User talk:Collectonian/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Could you lend me a hand with a new article?

I'm working on an article for the webcomic 9th Elsewhere, but I'm a little stumped. The article I wrote was speedied for WP:CSD#A7 and WP:WEB as it had been AfD'd for the same reason. I tried to fix the problem, but I'm not sure it will be enough to keep the article. I was wondering if you could take a look over what I've got and give me some pointers? My working copy is here if you're interested. I'll be out of town for the next week, so I'm in no rush for an answer. Thank you. --Eruhildo (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...the big thing I think would be to find some other assertions of notability and other reliable sources. I think the awards may be enough, but more RS wouldn't hurt. While the comic itself is fine for the character and plot info, and some of the basic history of the series, other RS's discussing it help further establish notability. With web comics, the additional challenge is that they aren't like print ones that may be syndicated in thousands of paper, so finding neutral sources will be harder. You may want to cut back on the character section some as it dominates the article. Try to focus on the more real world notability first, including reception (reviews, awards, etc), history, impact, etc. It looks like they are doing a book compilation, so that should also be mentioned if you can get more info on it. The Comic series MOS might have some useful tips for organization and formatting]]. Maybe see if there are any GA or B web comic articles to study as well?
For some other suggestions. I'd probably not have quite so many links to the site (have one in the info box, so need need for one in the intro or ELs). Also, if a reference is used more than once, don't forget to use a named ref so you don't have it repeating in the reference list. :)
Here is one review link I found that might help some for the receiption section: [1].
Hope that helps some, Collectonian (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't expect that much help. Thanks a ton! That really helped me know what to look for. Again, thanks! --Eruhildo (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite welcome and welcome back. Hope you had a great trip :) Collectonian (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


Projects and deletion

In the past few months, turning old projects into task forces has become a bit more widely accepted, and that's why the current trend is to "task-force"-ize them if they have had any real history of activity and/or other substantive content. Unfortunately, I was creating a new draft of the directory which still isn't complete because I have an unfortunate tendency to get sidetracked fairly easily. I have since asked for some help in finishing the directory. When that all gets finished, then I think the inactive projects page will be a bit more obvious. In effect, though, it probably is at least primarily my fault for having attempted something beyond my own abilities. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and I agree with the idea :) Hopefully some other folks will step in to help, since it is an important bit of work and much needed. Trust me on knowing about biting off more than you can chew...I'm starting to wish I'd never even seen some stuff I work on :PCollectonian (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Trinity Blood Name Edit

I was just wondering why you changed the names to fit the novel rather than the Anime. I was under the impression that this article was created using references from the Anime more than the other two versions. It really doesn't matter either way, and I believe that it was unnecessary to bother. I would stick with the Anime because it is probably better known than the other two versions, but either versions work.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia guidelines and the anime/manga MOS, articles about series with multiple versions focus on the first version, with the rest mentioned as adaptations/retellings, as appropriate, not the most popular one. As the Trinity Blood novels came first, and are the source for both the manga and the anime series, the novels are what the main article and character list must use as their primary source. The episode list, of course, will still use the anime as its source because that is the specific version it is about.  :) Collectonian (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Whatever works I guess, but the spellings in the novels are translations, so there is no absolute certainty about the validity of the spellings in a different language. I suppose we should avoid over complicating the situation and just assume that it is correct, and leave it at that unless some reliable source say otherwise, but for the time being it doesn't really matter. --AndrewR5D4 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
True on the translations, but in general we use the official English translation unless there are reliable sources that show that the translation is incorrect. :) Collectonian (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Marmalade Boy

Oops -- I see we're stomping on each other. I'll get out of the way. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, no worries. I just couldn't take looking at the layout anymore. I'm done for now. Need to go eat. I've tagged it as underconstruction, so if you want to work on it some more, just change it to inuse then change back when done. *grin* I left a note on the talk page detailing the work I saw as needing done, if it helps. Collectonian (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Princess Leia's Theme?

I don't think that's a bad idea at all! It would certainly be appropriate—since Wookiepedia's page on Leia already has that title as a section—and would give the article a relieving boost. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I've noticed, by skimming the Theme article's history, that you've had to deal with an IP vandal who kept on trying to add the Leiabikini image. I and several others have had to deal with that same IP vandal over the past few days, and I thought you'd might like to know that he's been temporarily blocked. Kudos to you for handling the situation so well. ;) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, he's been changing IPs so I also filed a request for the page to be protected. I don't get why that guy is so hung up on having that image, other than I guess he just liked it. Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Although it's obvious he likes the bikini pic (by running through his contribs you can see he's been adding the same pic over and over to various Star Wars-related articles), there were much more relevant images to add. Besides, it wasn't even the article about the character herself, so an infobox was in no way necessary. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
LOL, yeah, that was my guess...he could just make it his desktop wallpaper and leave it at that. ;-) Hopefully if its merged, the issue will be fixed, at least on that one. Collectonian (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aggie comment

Regarding this, I'm confident BQZip01 was not intending an insult. He is an Aggie himself and, at the least, meant nothing more than to be informative; and, at most, meant nothing more than a good-natured ribbing. Just came across the edit and wanted to chime in. I would hate to see such such a little misunderstanding escalate. Keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured he was just trying to get in a little ribbing, but it really isn't appropriate for putting in an article, even if one wonders about the anon user that changed it in the first place :P Collectonian (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Just wanted to make sure you didn't feel there was anything malicious on his part. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

See the top of my talk page. I can't really afford to get involved in a big project like this at the time, I'm afraid. Circeus (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Collectonian (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to provide a thorough copyedit, but it will take me a couple of days. (There are two articles in line ahead of yours.) In the future, however, please contact me for a copyedit before the article is listed at FAC. I don't care for working under the pressure of the FAC process. Thanks and I'll be in touch. (If I haven't made comments by Friday, please send me another message.) – Scartol • Tok 18:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I'll keep it in mind for future FACs (this one is my first). :) Much appreciated! Collectonian (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello freak!

You don´t mind if I have another account, do you? Yaeh, it may take a while for you to call again the support of yr peers. Lulu Margarida yes? 17:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can´t you stand for yrself? Mom???!! She, they, him (Oh, Iam so confused*&¨%$#@!), called me again of freak!! Mom??? Help me, mom! Go there, mom, block her, knock her!! Block, block! Childhood... Baby boomers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu Margarida (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lemur Street

Thank you for doing so much to improve the article on Lemur Street and the articles that cited it. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll try to work on it some more later. Hopefully it does better than Orangutan Island seems to have. Collectonian (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm certain that Lemur Street will do better than Orangutan Island. The problem with Orangutan Island is that there is no competing group of Orangutans for them to fight with. Lumur Street has two competing groups of lemurs. Of course it still won't be able to beat our Meerkat Manor, which is (in my opinion) the greatest animal show that could ever possibly be made. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
True on Orangutan Island. Been harder to expand out Orangutan Island article like I have with Meerkat Manor because it just isn't getting the same coverage at all. I suspect people like that there is human intervention, but on the whole you're probably right about the competition. I could also be that not everyone finds Orangutan's cute and, really, unlike meerkats or lemurs, they have had lots of coverage before, so other than the research idea, there isn't much unique there. With Lemur Street, we have another relatively unknown animal for the general public, another instance of never before seen footage, and while its just two groups, the competition should still make it more interesting.  :) Collectonian (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nathan Mahler

I'm gonna have to work on that. I'm sure thare's some way to write in the part about him not actually being Diva's Chevalier. The fact that Saya's blood didn't kill him is proof of that.--Marhawkman (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Saya's blood not killing him is not "proof," only speculation and nothing in the anime series that is said by the characters explicitly states it. Anything added to the article must be properly sourced an verifiable from a reliable source or straight from something said in the anime, novels, or manga. Personal guesses, speculation, or opinion do not belong in the article. Collectonian (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's explicitly stated that Saya's blood is fatal to any of Diva's Chevaliers. However it DIDN'T kill him. That sounds adequate to me.--Marhawkman (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No, that's guess work and WP:OR. It says her blood is fatal to Diva's creations, and visa versa, however several times Diva's chevaliers have withstood some exposure to Saya's blood when they are at full-strength. Collectonian (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The only time I know of that that happened he only survived by cutting the affected limb off before it could spread.--Marhawkman (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it does show they can do something about it. If Amshel isn't Diva's chevaliers, if the anime never says it explicitly then perhaps the novels will. If not, we must presume that he is what he says he is, and just call the blood thing a plot hole. Collectonian (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... Are they still making more?--Marhawkman (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The anime? No, its done, though its still airing here. The novels and manga are both completed in Japan, but the novels won't be released till March. The first volume of the manga should be hitting stores sometime between now and the end of the month. :-) Collectonian (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You think there's a good chance they might elaborate on this there?--Marhawkman (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the novels might, or at least be less ambiguous, if some of the other Japanese light novels I've read that anime series were based on are any indication. Kinda like books to movies, some details get lost. :) Collectonian (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

New Animal Planet logo

Exactly when are you going to put the new Animal Planet logo, with the giant words ANIMAL PLANET written all over it, on the Animal Planet site? The reason why I am asking you this is because I know that the new logo will make its appearance on the Animal Planet channel in exactly two weeks from today. AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Unless Animal Planet has released it online somewhere, how could I put this new logo up? Collectonian (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw that logo on the Escape to Chimp Eden commercial while I was watching Animal Planet. If you want that new logo, you're going to have to tape one of the Animal Planet commercials, like Petfinder or Puppy Bowl IV. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to have to do anything. As I said, if/when Animal Planet updates their website with the new logo, then if another editor hasn't already done it, then I will probably update the logo. I'm not sure why you feel like anyone HAS to do it, that it has to be done ASAP, or even why you feel like I'm the one who is supposed to do it. Wikipedia is edited by millions of editors. Looking at your contribs and your talk page, you seem to have some very wrong ideas about how Wikipedia works. No one owns any articles and asking another editor not to edit an article is heavily frowned upon. I'd strong suggest you reread the links given in the welcome message on your talk page so you can have a better idea of how it works so you do not continue to break the rules. Thanks. Collectonian (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective criteria for episode notability

I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wolf's Rain

That's weird. In terms of reading, I would expect reception to come after any sort of media, especially when the reception is based on the media, thus leading to a flow problem with the reader wondering "what [insert piece of media] does this thing have?" I guess you can move it back, but common sense would dictate it would be last, especially when one of our FAs, Madlax, follows this format. Feel free to bring this up at WT:ANIME if you see fit. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I probably will later. We already got so many discussions going on, I think I'll let those pass first and I'm not quite ready to FA that one (found a book that may have production details, wee!). Is it a bad sign when I got all excited to find a book that enabled me to add production info to Vision of Escaflowne the other week? LOL Collectonian (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Princess Leia Merge?

D'you think it's time for that merge you proposed with Princess Leia's Theme, or is it too early for consensus to be reached? — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think its time, since I didn't see any objections. Collectonian (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Great! Truth be told, I'm not really sure how to do that, although I'd assume that it has something to do with cutting-and-pasting. . . — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
In this case, yep, I'd go for a straight cut and paste section somewhere in the new article, either as a main level section or under an appropriate section. I think main level would be fine. If it needs any rewriting, it can be done after the merge :) Collectonian (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Done! But now, what do I with the previous music article? — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirect with merge tag, which I did :) And remove any project tags from the the talk page (also did). :-) Collectonian (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! I think this merge will give the article overall a much-needed boost and will spur users/editors to provide more citations, arguably the basic problem with the article. I hope this problem will be rectified soon. Thank you very much for this contribution! It's much appreciated! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


Texas AgriLife Extension Service

Updated DYK query On 21 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Texas AgriLife Extension Service, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Alabama Extension article.

Collectonian, I'm still rather new to the whole Wikipedia endeavor, and I wasn't aware of the COI issue. Yes, I am a news and public affairs employee for Extension, though I believe I've striven to avoid any overtly nonneutral language in the article. Could you point out the areas within the article that seem nonneutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACES-wikiman (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain it. :) Except for the history (which is awesome BTW), quite a few bits read in like self-promotion. You may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Words to avoid for help with identifying non-neutral language. A few things I noticed:
  • "Distinctive programs" - Just "Programs" would be more neutral, as the distinctive implies they are unique to ACES when not all are.
  • "While many of these priorities areas are reflected in Extension efforts in other states, Alabama’s unique history often has channeled Alabama Extension programming efforts into directions that have distinguished it from other states" - as this is sourced from ACES itself, it is not a neutral statement. A neutral, third party source is needed to make claims of uniqueness or being distinguished.
I've left a welcome message on your talk page that has a lot of helpful links regarding Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability, neutrality, and reliable sourcing. The article also seems to have an excessive number of images. Images in Wikipedia article should illustrate a concept, and is generally limited to one per major section unless its an extremely technical item. Check out WP:IMAGE for more info on image selection and placement. Beyond that, I'd recommend moving structure above programs and critically evaluating all of the content to ensure it is encyclopedic in value. You might want to request a copy editor give it a once over, as they are very skilled in spotting issues in neutrality and can offer a much better breadth of suggestions than me.
I hope that helps some. Collectonian (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, I've undertaken a thorough reediting of the page, which I hope, renders it less objectionable from a neutrality standpoint. Also, when I figure out how, I'm going to post my ACES affiliation to the discussion page. One last thing: after following through with your edits and other possible nonneutral language, I took the liberty to remove your warning. Hope I didn't violate Wiki protocol in doing so.

Oh, and I'm going to look into removing some of the excessive graphic information.

Again, many thanks for your suggestions. I think I've ended up with a considerably strengthened article as a result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACES-wikiman (talk • contribs) 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that's fine since you made a good faith effort to address the issues (though you forgot to ptu in an edit summary ;) ). I did retag the article for needing copyediting, per my earlier comments. That one should be removed by the editor who does the copyediting (which, by necessity, should be someone else). If you go to the League of Copyeditors, you can submit a request to have someone give the article a going over. They will do some edits themselves, and the rest leave as suggestions on the article talk page. :) They do great work and can really help find all kinds of things we can't see as the folks who did the writing, and copy editing would be required before the article could be nominated for Good Article or Featured Article status, if that's something you're hoping to do. Collectonian (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping Prehistoric medicine!!

