User talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive 3

Question
Hi, could you tell me what parts of Rurouni Kenshin require clean up? Thanks.--Tintor2 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The things I noticed that caused me to tag: The MOS needs to be applied to get the sections in order and better formatted. The character section should either be prose or a bulleted list with 1-2 sentences per characters. Summary renamed to Plot or Synopsis (and expanded to cover major plot points from beginning to end). The Origin needs to be renamed to Production. Reception moved above Media. The sections on sakabatō and Hiten Mitsurugi-Ryū seem completely out of place. I'd suggest they be moved to Kenshin's character article. The media section should be ordered chronologically. The novel section needs formatting. Either the movie needs a separate section like the OVAs, or they should all be in the anime section. Right now it looks inconsistent. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you also check Edward Elric? I have been trying to clean it up but I would like some advice. Sorry for bothering. There is no hurry ^_^.Tintor2 (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

About the Hiten mirsurugi ryu, Kenshin maybe the most famous users but there are some more in the series incluiding his teacher, a filler character and Yahiko imitating it. The sakabato is also used by Yahiko in the end of the manga.Tintor2 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. However, for the sakabato, at least, its passing to Yahiko is one of the final scenes, so it can go into Kenshin's article with a note on Yahiko's, I'd think. For the Hiten style, I'm not sure. Kenshin is the main user, with his teacher and the filler being only a short time apperances.  Yahiko combines it with the Kamiya-style into his own thing, so part of it could also be noted in his article. In either case, both seem very out of place where they are now...not sure how else they could be incorporated into the main....AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. ThanksTintor2 (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And I forgot, do you have any advice to me with Edward Elric? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, waited to look at that this evening after work ;) It looks like its on the right track. Section formatting is good. The main thing is filling in the real world stuff (creation/concept and reception), and working on sourcing everything in the fictional sections. :-) AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Conception is something that I have been looking for a lot. I couldnt find anything in different interviews of the author and in my country they dont sell the databook of fullmetal. Do you know any user that is related with fullmetal a lot? Thanks (again ^_^.--Tintor2 (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately no. Its been a relatively neglected set of articles of late. May want to ask in the project to see if anyone has the book. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will.Tintor2 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Due to its length I have added the 60 day trigger and box in Talk:List of Saint Seiya characters. Its the first time I make one, could you check if its ok? Also, I have been making Rurouni Kenshin per your advices, I will keep with it later.Tintor2 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, code looks good :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Imges of Naruto Charecters
I added some external links of different Naruto Charecters yesterday. And those links were removed and my contribution was marked as vandalism. I am the owner/Admin of that linked site. What should i do to show that i am the owner of that site? And I added those links because there is no proper or bigger image of each characters. Please let me know.

Jeehan Ahmad (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the links were removed because it is considered spam and linking to copyright violating sites like yours is against Wikipedia policy. The links do not belong and will continue being removed if added to any Wikipedia article as vandalism. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your GA assessment of Karas
Hi, thank you for assessing Karas (anime). I agree the lack of tertiary sources is major enough to fail the article, but would like you to clarify other points. I think this would help others to improve their anime articles (or get an inkling of what is to be avoided at the least). Please check my comments following your GA Review. Thank you. — [ Unsigned .]


 * But of course :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

a question for ya.....
You write "This user prefers Internet Explorer." Yet you also write that you use Firefox. In my experience, the only people who use Firefox are those who distrust the Active X controls in Internet Explorer. What are your reasons for using both? NBahn (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I use Internet Explorer for most of my net browsing. I prefer IE's features and feel in several areas. I also browse with IE locked down, so Active X and other security issues are not as much of a problem. :P I started editing with FireFox because Twinkle and Friendly do not work with IE and I wanted to use them.  Editing on Wikipedia is the main time I have any desire to use tabbed browsing as well, which I find annoying while doing regular surfing, but quite useful for checking sources, doing bulk assessments, etc.  At this point, I probably use IE and Firefox about 50/50, and I'm usually using them at the same time with me editing and researching for Wikipedia in IE and doing everything else in IE. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

whose authority?
Just a question on the Inuyasha synopsis, which i consider to be very missing some introductory fundamental points, which include the act of inuyasha's and Kagome's initial betrayal which sparks the series. On what grounds do you feel my additions to be vandalism, and on what authority do you have to put a bot up that automatically replaces anyone's changes back to what you want? I don't mean this as an insult, but at first glance, it doesn't seem fair that only you can make changes to an article unless you were given some sort of special priviledge from wikipedia.summguy1 (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not the only one who can make changes to an article, obviously. Several regular editors work on that article, as do the occasional random editor. In fact I rarely do much editing to it at all, primarily watching it for vandalism and foolishness. I do not have any kind of bot. Bots only revert vandalism when its blatantly obvious, based on word usage or totally blanking the pages. Your edits were considered vandalism because you continued readding excessive plot detail after it was removed multiple times with the explanation that is was unnecessary, excessive, and badly written. We do not do blow by blow plot summaries, we do actual summaries. The full events between Inuyasha and Kikyo are already more and adequately covered in both of their articles as well as in the more detailed episode and chapter summaries. Perhaps you should take the time to learn more about editing on Wikipedia before making so many incorrect assumptions and before continuing to try to force in unwanted additions. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As soon as I added the change to the synopsis, I linked back to the article and noticed it wasn't there, immediately right after I added it. I thought at first that my changes weren't saved. after a couple of tries, I went to the history section and noticed they were manually removed. I figure you were monitoring this article and have the original text saved and replaced my additions with it as soon as you saw a change, because in a matter of seconds, my additions were reverted back. If I am incorrect please give a reason how this was done. Also, the additions A made to the synopsis are not "vandalism", and the fact that you call it that is somewhat insulting. Since iSwant to add to the synopsis but my changes are being removed, please advise me how I can do so.summguy1 (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are very much incorrect as to how it was done. I simply undid your removal. That is a very basic and simple function of Wikipedia. When I notice someone doing what you were doing, namely putting back changes you were already told was inappropriate, I will keep a close eye on that article so such changes can immediately be reverted. Your additions to the synopsis are unwanted, as you were told multiple times. They will continue to be removed if you continue trying to bloat the main article. As noted above, detailed plot summaries are already covered in other pages of the article. In the main article, we only have a brief summary of the series not a blow-by-blow summary. This is in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.


 * Also, before leaving comments in a discussion you have no clue about, such as you did here, perhaps you should bother yourself to actually learn more about Wikipedia policies. Despite that person's question, a very detailed message had already been left on his talk page explaining that under no circumstances are links to websites that violate copyrights appropriate additions to an article. He just doesn't want to comply because he thinks its okay to spam articles with links to his website. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * he did not realize it, and you felt you had the right to remove someone's changes without giving a reason. Again, somewhat insulting. Regardless, my changes are not vandalism, and you have given no reason why you feel that they are. Please do so, or please permit me to add to the synopsis.summguy1 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then read my reply again, because I have already explained why your changes were called vandalism. You continued putting them back after they were removed with an explanation as to why they were not appropriate. And no, your addition to the synopsis will not be permitted. It violates our MOS and WP:PLOT, is excessive, and detracts from the quality of the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like you think this article is yours and all contirbutions must be approved by you first, regardless of the rules. Quoting the rules today in this talk section doesn't justify your removal yesterday of a contribution with the reason "vandalism" when A. it's not and B. That's not the reason why you removed my contribution (and you don't even address the additions I made in accordance to the rules you quote, which BTW I firmly disagree on. my additions do not violate the Wiki rule you quoted, but I don't wish to get in a rule debate with you on this page). Your edits either discourage those who wish to actually contirbute real content or otherwise instigate more vandalism. While i don't care much whether my own contributions are added or not, when I see an article commandeered and controlled by an individual, it leads me to suspect that wikipedia isn't as free as i thought. summguy1 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your contribution was only called vandalism when you continued doing it after being told not to. At that point, yes, it is vandalism. I do not think the article is mine at all, however contributions to Wikipedia are monitored and must comply with our policies and guidelines. At the bottom of every edit box is the statement "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." and this is very true. Wikipedia is not free as in "you can do whatever you want." Yes, anyone can edit, but you are not alone and other editors may change your edits to fix issues or remove them if they are not appropriate for the article. That is part of being a Wikipedia editor. Excessive plot details is not "real content."  Our focus is not on the minute fictional details but on the real world aspects of the series. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify why i initially posted this, the inuyasha synopsis currently does not mention the initial betrayal or inuyasha and kagome. It is not mentioed later in the plot section. How inuyasha and Kagome initially fall in love and their betrayal of each other. This gives the reason why Kagome seals inuyasha to the tree. My contribution was adding this part to the initial synopsis. It is part of the key plot of inuyasha and i believe it is necessary to understand what inuyasha is doing pinned to the tree at episode 1. When i added this contirbution, it was immediately removed by AnmaFinotera, and i recieved a message after trying to add it four times that my contribution was vandalism and that i was on warning.summguy1 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't need it. That is what the episode, chapter, and character articles are for. It is not critical to understanding every last aspect of the earlier events to understand the series. Also, Kagome didn't seal Inuyasha to the tree, Kikyo did. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your correction. As for your edits, I don't wish to get into an edit war with you, and this will be my final post. one might argue that your removal of my contribution is the real vandalism here. I could make a bot that would continually try to add my contribution indicating that you are committing the vandalism, and you could do the same to remove mine, but that wouldn't get us anywhere, and i don't care enough. After all, this is Inuyasha, we're talking about, and I have a full-time job and don't have the time to spend bickering with you on the validity of a contribution to an anime article on wikipedia. Clearly this is more important to you than me. I hope you find some sort of satisfaction in it. summguy1 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you couldn't. Bots have to be approved by an administrator to run on Wikipedia. An attempt to use an illegal bot would result in permanent blocking from editing. As for the rest...it isn't really needed remarks. I also have a full-time job, so what? And yes, I take a great deal of pride in working Wikipedia, and I'm satisfied when my efforts pay off. I enjoy working on articles and work hard to bring articles up to high standards. I rejoice when several articles I worked on reached featured status and I hate to see low quality articles suffering from neglect. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility
This edit summary is totally and completely inappropriate. You are not allowed to disregard Wikipedia's policies just because you have an opinion; a lot of people have worked hard on that article, and you have just slapped them all in the face open-handed. Are there problems? Absolutely. But there are countless ways to point out those problems without making this whole project emotionally painful for others to participate in. Show some basic respect. --Masamage ♫ 21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Shrug. It may not be worded the most politely it could be, but isn't totally and completely inappropriate. It is not a B class article in any way shape or form. Similar articles have been AfDed from other series, showing it is inappropriate and useless.Sorry if I get frustrated with people running around giving their article B ratings when they aren't, which to me is disrespectful to the project and to those who actually work to create B class articles.


 * As for your note on the project talk page: "Meanwhile, I suspect that if you, AnmaFinotera, put half the energy into actually editing these articles that you do into aggressively insulting them we might make some real progress."


