User talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Template:Infobox character

I've proposed more parameter removals and your comments are welcomed here CTJF83 GoUSA 22:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:ADV Films

I have nominated Category:ADV Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:ADV Films films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Responded there. I saw your withdrew it. I think your idea the the name is a good one, just not to Films films :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A question....

Do you think that this article might be better if merged or redirected to Lil Wayne? It doesn't have any RS for sourcing... depends entirely upon a personal self-promo page and an online chat forum... and it also appears to simply be a listing of the 2009 tour dates. Seems it falls under WP:NOT. When it was first created in August 2009, it might even have possibly been as a promotional article for the last half of the tour... but even then as now, it would seem to fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Worth sugesting a merge or doing redirect? Or is this something that an AFD would square away? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a careful merge of the the two sourced bits noting that he had a tour and had to cancel it after being injured. The tour dates are not needed, and neither are the opening acts. The tour itself doesn't appear notable nor noteworthy versus any other tour, other than his injury. If there is opposition, then AfD would likely be the best place for further discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged it for consideration for merge and opened a dicussion on the article's talk page, as it is woefully lacking in any reliable sources and has only the only implied assertion of notability is in its being a Lil Wayne tour. Hopefully these issues will be addressed... and if not, or if opposed, an AFD discussion will be a next step. Is a week a reasonable period of time to wait? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I usually go 1-2 weeks for a merge, depending on how active the page is (less active, I give a bit longer). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've already pre-emptively made mention of the tour in the Lil Wayne article.[1] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Romeo Must Die Soundtrack

If you do merge them, please remember next time to include a track list as most film articles with a soundtrack section contain them.Carmaker1 (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most do not. The track list is not a requirement nor generally necessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Legend of the Guardians

Do you have AWB? I was wondering if you could change all instances of Guardians of Ga'Hoole (film) to Legend of the Guardians per the film's renaming. Erik (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I do. I can do it this evening after I get off work. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Great! I just didn't want to plod through all the changes manually. I should get around to getting AWB myself... Erik (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

All done :-) Its a useful program, though takes a little while to get the hang of. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! Erik (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Homeward Bound

You might be interested in this essay I wrote about navboxen. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting essay. During the WP:ANIME template cleanup, we have actually identified the short templates, and some of them were actually nominated for deletion, but they are notoriously difficult to delete once they exist... G.A.S^talk 05:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I like it :D People are far to ready to throw up or defend a template for 2-3 articles, yet some of the same people complain about the transclusion overhead from references. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies

I wasn't trying to chastise or criticize. If my comment was perceived that way, then I apologize. Perhaps I should have worded my message better. I know that reverting somebod's edit and waiting for them to respond is a valid and good way to work on an article. However, most new users do not. I was just trying to say that it might be a good idea (though it shouldn't by any means be required) to explain to new users why you reverted their edit, and to explain to them that they are welcome to put their edit back after fixing it (in this case referencing it). That way new users don't just think that their edit was not welcome. Anyway, I popped over to the user in question's talk page and explained to them not to take the revert personally and why the edit was reverted. Again, I didn't mean to be hostile, and I apologize. Fl1n7 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I was a bit grumpy that day, and I see now I neglected to leave a unreferenced/welcome on their talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Take a Look

Could you please enlighten me why this was unappropriate place to ask for "Peer review/volunteers" all the steps and pages leading upto this post was saying if you've done work on an article and you want other editors input on how well or how bad you've done, ask here ! [2] Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You posted it to the list of volunteers. If you want to request a formal peer review, please follow the steps at WP:PR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Ok my bad, but I suspect some links led the wrong way, Thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Shojo or shonen

i have a question. if a manga is obviously shonen, but was published by a shojo series, does that mean it's shojo?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether a manga is shonen, shojo, etc is determined solely by the magazine it was serialized in or, if not serialized, the publisher label. If it ran in a shojo magazine, its shojo, regardless of whether it appears to be shonen. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

oh ok, i find it odd that it goes like that but it's fine. maybe the shojo article needs expansion?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

An example of this is X. Despite it's violence, and a story that could be considered Shonen or Seinen, it was serialised in a shoujo magazine (Monthly Asuka).Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Another example would be Chibi Vampire, which most folks consider shojo with its love story focus, but it is considered Shonen as it was serialized in a shonen magazine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Stll, from what I've seen, shojo usually involves girl younger than 20 or something similar to such, but this one series is completely about a boy, plus violence, clearly shonen from what I've read. i find it really hard. if it's labeled as shojo, that's fine. but simply because it was serialized in a magazine targeted for such? it bothers me, but I'll let it slide. is it possible to label them both shojo and shonen?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, shojo/shonen is not about who it stars (there are many shojo series with male protagonists and violence). Shojo/Shonen/etc are demographic labels, i.e. who was it targeted at, which is indicated by the magazine it was released in. And no, as there are no magazines that are both. We go by what it official is, not what we might think it should be. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

i didn't mean magazines that are both, i meant genre. and from what i read in shojo article, it says mainly girl plot-wise. And yes we go by official.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Shonen/Shojo are not genres, but demographics. :-) See Shōjo manga -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

then why do i see them in genre's????? hmmm.....i think I'll need to fix a few articles then.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, if you see them genre, please remove them (along with the others). Demographic is only for manga. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:24.197.27.85

Perhaps you should report that to ANI. Cirt (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Will do. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Masters of the Universe masterplan

Now I have discussed this somewhat at WikiProject Comics and WikiProject Television but you are experience so I thought I should ask you. I removed alot of fluff from the Masters of universe articles and improve some of such as He-Man and He-Man and the Masters of the Universe but I gotta a long way. Some of the poor articles have been deleted or merged.

I feel that Horde Trooper and Horde Prime should be merged into Evil Horde. Tung Lashor, Snake Face, Sssqueeze into Snake Men (Masters of the Universe) and Double Trouble (She-Ra) and a few others into List of She-Ra: Princess of Power characters and episodes such as Teela's Quest should be merged into List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe episodes I have a feeling I am going to gain alot of residence from fanboys again stating that the fiction written in article makes it inherently notable despite no reliable third person references. I have a hard enough time trying to clean up C.O.P.S. related articles. The major questions I need to ask is it mandatory all wikipedia articles to have reliable third person sources. I wish to redesign List of Masters of the Universe characters what format would you advise? How to I get the mergers going I discuss them in the correct forums and nothing happens and finally are characters such as Hordak using the correct character inbox if not which one is the correct one?. Dwanyewest (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:N, WP:NOT, and community consensus, if the characters/episodes have no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources they should be merged or deleted. This is also in keeping with WP:MOSTV. May also want to remind them that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a fansite, and that the excessive fictional details they crave are more appropriate for the Wikia or the like. All of the ones you proposed sound good to me. You can boldly do the mergers, then if an editor makes a legitimate objection (versus some random IP undoing without an edit summary), then tag for merge and post notices at the appropriate projects (see WP:MERGE). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

African reality television series

Firstly, it's a subcategory of Category:Reality television series by country; I'm sure I don't need to point out that Africa is not a country or that we don't categorize television series by continent. Secondly, several of the articles actually belonged in the Category:South African reality television series subcategory anyway; an article doesn't need to be in both at the same time. And thirdly, shows like Lemur Street and Meerkat Manor are not "reality" series in the way that term is usually understood — they're just nature documentaries, not competitions. Bearcat (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Was just curious. Didn't say I disagreed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I simply cannot believe this...

I thought for sure this idiot would have gotten the message by now. He's blocked. Again. Thanks for letting me know and I am SO glad you caught me. I was just signing off. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No prob. The first one he hit, I didn't notice at first (too tired lately), but spotted him after hit two. Blech. Guessing someone went through and lifted all the protections, or did he just manage to find enough unprotected to get by? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The articles he's been hitting are (or at least were) permanently semi-protected. Problem with that is, once an account has a few edits under its belt, the system allows that account to edit even the semi-protected content. The only way to completely keep him away if he manages to log on again is to put full protection on all his pets, meaning only admins can edit them. I tell you, I am absolutely stymied. I've never seen anything like this kid. He is unquestionably autistic with a real sadistic streak. No reasonable person would keep on doing this garbage for as long as he has. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

They really need to fix the auto confirmed system so things like his constant editing of the sandbox wouldn't have removed the flag, and changing a template. Blech. And agreed...its rather pathetic, on the whole, that this is the best thing he can find to do with his time. You'd think he could at least amuse himself with a Nintedo Wii or something, since his "dad can buy Wikipedia!" :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Hey, I tried. Since he loves Disney-related ephemera so much, I'd offered to work with him since my wife and I have top-of-the-line annual passports to Disneyland/Disney's California Adventure. A good friend of mine, Kal David, actually did an Audio-Animatronic voice at Disney World and I used to know Lord Tim Hudson, who did the voice of the Ringo Starr-haired vulture in the original Jungle Book movie. I figured that gave me some reasonably good Disney creds.  :) He instead saw fit to start in with a litany of online insults after he'd agreed to being mentored. I just cannot figure what goes on inside this squirrel's skull. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Me either, and trust me, you aren't the only one who tried. I won't even edit most of the Disney film articles now purely because he usually begs me to when he's blocked. Only ones I've dealt with at all are ones directly related to the novel articles I've been working on. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't blame you. He really made me reevaluate my own time spent here. I actually have a life - as do you - and neither of us want to waste time cleaning up after an unsupervised, foolish little brat. Gotta run, but I did block that range. That makes five. Sheesh... PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and have a good evening. Think I'll grab some dinner myself while I continue waiting the fate of my current FAC. :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Animanga character infobox field review

Hey I had just noticed you had chosen to select remove in every category with your concern being too in universe, do you think if more out of universe information was put into the article and not the infobox then they would blend more together? If not too much out of universe info can be found on a character it can be a problem right there anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If a character has the real-world notability to support having an article, the article should be primarily real-world info, and the entire article written from an out-of-universe perspective. The infobox should also primarily highlight its real-world aspects, rather than being so heavily focused on minute details that are not even appropriate for more than a one-sentence note in the plot summary sections of such articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

How about mixing them up in the infobox then too? I understand your point, alot of the details of a character can be easily covered in the plot, I suppose it has come down to the infobox being a lead to the plot as the lead is to the article. Currently the ones I see not making the cut are: Date of birth, Date of death, Title, Occupation, Class, and Last appearance. Those are 6 slots, would things like: Voiced by: and Created by: be any better? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about channels that do not exist that yet?

Should channels that do not exist that yet have pages on Wikipedia? I am asking because The Anime Channel has only been approve for a license but does not been announce for broadcast yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.15.16 (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they should not as they do not exist, and are unnotable per WP:N and per WP:CRYSTAL there is no guarantee it will. I've sent it up for deletion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite true; it's possible that a currently-nonexistant channel could be notable, e.g. if it was highly publicized/anticipated, or if it was famous for not existing yet (the same sort of thing that Gatchaman (Imagi film project) has going for it). --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 72.251.164.58 (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

True true. Occasionally something can be notable for not existing, but it is pretty rare. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the brat...

I'm thinking this one's just a little kid, garden-variety anon IP vandal. In any event, another admin clobbered him. Worth keeping an eye on, though. As always, thanks for the alert. If you even think you smell that freaky-deaky, you know where to find me. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, there were a few more IPs, all going back to Atlanta, and a named user. I put them in the SPI for check user, but all have been blocked just to be safe (and at least one page protected). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it really was him[3] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Damned little freak. I just blocked the talk page access and redirected it back to the user page. I'm not going to give this punk any satisfaction. I am, however, strongly considering reporting the issue to BellSouth once more. Someone needs to give this kid a kick in the pants, literally and figuratively. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to give it another whirl, I posted his three latest IPs on the SPI page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK: Wolf Haven International

FYI: I approved your DYK for Wolf Haven International. If you'd like to return the favor I have a pending nomination. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I generally don't review noms from people who review mine, as it can be seen as being less than neutral. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Want something to keep you busy?

List of Touched by an Angel episodes could really use splitting into per-season sublists (especially considering it's the only article listed at Wikipedia:Long articles). =)

Also, while I've got your ear, have a look at the talk page of the IP I'm posting this from - any thoughts on wording, links, possible additions, etc.? --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be useful to include a the date/times you used that IP, to clarify when you had it? And eww....that list also needs a massive plot cut. I'll have a long weekend next weekend, though. I'll try to tackle it then :-)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into dates/times, hopefully I can find a way to set it up without ending up with lots of code repetition (offhand, the only way I can think of is with a /core subtemplate... =/ ). I'm gonna have to look through all the edits from the IPs first, though, to establish which ones I did and thus the time range when I was working from them. And cool beans on the list, just don't drive yourself raw with it... =) --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Wolf Haven International

On March 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wolf Haven International, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fox and the Hound FAC

I semi-protected the discussion; hopefully that'll stem the tide of socks. Blueboy96 01:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC) AnmaFinotera, in these cases, rather than reverting yourself, please leave a note on the FAC or my talk page instead. Otherwise, I won't know what's going on, and you get drawn into the tussle. The only reason I saw it this time is because I have Tony1's talk page watched ... hang in there ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboy and no problem Sandy. I hope its okay that I requested it be protected though? After its happened twice, I thought that might be prudent. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess the FAC passed, because I got a note on my talk page from another sockpuppet saying that Wikipedia will soon fail miserably because this article has got a little star in its top-right corner. Congratulations on getting the FA passed and good luck in dealing with this bunch of sockpuppets that's apparently after you. Ucucha 13:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just glad they didn't manage to derail it like they were clearly trying to do. I just hope it stays protected awhile. They'd probably vandalize it next. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Lupin III

Now that the page can be considered stable, i wanted to get your thoughts on Lupin III as a potential FAC. The likelihood of working towards that goal will depend on the amount of work required as my editing time is pretty low these days and I have other projects to tackle. However, if it will only require minimal work then I will consider making it a priority. That said, I expect it will require more work then I have time for at the moment, it just seems like the time to assess it's current state (which is partly your fault for suggesting it was closer to another FAC when reviewing for GA :P). I think the largest problem is the use of Lupin Encyclopaedia as a source. That sort of thing is always going to be picked up, no matter how the project may view it. While Quasirandom did a good job on the copyediting, I have a guild of copy editors user on my watchlist who I can ask to go over it should it be necessary (If they can do it or not is another matter) I also wondered about Love Hina, but I'm certain that would need more work, at least in providing more manga reception (seems to have far less reliable critical reception then the anime). Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say one thing I see that are likely to be stumbling blocks is comprehensiveness in the reception section. I don't see anything in reception from the Anime Encyclopedia, for example, and I suspect there are other noteworthy bits of reception that may be missing. Would also want to make sure all reliable sourcable production information is there. Any extras from the DVDs or notes in the manga, for example, remaining to be added? The next step would be a peer review to get more detailed feedback, then pending the results of that go for FAC. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that seems sensible. There was a bit I wanted to add to production, but it might come off as interpretation so I'm not going to add it at this time. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor review

I've seen you around RfA a fair bit, and find you to be an editor with strong, well-argued opinions that do not always match my own. That is why I'm wondering if you would be willing to tell me what you think about my own editing. Thank you for considering this request, and happy editing.--~TPW 13:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank for asking, and I'll take a look this evening. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Spoiler discussion. Thanks for the discussion

Hi, thanks for the discussion and your response earlier on the Talk for WP:Spoiler. A fun distraction during finals =). As a result, I've created an account and will aim to be a stronger contributor to Wikipedia from now on. I love Wikipedia and find it intriguing. Still figuring out the ropes though. I decided to leave this here because it didn't seem relevant to the Spoiler discussion. Best, GeraldoJon (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem and congrats on your new account :-) I hope you like it here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Source requests

Just wondering if you might have any (probably printed) sources for Excel Saga and Slayers.

For Excel Saga I'm especially looking for the date of the serialised debut. While Viz and Jason Thompson both claim it's 1997, I'm inclined to believe the unreliable sources that it's actually April 96. Naturally for the moment I've gone with Viz, but as the first published volume came out in the first half of 1997 and it's a monthly series, it's clearly wrong. However naturally any reception or media info would be quite useful to.

For Slayers it's a combination of media release information for the novels and manga, as well as reception information. I have an Animerica with character profiles and a general discussion of the series/ovas, but there should be a lot of Central Park Media ads and announcements to source release dates and such from. For reception, I'm looking for a more objective look at the series to counter Chris Beveridge's ridiculous assassination of the series to allow the construction of a balanced and neutral section.

Neither are especially important to do right now, but there is easily enough sources out there to get Slayers to a respectable condition with time. Actually while I'm here, could you do a reassessment of Excel Saga please? The assessment page isn't getting a lot of action these days, and the talk page says the only failure of the previous version was sourcing, which is now addressed. Thanks. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure both are in the anime and manga encycs, and I think I remember having some Animerica issues covering Slayers. Let me check my logs on that :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, looked through both of those. The animerica I have with a feature is one of the issues i've listed on the magazine page. I'm wondering if any of your issues have release dates for the manga series. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it started publishing in Young King Ours in September 1996, with the first volume released in April 1997. I suppose you could ask Carl Horn on excelsagaforum.com. He's on there from time to time. Grapeofdeath (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

While Carl Horn is clearly a reliable source, his postings on a forum are not. I'm aware it's the most likely correct date but it needs a printed or online source posted at a location that will pass as a reliable source. A forum reply won't cut it. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if you dislike WP:SPS to the extent that you refuse to use the 'blogs, forums etc' it covers, why not just email Horn? I ask him stuff all the time, and he's always been remarkably responsive & helpful. Academics cite 'personal communication' without qualm, and if it's good enough for them (and our copyright clearances and all the other OTRS functions...), I think it's good enough for us. --Gwern (contribs) 13:34 28 January 2010 (GMT)

If you are going to try and make a point, don't get your facts wrong. I use SPS all the time, I just use reliable ones not random fanblogs.Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Because an email is an even less reliable source than a forum posting. Far better to find an actual reliable source instead, unless you're suggesting to email him to get pointed to such sources? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

An email is a perfectly reliable source. We accept emails for copyright licensing, we accept emails for complaints leading to things like OFFICE actions, we accept emails for confirming an editor is actually a notable - we accept emails for all the dangerous important stuff (which Excel Saga dates certainly aren't) that go through OTRS, academia uses emails & mail for anything & everything, and a fortiori we certainly will accept email for sourcing small details.

And yes, you could just ask whether he knows of any relevant sources or where to find one. Lord knows I've done that myself enough times. --Gwern (contribs) 14:35 28 January 2010 (GMT)

An email is not a reliable source for wikipedia, now matter how you try to reason it (it's come up before). Lets just leave it at that, I'm not getting into an argument with you about what a reliable source is. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean for this to start an argument. I just thought you could ask him which volume of Young King Ours it started it. Then you could track it down a copy and source the magazine itself. Grapeofdeath (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Unarchiving so as to not forget again :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!!

