User talk:Collectonian/Archive 6

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

Last Exile Edits

Thanks for all that wonderful work you did on the Last Exile page it is really improved. Keep up the good work. Cpuwhiz11 (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Collectonian (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ray of Sunshine

Ray of Sunshine Award
You, User:Collectonian, are a Ray of Sunshine! You know how sometimes you hate checking your watchlist, especially when you see that certain someone or an IP has edited your favorite articles? The Ray of Sunshine is bestowed on that person that, when you see their name at the top of your watchlist, you know that all is right with the world, you can relax, and do something besides cleaning up another mess. I especially appreciate your helpful contributions to all Degrassi-related articles! Thanks again! - Keng - t | c - 18:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Awww...thanks :) Collectonian (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hey I can help you with the wallflower chapter names. I put the rst in the talk page(but I didn't sighn in). Plz conact me if I can help. Thx.Mooncrest (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Collectonian (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

re your comment on FAtalk, I'm reluctant to name names, since the ones I know are in the bird project, and I don't want to upset other contributors. Take a look at the bird featured lists and see what you think. I think most do not meet the criteria, especially in terms of referencing and mos, but I might be wrong Jimfbleak (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, many of those need to be reviewed, and delisted if they are not fixed. They need to be taken to FAR for referencing and formatting issues, though maybe start with a discussion in the project, since you're a member, on the need to clean them all up. Point out the new criteria (even if I think they suck, other people seem to think they are stronger), and note that the lists would probably fail an FLR. However, I also noticed you yourself supported keeping one such list as a featured list, even though it has the same problems. :( Its FLR did, at least, result in its lead referencing issues being fixed, though I personally feel it is still not adequately referenced. Collectonian (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Xena: Warrior Princess

In what way can I suggest the article Xena: Warrior Princess, to be one of the Featured Articles? (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

It has to first actually be a featured quality article, which it is not, not by a long shot. Collectonian (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Escaflowne

"this does; it is not straight plot summary"

What are you talking about? There's no point of view in this section; it's just a description. That's plot content by definition. This sort of info doesn't need references unless there are interpretations or analysis, which it's not the case here. I understand if you like to source everything but it doesn't mean this actually needs references. Kazu-kun (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does need references. Its no different than a character list, which also requires referencing for each specific statement said about a character. Collectonian (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Even when dealing with characters, only interpretations or analysis need to be referenced. Direct descriptions don't need references because there's no point of view, therefore there's nothing likely to be challenged. What do you think we use references for in the first place? Kazu-kun (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, direct descriptions to require references, as has been shown repeatedly in GAs, FAs, and in the FLs of character lists. Sure, we can leave them unreferenced if the article is going to be left low quality, but I want it taken to FA so it requires references.Collectonian (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not like that. When they ask for references in GAs or FAs it's because there's more than mere descriptions. Tell me, do you really know what references are for. I'm not asking in bad faith, I just think you may not fully understand what I'm talking about.Kazu-kun (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, wrong, I've been through all three and no, it isn't just for interpretative statements. Yes, I have an extremely clear understanding of what references are for. They verify the statements made in the article. Other than a simple plot summary, every statement in an article should be verifiable through clear, precise references. To me, the idea that "only things likely to be challenged" should be referenced is negligent, lazy, and presumes that the only people reading any of the articles will already be so familiar with the topic that they don't care. Making specific statements about characters (or settings) should be properly referenced to the specific episode and/or manga chapter/page where it is stated. Collectonian (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You said it yourself, that's your own opinion, which is irrelevant here. Even those two a three FAs don't reflect any concensus in comparison with the guideline. If you edit this way, based on your own opinion while disregarding the guideline, you could end up been pretty disruptive, even if your edits are in good faith. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not just my own opinion. It has been supported by numerous FAs, FLs, and GAs, and it does reflect the consensus among high class articles. Not just my own, but others I've participated in, including several anime and manga ones. There is nothing disruptive at all in holding articles I work on to the proper standards of Wikipedia. I'm not "disregarding the guideline" either, I'm upholding it far better than some people are willing to. And please stop speaking down to me as if I'm some newbie editor. I'm finding it a little insulting, particularly coming from an editor who is not any more experienced than I am and barely has even a quarter of the edits I do. Collectonian (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
But you are inexperienced; you wouldn't use those nasty comments if you weren't. Anyway, the problem is your approach to this. You seem to believe that sourcing content that don't actually need sources is improving the article, but you're basing this on the fact that others editors (and yourself) think it's a good idea. You should take into account the guideline is the way it is because it was made with the purpose of solving specific problems, not because some editors thought it was a good idea. If it isn't more strict than it is, it's because of that reason, and so "upholding it far better", as you said, can sometimes be pretty disruptive. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not inexperienced, not by any stretch. And no, I didn't make any nasty comments. I expressed that I felt you were insulting me and looking down on me in very polite language considering that I was feeling insulted. Your editing history shows you have almost no experience in FAs, GAs, nor do you actively participate in the various pages for the policies and guidelines you're claiming I am somehow violating or ignoring or misinterpreting. I'm highly active in all of the above, so I'll stick to following what long term, heavily experienced editors state during such reviews. Your argument that its disruptive to somehow actually want an article to be well-sourced strikes me as far bigger sign of inexperience that anything you seem to think I've done. Go ask in verifiability if we're free to state anything we want without any sources so long as no one challenges it. Perhaps then this strange and blatantly wrong idea you have that nothing needs to be sourced unless someone challenges it will be corrected. If it makes you feel better, though, my tagging that section as unreferenced is, in fact, someone challenging its accuracy and a demand for verification. Collectonian (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Perhaps then this strange and blatantly wrong idea you have that nothing needs to be sourced"