 * I'm sorry, but my experiences with the project so far have made me a bit bitter and disillusioned to the idea. I doubt attempts to really clean up the articles would actually be allowed, considered the fight from the project to actually argue that fansites and sites distributing illegal downloads are reliable sources and perfectly fine to link to. I honestly don't believe the project should even be allowed to exist, and if there were a process to do so, I'd recommend it be forced to be dismantled and, at best, made a work group under the Anime and Manga project. But that won't happen, anymore than it will happen with the Gundam project. I've yet to see any sign that the project is making any real attempt at making Sailor Moon articles good articles that follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, rather than what it is now: a fancruft filled set of articles of little encyclopedic value. So I, instead, will concentrate on working on those articles where clean up can be done and the potential to take the articles to FA and FL quality exists, such as Tokyo Mew Mew. It had quite a few of the same issues as the Sailor Moon articles and the clean up is taking a lot of work and time, but its worth it, to me. Fortunately, most of the editors involved support the work as they realize it is necessary to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I look forward to it being a featured topic one day. I put a ton of energy editing articles, ridiculous amounts really along with time. I've learned not to waste my time on some though. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are 100% wrong about the project resisting change. We have restarted these articles time and again to try to be better, but every time we get through about five of them the guidelines change again, so we have to start over, and meanwhile the ones we never had time to get to just lag behind. This is unfortunate, but it's also a completely normal process of events, and it has nothing to do with people being insane, stupid, or whiny. Your assertion that we're unbending or clingy about this stuff is downright insulting. I have personally rewritten some of these articles from scratch as many as three times. I have thrown away old sections (many that I wrote) that didn't fit. I have spent hours finding images and then deleting them because of tightened fair-use rules.
 * I'm not some kind of rebel, and neither are the other editors; you have no right to saunter in at the eleventh hour and declare that everything was stupid until you showed up. It's just bloody hard to keep track of this many articles. That's why it needed a project, and the improved organization has helped immeasurably. Here is the "Ami Mizuno" article before the WikiProject was formed. If you don't think there's been improvement, hard work, and drawing-closer to the guidelines, then I do not know how to communicate with you. (You might also find it educational to look at the others from that era. They're absolutely nothing alike--except that they all talked about yuri fanfiction and were mostly lists. Oh, and every single minor villain used to have their own article. Also many of the items.) The fact that it's called a WikiProject and not a Work Group is pure technicality, because it was founded before work groups existed. We certainly look to WP:ANIME for overarching guidelines and goals; the name is kept purely out of a sense of identity.
 * Your experiences have been unfortunate, but you're just one person, you haven't been paying attention to us very long, and you've let your treatment by a small handful of our members mutate your entire perspective on what's going on. Back off a little and try to remember we're all after the same goals here. --Masamage ♫ 03:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "try to remember we're all after the same goals here" hmmm...perhaps you should tell the rest of your members that. I have seen all of 2, maybe 3, so far who actually seem to believe what you state: that the group is still under the Anime and Manga project and should follow the AM MOS, and one of those is you. Let's look at Sailor Moon (English adaptations), since that was one that caused this discussion. It is extremely NPOV, with very little in the way of reliable sourcing. What sources exist are mostly fansites. The EL section has inappropriate links, including COPYVIO violations. I tagged the article for having original research, being non-neutral, and to question its notability. The notability tag was removed rather quickly, despite the fact that two other such pages for series that had the same adaptation issues (Tokyo Mew Mew and Cardcaptor Sakura) were deleted in AfDs not so long ago. The reason for removing "This article is pretty notable, judging on the fact that the English adaption is well remembered for being twisted so much." which has nothing to with notability on Wikipedia at all, and gives undo and unfair focus on the issue. Would you say such an article is an appropriate thing for the Sailor Moon pages?


 * Am I to believe it is really necessary to have FIVE story arc articles (story arcs which are not declared within the main series), in addition to an episode list, instead of just having a nice, normal episode list with good summaries? Worse yet, the episode list actually has a fansub as a reference as well as a glut of unnecessary external links??? Are efforts being made to fix those up as well so the series has a more proper episode list, or is the current one considered okay? I don't see any discussions in the project on fixing up anything. Recent discussions include arguing against the copyvio issue I brought up, trying to figure out how to add OR regarding Usagi's name changes, noting the official website was changed, and of course the template issue. When notice was posted about the updates to FICT, I see no discussion on how to bring pages into compliance at all. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunno why.....
.....but it seems as though user:Hazelcake may -- just may -- be inching towards an edit war with you on the Fruits Basket article page.

NBahn (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They may try, but I only AGF the first time. Changes now will be considered vandalism unless they prove their claim. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * i dont know how to use talk or whateve you might call this bit atm, so bear with me if this is written wrong or something basically i would like to mention about the fruits basket thing, that there definately IS one reference to the baseball cap in the anime. I have watched this series hundreds and hundreds of times and im completely sure that its in there somewhere. To find you the exact episode would take me an extremely long time ¬¬ i will find it if you really do need it, but i dont see why you cant just accept that its in there? >< im not trying to be rude or anything but its kinda annoying me ^__^; i forgot to sign in so this isnt posted under my user, sorry -hazelcake 90.206.192.39 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because I have also seen the series multiple times, and I don't remember any reference to the baseball cap. Wikipedia requires things be verified. Since you are making the claim, it is up to you support that claim by giving the exact episode where this single reference occurs. You may want to read the Wikipedia tutorial. Here is the page regarding how to use talk pages: Tutorial (Talk pages) AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mew Mew-related
The Chimera Anima seemed to be too major for the show to be merged...especially with there being a whole lot of them that won't fit on the character page. If you'd like, you can contribute seperate articles to this Wikia: http://tokyomewmewpower.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page It's in need of articles. Rtkat3 (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't too major to be merged, or it won't be once appropriately cleaned up. Such level of fan detail can go in that wikia, if you want to transwiki it before the merge. And thanks, but no, I have no desire to work on such wikias. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference Library request
Could I please trouble you to look up your copy of "The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917" for Sailor Moon-related information? -Malkinann (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll take a look when I get home this evening and let you know what it has. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers. :) Please don't feel like I'm rushing you, or that it has to be done right this minute - just whenever you've got some time to spare on it. -Malkinann (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries :) Meanwhile, if you have access to a copy, I'd highly recommend checking out "Anime explosion!: the what? why? & wow! of Japanese animation." As I recall, it has a whole chapter on Sailor Moon. My local library carries it so I can get it if you don't. I got a ton of great production info from it for The Vision of Escaflowne and need to get it back to finish the film anyway. ;) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ohh, really?? Awesome!!! :D  Unfortunately, I can't get my hands on a copy, (and it doesn't seem to be in the WP:ANIME reference library...) but thanks for the heads-up and offer.  :) -Malkinann (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When I go check it out again (or finally buy a copy LOL), I'll let you know and get the info to you. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, it has nearly a page worth of stuff, including the start as Codename Sailor V, commentary on the various seasons through Stars with summaries and some ratings and reception info. It also mentions teh movies, and comments on the failure of the English dub. I can scan both pages and save as a PDF, if you want, so you can through as I suspect it would be useful in several articles as there is also some character commentary. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooooh, yes please!!! :D -Malkinann (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here ya go :) Hope it helps! AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks heaps!! :D Would I cite it like this using cite book? Are there any chapter titles? Is that a full enough citation? -Malkinann (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, no real chapter titles beyond front and back matter. Slightly tweaked version I used to cite it:

Thanks :D -Malkinann (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Carrie
I noticed that you removed the WikiProject TV tag from the film article's talk page. I think it was there because it was a TV movie. Is there a different reason why the tag shouldn't be included? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Woops. I think I did it confusing it with the other Carrie movie, then forgot to put it back after realizing it was a failed TV pilot. I've put it back now. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks. :) Hope that the other editor is amicable to dialog about plot information in that article. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