I cannot adequately express my joy at seeing your article on The Fox and the Hound make it to FA. Despite the efforts of certain unnamed individuals to damage it, your good work won out as well it should have. You made my day.  :) Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Considering the age of the book, and its unfortunately out of print status, it was difficult to find even that much information, so it was pretty satisfying. I just feel bad for everyone who did support, because the same individual made more socks to harass them when it closed. :-( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of that "same in - duh - vidual:"

I was alerted to this ding-dong's latest rash of idiocy. Since it's easier to ask forgiveness instead of permission, I've extended the block of each of his five ranges. I'm pretty sure he was playing a numbers game; he just kept trying to log on until his dynamic IP hit an address which was outside the original range of the block. I am just about to take a very long vacation from this project over this issue; the Foundation doesn't seem to care that this evil little brat has caused so much damage. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• PS: I just e-mailed Jimbo. It's his site and I hope he'll act on this. We've chatted via e-mail before and he's familiar with me and my work. I just hope he can find the time to place a stop to this once and for all. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully something will get done. I think it sucks that its driving away good editors, for the sake of some bored kid who could probably use some serious parental attention. I can't say as I blame you, though. I'm about ready to just give up dealing with him unless he hits something I'm actually working on. If no one cares enough to really deal with him, can't help but wonder if anyone cares how much damage he causes besides a small handful left to battle him on our own. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at List of The Clique series characters. 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.  Sandstein  08:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

See, generally, WP:NOTTHEM. Yes, Karunyan's conduct was disruptive, and I have blocked him for this for a longer time than you, but you have also edit-warred, even breaking 3RR. Each editor is responsible for their own actions; misconduct by others does not excuse misconduct by you. Sorry for the pronoun mistake, though.  Sandstein  09:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see how dealing with this guy's second round of stalking is "edit warring" in any spirit of the rule. He was reverting to continue his previous disruptive behavior. It isn't technically vandalism, but it sure isn't productive editing either, and I would think common sense and IAR would apply in such a case. I also ceased reverting on Clique after I made my report so that administrators could deal with him. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 10:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is silly and petty. If the other editor is clearly being disruptive, stalking and making a nuisance of him/herself, then it's not really an edit war at all, but a case of common sense to deal with the disruptive user. This sort of thing is tedious and wastes a lot of time. Wikipeterproject (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree; Col should be immediately unblocked and the troll indef'ed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Col was clearly edit warring here, however, it's also pretty clear from the remarks before and after the block that she was being hounded by a bad faith editor who was tryin to get both of them blocked. Col was trying to get help with this, but couldn't get it in time. I would suggest that Col be unblocked for time served, and the other editor be indef blocked for obvious trolling. At the very least, he should be banned from harassing Col again when he returns. We've let a bad faith editor get a good editor blocked, here. Dayewalker (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not edit waring when dealing with a troll, it's IAR. This troll was fed. Jack Merridew 20:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera is a good editor who got sucked into a trap. I think time served is good enough. As for Karunyan, I think he should be given one last sudden-death chance: if he begins the same thing when the current block ends, the block should become indefinite. We don't need disruptive editors here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• For whatever reasons, AnmaFinotera seems to be a perpetual target for trolls. Of course not every one of the 800+ active admins is necessarily aware of that, but I think some leeway should be granted to a user who puts up with so much trolling/stalking without completely losing her mind or retiring in disgust. I'm glad to see this block was lifted. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Defending the integrity of WP ought to be rewarded, not punished. Being bold can, at times, draw strong recation and, sometimes, being bold leads to making mistakes, but it is one of the fundamentals that makes WP work. The "AnmaFinoteras" of WP need our support and defense, even if they occasionally annoy us! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, I've debated the retiring in disgust, but I still love editing itself so still "hooked" so to speak :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for the kind words and for supporting me in this situation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Post Block Notes

• Undo vandalism of List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes[4]

Done. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)== Thanks ==

Thanks for the welcome. Cheers, Cattus ^talk 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at List of InuYasha characters. 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. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How are two reverts edit warring, especially 8 days after the last edits? This is a pretty weak block, especially given the prior circumstances.Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|What the heck?? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Karunyan Continuing Wikihounding/Trolling After 72 hour block and see above. I reported this issue of Karunyan‎ continuing his trolling and harassment after the last block to ANI and two admins. This is crazy! Ask for help and you get blocked? Thanks for making this guy's day, again. I bet he is seriously laughing in trollville now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)}}

Thanks...still autoblocked though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed –xeno^talk 19:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing reeks to me. Karunyan has been doing nothing but wikistalking and hounding since the InuYasha character list revert, and has been given more than enough chances to correct his behavior. Meanwhile, AnmaFinotera exhibited more self-control here than she usually does (probably because she was already blocked once over the matter for 3RR), reverting only twice. What is needed is not another block on a valuable contributor, but an indef on the troll. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. See prior thread, where the troll was not indef'd. Unblock AnmaFinotera and indef the troll. Jack Merridew 17:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That just makes me sick. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

i also agree, i just checked the List of InuYasha characters, from what i see, it was the other user, Karunyan who was doing the trolling. AnmaFinotera gave clear reason while the other simply didn't. I'm probably not helping at all...sorry if I'm disruptingBread Ninja (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A goose for AnmaFinotera, the village stocks for Karunyan. – allen四names 02:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Brat" update

Jimbo actually took a moment to write me from a flight he was on. Per his request, I've sent him the raw text of the LTA page and the e-mail address to file a formal complaint with AT&T/BellSouth/SBC Global. At least something may finally be done and I can unblock all those IP addresses when it is. Sorry to have read about that trolling incident. Just have faith that I have your back; you're too good an editor which is why the damned trolls target you. You let me know if you need anything. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear. Hope it happens soon. He just hit with another named sock, DJ Jam 2010 (talk · contribs) and seeking attention since he made sure to do his usual "hey here I am" stuff since his sock from yesterday, ScratteLover2 (talk · contribs) apparently went unnoticed. And thanks re the troll :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Woman's Barnstar

For your tireless work in fighting vandalism, promoting high standards of article quality, and improving media-related articles throughout Wikipedia. Largely because you've had a rough time of it recently and you should know that even those who disagree with you are impressed by the huge amount of often-thankless work you do around here. Consider this also an apology for adding to your stress at a time when you were under siege from less well-intentioned sources. DustFormsWords (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It is much appreciated. And I apologize if I ended up venting some of that stress on you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

InuYasha The Final Act episode dates

Hey I fixed the dates cuz some had the English airing the day before the Japanese and some had it on the same day as the Japanese which doesn't make sense. Hope this is ok. If you want to change anything please feel free to do so.

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Hajiru

I have reverted your change. The dates are correct per the reliable sources cited. It might seem off, but apparently sometimes the Japanese episode was delayed, for whatever reason, but Viz went ahead and released its English one, and sometimes it released it early. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok that makes sense. Thanks AnmaFinotera, for the help. ^^

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Hajiru

Son Goku's Voice Actors

Hello, I was told by User:Sesshomaru to ask you about this. On Son Goku's page, there is a list of English and Japanese voices actors. I recently discovered the identity of Goku's English voice actor in an old English dub of Dragon Ball Z. Before FUNimation dubbed DBZ, and after Harmony Gold's whopping five episodes of Dragon Ball, Creative Products Corporation (in association with Animation International) produced an English version of DBZ in the Phillipines somewhere around 1993. They also dubbed Dragon Ball and the two Coola movies. It being an official English dub, and this being an English language page, it makes sence to include it. It's far more known than Harmony Gold's dub. Look on YouTube (or anywhere) and you'd find clips of it, but no such clips even exist for Harmony Gold's dub.Linkdude20002001 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This question would be better asked at the Anime/Manga project. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Undoing my edits

Are you just going to undo all my edits when ever I do a edit?? I have never read any where that said Operating income need to be on the company's article, so don't hide your personal opinion behind "consensus of Wikipedia". Gezzza (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I will undo inappropriate edits. Chairman does not need and should not be abbreviated to "chair". And you stated Operating Income was not needed because profit and net income were there, which is incorrect. Operating income is part of the template, therefore if it is sourcable, yes it should be there per the consensus that it is included in the infobox at all. It is a relevant and important part of an overview of a company's status and nature. Why are you so adversarial towards anyone offering you advice regarding your questions on the company infobox and what was wrong with that particular article? Why did you even pose questions if you don't want actual answers? Thus far, three people have disagreed with your suggestions, and you have quickly turned on them and responded in a very abrupt fashion. Such reactions will not really help you here, where we operate as a community and by community consensus. Again, I urge you to read some of the basic tenets of editing that myself and others have already pointed you to, and also please remember to use edit summaries when you edit and refrain from marking all edits as minor, per WP:MINOR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to make minor changes because everyone here is trigger happy with the undo button, even if they disagree to only one part of my edit. In which I have to dig up a my edits and reapply the no issue edits them. I have reply calmly to everyones view, even when you started attacking me about how poorly QR page is, even when I didn't touch that page but only using it to prove a example of the infobox pushing into other sections and causing issues when images are in those sections. Why shouldn't Chairman abbreviated to "chair" but "Chief executive officer" can be abbreviated to "CEO"? Gezzza (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Its fine to make minor edits as in "small", however edits should only be marked minor if they actually are per guidelines. No one has attacked you at all. Pointing out that the problem with the QR page is from its bad formatting, not a problem with the infobox, is not an attack on you. Unless you edit another username as well, how would you even see it as an attack on you when you had never even edited the article until after I did? It is not as if I was insulting your work. I pointed out that you incorrectly believed the problem with the article was an error in the infobox, then explained what the real problem was on the article. I even went ahead and fixed the article to address the issues properly as an illustration of how to correct it in the future. I never once said "you screwed up" or anything of the like, and in no way assigned any blame or insult to you for the article in question. The infobox "pushing" into other sections is not causing the problem, it was the incorrect use of images. Even without the infobox, stacking images like that would cause the same problem. Please note, again, that the Company infobox uses the standard core infobox code, which is used by thousands of articles, including for films, television, organizations, novels, historical landmarks, etc. Films and television variants have far more fields than company that "push" much further into their articles (particularly stubs). This is not seen as a problem to the community as a whole, it is part of the nature of the infoboxes and part of Wikipedia's style. If an image has to be in a section were the infobox is also at, its very easy to just switch the image to be left aligned instead of right, or move it to another section as was done in this case because they didn't directly related to that section anyway. And CEO is a common acronym for Chief executive officer, which Chair is not a common abbreviation (nor necessary one) of Chairman. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hi AnmaFinotera, I feel so guilty for not being on here as much as I should. I miss this website. I was just wondering how you're doing. :) Right now I'm trying to revamp the article for Barefoot Gen. :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. No reason to feel guilty. Having a life is a good thing ;-) My editing is down some as well. Mostly okay, despite recent events. Good article to work on. :-) I just found two more novel articles I need to work on. I can't believe such classics as White Fang and Call of the Wild have such horrible articles. :-( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's unbelievable. Sometimes I think people get too caught up in working on obscure little series. I mean really? Twin Spica has an amazing article while Speed Racer and Astro Boy have utter crap? :P Hell, I haven't even heard of Twin Spica...and as it appears it was published in Comic Flapper; a very loner manga anthology. But I totally agree, Call of the Wild and White Fang should have better articles. Call of the Wild is one of the greats. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that too. Some really obscured, unlicensed series will have lengthy pages, while very popular ones have next to nothing. I'm planning to fix White Fang and Call of the Wild, at some point and presuming I don't just walk away from this place after this latest block. *isgh* Probably won't, though...I do still love writing and editing and there are no other such outlets to turn to. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd hate to see you leave, AnmaFinotera, it'd end up being too quiet around here... =) Maybe what you really need, though, is a wikibreak? --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.30.195 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(Hey Dinoguy!) Me too. That would be sad. :( Don't go Lassie...don't go.... – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Darn tootin' you shouldn't go ... if you give up, the trolls win, including a certain little BRAT who would probably love to see his long-time nemesis bail. And the last thing I'm sure you want to see is the little cretin win. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Bambifan I'm guessing.... – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 20:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you guess right. AnmaFinotera: Don't you dare bail on me and us. Take a break if you must, but please, please don't bail. Please? Pretty please? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay okay :-) I will be taking a break soonish (first vacation in years, and going somewhere with NO internet! :-P) Am seriously cutting back some, though. Tossed out over half my watchlist to just some core stuff, and trying to focus more on giving some more neglected "classic" novel articles love. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yay! I've walked away a few times and returned focused and excited to contribute. My wife and I took a two-week Hawaiian cruise three summers ago and I logged onto the internet exactly once at a pay terminal in a hotel lobby across from Waikiki Beach. I checked my e-mail...and so help me, I logged on here as well.  :) Only for a moment, though. So, relax. Have fun. Do what you do so well when you return and know that you are greatly appreciated. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooohhh...I'm jealous! My SO and I would love to go to Hawaii eventually :-) We recently went to Cameron Park Zoo which was both wonderfully relaxing and just plain fun. I hadn't been to a zoo in year. Took almost 600 pictures. Still going through them and getting them edited and posted to my Flickr and blog. For our "big" vacation, we're doing a nice long weekend in a smallish city a few hours away where there is no Internet unless we go into town, and lots of woods and trails to hike around. Looking forward to it :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be sooo nice! :D I have never gone to Hawai'i before but would really love to! :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, and at least you've got pictures from Cameron Park Zoo! I maybe have one or two shots of it kicking around my photo collection, even though I know my then-wife and I went there a couple of times while we lived in town. —C.Fred (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I have lots :-D The only animals I missed were the jaguars, coyotes, and galapagos tortoises, which were all off exhibit. I did, however, get an AWESOME video of a green anaconda eating dinner *evil grin* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe. Hrm, maybe the snake pictures I have are as much Cameron Park as Fort Worth, though I'm pretty sure the green mamba was FW. (Tangent: I saw a black mamba on exhibit once elsewhere. Those are scary looking snakes; I think he had the evil grin, trying to figure out how to get through the multiple layers of glass to get to me.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I got some tickets to the San Diego Zoo from work, but I haven't used them yet. Hope to do so before they expire. As for Hawaii, I'd never been there either. The cruise took us to every island except Lanai. Kahoolawe and Niihau are off limits and Kahoolawe isn't much more than a big old bare rock jutting out of the sea off the coast of Maui. We were able to see Niihau off the coast of Kauai on the way back from Waimea Canyon. So, I can honestly say that I've at least seen every major Hawaiian island. Wanna go back. You and the SO should go. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A sincere thank you from Wikiproject Good Articles

On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 32 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 14:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding edits to 'Gintama - Reception'

Thanks for the assist and warm welcome. To prevent splitting up the discussion, here's the link where I've posted my response to Dandy Sephy regarding the edits » Regarding edits to 'Gintama - Reception', supported by MyAnimeList user-voted 'Top Anime' stats —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjk2005 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB

I just installed AWB and am not sure how to use it to make a set of blue links more disambiguated. I was able to load links, but I was not sure how to actually perform the act of disambiguation for the set. I'm not finding the program very intuitive, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Erik (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it really isn't very intuitive at all. Before you do much else, you may want to go to options and make sure it doesn't change your watchlist (unless you want it to). First build the list of articles to work with using the left side panel. If you are wanting to do a search/replace for the links, click the Disambig tag, then Enable Disambig. Type in the general name of the link in the Link to Disambiguate (such as Matrix). When you click Load Links, that will give you a list of variants for that list. Click the one you want to disambig to, such as Matrix (film). Then go to the Start tab, enter a summary (and I usually lock it since it usually doesn't need to change), and click Start. It will go through the list, show you the changes on an article, and if all is good, Click Save and it will do so and move on to the next. If you want to do other edits, you can edit the article in the right panel. If you decide the article doesn't need changes, click skip to go on to the next one without saving. Hope that helps some. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will try this out later tonight. Erik (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I felt really clumsy, but I got the job done. Kind of strange to see other fixes and templating done in the process, though! Erik (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Trust me I know the feeling. First time I used it, I ended up going through my article list four times before I finally figured out how to actually apply the changes LOL :-P And yep it does some nice basic fixes in the process (you can turn it off if you want, though I've never had a need to myself). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

some questions for u~

Apparently, episode 26 is supposed to be the final episode for InuYasha The Final Act. For the final ending, should I put episode eighteen to twenty-six? Or leave it as it is?

Also, for the English title, do you want me to add that tomorrow since it airs tomorrow, or wait till later?

Oh and on the InuYasha talk page, I posted a question asking about an edit that kept happening but no one answered so I thought I would ask you instead.

Someone, or a few people, keep trying to add a 5th movie to the list of movies. I never heard of that happening, and even if it was, what villain would InuYasha and the others fight? If Miroku loses the Wind Tunnel, Naraku is dead, etc, then what villain are they fighting and how would some of them fight? Heck, Kirara is with Kohaku so how would it work? (sorry, that's a manga reference, and something that comes up in the final episode....sorry for the spoiler there >_<;;;;)

Sorry, just curious is all....

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Hajiru

You mean for the ending theme? Yes, once tomorrow's episode airs, as long as it pretty much confirms it is the ending, then you'd put that for the ending. The English title can be added once its released to Hulu or Viz's site. For the fifth movie, revert as vandalism. Its pure fabrication (random fan desires). If its the same IP or IP range, leave the appropriate escalating warnings then report to WP:AIV. It it happens more than 4 or 5 times in a 24-36 hour span, file for page protection, noting that there appears to be a coordinated effort to introduce deliberate misinformation about a non-existent film. No worries, I read a summary of the ending back when the manga ended :-) (though being InuYasha, if they wanted to make a 5th one, they'd come up with some excuse to bring them all together again :-P )-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, and thanks. Sounds good ^^

Sure thing. Others have reverted as vandalism so I don't know why it happens.

Cool. If there is a movie, I hope it will be successful like the previous films.

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Hajiru

Fancruft at its worse

Hey there friend. Look at this: Dragon Ball Z (Fusion Technique). Normally, I'd slap a maintenance tag on such rubbish, but it seems the page creator had templated it with {{newpage}}. Suspicious that a supposed newb is aware of the template, is it not? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and personally I don't think that tag has any teeth to claim "well, don't mark it for deletion just because I slapped it on when I obviously DON'T know the inclusion guidelines" -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2010 Newsletter

The March 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline

I've been wanting to AfD the NGE timeline article. Despite recent edits in the talkpage, no one seems to be listening. SO i was wondering if i would have your thoughts to see if it should be AFD.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

yes, it should. it is purely OR and plot regurgitation. The timeline of the series does not have any significant coverage in any reliable, third-party sources. The one "source" claimed on the talk page is a random fansite. It fails WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:NOT. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

oh ok ,thanks. I'll try to add a a template saying deletion is being considered. I tried adding -1 one time, but it didn't work out exactly.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry, i'm kind of conused on how to adda template, i'll ask someone to help me on it.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Weather

If you want to help merging any of the missing links, see Template talk:Weather, thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Fist of the North Star

I'm trying to perform a cleanup job on Fist of the North Star and I was wondering if you could offer me any advice. I decided to split some of the content into separate articles (namely the live-action movie and the more recent OVAs and movies) since the infobox was becoming too bloated with data about derivative works and I'm probably going to do the same with some of the spinoff manga that were released. Even then, the article is probably in need of a massive rewrite, such as a clearer lead section. Any advice you may offer would be appreciated. Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Heads-up

I saw this and then found this. Is it what I think it is? Erik (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, he's back again...reporting to AIV for blocking and starting the usual revert fun. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I knew I shouldn't have come by your talk page; this ongoing, never-ending idiocy has completely ruined it for me over here. He's why I won't contribute to Simple more than I do. All we have is Jimbo's promise to look into the problem when he's through with his sabbatical. Until this unsupervised brat is off and gone for good, the fun is simply out of it for me. I didn't become an administrator simply to have this evil little monster run roughshod over the good work of a lot of volunteers. I have to run, but keep your chin up. The man who runs this site is now aware of the situation. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Quack ... I say quack, y'all. This one's got me concerned already. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks likely. He's making them in batches now so he can jump from one to the other after one is blocked, I think. There is a current SPI open if you want add it there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be on the road this afternoon, but I'll do my best to check-in later this evening (EDT). Can you provide a link to the SPI? Thanks for looking at this so quickly. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Here ya go Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101 -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; don't know why the SPI acronym didn't register at first *d'oh*. This user has made no further edits, so I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt for the moment. That said, "trust, but verify" ... I'll keep an eye out on it and if it starts quacking louder, I'll let you and PMDrive1061 know. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's him, it should flag when the checkuser is done :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I did add it to the SPI just now. Should I also add a notification to the user's talk page? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Bouleia.

Hi, AnmaFinotera! I'd like for the deleted page Bouleia to be restored. The deletion log says that the content did not provide sufficient reason for the article's inclusion, but I've found a source here, [5], which can fix that problem. Would you please restore the page? Thanks in advance!!! Oh no! It's not here!!! (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so why are you asking me? You should ask the deleting admin. Also, note that a SINGLE source is not enough for notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were an admin. Thanks anyway, and thank you for the tips! Oh no! It's not here!!! (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Help....

{{helpme}} I need some help with my user page so that it looks more professional like how you did it. Any suggestions is appreciated. Thanks for the help in advance. ~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk)User:Hajiru

Usually you use a help me on your own page :-P What are you wanting it to look like? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry about that >_<

I forgot about doing it on my page....oops....

Anyway, you know how you got the user boxes at the right and you have your bio and stuff like an article on the left? I can't seem to make it look right without messing the boxes up.

Also cuz I wasn't sure of the best way to make it look.

If you want you can edit my page just to give me an idea of what to do?