Hi, I'm just writing to thank you for helping with my Prehistoric medicine topic. This might seem a bit too formal, but just I think that the article has a lot of potential. Thanks again! =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk • contribs) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. After taking a look at it, I was suprised there wasn't already an article on it. Just remember when creating articles that only the first word should be capitalized unless its a proper noun :) Collectonian (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Me too, I couldn't believe there wasn't one. Anyway, just to ask how you suggest that I categorize the article and clean it up? Should I include it in the history of science, or medicine, or what? Sorry, but I'm unsure atm. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
For categories, look at some similar articles and see what categories they are in, then determine if Prehistoric medicine would fit into any of those as well. You want to put it in the most specific category, so check each to see if the article best fits there or if there is a subcategory under the article that would be even better. I'd look at 2-3 to get a good selection. You don't want to over categorize, but it should be able to go a few. For clean up, take a look at the Wikipedia MOS (there is a link to it in your welcome message) and look at the sections on how to format headers (for the short version: headers should be all lower case except the first word and proper nouns, and avoid using special symbols like & :) ). Collectonian (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping my editing on Orang Island

Hey, I know it's not "my" page, per se, but I wanted to thank you for all the work you've done on the page!--Browneatmidnight (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks for taking care of all those descriptions :) Collectonian (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Thank you for supporting me in my merge of Hanataro Yamada. I started a relist section, could you relist your name? Earthbendingmaster 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

When you do a relist, it usually means that you're just wanting additional comments, not that the existing ones are no longer valid :) Collectonian (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose. Thanks anyway. Earthbendingmaster 05:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Its the same way when an AfD is relisted. It doesn't mean people need to repost their earlier comments, only that the admin felt that more comments were needed to ensure a clear consensus.  :) Collectonian (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright of Adult Swim logo

Simple text and/or fonts cannot be copyright, therefor the image is not protected by copyright. It is however protected by a registered trademark.

To make this clearer I have changed the license from {{PD-ineligible}} to {{PD-textlogo}}.

Fine...the graphic, however, was taken from their website and is not just text/font, but if that's fine with the Wiki legal folks, okay. If you'd tagged it that way from the get go, it would have been clearer. Collectonian (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm going to recommend this address be blocked. It is a shared address and if you note most of its history is vandalism. This probably will continue as many computers are using this account. I will not anymore (no longer working here), so I don't care, but I advise you watch this IP's edits.163.151.2.10 (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem...and thanks for undoing some of the vandalism :) Collectonian (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo! 360 Edits

I had noticed that you had removed my edits on the Yahoo! 360 post. While I agree that, as you stated, the shutdown had been confirmed by previous cited sources, the "Future" addition was not related to the shutdown, but rather the user reaction to the shutdown. As to your comment that it was excessive in detail, I am willing to revise my edits to be re-added. Zebaron (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The user reaction was unsourced. A reliable source is needed to make claims about the user reaction, otherwise its original research and personal opinion, which are not appropriate additions for a Wikipedia article. Collectonian (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do about sourcing it, my concern is that it is near impossible to source a feeling. How would I cite a movement of people from one service to another? Zebaron (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Look for newspaper/magazine articles or the like discussing the shut down and user reactions. Basically, the "feelings" have to have been discussed elsewhere, then we can include it in the article by summarizing the source. :) Collectonian (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
As it were, I was one of the users who moved (did you have a 360 page, per chance?), and when I got to Multiply, the platform many users moved to, I founded a group, Y!360 Refugees. The group now has 1800+ members with more every day, so could I say something like, "Users have formed reunion groups on new blogging platforms, notably Y!360 Refugees on Multiply.com" or something like that? You'll have to pardon me as I was encouraged to edit another article earlier this evening, so this is really only my second attempt...! Zebaron (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have Yahoo! 360, and was greatly annoyed by the shut down after having invested years in it. And no, that would not be appropriate, as it is still original research, because it is synthesizing your own thoughts from seeing the group on Multiply.com Blog posts and the existance groups are not a reliable source. Reliable sources must be a neutral, third-party source that has with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So newspaper, magazines, industry websites, etc are reliable sources. If, for example, CNet had an article discussing the shut down and user reactions, you could use that article as a source to include a summary of what they reported in the article. However, a blog post about it would not be a reliable source unless it is a blog of an known industry expert. Collectonian (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I share your feeling... I spent two years at 360 and made a lot of good friends and it disappointed me that Yahoo! didn't upgrade the product rather than just write it off. Are you at Multiply, then? Also, I have a good 3rd-party site that I can incorporate into the "future" section. I found it at Techcrunch. Should I re-write, and then add it in, considering all your suggestions meanwhile? Zebaron (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I moved some of my blog content over to my LiveJournal, but the rest I'll just let get deleted. To cumbersome, and no desire to really learn anything else. Between my LiveJournal and my personal website, the stuff I want to do is covered. :)
Is the article you saw this one? Anything you write must be directly attributable to that article. So you could say that Yahoo's decision to shut down 360 has mostly gone unnoticed except by its users. You could also note that the shut down came after a drastic drop in US traffic in the last year, and that while it had worldwide appeal, even the international traffic had dropped greatly. Collectonian (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That is precisely what I was planning to cite. I'll head over there now.

Multiply provided a transfer tool, but the way that Yahoo!'s servers are, the tool was not 100% reliable. Is LiveJournal very social-network like, or is that rather blogging?Zebaron (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Live Journal is primarily blogging, though it does have some social-networking features (community blogs, friending abilities, and they just added the ability to send messages, but don't know how much its being used yet. The main thing I liked about 360 was it was such a more interesting and dynamic profile than the old stuff, then when they shut it down they brought back the old one and it was all broken :( Collectonian (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd encourage you to check out Multiply, then, because you can cross-post automatically to LiveJournal. I was considering moving to one of the bigger blogging sites, but I craved the social-networking too (though I would rather quit before I went to MySpace.) If you are even remotely interested, my profile there is zebaron.multiply.com. On to business, though.

I edited that entry again, adding the source for the "future" area, and also amending the "official blog" area to include a comment count. I also cited that since what was there was not cited. If you have any concerns, please write me here (as I don't know how to check my Talk thing) rather than delete the entire thing. Zebaron (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but it doesn't interest me much. I really don't like social networking as a whole. I love LiveJournal as it gives me most of the features I liked from 360. I mostly used 360 for a very nice profile (which pulled in my LJ feed, Flickr feed, etc), and for doing some sporadic blogging. For the article, I had to clean up your entry, as you still included OR and did not properly place the reference (references should go at the end of the sentence, behind the full stop, unless there is a very pressing reason to have it within the sentence. If you get a message on your talk page, an orange bar will appear at the top of all pages you look at until you click the link :) You can also check it by clicking "my talk" at the top of the page, or the talk link beside your name in your watch list. Collectonian (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Erm, do I say "Thank you" or tell you that I'm totally disgusted with my experience here? I don't see what the problem was with what I wrote, and if you'd take the time to explain it to me rather than to rip it apart less than five minutes after I wrote it, I'd be much obliged. Zebaron (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that explains it, but I am still rather unhappy. Zebaron (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I did explain, in all of the conversation up above, that personal opinion and unsourced material should not be added to articles. I removed the unsourced OR (about users going elsewhere). That wasn't supported by the source or by any other source. I removed the header because it wasn't quite accurate and the history section wasn't long enough to need a header. I rewrote the rest to be true the source. The way you phrased it was not an accurate summary of the source. Synthesizing your own conclusions from a source is also considered original research. Collectonian (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that "History" quite explains what happened after everything went down. History does not accurately encompass what happened/is happening after it was closed. I understand your conclusions about original research and have cleared that up, as well. Zebaron (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It covers the history of the service from start to finish. If the section were longer, a subheader would be appropriate, but at its current length, a header for just two sentences is unnecessary. I've left a welcome message on your user talk page that can help you learn more about some of the basics of Wikipedia article formats and the like. Great resource that I hope will help improve your experience, and lessen the disgust factor :) Collectonian (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I do see your reason, but unfortunately, I think something larger is at play. It appears that, in its entirety, I wasted quite a bit of my time. I do suspect that nothing I would have written would have been good enough for you, and I concede that point. It would be quite a shame for I, a new editor, to try and add information to a C-list article as per the aims of Wikipedia. I should hope that you realize the disgust factor was not Wikipedia, or the complications of the system, but rather the inhospitality that was willing to undermine every step I tried to take. I do believe I'll be removing my account in the next few days... it's all for naught. Respectfully, Zebaron (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. I've tried to be helpful and hospitable in this discussion, but yes, Wikipedia does have guidelines and policies that should be followed, as the goal is to have articles with validated, accurate content. As a more experienced editor who knows some of the ropes, I tried to guide you to help you do an edit in keeping with the article, then corrected the edit where it was improved, but not quite there. The source did not specifically claim that users left 360 in droves, and as the numbers given were from before the shutdown was announced, it was a false conclusion to presume they had. We must always be careful not to misuse or misreport a source, otherwise we are falsifying information, which benefits no one. Collectonian (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(Restarting at left margin because I can't stand a column one word wide) I do understand the rules of interpreting the source correctly, and if you were concerned about how I worded mine, regarding the source not claiming that users left as a result of the shut down, I would like to express the concern that your revision is more ambiguous, in that it states, "came at the heels of its American web traffic dropping 51% between 2006 and 2007." which is not entirely true, because the results were September-to-September. In reality, your revision gives the impression mine did, as well. I would hate for you, "a more experienced editor who know some of the ropes", to "not to misuse or misreport a source, otherwise we are falsifying information, which benefits no one." Wouldn't you agree? Zebaron (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, September 2006 to September 2007. The shut down announcement did not come until October 2007. So technically, it is more accurate, however it also still quite right so I have reworked that section. Collectonian (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks wonderful. Doesn't a little constructive criticism help once and a while? ;D Zebaron (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Above

Reply:Merge: Well, admin are not the only ones who do it. Many times the person who listed it for deletion or someone who has participated in it will. Earthbendingmaster 14:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins are generally the only ones to close AfDs, which is why I said that. Sorry I was being confusing.  :) Collectonian (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bonfire leadership article

Thanks for the cleanup. — BQZip01 — talk 03:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Suze Orman Edit War

Collectonian, I can understand a difference of opinion on my additions to the Criticism section of the Suze Orman article. But it is a personal attack to label factual references as "vandalism" and "borderline libel". And it is censorship to delete my discussion from the relevant talk page where we could get feedback from other editors. Do you want to discuss this here or seek third-party opinions? 96.231.85.208 (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding unsourced, libelous information to the article of a living person is not allowed on Wikipedia, and continuing to try to add it after its been removed more than once is properly considered vandalism. It was not censorship to remove the comment, as it always was too close to being libelous and was unsourced opinion, not verifiable fact. If you wish to rephrase your comment in a more appropriate way, without making derogatory remarks about her sexual orientation, then it can be discussed. Collectonian (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Collectonian, my comment about Orman's investing is absolutely a verifiable fact because it referenced the Suse Orman interview by the New York Times. The criticism and relevance to her financial advice was referenced in the MarketWatch article.

I don't consider being a lesbian/virgin "derogatory". In any case that is already in the article. Are you going to let me post the financial critism now? Or are you going to continually delete my facts sourced by the New York Times? 96.231.178.193 (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It was an unsourced fact and you didn't say "she's a lesbian" you said she never had been with a man so she wasn't qualified to offer advice about relationships between men and women. I will revert any unsourced or badly sourced material added to the article per Wikipedia's policies regarding articles on living people. Saying "she doesn't invest in the stock market" is not a criticism, its a comment. Keep your personal views out of your edits, and it should be fine. Collectonian (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned Article?

Just a note on your decision to make Prehistoric medicine an orphaned article. I have already linked many related articles to the page such as: Prehistory, History of Medicine, Medicine Man and many others. What else do you think I should link it to or is that plenty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk • contribs) 19:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's plenty. It just didn't show any links when I checked it :) Collectonian (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kk =] MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to put the logo gallery back on the Animal Planet page?