reflist
Where does it say that it is only appropriate to use the template only if there is more than 10 references? -Mike Payne (T &bull; C) 01:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See FN. When there are 0-10 references,  formatting creates text the same size as the tag, which is discouraged per WP:SIG, and effects surrounding text. Thanks, -  auburn pilot   talk  03:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, done. Never seen that page before. Be useful if it were linked from the preferences section since I was looking around for Sig guidelines quite awhile before just making do. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, much better. Thanks. Linking the guideline from within the preference section about sigs wouldn't be a bad idea. I know the first time I tried to create a signature, it violated all kinds of things (it was truly horrendous). Thanks again, - auburn pilot   talk  04:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Iggy, again.
I'm not sure, but do you think that something from this url link could be used in the article? The &#39;&#39;Gorgeous Girl&#39;&#39;!!! (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I took a look but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with Iggy? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Himura Kenshin and other stuff
I added to the main Rurouni Kenshin article videogames and soundtracks info, so I guess some merges could be done. Also, did something happened with the copyeditor that was supposed to help in Himura Kenshin? I remembered he copyedited conception and lead. Well, regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Been wondering that myself. She never finished copyediting Wolf's Rain either, and I finally just dropped its GA nom (the person who put it on hold for GA review also disappeared). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But are you going to nominate it again? And what about the merge of the soundtracks and the videogames?--Tintor2 (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm finishing up the merges now. Probably not on Wolf's Rain, at least not anytime soon. I'm going to wait until I've been able to clean up the character and episode lists, and can fix up the character section more, before trying again. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think somebody may give a little copy edit hand to the Sagara Sanosuke, if I ask that in the Wiki project?Tintor2 (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe. Someone somewhere mentioned a new resource for finding copyeditors...let me see if I can find it. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So?Tintor2 (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think Fullmetal Alchemist is ready for a peer review? If so, could you create it?Tintor2 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Should be, but what goal should I note? GA or straight to FA? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I cant deal to make a FA due to my English, GA would be easier.--Tintor2 (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, to go for GA or FA, it would need a copy edit. I'll post the peer review. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey AnmaFinotera, I need advice, Im making the list of Dragon Ball manga chapters here but there is a problems. In Japan the volumes were published as 42 volumes called Dragon Ball, while Viz Media released the series in a different way. They released the first 16 vols with the name of Dragon Ball and the volumes 17-42 were titled Dragon Ball Z, starting since one. Thoughts?Tintor2 (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I would recommend just noting the change in title in the lead. Could possibly break the section list into two subsections. Does the story actually change significantly at volume 17? And sourced reasons for why Viz added the Z to the name? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, its not very different, in fact volume 17 ends with the story arc of volume 16. I dont know why Viz changed the titles, but they did according to the sources of my sandbox, (check English sources in my box).--Tintor2 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If its not different, then a mention in the lead is all that's needed. :) From what I read on ANN, it looks like Viz renamed it because the Dragon Ball Z anime starts with the events in the 17th volume. The Shonen Jump page for DBZ confirms this. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So should I make subsection 1-16 and another 1-26?--Tintor2 (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...probably, yes. Since the division will be the more well known amongst English readers, do one subsection for Dragon Ball and one for Dragon Ball Z, then note the reason for the rename in the lead. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice^_^, are you going to redirect the Dragon Ball Sagas? I remember some kind of conversationTintor2 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Which Sagas? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of these.Tintor2 (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh, these episode lists are such a mess! I may have ended up doing some double redirects. You might want to go behind and check to make sure they are right, since I don't watch the series. Some may also be off due the screwed up episode list structures. List of Dragon Ball episodes is not an actual episode list at all. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks, I think to continue with Myojin Yahiko, since tomorrow. Next time I ll ask copyedit before nominating.Tintor2 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me :) At this rate, we might even end up with an RK featured topic before its over with ;) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here its an old version of the list of characters of the Rurouni Kenshin characters. I deleted the the one-episode characters, but it stil needs a big clean up. Thoughts?Tintor2 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Its pretty long :P I think the organization might need a little work, and probably some more of the characters can come out, but certainly a good start. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to delete any character.--Tintor2 (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * From the sandbox I mean, I cant think what character to delete so I ll leave that to you (maybe some minor like gensai and those two girls from the anime?)--Tintor2 (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try to go through it later to see which ones can come out. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Category needs cleanup
Ever since you redirected Majin Boo Saga, a couple of the links in Category:Dragon Ball sagas needed a revise of their own. Do you have time to sort through these? I still have a long watchlist to check. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let the bot take care of the double redirects? :P For the episode lists, I've asked for help with those in the projects, cause merging the split lists and fixing names/formats is a big task. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I do remember something like that on my watchlist. Where is the discussion exactly? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk:List of Dragon Ball episodes for the discussion I started, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga for the call for help :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * List of Dragon Ball GT episodes done. Needs another check, and missing some English translated and some transliterated titles, but much better I hope :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for updating the GT pages. Wish I could help, it's just that (for some reason) I have no inspiration to edit those articles. Can you come up with a different phrasing for Sano, as discussed here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm suprised I got the inspiration to tackle it this morning. I just meant to take a look to see what each page was using :P Yep, will work on the Sano phrasing soon as I can remember which volume Sano talks about why he became a fight merchant in (or find it; should be one of the first ones). Probably not until later this afternoon/evening though.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hate to sound like a broken record but have you the time to make that edit to Sano? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * okay...finally done :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Do you think Fireball (manga) should be proded? Doesn't appear WP:NOTABLE. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, though gotta give the creator two points for adding "it is notable because" :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, want to weigh in on the discussion at Talk:List of Dragon Ball Z episodes regarding the redirecting of the plotty saga pages back to the episode pages as they were redunant and violated WP:PLOT and WP:FICT. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I did stumble upon that conversation. User:Ynhockey didn't seem too civil there eh? I would join in, but don't have an opinion on the subject. What would you want me to say? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, not our first meeting, unfortunately. Just wanted a third opinion from someone from the project, on whether the saga pages belonged. :) Still need to work on merging that list with its dubbed. GT is merged, but need to add in the missing titles. Took me 3 hours to do GT...wonder how long Z will take LOL -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Bleach character cleanup
See this discussion. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 02:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments left. Any thoughts on Link's desired changes in DBZ and his claims that the MoS violates Wikipedia's naming guidelines? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Episode summaries are original research
Un-cited episode summaries are original research. They have no basis, besides fan created speculation. Therefore, they deserve removal based on Wikipedia's original research policy's clause: This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.. Please refrain from vandalizing Wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.39.120 (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they are not. They are fully in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They are sourced from the primary material. The only vandal here is use. If you continue vandalizing Wikipedia and being disruptive, you will be blocked. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide primary source material. Forming an episode summary requires an opinion on what is important in a specific episode. It is subjective and OR. Also, please provide a link to the policies and guidelines that pertain to this issue. Thank use for your time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.39.120 (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We do not put citation tags on episode summaries, nor regular plot summaries. It is the overwhelming consensus of Wikipedia that its unnecessary. The source is implicit to the primary source. Episode summaries are neither subjected nor OR. Te page you quoted, WP:PSTS, also includes this: "For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge..." Episode summaries are descriptive claims, not OR. When to cite expands on this: "Plot of the subject of the article – If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details." Also on many other pages and its been discussed dozens upon dozens of times with the same conclusion, plot summaries do not need sourcing and are not OR. This is also shown extensively in our featured articles on various fictional works, and their featured episodes lists. Plot summaries do NOT need citing. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In this case, can you explain to me how someone can view the two relevant sources--the One Piece manga and anime--and not come to the conclusion that some episodes in the anime are not based on the chapters in the manga? It's implicit in the media that either story arcs appear in the manga or they don't.129.210.39.120 (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I figured you were doing this just to be pointy. An episode summary is a description of the work. Comparing two works is synthesis and OR. A descriptive plot summary with no interpretative statements does not require sourcing, and is not OR. Saying episode X is based on manga Y is not a description, its a declaration and interpretation that requires sourcing, same as saying anime X is based on manga Y. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you can write an article based on one source, but not multiple sources? 129.210.39.120 (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not what I said, and you know it. If you are only going to keep arguing just to argue, I'm not going to bother with talking to you. You don't seem to actually want to learn or understand anyway, just try to justify adding back the filler labels. Suffice to say, if you try to add them back, or remove the plot summaries again, you will be blocked from editing at all. Being disruptive just to make a point is also considered vandalism.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Comparing two works is synthesis and OR." Quod erat demonstratum. 129.210.39.120 (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Genres
Do you know enough YuYu Hakusho to have an idea about the genres? For instance I think including occult detective is fine, but the other editor there doesn't think so. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, no. Never seen or watched it at all. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your delisting of Jump Square
I believe that you are the one who needs to review the GA process as your undiscussed delisting appears to contradict the process. Please see guideline #4 here which states that you need to allow time for the editors to respond. Thanks.--Finalnight (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, when an article very clearly fails GA and was inappropriately passed, a quick delist is allowed, especially if the issues can not be fixed quickly. This has been confirmed before (see the talk page, discussion is still there). The sweeps task force, in fact, also delists the same way for blatantly non-GA articles like this. I am extremely familiar with GA, thanks, and your passing of this article was beyond wrong. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi AnmaFinotera! To be honest, I don't think it should have gotton a GA rating, the referencs are totally my bad. But I don't think it should be Start class... but that's just me! I'm cool with it ^_^. Anyway thanks for coming to help on the page. I would need some help right about now.

P.S. I will get some references on the JC SQ. Comics section, I can actually get references everywhere... easily! Well, maybe a few sections have hard to find references, but it's all good. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 17:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi and glad to know you agree that it shouldn't have gotten GA. Unfortunately, there is a huge range of stuff in Start class (they are talking about making a C class to go between start and B). Its not quite B class do to the organization issues and lack of references. As more clean up is done, it should be relatively easy to get it to B. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I gave JC SQ. some references. : ) –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. You may want to take a look at some other magazine articles as well, to get ideas on content and formatting. I know there is a basic MoS as well, but darned if I can remember where it is at the moment. I used it as a guide in redoing and structuring Shojo Beat though. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow you did a great job on the page! It's pretty much flawless, are you trying to get it to a GA? The reason I want to make Jump SQ. a Good Article is because I've come to a notice that most of the Jump articles aren't very good (especially Business Jump).... neither is really any other manga magazine article. ~_~ So with Jump SQ. I wanted to make a change to that, so I started with a very crappy article, started by making lists in those fancy boxes, History, Supreme Yomikiri Series, etc., and there you have it! –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 15:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) I would like to get it to GA one day. I'd like to expand it a little more, if I can, and needs copyediting and a peer review before it would be ready though. And agreed on the other mags. Magazine and company articles are some of the projects most neglected ones, unfortunately. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, people only care about the series.... which is a shame. Maybe you should add a section bout how people think that Shojo Beat is the female version of Weekly Shonen Jump, which is abviosly not true. Trust me a lot of people think that. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep. I've been slowly working on cleaning up the Tokyopop, A.D. Vision, and Viz Media articles. I plan to add in a reaction section, if I can find some reliably sourced comments about it. Its sales pale in comparison to Shonon Jump so far, but still not doing to bad, I think. :) (says the person who owns every last issue since it debuted LOL) Need to see if anyone has done any discussions about Viz's failures with the Shojo Beat anime line, versus the seeming success of the manga.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh my gosh! AD Vision, and TOKYOPOP are train wrecks! Well I guess it's not as bad as the Japanese translation on Me & My Katamari (Boku no Watashi no Katamari Damashii), it said it was translated to My My Clump Spirit and My Clump Spirit of Mine. Yikes! It should just be "Our Clump Spirit". So anyway, have you ever read Jump SQ.? –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep. Viz and Tokyopop I managed to get some history going on. AD has been tougher (sucky site has no historical stuff). Dealing with people want to rant about stuff is the biggest thing though. I cleaned out some of the worse stuff awhile back, but all three still quite a bit of work yet. And nope, never ready Jump SQ. Shojo Beat is the first manga anthology I've read at all, much less subscribed too. I usually either read new titles by checking them out from the library, or blind buy the first volume after either flipping through or reading a promising review on AoD. :) SB lets me get a monthly hit of manga and try out new series too :D -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you ever read a Japanese manga magazine? I find them alot more interesting ^_^, it's more authentic and the series are unedited. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope...I can't read Japanese and I'd find just looking at the pictures kind of frustrating ;) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's okay : ). I would find that frustrating too. Is there any series that you've admired? –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 22:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a Reception section to Jump SQ., there is over 60 references now. Alot of the page is sourced. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 18:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Great! I'd also suggest reconsidering some of the lists/tables in the article. May also want to clean up and clean out the ELs. There are quite a few there. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea, they would be great sources. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * External links are cut down. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Issues with List of One Piece chapters article
Since you added the cleanup and introrewrite tags, I think it's fair to ask what you feel needs to be "cleaned up" in this article. It's pretty standard fare from what I've seen, so if you have any specific issues I'd like to know where to start. Thanks. Ark (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For clean up, mostly just some basic wikilink fixing. Month year without a day should not be wikified. The ELs look like they are really general refs, and need to be fixed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearing things up
Okay:


 * 1) Gune and I are reglaurs at the OP pages, I have accepted we are going to loose a dozen articles, but I'll try to save them. I know this is futile, but doesn't mean I won't look for ways around it.  I want to loose half of what we have, but I'm a sympathic fool who has difficulty making big bold choices. I have witnessed pages being lost before and have squawked my distaste this the last set of deletetions that we shouldn't be creating new ones anymore as we have the wikia. Yet still people have.  I've been left in the gutter and just gone to say "whatever pleases you, but don't say I didn't tell you".
 * 2) Gune still wants to fight, I like to support the other reglaur editors anyway. So though I have accept that we're most likely will loose a lot of pages, if someone really wants them I'll try and aid them to the best of my knowledge.  If not for Gune, I'd have suggested moving straight onto AfDing without a second thought.
 * 3) Justyn is a known editor, someone has previously been concerned with the articles. I simply asked him to come here mostly as a support Gune mostly, as it was beyond my help. If I can't help Gune, I'll find someone who can.  That is mostly being a good smartian if anything.
 * 4) I'm a beyblade fan, and even I don't like the articles for Beyblade. I don't monitor those pages, and if I did I'd loose half of them.  I asked for some help, because all of them are in desperate need of attention.  They are hard to understand, I don't have any committments of anti-vandalism or anything like that attached to them.  I do visit other pages, if I see anything that needs to be done, so be it.  I enjoy visitng the non-OP pages more because I don't have to concern myself with people I know hating me.
 * 5) Though I fight the AfD, as I said, I wouldn't mind loosing half of them as they are hard to control and take a lot of attention away from the wikia. The fans can't keep their fandom off of them, I am tired of this and have been on only "anti-vandalism" watch because of it.  Not only that, but a lot of pages were created by me and the guys working on here 2 years ago and I have long realised their mistake.

AfD related stuff isn't my strong point. Mostly because theres a little niggering thought of doubt on them that thinks a page can still prove its worth even when the wikipedia is swatting it aside. And please, no speeches about this, I know I'm not a great wikipedian. If your going to crib me for everything, fine, thats up to you. Please let it be known - I DO support the AfD but I also support editors I know well enough first.

But if you must know, this is what I want: No characters or crew listings at all, they've long become redundant since we have the wikia which lists everything we have and more. Terms I didn't want loosing, but its gone and I won't cry over the fact it was lost, only over how it was lost. Epsidoes - I'd loose them in a blink of an eye! We have the wikia that lists them and half the OP sites out there have them listed. There is no need for any of them. Obivous keep Oda's page, the main page... If Episodes must be kept, then fine, have them, chapter and side comics only. If not all we'd be left with is the main page and the mangakas page, only 2.

