User talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive 10

Heath Ledger
Could take a look at the conversation here about the Heath Ledger template Heath Ledger? Any comments you have would be helpful. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 04:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

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


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


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

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


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

Template:Infobox
Hi, AnmaFinotera, To add parameters, need to edit all related templates and docs, at the same time? — [ Unsigned .]


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

Semiprotection
It expired on the 22nd. I can reinstate it, if you'd like. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


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


 * All right, that's no problem. =) 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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


 * I've always liked AnimeOnDVD's forums as the folks there are very friendly, you usually get responses very quickly, and its very active so you'll get a lot of responses and well thought out recommendations. Plus it rarely has a lot of drama and arguments because political and religious discussions are banned. ANN's forums tend to be too rowdy and rude for my tastes, but they do also have a large user base. Hope that helps. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's great, thanks very much, much appreciated! :) GiantSnowman 16:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

Needs moar coffee
Thought you might like to use this userbox to warn others. –xenotalk 13:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Manga and anime not under comics?
Hi AnmaFinotera. Not sure I'd agree that manga doesn't come under comics. That said, the current run is based on files which are only in Category:Comics images and sub-cats, and I checked all sub-cats to ensure they only contain categories which categorise images of or from comics. I also have the bot set not to tag images which already have "WikiProject Anime and manga" on the page. How can I improve on that? And is there an issue with having a comicsproj and an anime and manga tag on the same talk page? Hiding T 19:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI I've stopped the bot in the hope we can resolve this speedily. If you look at Category:Manga covers it's categorised in Category:Comic book covers, so that's why the bot is hitting them. I'm failing to understand why it shouldn't tag them.  But, what can work out here? Hiding T 19:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the consensus of both projects, they are separate projects and generally have little to do with each other, so it can be misleading, especially for newer editors, to have comics project tags on files that the project has no dealings with at all. If they are missing the Anime/manga tags, they should be added (there was an effort underway to do so, but not sure where it is). If you could filter it to not include anything in Category:Manga covers or Category:Anime and manga images, that would probably address the issue, as the category is currently a subcat of the one you are pulling from. I've fixed it on the cat, but not sure that would fix it for the bot? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we ever came to a consensus to be honest, but, yeah, I'll compare lists and remove anything in Category:Manga covers and Category:Anime and manga images. I'll build a list of images it's tagged that are in those categories, do you want me to simply remove the tags or do you want me to replace it with the anime tag? Hiding T 20:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you could replace it with the anime one :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's 64 of them. I don't mind tagging with the anime template, any specific fields as well? Hiding T 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, shouldn't need any. If you just pop in WikiProject Anime and manga it will auto detect its a file and categorize/class appropriately :-) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool beans. Hiding T 20:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, all done, let me know if I cause any other issues, okay. ;) Hiding T 20:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesomeness. Thanks again :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If I might pop in, I think I was the main one tagging images (could be wrong); I just haven't been doing much of that. ;) If it's not too much trouble, Hiding, would you mind making a bot run at some point to tag WP:ANIME's images like you did for Comicsproj? As for the relation between WP:ANIME and Comics, technically WP:ANIME falls under Comics' scope (so tagging stuff with both banners actually is simply an exercise in redundancy, unless the subject of the article very explicitly falls under the scope of both WP:ANIME and Comics), but in practice, Comics seems to basically ignore pretty much all comics outside of the U.S. and some European stuff. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can run the bot through, yeah, prod me if I haven't within a week. We're hoping to work on the US bias at WP:COMICS, or at least I am, although we are the English Wikipedia so I guess that bias is somewhat to be expected. I don;t have an issue with the tagging except for the fact that if something isn't tagged with either it should likely be tagged with one. We don't go out of our way to tag manga stuff with the comics banner without good reason, but when there's no tag it's hard to work it all out, especially with teh way our categories overlap. Hiding T 22:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm currently running the bot, see User:Comics-awb contribs for details. I hope I'm logging it too, but I can never work out the logging feature. Hiding T 12:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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


 * *headsmack* For now, I'd just skip all of those...the Pokemon area is one place few dare venture to clean.... -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've just run through and removed the banner from all the images in those categories. Do you folks want me to look at any other categories? Hiding T 17:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that should be it for now. Much appreciated!-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Prod of Show=Tarou Harada
I tried to list the prod of Show=Tarou Harada on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga, but the "=" in the name seems to mess up the listing. You seem to have been confused and thought that it was a prod of an article named Tarou Harada, but that was not the case. I had the name right, and it was deprodded, not deleted. I'm thinking the way to fix this is to list it manually, not with a substitution thing, but maybe there is some way to get the substitution to work. Calathan (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have already fixed it while I was writing this. Thanks! Calathan (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There was an even simpler solution, actually, although it was rather obscure - the template = properly escapes equals signs so that they can be used in templates without trouble (notice how I had to use it here to allow the template link to work correctly). 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow...so to get a 1 character, you get to type five :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


 * The colors look fine. You can change them some, so long as they have good contrast with the text, and are not garish (so no neon pink ;-) ). --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * HAHA. Oh I wouldn't dare! :P --Micwa (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

from: Allen4names
I did not think I would have to ask, but just what are you reading anyway? Your comments at Template talk:Ann do not seem to match what I wrote. -- allen四names 21:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


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


 * To quote you "Maybe only by 'top contributors' but they are still just users and NOT ANN staff.". Now back to the FAQ. The complete sentence from the FAQ reads: "But if that's not enough for you and you're near the top of the contributors list and you'd like to help out with the releases, lexicon, or editing and verifying data submitted by other people, please contact the Encyclopedist." In other words you need to both be at the top of the contributors list and contact the Encyclopedist. If this is not enough to hold at least one member of the staff responsible for the work of those you termed "just users" I will have to question everything that I know. -- allen四names 21:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you will have to question, because it does not say that those top contributors are vested in any, only that they need to contact someone to get the necessary permissions. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If the contributors editing the releases page are not vetted then the responsibility falls on the Editor-in-Chief. (see Staff List) If his judgment is in question then the reliability of ANN as a source must be questioned. -- allen四names 22:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the responsibility does not. Again, the encyclopedia, the entire encyclopedia, section is considered user edited and is not a reliable source. That does not make the rest of ANN unreliable. And I'm done with the discussion here if it is just going to go back to what you are arguing at the template page. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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

November 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Lassie Come Home. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. might as well warn myself too -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignoring WP:DTTR (heh), I'll echo this, leave the page alone. (I'm declining RFPP, you are both seasoned editors). tedder (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Does DTTR still apply when you template yourself? :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno. But it's funny to see, though appreciated, as I came here to template you in fairness :-) tedder (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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


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

Carnosaur 3: Primal Species
Hi, I saw that you marked User:Scratte Lover's edit at this article as vandalism. I'm hoping that you could explain why you marked it as vandalism when it appears to be a good faith edit. Raptor could be seen as following this movie as it came out after and used some of the same footage. This looks like a really good example of biting a new-comer, as it was this user's first mainspace edit and appears to be good faith and not vandalism. If I am wrong, please tell me what your justification was for marking this as vandalism. Frmatt (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


