit warring over it. As you are an experienced editor I will, for the moment, give you he benefit of the doubt but if your actions continue, without a reasonable explanation, I feel I will have no choice but to report you for edit warring. Dpmuk (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

hey are ALL clear vandalism, as the summaries are all WP:COPYVIO. It doesn't have anything to do with a "content dispute" I'm sorry, but there is never any valid reason to still people's content. If you want to report me for edit warring because I refuse to allow people to break US law and a non-negotiable Wikipedia policy, go ahead. I really do not care. I will not sit around and go "omg, I'm edit warring" when I'm removing illegal content. Facts are facts. People frequently try to add copyvio summaries stolen from the publisher's sites, fansites, blogs, etc to the article. It is clear vandalism and the warning level on copyright violations is also not changable. It has a single level. So it is not "too harsh" it is the only option available. When bad summaries are added that are not copyright violations, I do revert them with a normal edit summary and note why they are bad. 99% of the time, they are unintelligiable "teen speak" things, which I would surely hope you'd not go around advocating be allowed. As for the ones reverting the removal of Keith. Guess what, I agree he's a pointless, minor character, but he was MERGED there per the result of an AfD. Therefore, per guidelines, he MUST remain there unless consensus says otherwise. Had you looked at the top of the article's talk page, you'd have seen the notice about that. From your "examples" there is no edit warring at all. Only two of those are even marginally related, and are spanning across days. "Fans" and detractors frequently make inappropriate edits to media articles. Reverts will happen. None of those are generally the same editor, just random passers by. It is not edit warring. Thank you for acknowledging my experience, though it would have been nice if you had simply asked rather than throw in implied threats when you don't seem to have actually understand the issues or fully researched each individual link there to see why a revert might have occurred. If you feel it would be more useful to use a fuller edit summary, then please just say so, but again, I do not appreciate being accused of edit warring when I've done nothing of the kind on this article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Banned Books Week

Hello AnmaFinotera, I saw that you had reverted all of LAEC's edits to the Banned Books Week article. I was curious as to the reason for this, is it because of the COI issue? Almost all of the edits that you had reverted were minor ones, fixing mistakes (that I had made) and cleaning up text here and there. You also restored the POV tag, which is perfectly fine. The POV tag was only removed because the person contesting neutrality seems to have left Wikipedia, temporarily or permanently, and in my judgment the neutrality concerns were resolved. I reverted your revert because there was no explanation and I thought that it had undone a number of improvements in the article. I strongly encourage you to bring up any concerns you might have on the talk page of the article, or you can let me know why you reverted his edits. I do see that you object to the use of the TOCright template based on the message you left for LAEC, which I actually agree with (I personally thought it was an odd edit) so I'll preserve the removal of that template. Thanks! -- Atama頭 17:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It was done as part of the bulk reverting of his inappropriate addition of those templates all over the place. On that one article, I hadn't seen he'd done other edits or I'd have just removed the tag (all the rest except one other he'd just stuck in the tag on a random assortment of articles). If any other legit edits were removed, it was due to the articles going untouched for days and him still being the last one to do it. Two others had the same problem. Easily fixable, fortunately, and thanks for fixing that one (banned books). Would have not been an issue, of course, if he hadn't gone so over the top requiring swift action. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand 100%, thank you so much for clearing that up. -- Atama頭 20:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Transcluding data