Now you see that what I want and what I do are too different extremes. Would people like my idea? No. Thats why we're in this sitaution we are now - I just don't try to upset people. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So basically, you hate half of the actual accept and basic pages, and would want to keep almost nothing at all? Interesting...and you call me a deletionist :P For the record, I firmly believe an manga/anime series should have a main article, a list of chapters (where applicable and has enough volumes), a list of episodes (again, where applicable), a list of light novels (w.a.), and a single list of major characters (as applicable). Individual character articles should be the exception, not the rule, and only where the character's have demonstrated real world information and their article can be at least 50% real-world info (conception/creation, reception, impact, etc) and not just all plot. Everything, of course, properly referenced. Side comics are not notable, and should only be mentioned at all if they are earlier works that were inspirations for the main. All in keeping with the Anime and Manga MoS and all relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Honestly, if you don't want to upset people, I'd suggest being more consistent. Right now, you seem to say one thing to me, one to Gune, and one to other people, which seems more like a politician than a human being. ;P It also inspires no confidence at all in your words. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly take a look..?
Hello AnmaFinotera.

I'm currently waiting, patiently, for feedback on my article Prehistoric medicine so that I can improve it to a GA-status article, but it's a very, very long time coming. I was wondering whether you might be able to have a look at it for me and provide some, even breif, suggestions of your own. You seemed very friendly and professional, when you messaged me some time ago, and so you were the first person I thought of. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll try to take a look at it later this evening. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Some things I immediately noticed. The article is violating some basics of the Wikipedia MoS, such as having the refs inside the punctuation. For example, "[2]." should be ".[2]." It also steps out of the article with parenthetical "see alsos" and "see below", which are a big no-no. The first image should be in the top right corner rather than moved down. The lead doesn't seem to meet WP:LEAD, being relatively short with two referenced items seeming to indicate they are not summarizations of the article. Some of the sectioning seems excessive. If the larger section only has two paragraphs, they really don't need individual headers. You may also want to check WP:MOSHEAD, as some of the headers seem to go against the grain. The references need some consistent formatting, per Citing sources. I personally find the citation templates, such as cite web and cite book useful for this purpose, but you can also manually format them. For a GA run, I'd first recommend making the MoS fixes noted above, having the article peer reviewed, and have it thoroughly copyedited. There are also quite a few statements in the article still needing in-line references before it could pass GA. I hope this helps some. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks AnmaFinotera for reviewing the article. I've made most of the changes you mention and will continue to make more, but, and I know it probably doesn't comply with something in the basics, I don't think that the first image should be moved to the top-right, purely for aesthetic reasons.
 * I have some things to add (I didn't even realise the thing!), the article will hopefully become a GA-article, eventually! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to have a look at the article. I'd be happy to return the favour anyime so, if you need me, don't hesitate to ask. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem :) I kinda agree on the image, but I thought I should mention it since it recently came up as an issue on a list I'm prepping for FLC. The image is beside the menu (takes up the otherwise big white space), but someone said it had to be at the top. So it might come up when you go to do a GA or FA run. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll readjust it if it becomes a big issue. But it seems like no-one is going to make an issue of it, because no-one ever seems to be reassessing or reviewing it.. Is everything always this slow on Wikipedia? Anyway, it's not your problem and you've done quite enough already, thanks again. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa!
Stop removing my information on BLEACH the title information is true. I'm not posting a fan site to be posting a fan site I am posting that site because it's where the information can be found. --Neoonyxalchemist (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the title information is not true. It is a fan guess, not verified factual information. Fansites are not reliable sources, nor is it appropriate to link to sites that distribute illegal content. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Lyric
You deleted my edit changing Lyric to McMurphy. I had my TV on mute when his name came up and it said LYRIC.Meerkatxoxo (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What was actually said, though? Did they say Lyric, or did only the captions say Lyric? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

About Greek Uncovered
If the page is to be redirected to Greek (TV series), then shouldn't it make some mention of the "spinoff" or whatever it is? I've got no opinion on the overall outcome here, I just know it's really iritating to be redirected to an article that doesn't tell you why you were redirected there. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Working on it :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)



--lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * No problem, and thanks....mmm...chocolate -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Mmmmmm.... Yummy! –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Request
Hello. I am the primary contributor to the article Last of the Summer Wine and am attempting to get it up to FA. I saw your name on the list of peer review volunteers and was wondering if you would be interested in taking a look through the article to see if you can spot anything for us to change. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy reminder
Hello, ... I added the "redundant" courtesy message to   because of this conversation with Some Other Editor ... I won't revert your revert, but I do wish that you'd reconsider restoring it ... you reverted while I was adding this message on the Discussion page. :-)

Happy Editing! &mdash;  20:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As it is a policy page, it would be better to discuss a rewording on the talk page first. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tried to "ask first", and my experience is that there's not a whole lot of discussion beforehand ... since WP:BOLD is based on that wonderful adage by RDML Grace Hopper, "It is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission." I just went ahead and added it with the "Consider adding as a courtesy" message ... I figure that it doesn't hurt to repeat "as a courtesy" for the users who tend to "skip/skim-read" and might not catch it the first time. :-)


 * OTOH, some users are (by their continuously disruptive behavior) unworthy of such courtesy, which is why it must be optional, rather than required. &mdash; 151.200.237.53 (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Neoonyxalchemist
Hi AnmaFinotera. Thanks for the message on my talk page. I was aware that tagging User:Neoonyxalchemist's page with the tag didn't open an SSP or RFCU case. Some instances of sockpuppetry are clear enough that further investigation isn't required. In my judgment this was such a case. Best, Gwernol 21:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * True, but without a case, neither can be blocked and it seems obvious he is using it abusively. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Je fini
I have blocked User:SeriesYFilmes indefinitely. You're right, their grammar, editing style etc. is incredibly similiar. Thanks for the message, friend. Take care. Scarian Call me Pat!  09:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No prob and thanks. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead in Case Closed
In my opinion the lead paragraph I added, and you removed just a while ago was mostly mentioned in the article, at least the movie ones. I would actually source them later when I go back home-- so keep those there.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  16:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please just wait to add it until you can actually source it. Only the statement about the movies is supported by the article. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick thought about media list redirect
List of Excel Saga media should probably redirect to List of Excel Saga chapters, since the manga was the original medium and is on-going. (I came to this conclusion by parallelism to the WP:MOS-AM's injunction to focus on the original medium in the main article. :)--Monocrat (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm...that is a good point. I was moving it back to List of Excel Saga episodes because that was the lists' original name, and its original focus. The manga information was added over a year later. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is off-topic. but I really can't dedicate any more time to Wikipedia this week. I have an admissions test Saturday that I need to prepare. I'll be back, though.--Monocrat (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Excel Saga chapters
I can start adding all right references to the page once you take the notice down. I don't want to get in the way of your work. Grapeofdeath (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm working on it now. I'll remove the notice when I'm done for the evening. If you're reading the series, when I'm done, can you add a summary for the newest volume, and maybe fix up volume 1 and 2s summaries? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I can try to fix up the first two, but crafting summaries isn't something I'm very good at. The plot in the series has gone crazy and I don't know if I'd be able to describe the latest volumes very well. I have started transliterating the Japanese titles and plan to add those in eventually. Grapeofdeath (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No prob :) Hmmm...I can't seem to find any reliable sources for its starting its serialization in 1996 (and ANN has the year wrong). Blech. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't know if it passes WP:RS, but here's the Amazon-Japan page for the first volume. Shonen Gahosha's site lacks that detail, surprisingly, thought they provide the ISBN.


 * I meant its first appearance in Young King Ours. And yeah, Shonen Gahosha's site is not very useful. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * All the release dates for the Japanese books are from the ISBN pages of the books themselves. What I'd have to do is reference that actual book itself. You've already done what I was going to do for the English editions. Grapeofdeath (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. Amazon.co.jp can be used to source the release dates. The books themselves are the sources for the ISBNs (so no reference needed). But in the lead, it also discusses the original serialization. That's what I can't find a source for. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The release dates in the back of the book are different from the ones on Amazon.co.jp. This is true for many series, such as Blood+ and Claymore. I'd rather use the books as the source for the dates as the farther you go back, the more inconsistent Amazon tends to be. I'll also be posting the information on volume 20 soon. I'm picking it up tomorrow. By the way, the line that says '125 chapters have been published in the magazine' seems incorrect since that is the number of chapters from the magazine that have been published the the first 19 volumes. I haven't been keeping track of the unpublished chapters like other pages do. Grapeofdeath (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, so they put the release dates on the back of the books in Japan? Cool. For the chapters, I figured it was short some, but there is no list of the unpublished chapters, so I just went for the count available. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added the unpublished chapters to the bottom of the page, but now I'm left with a dilemma. The last mission in volume 19 is MISSION 131 in the actual magazine. Even if I add the four bonus missions, I come up two short. (Mission 5 and 5.5 in volume 14 were originally together in the magazine.) Perhaps the Professor Side Stories were originally two chapters? I'll have to look through the notes in the english volumes to try and figure this one out. If there's no good answer, do you think I should just leave these numbers out? Grapeofdeath (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd go with what the mission number is in the actual magazine. The side stories in volumes usually aren't included in the chapter count, unless they are numbered as such in the original serialization. Out of curiosity, do the original volumes retain the original mission numbers, or are they numbered like they appear to be in the English ones, with the numbers starting over for each volume (so its 1-5, 1-6, etc)-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It only shows 1-5 or 1-6 in the English and Japanese books. Same happens with Berserk. A chapter was actually taken out of the book format, so if you've keeping track of the numbers they're one off. But since all the original scans are still on the internet, it was easy to find out which one. Unfortunately I think I'd really only get to the bottom of this if I had all the actual magazines these were in or at least the original scans. Grapeofdeath (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Exciting new template
Template:Shueisha done by the same well intentioned man behind the Jump Square page. It is the worst thing I have ever seen. I feel so sorry for him. He must have worked so hard on it...I can't figure out how to channel his energies to things that would actually benefit Wikipedia. Doceirias (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been trying on the Jump Square, but he doesn't seem to be getting the hints I give :( I put the TfD up for deletion...words escaped me on its pure hideousness. Doesn't seem to be useful, though if its kept, it needs to be rolled back to the earlier version that didn't have inappropriate non-free images, etc. *sigh* --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I understood what you were trying to say, I just got overwhelmed because I put hours of work into it. It should be deleted... I'm just really imbarrased. I always get trashed on the internet. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, we were talking about the Jump Square article too. I think you have a lot of enthusiasm, and you obviously enjoy editing. It does take awhile to learn, we all made embarrassing edits earlier (I still shudder to look at the first article I made LOL). Just gotta learn from them, and keep practicing (and don't be afraid to ask for help if you aren't sure about something) :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a ton.... that's the way I feel about Super Jump. I have had nightmares about that page.... eeek! –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 23:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Apology
I'd like to apologize for snapping at you (twice now). I think you have some good suggestions and I appreciate your contributions. I don't see any reason to make enemies online; I overreacted. --Kraftlos (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem :) ~virtual handshake~ -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sopranos FLRC
Hi. I've been asked to close this FLRC, but am reluctant to make a mess of my first one! Would you mind returning to the discussion and giving your to-this-minute feelings on this particular FL? --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Done :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

One Piece articles
I'm currently working on the list for all the One Piece characters, but it's pretty slow going. I have it laid out in a way I think works well, now it's only a matter of condensing the character information and adding it. The number of characters makes it a chore though, so it'll be some time before it's ready. I'm only letting you know because you seem to be the driving force behind merging all of the articles, and I want to make sure you know someone is working on it. In the meantime, it'd be really helpful if you didn't merge or AfD any of the articles, because having to redo all of the work finding the references and character summaries would make this even more painful. Thanks. Ark (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Long as there is some active work being done on getting them merged, I don't generally do AfDs. I only do an AfD if it seems like its been abandoned, or there is a lot of resident editor resistance to doing needed merges. I do, however, recommend going ahead and tagging for merge. This keeps it up front, allows discussion, may get some offers of help, and can act as a check list of sorts as you go through each article. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Lyric
I heard Lyric on the show without captions. When captions were on, they said Lyric. Meerkatxoxo (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alrighty :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: English at TfD
Hi AnmaFinotera - you wrote:
 * ...someone deleted it an hour ago and didn't close the TfD.