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


 * My apologies, you are exactly right that I should have notified you about mentioning you at ANI. I didn't think about it as I had only referred to you tangentially, but I should have left a notice here.  I'm not arguing that there has been lots of vandalism, but WP:AGF says that we have to rely on a user's edit history, and when I looked at this user's edit history it showed only three edits, one of which was their userpage, one of which was a name correction on an article, and one was the edit that you reverted as vandalism.  I have no history with bambifan, so the only history I can go on is the history of this user, and it didn't appear to be vandalism to me.  All of that being said...if this is a sock, then thank you! Frmatt (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Trust me, it is...we have way way way too many to deal with lately. Where so many bored people come from, I'll never understand. In this case, Bambifan was very active during that time, including at least one confirmed, blocked sock, hence my suspecting its him as he usually makes several socks to act as sleepers before he gets rolling. There is an LTA on him if you want to read it...he's even managed to convince two admins from other wikis into editing for him, getting both blocked for some time, and I think one is still blocked indef. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would another set of eyes on some of the problem articles help? Also, did you know your talk page shows up in a sockpuppet category? Frmatt (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Woops, fixed my link to the cat above. Unfortunately, with Bambifan, to watch the problem articles you'd have to watchlist pretty much every Disney and Teletubbie related article. That's why most are protected and range blocks are frequently employed as new ones are spotted. More eyes are always good though, on any that may be of interest :) For the sequel vandal, he mostly hits B-movies, like the Carnosaur and Raptor films, the Maneater series, Tremors sometimes, etc. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

Hey
Hey there. Can you look at my talk page? An editor has been posting there and I am trying to be a helpful resource for him/her, but his questions are very suspicious. The editor may be Bambifan related. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 18:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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

DBpedia Template Annotation
Hi, why did you flag them? they are a direct contribution to improving Wikipedia, DBpedia will be used to support the Toolserver soon, What is your reason behind this? SebastianHellmann (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not a direct contribution to anything related to Wikipedia, they are spam, pure and simple. If DBPedia wants to "extract" data, they can do it the same way any other mirror does, not by spamming their stuff here. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * this is just your personal opinion, we work together with Wikipedians and follow the same goals. There is a great basis for collaboration. so it might not be just spam. Please consider that, before continuing. SebastianHellmann (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bull. It is purely spam, and advertising, which is why one of you has already been blocked. The rest are being reported now. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who do you report us to, can we talk to them?SebastianHellmann (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See your talk page. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * No idea...been worried myself. I know he has a busy message on his talk page, but he hasn't edited at all since the 3rd. Does he have email enabled? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He does. I'll drop him a line tonight and check up on him. We've worked a lot more together lately and I'm missing his input! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool...hope he's okay. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I heard back from Erik this morning. He said he's actually quite good but entirely busy. He started a new job which has greatly limited his free time, has a new girl which takes up more of it, but he's fine. He appreciates our wondering about him, said it made him smile. I'm sure we'll hear more from him soon, one way or another. I told him he was missed and so were his organizational skills, but that you and Nehrams have stepped up a bit on issues in his absence. I feel better. Sometimes on the internet, you get to know someone a bit and then they just poof on you and you never know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to hear :) Sounds like some great things going on in his life, which is always awesome. And so true...I've had a lot of online friends that have done that, and you are left wondering. Have a few on LJ now who either left without a word or said they were taking a hiatus, but still have people wondering if they are okay. :( Its especially hard when most of us know only screen names, so if something did happen in real life, may be ages before any of the online friends found out.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I knowwwwwwww. At some point, I started asking online friends, when we've gotten close enough for it to matter, if we could at least exchange contact information so that *poof* doesn't just happen. I have 4 or 5 that I can contact offline if (ye gods, hopefully not) if something happens or I stroke out (don't ask, it isn't pretty). I encouraged Erik to call it a wikibreak, relax, settle into his new routine but not to forget us or WP:FILM. Somehow I doubt he stays gone forever. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


 * The ANI, and the archived SPI. User:Tonywalton is probably the admin most familiar with his/her overall behavioral pattern, having found and blocked other socks since then. My concern was drawn by her edits to Thumbelina that were similar to what ItsLassieTime and his/her socks did, and jumping in with DYK/GA stuff so rapidly with such similar wording and behaviors as to the blocked socks. Its partly gut, and if I'm wrong, I'll gladly apologize to the user, but it was just a little to concerning to ignore. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha, I vaguely remember the mother/daughter team on the horse! Well, yes, I also have some wonder as to how the new editor has such quick learning of all formality with DYK, GA and FA procedures. I've assumed the user may hop from her old account to the current one. Since you've known the user(s) much more than I have, I guess the SPI would be worthwhile, but Kathyrncelestewright has produced very valuable articles thought.--Caspian blue 06:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, though from what I recall, the validity and possible misuse of some of ItsLassieTime's offline sources were question. Hopefully not an issue with some of the articles being created here. Their lack of response to the SPI report is interesting...-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

El Puig
AnmaFinotera

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Tokyo Magnitude 8.0
Hi, where can I learn the proper formatting for articles? I don't want to make the same mistake again ._." Cowscanfly (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


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


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

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


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

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


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

Thanks! I see the infobox, which looks great. Here's a very current link on Disaster City. . Heidi Threezmom (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added a history section. I'll work on incorporating that article soon. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

CSD's
Why are you CSDing articles like The Snowman (fairy tale)? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was created by a banned user – a sock of User:ItsLassieTime. MuZemike 05:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Per Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime‎. If you want to take on the role of validating that the content is actually factual and valid, feel free to remove. I CSDed all of the ones she made that she was pretty much the only editor of, per the notes in the SPI and her previous history of having an almost obsessive desire to earn GAs and the continued display of the traits of being a pathological lair, bring to question the validity of all edits they have done, particularly with their almost exclusive reliance on offline sources. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not going to do it, but something better than just deleting them should be done. I don't think any of the referencing has been shown to be false. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, almost all of them have been edited exclusively by the sock, so its probably no one has checked either. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not move to them project space for whatever project does fairy tales? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be a good option for moving out to get them verified and then recreated. Something an admin would probably need to do, though, to then delete the redirects. Meanwhile, other editors have stepped up and taken responsibility for two of the fuller ones. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It would just be a shame to delete them if the articles were actually accurate.  Maybe put a notice at ANI? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Another BF101 sock?
Might want to look at Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) and edits by User:Badhello and User:98.90.100.77. Something fishy. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


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


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A98.90.0.0%2F16 J.delanoy gabs adds  23:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, didn't even see the section right above this :P J.delanoy gabs adds  23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just when I thought the internet's most clueless idiot finally gave up, he comes back. It requires someone to take the bull by the horns and do the damned rangeblock for at least one year. If it happens again a year fromnow, do it again. This just has to stop, Anma. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Right now, there is a bit too much collateral, but I am considering it. J.delanoy gabs adds  23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My head is spinning from all the ones he just did. Blech...hopefully between us its all cleaned up.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

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


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

I'm pretty sure he's back, see, , and  BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 16:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


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


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

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


 * I know right? This article should easily be sourcable to GA or FA standards, but all anyone is doing is arguing about minute details about the plot. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very true. Well, we keep on fighting the good fight.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Unfortunately, copy editing is not my forte, and I'm stretched too thin this month to take on any more big projects. Some genearal things for any FAC attempt, though, is make sure everything is cited to reliable, high quality, make sure all of the references use consistent citation style, and do at least one Peer Review :-) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is on it but every one says the same copy edit, and it is very hard to get an Guild Copy editors or something like that....to get to copy edit so it is quite hard but i took care of the rest...do me a favor if able when you have time can you halp out a bit on FG.-- Pedro J. the rookie 23:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is quite true that copyeditors are a rare commodity. Best I can suggest is look at the list of PR volunteers for those in the copy edit area and see if any are available and willing. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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