Hello,

I am looking ofr you help on how to make templates. I know the AMP have made templates for using {{:list of show}} to transclude the data from teh seoasn article to main list without summaires, i am lookign ot amke something for some tv shows do the same sort of thing where only certian information is transclude without me needing to go through the entire page putting <onlyinclude></onlyinclude> in the parts i want to be included, i rather havea tempate where it automatically copies only that data that is required. I also need ot makea template for a table that is translcude but only certains colum are needed in teh main aritlce but the same as above aint sur ehwo ti make the template but i cant find how to do it form teh templates page it bit vague, helpdesk has gave me more informaiton but i still not completely sure. any help or examples even jsut the naruto shipudean one would be grateful any time i try looking at show hacks it alwasy blank on the page so i cant see what getting done and the test page is blank for the coe to as it give mea better idea for making a complet new tempate--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean for TV episodes? It already has one. It uses the same sort of code as the anime/manga one (they both are based on the same code base). See Template:Episode list#Sublists. Pretty much works the exact same way, but you can see it in action on a rather insane scale on List of Lassie episodes :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ever time i have tried using it copies the short summary so that why iw as lookign to make fixes to ti caus ei know the amp ones works. but i was also lookign to make show spefici ones where certains coloums would not be copied formt eh seaosn article but not sure hwo to mske ones. i am also lookign to make a template for a another subject full stop but that will be more work--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me one where you tried? It should not be bringing in the short summary if it is being used correctly. In generally, most specific hacks are no longer encouraged, however if you look on the TV docs you can see some legacy ones that you can copy paste for use if it is necessary to do. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yip here is the one i tried it on ages ago List of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition episodes i have resotred it back for now and hidden teh manual work. There is alos List of House episodes but you will fidn the summary missing but if you look at House (Season 1) for example and look at the table i have had to put <onlyinclude></onlyinclude> around the parts i do not want snad one of them is short summary if oyu moved it to include short summary and went back to the sit of hosue epsiode and refreshed you will find the summary comes online and its this type of thing i am meaning. and list of house one is one i am trying ot make ashow specfic for since it was decided by conesus that the lsit of house esiode will not have the final diagnostic coloum but the season article will but i am happy to do wha ti have done but i rather use a template as it a lot of work as oyu can imagine.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa...that's a bit much. Generally when you are transcluding an episode list you should only be including the table itself, not bits a pieces from the paragraphs too. Usually the main episode list should not have prose in the season sections. For the table, wrap the table as a whole in the onlyinclude tags and change {{Episode list to {{Episode list/sublist|List of House episodes. All fields will be included in both lists, except the summary and row colors. If they really don't want to have the diagnostic column in the main list, but all others, I'd really look at why its needed at all. If its decided it is needed (I'd honestly oppose it being there in an FLC), then you can make a custom one to remove it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest i have never understood why peopel want it but it keeps coming bac to spoilers and wikipedia doesnt censor so i have not removed it but the consesus was hte main list shouldnt have it but hay that the way tihngs goes :). But i dnt understand why it transcluded the summaires at all hence why i like ot edit the tamplate :) cheers for the help i will look into spefic hacks later and see if i can fix the transcluding datat issue--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

ok reading one of the olds ones would be this how i might achive wha ti am talkign about?

{{{#ifeq:{{{PAGENAME}}}|List of House episodes|{{{Episode list
 |EpisodeNumber={{{EpisodeNumber}}}
 |Title={{{Title}}}
 |RTitle={{{RTitle}}}
 |DirectedBy={{{DirectedBy}}}
 |WrittenBy={{{WrittenBy}}}
 |Aux2={{{Aux2}}}
 |Aux3={{{Aux3}}}
 |OriginalAirDate={{{OriginalAirDate}}}
 |Aux4={{{Aux4}}}
 |ShortSummary={{{ShortSummary}}}
 |LineColor={{{LineColor}}}
}}}|{{{Episode list
<onlyinclude> |EpisodeNumber={{{EpisodeNumber}}}
 |Title={{{Title}}}
 |RTitle={{{RTitle}}}
 |DirectedBy={{{DirectedBy}}}
 |WrittenBy={{{WrittenBy}}}
 |Aux2={{{Aux2}}}
 |Aux3={{{Aux3}}}
 |OriginalAirDate={{{OriginalAirDate}}}</onlyinclude>
 |Aux4={{{Aux4}}}
 |ShortSummary={{{ShortSummary}}}
 |LineColor={{{LineColor}}}
}}}
}}}

cheers for the help :)

List of Naruto episodes

Can you check the recent edits for me. I'm being perfectly reasonable right? Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as it was unsourced. It looks like he has now added a link? Needs fixing though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the link doesn't prove anything other then Naruto airing on that station. I've checked the site, it doesn't mention specific dates for each ep from what I can see. So despite the attempt (after 4 talk page warnings!), it's not really fixing the isue. I had already stuck the page on RPP, should I remove it? Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably, since its one IP they will say take it to AIV. Reverted and reported. If he keeps coming back under other IPs, then RPP would be appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed from RPP. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I readded the date in the list with a source which includes the episode title and an airdate, but a better source needs to be found because the page in question is just a little info box that gets overwritten every week (which is why I didn't add a date for 209 or do anything in the lead). I also tried Webarchive on it, only to be told it wasn't able to find the page. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes from Dragon Ball chapters