Actually I did close the debate on this template - at CfD! When I closed that I said that it was speediable but should have been listed at TfD. I didn't realise it had been listed in two separate process pages! Grutness...wha?  00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL, no worries :) Glad its gone either way. Looks like its the second time its been deleted, and for the same reason both times. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Award

 * Awww, thanks :) ~hug~ -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yourwelcome, the reason people ignore me is because of some jerk at ANN that lied about me. Just if you were wondering. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 05:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, ANN's forums do, unfortunately, have some jerks over there. :( -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A matter in fact, someone just wrote me a private message at ANN calling me a dumb***. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you block private messages there? I've never used ANN's forums myself. I prefer the atmosphere at AoD's forums :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't think so, don't even really care anymore. The people at ANN are probobly just a bunch of tweaked old men, I don't go there anymore, but it really affected my reputation. Anyway, what is AoD? –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 02:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * AnimeOnDVD.com :) Much better site, IMHO. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool! I saw the site. Noticed Docierias (Andrew Cunningham) had an account. I wish I could log in. : ( –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 04:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL, tells you how slow I am. I hadn't made that connection! :P AoD's forum folks tend to be much nicer, and we have good convos. Its well monitored and the site rules help keep disagreements down. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahhhh.... : ) well that changes alot. Although, i'll still give myself a different name. Just so it doesn't "set off an alarm", if you get what I mean. : ) –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 15:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Sometimes it, unfortunately, helps to change your virtual ID to get away from bad folks. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, because I bet some people at AoD have accounts on ANN. Yeah funny thing ^_^, the reason the person called me a dumb*** is because I said Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's was butchered. I mean, *sarcasm* "Sorry, 4Kids is gonna do a great job on YGO 5D's" *sarcasm*. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 17:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Some probably do, though I doubt they are the ones who said that. Vast majority of AoDers abhor 4Kids and mourn any series licensed by them :P They also tend to have no good words for ANN's forums, because there are a few asses over there who have trashed the AoD site owner and made beyond rude comments about his weight and health issues. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a horrible thing to say! Did they seriosly!? O_o One of the reasons those guys were makin' fun of me is because I said that CN ruins my hobby. Which is very true, they make Weekly Shonen Jump look like some 3-year old thing. Which is very not true, it's built for teens well in their 16 of age and older. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and this was after he lost a ton of weight to save his life. It was just crass of them. We readers of AoD are right proud of how much weight he's lost and found his work to be inspirational. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Poor guy.....it's good he lost weight. And can't believe they said that, I thought it was just me that they were jerks. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 18:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(<- deindent) Nah, there are quite a few jerks there from what I've heard, and the little bit I read. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, especially Bellos the Almighty. He told me to ditch my friends, my friends are amazing; one of my friends has an account: User:Fiddlekid, he's still an amateur at Wikipedia. I'm teaching him all the basics, he's a genious at the violin. He plays so fast it gives me a headache. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestions for improvements on Bianca Montgomery article
Hello, AnmaFinotera. I am coming to you for your thoughts on the fictional character article Bianca Montgomery because I know how stern you are about fictional character articles. You probably ticked off a few editors of soap opera character articles, but I understand your disdain for fictional character articles simply or primarily made of plot summaries. I share that same disdain, which was not there until I advanced as a Wikipedian editor. These days, however, plot-driven articles seriously agitate me. I've been significantly improving fictional character articles, mainly soap opera ones (for now), and would appreciate your comments on what further improvements could be done to Bianca's article. Since recent discussion has gone on at its talk page, I thought it best to ask you now. I have a grasp on what needs to be done, but want various thoughts. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So far, its looking like its going in a good direction. Certainly the first soap character article that didn't make me scream and shudder. :D I would suggest reconsidering the images being used. The first two in the plot section don't seem necessary and would likely be called violations of WP:NONFREE in a GA review. Also try to tighten up the "Storyline" section. The headers there seem a bit off, especially the first one. In icon, the quote is not long enough for a callout, I believe, so need to incorporate back into the text. Rather than popular and criticsm sections, it seems a single Reception section would be a more neutrally headered section, either before or after cultural impact. Check all the refs to make sure they are formatted correctly (preferably using the appropriate citation template like cite web), and that they contain all relevant and available information: ideally title, publisher/work, author, date published, and date accessed. Ref 5, for example, is badly done and inappropriate. Its linking to a copyvio image, rather than just giving the actual publication information using cite journal. For printed media, page numbers are heavily desired. Ref 15 is missing the date and author, though both are given in the article. Als check to make sure they are all reliable sources. Also, clean up the ELs and make sure there are n unnecessary links (like that fansite). For the last link, use as a source if it isn't already, but otherwise unneeded. If you are going for GA, the last thing after that would be getting it copyedited and I think it should be good to go. Now, if you are aiming for FA, the entire storyline section will also need to be referenced out to the individual episodes (cite episode will be your new best friend :P). Hope that helps some :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy and paste your suggestions on the Bianca Montgomery talk page. Just for other editors to see as well, in case they would like to take care of some of what you suggested before I do. The only thing that would be difficult to do, though, is citing the episodes. Soap opera episodes are extremely difficult to cite. I would have to go the route of citing the episodes like the featured soap opera character Pauline Fowler does or the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article does. Anyway, thanks again. Your thoughts on this matter will be very helpful, as well as for similar topics. Flyer22 (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine :) I can imagine how hard it must be dealing with soap cites. Its bad enough trying to find the right episode for a 50 ep series, much less one so long. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

List of The Bellflower Bunnies episodes...again
Hello. I've been (slowly) working towards getting the list back to FLC, currently under PR again. I need your help, along with several others; I've already sent the page for consideration at LOCE's requests department.

When you skim through the list, please tell what more needs to be worked on. Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit of the copyedit
Yes, I can review the copyedit in question, but it'll have to wait a couple of days. If you don't hear from me by Wednesday, drop me a reminder. – Scartol  •  Tok  23:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ask
Hi there AnmaFinotera! Could you pay a look at the Reborn! article? I think there are some tags that need to be added but Im not very sure. Some days ago I added a to-do list in the talk page but it would be better if you pay a look there, cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. I tagged for excessive non-free images, too much plot stuff, needs a better intro, and some general, basic clean up (like the infoboxes). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have already done with the images prob.--Tintor2 (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Done with the terminology and bullets, are those the plot problems, though the plot section may need to be rewritten.--Tintor2 (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehe.. that was easy since it was like the hitenmitsurigi ryu that was in the Rurouni Kenshin article. I also made an attempt to increase the lead. Thoughts?Tintor2 (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's better :) Any thing else will have to wait until the article itself is expanded *grin* -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea what is *grin* (....^_^), but its the lead okay now?--Tintor2 (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ehhh... I didnt understand that message at all, is it really all cleaned-up?--Tintor2 (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not perfect, but you've taken care of the major stuff necessitated those tags. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Rurouni Kenshin
I have rewritten the Rurouni Kenshin plot section, I think it needs some fixes and I still think its better than the previous one. Thoughts?--Tintor2 (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Better and glad to see the actual ending :) Of course, the fangirl in me wants a Saitō mention in there somewhere LOL (we'll eventually need to add a subsection on the major changes in the anime, which I believe mostly is with the ending). Also really need to deal with List of Rurouni Kenshin villains someday...it is NPOV and rather false (I doubt Kenshin would have ever called Saitō a villain...a bit extreme, perhaps, but not a villain). :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldnt even mention Yahiko or Sanosuke. However, I was also working in this sandbox to merge the two lists. I still dont know how to organize them, Any thought?Tintor2 (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we'll probably need to expand some to include those two, since Yahiko's growing up and following in Kenshin's footsteps is a rather big part of the story as well. For the list, the way generally considered the most neutral is protagonists, antagonists, and supporting. Then, you can do some subsections, like for a named group such as the Oniwabanshū. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I think its more arranged. Any suggestion about removing any character?Tintor2 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Organization is better (though I hope you don't mind, I removed the ToC limit so I could see who was where). For character removals, I'd say quite a few of the "others" can go (which needs to be renamed supporting. Katsura Kogorō, Tsukayama Yūtarō, Tsukioka Tsunan, Oibore, Yamagata Aritomo, and Ōkubo Toshimichi would be the first ones to come to mind. The rest, I'd wait and deal with after tehy have been compacted/rewritten from an out-of-universe perspective and referenced, then evaluate as that goes along. Also, take a peek at List of Naruto characters and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters for a way to redo the voices, as they shouldn't be given undue weight being secondary works. Also, only the Japanese and English should be listed. No Spanish/Tagalong/etc. :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Pokespe
I have been making the list of pokespe here but I think something is wrong with the volume extras since they are in the right. Could you check them?Tintor2 (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you need to add the OneLanguage option to all of the Graphic novel list calls as well, so it adjusts the spans. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppet
This user seems to have been stalking your edits and reverting them. I looked at his activity and blocked the account indefinately, as he is clearly a sockpuppet of JJonz. All his edits have been reverted. Just thought I'd let you know ;-)  Lra drama 08:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Great...guess he decided to add me to his hit list since I am usually the one who spots him popping on and bugging Sesshomaru. 15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not really up for it, but I think it's about time we do a CheckUser report. This guy isn't going to stop. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * One hasn't been done yet? Wow, yeah, definitely. His list of socks is getting insane. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Derekloffin and I have requested an ip check before, but it didn't stop him from returning. Are you up for a CU? Zarbon was kind enough to provide a list of suspects; he implied that User:Wiki-star and User:DanCSeshmaroo is the same fellow, and DanCSeshmaroo is a JJonz impersonator. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. There is a big list at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of PWeeHurman and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JJonz. At least he's nice enough to identify himself pretty much everytime, so at least with the latter, we can be pretty sure its him. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So, may you initiate it? I still have quite a few more things to check on my huge watchlist before doing this. Maybe Zarbon can help you out ... for now. What's it gonna be? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alrighty, but it won't be until this evening since I'm still at work :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And filed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FL
Yes, Miami Vice may be in WP:Miami, but it does not appear in the WP:FL directory, which is why the tag was there. Even an discussion in WP:FL put the article under [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Florida#Some_reassessment_is_in_order. tagging]. El Greco(talk) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Its excessive, and a sign of a bad template design for Miami if it is not working right, but if there was consensus to be redundant and overtag all the Florida related articles, feel free to add back. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for readding. El Greco(talk) 00:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Larger English manga volumes
I have another question. There are a couple of manga series I want to add chapter pages for, but in the English release of the series each volume contains two of the Japanese volumes. Have you seen any other pages that are able to accommodate that and if not, do you have any ideas? Grapeofdeath (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...that's a fairly rare occurance, I think. I would go ahead and use the Japanese volumes for the list, noting in the lead that each English volume contains two Japanese volumes. For the table itself, use the same ISBN and release date for the two volumes. You may want to also ask in the project for other thoughts, as well. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea. The only times I've seen it happen so for are for Hikari To Tomoni and Futari Ecchi. I'm going to wait until I collect that last couple of volumes for each series before adding the entire list. Grapeofdeath (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright. :) And same here. I've seen it in some of the reprints, like the Viz Big editions, but usually the first printings stick with the Japanese divisions. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I usually see the first printings start with the Japanese divisions. I think the publishers deviated on Futari Ecchi since there are already 39 volumes out in Japan. This will get through the series quicker and cut costs. ($20 for two Japanese volumes together makes the price about average. Berserk is $14 a volume and still hasn't caught up.) I can figure out why Hikari To Tomoni has done the same. Perhaps it's real audience for the manga in America is people interested in autism, so $15 for a 500 page book seems reasonable. Grapeofdeath (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Open Review proposal
Thank you for your contributions to the discussion on GA process reform at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform. Based on the suggestions made, a proposal has been set out (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform). Your further input would be very welcome, as there are a number of areas that may need more discussion before this proposal is put to the wider community. All the best, EyeSerene talk 10:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