It's up to you of course ^^

I just want it to look more professional since I would like to help out more with edits in Wikipedia. Also if anyone ever wants to chat they can see what I'm all about. I'll try to be as professional as I should be here. (can you tell I look up to you? XP)

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Hajiru

Ah, I do that with DIVs and floats. If you take a look at the source code of my user page, you can see where I have a DIV around the bio stuff (<div style="float: left; width: 65%;">BIO HERE</div>), then another div around my right hand stuff to make it float there (<div style="float: right; width: 250px;">RIGHT HAND STUFF HERE</div> :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

oh ok cool I shall try that

thanks for the help ^^

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Hajiru

How do I not know you?

We seem to have started around the same time, and you've got a whole ton of edits ... how is that I don't recognize your username at all??? I realize I'm not nearly as active as I used to be, but I *should* be able to recognize a prolific editor such as yourself ... weird. <shrug> howcheng {chat} 23:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No idea, but glad to meet you :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Adriana Benetti

Hi there. You proposed this article for deletion using the WP:BLPPROD process. I have contested the proposed deletion, as it is sourced to IMDB, which is generally acceptable as a source. If you still feel the article should be deleted, feel free to take it to AFD. Robofish (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, IMDB is NOT acceptable as a source at all per overwhelming Wikipedia consensus. It is not a reliable source, which is the actual requirement for BLPProd. Find a REAL reliable source before removing a BLPProd please. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

WAF

Thoughts? It would be nice to preserve the meaning of CAT:GEN as "style guidelines that get updated monthly" ... but we haven't had any takers on doing the monthly update. Are you interested? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 01:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really get it myself. If that's its meaning, why isn't that its name versus the current name which would seem to indicate that it is a general style guide. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you'll suggest a name, I'll suggest the change at WT:CFD. - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of interest at Admin Noticeboard

Spotted this and thought you may have an opinion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#I_must_be_nuts... - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WTF...if they unban him, I just may quit this site all together because it is sheer freaking lunacy. It would be just as bad as unbanning Grawp if he tries making nice. *argh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry and I should have informed you. The block is going to stand. Thanks for letting me know he was continuing his sockpuppetry while I was talking with him. I'll follow up with another e-mail to Jimbo. I am truly and desperately sorry if I upset you. Please forgive my incredibly stupid oversight in not involving you. You're staying; he's staying gone. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Shocked me more than anything...at first I thought he'd figured out a way to start impersonating people :-P I know its training and tiring dealing with him, so don't blame you for wanting to end this mess. Unfortunately, I'd have to say he is likely a pathological liar, at least online. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I know...and I thank you for not calling me every name in the book for worrying you. There would have been no way in hell I would lose you over this. It just seemed like a good idea at the time, but if he was continuing to be disruptive, then he truly is a pathological liar among other things. Like I said, I'll follow up with another e-mail to Jimbo. Time to pull his plug for good. I'm beyond frustrated at this point. Please, whatever you do, don't allow him under your skin. Here...this'll make you feel better...

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!

Kittens always make one feel better :-D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good. I feel better too. Heaven knows I felt like a fourteen-karat schmuck for not informing you. We'll look back and laugh at this someday.  :))PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of that devil, he is at it again on 64.203.238.107 (talk · contribs). Any way possible to get Girl Got Game semi-protected? It has no watchers so he keeps hitting it and his vandalism sits there for weeks at a time. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edits you just reverted it appears to be less a matter of "no watchers" than that it takes a very high level of familiarity with the source to identify the edits as vandalism. I was going to add it to my watchlist but there's no way I'd be able to tell that something like that wasn't a constructive edit. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In the case of that one, he does the same thing every time, reverts to his first vandalism of it which was adding the fake romaji title and the copyvio plot summary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Princess and the Frog

Hey, I'm assuming another Bambifan sock got loose. Thanks for dealing with his handiwork, but unfortunately your last revert added back an incorrect statement ... The Princess and the Frog was not released in Disney Digital 3-D, and it is the first traditional animated film from Disney since Home on the Range. No worries, though, as it's been repaired and is back to normal. Thanks again for your tireless and (sometimes) thankless work dealing with the little pest. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No prob. Unfortunately trying to clean up behind him when he does multi hits undetected, sometimes a good edit gets lost too. Thanks for spotting and fixing that :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Mathemagician57721

You might want to notify MuZemike (talk · contribs) to renew the range blocks since there is a very good chance that Mathemagician57721 will attempt to come back under a different IP. —Farix (t | c) 00:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured he might. I filed an SPI but didn't know there had been previous range blocks. might be good to note that therw. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that Aruseusu (talk · contribs) is another Mathemagician57721 sock account. The account was inactive for almost 8 months and became active again right after the other Mathemagician57721 socks were blocked. But do you think these edits should be reverted because they are clearly from Mathemagician57721 IP sock that was involved in the frame up? —Farix (t | c) 00:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Same here. I added it to the SPI. And yes, he is a sock he doesn't get to edit, good or bad (and as honesty is not his strong suit, it needs proper validation from a real editor) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Identity question

Can you tell or give a hint about your age and what you do outside of WP? Are you an American? Out of curiosity. ;) foxyma (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Maria Solomou

Hello AnmaFinotera. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Maria Solomou, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "stars in the Greek hit show" is an assertion of importance. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 12:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

An unsupported claim that it is a "hit show"...*sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think it isn't a hit show than AFD or even Hoax might apply. But AFAIC it is perfectly credible for there to be hit shows in Greece and for someone to be a notable performer therein. Now if we could only change notability so that popular entertainers on EN wiki needed to popular in some English language media, then this lady and many others, whilst welcome to a Greek language article, would not merit an English language one. ϢereSpielChequers 13:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah....to be honest, I've never quite understood why so many folks come from other language wikis to throw up a bad stub here, for something primarily only notable in their country (and on whose wiki they likely could get away with a lot more unsourced randomness). Yeha, English gets the most traffic, but also is most likely to spot its unnotable nature and clean it back out. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I once thought that all these singers and actors were hoping to make it in the English speaking world, but somehow their bios look less like PR work than much of the American and English gush. So now I suspect that some do it because they know that EN wiki articles may get higher Google ranks, and others because EN wiki articles are likely to be read by a lot of people whose first language hasn't yet got a lot of webcoverage. Also English is now the lingua Franca, so a Greek actress whose work is being dubbed for Romanian and subtitled for Ukrainian TV would naturally need an EN wiki article...... ϢereSpielChequers 13:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hello AnmaFinotera. I thought that I would make you aware that an anoon IP has started a discussion that you are involved in here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I_did_not_want_to_do_this.2C_but_this_is_repeat_offense. It looked as though they had no intention of alerting you so I thought that I would in the hopes that you can handle this ASAP. Cheers and happy editing in spite of this. MarnetteD | Talk 23:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he wouldn't. He has harassed and stalked me in the past, but another admin basically gave him carte blanche to continue editing as a sockpuppet IP despite his real account, User:100110100, being indef blocked, so I doubt anyone will do anything at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that is a real drag. Thanks for letting me know what is going on and have a great rest of your Sunday anyway. MarnetteD | Talk 23:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Another one ...

Please check out DTVEST when you get a chance ... I'm hearing quacking. (By the by, what's the standard procedure for handling a potential BF101 sock? I have no problem letting you pros--yourself and PMDrive--handle it, but I wanna help however I can.) --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Usual SOP is to report to WP:AIV for blocking, noting that is a sock of Bambifan101. If there are several in a row, do a new WP:SPI for sleeper check and possible range blocking though apparently the spoilt brat now has an iPhone. Then the fun of going through each edit to make sure it was reverted and that it wasn't a double hit (where he hits with a named and IP sock back to back, or two named socks). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Necrojesta

sorry, in the cleanup task force it was requested that 18 articles (16, 1 was repeated and 1 was actually a single but will be linked in my article) were merged to form 'list of neon genesis evangelion albums' I merged them all and Have gotten quite far with it. I'm still not too sure about it though, and need to know if it is up to wikipedia standards so far:

Please look over the article and reply on your page, since I'm quite new and haven't fully figured out talk pages yet:

List of Neon Genesis Evangelion albums

Also, if it is fine so far, should the original album articles that have been merged into it be turned into redirect pages? Necrojesta 00:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to finish the merge, each should be redirected to the list, with an edit summary of "merged to List of Neon Genesis Evangelion albums per clean up request." So far, it looks like good progress. I'd recommend making all the title headings level 3s, and then adding a level 2 header of "Albums", to make it a major section, and going through each section to make sure it has consistent formatting. For the infoboxes, remove the next/prev info as they are all on the same page now and very obvious. I'd also highly recommend converting each track listing to use Template:Track listing, which will help with consistency, and turn the collapsible feature on it on for readability. The "See also" section can be removed - all the links in it are already linked in the article or in the template. Commentary and references should be separated - put Comments (such as reference #8 "Parts of this track are based on the track "Rei III" from Neon Genesis Evangelion II") in a "Notes" section, and put actual references in a References section, making sure the latter also uses a nice consistent format. Let me know if you need help doing that. Finally, some of the notes look like they should be article content, some need sourcing (commentary), and some of the references need verification that they are reliable sources. Hope that helps (to learn more about using talk pages, see WP:TALKPAGE). Thanks for tackling such a big project and good luck with it :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the reply, very informative, I'll take on all you've told me, they took a while to get organized. Cruel angel's thesis isn't including as it is a CD single, it was deleted after I realized. I'll post back when I've edited/cleaned it up. ^^ Within each section (each album) For the title track list, reception, credits etc, should they be kept in bold? I think this looks best and the contents won't get too complicated.

Necrojesta 00:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The album titles in each section should not be bolded, they should just be in italics. There should be no "bolded" pseudo sections in each area (see WP:MOSBOLD, we don't generally bold for appearances only). The tracklist heading will be taken care of by the template, and the others are unnecessary (particularly credits). For reception, when doing a list, the reception should be combined into a single reception section below the album list, or just made part of a section's regular prose without subsectioning. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you please look over the first four albums? the track listing is done and they should looks fine but what do you think?

Doing this all myself is taking a while since I'm reading Wikipedia's tutorials half the time and I only just realized there were ready made track-listings (I was writing them out myself ^^;).Necrojesta 19:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The first three look okay, though the track lists should be collapsed, and the sections need more sourced content on that album (release date, et all...it should not just be left to the infobox). The fourth needs the sections removed (as noted above). Also, on all of the album headers, make sure to put the album titles in the headers in italics too :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it doesn't work with collapsed track-listing the infoboxes get mixed up, is there a way to collapse both? everything else is fine, tracklisting done etc. everything except references and links.Necrojesta 00:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrojesta (talk • contribs)

Take a look at the code in List of Final Fantasy compilation albums to see how they did it without causing problems in the infobox. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply

How do they look know? I'm currently adding infobox information to each album paragraph, since the infobox shouldn't be the only information, this way the information won't be overlooked and it will look a bit better. Also is there a way of seeing your contribution total? Necrojesta 15:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The first three are looking better :-) Per WP:NONFREE, the album covers all need to be removed, though. If you just want to see your own totals, you can click on "My preferences" and it shows on the first tab. You can also look it up using a tool like X!'s Edit Counter, which is the main one used across Wikipedia for RfAs, infoboxes, etc. It does some nice charts, and you can use it to see other people's too. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

All Done now, can you please check it, now that it should be just about finished. As they say though 'Wikipedia is never complete'. Soon I will remove the major edit template and remove content on each album page and redirect them to the new page. All album pages have now been redirected to the page, and there is a link on List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media at the section for soundtrack and CD's. Do you have any idea why sinebot is signing my posts even when i sign them, so it's signed twice? Necrojesta 18:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I will look at it later this evening. Sinebot is signing your posts because your signature is against guidelines. You must include, at minimum, a link to your user talk page, user page, or contribs in your signature. Without that, SineBot will not perceive it as a signature. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks better. I made some more fixes (removing the excessive portal links, white spacing, and the bolding already mentioned several times. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on List of Neon Genesis Evangelion albums, I'll take a look at the way it is formatted and keep that in mind, since I'm starting a similar project now. Edit: would it happen to be { - }? Does that add a break? Necrojesta (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, {{-}} will basically do a <br style="clear:both;" /> tag, which will keep the infoboxes from running into each other. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm starting List of Cowboy Bebop Albums now, which is a merge, pretty much the same as this, so knowing that will be really helpful. Necrojesta (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Boys from Baghdad High

Hello, AnmaFinotera! I was hoping you might be able to do a favor for me and copy edit (read "hack to death") the synopsis section of the documentary film The Boys from Baghdad High. It's undergoing a GAN, and the length of the section has always been an issue for me. I added so much information into it, that now I don't know what to remove so that it remains coherent. It's gone before WP:PR twice, and I've asked other editors for assistance and ideas, but I haven't had much luck. Knowing you've worked on TV and film articles before, hopefully you will have some useful ideas. Thank you, Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at it tomorrow morning/afternoon (will be fairly busy tonight). (as a random side note, the quote box should probably be moved up a little as it pushes the references to the side a little) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hope that helps :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! It is a lot smoother and clearer now. Hopefully it will pass its GAN. Thanks again, Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

WT:FILM

Thank you for notifying WikiProject Films of the discussion about plot summaries. However, in the future, it would help to word such notifications neutrally, otherwise it may be perceived as disruptive. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for more. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 12:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its really canvassing as I was open about notifying projects (and considering how many times the topic has come up, the notification was about as neutral as I could make it). Seems like we're having to deal with this mess every other month now. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The key is to use less words. :) "There is a discussion at the policy village pump about the appropriateness of plot summaries, which would affect articles under WikiProject Films. See discussion here." Let the readers judge the initial post and the succeeding posts. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Final Destination 5 at IMDB

Inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Destination 5: The Death Trip: While the article written by User:Masolipis111 is frought with problems, the topic itself is not a hoax, and so I believe the topic itself may merit a merit a redirect to Final Destination (film series), where speculation of a 5th in the series might best be covered. Not exactly RS, but Slashfilm, Screenrant, Shock Till You Drop, and others all make note of Warner Bros. head Alan Horn announcing at ShoWest that they're planning Final Destination 5. So while the current article itself is full of unsourced speculation, the chase for consumer dollars makes the project likely. If we set a redirect, Wikipedia can afford to be patient and revisit this topic when it receives more coverage and in reliable sources. What are your thoughts? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason at all for a redirect as the title is incorrect nor verifiable anywhere. If they do make a FD5, then it would go under its proper name. At best, Final Destination 5 should redirect to the series, but not this made up title. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I recently learned of the Final Destination 5 redirect, which serves nicely. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sig migration

I have looked at the migration you have mentioned, and have made some test adjustments to your archive e.g.[6]. Since I am looking at editing these types of pages anyway, some automated assistance might be possible. However I am wary of changing free text. Let me know what you think, by email if you wish. Rich Farmbrough, 17:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, I think those would be a good change. In my case, changing Free text is mostly easy, since its a fairly unique term, though would need to be careful of some specific links since the pages aren't moved. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I need Your opinion

It was suggested that the infoboxes in List of Neon Genesis Evangelion albums were taken out and the information was put into the text, what do you think of this? I will probably put in an image of shiro sagisu and yoko takahashi if this is done. --Necrojesta (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry to bother you again, but I need your opinion on something, Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion is the new location fo the page to accomodate singles etc expanding the article. I need you opinion on whether or not we should merge all albums and singles into the article, someone is saying there worth a dedicated article but I think all being in the same article is better, what do you think? Talk:Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion please tell us your opinion in the 'merging' section, it wouldbe highly appreciated. thanks. --Necrojesta (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

VG reviews template follow up

Just following up on a past discussion. {{VG reviews}} has undergone some changes recently, and the documentation has been expanded. Not all the changes originally discussed were implemented. But the template is a little leaner, and the documentation is much stronger and more in-line with the practices of the VG project.

If you'd like to make some suggestions and comments, please feel free to do so at the latest thread at the project talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

Proposed article deletions

Hi there. Despite creating the articles 2010 Biobio earthquakes and 2010 Andaman Islands earthquake myself, I now agree with you that they are non-notable. Like many other Wikipedia editors, I got carried away with earthquakes after Chile and Haiti. However, more recently I saw the light and realised all these earthquake articles were getting a bit silly. On the AfD talk page, I have made a few suggestions of my own, if you want to check this out. Justmeagain83 (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Rename

You should know that because you recreated your old account, none of the edits are going to transfer to the new username. Just wanted to let you know. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are some cookies to welcome you! :D

It sort of feels like I should give you a housewarming gift since you moved! ^^ --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Noticed the name change. Continue to have fun editing --KrebMarkt 13:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...cookies always rock :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What?? I did NOT recreate the old account?? As soon as you said the change was done, I logged out and have used this name exclusively. I need those edits to transfer!! *cry* Does this mean now that both my old account and my new one are messed up and unrepairable? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would you think none of the edits are going to transferred Nihon? They may be lagging behind, or it may have stalled out, but they will/can be transferred. (They are attached to the userrid of the new username... A dev may need to do it if it stalled, same thing happened to me on my rename). –xeno^talk 15:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it appeared that the account had been recreated. The logs showed it was autocreated yesterday, which means she was logged in on another site with her old universal login, then visited a page here, thereby autocreating the account again. When I checked, all the old edits still appeared to be attached to the old account, but it appears they have been transferred now. Perhaps it was a browser cache thing (though I forced a reload and it didn't change at the time). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems there are still many edits under each: new, old. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's like a long train, the engine and a few of the cars are at the station, the rest will follow (or not, in which a dev will need to shovel some coal in the burner). –xeno^talk 18:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Weird...I went and did the requests on a few wikis where I had edits, but I did those all at the same time. This was the first to fulfill it though and I logged out right after seeing the message about it, which logged me out of all the others too. It does seem to have possibly stalled, though, after moving the June 09 ones over. :-( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's doubtful you did anything to cause this. It is no doubt bugzilla:17313. If the rest of the edits don't catch up within 2 weeks, you should try looking for a dev. –xeno^talk 20:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. To my amusement, no more edits have transferred yet...but my block log did (which really will confuse anyone who sees the blocks from 08 with no edits LOL) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like some of the 07 edits have moved, but that's about it. Just over 1k so far... :-( I thought maybe my being off-wiki might help. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You had me rather confused there for a while... and it seems like the edits started to transfer:) G.A.S^talk 16:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the rename, don't lose too much hair/sleep/etc. over the (hopefully temporarily) misplaced edits... =) --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have more edits than you. :-P I liked your old name better, but you gotta do what you gotta do (I've been in the same situation before). Hope it gets better. Mike Allen 05:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, new username is much better, plus you will have a lot fewer people mistaking your gender. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wolf: A Journey Home FAC

Hey. Like the new username. Anyway, I spotted your comments at the above FAC in reply to Charles; do you think it might be worth toning down your rebuttal a bit? He's a decent reviewer, and while seeing an "oppose" at FAC can be galling, he tends to lodge one even when the issues he's highlighted are few, or minor. And that's a perfectly valid choice; more often than not Charles strikes the oppose and ends up supporting when concerns have been tackled, or (and this is crucial) successfully rebutted by the nominator (I used to do this too). If you disagree with him, that's fine, but you're far more likely to convince him you're right with a slightly less combative approach. (Incidentally, I opened a discussion on the copied citations thing not long after I saw his comments, as I've seen the concern raised at a number of FACs recently). Have a good one, Steve ^T • C 14:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

He's already replied so a bit too late to rephrase. I don't find much decent about his review at all. His oppose is, quite frankly, ridiculous as a whole. The few real issues he brought up are minor, and the others are just wrong headed (in his reply he has already admitted he is unfamiliar with the area of novel articles). And if his edit count didn't go so far back, I'd think he was User:ItsLassieTime trying to derail another FAC of mine as his oppose made no more sense then his/her last attempt to do just that. *sigh* Sorry, I'm really tired today and grumpy. I do appreciate you talking to him about the cite, and I copied it to the previous sentence to address the issue. I also added another source found at the last minute. Hopefully that will help some. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:174.3.123.220

I noticed your edit summary here - can you shed some light on this user for me? I'm having to spend a lot of time - too much - double-checking his edits most of which, to my mind, are pointless at best but quite often subtly corrosive. I've seen intimations of some past life but haven't figured out much beyond that. I'd like to figure out how to bring him / her to heel a bit. Thanks for any insights. JohnInDC (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

He had a registered account, User:100110100, which was indef blocked in in May 2007 for long term issues with civility, edit warring, personal attacks, and even making death threats if anyone dared revert him.[7] He has apparently been ignoring that block since then, editing as various IPs in that range, for years and just continuing to do most of the same sorts of edits he was doing then at reference desk, to guidelines and policies, etc. User:Father Goose unblocked him in February 2010 after it was confirmed that one such IP was said user, claiming he was reformed. However, said use began seriously wikihounding me with both the IP and the named sock, actions which had started even before the unblock. He also ignored all requests that he properly identify himself when using both the IPs and named accounts in discussions, and eventually Father Goose reblocked the name, but thus far this guy has continued to be allowed to use the IP and he continues to randomly wikihound myself and others. Some of the long history can be read at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#Wikihounding by User:174.3.110.108 And Questionable unblock of same (AKA user:100110100). Since then, Father Goose has refused to take any responsibility for his part in giving this editor the basic go ahead to continue socking all he likes, and, from the last I saw on his talk page, whill simply refuse to have anything to do with it at all.