With the transclusion of the chapters list, now the notes from List of Dragon Ball chapters (series) and List of Dragon Ball Z chapters are in List of Dragon Ball manga volumes although the main list does not show the chapters. Is there a way to move the notes to avoid showing it there? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...no idea on that one. Think its a q for our template master :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Goodraise?Tintor2 (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Or Quasi...left a note in my last edit summary to point them to look at this topic :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't pay attention to that. It seems Quasi is on a wikibreak.Tintor2 (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For some reason the references section from Gin Tama show an error in the archived webs even though I think it was all okay a few days ago. Is there a problem?Tintor2 (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Its fine. For some reason someone thought it was a good idea to make a massive change to the cite templates without adequate testing. They are playing with it now. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Just a big thank you for your help on the template i have now managed to create my first twmplate specfic for a show. I now understand the thoery behind the funcationa bit more now. If i knew how to give barnsters and knew where to find them i give oyu one to say thanks :)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Dogs did you know?

Thanks for leaving the note on my talk page, and apologies for causing you the extra work to fix all those pages. Consider it a lesson learnt! :) Miyagawa (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for getting that template updated so quick :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries on Gossip Girl, warnings and possible edit warring. (continued)

Sorry for taking so long to continue this discussion. The last few days have been much busier than expected - I don't make comments like I made to you when I know I'm going to not be around for a while as I don't feel it's fair if I'm unable to respond to any questions and the like. As I say this time it was unexpected.

None of the examples I gave are "clear vandalism". The very first line of our vandalism policy clearly states "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." The important word there is deliberate. None of these edits were deliberate attempts. Yes, by introducing copyright material or going against consensus they may well "compromise the integrity of wikipedia" but they didn't do so deliberately and so are not vandalism. The recent posts on the talk page clearly show that this isn't deliberate but your failure to leave clear edit summaries or alternatively drop the editor a note explaining what they've done wrong has clearly confused editors and, in my opinion is biting new editors.

As for edit warring you're see that I said "without a reasonable explanation". Your explanation is perfectly reasonable and so I don't believe you are edit warring. However your repeated reversions for vandalism, when it clearly isn't vandalism, is a common sign of edit warring, hence my original post. If you'd left clearer edit summaries other editors such as my self wouldn't have been confused and this whole episode would have been avoided. Dpmuk (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I already gave my response. Copyvio is clear vandalism and it is not my duty to explain the laws to people. I have also always left the appropriate messages when I have reverted. That said, per your statements, I am attempting to be more explicit when reverting to avoid any more mistaken ideas that I am somehow edit warring. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We obviously have very different views of what vandalism is. In my view inserting copyright material is nearly always not vandalism as it's normally done as a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia. I think this needs a third opinion from somewhere. Is there anywhere in particular you'd like me to ask for one as there doesn't seem any completely appropriate forum (Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and WP:AN/I both seem totally over the top given the circumstances and WP:3O deals mainly with content disputes). Dpmuk (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the exceptions to the three-revert rule is reverting "Clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy." It's also noted that that exception is construed very narrowly. This is one of those places where longer edit summaries than the undo/Twinkle/revert standard description is a Good Thing.

IMO, If it's not an over-the-top copy/paste, I'll usually revert a second time; I'll also make sure the edit summary says I'm reverting a copyvio and where it's cribbed from, if space permits. If they add it again, I'll look for another editor to remove it if it's re-added again; I'll also go to the talk page and/or add an article message (if all else fails, a custom {{ambox}}). If they keep re-adding and refuse to discuss, however, then it's another matter (not to mention they've probably violated 3RR by that point). —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Repeating here something I said to Dpmuk: Copyvio is not vandalism, but reverting it is not edit warring/a violation of the three-revert rule. However, the reverts should be explained with a combination of edit summaries, warnings/user talk messages to the infringing editor, and article talk discussion if the situation warrants it. Unexplained reverts of copyvio, even if it isn't edit warring by definition, looks an awful lot like it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of openness you may want to take a look at mine and C. Fred's user pages. I think you'll see why and hope you don't take any of it the wrong way. Dpmuk (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)