I thought it was clear I was talking about plot or character descriptions. Referencing is done for attribution, so any real-world statement must be sourced, of course. I wonder why you're twisting my words.

  • "If it makes you feel better, though, my tagging that section as unreferenced is, in fact, someone challenging its accuracy and a demand for verification."

Wrong. Tagging an specific statement because you have a concern about it means you're challenging it. Tagging the whole thing just because you think it needs references, without specifing any real concern, is pretty meaningless. You're not challenging anything by doing that. Kazu-kun (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've already explained, very clearly, that character descriptions are not immune for referencing, nor are any other in-universe aspects that are not straight, simple plot summary. Making any specific statements about a character, a setting, etc should be sourced. If you don't wish to believe that, then I'm sorry, but it is strongly supported in numerous places. You are the one who mistakenly believes otherwise, and you view is not upheld by any actual evidence, only your own interpretation of something.
Tagging the whole section means I'm challenging the whole section as it has no references at all to support any of the statements and claims made about this locations within the series. It is the only section of the article that is now completely missing references that requires them. You'd rather I'd fill the section with a episode citation tag on every last sentence? That would just make the section ugly and bloated. You keep tossing around first part of WP:V to back up your idea, namely: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." The very same policy notes clearly that "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}." I'm requesting sources for the unsourced statements of the section just as the policy recommends, since some people objected to it being removed.
Anyway, I'm not going to keep beating a dead horse over this. You are wrong, plain and simple, if you really think none of that needs citations. I know I am correct in saying they do need referencing based on my extensive experiences in the featured and GA arenas, in the delisting processes of those arenas, in policy and guideline board discussions, and in my interactions with other experienced editors who do have a firmer grasp of what verifiability means. Collectonian (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
If you're describing what you saw about a character or setting in the work itself, without adding any king of interpretation, then that's also straight, simple plot summary. You're wrong because you're basing your argument in an incorrect concept. Well, it doesn't really matter actually, since I'll be re-writing the whole article soon. Just wanted to let you know that I think you have some misconceptions about sourcing and such. Kazu-kun (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, no, you are wrong and have yet to provide any actual evidence otherwise. As for rewriting the article, what do you mean you plan to rewrite it? I certainly hope you don't plan on undoing all of the extensive work that was done to clean it up and finally bring it in-line with the MoS, add much needed referencing, and real world info. It does not need rewriting at all. It need a brief character list added, the plot completed, and a reception section added. A few more refs and it will be ready for peer review on the road to GA. Collectonian (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a cinematography student so I know exactly what a plot is. Sorry, but you're dead wrong on that. About the rewriting, it depends on the references available. When writing an article, I read all the reference available first an part from there. Maybe you're right and it doesn't need more than what you say it needs, but that depends on the sources. On the other hand, I don't know when I'll be working on it. Kazu-kun (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but being a cinematography student doesn't mean that "plot" equals what you say it does. Plot here is the plot summary in the main article and the individual episode and volume summaries in episode, chapter, and light novel lists. Writing descriptions of characters and settings about a work, even if its purely based on the media itself, is not plot. This has been shown time and time again. If you believe that pure character descriptives based only on the primary work do not need citations, then are you then saying that a character list requires no citations at all, except for where real-world or interpretative statements have been added? If so, again, I will tell you that it is incorrect. This is shown in the character lists taken to FL that have been hit for lacking citations on all statements. This has been shown in character article GA and FA noms where the plot summary for the character has required referencing. If you do not wish to believe me, okay. Take a look at Himura Kenshin (GA prepping for an FA run), Rukia Kuchiki (GA) and Orochimaru (Naruto) (GA). Note, the plot "summaries" are all sourced to specific chapters and episodes. List of Meerkat Manor meerkats - its not a fictional series, so perhaps you'll discount, but also note every last statement is sourced. During the FLC, several that had not been sourced were quickly pointed out for fixing or removing. If you don't believe me that such information needs sourcing, perhaps you'll consider asking an experienced editor you have some respect for? Perhaps User:Sephiroth BCR, who is one of our more prolific featured content producers. Or, again, ask in the featured areas or at WP:V or, if you like, we can ask a third/fourth opinion at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard.
As for editing the article, I'll just keep working on getting it ready for GA then. For referencing, I agree, the more the merrier, so long as they are reliable. Escaflowne is a key anime series, so I'm sure its been covered in even more sources than those I've found so far, and of course I haven't done anything with the reception section yet.Collectonian (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