Unfortunately, when 100110100 started wikihounding me, I was already being actively harrassed by two other users and I lost my cool, so people who already disliked me focused on my reaction instead of the fact that this guy was indef banned for, among many things, threatening to kill people, was unblocked by an admin without discussion, allowed to continue the same disruptive behavior, and despite the username being reindef blocked, continues to use IP socks with full knowledge of several admins to edit various policy pages, guidelines, and harass anyone who dares disagree with him. His most recent attack on me personally was to randomly file a false ANI which was unfortunately ignored after I pointed out he was just wikihounding again.[8] Basically, several admins have noted he is violating WP:SOCK, and even noting he is being disruptive, but they are all ignoring it. Other discussions you may find interesting reading:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive609#174.3.123.220 and Template:Otheruses4
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive212#Use of multiple IPs not permitted?
• User_talk:Father_Goose#Confusion

Personally, I think he is a disturbed person and I find it appalling that any user who makes death threats and has that kind of history is allowed to continue to edit using IP socks. However, as no admin seems to be willing to actually start blocking these IP socks, I don't bother reporting to AIV like they should be, and I gave up an ANI though he is continuing to randomly stalk me even after renaming my account. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's informative, and, well, a bit discouraging. This person's edits are, as I said, largely pointless but often he degrades the articles and I feel compelled to follow behind, cleaning up the silly stuff. But I may also be inviting a pile of trouble by complaining about him. Thanks again for the background. JohnInDC (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem and agreed. I think unfortunately nothing will be done unless more people complain, especially as he is indef blocked. It seems to me that if WP:SOCK and WP:BAN are going to be policies, and are being strongly enforced with other editors, that it should be enforced with this guy as well. While most of his edits are just pointless and, as noted, often degrading to an article and just his implementing his personal preferences, his continued incivility and harassment of other editors (per the reason he was blocked) is not acceptable. I see he has also started wikihounding you too (sorry, it is a sucky thing to have happen to an editor). And his continued socking while indef blocked and his use of changing IPs is against both policies. It seems to me that it is way past time admins either say "okay, you are unblocked (again), use your username and identify yourself when working as an IP) or start actually blocking this guy every time he shows up.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Anma

Sorry I haven't dropped by yet since you switched user names. Hope all is well ... been busy fighting off a new Disney vandal, and no it ain't him. I've been keeping in touch with PMDrive, and I look forward to his return in the future. Take care! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what it is with Disney that seems to bring out the vandal silliness :-P Glad to hear on PMDrive and look forward to his return too. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Napa County earthquake

This should be now be nominated for deletion as the earthquake has now been confirmed by the USGS to be false. Justmeagain83 (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhm!

I think one of your little accomplishment things at the top of the page is broken. The one that I can only figure is for making List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes featured only links to List of Tokyo Mew episodes~ Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 21:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Woops, looks like I did that on the episode and character list entries. Thanks :-) Should be fixed now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Help

Can you help me edit this page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_theatrical_film_production_companies to follow the same format as the distributors page, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Theatrical_Film_Companies? It is a lot of work and I would appreciate your help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterix (talk • contribs) 01:30, May 2, 2010 Misterix

No, as I don't believe such a list exists. Also, your repeated moving of List of film production companies was beyond inappropriate, particularly your moving it so many times, then you just turned around and copied it to a new page? I've report it to WP:ANI so an admin can undo all of that moving and put it back at the original name, which WAS the proper article name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

help request

Hello,

Who is the best person to talk to regarding "Lists" and the differences compared to "Disambiguation" pages? I am trying to understand what is going on at: List of Carpenter named articles. For example: Why is duplication prohibited or frowned on here? Why are partial listings or linking to "Carpenter" in an article is bad for a "List of" page is bad? Any help is appreciated. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

For the relevant guidelines, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation and WP:LISTS. For people well versed in them who can help answer your questions, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it's zhang again

i was wondering if there was a way to report someone for ignoring someone? i mean if contact is necessary but the person refuses to talk. donald duck, who was previously zhang he, refuses to contact me in any way and i'm always reverting his edits or fixing some of the information but it ends up getting reverted. he refuses to talk, he either removesm y comment on his page or ignores it. what should i do? Plus, he takes me personally, he will not see my edits as fixing, rather than antagonizingBread Ninja (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't much you can do other than try Dispute resolution like mediation or Wikipedia:Editor assistance. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

isn't there some kind of intervention of some sort?Bread Ninja (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Those two venues can help some, but in the end he also has to be willing to settle the issue and discuss it. If he isn't and unless he is being disruptive, in the end no one can make him unless it gets to the point of violating WP:CIVIL and warrants admin attention. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I already warned him. he reverted and gave WP:HARASS which i haven't done. in fact it's been vice versa. Anyways, ihave no idea what to do unless someone talked to him for me. I know i'm not the only one who tried talking to him.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is really getting to the point where i cannot stand and i simply wish for him to understand, he doesn't know the rules well from the edits I've seen he's done. he "banned" me form his talk page, which really doesnt change much. is there some sort of third party that i can help me? Bread Ninja (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, you can try mediation or Wikipedia:Editor assistance. Both are places to have a third party attempt to discuss things with both parties to try to find a resolution. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about more of civility and personal attacks, those can give a third party and talk to him about behaviour?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You can also try filing a report at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, i think that might work. thanks. Bread Ninja (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is this user? I want to see what they're doing. --Necrojesta (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, the user instead got an admin on me and i was able to solve more or less of the problem....though really future problems is what I'm worrying about.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine then ^^. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrojesta (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if requirements have been sufficiently met

I wrote the article about MONOkuro and it was flagged for deletion because there weren't enough reliable third party reference sources. I have tried to expand the article and I have added another reference. All references are in Japanese since there are no english references available. Is this a problem and are the minimum requirements met? If not, what else should be done? Huguenin (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources can be in Japanese, but they still must be reliable and, for establishing notability, third-party. So far, no the requirements have not been met at all. A single blog post from a source that odes not appear to be reliable is not significant coverage. If there is no significant coverage in reliable sources, no matter what language, it isn't notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

External linking

I am trying to add scheduling information as relevant links to Television show pages. Is this not allowed? It seems relevant to the show. Thank you and please clarify if there is a better way for me to attribute this data to these pages.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfe232 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, as those links are not relevant and do not meet our external linking guideline. Further you added a similar link to numerous articles in rapid succession. Wikipedia is not a TV guide and current scheduling information, particularly of syndicated shows, is not considered encyclopedic nor something to link off too. If users want to know if a show is still on the air, they can find that information most likely through the accepted ELs already on the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for the clarification, I will be much more careful going forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfe232 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've left a welcome note on your talk page that has a lot of good links for helping "learn the ropes" so to speak, as editing on Wikipedia can seem a daunting at times :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hope Floats (soundtrack)

You don't think Eric444's work is enough for a standalone article? That's why he split it off — because it's a notable album with third party reviews, charting singles, etc. with enough possible content for a standalone. Not every split requires a discussion; some are just applications of common sense and/or being bold. What's worse, when you redirected, you didn't bother to re-merge the content. If the soundtrack's article were one sentence, maybe, but this is a full paragraph with several claims about possible individual notability — number-one album on an albums chart, at least two charting singles, third-party reviews, etc. Please be a little more careful next time and consider using {{merge}} if you think something was split off inappropriately and should be merged. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What work? He didn't do anything but copy/paste the stuff that had been cut out of the film article recently because it had no place, had you bothered looking[9]. He didn't do anything himself other than reupload the image at even the exact same name. There is no common sense to it, nor was there nothing to "remerge" as it was cleaned out of the film article for not having any place. The actual valid content was never removed and is still sitting there. And he obviously wasn't going to do anything else with it other than try to "save" the non-free image. Why trick readers into clicking on the link and go "oh, wait, I just read this same little info on the other article....pretty picture....weee" Perfect example of why Wikipedia is broken. But since you think his work was "good" and enough for a standalone article, fine. I've restored the "good" version of Hope Floats, per your lecture, and wish you good luck in your clean up, since I presume you fully intend to expand and clean up BOTH articles that you suddenly appeared to revert my edits. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on adding content to the soundtrack articlce. I still think your merge was just wiping information out willy nilly. You didn't even try to see if you could've built it up yourself, you just plowed right through it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No info was "wiped" but the track list and a non-free image, as already noted, neither of which are important details nor highly relevant as the soundtracks cover is the image poster with different text. But, whatever. At least move it to the proper title, will ya. Happy expanding. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within

Hello again. I've done some work addressing the issues in this article. I've noticed somebody else has gone to some trouble creating a 'Characters' section, and has accordingly removed cast information from the plot. The information provided seems a bit superfluous and unnecessary to me, I was considering reverting it myself, but I'm not really sure what the threshold for too much information is. I was hoping you'd be able to find the time to have a quick look at the article, and let me know anything further that needs improving, other than shortening the plot. Cheers Freikorp (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to revert it. It does not improve the article at all, and the "information" added is horrendously formatted, completely superfluous and non-sourcable to the film. It is also WP:COPYVIO from the DVD materials making it completely illegal and against policy. With that reverted, the only other things I can see that need a little work: Related media should just be media and with so few sentences, there is no reason to really separate out the soundtrack into a subsection unless it is going to be merged back into the film article. Release should be Reception and again does not need a subsection. The plot tag can also be removed once the revert is done. Those are all fairly minor and with them fixed I believe the article could be moved to a B class. For going above that, the two biggest issues I'd see are that the the production section can be expanded further from more sources, as can the reception section. Eventually the lead will need to be expanded, per WP:LEAD and WP:MOSFILM. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've worked on everything you've mentioned; what do you think is further needed for the article to reach "good" status? I'd sure love one of those fancy little green tokens you seem to collect :) Sorry to be a pain but I'm mainly a gnome on here and haven't ever improved a single article this much before. Freikorp (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

For good article status, the main thing would be replacing the IMDB reference if possible (IMDB isn't considered RS, even for the awards), add a source and more basic details (release date) for the novelization, release date and publisher of the soundtrack, and have the article copy edited. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Crud. I didn't want to use the IMDB reference, but the official motion picture sound editors website actually lists IMDB as the official source for their own awards[10], this is the only other reference I've found[11], but I'm pretty sure that won't be acceptable either. Would we get away with listing the mpse webpage with the external link to IMDB? Or should I just remove the statement entirely? Btw is Amazon.com considered RS for release dates (or anything for that matter)? Freikorp (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, that particular award company is odd. I had to deal with a ref for them before....I think I listed both IMDB and the award company as the publisher, and noted in a hidden comment that the award company used IMDB as their official site for the awards. Amazon.com is RS for release dates, as a last resort in the lack of other RS, as well as publisher/distributor, but not much else. Their reviews, for example, are not RS. They do sometimes reprint reviews from other RS that can help you find more reviews, but Amazon's copy itself shouldn't be used. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV

Hello, when you come across sockpuppets, please don't report them to AIV unless their edits are blatant vandalism. If there's no immediate reason to block other than sockpuppetry, WP:SPI is the correct venue. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I always report Bambifan101 socks and Alexcas11 for immediate blocking because they are banned users and ridiculously easy to spot, and they are always blocked ASAP. There is an immediate reason to block now. He's already made several fake sequel pages (his MO), vandalized multiple articles, and tried to recruit established editors to recreate stuff he can't because of protection blocks. I realize you are fairly new to admining (congrats), but I do know exactly what I am doing. Bambifan101 has over 300 socks, Alexcas11 is pushing 100 with more we probably don't know about due to the age. They are considered persistent vandals. AIV is a fully appropriate venue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the "V" in AIV stands for "vandalism". If you need quicker attention, try ANI, but SPI is the correct venue. We don't have different noticeboards for different areas just because we like being bureaucratic. There may be enough for an admin more familiar with the history to block per WP:DUCK, but I'm not comfortable doing so. I'll leave the reports there for another admin to decide. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:VANDTYPES - last entry under types of vandalism "use of sock puppets" :-). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've indef'd your friend with talk page and email disabled. I've also deleted the page in question and restored without that edit which has been referred to Oversight. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Bravo for all your Wikipedia work.

Hi Anma. There's a topic I'd like to discuss with you, although I would prefer private chat. You could e-mail me, but it seems I can't email you. I expect you've chosen that option, and for good reasons no doubt. Alternatively, I'm familiar with Wikipedia's wp:IRC chat facility - are you? Best wishes, Trafford09 (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I had to disable email due certain vandals who were using it to harass me. I generally do not use IRC at all (did years ago), and have never used Wikipedia's. From what I've heard of it, I think it best if I stay away from there ;-) I can send you an email though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

My Regrets, Condolences, etc.

Sorry to hear that you have a stalker problem..... I guess that I'm fortunate in that I'm sufficiently insignificant to have never attracted that sort of attention.
A question: I'm trying to get the necessary permissions for various images of Ernie Harwell (he just died recently) and I'm wondering as to what the likelihood is that that objections might be raised to a section or page dedicated to those images on the grounds that that such a collection of such images is ipso facto un-encyclopedic. Any thoughts that come to your mind in regard to the matter would be most appreciated.<br. />—NBahn (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the likelyhood for deletion is... but you should be safe if you upload them to Commons:Category:People and create a page there instead (in fact, free license images should be uploaded directly to Commons instead of Wikipedia — See also: Wikipedia:IG#Image galleries.) G.A.S^talk 04:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nightmare

You may wish to return to Talk:Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy and re-evaluate your position on the article. MichaelQSchmidt has sourced some information for the documentary and would like everyone to review the page again. My opinion remains the same, as everyone on that page is already on A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)#Documentary, with the exception of the IMDb cast list for everyone interviewed. You may feel otherwise, and it would be only right for anyone who has cast an opinion of the previous version of the page to review it and either alter their opinion or reaffirm their choice.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

May have another BF101

There may be a second repeat vandal working on these articles, or this could just be how BambiFan is attacking them ... this editor keeps changing box-office gross numbers without providing sources, and I think I've seen this type of vandal work before, but I wanted to at least tip you off in case Bambi's back. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...that one I'm not sure of. Might want to do an SPI...could be Bambifan, but I seem to remember another vandal who did nothin gbut that, changing box office grosses and other stuff to introduce vandalism. The pattern seems off to be Bambifan101, though he has hit all of those articles repeatedly before, so a CU seems like a good idea. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Case just blocked the user indefinitely for being a vandalism-only account, and my recent experiences with SPI indicate that once that's done, sock investigations are moot points. At least he is stopped, whoever he is/was. Thanks for your quick response! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC) (P.S. I think there is another repeat vandal who just changes B.O. gross numbers for the heck of it.)

RfPP

Hey, I've left a note for you on WP:RPP. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

School Rumble

Based on you comment at WT:Anime#A-Class, do you think I should undue the combining of refs I have done? I have already gone through and eliminated as many unnecessary ones as I can.陣内_Jinnai 10:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good thing. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to the policy/guideline that states that they should be like that? I believe that is the only way I would be able to win an argument if I brought it back to an FAC with tons of references after something.陣内_Jinnai 13:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'm looking all through stuff and can't find anything explicitly stating it, though it "seems" obvious from all examples always showing just a single ref per ref tag, and there being no explanation on how to do it if it is done. It is also been brought up in other FACs, GANs, and PRs where editors had to undo that kind of grouping before it could pass. I would imagine it would fall under the requirement that citations be clear, which stacked ones generally are not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Brought this to attention at WP:Village pump (policy)#Citations.陣内_Jinnai 14:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability of small settlements

I saw that you contributed to the discussion at WT:N#Notability of small settlements, so you may be interested in a policy proposal I have made concerning this issue at the Village pump. Regards. Claritas (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

3rd

Who is the 3rd? –xeno^talk 20:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, Jehochman said Dream Weaver not Dreamweaver. Fixing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You had me confused there =) –xeno^talk 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Nature/science articles

If you are interested, can you please improve articles on topics related to nature and science, like volcanism, tsunami, and national parks? Much of them need improvement, especially those on the 58 U.S. National Parks, which all deserve to be featured articles. This is just a request, and no reply is suggested. foxyma 07:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Never shown in any interest in that, so curious as to why asking me? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a sysop?

I thought you were. Well, that's weird. I think you should submit yourself at WP:RFA. Having that extra block button in regards to all the vandal trouble you are facing would be useful. I can't nominate you, as my vacation is coming up. Good lcuk if you decide to run! Buggie111 (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd never pass an RfA. Way too many folks who dislike my sometimes abrupt nature, and I really don't have the temper for it :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Broken links

Do you know how to access broken links and fix them? for some reason i can't access the main article page that has the redirect. it just automatically takes me to the link.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, for which page? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

for Evangelion (mecha) i click on them ant redirects me, but when i go to the top it wont show me the link soi can actually go to the redirected page.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding what the problem is? If I click that link, it takes to that article? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

it's suppose to go to a section, the link is to the page, where the discussion page has the broken links. (i'm sorry should have been clear). and when i click at the section broken links, it takes me to the section, but it needs to be renamed (since it has been renamed quite some time) to it's proper name. i forgot what the link is called. i don't think it's called broken link, but it's something else.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean like EVA00? I checked it and it wasn't working, but that's because the casing was wrong (it is case specific). You can access any link redirecting to it through "what links here"[12] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

oh ok. thanks.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I don’t have any problem if they are edited, but you keep deleting external site that can help my case. Maybe you feel they are worthless websites, but the judge may have a different opinion than yours and his voice counts. I would appreciate if you would stop deleting the links and give me some respect while this decision process is going on. I want the judge to look at all evidence so he or she can make a valid decision on the bases of all information available. I respect all your evidence against these articles and I will not try to hide any of them from the decision process. I can only hope you will return that respect and let the evidence I have posted alone, so the judge’s can review it. Thank you --Sholun (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The links are not "helping" your "case" and they have all already been mentioned in both AfDs. The links do not have any place in the article whether they are kept or not. The administrator who closes the cases will look at the AfD, there is no "judge" who will ignore all the discussion in the AfD and just say "keep" because you kept spamming in inappropriate links. Whether it is kept or deleted, until it is decided the article must followed Wikipedia guidelines, and with that glut of unrelated, unreliable, inappropriate links, it does not. It has nothing to do with respect, except your seeming continued lack of respect for the obvious consensus in both AfDs and in our guidelines and policies. I am not the only editor who has removed those links before, and you rudely keep restoring them despite it. That is what is disrespectful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Freebirds

Hi! I saw the message regarding the California tag

The Freebirds HQ was in Texas (and therefore the Texas tag is being retained because of that) - But the offices managing Freebirds are now in California. Also I'm not sure that Tavistock is actually HQed in Emeryville. I would have to directly check the Tavistock company website to see.