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

Thanks AnmaFinotera. See you soon! :D

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

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

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


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

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


 * If there are no other active editors, I'd say yes, but may want to post to the thread about it on the GA talk page. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, will do :). Thank you. Airplaneman  talk 06:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Thanks :) Now just need to get Shonen Jump to the same point :D -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, you need to help me rejig Excel Saga :P Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work AnmaFinotera.Tintor2 (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, I can help with MoS and sources, but for now, working on some novel and their adaptation articles, after NaNo :-) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats exactly what i need :) Hopefully I can drag Dinoguy into it too as he said before about wanting to handle the anime :P After Nano is fine, all I'm doing at the moment is hacking out the rubbish. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, just saw on the news page... Well done on another Featured Article and keep up the good work! ^_^ G.A.S talk 04:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Hope you're OK...
Looks like Bambifan broke outof his cage again. I've placed six-month blocks on both IPs. Yup, both BellSouth and both in Alabama. If you want to request another rangeblock, I'm right there with you. I can't take this little jackass any longer. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Can either of you give me an idea of IPs involved and the range, and I'll give it a quick scan for BambiFan101 socks here ;) - A l is o n  ❤ 01:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting so annoying, I am damn serious. Anything I can help with? –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 03:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * take a peek at my talk history, and you'll see the last three IPs he used :-) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, what a pest. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 17:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like he's still at it. Just hit again with 74.249.96.105‎ (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Newest IP 74.247.105.48 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) - active now -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * The film project is actually doing an assessment drive even as we speak, so it will be reassessed as part of that since its currently start class. If you don't want to wait till we get to the S' though, you can also post a request at WikiProject Films/Assessment :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks I added it to that list. :) -- Mike Allen  talk · contribs 20:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

Per: this ... "use references for less than 10; reflist should only be used when necessary (generally 10+) per guidelines :-)". Actually, Footnotes says "The choice between Reflist and parameter and better documentation.

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


 * Glad to hear that. If it does result in the template being improved and strengthen to weed out the excess and improve referencing, then it was worth enduring some of the snarky remarks left by others during the TfD. :-) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. How about starting with a "ref" parameter?
 * Currently using  in the template will display the appropriate publication name in a left cell of the table and the review score in the right cell. References have simply been added along with the review score to display them.
 * For example, the current code
 * Displays "1UP.com" "A-"[#] in the table cells.
 * The only way that I can see to require a reference is to nest the publication parameter in a second parameter, . If   is blank, then the publication content won't display regardless if it has a score listed or not. Of course, the ref parameter will be used for content, and it will display it next to the score.
 * For example the proposed code
 * and
 * Displays "1UP.com" "A-"[#] in the table cells, identically to the above version.
 * The concerns with this is updating the relevant pages. Updating the template will be tedious, but updating the 1000+ transclusions is daunting. To be honest I'm not sure how that will go over with others. :-\ Any thoughts or suggestions? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC))
 * That sounds like a good plan to me. Maybe see if a bot could do the updates? I would think it could do something like that, considering some of the other things they've been able to do :-)-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any bot suggestions? Are there any that deal specifically with template updates? (Guyinblack25 talk 05:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Alas, I do not know of any specific ones that deal with templates. Probably the best place to check is Bot requests. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'll try to post a question at Wikipedia talk:Bot requests to see if the change I have in mind is feasible.
 * In the mean time, how about we tackle the template's lack of useful documentation? I plan to add some content next week. Any suggestions? (Guyinblack25 talk 05:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Considering others from the video game project seem determined to continue with the uncalled for hostility and personal attacks, I think it best if I remain uninvolved in anything related to it. I do wish you good luck in getting it overhauled and hopefully redone in a way to address the concerns myself and others expressed about its usefulness. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the TfDs closed already. Are VG project members commenting on the matter to you still?
 * I hope you reconsider because I think an outside view will really help improve the templates. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC))
 * They closed today, with the unused one deleted, and the other two kept. One of the ones who was insulting during the TfD felt the need to leave me a note saying calling me idiotic was not a personal attack. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking at the edit history, CR4ZE looks to be a new editor working on video game articles. However, he is not affiliated with the Video game project and does not speak for it or its members.
 * So again, I hope you reconsider as I think your input would improve the template. If not, I'll understand. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC))
 * So again, I hope you reconsider as I think your input would improve the template. If not, I'll understand. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

Cookies
YOU TOOK MY COOKIES AWAY!!! Staxringold talkcontribs 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Gave you some fresh ones :-D -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * *om nom nom nom* Staxringold talkcontribs 20:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Case Closed Season 17 FLC
Needs a revisit when you get the time. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

An old WP:SBL request
Hello AnmaFinotera. Sometime back you made this blacklist request. It appears an anon has requested one of the sites be delisted. This has been declined previously, and am inclined to do so again. however your versed well in this area and perhaps you could look it over?--Hu12 (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to jump in here, a second opinion can never hurt :p The reference the user makes to Anime News Network is incorrect, and I offer the suggestion this is intentional. The Crunchyroll site used to provide copyvio materials, but since Jan 2009 has only provided content for which it has permission to host from the companies who own the material and/or license it from the people who do. ANN also have a license to host legal content for streaming, some of which is shared with Crunchyroll. All of which is easily verfied.Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, it should be denied again. The user is making false claims and AnimeNFO should continue to be blacklisted. While it has apparently been redesigned, it does continue to have the same issues, same as anidb, and as it has no value for articles as an EL and RS because it continues to violate WP:COPYRIGHT (as well as WP:EL in general as they now apparently have issues with spam and hacking). They also clearly are lying, as Crunchy Roll does not offer fansubs/dubs anymore. In its past, it did, however they got a ton of venture capital and are now a legitimate online distributor same as Anime News Network, Veoh, and Hulu. It legitimately distributes legal, licensed works from many English companies as well as Japanese companies. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, clearly the site is unfit for inclusion. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * in the interest of full disclosure it appears I got the sites mixed up. However i'm still not seeing any reason to unblock the site, as it will result in the abuse of an unsuitable source and a questionable External link. The Crunchyroll thing still stands though. Dandy Sephy (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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


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

Templates you recently marked for deletion
Please follow up at Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 14 . Eubulides (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


 * Cool! Does it have any articles/info on its start, format, plans, things like that? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The executive editor opens the mag by explaining the state of the market at the time and a general introduction to the concept, but the rest of the mag is pure content, and no different in format to the other early issues I have. There are two manga chapters, and the non news related content is related to Macross, especially Macross II. It's not actually that exciting in a current context, but was probably a big deal in 92. I see if I can scan the 'from the editor" page over the weekend. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


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


 * In that case, that's perfectly understandable and nothing to worry about. Although at a glance it appears that they're trying to act on your warnings by adding the images to articles.  Swarm  Talk 07:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sort of...he's reacting by restoring the images, which were removed as violations of WP:NONFREE. Ah well. Those he is reverting I'm sending to community deletion discussions instead.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