When Animal Planet changes its logo this upcoming weekend, do you want me to put the logo gallery back on the Animal Planet page so that I'll know which logo was used first? Please let me know what you think. This is very important. Thank you. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Unless the article is cleaned up and expanded to include an actual sourced discussion of the logo history, using more than just the current logo would not be valid fair use. Collectonian (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: January 2008

It was a complete mistake. My apologies. I was kinda reverting a little too fast and when I checked your edit, I accidentally hit "revert" (I use Popups). I'll try to go at a slower pace. --Nobody can see me 23:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Its good to be vigilant against vandalism, just be a little more careful to be sure what you are reverting really is vandalism first :) Collectonian (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

MM

Congrats on the FA star for Meerkat Manor. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 19:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Collectonian (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Television infobox template

Hey, noticed you undid my revision. Not complaining, just really feel that those are two items that are really needed for that template. American game and talk/variety shows don't have presenters and narrators. They have hosts and announcers. Added a blurb to the discussion page. Hope to hear back soon, and hope to see those added to the template soon as non-mandatory options. Snowpeck (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is possible they do, however with a template like that, which is literally used on thousands of pages, any major changes like that should be discussed first and agreed to by consensus. Its also better to let them be done by someone with more experience with the template code so as not to risk breaking anything. :) Collectonian (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

IMDB

  • Hello, why is imdb.com not a good source to use for film shoot locations? Secondly, what do you recommend as a good source instead? Nhl4hamilton (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In general, IMDB can only be used for basic film information, like actor, director, etc (i.e. the credits of a film). It can be used to find film location, however, it should not be listed as a reference as the location information listed generally comes from the film credits as well. If another reference can be found to expand on the location, then that can be added to confirm the film credits, but otherwise it isn't needed. Collectonian (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
OK Thanks for the speedy response and explanation. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Alabama Extension Page

Hi, ACES-wikiman here. Would you consider removing the tag on the Alabama Cooperative Extension System article? I've got two of our professional editors on it right now, going over it with a fine-toothed comb. Also, as soon as i can figure out how, I will submit it to the Wiki editorial board for review. Sorry to be a bother about this, but I've spent literally hours of my free time on this material, running over it with a fine-toothed comb myself, and consdier it pretty topnotch. I'm not bucking for an FA, only a page that is respected and that convey's factual information. Also, as you remember, I removed all the nonneutral material and have sense gone back and checked for anything else considered crossing the line. Sorry if I've violated any Wiki etiquette here, but I'm respectfully asking for some consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.46.144 (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No. While I'm sure your editors will do a great job, it also needs neutral eyes to look at it. I've already put in a request at the organization project for them to take a look at it to see if it conforms to their Manual of Style regarding content and layout. It isn't anything personal and many articles are tagged for needing work. Also, please remember that no one owns Wikipedia articles, so while you may not be aiming for an FA article, that is part of the over all goal for most projects and most editors: to have articles that are of high enough quality to be considered a featured article. After the organization project looks at it, then it can be reviewed by the Wikipedia League of Copyeditors, who are experts in Wikipedia's manual of style and requirements regarding style, tone, etc. It is something all well done articles go through, and again it is nothing personal. Even if you were not personally affiliated with ACES, the article would be tagged the same and require review and clean up. It is something all well-fleshed out articles will go through. Collectonian (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Littles response and more

When it came to YouTube, how come Yo Yogi had some links to clips and some shows have links to the show's intro? Rtkat3 (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't and the links should be removed immediately. People often add bad links to pages. If they aren't being well watched, they may sit there awhile until someone spots and removes. That doesn't make it acceptable and YouTube links that violate copyrights are expressly forbidden as violating Wikipedia policy. Only official streams/videos published by the copyright owner are acceptable for linking to with regard to copyrighted works. Collectonian (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Heroes

Greetings...I am a member of the Heroes wikiproject. I recently noticed that you made some motifications to the talkpage. The talkpage has recently been changed to make the page less crowded and model itself after the talkpage on the LOST talkpage. Lost is a featured article, which the Heroes wikiproject has consistantly modeled itself after. There is no Wikipedia policy that says the boxes can not be small, similar to the small boxes on the Lost page. Your referenced wikipolicy TW, but that did not support your claim as to the changes you have made. the heroes wikiproject is quit content with the way the Heroes talkpage looks. Is policy being broken the way the page was before you changed it?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't reference policy, I said the revert was unexplained (which it was the first time). The page is hideously overloaded, on that I agree, hence some of the changes I made to try to balance the amount of information, while also making it clean, consistent with most talk pages, and to help handle some tasks. I've tweaked my initial suggestions to try to blend the two styles. Please take a look and see if that works. Collectonian (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing this with me. I have taken a look at what you have done, and funny enough, I had an edit conflict, because I was doing the same clean-up job you were doing at the same time. The talkpage looks fine now. I just thought those boxes were too big...but now that you have made them a little smaller and cleaner, it looks fine. Its great to find users who will openly discuss issues with other users in a positive way. I agree with your changes and I will not contest them again. The talkpage looks better and cleaner now and I respect what you did. I may have accidently reverted something that you did during the edit conflict. I think the page is back to the way you had it, but if you could take some time to review the page and make sure it is right, please do so. thanks you very much and thanks for adding a ranking to the heroes article--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem and glad it helped :) Good luck going for GA/FA (guessing you guys will after the peer review and a copy edit?) :) Collectonian (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks...i appreciate it...and yeah, we are going for GA and FA one day. we have some work to do, but we will get to that status soon. once again, thanks for being real civil. see you on the talkpages!!!--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Closure of Post Oak Mall AfD

Hi -- Just a note that when you closed the Post Oak Mall AfD, you placed the first tag in the wrong place; it goes right at the top. I've fixed it for you. See Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_Deletion_page for detailed instructions. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Woops. Thanks for catching, and fixing, that :) Collectonian (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime...

Thank you for notifying me about the problems with that image. Now I know what to do in future with promotional images of television series. In the meantime, let's talk about the article... you say it has multiple issues, right? There are four problems you listed; could you please give a detailed explanation of each one, in point form? (I find that easier to read.) I'll be looking in the article's discussion page under that title you started. Thank you!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already given a detailed explanation in the article's talk page. If you look at the MOS, it can provide even greater detail on what a television series article layout should be like, and what should go in each section. WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Citation templates can help with making the references more consistent in format. WP:LEAD gives a detailed explanation on what the lead section of an article should have. Use it, along with the MOS to help flesh out the article, fix the layout and formatting issues, and address the various things mentioned in my initial assessment and per the tags I left on the article. You may also want to look at some of the featured television articles for ideas and guidance. Collectonian (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, what I meant was what exactly else do you think needs to be cited there? Because - pardon my French - it was doggone hard to find citations for what I did ( she laughs). Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Before the article can go higher in class, pretty much any fact that didn't come specifically from the series (like credits and over all plot), must be sourced. Anything that can not be sourced is basically considered original research and should be removed as it can't be verified. Collectonian (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Heroes rated

Hello...I had a question about your comment. your comments was Assessment completed and set to B. As its already under peer review, no comments left on the talk page. After the peer review, though, with some copyediting from the LoCE, might be ready to try for GA or FA. I was wondering if you could explain to me what LoCe means. This is a new term to me...is it a wikilanguage word or what? Just wondering...thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I forgot to wikilink it. LoCe is the the League of Copyeditors...a project of folks who specialize in copy editing articles before they go up for GA or FA. :-) Collectonian (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

On Xena; it's only work, right?  :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob :) I wonder why she keeps nominating such bad articles...that one has a ton of broken references even. :( Collectonian (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Fourth time; could be communication issues. I deal with another editor like that, but not at FAC, where it ties up so many resources. And, once a FAC is up, I've got to leave it at least four days <sigh>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Blech...then she tried to put it in PR AND GA. I hope she figures it out soon and stops nominating hideous articles. Collectonian (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that; since I'm not an admin, I asked Gimmetrow to housekeeping delete the old, redirected malformed fac nom. Work, work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No prob. I've tagged the bad PR (which was incomplete) for CSD as housekeeping.  :) Collectonian (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to do that; I just leave a message for Gimmetrow (talk · contribs); he got the fac already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I use Twinkle, but can also do by adding {{db-g6}} to the top of the article (for Housekeeping CSD). Collectonian (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I won't remember g6, but if I type db-Maintenance once, I'll remember :-) Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Xena page.

Thanks very much. I'm very new to this, and really don't know what to do at this point.


Glitter1959 (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959


Edit Summary

Collectonian: I will gladly provide an edit summary - just as soon as you point me to the regulation which states one is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supervox2113 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 31 January 2008

Is it strictly required? No. Not doing so, however, is considered rude and don't be suprised to find your edits continuously reverted if you can't bother yourself to explain why you made the changes. Collectonian (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Collectonian: No problem. I will gladly cease to be rude, and explain (to those who apparently need it explained) every little grammatical error I happen to fix. Btw, failing to provide an edit summary is considered rude according to which wiki guideline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supervox2113 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's considered rude per Wikipedia interactions. You aren't collaborating and its hard to work together when one person doesn't think they need to say what they are doing, or why. Collectonian (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bob Ross

I have made some ammendments to this page, I have not added this thime about Bob's third wife. He was married three times, I have researched him for over three years and have copied of all three of his marriage certs. I have removed the fact that Bob was Veggie, it would be nice to think that my hero was like myself. I have also ammended that he was only in the US Air Force for 20 years. If you see a JOP show, Bob will say in numerous programmes that he served "ALMOST" 12 years. There's little point in speaking to BRI, they are currently trying to stop a close friend of Bob's from having a book of Bob's life published. I as well as other Bob friends I have made cannot understand why they wish to keep details of this beautiful man a secret, I could fill Bob's page with info I know about him, but I cannot state this this is available online anywhere, as it has all come from speaking direct to those who knew Bob personally. This is not just friends, but also folk from the WIPB Muncie studios.

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewindmill (talk • contribs) 01:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the removal of unsourced information and the correction of the years based on the show. Also, you may wish to look at Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. Since you have noted multiple times that you were friends with Bob Ross, per Wikipedia policy you should refrain from major editing on any articles related to him. Collectonian (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I wish I had been a friend of Bob Ross!! I simply have made friends with those that were close to him. I am SLOWLY plowing my way through all 30 series of JOP and making notes of the personal details that Bob says. I'll see if i can find out what shows, if just one or two that he mentions the air force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewindmill (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool...make sure to note the episode numbers, which will be needed for citing anything. :) Collectonian (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Notification of injunction relating to episodes and characters

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

For the duration of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (c.f. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message (link) have been notified of this injunction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you please upload the new Animal Planet logo right now?

Would you please upload the new Animal Planet logo right now and place it on the Animal Planet page? AdamDeanHall (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already told you, no one is obligated to do anything "right now" and it is inappropriate for you to "order" someone to do any particular edit that you yourself can't seem to do either. I am trying to get a clean version of the new logo, but AP's launch of their new site is incomplete and they themselves have not posted a nice version that can easily be acquired and used. Collectonian (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll just wait for the new logo. I won't bother you about it anymore. AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Eye Guess

There seem to be a constant disagreement with the user and you, and perhaps the standards of Wikipedia, in regards to what is acceptable as external links and references to the article about Eye Guess, the 1960's television game show. Looking at the past history of the article, the links, references and other notes are really considered as spam, and they do contain very specific and concise additional information by the individuals who each wrote them in their own web page essays.

Checking on many other television game show articles found in Wikipedia, with individual program titles and within the genre in general, they also have external links and outside references contained with their layout and format. Many of them each do not seem to have had any past history of being planned to be deleted and/or being removed as such.

My question towards you as a Wikipedia contributor, and perhaps speaking for Wikipedia, is do you consider yourself a true authority and as an real overall expert on the subject of the TV game show Eye Guess, as well as other programs in the genre. If so, I strongly suggest that you completely overhaul and rewrite from the beginning this article with a much better layout and detail information, and not just deleting links and notes that might leave out certain key elements of the history of Eye Guess. I believe that you should have that particular task fixing up yourself the entire article in question.

A reply is greatly welcome as a courtesy in return. Even the true fans of Eye Guess and game show historians in general would like to hear what you have to say on this matter, and perhaps you come with a solution that will be satisfy everyone on this topic...even does fall if at all in the guidelines of Wikipedia and you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.45.121 (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your message shows that you really don't know much about how Wikipedia works, and as such, there is nothing really to say other than I or any other editor can tag an article for having issues without requiring we be a "true authority" or "real overall expert" in anything. I tagged the article in question as part of my work for the Wikipedia Television project, so I do have some experience/expertise in the standards a Wikipedia television article should conform to. Just because other television articles have bad links does not mean I must let this one have them. They will eventually be removed from all television articles, even if they have gone unnoticed before now. As for your suggested that I must fix up the entire article, uh, no. It isn't an article I wish to fix up, and I'm not obligated to do anything to it just because I'm the one tagging it and I protect it from inappropriate edits. "True fans" should realize that this is NOT a fan site, but an encyclopedia. As such, information should be verifiable through the use of reliable sources. Fan sites and personal opinion do not belong, period. I doubt that will "satisfy you" but it is what it is. Collectonian (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:February 2008

Stop reverting the edits to Animal Planet (Canada), if you took notice to the edits made to the article since you first put the tags on the article, references have been made, and the article is not confusing to readers, and cleanup has been made to the article. I have and will continue to remove those tags that reference those concerns because they have been addressed. 99.236.63.51 (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The issues have not been addressed, and you obviously have no idea what the issues mean. If you continue to remove the tags, you will be blocked. Collectonian (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Some of the issues have been met. There are references added to the article, obviously you have no idea what a reference are then. You are just adding tags to the article for no reason. Ie. the Animal Planet article, one of the tags says add additional references when there are clearly many references added to support the article. Regarding the Animal Planet (Canada) article, there are references added, exactly how is this article confusing, anyone with a grade 5 education can understand this article, that tag does not need to be added, and cleanup to the article has been made. These 3 tags can be removed. 99.236.63.51 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, no. The section called "references" provide no citations, so there is no evidence they are actually used and are relaly just external links. The article has not been cleaned up and it is confusing as it seems to repeat the basic stuff from the main AP and doesn't even explain its relation to AP - regional channel or just same name, different country. The introduction makes no sense and provide no context for anything it says. Your insults aside, leave the article alone if you aren't actually going to contribute to it. Collectonian (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn, you sure do like to hide behind your delete key!

I have the right to remove offense crap from my talk page. Collectonian (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Kind of like I have the right to correct an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdfielder (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You didn't correct anything, you just removed the source. Collectonian (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This time I removed the information, just like you recommended! It reads kind of odd now, though...