There are cases where the "headquarters" of a brand owned by a parent company are not located in the place where the parent company is headquartered. For instance Marble Slab Creamery's offices are near Atlanta, but the company that owns Marble Slab is based in New York. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.tavistock.com/index.aspx?id=91 says that the Tavistock HQ is in Florida. So, the HQ of Freebird's is in California, but the HQ of the parent company is in Florida. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If you say so. The page doesn't say one way or another where its headquarters is, only the corporate contact (which could be Freebirds or Tavistock). No point arguing one way or another. I didn't care enough about the topic, really, to bother to keep working on it once you decided to start changing it. It would be nice, though, if you would respect the article's existing citation style, per guideline, and follow it when you add new references. What is with you and the portals though? It seems like you are on a mission to put some kinda portal link on every last Wikipedia article. Considering how many are added daily, you'll be busy a long time...wouldn't a bot be better? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have not studied how to program a bot, so I am not sure how to write one to automatically add portals. Anyway, yes I do have plans to spread portals as often as possible so that other users will, by example, also insert portals into other articles. As for the citation style, I switched the cite to the "cite web" style. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to program one either, but you can do Wikipedia:Bot requests from those who do know how ;) I'm guessing you're working off some kind of list, in which case you can give the bot writer who signs up for the task the list and let them go to town. You could also use WP:AWB, though I think that would be tricker to do well if you haven't used it before. And thanks (re cite) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! :) At some point I'll post a bot request there

Sometimes I systematically decide "these articles need portals," but sometimes I come to an article for another reason and then find there are no portals, so I am not always systematically adding portals to a series.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

FAC articles

Do you have a list of articles where you were told to undo the combining refs in FAC discussions? I'd like to bring this to light and get this sorted out before I bring SR back up.陣内_Jinnai 22:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but now as I have never done them (and never would). It's been mentioned in other people's FACs, and I myself have opposed because of them, but I can't remember any specific ones. Sorry. I tried searching, but different people call it different things ("stacked references" seems another used term), making it difficult to research more. Maybe ask at WP:CITE. Here is one GA I found where it seemed to be hotly disputed: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Preity_Zinta/1 (interestingly, two of the current FA delegates were on totally opposite sides of the issue there, with Tony strongly disliking, and Sandy saying they were fine). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Arizona boycott

Just a quick note to let you know that I removed the speedy deletion template you placed on Arizona boycott because the article did not seem to meet the speedy deletion criterion G10. The article is obviously not an attack page.

Please be aware that is normally inappropriate re-add a speedy deletion template when another editor (other than the creator of the article) has removed it, because speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial deletions. If you believe the article still needs to be deleted, please consider WP:PROD or WP:AFD which can be used for deletions which are not covered by the speedy deletion criteria.

I am not an administrator and I do not have any special authority in this matter. If you feel that I have made a mistake, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thparkth (talk) Thparkth (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather you have actually let an administrator decide that, versus just removing it if you aren't one. It really isn't your call to make to remove that kind of speedy, and yes I do think you have erred here. I've sent it to AfD. I think it is an attack page against the state of Arizona, as there are not articles on "Arizona Boycott" and its used to basically point out two rather unfortunately events in Arizona's history, nor do we have boycott "disambigs" against any other state. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It might well be deleted at AfD (I might even vote to delete it) but it is certainly not an attack page, and I'm sure you know that I am quite entitled to make that judgement, just as any other editor is. Thparkth (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, but yes, the CSD page never really says completely - admins only, though the lead implies it while two paragraphs later, it just does a firm limit against the creator. That said, I think things such as "attack page" or the like really should be left to administrators. It isn't the same as tagging something as "nonsense" when it clearly isn't. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Which part of the lead do you believe implies that only admins may remove CSD tags? As far as I know, that would be a novel interpretation of WP:CSD. Thparkth (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To me "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media" implies that it is a decision for administrators, but eh, old argument and one that I know is unlikely to be changed (IMHO, if anyone can remove a CSD except the creator, its no different than a PROD). However, I will note that there is an error in your note above. If a CSD is removed by a non-admin, it can be restored. CSD != Prod.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

True enough: if a PROD is removed once, it's removed forever, but CSD tags can be reapplied. I'm not aware of a specific prohibition against reapplying CSD tags even after an admin removes them, but it's probably a horrible idea: an editor that did that is bound to get his wrist slapped somehow.—Kww(talk) 00:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If a CSD is removed by any user other than the article creator, admin or not, it should not normally be restored because it is now known that deletion for that reason would be controversial, and speedy deletion is not meant to be used for controversial deletions other than in exceptional circumstances. I'm pretty sure the text of my note is correct... Thparkth (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The only times I ever routinely restored CSD tags were db-copyvio, db-banned and db-repost. These cases are objective facts, and their removal usually signaled misunderstandings by the remover rather than a legitimate controversy. You are correct that restoring a CSD tag is not something to be done under normal circumstances.—Kww(talk) 00:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This reflects my understanding also. Mind you, I have seen db-copyvio misused by someone who was convinced that the article violated the copyright of a wikipedia mirror since it was "nearly a word-for-word copy". Thankfully the admin was more switched on :) Thparkth (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

copyright

The date of copyright is from the publication of the original text that is being copied. A subsequent reprint is irrelevant, except for the added material, & you should be aware publishers are sometimes in the habit of attaching their own copyright notices to public domain material--but this does not give them the rights to it. As for plagiarism, I have explained to the author of Gray's Inn Manor the way to rewrite the material, but what he did is not forbidden, just discouraged. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, hopefully the publisher doesn't think otherwise. Personally, I'd rather play safe than sorry. There is no proof that the work is in the public domain, as WE may not know when the author died, but the UK government is highly likely too. Depending on his age when he wrote the work, the article could easily still be under copyright by UK law. There is also the issue of US law. When was it first published in the US? Is it still under copyright here, even if it is not under the UK? Why take the chance? The Grey Inn already have a more properly written article with a seemingly well-written, well-sourced article. As I noted on the talk page, if the book is truly public domain, it should be put on WikiBooks, not just copied word for word here. But will leave it in your hands. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Undeleted Chris Bickford

FYI - I have undeleted the Chris Bickford article as a result of this Editor Assistance request. It was a marginal case, but since the article stated that the actor was a host of a television show, I believe that was an assertion of possible notability under WP:ENT item 1, which would make it ineligible for CSD under WP:NOTCSD item 5. (I do not endorse the article, but it is my opinion that the article should be processed as a PROD or AfD.) -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems really inappropriate. You do see that a separate admin endorsed the delete above, yes? And the ANI thread about this problematic editor, yes? He had ONE role, and for less than a year in the 10 season series. It wasn't a major role, and he wasn't the host. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if I've given offense. And I didn't see the section above. However, I expect that the end result will be delete. I'd just like to ensure that if something is deleted, it's deleted through proper process. In many cases it's CSD in others, a AfD is appropriate. I realize that not everyone agrees all the time, and I tend to err on the conservative side more than others. I see you do a lot of excellent work and I hope this doesn't spoil your day. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, just draws it out more. More annoyed at that guy running around making false claims, leaving out a whole lot of the story, and pretending the discussion above didn't exist, ignoring my messages to him, and claiming I'm "out to get him". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris Bickford

I want to know why you deleted this entry. There was no violation, everything was properly reference, and was accepted by other moderators. I would like a valid reason, because from where I stand you had no cause, and your actions could be perceived as abuse of power. Please put it back up.

Jrfoldes (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything. I'm not an administrator. It was, however, tagged for deletion because he is not a notable person per WP:BIO and WP:N, and per our policy on living people. Now was the article "properly referenced" - throwing in a fansite doesn't make him notable and as I recall, it had no references at all. My actions are not an "abuse of power" as I have no power. Wikipedia is not your personal fansite, articles must meet our guidelines and polices. I tagged this one for not meeting it and an administrator agreed and deleted it. The article was not "accepted by other moderators" as one - there are no moderators here (this is not a forum), nor had the article been tagged for any deletion method before. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm an administrator, and I've reviewed the deleted page. AnmaFinoreta is correct about the article not meeting any of the requirements for inclusion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There were sufficient references, and I note you are only going after articles I was involved with. Please refrain from doing so otherwise I will be forced to file a complaint. On another note one of my other entries Amyas Godfrey had appropriate references and I know as I recall putting them in. Now they have mysteriously disappeared. Stop tampering with my articles and leave me and my postings alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrfoldes (talk • contribs) 22:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to file any complaint you wish. There is nothing in my actions here which violates (or even comes close to violating) any policy or guideline on the site. Not even close at all. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I started an ANI about Jrfoldes, if you want to check it to be sure I was accurate in my saying you agreed with the delete Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎#User:Jrfoldes Edit Warring and Spamming Fansite/Copyright Violating Link -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make threats against other editors. Nihonjoe, a Wikipedia administrator just told that it did not have sufficient references. The deleting administrator also agreed it met the deletion criteria. Further, these are not YOUR articles, and per policy Wikipedia does NOT link to fansites, particularly those serving illegal content as the ones you spammed in these articles do. You have already violated multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies, including your blatant ignoring of the community's consensus regarding the redirecting of Vanessa Lindores to the series article, per it's AfD discussion,[13][14], linking to illegal material by linking to the YCDTOTV "fansite" which provides bootleg episodes, removing BLP prods without providing references,[15][16][17] and making bad faith accusations.[18] Before you go reverting the cleans up I did again, I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:OWN. Again, this is NOT the YCDTOTV fansite. If you wish to post tons of unsourced, OR and links to fansites, I'd suggest starting a YCDTOTV wikia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Reception

Is the Village Pump the best place to get a wide variety of opinions on the matter; at least 20 editors? Alatari (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The village pump will likely get you at least some feedback on it (not sure about 20 editors, though, as it seems to vary widely how much response any one topic gets). You may want to post notices of the discussion in other places that may be appropriate, including of course on the talk page of WP:Reception, and you can tag it with {{Proposed}} -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101

Hey, as of the AIV report against Fan of the Disney animation, I think you may wish to know about todays report on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101 where I have requested a sleeper check. Happy editing! :). Best, Treylander 21:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Looks like we'll need to do another one on Alexcas11 too, he's got a named sock running rampant right now as well. Argh. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scratte (fictional character)

Acually I raised the AfD. User:Hjfhksdjf just weighed straight in immediately it was raised. NtheP (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, will correct :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, not really a problem but didn't want anybody reading I was a sock :-)) NtheP (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a dictionary

Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hoping to get your opinion on AnimeJump

Hi AnmaFinotera,

I just wanted to mention that I posted a question directed to you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Hentai article cleanup/improvement drive, in case you missed it. I was wondering if you still object to AnimeJump being added to the list of reliable sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, or if your opinion has changed. Anyway, if you had already seen my question and chose not to respond, then I'm sorry for bothering you. Calathan (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would object to it, as I still do not see how it is a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I might not have considered it a reliable source before, but now that ANN has given Mike Toole a column to write about old anime, I would consider that enough for him to be considered an expert on the subject (and thus allow his site to pass WP:SPS). He was also featured as a guest in an ANN Podcast [19], and ANN has been uploading videos of his Otakon panels discussing old anime dubs to their video page, which would suggest that they consider him an expert on that topic. Since he has also written for Animerica, Otaku USA, and SyFy, I would say he has significantly more credentials as an expert on anime than some of the people listed at WP:ANIME/RS#Individuals (specifically the three people listed just as contributors for Otaku USA, as well as Carlos Ross). Calathan (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Mike Toole's view might make him RS, but I don't think it should extend to just anyone who writes for his site. That would be more in keeping with SPS, to me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that defintiely makes sense to me. I guess unlike THEM Anime (for example), the site itself hasn't gotten any coverage beyond ANN mentioning in passing that Mike Toole wrote for it. But I would probably say that reviews actually written by him could pass as reliable. Also, by the way, while I'm posting here, I just want to say that I like your new user name. Calathan (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be fine with Toole himself being listed (and the note could include that he posts reviews to his own site). And thanks :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new

I've just reverted an IP troller's edit. Anyway, happy editing! Minimac (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, reported him for blocking, not that it helps. Don't see why they can't do a range block already...he is one seriously disturbed individual. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost on mars

Hi. You relisted this for debate five days ago, but surely it has gone on long enough? As long as it is open, that actress' brother (the 99 IP) is just to keep going and going and going, and its getting really ridiculous. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone else has beaten me to it. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, looked like someone else had the same thought I did. Thanks anyway :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Here we go..

Is this who I think it is? Note the edits (same ones) on the Ice Age film and Tremors. Also WHOIS is Verizon. Is it time for a rangeblock? Also I pinged HJ Mitchell to possibly close that AfD yesterday. He felt it was time too.  :) Mike Allen 20:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that be him again. I asked about a range block on the last SPI, but looks like it was overlooked. With he and Bambifan now working in collusion, I think a range block makes even more sense. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I just undid your edit rolling back edits from this IP address, and I was about to comment when I noticed this conversation. Is this a suspected sock then? Please remember to make this clear in the edit summary if there is a good reason for removing comments as you did at Talk:Ice Age (film series). Regardless of the situation though, the edits don't appear unconstructive so without evidence that this is a banned user or sock puppet there didn't seem to be any reason to remove the comments.

If there was a good reason for removing the comments, please let me know and I won't reinstate them again. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

He is a banned sock puppeter. He is not allowed to edit, to comment, nothing. For evidence, go see the lengthy SPI. He does the same stuff over and over and over again, he hits the same pages, from the same IP range, etc etc etc. He requested unlock so he could redo edits now blocked by the page being protected (which is why it is protected). I've removed his invalid request. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have no issues with you removing the request, as the unlock was incorrectly filed and I declined his semi-protected edit request. I'll take a look at the SPI out of interest though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

ScratteLover2.

I understand there has been some trouble with this user, and that he has been blocked from editing, in Wikipedia. He has an account over in Land Before Time Wiki, and he has been asking me, there, about why he is unable to edit his own talkpage here. I don't know how he thought I would know, but I do not like to see anyone in distress, and I know having these questions I can't answer directed at me is stressful for me, so I hope you can explain it to him.

Cheers. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend simply ignoring him, and get him blocked if possible. He's a bored child and has repeatedly tried, in the past, to get experienced editors from here to edit for him through Wikia and foreign language wikis (resulting in an admin from the Russian wiki being blocked for awhile here because of it). He already knows why he can't edit here, including the talk pages of his socks (he just uses them to continue being a pest). See Wikipedia:LTA/BF101. And while I appreciate your remarks on my name, I do not appreciate you posting my old name. I prefer not to have it referred to. Thank you for respecting that wish. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, understood. And I'm keeping my eye on him over in TLBT-Wiki; although he does make contributions that do not always follow the policies, he has also made some good/passable edits there, so I'm hesitant to block him. Thank you for your help! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page protection

FYI, I've protected your talk page for 6 months. I also deleted one of the revisions in the history. Hope that helps, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad news

He's back. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw, and he is going right back to his inappropriate actions. I may revive the ANI on him, though I'd say at this point, he probably could be blocked for edit warring, after reverting yet again considering he hit 4 reverts last time.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Do it. Were I not reverting him, I'd block him myself for the slow-mo edit war. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 23:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Done[20]-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Community ban discussion for User:100110100

This is an FYI to let you know that the discussion has been moved. WP:AN is the more appropriate location for ban discussions, so the discussion can now be found here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, noticed the move :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Grammar guardians

Just a note about your recent Village Pump comment: I had some trouble a while ago with an editor who was really great at certain kinds of grammar, and apparently invincibly ignorant of the rule that declares you must not hyphenate most adverbs ending in -ly (e.g., the terrain is gently sloping, not gently-sloping). After dragging him through a long discussion at MOS (which he "lost", since everyone told him he was wrong), he finally got left Wikipedia...for a while. In my experience, Wikipedia doesn't really want to ban editors over things like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• On that topic, by the way, while I agree with your principal frustration that the editor in question was editing disruptively and against consensus, "comprised of" really isn't very satisfactory language. It's debatable at best; "comprised" (without the "of") and "comprising" are better phrasing choices that can be subsituted without disrupting sentence flow. See here and here. In short "comprised of" may not be wrong, but merely "comprised" is definitely not wrong. Also "comprised" is already the past tense so you shouldn't use the phrasing "was comprised"; it's like saying "The wardrobe was contained some clothes". ("The first season of Babylon 5 comprised 22 episodes.") - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• And FWIW, Wikitonary notes that while "comprised of" has certainly entered the language and isn't just plain wrong, it's certainly not formal English, which would make it unencyclopedic prose. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• As it is used in many formal business writings, books, etc, I'd say it certainly is proper English, and encyclopedic. People's personal opinions on "comprised of" is irrelevant. It is certainly satisfactory language to more than enough people, nor do I find it at all debatable. Language is not a static thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't want to deal with a lot of things which it should, including odder forms of disruptiveness. Though sometimes, just sometimes, it finally does[21]-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Fresh Blood FAC

Hey, it's been over a week since your last comment, so I was just checking if you were still reviewing it. I've made numerous revisions, so hopefully your concerns have been dealt with. Thanks. :) Ωphois 01:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Terhune With Bruce, Wolf, Lass, and Lad.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Terhune With Bruce, Wolf, Lass, and Lad.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Not all images in the LoC are in the public domain; evidence needs to show they are published before 1923, registered for copyright before 1923, or published thereafter without compliance to copyright law. Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This PUF is not about the sourcing of the image, so I have no idea why you brought that up... Furthermore, with regards to File:Sunnybank Lad - Rough Collie.jpg, the case of proving pre-1923 publication or registration still applies, and your reversion have removed the publication information. The image in the book was also not an altered one, so I am equally perplexed at your removal reason. Jappalang (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The very first statement you make is that it lacks a source, so of course it was brought up. The image you changed it to is, quite frankly, ugly as hell. The image is obviously public domain as it was published before 1918 and taken before 1918, unless you want to attack that one too (even though you yourself uploaded a lower quality version of it to the commons). I've readded its publication details, without the incorrect and bloaty stuff form your copy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I said it did not matter because one can easily locate it at the LoC, did I not? Frankly you should re-read the copyright laws. Creation is not publication, and User:Elcobbola, User:Lupo, and other more experienced editors of images will vouch to that. Furthermore I would request you to assume more good faith in the actions of others. This edit summary betrays any such notion. If I am not trying to improve the images of Lad: a Dog's article, I would not be bothering with this (and you can check the time stamp of that). Jappalang (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I apparently misread the LOC, and if they suddenly pulled the downloadable version of the image (which is exactly where I got it). If that means it must be copyrighted, fine, I'll speedy it. And yes, I'm annoyed. It seems like everyone and their mom is out to derail this article's FAC because of the images, yet if it had not had any at all, it would have been opposed for lacking illustrations. lately just seems like you can't win for losing. *sigh* In the future, though, if I have incorrectly believed an image was PD when it was not, a simple note and explanation of the error would have had the same result without all the PUF stuff. As for the post to the commons, its interesting, but as the cover you asked isn't anything like the original nor the ones used today, I'd oppose its inclusion in the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I sympathize your plight; but if I might offer some advice: the image criterion for FAC is for compliance with policies and guidelines, not inclusion; i.e. if the article have images, then they must comply with the rules. It does not mean that the article must have images (there are FAs that might not have images at all). Anyone opposing a nomination for not having any images should be ignored (or asked to explain the basis for such an opposition); I believe the delegates (SandyGeorgia and Karanac) would not take such opposes as substantial (unless the opposes are also for other reasons). Jappalang (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

From your arguments in the PUF, does that mean that File:Further Adventures of Lad cover.jpg, at least, is actually public domain since it was published in 1922 (I can photo the copyright page if needed). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, any material first published in the US before 1923 is in the public domain. However, I am not sure if the cover you point to is of 1922 or a later reprint (whose art might be copyrighted). The 1922 book can be viewed here (and its internal illustrations are in the public domain). The book cover seems to be an imprint; of course, it might be that the link I point to is sans book jacket, which could be the image you point out. Check the copyright page in your book and see if the only copyright notice is 1922 or if there are any later dates (of publishing or notices). Jappalang (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It just has the 1922. Its copyright page looks just like this one[22] (sans stamp, of course). It is a hardbound volume with no dust jacket. I'm guessing the one you linked to is this one[23] without the dust jacket. If I'm reading it correct and its records are correct, WorldCat seems to indicate it had several printings that first year[24] which may explain it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You might be right. I found another version in 1922 on eBay,[25] and this link agrees with you. However, the versions on abebooks seem to say that the 1922 book was re-printed in the various years that follow without change to the year of publication (or copyright notice).[26][27][28][29] They did not say if the dust jacket was of the 1922 version or later (note that as long as it can be verified that the dust jacket was originally published in 1922, it does not matter if they were later reprinted). In any case, I apologize if you had done so, could you look closer at the dust jacket (back and inner flaps) for any mentions of the artist, year of publication, or copyright notice? If there are none, then I think we can safely call {{PD-1923}} on this image. If there is mention of a different year of publishing but no copyright notice, we can call {{PD-US-no notice}}. If there is a separate copyright notice on the jacket, then we would have to investigate further with the copyright renewal databases or the US Copyright Office.

I have also re-edited File:Sunnybank Lad - Rough Collie.jpg to use the Information template (and others) again, but this time with the source to the LoC instead of that website, which I had initially presumed you cropped the image from (the LoC does not offer the image at this point and the other site had the same size). I apologize if you had felt slighted then. Jappalang (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatcha doing, master?