 * Ah, I see. You've removed non-inline references from articles before, so I thought that you'd decided that it wasn't valid at all.  Just because the format is 'messy' or it's not inline, doesn't make it any less of a source.  I've never read the work, so I can't be of much help with the article. --Malkinann (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't "removed" in-line references, I have moved ELs of purported references to the talk page for use when someone has the time. In such cases, those are clearly not general references, rather just links popped in to the article, usually in the wrong place. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about removing further readings to the talk page, I'm talking about items in a general references section. It's not appropriate to remove items in a general references section, as the implication is that they have been used in the creation of the article. It's better to tag the general references section with Somefootnotes, or specific things in the character section that need referencing with fact.  --Malkinann (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is an "implication" but often not the actual case as is usually discoverable by just looking at the article history. In this case, of course, it doesn't matter either way as it was unnecessary in multiple ways as a plot summary does not need a citation. I am, however, a bit concerned about a possible copyvio issue...as I just found that same plot summary on a scanslation site, and its impossible to tell which came first. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * I hope you change your mind someday. I can't think of a better admin than you.  BTW, was a new rangeblock imposed on that latest Bambifan nonsense?  It was endorsed but closed, so I assume that a CU led to a rangeblock, but there's no indication on the archive page.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question. I'm not sure if one was done or not...doesn't look like it, which is a bit worrying. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Yep it is :-D Screenshot it and plasted it on Facebook LOL --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just saw on the front page and thought by myself ~wait a minute, I know whose article that is~. Congratulations, AnmaFinotera! G.A.S talk 04:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * speaking of meercats, even seen these? Oh and I will do that Anmerica scan one day, I spent most of the weekend sleeping :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw it too. Congrats. --KrebMarkt 21:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to see another film article up there, good work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all :-) did kind of amuse me that it got on the front page, though Meerkat Manor itself has been an FA longer and never has been :-P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Night of the Lepus

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


 * And I won my first NaNo! (okay, not project related, but felt like noting :-P ) Of course, I stepped on toes and probably annoyed folks as usual, but we still mostly are chugging along with cleaning up articles and trying to get some improvements going. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That mention of the collab project got me thinking, I'll address the subject on the project page when I get some time. Good to see Sephiroth back, you could come in very handy :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, Sephiroth! To add a couple of points to AnmaFinotera's rundown, G.A.S and I finished a complete cleanup of animanga navboxes (though there are a number of small ones ripe for deletion), and editing rates are down - markedly for myself (haven't actually made a logged-in edit since December 22), but also for G.A.S and AnmaFinotera, and I don't know if it's just me, but it feels like much of the rest of WP has slowed somewhat recently as well. -- as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I also have a question about Wikimedia Commons. Is it a good idea if I deleted all the pictures I uploaded to wikipedia and re-upload them to Wikimedia Commons and linking them from there? Thanks DragonZero (talk · contribs) 06:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can reply those ones ;)
 * You can't replace one file with one which isn't from the same type here Jpg instead of png.
 * Wikimedia Commons is exclusively for files not under copyright so current manga/light novel covers (under copyright) must never be uploaded there. --KrebMarkt 07:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

Sket Dance
Just to drop you a note that I've started a deletion review on Sket Dance now that it has won the 55th Shogakukan Manga Award. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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

List of The Simpsons billboard gags
Hello, I find this comment that you made in the afd for the page, "way time Simpsons stuff came in line with actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies instead of constantly skating around with content that would be unacceptable for any other series", to be unfair. Those of us in the Simpsons project have worked as hard as we can to try to bring pages up to guidelines, and we have also tried to get rid of some of the cruftier pages (which is not always easy). I'm curious, what are some of these "unacceptable" pages you speak of? -- Scorpion 0422  00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

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


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

I just HAD to look...
I thought I'd pop by and see if that ridiculous lump of flesh known as BF101 swung by; it seems my worst fears were confirmed when I saw your edit history. Time to contact BellSouth again. I blocked the latest range for a year; if he shows up again, I'll do the same. Back to the break. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks and thanks for protecting the musical article :-) He's probably quite happy knowing that his stealing my WIP stuff pissed me off to the point that I moved it all offline. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is a way to properly edit and view things as they would appear on wiki, I'd be very tempted to do the same. Not for any immediate reason, I'd just prefer to work on some things in a way that is a bit more secret then being found via contribs. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You got it. I swear, he's 80% of the reason I'm hitting a wall over here and since BellSouth has apparently done zilch regarding my TOS abuse report, I don't want to edit Simple because blood is going to shoot from my eyes if I see him there. I'm not an admin at Simple and all I can do is rant and rave...and I'm sick of that, believe me. Not to worry, though. I promise to make you my center of attention when I do swing by. If the little freak shows his face, he and his entire IP range are gone from this site, I assure you. Talk to you soon. Keep up the magnificent work. All the best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks and I don't blame you for needing a break. He's annoying enough to make a person think rather violent thoughts about him. Wish Simple could do more to block him, as well as the foreign language ones. Alas, I think MediaWiki continues to decline to do a system wide range block. It may seem extreme, but I think blocking all of the Atlanta BellSouth range would be the only way to really get the company to get off their buts and enforce their policies. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the "violent thoughts" part and I've prayed to think otherwise and for this kid to pull his head out of his Teletubbies-fueled fantasies long enough to feel remorse for the hundreds of wasted volunteer hours and wasted server space he's left in his wake. There are evil children on the loose as sure as there are evil adults.  All I know is that I've done all I can and beyond including offers of mentorship and taking the initiative to contact the IP.  Best I can do is to block a range if he shows up as an anon.  If he signs in, whoever runs a CU can do it.  The idiocy of this sick little boy is appalling, but the silence and apparent lack of interest by MediaWiki may be worse.  It would be unfortunate to block a legitimate user, but one has to break eggs to create an omelette.  Bambifan needs his eggs scrambled and I can't do it myself.  Worse, I'm almost to the point of not caring.  Sad, but true.  Anyway, let's both think pleasant thoughts and when I get back from my break, I plan to return to editing Simple and uploading some photos to Commons.  And yes, I'll have your back now as well as then.  Take care.  :)  Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Owe ya somethin':

Smells like
a dirty sock to me. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it would be worth a filing an SPI to check both Drdkar and Mrdkar (the same type stuff) with that focus on Disney articles. If it isn't brat boy its probably the other one. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 20:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet



 * No worries :-) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And from reading other comments on this page, I didn't realise it went further! matt (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You are the subject of a discussion at WP:ANI
This is not a new editor, so appears unlikely to be Bambi/Disney socking. I note that despite editing for a few years they are not aware of the requirement to notify other parties, or that you are female. I note that their editing is generally related to film subjects, so I am surprised they are not familiar with you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, he did notify me but I removed it. Honestly, I noticed him quite awhile ago and my first thought was User:ItsLassieTime, but they never showed such a crazy interest in making templates. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I didn't check your talkpage edit history. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. How have ya been? Haven't run into you for awhile :-) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good debate
With regards to Ride a Wild Pony, I think you're right and the article won't be much more than it is today in six months. Unlike in real life, on WP - and particularly in deletion debates - I tend to try to stick to the policy/guidelines as closely as I can. I get tired of keep arguments based on emotion, ignorance or a lack of understanding of what this is all about and often find myself arguing delete positions on random articles quite strongly. With this one, I thought there might just be enough for a keep and decided to go at it a bit harder than usual - maybe because of the novelty of having to defend a keep position. In any case, thanks for the good faith debate! I won't take you up on the $20, because if I did, I would probably spend a crazy amount of time trying to prove you wrong! ;) Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for at least finding real sources, versus the usual ARS keeps based purely on their whole "OMG don't you delete anything" shtick. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the two reviews = notability criteria sets the bar a little low. Can imagine that many long-forgotten and otherwise insignificant fims can be too easily defended... Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. Of course, I'm a fairly simple person. Basic guideline is always "significant coverage in third-party sources" which just two reviews really is not it to me. So now we have several films about which we can have two sourced sentences basically showing it exists, then probably 3-4 paragraphs of plot that will usually get added, and nothing else. I'll never understand how anyone thinks that aids Wikipedia.  -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Another BF101, maybe?
Thought you might want to take a look at this edit history ... maybe I'm being alarmist, but I'm starting to hear quacking. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Quacking good and loud too. Reverted, tagged, and reported. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. Knowing that PMDrive is still on a wikibreak, I thought that you might be online and able to look at this. I was trying to give the editor the benefit of the doubt, but going after so many Disney articles at once got me concerned. I've looked at the case file and I don't immediately see this as part of BambiFan's M.O., which is why I'm glad you have the experience to know what to look for. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries and you had good instincts. His last post to his talk page pretty much made it clear you were right on target. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah I saw that one ... a week-old editor wouldn't attempt to call out two particular editors they probably haven't even seen before. ;) Thanks again for your kind words. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep. Now just waiting for an admin to block his talk page. He's done the insult, the death threat, now is demanding I make edits. Like I'd even listen to him. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Anything else I can do to help? I can keep an eye on his talk page and free you up for other activities until it's protected, if needed. Hopefully the protection will hit soon. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Never mind, C.Fred just modified the block provisions.  --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep :-) I have the SPI in to get the IP for possible range block. Personally, I think it would be awesome of Wikipedia would put its foot down and block all of BellSouth Atlanta until they do something about him. He's been reported enough times. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't blame ya for that, but the collateral damage issues are still there. Still, this vandal just won't go away until something drastic is done, I'd wager. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

C.H.O.M.P.S
What does one do about a deletion decision that doesn't take into account Wikipedia policy? With C.H.O.M.P.S, there was not a single valid argument, in my opinion, to keep the article in the context of policy. Many "I like it" and "It has to stay" "arguments", but nothing of any substance. We are told that the deletion debate is not a vote, but it certainly appears that the decision is made from a headcount. Seems very lazy to me... Wikipeterproject (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you are correct. The policy and guidelines say AfD is not a vote, but the large majority of admins will simply count the keeps, even if no actual valid arguments are given. If folks like ARS can round up enough folks to come scream keep and not enough real editors care enough to make legitimate arguments, the AfD ends in keep. Alas, ARS has gotten very good at silent canvassing to most AfDs, particularly any I'm involved with, as they wikistalk and use various tools to track any AfD as a quick "one stop keeyp vote" stop. Very few of them ever actually make legitimate edits to the article nor show any actual valid notability of a topic. They frequently throw out non-RS sources, BS claims of "google hits" and for books "its in X libraries" or "people read it" or "it exists". They do even worse in BLPs. Its starting to reverse some of the progress Wikipedia has made in removing many of these unnotable topics that will never be anything but unsourced stubs, but nothing is really being done about them. They have enough sympathetic admins on their side who will defend them, close AfDs as keep for them, and let them get away with making attack pages and repeated disruptive behaviors that they think they are "winning." Suffice to say, there isn't much one can do about it. You can try a WP:DRV if you agree it should have been deleted, but I suspect it will just end as endorse closure because too many admins lately are either scared to actually enforce policy or are ones raised to admin status by ARS's ilk specifically for the purpose of getting such AfD's kept. Sorry, just a bit bitter and annoyed at the whole thing. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a dumb-newbie question, so pardon my ignorance, but assuming what you say is true, what is the negative impact of that? (i.e. of having a bunch of stubs that are (relatively or entirely) un-sourced or un-notable?  It seems like storage capacity is unlimited and if nobody cares about these articles enough to edit them, fix them, or add references or look at them ever, they just exist in a state of limbo.  I can see that they don't do Wikipedia any good, but I do not yet understand what is the harm or negative aspect to their continued existence that elicts such a strong reaction in some "deletists".  Could you please explain?  thanks.  (I am not arguing, I just want to appreciate the reasons). (P.S. I do understand that lies, libel, nasty accusations or such has no place on WP, that I can see.  What I am unclear about is a stub about a non-controversial topic). For example, CHOMPS looks like a dumb movie and an non-controversial subject for an un-remarkable article, but what harm does it do? (just as an example)--Mdukas (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and in addition to having a core policy of WP:V it has policies and guidelines about what it is WP:NOT. Space is irrelevant, as is reader interest. Unnotable topics do not belong here, anymore than they would belong in any other encyclopedic work. If an article can not be properly referenced and expanded to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, it also does not belong here. Existence along is not a valid inclusion criteria, and Wikipedia is not (and should not be) just another IMDB mirror. They harm Wikipedia by their existence because they cannot be sourced, cannot be expanded, and have no potential to ever be REAL articles. This is different from a stub on a notable topic that simply has not received attention yet. Such stubs have potential and can be more with proper attention. Stubs like this which cannot be reliably sourced to ever do more than prove something exists simply do not belong. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to answer. I do see you all over WP, and I admire your efforts to make improvements to WP in multiple venues.  --Mdukas (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem and thank you. I probably seem like I'm taking a very hard line stance, but its only a matter of time before people use some of the same arguments used in some of these discussions end up resulting in the most random of things being allowed in. By some people's standards used as "keep" reasons in AfDs, I am actually notable enough for a Wikipedia article. At that point, its really a sign that folks are going overboard, ya know? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM is part of a Wikipedia essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It gives some good discussion to Mdukas's question, "what harm can it do?"  Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, not all admins are "populist". We had a really good result with an article on a recent Australian victim of crime, one Herman Rockefeller.  The "vote count" was 10-6 in favour of keep, but the admin (NuclearWarfare) made the call on the basis of the discussion and deleted the article and commented "The keep side has not been able to successfully refute the statements by the delete...".  Need more like that!  Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and yep there are some great admins who really do properly apply consensus and evaluating the arguments in AfDs. Just wish they could close all of them :-P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And, look, Articles for deletion/C.H.O.M.P.S has been reopened for discussion by none other than NuclearWarfare! My faith in collaboration and the Wikipedia project as a whole has rebounded significantly in the last 15 minutes! Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to see it, and wow, I hadn't even noticed the person "closing" it was a non-admin who had no business doing so. It seems he also closed another one I did that shouldn't have been closed as multiple people had said delete. Ugh....I really really wish they would get rid of the whole idea of non-admin closures. I've argued against it in the past for this same reason, but no one listens. :-( -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm astounded that there is such a thing as a non-admin closure - I had just assumed that such responsibility would rest with administrators by default. The delete debates go to the very heart of what Wikipedia is and what it will be in the future.  Odd that a non-admin can make the call.  Is it "just anybody" who can perform a non-admin closure?  Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, pretty much anyone can. See Non-admin closure for the basic framework. Supposedly, they are only supposed to close clear snowball/speedy keeps/redirects/merges, or for housekeeping (like someone withdrew it or the page was already speedied). It used to more explicitly state that if anyone opposes keeping, it can not be closed by non-admins, but that was since removed, and they should only be closed early in a clear snow situation. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support any attempt to change that. I have no problem with clear-cut cases, and understand that anything that can ease the  already heavy workload of administrators and prevent huge backlogs is both good and necessary, but where there is debate, the decision should be made by an administrator.  For me, it's a no-brainer - but that's just me :-)  Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Akiza Izinski
Hi. I am tempted to nominate this for AFD but I am concerned of facing too much hostility. Is this an acceptable article or potentially a valid article? Luna (Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's) too. "Luna tends to get tired right after a duel. She has the ability to communicate with duel monsters after having spent ample time with Duel Spirits in a different dimension while in a coma." All in the opening lines to the article. It means absolutely nothing to anybody other than fans of the series who enjoy having a platform to write about their favourite characters as it is fun. To myself and I'm sure many others it barely legible let alone encyclopedic. I try to keep an open mind to much content on here and conceive that many articles could be consisderbaly improved, I am generally an inclusionist. But articles like these I think have no place in an encyclopedia. If you think of things froma neutral viewpoint and how this article might look to the random encyclopedia user outside of the Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D or even anime context it looks bad. If there is an abundance of reliable sources to write a good article I might be more lenient.... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For dealing with characters, its generally recommended to propose a merge of a trimmed up summary to the appropriate character list first by tagging it and the list and starting a talk page discussion. Usually for an unnotable character (which she certainly appears to be), the project does tend to be good about reaching consensus to do so. We've done so with many other character articles, including many from Dragon Ball. You might find it helpful to look at Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters and its archives for some of the previous merge discussions started for those merges to get an idea of how they are framed. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Something like Jack Atlas. That way we will have a category which can gradually redirected when the project feels like redirecting it in a more casual less antagonistic fashion than an AFD. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 17:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