I did not recommend removing the information, and if you don't quit defacing that article you will be blocked. Collectonian (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

FY character list

Please note that one of the requirements of WP:MERGE, to keep the terms of the GFDL, is that you link the article you got information from in your edit summary when merging. -Malkinann (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to put the links back in. When the injunction is lifted, they will all be made redirects, hence my not bothering to link. Personally, I'd rather scrap them all together and start over, because they are hideous, but then I'd be "deleting" stuff. *sigh* Collectonian (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you've understood me. I'm not talking about the links being in the article at all - I'm talking about the links being in your edit summaries when you merge content. In WP:MERGE, it says that to comply properly with §4(I) of the GFDL, you have to put in your edit summary something like "content from old article name", to help keep the history of the words intact. That way, even when the old character articles are merged, someone can go back and easily follow the history of the words and who contributed them. -Malkinann (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh...I didn't know about that at all. I've never done that with any merges I've done. I'll remember that for future edits though :) Collectonian (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please have a read through WP:MERGE? I find it a bit dense, and I'm not sure I've got the full story with it, so any insight you can shed on it would be helpful! ;) -Malkinann (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think you got the right idea :) I never even noticed that part about noting the merge in edit summaries. *doh* Thanks for pointing that out. For the FY character articles, I think selective merging would be the best approach, because most of the character articles have hideous formatting and lots of OR and creative interpretation. You've been doing fine with the ones you've done so far. :) Collectonian (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for notifying me of your proposed deletion. I wish all people were as courteous and diligent when they propose a deletion. Thank you again, Johntex\talk 04:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, though in honesty, it is done for me by Twinkle (though before I started using Twinkle, I did notify as well) :) More people really should do so, as it part of the process, but you are right, many do skip that step. :( Collectonian (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ace of Cakes

I've been a member of Wikipedia for a long time, but thanks for the welcome nonetheless. My page may look bare and it may look like I am not a big part of Wikipedia, but I do my best to do what I can. I'm sorry you felt taking out the duplicate link to Ace of Cakes was a major faux pas....but can you answer to me why you think there needs to be 2 of the same links for one show? Pick one, the actual official show website, and leave Food Networks proxy by the wayside. Just my two cents. And if I seem a little cranky, try not to mind, Im just tired of cleaning up other people's messes on this site and getting flack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ownlyanangel (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and believe me I know the feeling. I get it all the time. I'm rather cranky tonight too...my user page is currently being hammered by a vandal, probably some editor I ticked off for cleaning up cruft (the bane of my existance). :( For the link, for television series articles, it is considered good and appropriate, to include links to all official sites, when they are significantly different. The production site (the second link) and Food Network's sites are very different. The infobox was actually expanded recently to allow for two official links, because this is relatively common. :) Collectonian (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hey there! I noticed your request for protection of your userpage at RFPP, and have done so. If/when you want to protection lifted, you can either ask me on my talk page, or just make an unprotection request at RFPP. Happy editing! :) Jmlk17 06:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated :) Collectonian (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk page is protected as well, but with an expiration. I recognize the same vandal, as they have made an appearance on my talk page several times before. I used to think they'd give up, but I suppose some people just make hobbies of the dumbest activities ya know? :) Jmlk17 07:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again :) Collectonian (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Discovery Channel Australia

Which parts are confusing or unclear? Reubot (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The intro is confusion and doesn't adequately connect it to Discovery Channel. Is it a regional version of DC, or an independant station with no real connection? What does the Animal Planet channel have to do with this channel and why is it included? Ditto the other sections. Is this article about the actual Discovery Channel Australia television channel, or a company? Take a look at the main DC article. It focuses purely on that channel, not on that channel and the related ones. The other channels are part of the Discovery Communications company, not the Discovery Channel television channel. Hope that helps. Also, the programming is broken up into "highlights" and "other" but no context or explanation is given as to what makes something a "highlight" or not, so the grouping seems arbitrary. Collectonian (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Expert for Aria (manga)

Actually, it already has the attention of one -- if I count. I've been working on the page over the past month. At the rate I work -- and the rate I watch episodes for summarizing -- I have a couple more weeks left of cleanup. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, sorry. I wasn't checking the history, just kinda quick hitting while adding in the ADV manga to the categories. Feel free to remove the tag. I think after I tagged I saw another one you were working on too? Collectonian (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If so, I haven't noticed. I does need cleanup, which is what I've been working on, but I'll remove the expert attention tag. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Good luck. I'm still trying to smack around Fushigi Yugi while also working on Marmalade Boy. I still have 6 summaries to write up. :P Collectonian (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I kinda slowed down once I made a personal pledge to whack one article from the project cleanup list a week. This week, it's the list of Black Cat volumes/chapters (which has a couple paragraphs of summary per chapter -- oy). —Quasirandom (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to get myself to focus more too, cause I'm finding I don't get much done when I'm letting myself get pulled into multiple articles at once. :P Collectonian (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that. BTW, I moved the cleanup tag to List of Aria episodes -- a split I should have done earlier, but I was waiting to finish filling out the episode lists -- because most of the cleanup issues seem to be associated with that. With the honking big tables out of the way, the main article is, I think actually pretty much a B-class article -- even has a decent start on a Reception section. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool! I saw that earlier. Definitely needed it. I wouldn't say it was ready for B class though. The character list could, and probably should, be broken out, the anime section has a list that should be prose, and there is a stub section. :P Collectonian (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. We must be reading the qualifications for B differently. Those are enough for me to say "don't bother trying for GA yet, but it's getting there, so B." —Quasirandom (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Possibly...I tend to take a much stricter view of what should be B and up than most, though it also seems to go by project. Film is very tough on assessments, while TV, not so much. Collectonian (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fushigi Yūgi and romanization

I did what I could for the romanization on both pages, though I have some reservations about the episode list; I'd feel better about it if I had the series to check against, as kana readings for more obscure combinations are hard to come by. In particluar, the "星見" in episode 26's title could be "Hoshimi", but the first thing the online dictionary I use gave me was a name and not a deinfition, so I don't know if that's accurate. The four Eikoden titles also has similar problems, so I simply cut them. —TangentCube, Dialogues 03:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it is much appreciated :) Collectonian (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: InuYasha and Date Formats

That's the thing, I've also seen it both ways. I noticed that the dates given at InuYasha were formatted UK style and an entire section was Americanized. What to do? Since the majority of the dates were already in UK style I just went along with it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question, really. I've seen it both ways in some articles, and being rather regional, I tend to go for Americanized. I personally only use UK style in articles on UK shows. ~scrounges around in the MOS ~ Okay, it looks like either can be used for the article, so long as its consistent. The only main requirement is that for US-centric articles, the americanized should be used, while UK ones should use the "international" format.  :) Collectonian (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
How does Canada style the dates? I ask this because the English dub is from there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
According to the MOS, Canada uses both equally, so either is acceptable. Collectonian (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
We might have to keep an eye on Snapper2 (talk • contribs • logs). I'm not sure what his deal is, but he's almost breaking WP:3RR on Naruto's page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed. He is a relatively new editor, so I've been fairly lenient, but if he keeps it up I'll send him a warning as well. Collectonian (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Very new. ~SnapperTo 05:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...sorry about that, I presumed you were new because of your actions, but since you are not then you do not need to be told, again, that your edits are not appropriate. For future reference, if multiple editors undo a change you make, you should not just keep making redoing it. Rather, bring the issue up on the talk page and discuss your point of view there. In the case of these edits, I could agree that the part "According to Viz" can be removed if Viz is only the publisher of the cited work, however the excessive wikification is completely unnecessary. Repeated wikifications are unnecessary and would only be required to be removed when we take the article up for FA status. If you continue to just revert the changes, you will violate 3RR and be subject to blocking. Collectonian (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Other editors reverted me with the explanation of adding unneeded wikification, which I was not doing on the whole; the only link I added was one that Sesshomaru removed when he reverted me, and I in turn reverted him. It was not but negligence on my part. Even then, to again quote WP:CONTEXT#What generally should not be linked, "It is not uncommon to repeat a link that had last appeared much earlier in the article." Links, present or not, are not going to be the downfall of an article. ~SnapperTo 05:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You sure act like a new editor. Otherwise, you'd know better than to edit war and hide warnings. Just open up a discussion on the article's talk page if you still disagree with the edits. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, can you take a look at this? I would like to solve the problems brought up by Snapper2 on Naruto's page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and get Naruto Uzumaki updated per the talk. No one (aside from you and I) commented on the matter and frankly I don't believe anyone else bothers. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that seems to happen a lot...someone will complain, but then in the end only one or two people really care enough to do anything. Funny thing is, I don't even watch the show :P Collectonian (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Really? I think people who particularly like anime or manga should. {^_^} Well, actually, if you were at one time a Dragon Ball supporter then the show is right for you. Anyways, I'll get the changes done. Thanks for your support, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL, never could get into Dragon Ball either. Kinda ironic because it is the only anime my younger brother likes! :P Collectonian (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Rough Collie page

Hi, I cannot see why you keep removing every edit I make to this page. For instance, I corrected This is a ..dogs and you reverted it! Please show some respect for other users.

The article refers to the noble head, I have repeatedly inserted an image to illustrate, but, presumably because it is not your image you remove it! Please try to be reasonable! Mike0001 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I was reasonable the multiple times I explained the issue on your talk page. You refuse to listen and are stubbornly edit warring over your pets picture. Reuploading it with another name does not make it any less your pet. I'm reporting you to the administrators so they can deal with your edit warring here, and in other articles. Collectonian (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
So you think you are the only person who has an opinion or is reasonable? Your accusations apply equally to you. And how do you know the dog is my pet? How do I know the other dogs illustrated are not your pets?
In what way do you think that the picture does not illustrate a collie noble head? Please explain! Mike0001
I added a link to a respected collie forum. You removed it. Why? Spam? Do you know what spam is?

(talk) 17:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You uploaded the picture, twice, and it was taken with your camera. Obvious presumption is that it is your pet (either that or you are violating copyright by not properly attributing the photographer). For your second question, obviously not mine when I didn't upload the images (and I currently own no rough collies). The picture does not illustrate a point in the text. The history mentions the words "noble head" it does not detail it, explain what a "noble" head is, so how can an image illustrate a point that doesn't even exist? The link was not appropriate. We do not link to fan forums. Collectonian (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
LGS aka Shadow is a pedigree dog. The picture was taken with my camera. Clearly I cannot divulge ownership as that would identify the owners! But I own copyright. Did you remove the first image? If you want to expand on noble, please do! Any good photos can only add to the worth of the site. I have other pictures from Crufts if you like. I don't see anything to get so angry about! Mike0001 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain what's wrong with the picture independent of whether it is his pet? Because that alone (even if it is) wouldn't be a reason not to use the image. —Random832 17:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I have explained, above and on his talk page multiple times. The article isn't long enough to support another image, it can barely support the three it has now. The image does not illustrate anything in the text, and certainly nothing in the section he added it to. He is claiming it illustrates a "noble head" but the text doesn't even define what a noble head is, so how can it illustrate it. It is only being added as decoration and because it is his. I suggested that if he wanted the image to included, he should expand the article to support it, by greatly expanding the appearance section to better discuss the collie head shape, something the article needs far more than yet another pretty picture. He didn't want to do that, though, and instead began attacking the existing text because it disagreed with his personal opinion, and continued to doggedly readd the picture. (no pun intended)Collectonian (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Strange but I don't think I could add an image that was not mine anyway. I don't recall you making any of the suggestions you have just mentioned either. As for not wanting to do something, every time I do try to do something you immediately remove it! Even correcting grammar or starting to add citations! Mike0001 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I also explained that it was not a reliable source and that you were not formatting stuff properly. As for the grammar, the only reason it was removed was because you were couching it in bad edits. Notice I did not undo your last correction when you did the grammar correction by itself, without trying to shove the image in. Collectonian (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Shove? You haven't given one good `reason why it should be unshoved! Mike0001 (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I gave lots, all based on Wikipedia guidelines and the MOS, but because you don't like those reasons, you decided they weren't good and that your reason of "because I like it" was the only one of importance.Collectonian (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for adding {{afdold}] to Talk:Lost Treasure (film). I forgot to take care of the Talk page. Best, Johntex\talk 20:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob :) Collectonian (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

new look bus speed movie

Check the picture, what other proof do you need to identify the bus as the "new look"? If you believe it's incorrect, then you would need a specific reference. --Bachcell (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A specific reference is needed to show that it is the same bus. A picture alone is not an adequate reference to declare it to be a specific bus model. If a reliable source is found that notes that is the bus used, the information should also be included in the production section rather than the plot section. :-) Collectonian (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes

I ask you for your help please on the above article. User:Edito*Magica keeps trying to change the lead to this, which as I have explained is against guidelines and against what other episode pages look like. However, he will not listen to me and keeps reverting saying "nd my rule does suit the article better, it is more concise, quicker and easier for users to find details" (from my TalkPage). I really would appreciate a third opinion on the matter. I know the article needs a lot of work, but we can at least keep the lead half-decent.--UpDown (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ewww...why would he think that is a better format? I've reverted his latest change, and as he's done it multiple times, I've left him a 3RR warning with an explanation as to why his actions are wrong. I'll keep the page in my watchlist and if he does it again, I'll report him for the 3RR violation. I do have one suggestion on the article layout, though. Consider adding a series table and converting the current tables to use the {{episode list}} table. For an example of the series table code, take a look at List of Meerkat Manor episodes, which is a recent FL episode list. :) Collectonian (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. It's a page on my long-term "to do" list, but I'm currently focusing on List of Time Team episodes and finishing List of To the Manor Born episodes. Once I've done them, I will certainly do this as it does need serious work. --UpDown (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi,

I would just like to make it clear that my intentions behind all my edits are to improve Wikipedia articles. The truth is, the new layout that a certain “Updown” is against is far more suitable, not only does it allow users at a glimpse to find information, without having to read the entire paragraph, but it also does not break any Wiki rules.

The lead definition page clearly states that the lead layout does not need to be followed, and I think you’ll find that my alterations to the episode page still do everything the definition says. I quote: “The lead section, lead, lede, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first heading. The table of contents, if displayed, appears between the lead section and the first heading. The lead serves a dual role both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.” My layout does exactly these things. It goes on: “The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.” (my changes make it more concise) “It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs…” (the layout still contains paragraphs) “…should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.” So with my layout fulfilling all of this, what rules am I breaking exactly? And it’s only a minor change, all the information is still present and most of it is still paragraphed. I hope you have taken on board what I’ve said, and don’t approach the dispute is a bias way. I am afraid I will revert back to my changes because they are positive improvements, of which I will make to similar articles. I know it’s a long message, so thanks for your time. Edito*Magica (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you learn the appropriate format ofr articles. The lead should appears BEFORE any table of contents, so your edits are completely removing the lead all together. That is not appropriate. Your formatting also goes against the established format for an episode list as established by community consensus. You don't get to decide that because you "think" your format is better (and its not), that you can just keep changing it and be allowed to do so. If you continue to go against stated consensus, you will be considered to be edit warring and risk being blocked. Collectonian (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
My edits are not completely removing the lead altogether, just altering the layout slightly. You have misunderstood. And because my alterations are making the article more concise and easier to read, such changes are appropriate. Surely you can see sense?
Aside from the point, I have deleted information that is repeated once on the same page, because it is pointless being told the same thing twice. Edito*Magica (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No, your layout does not make anything more concise or easier to read. Again, we have an established format for episode lists and Wikipedia has strong guidelines for general article/list format. Your edits completely violate those, and are unnecessary and inappropriate. As for removing repeated information, the point of the lead is to summarize information, so it will repeat stuff from the rest of the article. That is its point. I strongly suggest you stop your apparent campaign to ruin many episode lists by applying your false idea that your preferred format is somehow good. It will only earn you additional ire from editors and result in you being considered disruptive as you have already had it explained to you in extensive detail that it is wrong. Collectonian (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I said there is no point in repeating the same information on the same page, hence the main. Aside from this I am not being disruptive, it is called improvements. And it is not “your episode list”.Edito*Magica (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You are being disruptive. You are blantantly disgrading Wikipedia guidelines and policies because you disagree with them, you continue to ruin an episode list with your bad attempts at enforcing your bad edits, and you are not working with WP:CONSENSUS. It is not your episode list, either, it is the community, and it will be protected from editors who try to violate what the community has decided how an episode list should be formatted and arranged. Collectonian (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
As I have mentioned before, my edits to the layout still follow the Wikipedia guidelines of which I have quoted from above. The layout still summarises, is still concise, etc. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy stating that bullet points cannot be used to show the lead. It allows users to find information at a glimpse. Edito*Magica (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

I have been watching this dispute with great amusement! But it's getting a bit silly now. An attempt was made by user Edito*Magica to get me on his side here.