I think the image on the right should be of interest to you; Terhune is writing a story while Lad lies at his feet. Verifiably PD as well. Jappalang (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Alas, my copy has no dust jacket (hate to think how much a copy with one would have cost in that condition :-P) No worries on the template/info, I was grumpy last night and apologize if I was snappy. Not sure why LOC removed the download options from the images...I was all excited when I saw them. Should have grabbed more I guess just for my personal viewing :-P That image would work, but is the Sunnybank Collies site considered RS for calling it PD? (love the site, but it is technically just a fansite). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I read on Commons that the LoC website is undergoing renovation, so some links are down for some time. As for your question on Sunnybank Collies: no, they are not a RS for calling items PD (unless the site shows due diligence in stating why the images are such (e.g. showing their research). Generally, it is preferred for other forms of records to show the lapsing of copyright or publishing (or non-publishing) date. Anyway, I have found the LoC's version (there are mirrors of the LoC) of the picture on the right and uploaded it. Jappalang (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay...out of curiosity, since the image now deleted was not public domain, and the Sunnybank Collies has it and many other images, wouldn't it be a violation of WP:COPYRIGHT to use them as a "source" for an image or link to them at all? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In a strict legal sense, yes. If the copyright owner (the photographer's heir or such if they still are around) finds out Sunnybank Collies is using such material, he or she could sue them if he or she thinks the website is exploiting the material for their own gains. However, legal costs could be prohibitive, and as the US allows fair use, Sunnybank Collies could argue that they are doing it (fair use) by not gaining any profits from showing the photos but using them to illustrate the subject of their site. Fair use on Wikipedia (WP:NFCC) is, however, stricter than US laws, so the project prefers any fair use material to be minimal and of such circumstance that it may be more easily defended in a court of law. Jappalang (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the last part... it does not violate WP:COPYRIGHT when using such links here as sourcing. It has been recorded somewhere, but I have to dig it out. I will do this later. Jappalang (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Found it at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. Rather than quoting the entire section, this is my interpretation. It is permissible to link to copyrighted material for sourcing, unless the site is illegally hosting the said material. In other words, it is okay if the site is hosting the material in fair use; it is not okay if the site is hosting it for outright violations, e.g. entire song sheet/lyrics of a copyrighted song without critical commentary or such, movie clips, etc. Based on this, linking to Sunnybank Collies to allow others to verify that the version of an image was obtained there is fine; linking to a review about Harry Potter (with copyrighted images) for its comments is okay as well; linking to a Youtube video of Gonzo's Romeo and Juliet is not okay (unless the uploader is Gonzo themselves). Jappalang (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty to change File:Further Adventures of Lad cover.jpg to {{PD-1923}}. Charles Livingston Bull nor Grosset & Dunlap has not renewed copyrights to his art for Further Adventures of Lad (if he did ever; checked on the US Copyright Office and both external renewal databases). The lineart of the cover appeared in another reprint here, which bore only the copyright notice of 1922. As such, if these reprints (with different illustrations) were published later than 1923, then they bore no copyright notice of their own ({{PD-US-no notice}}). But I think we can be comfortable with PD-1923 for this cover. I encourage you to upload the full-size image instead of this reduced copy. You could also follow your suggestion and upload the copyright page, attaching it to the image page of this cover (so as to let others know that it was copyrighted in 1922). Jappalang (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Looks like its already been moved to the commons, and since I don't do stuff there it will probably just have to stay at the current size -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters

Your calling these edits vandalism was incorrect here. The IP simply added in birthdates for some of the characters, which doesn't even come close to being vandalism. Rather than abusing Twinkle to revert edits which were not actually vandalism, it would have been more effective to discuss the issue with the IP editor and perhaps try to find sourcing for the information s/he added. Please be careful to only use Twinkle reverting in very clear cases of vandalism. Please let me know if you have any questions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sad statement...

...yes, sadly I think you're right. I'm not sure what the answer is (I've wondered in the past how feasible it would be to block entire Internet service providers and pass the responsibility for troublesome users on to the ISP). There also seems, at our end, a general lack of willingness to engage with long-term problems like this because they're time-consuming.

...so, sorry, I can't really offer any solution beyond offering to keep an eye on this. These things seem to be more manageable when they're shared.

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 15:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries and its appreciated that at least one other person is looking. Personally, I think it should be possible, since ISPs seem to consistently ignore abuse reports we've passed on (look at Bambifan101) - so if they won't control their users, block the whole range and let them deal with user complaints. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider it acceptable either, not for one second. Semi-protect you user and talk pages, semi-protect his targets... and I'm just not sure what else we can do. Range-blocking an entire ISP would go over like a sack of bricks on ANI. It's not that I don't care you're being harassed, more I don't know what intelligent solution to offer. If there's any of his targets that aren't semi-protected, let me know, would you, though? Courcelles (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks :-) Looks like one admin decided to heck with the collateral damage after the sock's continued taunting in the ANI. Just hope no one reverses it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, Tim Song can do it- I just have the feeling that if I ever tried to do a range-block, I might take out an entire country! The offer to semi-protect any of his targets stands. Courcelles (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, that sounds about like me. I've been around comps for decades, but I can barely understand those range things at all.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Range blocks are tricky to do. You may also contact me regarding any of BFs continued "efforts". I'll be happy to help out where I can. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Alas, looks like his named socks are still playing around. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeking a second opinion

Hey, Anma, I come seeking a second opinion on a future restructuring of the character section of Angel Beats! in order to get the article ready for GA in the future (probably between 6 months to a year, however long it takes to get proper reception and get it copyedited). I am currently planning to basically merge the character list into several paragraphs since most of the entries have little to say about the characters, and for the characters that do have more info on them have plot summary problems which could be cut or trimmed down anyway. Currently, I've drafted a rough draft of what I think it's going to look like. Would it be reasonable to do this, or are there other options?

Basically, I am in the pickle of figuring out what to do with the character section before I was to take it to GA. I know keeping it in its current state is a no-go, even with sourcing, since the majority of the cast have very little known about them beyond a tiny 1-2 sentence blurb. This also means I'd be against a character section split, since the section is not long enough to warrant this. I also considered doing what WP:MOS-AM#Characters suggested and make a bullet list, but I personally think bullet lists are very ugly, and usually abstain from their usage. Plus, I've had this problem before with visual novel articles, and in those cases I followed convention done by WP:VG where one or two paragraphs are written about the major characters, but in every case where I saw this implemented, there was a separate character list linked, and therefore not every character was presented on the main article, whereas this is not the case in Angel Beats!. I even tried looking at featured articles in WP:TV and WP:BOOK, but I couldn't find an instance similar to where I am now with Angel Beats!.

So should I just go with a bullet list, or use the prose option? In both cases, I want to leave the main characters section basically the same because they're the most important, and because there is so much that can be written about them (though admittedly, even some in Otonashi's and Angel's profiles could be trimmed down.--十八 03:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've found that prose sections, in general, just work better, and I agree, they look nicer. They read better, usually are more descriptive, and they seem to get better reception in GA/FA reviews. Giving your draft a quick browsing, the format looks good, and I think you handled the need for the original Japanese and the voice actors nicely. Another option that may or may not work for this series, particularly since there is so little to say about any one character, would be to follow what's done with Tokyo Mew Mew, and many film articles, and merge the characters into the plot. (really, with films, there usually are no characters at all). I've also done this with pretty much all novel articles I've worked on, and thus far it has worked well and not been seen as a deficiency. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I did consider scrapping the character section from the get go, but I felt that there would be some major opposition to that. The article is seen several thousand times weekly, and I was concerned that if I were to remove the character section entirely, that there would be numerous editors who would revert it and try to periodically reinsert the character section, and while this could easily be reverted, it could turn into an edit war that I'd rather not get involved in. Even though the article is bound to get much less traffic later on this year than right now when the anime is airing, I'm sure there would be editors that would ask why there are so many other anime/manga articles that have character lists, and why Angel Beats! shouldn't also follow this convention, especially if the history is checked to show this was in fact the case from the point the character section was first inserted.

The reason why I thought this was not an option was because even Tokyo Mew Mew has an external character list, so the removal of a separate character section is not as detrimental. Indeed, I followed a similar suit during the GAR of Kashimashi a couple years ago. But with Angel Beats!, I would have to basically scrap all character description, or else the plot section would be so long that it would get hard to navigate. The plot section on the article is only about halfway done, and I've been writing out an extension to later make a comprehensive plot after the anime is finished, but by that point the plot section would be about 4 paragraphs long; not really that long, but it would make reading it laborious if the characters were to be merged into it. In other words, aside from ~6 of the ~20 characters, not much can be said or known about more than half the cast, so normal convention would be to not even mention them in a plot section because they simply are not important enough to mention as they don't majorly affect the plot. But if I was to do that, then there would bound to be users wanting to add in blurbs about any of those ~14 characters, and I personally wouldn't feel good about removing more than half the cast just because there wasn't enough time in the anime to flesh out everyone's character.

Having no separate character section works for books and films because that's the general convention, but anime/manga fans are very...passionate about their characters, enough to write very long and detailed character bios for even the most minor of characters. For instance recently, an anonymous editor even tried adding a section on a guitar in K-On! and another editor tried adding a section on a pet turtle on the same article.--十八 05:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, true true, especially on currently airing series, or favorites. I think your draft version is a good compromise between the two extremes and should be easily supportable per the MoS and WP:WAF in general. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

K, thanks for the second opinion. Guess I'll see what happens in another 6 months. :) --十八 23:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello, AnmaFinotera. After looking through some of your work around WP, I think you would make a great admin. Could I nominate you? Thanks. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 14:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and the thought is appreciated, but I hold no illusions that I'd ever pass an RfA. :-) There are enough folks here who dislike me that it would just become a really ugly mess. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, you'd be unlikely to pass, and that's a right shame. Courcelles (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within

Hi again. Just incase you did not notice, my nomination of the article for 'good status' has been put on hold for seven days, mainly because the plot section needs a re-write. As I mentioned when I first talked to you about the article on its talk page, I am no good at writing plots; the plot section is the only section of the article I did not work on, mainly because I don't know where to start (I'm also unsure exactly how to improve the reception section, but I get the feeling if the plot was excellent the so-called "choppyness" of the reception section might be overlooked). Basically I'm just asking if you'd have the time to do anything about it. No worries if you don't, again I'm only asking you because it's beyond my capabilities, the article as you see it now is the best I can do. Thanks again for all your direction and advice with improving the article. Freikorp (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can give it a rewrite later this week, if that will work. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Image cleanup listing

I hope you are doing well. I'm asking all of the coordinators who haven't already taken a look at the spotlight image cleanup listing to consider leaving comments on the images. I'd like to get the ball rolling on either keeping or removing the images from the articles, but we need more than one or two comments to ensure there is consensus. I'm sure we all the know the importance of our project's spotlight articles, and if we don't have proper examples, new editors may make MOS mistakes (say that five times fast!) if they're referring to what should be our project's best articles (which may actually conflict with MOSFILM). I plan on asking the uploaders of the images and the main article contributors to join in as well later this week. If you have any questions at all, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Left some remarks on some. Might help if the page was broken up into sections by film, so its easier to comment one by one without worrying as much about a possible edit conflict. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, although it now looks even more overwhelming. Well, there are a lot of articles that have image issues (and these are just the spotlight ones!). Anyway, thanks for weighing in, and feel free to comment on any more if you wish. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Will try to hit some more tomorrow. I did look at Batman, but wow...that is insane! My inclination is remove all, but going to think on that one some more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

New problem at the list of Dragon Ball Z Kai episodes

Hey, just thought I'd let you know that there's a situation at the List of Dragon Ball Z Kai episodes talk page. At this point I at a loss as to what to say regarding the sourcing of the North American broadcast dates. Do you have any thoughts? Sarujo (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I decided to just stay away from all Dragon Ball related things. May want to ask at the project page. Someone there might have some ideas on sourcing, though if it isn't FL and isn't going to be anytime soon, its usually easier just to let folks add them so long as its fairly correct. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: Timothy Perper

Seems that Timothy Perper is just throwing another one of his fits now that he's work has been critiqued by one of us "laypeople". I wish he would actually acted like a professional instead of like a spoiled teenage. —Farix (t | c) 20:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, his pointed tagging of the article is rather disappointing behavior for someone who claims to be a professional. Hopefully he will calm down and listen to reason soon. I left a note on the article talk page in response to his conversation with himself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't count on it getting anywhere. From my experience over at Manga, He hold

us laypeople in the highest contempt. —Farix (t | c) 20:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We have several anime/manga experts who come here to edit, and they all seem to have a similar attitude. It is really rather disappointing considering how much of their work I've read...certainly doesn't make me want to read more or respect their views.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I find Matt Thorn to be quite personable, as are Gilles Poitras, Helen McCarthy, Susan J. Napier, and...someone else whose name I can't remember at the moment. Not all of them suffer from academic-itis. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 22:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Good to know, and thanks for your work on the article. I just used the translations and transliterations that were in the article at the time, so I had no idea on the accuracy. I find it a bit interesting that he claims several were wrong, yet he sourced some and left the rest alone. Was kind of amused about his remarks on working in the "real world" - I work in a university setting, am a web developer, and in co-developing yeah, my fellow developers and I have dropped code and basically said "dude, removed that, it didn't work or was breaking this or X" - no firing :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

NGE image

sorry if i'm being a bother, but i've been having a few problems with gwern recently in the discussions. mainly right now, i feel he is being uncivil in his reason for editing section. Anyways, the miajn reason i wanted to confront you with is the list of neon genesis evangelion characters article. it has an image of the girl school uniform that the main characters wear. I see no reason to keep it since there is already an image of the characters wearing there usual outfits and gwern feels there is no reason to justify it and has a rather harsh tone whenever replying.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused...it sounds like you both want to remove it? Or does Gwern think it should be kept? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

gwern wants to keep it without any other reason other than the fact that the characters mianly wear the outfit.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a good reason per WP:NONFREE. If there is a talk page discussion, you may want to ping the project to get input there. Otherwise, you can try tagging the image with {{subst:dfu|reason}} or nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is here. Hopefully, we can end the discussion.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference request

Hi, could you please look up your copies of The Anime Encyclopedia and Manga: The Complete Guide for information on Toshiki Yui and his works? Google books and the russian page on Yui suggest there is some information there which may be helpful. Thank you for any assistance in this matter. :) --Malkinann (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Here ya go. Any typos are mine unless marked with [sic]

Anime Encyc (I only checked the 2nd edition)

In the lengthy entry on the Cream Lemon serial, "For Visions of Europe (#20), taken from Toshiki Yui's Mermaid Junction manga, two frisky female tourists lose thier passports and money at the airport and are whisked off to an alternate Europe where passion rules." and further on the same page, in discussing the series' release on home media, it notes that there were several artist oriented releases "collecting the 'best' works from To Moriyama, Kei Amaki, and Toshiki Yui." In the entry on Kirara, it notes that the video was based on a 1993 Young Jump manga by Yui.

Manga The Complete Guide (does not have a proper index, so checked the listed titles and the intro to the adult section)

In Artist Index, lists his official website and three works, all marked adult: Misty Girl Extreme (1991), Hot Tails (1993), and Wingding Orgy (2001) In Adult secion intro, has a paragraph on Futanari (she-males), calls Yui's Hot Tails the best known exponent of this genre in the West.

In entry for Hot Tails, "Toshiki Yui has been an adult manga king for a long time and it's clear why: no one else comes close to his mix of sex, humor, and bizarre imagination. He simply lets his id[sic] run wild, and we stories that are as surreal as they are sexual: lovers conjured from the blood of a lust-induced nosebleed; aliens from teh future who kidnap girls for sex in their dreams; flying fantasy worlds populated with dragons, wizards, dinosaur cops, and lecherous gnomes. His art is still a bit unpolished and busy in these older stories, but his style in undeniable. The art is gorgeous, the ladies are sexy, and the premises too bizarre not to enjoy." (rated four stars).

In entry for Misty Girl Extreme, "While Toshiki Yui's art is still unpolished and somewhat busy in this early work, his stories still have an energy and inventiveness beyond the simple sex...the artist's distinctive style shines through and the sex is actually much more suggestive than explicit, making it all the more powerful. (also 4 stars). In the entry on Wingding Orgy, notes that it was renamed to Wingding Orgy: Hot Tails Extreme in the English release due to the "success of Yui's previous manga Hot Tails, despite their having no relation. (unrated)

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! :D Have put this on the talk page for Toshiki Yui. --Malkinann (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No prob. BTW, I made a redirect for the 2nd edition name of Anime Encyc (mostly so I don't have to pipe my refs). Hope that's okay :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirects are good. :) Does MTCG have a Japanese name for Hot Tails? The current bibliography doesn't list Hot Tails, although the German one suggests Junction was renamed Hot Tails for publication there.--Malkinann (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

According to it, Hot Tails is the English release name for Hot Junction. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that's weird, causes some date strangeness too - Hot Tails is listed in MTCG as '93, but in our article as '94.--Malkinann (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the entry in MTCG, the two volumes were published by Eros Mang-Erotica from 1996-1998, and Byakua Shobo from 1993-1994. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, have changed the date to '93-'94. :) There might be enough other reviews available for an article on Hot Tails. :) --Malkinann (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No prob. With the remarks in the Manga guide, it would seem to be worth at least starting an article in a user sandbox, and seeing what else can be found to substantiate the claim. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, is there anything in the Anime Encyclopedia article which could be used to expand Kirara (manga)? Although its notability has been shown through other means, currently the information about the OAV is unsourced (including basic stuff like director, year of release). --Malkinann (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, the Kirara entry was fairly short, but will check tomorrow evening. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:JClemens

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jclemens (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens. SnottyWong talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi! I'm really sorry to bother you with this kind of crap, since I realise that you haven't been involved with this disruptive editor for several months, but I'm obliged to notify you that I've mentioned your user name on the Administraor's noticeboard. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad to see something being done. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again but I've noticed that you've been editing other articles on the Administrator's noticeboard, so I'm assuming that you're more knowledgable than me about the correct etiquette for this noticeboard than I am. I see that our discussion about User:QueryOne was archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive618 on the June 10, 2010 by MiszaBot II (see here). Obviously we've had no resolution to this matter or even any Administrator comments, so it has in no way been resolved or even addressed. I assume that MiszaBot II's archiving of the discussion was a mistake. I was going to repost the whole thread again at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but before I do, I thought I'd better check with you and see what your thoughts on this are. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I noticed it and meant to unarchive it, but it slipped my mind. MiszaBot archives automatically based on date. If something has no response in 24 hours, it automatically archives it. More for future reference, but you can unarchive an ANI thread by cutting it from the archive (with a note as to why), then pasting it as a new thread back in the main ANI and adding a note as to why you have unarchived it. I've gone ahead and unarchived this one. You can also prevent the auto archive by updating the date or adding a "dump" to the thread to keep it from going stale. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for un-archiving this and I see that we've already had an administrator response in the form of a 24hr block for QueryOne. Hopefully this will persuade him/her to clean up their act. However, call me a cynic but I seriously doubt that this will have any effect. I've noticed that QueryOne's disruptive editing sprees seem to occur every few days, so it's possible that he/she won't even notice this ban. If the disruptive behavior continues in a week's time for instance, what would be our next step? I assume that the thread will be archived again soon, so would we just un-archive it to allow further admin intervention if the disruptive behavior starts again?

Also, I see that your call for a WP:Checkuser for QueryOne went unheeded. I too have been suspicious about how "new" this user really is and have also wondered whether he's a sock puppet with an axe to grind. Of course, that's probably just my innate paranoia at work but I was heartened to see you giving voice to the same misgivings. :-) --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If he returns and starts up again after the block, we can just open a new ANI thread, linking to the old, and noting the same behavior is continuing. CheckUser tends to be used very sparingly, at best, and without a possible main sock, most of the time folks aren't going to do it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Smile!

Hello AnmaFinotera, Thesevenseas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 196° 0' 45" NET 13:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a nice start to an overcast Friday :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem! :) Set Sail For The Seven Seas 269° 30' 0" NET 17:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding images to Lad: A Dog

No copyright renewal

Hi, I have added pictures to Lad: A Dog and created a Commons category (commons:Category:Lad, A Dog); I am in favour of putting the image on the right (previously mentioned to you) as the lede image, but bearing in mind your previous remarks at User talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive 11#Possibly unfree File:Terhune With Bruce, Wolf, Lass, and Lad.jpg, I would like to run my thoughts with you first.