CCS
Regarding this, he does have somewhat of a point. The edited dub Cardcaptors changed so much that one could almost consider it a different work, which was the thinking when we made Cardcaptors it's own article. The script itself had major alterations, making it very hard to cover on one page and not be confusing. -- Ned Scott 22:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really. It isn't a different work and it can/will be easily discussed properly in the main article. Tokyo Mew Mew was also heavily edited, but its edited Mew Mew Power version is properly discussed within its article. Ditto with Escaflowne's edited dub. CCS and Cardcaptors has two articles with a ton of unnecessarily duplicated information because they are unnecessarily split apart. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as we're still able to separate what happened in CC and CCS, then fine, but I don't see what NPOV has to do with a merge for organizational reasons. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the current CCS article shows clear bias against CC. The disdain for it fairly pours out in all mentions of it. Also, from the note left on the talk page, it seems the person who removed the tag totally misunderstood what it meant, believing it was saying all CCS stuff had to be removed. I've attempted to better clarify for him what it meant. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for removing the NPOV, as you are right, it does focus on the anime more than the manga ^_^. However, there still doesn't seem to be bias against CC, but rather CC having it's own article and people not wanting to add conflicting info into the article. Each character page references the character's dub name and the person who does their English voice. I didn't believe you wanted to wipe out all CCS stuff, but rather felt you were trying to say we should add more things related to CC in the article, which if you've seen the dub, would confuse people. I mean Syaoran can't both be related to Meiling and not be related to her (she is considered just a friend in the dub and her last name was changed to Rae) at the same time. Oh and by the way, I'm a her not a him ^_^. AjaaniSherisu (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course not. In the new character list, it would refer to Meiling as his cousin, then note towards the end of her entry that in the dub her name was changed to X and she was changed from a cousin to a family friend. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. ^_^ As long as it leaves the original series info intact and doesn't lead to confusion, then I'm all for it ^_^. AjaaniSherisu (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, when done the article will actually have much more original series info :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is all fine, but remember that the dub is one of two (possibly three, IIRC) english versions of the anime. -- Ned Scott 01:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am well aware of it :) --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cooksi
Hi, it's me again. Sorry that I'm coming to you again, but it seems that you're good at dealing with crap. An editor named Cooksi (Or something like that) keeps putting a list of horror films actors on the see also section of Horror film. The article has been deleted several times, and he/she was told not to make it again, and it was the editors final warning. So, in response, instead of making the article horror film actors, he made it "list" of horror film actors. Yojimbo501 (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And just a moment ago, Cooksi took off my Db-nn tag. Yojimbo501 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Never-mind. It's been taken care of. Yojimbo501 (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If he hasn't done any constructive edits, you may want to go ahead and report him as a vandal only account for blocking (unless he's been blocked already). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah he was blocked. He made it another time, and whole bunch of other articles, but they were deleted too. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

SJ page
Hello AnmaFinotera, : ) I just wanted to tell you that i'm making a SJ page on my sandbox. Just wanted to tell you, because I thought that you could be making one also. ^_^ –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alrighty. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way I think it would be better to switch the page name to Shonen Jump (English), because there's also Swedish and Norwegian. Another thing you should know is the fact that the official name is "SHONEN JUMP" in all-caps, we can't name the page that though, Wikipedia doesn't want us to give page names all-caps. Also you can pitch in if you want to: User:Jump Guru/Sandbox. There's the code for you to edit. : ) –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be right on disambiguating, though I believe the naming guidelines would suggest it should be North America or United States, but I'll double check on that. I did a few edits, but so far you seem to be doing fine :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a hidden list of all the SJ publications. Should I place it on the page? –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I removed it while converting that section to prose. I think its ready to go ahead and move out as a starting point for the split. There seems to be overwhelming support for doing a split, so might as well go ahead and get it to the article main space so more folks can find it. Since the English one will be the most commonly known one, I think Shonen Jump (magazine) is the most appropriate choice, with a hat note at the top pointing to the disambiguation page, which should be placed at the current Shonen Jump redirect. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We should. Although it is actually spelled as SHONEN JUMP, here's a link: http://www.viz.com/products/products.php?format_id=1 . If you look at the left hand side of the page in the "Magazines" section, SJ is spelled as is and SB is spelled normally. Also in the magazine they spell it as SHONEN JUMP, so there's proof. : ) –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 17:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) No, that is not a spelling, it is a stylization, which we ignored completely. We don't write things in all caps just because the company stylizes the title that way, so for Wikipedia purposes (and per all relevant guidelines), it should always be written Shonen Jump. For the same reason, VIZ Media is written Viz Media, and FUNimation is written Funimation. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually yes they have made an anime line: SHONEN JUMP Home Video. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 17:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Kenshin lists
While I was making the clean up I created a Himura Kenji article there in User:Tintor2/This is my writing section. Is it a bit better now? I still have to clean up some Juppongatana and change some voices to prose. Tintor2 (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's looking pretty good. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on the discussion page Articles for deletion/List of fictional Alumni of Real Universities. I've been having a bad enough time trying to defend the article against someone who keeps citing policy without reading the entire policy; having vandalism pop up on top of that would have just torn it. Thanks again. --John (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite welcome :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Say... you're a deletionist with no bias in the discussion above, so I know that you won't come down on my side without due consideration. Could you please review the deletion discussion and give me your opinion as to whether or not deletion is warranted?  I have a feeling that if you feel it should be, you will at least have some solid support as to why.  On the other hand, if you feel it shouldn't, then knowing that I'm not alone in that thinking will go a long way.  Thanks again.  --John (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll take a look. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Moonlight episodes
Please see Featured list candidates/List of Moonlight episodes. The list has now been copyedited and all points raised have been addressed.  Corn.u.co.pia ♥  Disc.us.sion  03:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the copyeditor noted that he only copyedited the lead and the first ep summary. Someone needs to go through the rest. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the whole article has been copyedited. Check the article history.  Corn.u.co.pia ♥  Disc.us.sion  03:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see above.  Corn.u.co.pia ♥  Disc.us.sion  07:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, support added. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sailor Moon banner tags
Hi AnmaFinotera, as I've probably got the most access to Sailor Moon scholarly resources, I'd really appreciate it if you could please use the inline tags or, fact dubious, where appropriate rather than the banners, as it is easier to tell which bits of the article you find problematic, and so it is easier to work to plug any gaps in the article. I was under the impression that banner tags were only to be used when there would be dozens of inline tags otherwise, and I would like to think that this is not the case with the Sailor Moon articles, ha ha. I'm especially thinking of the main Sailor Moon article here, as it is currently a good article. Please could you be explicit about what is specifically wrong with the Sailor Moon articles? -Malkinann (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Many of the "sources" used in all three are neither scholarly nor reliable. They are fansites, WP:COPYRIGHT violating sites, and other dubious stuff. They have numerous issues. SM was made a good article over a year ago, that does not mean it still is now. There is blatantly obvious lack of neutrality and the article does not properly follow WP:MOS-AM by shoving the English adaptations to another section. They should be properly covered with the individual media. The ELs are badly formatted, and should not have/need descriptors added after them. Additionally, the person who passed it did not even do a proper, full GA review, so saying it is a good article is not much. I'm strongly tempted to give it a delisting notice, but waiting to see what is done to fix the article after its being tagging. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so your primary concern is the use of fansites? We can try and find other sources. :) I seem to recall that the main reason we used Alex Glover's site as a source in the Sailor Moon section was because it was much more convenient than citing the books themselves - would listing the books themselves be an appropriate reference for this?  I'm afraid I must ask for clarification on the "blatantly obvious lack of neutrality" - where is this evident?  I'm sure you're aware it's hard to see prose problems when you've been working on an article for some time.  Also, many of our sources were written when Sailor Moon seemed unstoppable, and so they are shockingly glowing (except for commentary about the sailor uniforms being too sexy, which is mostly in Sailor Senshi). I'm not sure what to do about the MoS stuff, maybe in the merge discussion we'll come up with some ideas.  -Malkinann (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Its the use of fansites and other non-reliable sources. Every source needs to be evaluated to ensure it actually meets WP:RS. The obvious lack of neutrality come in any discussion of the dub, which is an unfortunately issue with many such series. The English adaptation being shoved off into another article is part of that as well. There is no valid reason for them to be separate. Other similarly edited series have been successfully cleaned up and made into a single article with the appropriate splits. While Sailor Moon is a huge series, there is really no need the series itself can not have a single main article discussing the overall plot, adaptations, and the English language releases. Other much larger series can do it, so can SM. It should have one manga chapter list. The episode list is already tagged for splitting, while the individual season pages need to go. A single major character list, with those characters meeting WP:FICT having main articles. That is what the series really needs. I know the SM project likes having dozens of articles, and fights almost any attempt to delete/merge most of them, but it would be nice if SM would actually get in line with other AM articles instead of doing its own thing. There is really no reason SM can't be taken to a featured article, several featured lists, and an eventual featured topic if that clean up could be done. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures NOAH FAMILY & ESPADAS
Yes i noticed that under Non-free content so i decided to take it down myself BEFORE your comment was put in my discusion, but thanks for the heads up! ;) Grimmjow E6 (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hey, I'm just saying hi. I am relatively new to being a member user of Wiki and just saying that I'm open for any advice (given your credentials). :~) P.S. if your wondering why I'm saying hi is because your help in explaining and answering my question in Escaflowne discussion. Also do you mind giving me your opinion on my response in the Bleach discussion page, please be gentle, I bleed easily.--AKIRA70 (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi :) And I try to be gentle, though sometimes my tone may come across as harsh. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I'm learning more and more how to contribute properly to Wikipedia and I do apologize for my some what radical and "newbie" ideas. I'm just trying to find creative ways to help Wiki, even if sometimes they do seem juvenile and irrelevant. Thanx for being critic and for not bitting my head off (unlike other users).:~)--AKIRA70 (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Super Jump article
I'm redoing my old amateur Super Jump article. You wanna help? Right now i'm dealing with the manga list, and don't worry I bet I can find sources......they are hard to find, but who said Wikipedia was easy? : ) –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 22:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll add it to my watch list and will be happy to offer guidance :) I did a little clean up in the lead and infoboxes, and added some tags as suggestions for major things to work on. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bushveld rain frog
I have a source, but how do you source books? I can't find out how. Cruise meerkat (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Use the cite book template :) You can see some examples of it in use here and in List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters (almost all the refs are books. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Websites - Proposal
I have made an important proposal for the project here .We are looking forward for your comments and suggestions. You are receiving this note since you have made a similar suggestion earlier --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 05:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Post Oak Mall
Hello. I made another edit to Post Oak Mall again, except this time it's backed up with photos from their 25th Anniversary that show that my edits are true. The cinema issue is still up in the air with dubious references (two SEC articles with a different cinema operator each time?) but at least I've got the anchors cleared up. I'm sorry for the friction that's built up on that article, and thank you for challenging me to sniff out better references for what I know is right. The Post Oak Mall article isn't mine, but it's not yours either. This is more of an "explanation/friendly handshake" note rather than a "screw you you're wrong" note, which would be kind of rude. Thanks, TheListUpdater (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The SEC notes only point to one cinema, its just confusingly written. Also, your personal Flickr photo is not a valid reference nor link and has been removed again. It certainly is not a more reliable source than a book published by the Brazos Historical Society by its very nature. Nor does it support your claim. It only shows that when the mall was 99% leased, Beall's was an anchor. That also matches what the article states. Beall's was not in the mall when it opened on February 17, 1982. It and Wilsons came some point between 1982 and 1985, most likely later in 1982. But on opening day, neither was there. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * However, in the 1981 lease plan, Bealls, Wilson's, and JCPenney were signed on as definite tenants. Foley's must have come in at the last minute. If Bealls and Wilson's were NOT open, then it would've said something along the lines of "Bealls Opening Winter 1982". Also, the pictures on Flickr were from me, not someone random. They weren't altered. Also, I haven't read this book by the BHS, but it's entirely possible people make mistakes. :/