Yep...I do wish the admins would just give him an appropriate smack so he'll stop it already. Taking folks times away from other work. Collectonian (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

K.U.A

I don’t see any harm in getting second opinions. Popular opinion is in favour of the minor adjustments I’ve made to the layout, and can I remind you of committing acts of "sneaky vandalism". Edito*Magica (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A - quit accusing people of "sneaky vandalism" just because they are keeping you from harming an article. B - popular opinion by one other person who has no clue about article formatting does not override consensus. Your ruination of the list will continue to be reverted. Collectonian (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Spinner

I think I just figured that out.. All the ones with red bars go before the ones with orange, right? :) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 19:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That could be it :) BTW, you may want to not tag the articles for notability, as I believe that violates the current ArbCom injunction. (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision Collectonian (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I only read your edit note from my watchlist. I see what you actually mean now. Hehe, I could have a lot of fun with {{Articleissues}} I thought the ArbCom was about episodes, not characters? I was speaking with TTN just now, and he didn't mention it couldn't be done. (And I would think he would know, everyone is on his case!)
P.S. I just realised that you're the same Collectonian at FLC! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 19:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom seems to be applying it to both episodes and characters. At least, that is what I was told when I asked for clarification. I still disagree with them applying it to all editors instead of those personally involved, but alas, not much to be done. I do think the Degrassi characters need to be tagged, but it should be probably held off until the injunction is lifted. LOL at the PS, yep, that's me :) Collectonian (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, you might want to look at installing Friendly...makes tagging way easier, and will auto group into article issues for you if you are applying more than four tags :P Collectonian (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Bah! Like most Wikipedia toys, it's for Firefox. And the missus doesn't like me installing things on her computer -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah...true. Wikipedia is the only reason I use FireFox as much as I do now. I still prefer IE for my main browser, but for here, I have FireFox open most of my waking hours...which is probably a sad thing to admit :P Collectonian (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Undent Do you know of any "List of (Insert TV Show here) characters" that have slipped through the GA process and been named GA? There aren't any FLs of such, and occasionally lists do get GA'ed. The only lists I can find for characters are computer games (List of characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series and List of Metal Gear Solid characters). -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...I can't think of any at the moment, but I haven't browsed through the GA list a lot. Collectonian (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Checking minor edits

Oops! (Stupid me)--> :( Sorry! Thanks for the note! I'll remember and be careful in the future. Thanks again! ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Sesshomaru#Request GA withdrawal

User:Sesshomaru is acting rather heatedly over my request above that you correlated with at Talk:Naruto, and I request that you intervene as a a third party to avoid this accelerating into something rather uncouth. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Misunderstanding. Thanks in any case. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Aww, I'd just finished my notes too. But no prob. :)Collectonian (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Question for you

Left a question for you on Talk:Full Moon o Sagashite -- mentioning here in case you can't keep up with your watchlist. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Episode list

Thanks, that is better. As you know I'm not a great fan of colours full stop, but I won't remove them. With regards to titles, it's a difficult one as not many had on-screen episode titles, but I'll look a bit more into this. The only other thing I don't like is putting the specials with the series; in my eyes that are totally seperate and do not relate to series so should have their own box. At some point when I watch the episodes again I will write longer summaries, and look for more refs. Thanks again.--UpDown (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that would explain the slight title differences. For the specials, I put with the series as that's how TV.com had it, but another option could be to put them in a separate table at the bottom. Would that work better? Collectonian (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Funny this was a debate with EditoMagica I once had! In my eyes they should be in their own boxes in broadcast order. It is logical to have them in broadcast order and logical to have them in own boxes and they are on-off specials, so a one-off special box is the best idea. --UpDown (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty, all moved :) Collectonian (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. I did try and read through the ANI thing on the episode issue, but I've got absolutely no familiarity with all the discussions about that topic, so I'm not really comfortable getting involved with it. I will, however, ask a friend of mine, User:Masem to take a look at it - I believe he's involved in the ArbCom case on episodes right now, and may have a bit more knowledge to help out. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated :) Collectonian (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

InuYasha page

Why did you revert my edits? If you had a problem with an individual one, I'd understand, but my attempt was to clean up parts of the article that looked messy. Especially that horrible line that says "(episodes 1 - 43)" and then "(44 onwards)". Which just looks really sloppy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuwabaratheman (talk • contribs) 07:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Episodes shouldn't be capitalized. The more specific "six nights a week" is preferred to "frequently." I've reworked the sections you mentioned as needing some clean up. Collectonian (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "six nights a week" is better. That was my own fault. I believed that it had been removed from the schedule, but I checked a minute later and realized that I was wrong. I should have known better than to make that edit, but it's late at night, and I didn't think straight for a moment. The first word in a parentheses should be capitalized, however. That was the reason I made the change there. However, as the page stands now without parentheses being used, it's fine. Kuwabaratheman (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No prob. However, for future note, the first word in a parenthesis should not be capitalized. This is per basic grammar rules and the Wikipedia manual of style. :) Collectonian (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rough Collie issue

Hey there. I've just posted to the talk page on this article, asking for you and Mike0001 to weigh in with your concerns about the article and his changes. I'd appreciate if you could drop by and explain the situation there, and I'll try and work towards some sort of resolution.

I'd also ask that you take a deep breath and a step back in your dealings with Mike; I know you're frustrated, as is he, but the discussion has started to drift from the article to the editors, and that's not productive. I've asked him to calm down and stay civil as well. Hopefully we can sort this out soon. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree and am adding my remarks to the talk page now. However, his actions also appear to be getting out of hand. I updated the ANI report to include his recent vandalism of Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism and his other actions. It is one thing to disagree...Lord knows I get into some because people don't always like having articles clean up, but that is really no excuse to do some of the things he is doing. Collectonian (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that edit you pointed out on my talk page was a carryover from yesterday; I did ask him to lay off, and have made a proposal on the Rough Collie talk page that I hope will work as a compromise - he'll be able to work on expansion in his userspace, then bring that back for collaboration afterwards. I hope it's a reasonable compromise. If he does anything out of sorts again, though, do let me know - I'll be keeping an eye on things. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I wish I could agree, but he is now apparently decided he must help Edito, and reverted UpDown's revert of vandalism as vandalism[2], then I guess he realized what he did, then reverted himself as vandalism too. Then changed a grammar correction I made and called it vandalism as well.[3]. These were all within the last few minutes. *sigh* I do like your suggestion from the talk page, though, that he work on an expansion then bring it back. The article has sadly needed it for ages. Such a popular breed to have such a scant article. :( Collectonian (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've again asked that he stay clear of you, and (while I know you probably don't need it) would advise the same of you. If he keeps up with edits on pages you've worked on, I'll bring it up with him again. He's agreed to the expansion idea, so we'll see how it goes. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
He is still at it *sigh* No wonder most editors give up and just let articles stay in horrible shape. Dealing with this mess because of people who don't want to play by the guidelines is too exhausting and disheartening.Collectonian (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Halo Graphic Novel

Have your concerns at Wikipedia:FAC#Halo Graphic Novel been addressed? Can you pls revisit? Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, my concerns have not. I've left a note to reiterate my oppose. Collectonian (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain what parts of the Halo lore are leaving you in the dust? Knowing all the plot, I'm having a hard time figuring it out myself? David Fuchs (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I know absolutely nothing about Halo, so when I see Halo series, I go "okay, what's that." In the plot summary, I didn't realize Halo: Combat Evolved was a game until the end of the paragraph, and still don't know what the 6th mission was or how this story relates to it. What's the Prophet? I read Prophet, I think Star Trek DS9 :P Little things like that. While there are full articles on many things, I shouldn't have to read them all to get a very quick idea of what something is. Does that help? Collectonian (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for that. I'll get to it tomorrow. As for the MoS, I dunno, I just feel (partly 'cause I've done a lot more novels and video game articles) that it's more beneficial to explain how the work came to be before you go into plot, and especially since it appears that reception comes right after the plot. It's just contrary to every other article layout I've seen for media. David Fuchs (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm okay with the arrangement, its the missing sections that concern me. :) Collectonian (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added more explanatory text to The Last Voyage of the Infinite Succor. Is that better? David Fuchs (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that does make it clearer. Once the copyedit another editor mention is done, I can change to support. :) Collectonian (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't be so hasty, I got's to add info to the other three stories :) Thanks for clearing up my questions, hopefully I'll be done by the end of the weekend. David Fuchs (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • grin* Go for it! I have a huge list of stuff to do tonight as I have four references I'm using on multiple articles now overdue at the library :P Collectonian (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I may have finished the copyedit. Browse through it at your leisure. :) David Fuchs (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Table format

I am using the proper format. The “Wiki-table” format is equally as proper as your method. Your tabular layout looks messy, confusing and certainly is not reader friendly. Thus, I have reverted your edits once again. Edito*Magica (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly warned to stop the edit warring, but you continue to refuse to listen and ignore consensus. Your changes have been reverted again.Collectonian (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You are now being disruptive. You seem to think it is your way or no way, and that is arrogant. You seem to think that just because another site uses your layout this one has to use the same. You seem to think that just because another site uses your layout it is correct and better than any other format. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the present tables, which look far neater and reader-friendly. If your feel so strongly about the Goodnight Sweetheart tabular layout, I advice you to start a discussion on the subject’s discussion page. Thank you. Edito*Magica (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You are the only one being disruptive. You have been told, repeatedly, that the KUA list is in the proper, standard format for an episode list as agreed upon by THREE different projects. The format is not used by another site, it is used Wikipedia wide. You are the one thinking you can override the consensus of hundreds of other editors just because you don't like the existing format. Your format is not neater nor more reader friendly. You have been warned about your edit warring by multiple outside editors, but continue your disruptive actions, not me.Collectonian (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you’ll find many pages use the table format I am in favour in, which is not “my” format at all. I hardly doubt hundreds of editors agree with you either. I WAS trying to create a page for the episodes of Goodnight Sweetheart, of which would have been complete by now if it wasn’t for you interfering. Hindering improvements of a page in vandalism. As for the latest threatening tag I’ve received from you, well I think you’ll find I could send exactly the same back to you, you have also broken the three revert rule and the message’s content also applies to you. Edito*Magica (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There are hundreds of editors in the TV, BBC, and Anime/Manga projects, and yes, they all agree on the format of episode lists as is shown in the featured episode lists. You have already been told this by others, but continue to ignore it in favor of your format, which is only found on bad lists that have not been cleaned up. Collectonian (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor*Magica, to be frank your format is rather poor as compared to the standard format used for episode lists by several WikiProjects as Collectonian as mentioned. Consistency is necessary and best in this case, and I see no compelling reason not to use the standard episode list template. Please desist. As to both of you, I've seen you've stopped reverting, but please do not continue to edit war, or blocks for disruption may be appropriate, even if you're in the right. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He has ignored you and reverted the list again. I've refrained from undoing as I have already had my number of reverts for today, but I have reported him for the 3RR violation. Collectonian (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted his edits and protected the article, as I instructed him not to revert. Kudos to you for not continuing to edit war. In any case, starting a thread at the relevant WikiProject would be best for consensus purposes. WP:RFC is really only for issues taken so far that they need serious community input to resolve. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Earlier this evening I posted at the Television project asking for comments. I'll also post to the British Television project and requested RPP for the List of Keeping Up Apperances list to also stop the edit warring there. Collectonian (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, the last thing I want is conflict. But I strongly believe the new layout is not reader friendly, and the old layout makes the content much easier to read. The old layout had been in place for months and is also used by many articles. Obviously, when it is clear there is a strong consensus between a mass majority of which layout is most appropriate, then that is the layout we should go with, but until then I think it is only fair to keep the established format in place, that has faced no criticism in the past. All comments are welcome on my talk page if you wish to discuss the matter further, thanks.Edito*Magica (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused because you have left a rather unpleasant message on my talk page claiming I am unwilling to discus and have ignored you. This is not true because the above is what I sent to your requested reply.Edito*Magica (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

I see you have nominated a LOTD candidate, but have not voted. We need voters for the system to work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Off to vote :) Collectonian (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead section in Iggy Arbuckle.

Hi, if you remember, one of the problems you brought up on the article for the show "Iggy Arbuckle", was that its lead section needed to be expanded. Well, I've since added in more on it. Will you please take a look and see if that particular problem has been sufficiently addressed? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not yet. It is still very short, especially with the length of the article. Remember, the lead should summarize the article and basically give readers who don't want to read the whole article, a highlight of the important points. Take a look at WP:LEAD and especially Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs#Introduction for some good guidelines one what the lead should include. Collectonian (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Awards and Nomination on Xena: Warrior Princess

Because you reversed my amendments in Article Xena: Warrior Princess, I explain the real need —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawless fan (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm...I think your message got cut off? The Awards that you added need to be written in prose form and, more importantly, properly cited (and IMDB can not be used as a source). Collectonian (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA?

bibliomaniac15 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact bibliomaniac15 to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Collectonian . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Please inform me whether you would like to accept or decline on my talk page. If you accept, I will create the nom page. bibliomaniac15 18:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Keep working hard! I'll be watching you. bibliomaniac15 19:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wheel of Fancruft

Hi, could you please be more specific about which parts of the Wheel of Fortune (US game show) article you feel are crufty? Many of us who contribute to that article are trying to pare it down, but others think absolutely every detail of the show's entire history is significant enough to include in the article, like what color the Free Spin was before 1989. We'd welcome your contributions. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll post my comments there. Collectonian (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The configuration page was created to replace a bulky and space-consuming table on the original page. I think it's a useful adjunct to the main show page, illustrating a relevant point of interest. JTRH (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've left extensive comments on the article talk page regarding the cruftiness, as well as on the two articles I've AfDed. Collectonian (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to you on both AfD pages and on the article's talk page as well. Several of us who are longtime contributors to the page are trying to get it down to a manageable level, and there's an ongoing discussion among us as to how to best do that. JTRH (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Echoing the above...