InuYasha
If I am not mistaken Anime News Network is a reliable source and they often use animeanime.jp as a source for their articles. So if this piece can be used in a Wikipedia article (Karakuridōji Ultimo) then what makes it the actual site unreliable? This revert was not necessary. I know you re-added the content back but why didn't you just merge the information back together? Also about this comment, I haven't used any "low quality" as a guide for the article. All the article whose examples I chosen to follow (Bleach, Soul Eater, and Fullmetal Alchemist) are better written that InuYasha. MS  (Talk | Contributions)  14:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I said specifically that the ANN Encyclopedia is unreliable, not its news. This is per project and Wikipedia consensus. The encyclopedia is user edited and not staff written articles. And yes, those are all low quality article. The first two are only barely C class. FMA is GA, at least, but the one bit you applied from it to InuYasha is not the same. Brotherhood is a complete remake of the anime series, not a straight up sequel that is really just another season. And yes, reverting was easier than trying to smush it together and see what was removed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So all of the sources from ANN should be removed from the article then? Compared to InuYasha those article are in way better shape. I guess you and I just have difference taste when it comes to low quality. MS   (Talk | Contributions)  15:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Being in better shape does not make them good models to follow, particularly two C class. The MoS is the guideline to look at, and GA/FA articles. And again, no. InuYasha does not have any ANN Encyclopedia references in it that need removing. Again, the non-RS is very specifically - ANN ENCYCLOPEDIA, i.e. anything with the url of http://animenewsnetwork,com/encyclopedia, and NOT ANN news articles, reviews, etc. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I never asked you if ANN ENCYCLOPEDIA was a reliable source I was talking about the NEWS articles, that is why I linked it. Did you even bother to click on the link? MS   (Talk | Contributions)  15:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just said, for the fourth time, that yes it is. You asked why I said it was unreliable. I didn't say it was unreliable. I said their news articles ARE reliable. I don't need to click the link to see that. It is a NEWS article. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Things got confusing, so let me make it clearer. ANN new articles are reliable sources, I get that. You tagged the animeanime.jp source questioning its reliability. I linked to the ANN article to show you that they use animeanime.jp as a source and since ANN news articles are reliable sources doesn't that make the site they are using as a source reliable also? MS   (Talk | Contributions)  16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay...so why didn't you just ask that the first time. And no, it does not make all sources they use reliable. ANN itself is a reliable source so it has editorial discretion in choosing its sources. The ANN news article would be a reliable source to use, over the AnimeAnime one, which does not itself appear to meet RS. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did ask the first time... The way I phrase it must have confused everything. Thanks for replying. MS   (Talk | Contributions)  16:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you visit Articles for deletion/Dr paul harrington...
... and review whether it might be a candidate for an early closure? The only reason I ask rather than let the process run its usual course is I'd like the substantial improvement reflected in the article to be eligible for recognition through the Did You Know? process, and by the time the AfD closes naturally it will be too old for DYK. Early closure would appear to be non-controversial in this case but it would require someone of experience who hasn't participated in the debate to make that judgement. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd suspect at this point it would be eligible for a snow close, but as I strongly oppose non-admin closes in any AfD, I'd suggest posting a note at ANI asking for an admin to do a snow close. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits using Cite journal
You forgot the pipe "|" character between "volume" and "issue" in at least two of your edits. (Diffs ) If you are using an automated tool you may wish to inform those who maintain it. -- allen四names 15:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not and that happened because it was the same ref in two articles someone else added. I copy pasted the templated version from one to the other so the mistake carried over. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. -- allen四names 00:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there some auto tool that generates empty cite templates? :-D -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not know of one but I found out about reflinks recently so such a tool may exist. -- allen四names 01:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for butting in on someone else's conversation, but just in case you didn't know, if you go into My Preferences, then Gadgets and select refTools, it adds an additional button in the edit toolbar which gives you a data entry screen to input information automatically into cite templates. Has saved me a bundle of time. Miyagawa   (talk)  19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at that. I remember I looked at that once before but something about it I didn't like. Maybe its better now :-) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK Flag for WPDogs
Thanks for adding the flag on the 101 Dalmatians Musical article. I've asked for it to be automated when the DYK templates are added to the talk page, but it doesn't seem to have happened yet. Miyagawa  (talk)  19:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sam Savitt
My change to the Sam Savitt entry was NOT vandalism. In fact, it was YOUR vandalism that I was trying to correct. And if I could figure out this Wikipedia, I'd fix the damage you did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvink (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your edits were vandalism. You removed validly sourced content to restore unsourced, non-neutral content. That is vandalism. Calling my clean up of a bad article "vandalism" is laughable at best. Would I be correct in presuming you are the IP relative of Savitt trying to fluff his article in inappropriate ways? I think so.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Inchon (film)
Thank you very much for commenting with regard to this matter. Your continued attention at WT:FILMS and at Talk:Inchon (film) would be most appreciated - as (unfortunately) the matter with regard to the other user appears to not be resolved. :( Cheers, Cirt (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. It looks as if things are solved, at least for the article, though I'm not sure why CB seemed so upset and to be taking it very personally. I wish you luck in mending the bridge though I'm still not sure how it got broken.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried. He blanked out his talk page from that thread. Not sure where to go from there. ;( Cirt (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Help me!
Hey on the InuYasha article, someone changed a lot of the info, especially the plot and the info under the manga pic and other parts of the article. I don't know how to revert it and I don't remember all the original stuff that was there. Please help me, my friend. T_T

I have a feeling it's vadalism cuz of the weird names in places of the original.

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Hajiru


 * It was vandalism and has been restored. To revert, If you click the "Cur" Link beside the last good version, you can then click restore to restore it. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much, AnmaFinotera! ^_^

I owe you one. I'll know to do that the next time I see it.