 * I really don't know what to say. Part of me wants to say that you're an intolerant jerk, but part of me wants to believe you stand by your references just as much as I do. The references certainly are confusing, and I really hope that we can get to the real juice that is true. TheListUpdater (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The picture, however, doesn't say "mall at opening" but mall at "99% leased." The mall wasn't likely to be 99% leased when it opened. Part of the issue is while the picture is very interesting, it doesn't have anything with it to provide context. Any meaning we pull from it regarding who was in the mall when is interprative, making it too WP:OR. The BHS book, however, seems pretty accurate to me. I've used it with several local articles and its historical information matched other sources.      Unfortunately, Post Oak just isn't covered as well in other sources. I could see if the library has copies of the Eagle from around its opening date to see what they reported. Their online site doesn't go back far enough. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem, however, is that the "99% Leased" picture...there are more where that came from...was from an insert from the newspaper on opening day. Since the opening of the Mall was obviously a BIG event, a multiple-page insert was put in The Eagle. It would be disappointing if patrons wanting to go to Wilson's or Bealls on that day found that their stores would not open for another two years. Everything on the article is somewhat dubious, since we've really only gotten information from a few questionable SEC filings, one book about the history of the Brazos Valley, and a couple of photos. Not even Google News goes back that far. The cinema is another issue. I could swear up and down it was General Cinema, because I think I saw it mentioned back there, but it doesn't really have the characteristics of a General Cinema theaters. All the mall directories there, including a circa-1998 one I have just mention "Cinema 3". I think it was 1998 because Kinney Shoes was there but Woolworth's was vacant (assuming Woolworth's bit the dust in 1997). If that IS true, then the mysterious theater could've closed in 1998 at the least. I've talked with people, and it seems the cut off point is 1998 (since it faltered shortly after Cinemark opened). An archived version of PostOakMall.com doesn't list the theater (late 2000), and everyone I've talked too universally agreed it closed before 2000. However, 2000 isn't horrifically off the mark (after all, these minor date mix-ups happen ALL THE TIME) so I guess it could stay for the time being. It's a real shame that so much information is missing, since The Eagle didn't get on the Internet bandwagon until around 1999 or 2000. They don't mention the theater closing, either (though they did when Schulman closed) so that's another reason I stand by my reason. Maybe you (and possibly me) could do some sleuthing in the newspaper archives. We'll get to the bottom of this...eventually...TheListUpdater (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can get to the local library to check the archives. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * One more thing...I've been trying out a custom signature, and it's kind of...um...a mess! Why is it doing this? User:TheListUpdater&#124;&lt;span style=&#39;font-family:&quot;Impact&quot;; color:#FF5500&quot;&gt;The&amp;nbsp;List&amp;nbsp;Updater&lt;/span&gt;&#93;&#93; • &lt;sup&gt;(&#91;&#91;Special:Contributions/TheListUpdater&#124;What I&#39;ve Done&#93;&#93;•&#91;&#91;:User talk:TheListUpdater&#124;Let&#39;s talk!&#93;&#93;)&lt;/sup&gt; (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you make sure to check "raw signature" in you preferences? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but I had to change around the coding (seems it doesn't like #RRGGBB color codes). It seems to work now! The List Updater  • (What I've Done•Let's talk!) 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball GT
Concerning the edit you made here, what would you suggest for Dragon Ball (anime) and Dragon Ball Z? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The same, and done. :) It is wordy to say Japanese animation over anime, and it results in excessive wikilinks in the opening sentence. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, though don't the two Dragon Ball articles need maintenance tags? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * GT had them. I adjusted/expanded the ones on the other two. Dragon Ball Z article is so bad :(-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Some time ago, I asked for thoughts here but only one person actually responded. Care to help reach a conclusion? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I caught this change on my watchlist and thought you should know, I really don't think having "Japanese" is redundant, as there also exists Chinese, Korean, and even American manga. In this case it's good to specify the origin. It also appears to be a common layout for most manga articles, especially Japanese ones like InuYasha, Honey and Clover, Sailor Moon, Black Cat, Trinity Blood, Dragon Ball (manga), Cutie Honey, Naruto, Astro Boy, D.N.Angel, Hellsing (manga), YuYu Hakusho, Kimba the White Lion, Rurouni Kenshin, Tokko (manga), Samurai Champloo, Cowboy Bebop, Dr. Slump, Bleach (manga), Samurai 7, and a myriad of others. Would you intend to remove it from any of these or these if given the chance? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess it can stay as Japanese, but the link needs to go. See Tokyo Mew Mew which has just finished being copyedited for an FA run. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think a hyperlink like so, Japanese, is too much to ask. For instance, what should we do about this edit? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the copyedit, it is excessive and unnecessary. It can be linked in the second sentence, if its appropriately written to note said manga premiered in Japan blah blah blah. Per the MoS and good writing practices, the first sentence should have more than 2 wikilinks ideally, and the media type (anime/manga/etc) and the author name are the most significant ones for the first sentence. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z: Cleanup
Finally someone is taking the proper steps at improving the Dragon Ball Z article. Thank you for your contributions. Hucz (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite welcome. Wow...by the time its all cleaned up, the article is pretty short, but hopefully gets it to a better starting place at least. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The misza archive bot
Hi there. Thanks for helping out with that bot. I looked at the template and couldn't work out why it hadn't archived anything for over a year. To be honest, I'm still not sure. Any clues? (reply here or at my page, I'll watch both) Ged UK (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It wasn't the bot code, there was likely a bad entry among the earlier ones that didn't have the right date format so the bot couldn't read it. When it hits that, it just skips the whole page. I manually archived everything from before 08, so that should get it back on track. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah right, I see. Well, kinda. Anyway, I know that it wasn't me missing something in the code then. Thanks! :) Ged UK (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL, there was one time it stopped archiving one of the project talk pages. It took us three days to figure out it was because the page had a blacklisted link on it! So usually, if the code looks right, I'll just do a big manual archive and that will usually fix any issues with a bad post. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And manually archiving is just a cut and paste job? Ged UK (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of ways to do it, but cut and paste is the easiest one to me. Just remove from the current (noting in the summary that you are archiving), the paste to the bottom of the newest archive. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Clique
Why not let the minor character list stay in, and simply redirect the articles on the characters? Much less fuss. I've deprodded the list, and I too if necessary. I totally agree the characters dont warrant separate articles. I think I may have deprodded one, but that iwas before I ssaw you had prodded the list as well. There are advantages to compromise solutions. DGG (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the list of minor characters is a pointless list of one-shot characters with absolutely no notability at all. Even the main characters have no notability, so why would the minors as a whole? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * as you know, I take an approximately opposite view, that if the fiction is notable so are each of the major characters, but I am willing to compromise. Do you want to argue every individual character article, or compromise? One of the advantages of compromise is that one is certain to get at least some of what one wants. There's no point in you & me trying to convince each other of our position, but perhaps I can convince you of the merits of doing something for the sake of peace and the ability to concentrate on improving articles.
 * You will probably say, that if we dispute each one at AfD, then I will manage to get rid of 3/4 of what I want, so why should I compromise on half? And I of course can say just the same. But the question is then, are you willing to take the risk that your estimate might be wrong? People are generally a little over-sanguine about the extent of general agreement with their point of view.
 * But I'm not trying to compromise for fear of losing--I genuinely want to get on with other things. Is there nothing else here you care about more than removing these articles? DGG (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing to the List of One Piece Episodes?
I hadn't checked that page in some time, and now I check it again and its ruined. I checked the history page and saw that it was you who did those modification. You removed very neat and helpful stuff. Like the navigation index now looks horrible, it used to be separated into the different arcs and their respective name, and also indicating which were fillers. But look at it now, it sucks. Its a list which makes it look worse than the little box format it had. It doesn't indicate which are fillers and which are not, and on top of it, all the names of the arcs have disappeared, now there's only "Season 1, Season 2, Season 3...". So I would like to know why you did that, why didn't you like the older and better format. And if possible to leave it again at what it was. I just can't think that you did it just for the sake of bothering people since these are some serious modification. So, please explain to me why? Thanks for your time. — [ Unsigned .]