...regarding your edits to the Jeopardy! article. There are a number of conscientious regular editors to that article who would address your concerns with seriousness if you were to elaborate them in the talk discussion. One of them challenged your template banners but you reverted him and told him to take it to talk. This seems strange. He's not a mind-reader as to what, specifically, your issues with the article are. It's incumbent upon the banner-adder to initiate the discussion. Robert K S (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The issues are obvious to me, but as the tags have been questioned, I've left extensive comments detailing the issues in the article talk page. Hope that helps. Collectonian (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. There are obviously many things that ought to be done to improve the article, but note that some of your suggestions would take it back to a state it existed in previously and has since transitioned out of. Robert K S (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. I think possibly one issue is that the problems you mentioned in your response on the talk page were addressed, certainly in a good faith effort, but not necessarily in the best manner. I've left some more comments there regarding that and hopefully some suggestions for ways to avoid going back to a problem article, but to get it improved. With good cleaning, there is no reason an article on Jeopardy, which should have tons of valuable and sourceable information, should not be able to brought to GA or even FA status. Collectonian (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The reference to the film Amadeus was to Emperor Joseph II's criticism of Mozart's composition that it had "too many notes", and that he should just "cut a few". In the film, Mozart's response to the emperor was, "Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?" Robert K S (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Um...okay. Not really applicable to this discussion, but okay.Collectonian (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Shall I wikilink analogy? You are suggesting cuts to an article that I am not convinced could sustain such cuts and still present a coherant description of the game. (You call it "simple", but it is so far from it that there exists no complete published theoretical analysis of its wagering particulars from a game theory perspective.) So my response is--which cuts did you have in mind? If you start making specific proposals, then we have a substantive discussion. Just calling everything "cruft" and putting a template banner on the page doesn't do any real service to the article. In point of fact, I agree with almost all of your criticisms of the article. But my creativity in improving the article is exhausted, and it's trying to deal with editors who point out flaws without specific proposals for fixing them, and without understanding the balances and compromises already struck in an article that has had a long evolution history. As far as references go, if you place {{fact}} tags on specific assertions in the article that you feel need sourcing, I will do my best to provide such sourcing. (Some aspects of the show will only be sourcable through the J! Archive, a site you dismissed as a "spam link" on one article.) Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Analogies only work when they are understood ;-) I'm not sure how much more specific my proposals need to be? Sentence by sentence explanations of what to do, or a description for each section? The "Jeopardy! Round" section, to me, could be handled in three sentences, not two paragraphs. "Jeopardy! Round clue values" could lose the table and again, be covered in just a few sentences. Three paragraphs is unnecessary. It also doesn't need to be a separate section.
In general, when an article has one or more dedicated editors, I'll tag for issues, I'll explain the tags if needed, point to the MOS for guideance(which I know is sadly lacking for non-fiction TV shows, but still gives a decent idea of what an article should have), and try to answer any questions. I try to leave the work to editors on the article, if they are willing to address the issues, as I prefer not to step on toes, and I prefer to teach than do (teach to fish and all that ;)). Also, too many times when I've tried to show what I meant, I found myself getting all sorts of personal attacks, which makes for unpleasant editing. :(
If something can't be sourced from a WP:RS (and no, a fan site does not qualify), then it shouldn't be in the article as its no better than WP:OR. It would seem to me that the "This is Jeopardy!: Celebrating America's Favorite Quiz Show" book might provide good sourcing on production details and the like, but I do not see it being used as a reference. Do none of the editors have access to a copy? Collectonian (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The Richmond book is sparse and mostly a factoid book. There exists no good paper-publication secondary source for those aspects of the show which have only been mentioned on the show itself. This is why an online database of the show's material is a valid scholarly resource. (While the J! Archive is created by people who are fans of the show, your characterization of it as a fan site is inappropriately dismissive. According to the Wikipedia rules for sourcing it should be certainly considered a more valid source than official publications, like the Jeopardy! web site or the King World press releases, or "officially authorized" publications like the Richmond book, as the Archive is a disinterested independent third party and is effectively peer reviewed for accuracy.) If you can suggest specific changes that will shorten the article without deleting information, I and many other editors will be on board with you. If we just want a shorter article for the sake of brevity or altered focus, I think we're looking an uphill climb toward consensus. It's impossible to perform that kind of compression without losing information. Robert K S (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
J archive maybe sufficient for fans, but it does NOT meet the WP:RS requirements, nor is it a "more valid source" than official publications. J Archive is not a disinterested nor independent third party, it is a fan site. The terms are mutually exclusive. "Officially authorized" publications are perfectly valid sources for basic factual information, including production details, and the like, the same as DVD featurettes are acceptable for use in discussing those aspects of a show. Official, primary sources are only bared for the purposes of establishing notability and for validating other aspects, such as reception, criticisms, and the like, and when possible reliable sources should be used to supplement such information. The article needs to be shorter by Wikipedia standards, partly from brevity and partly from what the purpose of Wikipedia is. Collectonian (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A "fan site" is one that promotes a particular media product or expresses opinions about it. The J! Archive does neither; it archives clues and players and provides an information resource. There's nothing OR about the site; information contained on it can be sourced to video footage from episodes of the show. You may be misunderstanding the meaning of the word "interest". The official Jeopardy! web site and various authorized publications released by the show stand to gain financially through promotion of their product. The J! Archive stands to gain financially neither from promotion of the show nor through traffic to the site itself. The Archive does not promote a point of view or opinions. It is not a forum. It is checked over for accuracy both from within and from without. I may be the wrong person to argue this with you, because (disclosure) I'm one of the site's archivists, but I have no interest in links to the site appearing in Wikipedia. But I've scoured the guidelines and policies and I can't find any language that defines "fan site" nor anything that says a "fan site" inherently fails WP:RS. Without using the words "fan site", can you describe what exactly about the Archive you believe is not reliable or verifiable? Robert K S (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You continue to argue that the Archive fails WP:RS, but you haven't explained why, and you haven't addressed my remarks above. Perhaps you would do me a favor and start the discussion on the Jeopardy! talk page. (I'll make sure to stay out of it, and let others who aren't involved in the Archive have their say.) It would demonstrate good faith if you would reproduce and address the points I mention above in your contributions to the discussion. Robert K S (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Laura Censabella

I probably should be asking this on the requests for ratings page, but since you rated the Iggy Arbuckle page for me, I figured this might save time. Could you please rate this woman's article? And I don't really know what qualifies as a free-use or public-domain use image of a living person, or where it must come from; but could you look at this site: [4] and tell me if the image qualifies as either? That would be much appreciated. Thanks! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. You may also want to check out the Biography article for better help on its format (the TV project is sadly lacking in good suggestions on people articles). For the image, no that would qualify as it does not have a specific statement releasing it to the public domain. I'm not super good with living people pictures, but from discussions I've read at WP:NFCC, an image must basically either be one taken by an editor, or one uploaded to the Commons, Flickr, or the like with a license for public use. So if someone goes to that event and takes a picture of her, that picture could be used as a free image. Collectonian (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Too bad about the image; it would have saved a lot of time and effort if it could qualify! Anyway, I must thank you once again for rating the article, and all that you did; I'm really no good at knowing what sort of content qualifies for what level! Thanks! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No prob. I've given it a few quick clean ups as well to help. Here are to FA articles on screenwriters that might provide some guideance on expanding and formatting the article Aaron Sorkin and William Monahan. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) would probably also be a good guideline, and you might want to see if there is an appropriate infobox you could add to it. Hope that helps :) Collectonian (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA and BarnSakura

I was just about to drop a note for a possible RfA until I saw the message on the top of the page. :p Naturally, you are the best judge of whether you feel you are ready or not (or not really. perhaps, I was nominated about a month prior to when I planned to nominate myself - or rather, when I thought I was ready - and passed practically unanimously anyway). If you do plan to wait out a month or two before you feel ready, my most stalwart recommendation would be to stick to civility as much as you possibly can. One of the easiest way RfA nominations are sunk are because of civility concerns. On the flip side, people are much more inclined to support when they can attest to the fact that you've been nice to everyone, and thus have the proper "temperament" to become an administrator. Your current contributions are solid though. No worries there.

On a happier note, I believe this has been due for a while:

The Anime and Manga BarnSakura Award
For superb edits to numerous anime and manga articles, including but not limited to the Blood+, Trinity Blood (particular kudos for making List of Trinity Blood episodes an FL!), and Wolf's Rain series. --Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aww, thanks for the barnstar! I love that flower picture! Thanks as well for the encouraging words. One of my main reasons for feeling I'm unready for RfA is my temperament. Though I mostly do well at going to have a cup of WP:tea, I also can be stubborn when I "know" I'm right and get easily frustrated when dealing with conflicts on Wiki and Project standards versus what the fans want. :P So, while improving my edit qualities and working on getting more FLs (and hopefully some FAs if the LoCE would wake up) under the Anime and Manga helm, I'm working on building up my Wiki-patience factor...and in trying not to find newbies so tasty LOL Collectonian (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the heads-up and the clean-up. I made a couple more changes before I got your message, but I'm done for now in any case. JTRH (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And thanks again for the block. Back to work. :) JTRH (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I've cut almost half of the Wheel article's length. It hasn't been this short since I've been involved with it (going on two years). I'd say that's enough work for one day. Nice working with you. Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot WRT your suggested AfD's. You came in in the middle of an ongoing discussion among various contributors to the page about what to keep/cut/expand/move. Not that any of that actually got done until you put our feet to the fire. :) I may have overreacted to your characterizations of the material, and I apologize if that's the case. I hope we can come to an eventual agreement about what to do with the sub-pages. I'm not set in stone about them; I just think it's a lot of work to simply throw out without having some reasonable discussion about what to do with them, and I do think they convey useful information that needs to be presented somehow. Sorry if I came across as overly possessive of them. JTRH (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem, and I'm glad if my stumbling in helped get things going. :) I think with the main cut down, if the subs are given similar clean up, most can be merged back into it rather than lost completely. The only thing I think should go is a listing of the categories. I could highlighting popular/most used, if such could be sourced, or controversial ones, but I don't think a full listing is really needed. A paragraph giving a general discussion would convey the idea in fewer words without requiring as many updates or maintenance. Some, like set history, could be kept separate, though not sure on the actual name of it. For some reason it seems off, but I can't put my finger on why. :P And sorry if I seemed grumpy in my comments...its been a rough week and my wording probably reflected some of my stress. Collectonian (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeopardy!

I'm trying to stick to my guns and stay away from the game show articles for my own sanity, but there are a couple of fake "broadcast history" notes in the J! infobox. It did not air on CBS ever, nor did it air on NBC in 1989-91. It did, however, air on ABC in 1990. Lambertman (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect the article has lots of fake and false info, because it used a fansite as a source. I've added a bunch of fact tags, as none of it is supported by the article. Collectonian (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if this is the work of the same person who keeps inserting into the Wheel of Fortune daytime show's succession box that Jeopardy! aired as an NBC daytime show in the late '80's and early '90's. JTRH (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The answer is "Yes." It's anon user 85.103.141.110. JTRH (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No idea. I can't say I know a ton about its broadcast history, but if the information is being question, it should be referenced. Also, the question did make me notice that the broadcast info primarily seems to be covered in the lead with no separate section? Did I miss the section giving a full discussion (I admittedly just quick scanned)? Collectonian (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I just added cites for the opening paragraphs about dates of broadcast history and Emmy Awards (though the latter is the show's own site). See, I told you I was taking a break from the Wheel of Fortune article :P. JTRH (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL. Cool on the sourcing. :) With the Emmy Awards totally crappy site for linking, I think linking to the show's official site is okay. I've had to do that as well, or link to a the network's site, because of it. Collectonian (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, your assessment "I suspect the article has lots of fake and false info, because it used a fansite as a source" is inaccurate. Whoever added the false info about Jeopardy! at one point being a CBS show was confused, but did not get that information from the J! Archive, the information resource (you dismissively call it a "fan site", but it is not that, as I have shown in your talk page above). You have been the one to add the most inaccurate and unsourced information to the Jeopardy! article recently: you got wrong the episode count as of today; you got wrong the number of seasons; and you re-added the inaccurate information about the CBS airing. Robert K S (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Kare Kano Characters

What I put up there was not vandolism. You marked it as so. I was only editing the article to improve it. It was marked as Articles to be expanded since January 2008 so I was expending it. I added two useable pictures and another character (the dog). If a pet in the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion has a bio why not the pet of Kare Kano. By the way I did not vandolize anything. Please asume good faith. - Prede (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I assumed good faith when I removed it the first time. Your immediately putting it back, and continuing to add non-free images after being asked to stop, was not appropriate. The article is clearly not marked for expansion in any way shape or form. More images are unneeded, and the pet is not a major character, nor does it need listing. What they do on NGE has nothing to do with this list. If they have an article on the pet, it should be removed unless the pet was a major character. We do not list minor characters in lists. Collectonian (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The artcile was marked for expension so please check again. I was only adding useful pictures and another character. The pet is seen a lot, the way you say it, you make it seem like they show it for 4 seconds in only one episode. It was in the show from start to finish, I believe that makes it a major character. I did not re-add the stuff you deleted to try and be rude or anything. I apologize for that. I was editing something else on that page at the time, and thought I'd add the pictures again. Didn't know why they were deleted in the first place. But sense you marked my artcile I created for deletion are you trying to attack me or something? You seem to be trying to undue what I've been doing although I am unsure why. But whatever I wont add the Dog again or the pictures even though they should be added. No reason to keep fighting over something so stupid. - Prede (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
List of Kare Kano characters is NOT marked for expansion. It is marked for clean up, needing additional references, removal of original research, and need for more neutrality. It has not had a tag for expansion for months, if ever. Also, we focus on the primary work, which is the manga. Pero Pero is seen a few times, but he plays no significant role in neither the anime nor the manga, and does not need his own section or extensive discussion. Perhaps you are thinking of the main Kare Kano article? It has sections needing expansion, so it is tagged as such, however those tags only apply to it, not the its related lists.
I marked the Pero Pero article for deletion because it is an unneeded disambig, per the disambig guidelines. As I said in the AfD, Pero Pero is not the same as Pero, so only one link in the list is valid. As such, it doesn't need a disambig, and the Pero (disambiguation) page is more than sufficient for both. Collectonian (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again