The way I see it, this is a cover of Lad: A Dog, even if it is of a 1957 cover and of an abridged version. As far as I can tell, there is no cover art for the first edition (1919); the earliest cover I found is Robert L. Dickey's 1927 artwork, [30] whose copyright has been renewed (expiring in 2023). The anniversary edition's cover (1959), drawn by Sam Savitt, also has its copyrights renewed. As such, except for this 1957 abridged copy's cover, there is no known "free" cover art. I also believe that there is no hard rule that the representative image of a literature must be of the first edition; the "free" policy overrides all: a "free" equivalent shall replace a non-free image and I think an official cover (even if from an abridged version) is an equivalent image.

If you still think it is inappropriate as the lede image, might I suggest putting it in the Reception section (since this abridged version was the progenitor to the title's positioning as a child literature).

Anyway, I have sent the owner of this photo a request, asking if he can release it under a suitable Creative Commons license; my intent is to place it in the Real-life Lad subsection. No answers yet though, it seems his visits to Flickr has been irregular. Jappalang (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the other images, though I did remove the Further Adventures cover (since it has its own article, it makes it seem a little unnecessary to have the cover in the main too). I would still strongly disagree with having the 1957 cover in the infobox, since it looks absolutely nothing like the original cover. To me, that just doesn't make it a very good identifier or representation of the work. It honestly looks more like Lassie than Lad, and for the year it was released it wouldn't be surprising if that was the collie they modeled it on, versus actual pictures of Lad. The novel seems to have be positioned as children's literature before then, considering the number of children who mourned Lad's death :-) The 1959 anniversary cover is the same as the 1919's original dust jacket, except they added the "anniversary edition" text. Savitt didn't pass away until 2000 and seems to have remained an active artist until then, so it isn't too surprising that copyright was renewed. I think its fine to just have it at the commons. I linked the the common's cat in the FR section. I know if they are free images, you're pretty much free to add all you want to an article, but I don't think it should be added jut because it can, ya know? I think any image in an article should have significant and meaning, irregardless of its free/non-free status. An image of Lad's grave would be great for the "Real Life" section, though, since his grave is mentioned there.

Out of curiosity, since Lad, A Dog and Further Adventures of Lad are now public domain, would that mean that they could be added to Wikisource (I've not done much there, so not sure how that works) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The 1959 anniversary cover is the same as the 1919's original dust jacket, except they added the "anniversary edition" text.—this perks my curiosity. What source states that the Anniversary edition's cover is the 1919 cover? If that is true, I would say the graphic would be in public domain by virtue of publication before 1923. Adding a simple two-word phrase to the cover would not grant a new copyright because it does not modify the image into one with a different "copyrightable" (creative content) degree: the text is too simple and not a graphical element that alters the artistic element of the subject. If the source is reliable and does plainly state the 1959 cover as from 1919, then it is in public domain.

Yes, the two novel's text are in public domain and can be uploaded to Wikisource. Jappalang (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes...I mentioned it in the deletion discussion. Unfortunately, there aren't much in the way of reliable sources that I can quote at the moment. I've seen it myself, of course, but other than that, I can't remember where I read it anymore. The same Savitt image is also used in some of the newer reprints, including my own cheaper copy :-)

Cool, on Wikisource...I'll see if I can figure out how to edit there then. Making Terhune a page now. Hopefully correctly :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) "The 1959 anniversary cover is the same as the 1919's original dust jacket, except they added the "anniversary edition" text. Savitt didn't pass away until 2000 and seems to have remained an active artist until then, ...": something does not seem right here. Savitt was born in 1917.[31] It would be very unlikely he drew and sold a cover art at the age of 2. Furthermore, the 1959 cover and frontispiece bears his signature "Savitt '59" (bottom center),[32] and I doubt he would put his signature there if it was not his original work. Is it certain one of the original 1919 works bore this cover, and not a reprint (or with a later-age dust jacket)?

By the way, the projects are using a unified log-in system, so you can log-in with the same user name and password on Commons; the interface is roughly the same as Wikipedia so you can update File:Further Adventures of Lad cover.jpg with the larger image at your convenience. I have also uploaded several PD-1923 images from Terhune's other books at commons:Category:Books by Albert Payson Terhune if you are interested. Jappalang (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point and an interesting question indeed...and in your asking it, I just realized that there isn't a single source in the article supporting that he was the original illustrator and I never even noticed the date! *doh* The 1959 edition does appear to be the first one he illustrated. *double doh* So yeah, seems unlikely that it actually is the original cover either. Hmm...so guess that makes the whole thing moot in terms of it being a better image, though still would disagree with having the other cover in the infobox as it really is not much better and there are earlier ones that should be free.

Yes, I know on the unified log-in, I have it enabled. I just don't like the Commons in general, and never use it beyond a few reports of non-free images people tried to sneak into articles by uploading them there. I won't even upload my own photographs there that I took for articles here. I did manage to get logged in to WikiSource and made a page for Terhune. Still trying to figure out how to actually add works there...the instructions are lacking, at best :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)2010 (UTC)

City Without Baseball

Hi, thanks for your comment the other day at Talk:City Without Baseball by the way. I thought RPP was probably going to be the next step but wanted to at least attempt a discussion with the other editor(s) first! It'll be interesting to see if the original (registered) editor will continue once it's protected, or whether they'll go for other articles. I think I have all the relevant ones on my watchlist though. Regards, --BelovedFreak 18:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, when he started deliberately switching IPs, I figured he wasn't going to listen to the discussion anymore. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, with regard to the article talkpage message, I just restored it (as it seemed to be blanked by a random now-blocked user) and replied. I then noticed the SPI you started, so sorry if I've got in the way at all!--BelovedFreak 09:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries :-) Seems pretty obvious it is the same guy, but figure with the SPI, he'll likely get blocked and then can just send him to AIV if it keeps happening. If its okay with you, though, probably should just remove the IP comments. They really aren't comments, just him repeating the stuff he can't put in the article now that its locked, and from the IP location, its pretty likely the same guy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that makes sense. It is just basically a repetition of what was posted at the article. I'll remove them, and mine.--BelovedFreak 13:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oups

Hi,

Just to point you, your contrib in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#View_by_Gigs which is not where it meant to be unless i mistaken. --KrebMarkt 15:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Woops...thanks, all fixed :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A note

Thank you for defending my honor! — e. ripley\^talk 21:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No prob :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Prodding Richard Arthur Norton's articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello AnmaFinotera. Given that RAN has been through a lot lately regarding mass deletion nominations by another user could you possibly slow down the prods on this editor for the moment? Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't care what personal issues he has, is having, or will have in the future. That doesn't give articles a blanket exemption from meeting Wikipedia guidelines just because he happened to create them (3 years ago, from the article history). I don't look at who made the article before prodding it, as it is not relevant. I prodded two articles that I ran into while working on articles related to Albert Payson Terhune, one of which he already unprodded on the claim that because she had a New York Times Obit, it makes her notable (um, no). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Before we start the "ums" the "bahs" and other exclamations please see the citation that I provided regarding the review of one of her books by the NYT. Also it is common courtesy not to mass nominate articles but to give an editor time to improve problematic articles. Mass nominations do not give adequate time to editors to improve the targeted articles. Please give this editor a fighting chance to rescue the targeted articles. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Two nominations is not a "mass nomination". It is interesting that both articles were made at the same time, then left completely untouched until someone dared to question their notability (and then only when I prodded it). A single review of one book is NO significant coverage of the author herself. I've sent the article to AfD for community discussion. He has a week to improve it, same as anyone else and any other article. Again, whatever personal issues he is having is irrelevant to the process. I also find it interesting that you both pounced on the prod immediately, but I can only presume you watch his talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I quite agree that two nominations are nowhere near mass nomination territory. I was just worried that at the present rate they could have become mass. But obviously at present we have no mass nomination problem. As far as AfD no problem at all. It is common practice after prod. Thank you very much and sorry for the intrusion on your talk. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) A pointless, and frankly bad faith concern. As I said in my first reply, I noticed the two articles while working on the Terhune article and Mary Virginia Hawes Terhune, because both were linked from those two. I began working on all four articles offline, and found no notability for the father and sister, and prodded them today. I debated just boldly redirecting them, but I didn't feel either was an appropriate merge for them to Mary Virginia Terhune's article just because they were her husband and child, respectively. Since you seem friendly with him, you might remind him that a PROD is a seven day process, and perhaps he should actually show the notability and expand the article first, before removing the prod and/or tag, as it appears he is about to do on the other one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And yes I do watch his talk after the long drama at AN. I could provide the diffs if you would like. Bye for now. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I read some of the bru ha ha over the MfDing of his user stuff, as I usually have AN on my watch list. After doing the prods and reloading my watchlist, I went to remove his user page from my watchlist (SOP), and glanced over some of the stuff there. Lot of drama, for sure. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera: I cannot blame you for accidentally joining the bandwagon - you just have to live with it now. But I am concerned about the 25-hour interval between issuing {{notability}} (not notifying anyone about it) and prodding [33]. Wouldn't it be fair to just nail it at once? East of Borschov (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

First, there is no requirement to notify anyone that an article is tagged. It is presumed that anyone who was interested in the article would have it on their watch list. I also did attempt to just leave it tagged longer before sending it to AfD, but RAN would not have it that way. I tagged both articles when I noticed them while doing extensive work and research on Mary Virginia Hawes Terhune offline (which apparently is another article he created - and which I certainly hope he will not edit war over when I post my work). During the time I tagged it and doing additional research, I found no evidence of notability, and as the article's did not themselves give any evidence of possibly notability, I prodded them. A prod is NOT a CSD, it gives the article a week for someone to address the concerns, which should certainly have been enough time to do any fixing up, but rather than do the fixing and THEN removing the prod once any notability was clearly established (which I still do not feel has been done), RAN apparently took personal offense, quickly removed both the PRODs and the notability tags from both articles, and threw up a few sources to try to justify his actions. Quite frankly, it is an odd reaction from someone who, from what I now see in the article histories, hasn't bother doing anything to either article in over 3 years, not even reverting vandalism.

So now both are at AfD where, again, they get seven days to improve and for discussion by the community as a whole. If the community agrees neither person is notable, it will be deleted. If the community decides one or both persons are notable, then hopefully during the process the articles will actually get improved and reliable sources added (though so far, it does not seem likely as all I'm seeing is random sources being through up to confirm basic facts of birth, death, etc rather than adding any real new content).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now I have withdrawn one of the AfDs, since it is becoming quite apparent that it was simply being flooded with RAN defenders who feel the need to somehow protect him from someone daring to question the notability of an article. Encourage the administration to make some global declaration that no article created by RAN is to be touched by anyone else until some specified time to avoid any further perception of hurting his sensibilities or adding to whatever issues he is having with others, and that a prominent tag added to each article so no more unsuspecting editors will make such a horrible mistake. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So you know...

User:Lionkingfan3. I seen him post this on the Ice Age: Continental Drift redirect talk page, and assumed good faith—until I saw this. Lol. I don't know what "Scratte" user name is, so I'm not sure how to sock tag him. Mike Allen 23:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexcas11 (talk · contribs) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

OK do we open an investigation in the archive? And... how many IPs does this kid have? Jesus. Mike Allen 05:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I tagged him and he's been blocked. CSD tagged the pages he made as well. Can do an SPI if want to see if there are any sleepers, but don't think they can range block since he's using a mobile connection if I remember correctly. New cases go on the main page rather than the archive. He's had a few other ones lately, so let me find those to add to it right quick. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Great! Now that I've seen how to do it (and where to do it), I shouldn't have to bother you every time I spot one. :-P I think this is beyond insane that nothing can really done, other than a weekly tag and block. How did bambifan get this kid involved and where does one find other Disney obsessed guys---is there a forum for that? lol. Mike Allen 05:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexcas11 was at this already, doing fake sequels and what not. As best we can figure, they apparently admire one another and/or have managed to hook up off wiki and are buddies, so they enjoy spoofing each other and crap, in hopes of making it more difficult to identify and deal with them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's quite disturbing. :-| Mike Allen 06:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep...you'd think after what, 2-3 years now one of them would grow up, get a life or something.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Public Domain

Interestingly enough... the photo (File:Harland 01.jpg) can be found in her cookbook—definitely PD-1923. I have uploaded the larger image (as well as more more detailed and larger ones to Commons) and corrected the information. I never thought she wrote cookbooks from reading her son's article... Jappalang (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool, and yeah, I've been working on her article offline and she is a fascinating woman. She wrote over 50 books, and a huge number of articles, from fiction to cooking/domestic stuff, to biography and Southern history. She began writing on a professional level at just 14, and even after she went blind she wrote up until she died! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wetcloth20

FYI User_talk:Wetcloth20#Adminhelp  Chzz  ►  16:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. It was his response after I asked User:B to look at his continued changes against MoS after just coming off a block for the same thing.[34] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

And User_talk:Chzz#Help. Doing what I can.  Chzz  ►  17:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. As for his questioning my edit to the MoS, it was to clarify for him and other new users who didn't get it from the current text, and was done with consensus, just belatedly. We've gotten behind in some updates to the MoS due to our head coordinator's being harassed into leaving due to being threatened off-wiki by some psycho group. Unfortunately, Wetcloth seems to spur a lot of policies and guidelines, such as he repeated uploading of images to the Commons that are clearly non-free advertising images (and if he hasn't already said so, yes I have nom some of them for deletion after coming across them during his previous disruptions that got him blocked). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, quite; thanks. I think I understand, and I merely offer impartial assistance. I appreciate your letting me know the background. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting [35]. It's always nice when problems work themselves out. ;) --B (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha, figures! I knew something was off about him, but I don't deal enough in that area to have recognized him. :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

[COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE AND INACCURATE WARNINGS REMOVED]]

• Wow. Ever read don't template the regulars? Leaving five templates here in six minutes is the very picture of disruption- please do not do it again. Courcelles (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  I’m sorry; I was unaware of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, so I had never read it. Thank you for informing me. Taric25 (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to read up on the general guidelines regarding warnings, as all of those were completely BS and you have no business readding a template that was removed, and then falsely template me for "refactoring your comments". I didn't refactor anything, I removed it out right which is fully within my rights. Don't go dropping templates if you don't even understand the basic guidelines of Wikipedia, including WP:User (as in, I can remove anything from my talk page that I want to, including bad warnings). And do not dare accuse me of canvassing for leaving one note at the TV project, whose guidelines you copied for your "essay" after you turned arounded and canvassed those who supported your view. Further, stay of my talk page. Thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

[REMOVING]

Talk page stalking. I don't know what the substance of the dispute is between you, but leaving comments like "This is your final warning" and lofty statements that Anma could be blocked seems to me to be mostly antagonistic. If you're going to try to get Anma blocked for whatever has gone on between you, just report whatever it is wherever you're going to and be done with it. An experienced editor doesn't need vandalism templates (or messages that adopt that sort of language about some other issue) dropped on their talk page. — e. ripley\^talk 17:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

[REMOVED remark from unwelcome person]

Further, Anma has the right to remove your templates from her own talk page- you linked to the policy, but apparently missed "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." And as to "BS" being foul language? Really? Courcelles (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if one of you might explain to him that you don't use the RfC tag on three or four different pages for the same RfC, it might be helpful, as he reverted my clearing of one and mentioned his "final warning" that he has since "apologized" for.[36] and on his canvassing for the discussion by leaving discussion invites only for those who support his view on their talk pages, rather than everyone who participated in the discussion[37] (by his own admission, and while having the nerve to accuse me of canvassing for leaving one note at the TV project, which is the most involved/affected by any such changes). For someone who has supposedly been here since 2007, he does not seem to have a firm grasp of even basic Wiki protocols and I have no desire to try to explain anything further to him as it just gets me another "warning"-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

follow up

You have the right to criticize me, too. We're probably both right in a tendentious world. I'll certainly take your thoughts to heart. However, I am serious about improving the article and I'd appreciate your cooperation. Many thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Got this note from Cordrdan, FYI

organization

> this article needs to be reordered for organization.

Yes, but you didn't do it correctly (or with consensus from other contributors). "self-contained section" is a technical detail, so it shouldn't be in the first sentence. The first sentence should state the summary's definition (a short description of the story), and the second sentence should explain why it's important (complements wider coverage). —Codrdan (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

--Ring Cinema (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay...sounds like he thinks both the current version and the suggestion you made could use some work? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

incident

I'm sorry for what happened earlier this evening. If you have an email, you should send me one because I have an idea to help it from happening again. Thanks,  – Tommy [message] 02:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Email sent. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied.  – Tommy [message] 03:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

just a suggestion

Methinks you need a block button for this shite. Go for it. Jack Merridew 03:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I wish, alas we both know I'd never pass an RfA - certain groups would make sure of it, along with my own occasional flares of temper :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

At least there are enough people around with block buttons to handle situations that arise and warrant it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the time :-) Sometimes he keeps going awhile, unfortunately...though I think the username alert filter thing is helping some. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

*Cough* remember the one about adminship being no big deal. Anyway, I don't know that and will be make such a request myself. Just a matter of timing. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi, I closed a thread you opened at ANI, and felt you deserved an explanation (and you should, of course, feel free to reopen the thread if necessary). I closed it because I felt that leaving it open would attract further troll posts from editors with username obsessions. Hope that's OK! TFOWR 13:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's fine, though until the CU is done and hopefully another range block is implemented, he will probably keep at it anyway as he is somewhat deranged (IMHO, of course, that he keeps at this). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello AnmaFinotera. Thanks for the note that you left about your BambiFan radar tingling on the Filmproject talk page. I passed it on to PMDrive1061 who has a long history of dealing with this sockpuppet master and he took care of things. We can now resume regular editing until a new version pops up. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 15:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Delayed 100110100

I offer my apologies for the delay in acting on the 100110100. I know it must be frustrating to submit a report on a banned user and have no immediate action. I plead ignorance and the delay was caused buy my desire to review the facts and policy (which I was not fully up-to-speed on). If I see the case arise again, be assured I will take swift action. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. He is fairly annoying in part because he has socked purely with IPs, making it more difficult to see the issues. His banned entry could probably use more details too :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Honest mistake

Thank you for reverting my edits. It was an honest mistake, I really had no idea. I'm going to better familiarize myself with Wikipedia policies to avoid a similar issue from occurring in the future. Lawl talk 20:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries :-) I went ahead and reverted because I wasn't sure if you were still online. Also thought it would be good to go ahead and reply on the talk page in case anyone else had any questions. If you're interested in working on film articles, feel free to swing by the Films WikiProject for more info and resources on the manual of style and guidelines related to films. We're also generally a friendly and helpful bunch if you have questions :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Eli

Avoid recent addition to WT:FILM about the discussion if you don't want to learn of the twist. IP added spoiler. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep...unfortunately saw it already :-( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User:174.3.101.230

Hi Anma, I responded to a help-me request from User:174.3.101.230 about half an hour ago - I noticed that the user was blocked, but not the issue surrounding 100110100's community ban, so the advice I gave to them may have been inappropriate. But, I just wanted to enquire as to how it has been established that this user is 100110100, aside from the circumstantial evidence based on their IP range. I've skimmed the users' contributions, and those of some of 100110100's confirmed socks and am just not seeing it. Do you have any specific diffs that are conclusive? I'd be much appreciative if you could satisfy my curiosity. AJCham 05:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ack, never mind. I should have been a tad more thorough - it's staring me in the face now. AJCham 05:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries :-) One of the hardest parts of dealing with this particular editor is that he does not use any named socks, so far, only IPs. There is a current SPI to see if a range block can be done, at least :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Message from IP user

Hallo, you have a new message at User talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive 25 - which I first reverted, sorry for that (but it looked very strange in Huggle). Christian75 (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You were correct in removing it the first time. He was just a troll making personal attacks because his non-reliably sources stuff was removed from an article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For eloquence and wisdom in editing. Cheers! —Eustress talk 03:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! —Eustress ^talk 03:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation

Please do not tag pages in the Wikipedia:Articles for creation Wikiproject for speedy deletion as you did with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Articles in that area are not yet Wikipedia articles and are just submissions. It is more appropriate to decline them instead of tagging them for speedy deletion. --Slon02 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly an admin disagreed. It was not a legitimate creation request, just an IP that was vandalizing various places making a silly page. That is certainly eligible for speedy deletion, as is any AfC filed by a sockpuppet trying to get around a community ban (which I have done before). AfC are not exempt from CSD in those criteria. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'd have deleted that myself, instead of declining it. While the Article criteria don't apply to AFC submissions, the general ones most absolutely do- we don't need to leave vandalism out there because it came with an AFC template attached- and it is already standard practice to delete copyvios after a short while. Courcelles (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Treasure Planet

Hi, Anma. I understand you have some knowledge of why Treasure Planet was originally semi-protected. There doesn't seem to be any pressing need for such protection (now migrated to pending-changes protection), but perhaps there's something going on of which I'm not aware. I started a thread on WP:RFUP before I knew who/where you were, so you might want to look there for my reasoning. Thanks. Powers ^T 15:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose removing the protection as Bambifan101 is still active. I'm also disappointed that an admin chose to ignore WP:OUT by posting such information, but at this point I guess it doesn't matter as clearly there is no way to get around it.16:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know it was a Bambifan target. Seems there ought to be a way to mark those somehow. Powers ^T 18:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much the only ways are from seeing the history, its being in pretty much permanent semi-protection, and it being Disney. It doesn't help that he and another socker are now working in conjunction to spoof each other. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I do so hate that it's necessary. Are you okay with having it moved to Pending Changes protection, or do you think it might be a problem if BF notices? Powers ^T 18:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure...I've yet to really see Pending Changes in action, though it was put on a few articles he's hit a lot. Worth a shot, anyway :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: User talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive 25

Hello AnmaFinotera, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of User talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive 25, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Deletion of this page may be controvertial or is under discussion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —mono 17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Wrong, Mono, I've zapped it. It was a bot error in archive numbering. Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That has to be the weirdest CSD contesting I've ever seen...thanks for fixing things Courcelles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've full-protected/salted it for a week, just to force the bot to reset your counts and prevent a re-occurrence. Courcelles (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't be necessary, the bot will be archiving to /Archive 11 now. FYI, Anma, you've broken any links that you had previously pointed to your archives (e.g.). –xeno^talk 18:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, not to worried about it, but did fix the ANI archive link, since it relates to the ban discussion, but why the heck does "Merle Lang" have copies of the entire ANI? Not going to worry about those. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was my boo boo on the misconfigurations after I compacted them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for the archive# edit. Regards, --Trafford09 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Bad grammar???