 * Its all explained/discussed on the list's talk page. The list is being cleaned up to bring it line with a proper episode list per Wikipedia guidelines and the relevant manuals of style. The previous list may have been nice for a handful of fans, but it was not a god format, it was useless for non-fans, and it was not appropriately arranged. It was also inappropriately split from the English broadcast information. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes/References
Hey, I was doing some work on the List_of_Elfen_Lied_characters and I noticed that some of the "references" are actually more like notes. Do you know of a way to make separate lists of notes and references using without it turning out weird? --Kraftlos (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the notes, they should simply be removed. The first is the same one that was in the ep list and is unnecessary. 2 is an OR statement and unnecessary. And 5 is a link off to a fansite and, again, an unnecessary note. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok! ^^ --Kraftlos (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of personal attack/incivility made by IP on your talk page
Dear AnmaFinotera, I have reverted an obvious personal attack made on your talk page and warned the IP. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unexpected but appreciated :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem; such comments as the one left by the IP do not help anything. Happy editing!  :)  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What a horrible thing to say, people like that should never be allowed on Wikipedia. >_< Sorry that happened to you. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 22:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've actually gotten worse, so I just ignore such folks. Not worth stressing over them. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just trying to figure out why he said that....but you know, people are brave on the interntet, they say whatever they want while they would never say it up in someone's face, it's kinda' sad. ~_~ Oh yeah and by the way, what do you mean when you say "you've gotten worse". –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've had people say worse things and call me cruder names. My user page has been vandalized several times as well. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I can control myself, you learn to deal with it after a while. : ) –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 02:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been alerted to this IP attack, and two other seemingly related accounts, that appear to either have been stalking your edits, or abusing you on your talkpage. Do you think the person operating them is the same person as the abusive sockpuppeteer I blocked on June 16th?  Lra drama 07:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The IP probably isn't the same fellow. The sockpuppeteer did reappear today, as User:SlimeyJJonz. He generally loves to identify himself from the get go. It seems to be part of his "fun" to leave a note for his main target and make it clear it is him while he's going, then try to revert as many edits as he can before he gets blocked. Not sure if the two IPs are the same person, but just seemed to be my day to have annoying folks around. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 08:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe the IPs aren't related to the abusive-account-sockpuppeteer I blocked before, but the bahaviour between the two of them was brought to me via checkuser, and there does appear to be links. One rapidly defends the antics of the other. What they said to you is unspeakable of anyway. Both IPs blocked for 1 month. They shouldn't need warning four times each, behaviour like that is unacceptable, and there is thus clear evidence of the same person(s) being behind those two particular accounts.  Lra drama 08:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks and much appreciated. I agree those two IPs are likely related if not the same person. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 12:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say so too, so I guess he's one of those people who swears at random people on the internet. It's just like mob rules. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 15:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Miracle Dog
Sorry for the bungled edit in which I added a ref and inadvertently deleted the AFD notice. That was certainly not my intent. Do you have access to the actual book, or do you have an online cite to show that the list of TV/magazine coverage in the Barnes and Noble site is actually copied from the book jacket? All I have seen is an image of the front of the book. Are you sure that a list of publications is copyrightable, even if the order is varied and items are added? I did not understand that information as such is copyrightable. This should go to a forum on copyvios. Thanks. Edison (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The blurb on the back of the book is copyrightable, including the list of appearances. And yes, I found it on a book site that prints the full blurb from the back of the books. Also, unless you have an actual source for each appearance, you can't claim any of those are true nor that they are all specifically for the book. More than likely, NONE of them are, as they happened before the book came out. Its a promotional blurb, not usable, reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Tohru Honda pic
Did you request deletion of Image:Tohru Honda with Kyo Sohma (cat form), episode 26.jpg? It seems to have wiped clean, with a claim of an author blanked "the page." Someone's put in a replacement image for Tohru Honda, at least, but still, odd. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I got a notice that it was orphaned so I thought you'd decided not to use it. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wasn't me -- looks like an IP vandalized the name of the file (to something nonexistent) in the article while I wasn't noticing. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Doh. Well, if you want the other one back, let me know and I'll ask for it to be undeleted. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I preferred it, so, yeah, if you could. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Request sent :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The image has been undeleted. It's still orphaned, so you will need to replace it in the article before 4 July. Kevin (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thankee. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Meerkat Manor Meerkats
I don't see how this is vandalisim. I was editing the information Zaphod DID leave Aztecs. Zaphod DID stay with them. Zaphod SHOULD be moved to the Aztecs as he is in the group. Zaphod, being Zaphod, will most likely takr dominance. There is NO dominant male in Whiskers. The other males DID leave the group. Meerkatxoxo (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You removed source, verified information from a featured list and replaced it with unsourced information. You have been warned repeatedly NOT to do that, and I won't continue to coddle you over it. You should know better at this point. None of the meerkats will be moved, nor their status updated until its fully established in the current episodes that Zaphod is staying with the Aztecs. Episode by episode updates are not appropriate, nor is jumping ahead and trying to update based on the KMP site when they have already said the will not do any updates until the series finishes airing. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Understanding Somethings
Hey you seem to know alot about wikipedia so I wanted to know somethings I dont understand, and also to talk about manga.--Amp99 (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, did you have any specific questions? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Only two, 1 what do those plus and minus numbers mean by the peoples names on my watch list?--Amp99 (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It roughly indicates how the article's character count was changed by the edit. So +50 means the article was 50 characters longer after the change, while -25 would mean it was 25 characters less. 0 means the article still has the same number of characters. It doesn't indicate how many actual characters were changed, however. For example, someone could vandalize an article by changing the word "them" to "turd." The watchlist would have 0 beside it because the character count didn't change, but there were actual characters that were changed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh now it makes sense i wasnt sure what those numbers meant and the second question, how do I edit my page to look good.--Amp99 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * User pages work the same as regular articles, in terms of code. However, because they are user pages, you don't have the same MoS restrictions so you can have more fun with things like DIVs, tables, etc. Do you know any basic HTML? If not, you might want to try using one of the WYSIWYG editors available on the Gadgets page of your preferences. That will let you visually edit your user page. If you see someone's user page that you like a feature of, you can also look at their code o see how they did it, then do the same. Just make sure to follow WP:USER regarding allowed content. If you'd like to add userboxes, to give quick info about yourself, you can find the list at Userboxes. There are also editors available willing to help you with a design if you aren't familiar with HTML/CSS and want to do more than the editors will let you do. User Page Design Center would also be a great place to start and to learn more :) --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks AnmaFinotera i think i got that, well thats all need help with but tell me which do you think is better naruto or one piece —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amp99 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't really have an opinion as I've never read or watched either one :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thelegendofvix
Of course you remember Thelegendofvix (Greek editor who put up the langauge comparison chart), well what on happened exactly? It seems very few moderators showed any interest in the case you presented. Now he deleted the Sockpuppet claim on his user page, and replaced it with: Wikipedia is accurate. Very cute. But now that I can't go back because he put the Wikipedia is accurate thing over the talk page too, I can't access the case. So curiously, was it ever resolved? I personally don't think the other guy was a sock, but was there a punishment for Thelegendofvix's innapropriate edits? Yojimbo501 (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You might be able to access the case by looking at the history of his talk.  RC-0722 361.0/ 1  04:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * He was cleared of being a sock puppet after a check user was done. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

...
AnmaFinotera i would just like to say sorry. I really didn't mean to do any of this. I love wikipedia, and i've got to know people and maybe we got to close on here. I didn't mean to vandalise Meerkat Manor. I thought that the edits i was doing was okay, but i guess i didn't have evidence to support that. Please accept my apology. I really don't want to face the sockpuppetry case. I'm deeply sorry. I just wanted to make wikipedia better. I got a little mad, and went overboard with the users. Again sorry. I promise that i will leave wikipedia for a little while and calm down, but i really want to help out. I promise that i'll double check my edits, and everybody makes mistakes. I admit i made a mistake. Sorry.

Meerkat Manor True Info (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Its good that you are admitting to your mistakes. Unfortunately, as you have made several accounts like this, you may not be allowed to return as it is against the rules to do it. However, if you are allowed to return, I hope you will consider the "adopt a user" program to help you better learn the ropes on Wiki editing. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We all do stupid things like that when we first come to Wikipedia. : ) For example, when I was new, I edited rapidly on the List of Weekly Jump series page and drove StragerAtaru crazy. And boy, am I embarrased now. -_- All Wikipedians should keep in mind, when they first came to Wikipedia, no pressure from all of us. : ) –  J U M P G U R U  @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A Little Invite
I would like to Invite you to talk on my talk page under a new topic of mine titled "Can Wikipedia Change, Should it Change?" Also feel free to invite anyone else you think can contribute to this topic. Go all over Wiki is necessary. I'll try to do the same to. I thank you for reading this even if you don't respond to it. And if you do. . . Yaaaaaaay.:~)-BTJM--AKIRA70 (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can it change in what way? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well what constructive way do you think Wiki can change? What I'am asking is that you and some other people I sent this message to is to think on how (other than the obvious gripes of backlogs and editing) Wikipedia could improve upon or modify or even change its stances and or policies on itself. Or even if Wiki doesn't need to be change and just needs to stay the same. Just asking you and others to dicuss the lest obvious problems and errors that you have come across on Wiki and ideas you have to solve and/or fix them. --AKIRA70 (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Restored. Thanks, Black Kite 13:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

infobox television
Firstly, when someone reverts edits I've made to a high-profile template, I expect to hear about it directly. I don't expect to be referred to as "someone editing it negatively" on the very protection request I've just made.

Secondly, in what way were these changes "negative"? There should have been no impact to these edits: they were purely code cleanup.

Thirdly, thanks for getting yet another template protected needlessly. Your devotion to making it harder for non-admins to contribute to template space is much appreciated.

Now I've got to go requesting editprotected, after having waited over twelve hours for the privilege of getting the last protection lifted. What a collossal waste of my precious time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they weren't. You also changed the text of the infobox. And yes, you SHOULD have to wait for edit protected to ensure your changes are both desired and have consensus. This is too visible an infobox to let it stay unprotected just like the film infobox and others. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't "change the text of the infobox" at all. You appear to think that removing the silly | markup has changed the infobox somehow, whereas all it's done is stopped it from being fully expanded in the direct template view (which is unimportant when there's a documentation page). As for "too visible", I imagine I know the infobox code better than most admins, not to mention random users, so being prevented from working in templatespace because editors who don't know what they're doing feel to need to run to administrators over changes they don't understand before discussing them with the responsible parties is extremely frustrating. Bah. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you did change it, and your determination that it was unimportant does not mean others agree. Such a heavily used infobox should NOT be changed just because one person thinks they know better, when such edits affect so many articles. I was already planning to request it be reprotected even before you made the changes, because it never should have been unprotected in the first place. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever. There's no reason templates should be special-cased when it's so easy to fix them quickly. I wonder how you'd like it if you couldn't edit articles because some other user had decided arbirarily that your contributions required pre-vetting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've had articles under full protection, and I like it fine when it keeps people for making unnecessary and undiscussed major changes just because they felt like it. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to argue this with you any more, and I'm sorry I snapped at you earlier, but seriously: there was no need for you to revert all those edits, especially without even dropping me a note, and nor are templates so sacrosanct that they need every change debated prior to making it. You're in no position to be telling me straight up what edits are "unnecessary", and there's no reason that my peers on templatespace can't use the normal editing channels to work out disagreements rather than slapping fullprot on everything. Quite a lot of my work is on core changes to heavily-used templates, especially infoboxes, and it's made significantly more difficult when it is held up for petty procedural reasons by well-meaning editors who think WP:BB doesn't apply to templatespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Gundam 00
Your addition of tags in the Gundam 00 was clearly biased and in bad faith. The article is relatively complete now, considering how it is still running. How is it even possible for additional contents to be added? In fact, the article follow WP:MOS-AM rather closely. Trinity Triblood (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't. You can stop removing the tags or you will be blocked, period. The article needs clean up and does NOT follow the MoS "rather closely." I realize you are relatively new, accountwise, so I suggest you just stop it and realize that I do knw what I'm talking about. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

neopets
i dont see how my information is excessive. my addition to information on the neopets page was relevant, especially under the NC Mall section. my facts were supported by very reliable sources. i have since reverted my additions, but have refined certain areas to compromise with you. thanks, Corythepaperboy (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, they weren't. You didn't add a single reliable source. Also, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Excessive game play information is just that, excessive. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Code Geass tags
And you could have just heeded my request instead of reverting. So, would you mind explaining your reasoning for the tags? — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 17:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I left a note on the talk page. In the future, why not ask first before reverting. If that were done by a new editor, I'd have just called it vandalism and let a warning. I'd have hoped by now you would know well enough that I do not leave tags for no reason, and am happy to explain tags I left if someone feels their need isn't obvious. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with most of your taggings, but there are situations when you should explain why you do them. If you left an POV tag without giving a reason, you'd be reverted. This is a similar but less obvious parallel. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, those are rarely reverted. I usually only POV tag if it is so blatantly obvious that an explanation shouldn't be necessary. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BJ Talk 08:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, since he couldn't bother to leave the notice. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 08:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy-editing for List of Naruto characters
I've been busy with other stuff, but finding a copy-editor for List of Naruto characters is really the last item to be addressed for it. If you can poke around at some members of the (former) WP:LOCE, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 09:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I indef blocked that sockpuppet you left in that note in my talk page if you haven't noticed already. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 09:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated and I'll see what I can do on the CE. If you get a chance, I just posted a PR for Shojo Beat. I'm aiming to have it be the project's first magazine GA (and maybe FA) and a model for future mag articles, so really looking for all the feedback I can get :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 09:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * User:RyRy has agreed to give it a CE. If there is anything he may need to know about the list or specific concerns, please leave a note on his talk page :) I've left him a note with the peer review link. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)