I didn't know how to create a separate sandbox. Much appreciated. JTRH (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob :) Its also useful for making user sub-pages...like my user page actually pulls in several other user pages I've made for easier maintenance *grin* Collectonian (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wheel page

When you get a chance, please look Wheel of Fortune (US game show) over and see if you agree that some of the tags can come off. I think I've addressed everything but the sourcing - fan site, too long, copy editing and cleanup. I'm still working on sourcing. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. I also haven't addressed the issue of image use, because I didn't put any of them up there and I'm not entirely sure what the fair use/free use rules are. JTRH (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed copyedit and toolong. I've left fansite and cleanup while the subarticles are dealt with, and because I think gameplay can still be shortened up/condensed some, and some other sections still need some work. For the images, see WP:NONFREE for the guidelines on non-free image use. The basic guidelines, from my experiences having to address it, is that as few non-free images as possible should be used, and when used they should be limited to only those absolutely necessary for illustrating a section of text. My initial view would be to remove the image of Pat and Vanna (from what I've seen, non-free images of living people are almost always considered unnecessary see there are free alternatives available). Ditto the image of contestants row. Most of the wheel images are unneeded, as it isn't really necessary to provide a screen of every special spot. Instead, we need one good image of the wheel as it is, to illustrate how it looks. That can also replace almost all of the text of the wheel configuration section. Also, only one image of the board is needed here (especially if the set history article continues to stand alone). Hope that helps some. Collectonian (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to take a break from it for a while (he said...). I'm seeing it in my sleep. As it is, I think I've either written or heavily edited almost the entire page, and I think the next crack at it should be someone else's. I think a lot of the images have individually been tagged under non-fair-use as well as the blanket tag at the top of the page. JTRH (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL, welcome to Wikipedia addiction! (is it sad that I have seen, an edited, stuff in my sleep?) :P If no one else responses from the project, I'll try dealing with the images in another day or so. Collectonian (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bleach character cleanup

I've started a discussion over cleanup of the Bleach characters here. Comments would be appreciated. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments left :) Collectonian (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Food Co-op

I would appreciate if you would cease and desist your acts of vandalism to the Binghamton University wikipedia page. Do you even know what the food co-op is? Of many things, it is a place where like-minded activists and other progressives share ideas and educate eachother. It is collectively run. So if you have nothing better to do, you can call the co-op at 607-777-4258 to verify the events of February 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkamins1 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not vandalizing the article, you are irrelevant content. This isn't the Bingham news service, and you're adding unsourced material about living people. So cut it out. Collectonian (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:3RR report

Have a look at my response to your 3RR report here. Please do not continue to revert at this article (except in cases of true vandalism). Thank you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Xena

I don't tink that the article Xena have exessives images, why you think? answer[Here]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has strict policies on the use of non-free images. Only one image is needed for a character article unless there is a significant and compelling need for additional images. None of the images being added meet that requirement, they are simply excessive decoration. Collectonian (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Roger Rabbit

Greetings, I do not understand your reasons for removal of the text from the Who Framed Roger Rabbit article. This is a common statement about the film, and in this case the screenwriter has made it. The sentence had a citation required note, and even without source it should be addressed in the article.

Here is the quote from the commentary; if you can rewrite the statement that Roger Rabbit influenced animation then great.

Y'know at the time, animation, classical animation like this had really died out. This movie was really the first movie that really brought it back. And then the Disney corporation went on to do, uh, movies like The Lion King, stuff like that, were they utilized the talent that had been assembled for this picture. - Jeffrey Smart, screenwriter of Roger Rabbit.

MartinSFSA (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a statement needs to come from a non-primary source. The writer of the movie making a self-proclamation about his film reviving classical animation is not a reliable source nor does it make it an accurate statement. It really is only bragging unless it is backed up by a reliable, secondary source, preferably from an recognized expert in the film and/or animation industry. Collectonian (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
While this is true, it is also quite apparent that the quote is from the work's author. Reliable sources even links to Questionable sources which describes using self claims of dubious verisimilitude. If you don't like quoting the primary source then revert it back to Citation Required, which at least will enter the claim and hopefully see a better cite. MartinSFSA (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If a better source can be found, it can be readded. Otherwise, it is a fairly contentious and bold statement that, thus far, only appears to be something the work's author claimed. Such statements can, and should, be removed rather than allowed to stay and provide unverifiable, and possibly false, information. It would be one thing if it were a fairly matter-of-fact statement that is likely to be verifiable with time, however to claim one film revitalized an industry is not so easily determined and requires some major sourcing to back it up.Collectonian (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sceptical about it myself, which is why I want to see it improved. MartinSFSA (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
One alternative is to note it on the talk page as having been removed and needing a more reliable source than the work's creator. This is sometimes done if it is felt that something probably can be sourced better. Collectonian (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Good, already done! MartinSFSA (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of Blood+ characters

Couldn't find any discussion, where is it? There are currently six images on the page. Per WP:NFC, there should only be images when necessary. Saya, for instance, is pictured in Image:Saya to Tomodachi.png and Image:Riku, George, and Saya.png. This is unnecessary. It may need to be trimmed to three, four at tops (see the Ranma discussion here. Anyway, there should not be repeated images of characters. Why not join more of these to a single frame like this or this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The New Pic section is where we discussed the images and worked to bring down the number. Per discussions at WP:NFCC, combining non-free images into a single frame is a not allowed, and if done would still be considered the equivalent of how ever many images are used to comprise it. The primary purpose of the Riku, George, Saya picture is to picture Riku, however I have removed it. I've also removed the standalone image of Diva and replaced it with the other image with Diva and James. Hopefully this addresses your concerns and the tag can be removed? Collectonian (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Huh, I was not aware of that, could you link the section? If the problems are addressed, go ahead. BTW, I think the bot added this because one of the main settings in Blood+ is Vietnam. Reply? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Its somewhere in the archives now (it archives very fast), though I remember the discussion from around December or so. It was a huge thing that carried over into some other areas because of the argument on images in lists at all. You're probably right on the bot, but from looking at the projects scope, I don't think it really is a good fit. The show is only in Vietnam for four or five episodes :) Collectonian (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've watchlisted the page in case editors attempt to haul in more inappropriate pictures. Can I trust that you'll do the same or is your watchlist packed ATM? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, its on my watchlist and one of my pet pages, so I'll be keeping an eye on it. Trying to get things sourced and the sections cleaned up for that long future FL status :D Collectonian (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There's another fair use issue over here and I'd greatly appreciate it if you could share your thoughts on policy. In any event, it is nice working with you Collectonian. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to, though I'm not sure if my thoughts would be totally welcome as I sent that page to AfD back in December. :P Collectonian (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Tenchi Muyo! GXP

I am just letting you know that I had to remove GXP from the Geneon category because it was Funimation that distributed that series not Geneon. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I was just going through the Geneon list, which probably had errors. Thanks for catching that. :) Collectonian (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You should also go to the Tenchi Muyo! Ryo-Ohki, Tenchi Universe, Tenchi in Tokyo, and the seperate Tenchi Muyo! movie pages because they to are a part of Geneon's releases and I already added Magical Project S since it was part of Geneon's releases. Just remember that Tenchi Muyo! Ryo-Ohki OVA 3 and Tenchi Muyo! GXP are not part of Geneon's releases. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeping Up Appearances episode page

On the subject of the tabular layout, I have given it careful consideration and because no other user seems to object to the new layout, I have decided to leave it as it is. On the colour issue, I will attend the discussion page. Edito*Magica (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • sigh* You know, when someone asks you to discuss first, that means discuss, not "I'm gonna make my changes and to hell with whatever the discussion ends up saying." The point of discussing a contentious change that has no policy or guideline supporting it is you let other people reply, maybe give samples in the talk page first, then if others agree, make the changes. Collectonian (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Buffy and Xena

Other articles of characters, such as Buffy Summers have several decorative images also, because they were not withdrawn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.6.171 (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NONFREE they need to be removed. If they haven't been removed, the articles need to be tagged for having excessive non-free images, and editors need to work on removing as soon as possible. Collectonian (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Feburary 2008

You have a problem with that site, take it up with Masamage (A mod mind you) and all the others who consider it a great source. I will be reverting any attempts you make to remove it with a passion unless the rest of the WikiProject gives an OK to have it removed. I would also like to note that 75% of the Sailor Moon pages use it as a source.--Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a message to the talk page. If you continue adding that link back, you will be blocked. The site violates Wikipedia's copyright policies and is completely inappropriate. Collectonian (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Do your worst. I am confedent that the site is ok. Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't. The site offers the entire series for download. How much more blatant a violation can you get? That you do not seem to understand the WP:COPYVIO policy, or maybe just don't care, is very disconcerting. I've alerted the anime and manga project to this as well. Collectonian (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Last I checked, the downloads were down. Also do we link to, mention or use that section? No. Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. They are a part of the site. There is no loopholing around that. And no, you can't get me to shut up. I will not stand by and allow people to violate the copyright policy. Collectonian (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sailor Moon project dispute

  • Please don't attribute the actions of User:Lego3400 to the project as a whole. I myself was not aware of the copyvio issues with "The Oracle" and "Bunny's Tour" and would not have put them down as sources had I known about it - I never went to those sites looking for full videos anyway. But had I known this before I would not have accepted them as sources. I won't speak for User:Masamage, who is an administrator, but I'm sure she will have something to say. In any case, I don't condone Lego3400's actions at all and agree that the references should be removed. JuJube (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No prob...Lego presumed to speak for the project, and I took his reaction and words to mean that the sites had been fully evaluated by the project as a whole. I'm glad to note there are editors in the project who do not share his view and are willing to work on removing them. :) Collectonian (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


Edit War

Hey there, because of the edit war on List of minor Sailor Moon characters, I have fully protected the page for an indefinite amount of time. Please discuss the article and the edit war on the talk page. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem and thanks. Hopefully the Anime and Manga project, in conjunction with the Sailor Moon project, can get this issue address quickly. In our discussions, we've found the problem is running much deeper than expected, with multiple copyvio sites having been promoted as references within the project. :( Collectonian (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hey i noticed you helped a lot at the Xena page, and i wondered what you would think of a WikiProject Xenaverse. Not just for the tv show but for the expanded universe too.--Baitt (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would not support such a project, as I do not believe individual shows should have projects. It would be better to have it as a workgroup under the TV project (which could still include the books and what not). It also would save work on doing guidelines and stuff. Hopefully, either as a group or project, its goal would be to give the Xena articles a much needed clean up, rather than continuing to expand, as right now most are far too much fancruft more appropriate for another wiki or wikia instead of the verifiable, real-world context desired here. Collectonian (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of AniDB reference from ed2k: URI scheme article

You removed a useful reference from the ed2k: URI scheme article for what appear to be incorrect reasons. You stated "removed inappropriate links to site that distributes illegal material (AniDB)". However, you stated no reason to call it "inappropriate" and you falsely stated that the site distributes illegal materials. AniDB distributes no material at all, it is merely a database of information about anime and fansubs. They happen to use eD2K links as unique file identifiers, so their Wiki contains some valuable information about the eD2K URI. Admittedly I'd like a better source for the information there than an anime site's Wiki, but no such source exists that I could find and the material there does appear to be correct and unbiased. What you appear to have done is throw the baby out with the bathwater, and for reasons that do not appear to be based on Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Even if AniDB did distribute "illegal material" (they don't) there is no Wikipedia policy that says that that is a reason a link to their Wiki cannot be a reference. And even if there were, I'd say this is a case where Wikipedia:Ignore all rules applies because I believe the reference does improve the article. As such, I have restored the reference. If you think I'm wrong, and I'm willing to accept I may be, I'd love to hear your side of this issue. -- HiEv 06:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the whole discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Appropriate sources for reception. It was agreed that AniDB, in providing direct links to fansub distributers, violates WP:COPYVIO and all links to it have been removed from Wikipedia. This is also reflected in as well all three of its templates being MfDed, and very quickly deleted, showing those outside of the project agreed it was not an appropriate link. The wiki was delinked because a - per WP:RS a wiki is pretty much never a valid reference, and b - it had direct links to the copyvio materials. Collectonian (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I read that discussion, and no, what you are claiming was not agreed there. The last two comments there disagree with you, and a third person said that they were going to check on the issue since they were unsure. Furthermore, deletion of a template to AniDB is not evidence that linking to the AniDB wiki is inappropriate. Second of all, the sites (AniDB and AnimeNFO) do not violate WP:COPYVIO at all. I recommend you re-read that policy since I've seen you use it a couple of times inappropriately. In short, WP:COPYVIO says that you are not allowed to put copyrighted material in Wikipedia articles. It says nothing about the content of sites linked to by Wikipedia articles. AniDB and AnimeNFO do not carry copyrighted anime on their sites, and thus it does not violate Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works (a more appropriate link than WP:COPYVIO). Wikipedia doesn't prevent you from linking to a place, that links to a place, that (if you do a search) has links to places, that may have links to places, that have copyrighted material, and arguing it does is simply ridiculous. That is by no means a "direct link".
Now, I agree that wikis are generally not good reliable sources, but if the quality of the content is good enough then exceptions can be made, and I believe this is such a case. Under Wikipedia:External links it says "Links to open wikis" are "normally to be avoided", which means that there are exceptions, and I think this is one of them. Furthermore, the AniDB wiki requires registration, thus it is not an "open" wiki either. And finally, it is simply not true that the page I linked to had "direct links to the copyvio materials." If you think this is true, please show me an example where the page I linked to does that. In summary, the page I linked to has no copyright problems, and while I agree it's not a great reference, it is a valuable enough reference for inclusion since no better reference exists. I would recommend you focus on the value of the page linked to, rather than irrelevant copyright arguments. -- HiEv 07:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not a great reference, nor a valuable one. Per WP:V, another policy, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." It isn't a source in any way shape or form. Nor do such links add any value to any page at all. Just more fodder for the many media reports dissing Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Meerkat Manor