Hi: I'm curious as to your reasoning for reverting my edit (itself a reversion to a previous form) to Wikipedia:Citation templates. I've definitely seen the English "note well" in a number of places (none of which struck me as particularly ill-proofread in any other way). Why do you say this is not a good usage - any source for that? ☯ ZenSwashbuckler ☠ 17:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Note well" is not good sentence construction, particularly not in that sentence. While NB may translate to "note well" in the literal sense, that phrase is not generally used, rather "pay attention" or the like would be used. In this case, it is completely unnecessary to add the "well" (again, bad phrasing) or to change it to "pay attention" as the "note" itself is more than sufficient to make the point. You may wish to ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language for a longer, more detailed explanation as to why it is not a good grammatical change. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I will take that advice, but I'm still not clear on why "that phrase is not generally used." I've seen it used a number of places, and search engine queries reveal its use in everything from academic journals to translations of Don Quixote. If you can point to a source that explicitly deprecates either this phrase (specifically), or the use of the imperative voice to open an expository or instructional sentence (generally), then I will bother you no more. But I haven't yet found anything to support your allegation that "note well" "is not good sentence construction." ☯ ZenSwashbuckler ☠ 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, it is not appropriate usage in that particular sentence. If you wish further instruction/explanation, please ask at teh aforementioned notice board. Also note that a fictional, literary work from the early 1900s is not a reference to support proper usage in normal discourse. The journal you link to has no info on it, and the only search engine usage I've seen of it is in old English contexts or defining it. I have no desire to argue very basic English with you, and will refrain from any further responses until the end of the DramaOut as this clearly is heading towards drama territory.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nightwish discography

Hi, can you vote here please? Thank you. DreamNight (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Why reverting {{otheruses4}} -> {{about}}?

Hi AnmaFinotera, I happen to notice your username on a few histories reverting edits that convert {{otheruses4}} template to {{about}}. These edits are not vadalism, otheruses4 redirects to about and I think about is a much more descriptive name. Is there some reason that you have been reverting these edits? Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm referring to, for example, [38] and [39] — sligocki (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) They are vandalism as they were edits being done by a community banned editor in violation of his ban. Per policy, ALL of his edits are reverted as vandalism. Whether you agree with the change or not, they are pointless and disruptive edits, and per policy should not be done as the only edit to a page. In this particular person's case, he regularly changes a bunch of templates from one to another so he can then attempt to have the first one deleted, which is also clearly gaming the system. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, it makes sense that edits by a banned editor should be reverted when in violation of the ban. Do you think you could note that in the edit history in the future? Without knowing that information, it just seems like your revert is even more pointless than the original edit.

I don't want to get into an argument, but I disagree with your use of the word vandalism. WP:Vandalism states that "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. ... Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." It does not seem to me that these edits were vandalism even if these users may be vandals. Do you disagree? Thanks, — sligocki (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you had checked his contribs and his talk page, you would see he was blocked, and as he made the same edit dozens and dozens of times, once the first few were reverted with an edit summary, rollback is appropriate for use on the rest. Nor as his edits good faith or an attempt at improving the encyclopedia. It is vandalism, per WP:VANDTYPES (see last type). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright. But do you think we could get rollbacks to mention that they are rollbacks? All I'm asking is that revert edit summaries have more context. If they are done by an automated system, it should be easy enough to add note about being part of a roll-back. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That I do not know. Rollback is a technical function, so would have to ask at the tech board about modifying the software or something. I presume it is at least possible as there are plug ins available for adding edit summaries to rollbacks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ichiban Ushiro no Dai Maō

Please refrain from adding fire to the current edit war taking place at Ichiban Ushiro no Dai Maō, you are no more exempt from WP:3RR or WP:EDITWAR policies than the other party. Additionally, stating you are reverting "vandalism" in an edit summary in a clear cut content dispute can result in sanctions including the loss of Twinkle all the way to a block. Please take additional content issues to the articles talk page. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 21:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I only got involved in the issue because of the report to the anime project. The editor is being disruptive, as consensus is clearly against him and he continues reverting despite the talk page discussion and warnings on his user page. I guess I should have just did the protection report and let him continue edit warring and adding false information to the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand. You already warned them, so if they keep it up I will issue a block. Tiptoety ^talk 22:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

*

TFOWR suggested this for you.

		The 3rd Anti-Drama Barnstar
		Awarded for participating in the 3rd Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Thanks for participating to reduce drama during the festival!

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see

User talk:Nihonjoe#Rename Revdelete. Thank you. Prodego ^talk 04:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I think I preferred your old name. --erachima talk 05:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 05:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know if you had anything to do with it that would explain it, so I thought I'd point it out. Prodego ^talk 05:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Image issues

I believe you were part of a discussion regarding a previous deletion on Commons of the image that has recently been readded in this [40] edit. Active Banana (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the folks at Commons, it is from the official LG feed and has a compatible license with the commons. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 18:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Virginia Terhune

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Mommy Kills Animals (film)

Your comments at the AFD have encouraged me to work on the article.[41] As there are numerous sources for its improvement and citing,[42] might you have time to assist? I predict we could have a nice DYK too. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I was actually hoping you would notice that one and do some work on it. I don't have time to assist right now, but I wish you good luck on expanding it and taking it to DYK. :-) (my one minor bit of advice would be that for non-fiction films, the heading for the "plot"/storyline section is usually called Synopsis :-)) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 01:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I had fun improving it, and there is much more that can be done, as long as it does not remain a magnet for SPAs (yikes). Much appreciate your good advice. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, with a page like that, it really needs at least one editor willing to keep it on their watchlist pretty much all the time due to the pro- and anti- PETA anon users likely to want to manipulate it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 02:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

NGE again

you think you can help me out? Gwern is reverting my edits on Shinji Ikari. there is a section dedicated to two other characters that are made from GAINAX that all share something in common. The problem is that it indirectly relates to shinji and more relevant to the other two characters that are not relevant to Neon Genesis Evangelion. Although i asked for help in the past, i feel the NGE articles are going down hill if we don't meet consensus, the only two editing are me, gwern and anonymous IP editors. What do you think? Should it be kept or removed?Bread Ninja (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it seems fairly trivial and not really a good source for such a statement, but it would probably be best to ask at the project page as I know little about NGE and even less about those two series. Someone from the project might also help evaluate the source since it is in Japanese. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 02:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, the project is inactive for quite a while, hardly anyone seems to respond. Either they no longer are interested in NGE or they just don't want to discuss with me but i doubt it's because of that because the only one giving attention to gwern's discussions are me.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Anime/manga project? There are several fairly active discussions going on at the moment? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 03:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to the NGE project. The Anime/Manga does too, but they barely get any attention to specific topics that already have their own specific project like NGE. I'll try though, but i think what you said was enough, japanator is unreliable source and appears trivial. but i just really wanted you to break the tie (as in get in and revert the edit as a third party). I think just using your name will be enough thoughBread Ninja (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if you just asked at the anime/manga project in the future. Anytime you ask my view, if I agree with you, Gwern starts messing around on articles I've edited recently and it gets annoying. I'd rather not have to deal with him/her as it usually just ends with my having to leave pages of interest to avoid conflicts. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 03:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it is a hassle, and i was once a hassle as well, but i guess it all depends on someone's ability to bare it. I just think more consensus is needed when it comes to these kind of things. Although i do go on the anime/manga project and discuss the issues, it appears it often gets ignored whenever it's related to a smaller problem, such as one wikipedian not able to agree. I'll try next time, but hopefully it will get discussed more.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...the only suggestions I have there are to make when you post, to do so in as neutral a fashion as possible, and post a link to the existing discussion inviting other opinions. So in this case, I would post something like "there is currently a dispute at Shinji Ikari regarding the inclusion of a statement from an essay at Japanator that indicates the character is related to characters from other series. Additional views would be appreciated." This keeps it from seeming like it is just an argument between two editors, and focuses purely on the issue. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 04:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good to me. I'll do that in the future. well thanks for your help.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A Mighty Wind

Hi Anma,

Cast is relevant because unlike the paragraph witch states the actors names, this also states the character names. I will from now on use your recommendations instead of <br>)  ;-) --RobNS 07:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The cast is already in the plot and includes character names. A list purely of names and that includes a bunch of minor characters is unnecessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

user:Ouzel Ring block

Could I please ask why you reverted this change to Weeds Act 1959 here?

This appears to be a legit edit by a new, and evidently positively contributing, editor. There's also an AfD/keep for a first creation at Weaver v NATFHE. Since then they appear to have "gone of the rails" and have just earned an indef block, the virtues of which I've raised with the blocking admin at User_talk:Jac16888#user:Ouzel_Ring_block.

I'm concerned that overall we've been a bit WP:BITEy on a well-meaning new editor and pushing them into a vandal. None of that helps the project, so can we instead achieve something more productive? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you're asking me about something from damn near two months ago? Not, it isn't a particularly good edit, though, as {{tocright}} should never be used in an article like that, and the formatting overall is goes against the MoS. The only bit of possible value is the categorization. In either case, sorry, but no one can "push" you into being a vandal and that you seem to be implying that I somehow caused him to go nuts, is both beyond bad faith and a very false accusation that seems to indicate you did not bother doing your homework before jumping to his defense. I did not, in fact, revert him until AFTER he showed himself to be a vandal, with his edit to Fastily's page[43] at 10:25 calling him a "cunt" and a banned editor. When ANOTHER editor warned him for it, he changed the heading to "cunt"[44]. You seriously want to tell me this was a "legite" editor at this point? I first reverted him at 10:45[45], presumably in response to having User:Fastily's page on my talk at the time and spotting the obvious disruptiveness going on. You may note we never in fact interacted personally, I simply reverted some of his edits because he'd shown himself to be vandalizing user pages - high likely hood he vandalized articles too. Sorry, but he was not a well-meaning anyone and he wasn't pushed into being a vandal. He vandaled first, and was appropriately dealt with. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 17:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with Anma on this one, they'd already attacked another user a few months ago, then the recent attacks, if thats how they're going to behave then they don't belong here--Jac16888^Talk 17:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a paragon of editing finesse, but it is the work of someone trying to contribute. Criticizing {{TOCright}} or failing to understand MOS with a newby? It's a miracle when many of them just manage to hit the keys in the right order. What we certainly shouldn't do is block revert good edits because we take exception to an editor personally.

My point is that we have an endless stream of vandals with no redeeming virtues whatsoever, and we give them chance after chance before even an overnight block. I think this one has something worth encouraging, not merely exclusion forever. I admit I don't understand the attacks on Fastily or Mick (maybe there are removed edits a non-admin can't see?) and whilst there's no excuse for that, our principles and policy are still to be preventive and forgiving first, not punitive. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Good block- very good block. I'd have indef'ed them for what they did to Fastily's page, doing it again after two months with no intervening edits? One of the more well deserved blocks out there. Courcelles (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No deleted edits or anything like that. Those edits aren't vandalism, which yes we are quite willing to be forgiving over, they are attacks which are a different level and we, or at least me, are much less willing to overlook. --Jac16888^Talk 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As noted already, I'd support blocking, but I'm finding it hard to see an indef first block as preventative, rather than punitive.

Obviously I don't have the whole picture. New editors don't attack two seemingly unconnected editors with an edit that involves a template. There's past editor experience, and past backstory behind the animosity, either IP or another username. As I seem to be very much in the minority here, then I guess that's where it rests. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy AnmaFinotera's Day!

AnmaFinotera has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as AnmaFinotera's Day! For being an great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, AnmaFinotera! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 05:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

John Jervis

Dear AnmaFinotera, I really appreciate the Barnstar. Yes it is my first. I've only been on Wikipedia a few months and have only created/seriously editted a few articles. Many thanks,

Corneredmouse (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

FAC Comment

Just to have a pair of eyes who knows FACs, could you give Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephens City, Virginia/archive1‎ a look-see, please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look this weekend. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 06:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I figure it will still be there (barring anything really unusual) this weekend. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Spotted one minor problem :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 05:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed it on the FAC and am actively looking for a better fix right now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a better site. I found a couple, but you can't link to the search. I am at a loss. After further looking, I have found two great sites, I would like you to check them out to see if they stand to FA standards, if you would please. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The new one looks good. :-) I've had one or two sites like that as well....it is quite annoying when they make it hard to link to something specific. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for checking those out for me. :) I would have like to have kept the State of Virginia site, but, like you said, you can't link to something specific, with these, I can and I get the same information, if not more. :) Thanks again! Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism

I have seen your report on 199.126.224.156 at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I have spent some time looking at the contributions of this IP editor and those of User:100110100, and I haven't seen any obvious evidence of a connection, nor are 199.126.224.156's edits obviously vandalism. My experience of your contributions lead me to expect that you are right, but I don't think I can block on that basis. Can you indicate why you think this is an IP sock? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

He is doing the exact same crap as 100110100 and is on the same IP range: replacing {{otheruses4}} with {{about}}, replacing {{for2}} with {{for}} and {{about}}, and redoing the same edits as his last sock, Hyperpiper,[46][47] and last blocked IP,[48][49]. He also did this as his original account[50] awhile ago, and this IP has now done this edit[51] with the same edit summary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 14:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cross posted to the AIV. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 14:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As you probably know, the IP has now been blocked. It is worth bearing in mind for the future, though, that if you know what the evidence is, and some admin with no prior knowledge of the case doesn't, it can often make it much easier if you give some indication of the evidence, such as one or two diffs. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A Proposal

With over 100,000 edits to your name, a great sense of the encyclopedia and the project, a way of helping the user...no matter who they are, and just being an all around nice person, I propose to nominate you for adminship (I hope non-admins can do that). Would you be for or against it, before I start with the nom process? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, non-admins can nominate someone for adminship (pretty much anyone except anon users can). While I appreciate the thought and certainly wish I had the tools to deal with some known vandals myself, I know I would never pass an RfA and it would likely turn into a very ugly affair once certain folks/groups saw it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 04:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. Just thought I would propose it. :) If you ever change your mind, let me know and I will gladly write up the nomination page for you. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly endorse any such nomination. --erachima talk 04:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also support you. Reyk _YO! 02:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, look what I started :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I too think you should run. Shadowjams (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, positively do it. You have my unswerving, 1000% support. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Courcelles (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all of you. It means a lot to me :-) I may consider it if I decide to stick around. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City FAC

Others have asked about an economy section. At the time, I was unaware of US Census information was available. With that information now in hand (well, on the internet) I have constructed an "Economy" section. I would like your opinion on that section as you have !voted on the FAC already. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Kinda cool that for a small town, it seems like its population is growing rather than going down like so many others. Next time I'm in Virginia, I'll have to try to go through there, sounds like the kinda place I'd love to photograph :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 05:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! :) When you are in my neck of the woods, take US Route 11 (you see more that way and it is slower and an easier pace) from Winchester, Virginia to the north or Strasburg, Virginia to the south and you will find your way into Stephens City (or just exit off Interstate 81 at Exit 307). When you are there, there is much to see and do, just for our little town, and even more in Winchester and Middletown (to the south on US 11). It is full of Civil War sites and goodies to see. Plus you are just in an hour's drive of Washington, DC with all their fun stuff and about 30 minutes from Shenandoah National Park near Front Royal, Virginia to the east and then south of Stephens City. To give you something to look at for now, give a look-see (just for fun) at these pictures I have uploaded (but some aren't used yet) on the Commons. Hope to see you in the area soon. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Very pretty :-) Alas, not sure when I'll be in that area again. The conference I usually go to that is held up there is closing its doors after this year. :-( -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Bummer :( Well, whenever you do get down this way, let me know and I will write you up a list of places to visit. I don't plan on leaving the area for a long time. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Got a new question for ya, same subject. User:Wehwalt, who has been helping me on this FAC alot (he is kinda like my teacher through this whole thing) said I should check for some tax information on Stephens City, in the "Economy" section, another user said it was "a bit dry". I have found some more information, but it is through City-Data.com. My question, would this qualify as a reliable source? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Since their data is used by other reliable sources, I'm inclined to think it should meet WP:RS. Unfortunately, previous discussions seem to disagree due to the data also being heavily reliant on user submissions.[52] -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 04:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Darn, I have used it in one aspect of the Stephens City page, mostly because it actually sources where the information came from (see the "Religion" section), but I wasn't sure about others. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to see things getting so mixed up in the FAC now :-( I had that happen to some of mine before...it can be quite aggravating at times. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 19:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, one user wanted some state/national election information and while I couldn't source the information for the Town of Stephens City (actual town limits), I put the county information, but that could branch the article out too far, another user said, which I do understand. So we have to figure out consensus on that. It will all work out eventually. Once we get that worked out, I think the !votes will come easily as most of the tinkering has been done already. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Request

Consider it done. Just send me a list (either talk page or via email), which you're comfortable with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. :-) List is below. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 23:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Meerkat Manor
• Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins
• List of Meerkat Manor episodes
• List of Meerkat Manor meerkats
• Category 6: Day of Destruction
• White Dog
• Night of the Lepus
• Grizzly Rage
• Maneater (film)
• Lad, A Dog (film)
• Maneater (series)

Done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Another request

Hello there, Anma. There was a recent discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, Media Research Center, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, Newsbusters etc. at Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources. Some of us believe that these hyperpartisan sources should never be used as factual sources at Wikipedia, due to their tendency to selective edit facts. Please participate in this important discussion, concerning one of Wikipedia's most fundamental editing policies, on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnsensu

		WikiProject Japan Barnsensu Award
		While your Japan-related work has been almost exclusively anime- and manga-related, that's a very important part of the modern culture of Japan, and I hereby award you this Barnsensu in recognition of all your hard work. You've done a lot to improve thousands of articles, and your work is very much appreciated. Wikipedia has become a much greater resource for this information due to all the work you put in here. While we've certainly had our fair share of disagreements (some of them somewhat heated), I think I've become a better contributor because of those discussions. Thank you for all you've done here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and even when we were butting heads a bit, I've always enjoyed working with you and had the greatest respect for you work here. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 18:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)