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Hajiru

The Mysterious Cities of Gold
My summaries were not stolen from another website, as I am writing them as I am CONCURRENTLY watching the series. Nor were they useless, if you will notice, because the episode list is actually out of order and my summaries were intended to explain this. There was no copyright infringement. I respectfully request that you reverse your revert. 24.9.152.205 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for that claim? The list is in the correct order. When it first aired in English, a single episode was aired out of order, but that does not mean the episode list is at all wrong. And yes, your summaries were useless, as they were not plot summaries. We don't add notes like "introduces the character" to episode summaries, nor claims that they aired out of order and do we do not do "teaser"-style summaries. Please see WP:MOSTV for how to write a proper episode summary if you want to supply real ones. An episode summary should be between 100-300 words, and cover the major plot points of the series, and remain in plot without out of universe extraneous information added. I've also watched the series, and there was nothing wrong with the flow. Finally, your summaries suffered from an insane amount of wikilink glut. Only wikilink a term or character on the first use, not every use.. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right. I figured that out as I went along.  Otherwise, your characterizations of my efforts are uncharitable, as it was a work in progress.  You pulled the trigger rather quickly, and as a result, I am not going to be the one to write these summaries.  Since you know so much about it, why don't you do it?  24.9.152.205 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Its on my list of things to do. I've done many episode lists. Doing them well takes time, and I currently don't have a computer at home with sound so I can rewatch while I write. That will be fixed in a few weeks. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing new Dragon Ball Kai developments
Funimation has announced the casting for the English dub for Kai known as, Dragon Ball Z Kai. And a few of the cast member have been replaced. For example, Bulma will now be played by Monica Rial instead of Tiffany Vollmer. My question is, can we use Funimation's blog as source for these developments? Sarujo (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Their official blog? Yes, as its used as a "news release" system by the company, unless there is some kind of disclaimer on it that they do not control the content. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

IRC?
I'm currently on #wikimedia on IRC as 'jps' to find out the guidelines for sponsoring development and extensions project. Can you join? 99.22.95.61 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No. I don't do IRC and I can't really help with the question anyway. I just know the post to Proposals did not appear to be on topic or appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please tell me the reasons. You know that Wikiversity was created to house interactive content including quizzes, and that the Foundation sponsors some Mediawiki development, right?  Can you please say which aspects seemed off-topic or inappropriate? 99.22.95.61 (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you propose an edited version which would be acceptable to you? 99.22.95.61 (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

hi
need a bit of help with a certain user. he constantly believes that I'm there to insult or harassing him when he really just doesn't understand. For one, i keep reverting PSUpedia because it's unstable wiki. But he claims that it is. And every time i leave a message at his talk page he threatens to report me>Bread Ninja (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this isn't your job, b ut you would be a great help.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It fails WP:EL and there is no consensus to have it. You may want to ask an admin to have a word with him, as his threats and silly claims of harassment are uncivil, at best. For now, I've removed the link again and left him a warning for edit warring. I see you were already warned by HalfShadow for the same, so I won't repeat. When dealing with contentious editors, you have to try to be careful not to let them draw you into breaking 3RR, even when you are correct, as you will get punished the same as they (speaking from experience here). --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you very much.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Zhang He...
He did stop when I warned him he was edit-warring. Half Shadow  19:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw your note after I warned him. It seems like its been going on for days, though, with the EL just being the last issue of dispute. That isn't good for either of them nor the article. :( -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * the problem is that he doesn't want to listen to me, despite me following the rules. we had an edit war over the links of the characters. and i told him that making non player characters section is just trivia and should talk it over in the discussion page (i told him more than once) but he ignored me and took me personally. then he created a characters article which is just a table. i warned him on his talk page that if he doesn't add more than just a table, the article might get deleted. but he reverted my edit.it is really difficult to talk to this person by myself. also halfshadow, you came in late. edit war was over by the time you messaged me and him. so when you say he "stopped", he already had the last edit. not really stopped, he just didn't have a reason to edit anymore.

anyways.....AnmaFinotera, is it me, or do i remember WP:ELNO a little differently. I'm pretty sure we aren't suppose to use wikis at all due to being almost the same thing as wikipedia but with trivia and no sources. and substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors doesn't sound like something wikipedia would ask for in a external link.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, we aren't. Almost all wikis fail WP:EL, however there are some folks who have begun arguing that having 4 users is "stability" and that 10 is "substantial". -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure what you mean by "nope, we aren't". but yeah, the whole 4 users 10, idea doesn't make sense. usually it takes a lot more than 10 users to be substantial. I wanted to go on WP:EL discussion to see if we can change consensus on it. you think it deserves change?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Figma wiki page
I noticed you've been reverting all my figma edits back to the original post. I've spent an entire day trying to fill the page with info that is both accurate and fairly detailed. I planned on adding more information in the morning, but my edits keep getting reverted back to the same information-less page.

I know the references are in Japanese, but that's only because figmas aren't sold in the United States so there isn't much info in English besides the official website which only lists the products. I know all this information to be true since I follow all updates about this product line and I own over 25 different figmas.

Since I'm new to wiki, I have no idea how to edit these pages correctly so if you could help me out rather than delete all of my hard work, that would be excellent. All I want to do is make this wikipedia page more accurate for anyone out there who might be interested and fill it with relevant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hongkim (talk • contribs) 05:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not for the publication of what you know. That is called original research and it has no place here. You added excessive, unsourced, and minutely detailed information that is not appropriate for inclusion. I have merged some of the content you added. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I added information about the built material and the joints, all of which can be found on the official blog in one of the references I had added. I want to post an image I got from the official website's concept page, but I'm not capable of doing so. The image can be found at http://www.figma.jp/concept/img/04.jpg. Also, I understand that the sources might be in Japanese, but they are legitimate. Also, the only reason why the edit summary wasn't detailed was because I didn't change it after noticing you had reverted it back the first time.

If you find my sources to be unreliable, I invite you to Google for more information on figmas and find out if my information is false or not. All information I have placed can be found on the official Japanese website which I referred to along with in the individual pages of the individual figmas found on the official English site. All information about build quality and joints can be found here http://www.figma.jp/concept/concept.html and further information about the flexible material used for clothing can be found on any figma's product page, such as this one http://www.goodsmile.info/product/en/2774/figma+Yui+Hirasawa+School+Uniform+ver.html where it states in the second bullet "A flexible plastic is used for areas such as the blazer and skirt, allowing proportions to be kept, without compromising posability." It also states that "Specifications Painted ABS&PVC posable figure,not to scale, approximately 135mm in height" further adding to the credibility of what I wrote about the build material.

I removed the extra information about the build quality of the accessories since it is extraneous. Also, I listed the correct Japanese spelling of the product and you reverted it back to the incorrect version. In Japan, Katakana is used for words that are Japanese pronunciations of English words, such as figma or computer. The Japanese spelling I listed is the Katakana version and can be found here http://www.figma.jp/concept/concept.html in the heading after figma. The spelling used in the previous post is the Hiragana spelling which is only used when spelling Japanese words.