I have always been reading through your changes shortly after your edits, and I rarely found anything where your addressing of my concerns made the article worse. ;-) Anyway, I am not the FLC reviewer, and I am sure another copyeditor will still find sentences that can be improved further, but I'm pretty satisfied with the current article state, if that's what you want to hear. :-) – sgeureka t•c 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, can you tell I'm nervous about sending it for FLC? I'm pretty confident about being able to make FL ep lists, but this will be my first character list. Okay...deep breath, then decide if I want to try to re-watch the rest of season 1 to clarify the Gattaca section, or go ahead and nom. Collectonian (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Shugo Chara! episodes

I would like for you to look over the List of Shugo Chara! episodes, if you will please. So far, I've been concentrating in developing a proper lead for the list and haven't added any episode summaries, but I want to make sure that the leads are solid. --Farix (Talk) 23:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. The only thing I'd suggest is following up the sentence on the premiere with something noting that it is still airing (and is it still airing on all the channels). You might also want to consider changing the date format in the episode list to month day, year for consistency within the article, and with other episode lists. :) Collectonian (talk) 01:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Noted. Hopefully I've corrected the problem well enough that this list can pass FL review once the episode summaries are added. --Farix (Talk) 16:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, looking good to me. Maybe post for peer review first. Its kind of up and down, but we do seem to do better about getting feedback than in some other projects. :) Collectonian (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Injustice

Can stopping, has nothing illegal in Article Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture, there is this type of page to other series because I can not stay? This is not just! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture,Because it can be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.229.157 (talk) 00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I take it English is not your first language? The article is inappropriate. Thanks for pointing out the Buffy one...it has also been sent to AfD. Collectonian (talk) 01:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope not been boring, excuse me, I will take more care with the items that will create, I ask you whether or not an article can be created? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy and pasting contents from other sites is a severe violation of Wikipedia policy. I strongly suggest you take some time to learn the rules here before you continue editing. Collectonian (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is copied from that page you talked about, if you can tell me something I sem kopiral, I support the exclusion of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
All of it is very obviously copied from that website. Making minor changes to avoid the bot catching it again is not helpful. You even stole the image from the site. Collectonian (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, caught the image, the more I had to get the picture somewhere, could not produce a through magic, But everything well, I thought that modifying the information could use them, I can at least create a page on the series dvds?And because information about the series in popular culture may not be on the page of the series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No, individual DVD releases are not notable and all of the releases are already properly covered in the episode lists. This is not a fansite, it is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for detailed fancruft, but basic overview information. Collectonian (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Buffy the Vampire Slayer DVDs, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel awards and nominations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've AfDed both of those. Collectonian (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Way to nibble on a newbie...
That aside, I don't even remember creating that. I won't weigh in, and I have no problem with it being deleted (I assume I created it as a polite way of deleting it from the main article). Thanks for the heads up.
chocolateboy (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Newbies are yummy with chocolate sauce :P Though he's been at this for over a week now...so yes, my patience has started to go downhill. Collectonian (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for massacring those Getter Robo articles, I owe you one!

I'm never coming back to Wikipedia ever again, I will leave for TvTropes. At least they don't abuse power... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.253.60 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 29 February 2008

And? Am I supposed to be all upset? If you don't want to learn the rules and follow the guidelines here, by all means please feel free to go to another site that is better suited for fancruft and the like. Collectonian (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Been wanting to ask you two things

  1. Where is the recommendation for this? Most pages I've seen use {{Reflist|2}} when the number of refs have reached to 10 or more
  2. What article titles are we using for anime and manga that have been translated and licensed in the United States? Example, the page moves going back and forth from 666 Satan to O-Parts Hunter and so on has been out of hand for years.

Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For the first, the guideline I've been using (forget where I saw it), is that if it has less than 10 references, use <references />, if more than 10 go to {{reflist}, and then with 20 (well formatted) go to {{reflist|2}}. For article names, if it has been licensed for an English release, the MOS says we should use that English name. So unless a good argument can be made that 666 Satan is more known, then O-Parts Hunter should be the article name with a redirect from 666 Satan. Collectonian (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
In WP:REF#How to write them, it says either <references/> or {{Reflist}} is fine. WP:REF#Shortened notes gives a sample with {{Reflist|2}} but doesn't say anything about a preference. In reality, I've never seen a guideline depict what you're claiming. Sure it's not a false memory? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it was a talk discussion. Been a long time though, so could be. Makes sense to me, though, since there really isn't a need for two columns for only 10 refs (to me), or going tiny with only a few references. :) Could just be a personal preference thing too, who knows. Collectonian (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
So can we reach a compromise? Shall we get into the habit of using the standardized {{Reflist}} for less than 10 and {{Reflist|2}} for 10 or more? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...I still rather not see reflist used for just 1-2 items. It looks kinda silly to me. So what would you suggest be the jump from <references/> to {{Reflist}}? Collectonian (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, {{Reflist|2}} for 10 or more. {{Reflist}} for less (actually, there is no BIG difference if it is {{Reflist}} or <references/> or else the guideline would have specified it). All I know is that {{Reflist|2}} generates it smaller but have no idea what the purpose of {{Reflist|3}} and above is, so, don't use them. Convinced? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you using IE or Firefox? There is a difference between them, though whether its big is probably subjective. :) <references/> uses the same font size as the regular article, while {{Reflist}} uses a smaller font. {{Reflist|2}} splits the list into two columns, in browsers other than IE, while {{Reflist|3}} (rarely used) takes it to a 3 column format. Collectonian (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
IE 7. Mind if I change instances of <references/> to the appropiate reflists as discussed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah...that's probably why you can't see the differences. I think references, rather than reflist should still be used for less than 10 items. Not replacing references just to replace does seem to be supported by Template:Reflist. I did finally find where I saw that Wikipedia:FN#Resizing references :) Collectonian (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The guideline didn't say which is preferred but I can imagine the difference. So wait until 10 to put the first reflist? What about the erroneous ones placed on pages now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I generally just replace as I come across if it has reflist but has fewer than 10 refs. :) Collectonian (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
So you'll fix the wrong ones ASAP? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No...that would take a long long time. If I see any in article I work on, I'll fix those. Beyond that, its not worth a super effort. :P Collectonian (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

References in films and shows

The page Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture was about references of the series in other shows and films, I can add that information on the page of the series with the title references in films and concerts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No. That kind of information is trivial and unnecessary. Collectonian (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
What can I do to the series page be part of the featured articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Start by reading the FA guidelines and get far more familiar with basic Wikipedia editing guidelines, such as the need for reliable sources, how to format references and the proper formatting of television articles. That article is very far from meeting any of them. You also need to get a better grasp on what is, and is not, appropriate content for an article, and what is considered encyclopedic and scholarly. First, though, you need to get a better understanding of how to edit Wikipedia period...starting by signing your posts and not violating policies by deleting AfD templates from articles just because you don't want it deleted. Collectonian (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any help page whose theme is explaining how write good pages about television series?
Um, read my message, its all right there to help. Collectonian (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
What message? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
THE ONE ABOVE! Collectonian (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes‎

This is a list of the three reversions in 24 hours:

13:15, 1 March 2008 Collectonian (Talk | contribs) (31,313 bytes) (Undid revision 195177556 by Egan Loo (talk) as per discussion and current consensus) (undo)

22:49, 29 February 2008 Collectonian (Talk | contribs) (31,491 bytes) (Undid revision 195070943 by Egan Loo (talk) doesn't matter, that is what is used in the episodes as they exist) (undo)

22:38, 29 February 2008 Collectonian (Talk | contribs) (31,491 bytes) (Undid revision 195070014 by Egan Loo (talk) we use English spellings) (undo) Egan Loo (talk)

Please read 3RR. Its the 4th revert that gets you a warning. You are the only one to do four reverts. I've removed your false and inappropriate warning again. Thus far, both Farix and I have been fairly patient, but if you revert again, you will be reported to the notice board for possible blocking. Collectonian (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It's actually the third revert that warrants a warning. After a fourth revert, blocking is guaranteed, unless it's a case of reverting things like very obvious vandalism, recognizable sockpuppets, or other stuff like copyrighted material. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...I stand corrected. So we should have given him the warning before he did the fourth revert? Collectonian (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Technically, he should be blocked now for edit warring. Did you file a report here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
No, though probably should have. I mistakenly assumed he was a newer editor, but just realized he's been here since 2004 so really should know better at this point. Collectonian (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I shall attempt to request protection on List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes to prevent further warring. Egan Loo reverted four times (the first edit counts). Though it is customary to warn the editor before reporting, you could still try. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...hopefully he will listen to my last message that he should discuss rather than continuing to revert when his view is currently the minority one. Collectonian (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not mischaracterize my willingness to discuss. I invited discussion when I made my edits, opened a section in the discussion for that purpose, and addressed each of the points raised when other editors did enter the discussion. Two of the reversions came after I politely and specifically asked the other editor to take this to discussion, but was ignored and reverted. Yes, I should I have used the proper channels of dispute resolution when my requests for discussion were ignored, but please do not imply I was not willing to discuss. Egan Loo (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't imply that. I said you continued to revert rather than discuss, even though you had no consensus for an obviously controversial change. That was your inappropriate action. Collectonian (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I did both: revert and discuss, as opposed to only reverting rather than discusssing (as implied above). I think this is something all of us involved had done. A fair enough assessment? Egan Loo (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You reverts were reverted because it went against consensus. After the first revert, you should have stopped reverting and discussed why you felt your position was the correct one, particularly when multiple editors disagreed. Collectonian (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That I agree. I should have opened the discussion at the first revert, not the second. I await more discussion over there. Egan Loo (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Manga Kenshin

I could get the other manga titles and moved it to List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters. They still need release date and ISBN. Ill look for them. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I found all the release dates and 13 digit ISBNs on Amazon.com. :) Collectonian (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I added all from amazon, except the volume 26 that was in the viz media website. I couldnt find the holy english volume 1 to reference the ISBN. Apart from that I saw that most lists have the japanese titles. If it is necesary, do you know anybody able to do that? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Holy English volume 1? If its available, the Japanese titles should be listed with the nihongo template, but for 99% of stuff, we don't have the kanji title lists so those lists are left without until someone from Japan or who knows Japanese can add them. If they aren't listed in the entry in the Japanese wikipedia, you might try updating your post on the project page, or leaving a note on the list page, but it will probably be awhile. Collectonian (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Holy because I dont find it anywhere (Amazon, Vizstore is unavailable, etc) and because I dont understand why it dissapeared. I will see.Tintor2 (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I found it here [5]. The only problem is that the first english volume is called "Meiji Swordsman Romantic Story" while the japanese is "Kenshin - Himura Battōsai" (Not very similar). However, should I edit that japanese?.Tintor2 (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ahh...weird cause I know it is still sold, though maybe Viz took it out of print with the new VIZBIG editions out. Hmmm...for the name, maybe just put both with a note for English, Japanese separated by a <br />? Wonder why that is the only one they seemed to have renamed. Collectonian (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I found the english volume 1 in the japanese amazon and added the reference. Maybe "Meiji Swordsman Romantic Story" is the reference to the extra story. I checked the Rurouni Kenshin manga page in anime news network and volume 1 had two titles. Apart from that how is that of nowiki? could you add it? No idea how to.Tintor2 (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I made an attempt adding the two for that volume. Take a look and let me know if you think it looks okay. Collectonian (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. I ll be adding the japanese volume titles. See you.Tintor2 (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool. If Viz kept the rest of the titles, then you can use the nihongo template rather than having to double list. :) Collectonian (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Here there are the volume titles in Anime News Network [6]. There are no big differeces. But what do you think? Should they be changed?.Tintor2 (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...probably not. If its only a minor difference, its probably from a difference in translation. To bad it doesn't have the kanji titles, though. Collectonian (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember that in the wikiproject you told me about kanzenban of the series and the viz big edition. Could you explain me? About the Kanzenban I think they dont have titles and the number of chapters is unknown to me. However, the ISBN and the release dates are easy to get, so the cover characters.Tintor2 (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kanzenban are the re-releases of the series in an ultimate edition. Usually we mention it in the prose that its been done, and add a second table giving just the release dates and ISBNs.
We don't need to repeat the chapters in either case, though if we know which ones are in it, we could make a note with the cover characters and rather than the full list of chapters, with something like
Chapters
  • Chapters x-y
For the VIZBIG editions, each edition includes three of the original volumes (and in RK's case, included a few color pages at the front). Similar to the Kanzenban versions, we give it a section with a intro prose, mention in the lead, and just add a table with the ISBNs and release dates. For an example with the kanzenban releases, check out List of Marmalade Boy chapters. Hope that helps :) Collectonian (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. So should I move the kanzenban info to the list of kanzenban? and the cover characters are not necesary, are they?.Tintor2 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and just mention in the lead for the summary style. For the cover characters, you mean in the kanzenban? If you can find the covers, you can add them, however without a volume list, it won't show. For MB, I didn't do cover characters in the main list because they are all Miki ;) BTW, Viz's site should be back up now...apparently someone forgot to pay to renew the domain name LOL. Collectonian (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, I made the list of kanzenban. My only concern is what to do with the introduction information of the kanzenban. Move it?Tintor2 (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Soon Ill make the wideban list. I see this article lacks summaries, I see if I an do something since Im not very good with this. I may ask another user.Tintor2 (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...main thing to say, I'd guess, is that it was re-released, who published (probably same as manga), start and end dates, and number of volumes. If there are notable extras (rare), those can also be noted. Collectonian (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)