I would add images of my own figmas if possible, but I'm not able to so nothing can be done about that. If this wiki page is considered for deletion just because you can't accept official website information as reliable sources, then that is unfair to those who have tried to make a wikipedia page about something they care about. You might as well leave this page up since it's not hurting anyone if it stays there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hongkim (talk • contribs) 06:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The company's name does not need a referene. STOP reverting to your bad version and work with the current one. You are continuing to readd tags that are not necessary and continuing to revert to bad formatting. Again, if you want to make corrections to the name, do it wiht the EXISTING article, not your overly detailed summary. Excessive detail on the joints and quality, from a blog, is not necessary. This article is up for deletion because no one but the company talks about it, and no, we do not just leave articles up because 20 fans like it (and that's about all that ever view it). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for somthing long ago
Hi there, my apologies for when I was, how should I say it, acting stupid with this []. I really was not thinking back then, and now know what a mess it was. PLease, forgive me for those actions.

With all due respect,

Buggie111 (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No problems and glad to see you've registered :-) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember what you said about He-man
You may remember a few months ago we had a debate about overhauling He-man articles well I took the decision to be bold and nominate a few articles for deletion see below if you wanna join in the debate be my guest.

Jitsu (Masters of the Universe), Ninjor (Masters of the Universe), Scare Glow, Clamp Champ, Gwildor

Dwanyewest (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So are you interested? Dwanyewest (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll look at them when I have some time. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Resource Request
Hi AnmaFinotera. Thanks for the effort on the WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request resource request. Unfortunately that was not the article I was looking for, I was looking for one specifically from August of 1990, which is not available in the online archives of Dynamic Chiropractic. Thanks again for the effort. DigitalC (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is the one my library sent in response to the request (also sent in offline form). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Two more Bratsocks
Hello again, AnmaFinotera. I wonder if you could deal with - or pass on to someone who can - two new sockpuppets of the Brat? One at least is active here, editing at 20th Century Fox and elsewhere, i.e. Sega Shaheen. Worked in tandem with the second sock "Chicks67" on 'cy' but doesn't seem to be used here yet. Both now banned at Welsh wikipedia after edits to 20th Century Fox. Best wishes, Enaidmawr (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying something
Thank you for clarifying something at Village pump about when proposals get archived. I now know that it is seven days after a last comment is made regarding a proposal. I had noticed in the past that messages at the Village Pump did not stay there forever - what you say has explained things well. So, many thanks for this clarification. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable anime reviews
Do you know if we have a list of reliable and unreliable review sites for anime and manga? I wanna see if I can build an article for Haruko Haruhara. Sarujo (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, look at the top of the project page. There is a link for internet sources which indicate which have been validated as reliable and some that have been confirmed unrelible. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Romeo Must Die Soundtrack
Is there a logical reason as to removing an article that listed important information on the Romeo Must Die soundtrack? If anything, merging separate information on a soundtrack into a poorly written and condensed section wasn't necessary and made a mess of things. Please explain why as I had planned to undo that change and would like to know why you merged it?Carmaker1 (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The soundtrack is not notable. Per guidelines, it was merged to the appropriate film article. This is per consensus of both the music and films project for handling such soundtracks. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the FA nomination for the film The Rookie (1990 film)
A well intentioned newbie editor nominated the Rookie (Eastwood/Sheen) for FA (second time), and it was again archived fairly quickly. The editor doesn't seem to have a grasp of what the film project is trying to accomplish with the articles, argued with reviewer comments, etc. You can see the archive here. I doubt this particular film is high on the priority list, but someone might drop in on this and take a look at what he's trying to do. Both Adewit and I told him the same things, which he didn't want to hear, and he insists that there were no themes of note, etc., to discuss, that he covered all the reviews (the review section is a hash). I have fixed some of the problems on punctuation and capitalization, but he really doesn't have a good grip on these things (when to capitalize a word, for example, at the beginning of a sentence....? Or how to put things in quotes. He seems to want to do the right things, but doesn't know how to go about it. I saw your name on the film project, and remembered you as being a reasonable woman from our contact in another project/article (not sure what).  Hence my dropping this note here.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While the article is not FA quality (IMDB is not a reliable source at all, unsourced content, aforementioned prose issues), a section on themes and style is not required. If no significant sources covered the themes, then there are no themes to note. To try to add them without sources would just be OR. It looks like there has been some attempt at adding themes, but the article is not following WP:MOSFILMS. Themes has nothing to do with production, and should be moved below plot. It is also inappropriately using the film itself to support original research and those "themes". The article is also clearly not comprehensive as there are hundreds of mentions of this film on Google books, particularly in Eastwood-focused works, that have not been evaluated and added to the article. It looks like Mike Allen is stepping in to help, but I'll also note these comments on the talk page as well as a few other notes. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Rookie
Hi, I've made some minor corrections on the page; like removing the "themes" title and removing some bits of OR. I have plans to include a great deal more content to the production section within the next few days. Will that include "hundreds of books or publications"? The answer is No. I don't have the time or resources to do that. I will do my best to try to improve it through some featured magazines in print from the early 90s, and then I'll take it to Peer Review for a copy-edit and advice before a 3rd shot at FA. We'll see what happens. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Alrighty. Keep in mind, though, that for FA, one of the criteria is "comprehensiveness" so if reviewers feel that major sources have been left out, it will not pass. It can take quite awhile to do an FA level article, primarily because of the amount of source reviewing and gathering it requires. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I just wanted to say one other thing on something you mentioned earlier. You were saying how the critical response section should not be positive and negative paragraphs and be generally in chronological order. Well, I changed the formatting a little bit by breaking it into 3 medium sized paragraphs, and taking out pieces of OR along with it. I tried not to imply like its two separate mediums between positive and negative. In addition, I mixed a little of both types of views within the paragraphs. But in reality, over 90% of reviews for the film were negative. And chronologically, if I understood what you meant, all the reviews were submitted around the same time on that first weekend of December in 1990. I hope it looks better and a little more cleaned up. Its pretty much the best I could do with it. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For chronologically, basically by publication date. If several have the same, then just arrange in whatever way reads best. Mixing them up is good, and its being primarily negative is fine (see Grizzly Rage LOL). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm pretty much finished with that. I think I did a good job. I mixed up certain reviews that had content which sounded similar. Like for instance, I bunched up two reviews, positive and negative regarding the subject of "buddy cop films". I also bunched up two positive and negative reviews surrounding the topic of a "plausible dumb sounding plot". And as one last example I bunched up two critics who had positive and negative reviews on the film's "stuntwork". And chronologically as you said, indeed 95% of these reviews were released on the same weekend in 1990. I also forgot to mention one other issue you brought up. It has to do with the sourcing involving IMDb. I checked this myself, and out of about 44 citations, only 5 are referenced from IMDb. And one of those five, was partially referenced with another source too. So its like 4 citations out of 44 that use IMDb. I realize that its not the best source, but it doesn't appear to be a major cause for concern. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * IMDB is never a reliable source, so it is a cause for concern. Having unreliable sources can really be worse than having none because it gives casual editors the false impression that it is sourced. They need to be removed for the article to get to B class or higher. All of those should be removed and the sources replaced. The article can never past GA nor FA with them there. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hahah hah haha HA HAh HAh ............... Well thats going to be a problem. I don't know where I can re-source those facts. For the time being, I don't want to remove them. It might make the article look a little dry. But I will remove that partially referenced one....lOl....Mike Tompsonn (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * NEW RESPONSE  Hey, I have some Good News and some Bad News. Good news is, from the 4 IMDb citations, I was able to get rid of 3 of them! I resourced it through the DVD. Check out the page now. Bad news is, I still have one IMDb reference left! ....lOl.....I'm hoping through my magazine research I can clear that one out too. But it will take a few days. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)