I took a look at the talk pages of the articles you mentioned, but I couldn't find anything supporting your ideas.

From Kenshin (I took a look at the archived peer review too):

  • "Besides, both of those are just original research and unless some justified facts from the series or reliable source states (or implies) that he has either of these disorders, then let's not jump to conclusions."

Here they ask for references because stating that Kenshin suffers from some mental disorders is interpretative, not just a description.

Rukia:

  • "and have all the relevant items properly sourced"
  • "At this point, we can only assume that it is an ice elemental like Hitsugaya since there is no other reference point."

The first statement here is the only one I found on this talk page that seems in line with your ideas. The second is asking for references for clarification, which is not the same.

Orochimaru:

Didn't find anything on this talk page supporting your ideas.

You should realize a plot summary and a character description are the same thing: in both cases you're describing the action in the work's narrative. The only exception could be the physical appearance of the character, but if you've got a picture you don't need a reference for that either. Of course, all the plot summaries and descriptions in those articles are sourced, but let's be real, 90% of the content is in-universe, which has little encyclopedic value and therefore is referenced mostly for show (because without those references the articles would have little to nothing referenced).

Ultimately, this only show how most editors give too much importance to the in-universe content, relegating almost all the encyclopedic content to the Reception section. The result is subpar articles, which ironically are all GAs. This is what happens when you write an article first and look for references later. Articles don't need the in-universe content to be referenced, they need more real-world content mixed in every section, even in the Plot. Kazu-kun (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the articles support my ideas perfectly because the articles themselves HAVE the references. If the references were unnecessary, they wouldn't be there. But oh well, I tried. Continue believing such things do not need referencing. Perhaps if you ever try to take an article to featured status or good article status without it, then you'll actually be willing to learn something. So, the concept and creation sections of those articles are also just "in-universe"? As for "this is what happens when you write an article first and look for references later" I'm just going to shake my head. You sound as if editors always have a choice in this. Most don't, unless thye only work from brand new articles. Many articles have already been created. You deal with what you've got and work to bring it up to standards. If you have the luxury of starting from scratch, great, but you can't just discount every other editor's work and start all over from scratch. You don't just come in and wipe out the entire article in one fell swoop because you think you wrote something better because you think you did it the proper way. As for those articles being subpar...well, go send them all to GAR if you think so. I do it all the time. For the ones I suggested viewing, though, I suspect you'll fine that others do not agree with your assessment.
Anyway, I wash my hands of this conversation. Suffice to say, I think the section should stay tagged until it is sourced, unless you can actually find consensus or proof that your idea is somehow right, despite the overwhelming evidence shown by GAs and FAs that its not. I've asked an uninvolved party (the admin I mentioned earlier) to look at this issue and offer a third opinion, to help clear this up, in keeping with the proper dispute resolution process. I hope you'll be willing to respect what they say, no matter which side (if any) they fall on. Collectonian (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In short, you source everything, whether it is plot summary, in-universe, or whatever. Any content you include has to be verifiable, and you should show as such via sources. It's not a big deal. Cite the relevant chapter/anime episode/etc. where the content is from. The practice of not sourcing plot summary has fallen through as of late, and there have been GARs and FARCs to show for that. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 10:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Geocities

Exactly what policy does a site published by Geocities violate? The article is well and professionally written as well as nicely-presented. What's unreliable about it? The fact that it was published on Geocities? Plenty of good articles are published on Tripod.com or Hispavista.es and they're acceptable? Why, because the user can invest on a domain name? Because that's the only difference. T.W. (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For policy, WP:V. It is a self-published source, and does not meet the requirements set out by WP:V and WP:RS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The information gathered in that article is supported by the Internet Movie Database, which is a more than reliable source for subject of Awards and Nominations, the information gathered from that article is also supported by the Spanish Wikipedia, not to mention the simple fact that the series was given the TP de Oro in 1993. I think articles should be created individually, articles linked here should link to a proper website on the subject and say, "go here, screw Wiki-policies." For the record, you haven't made comments to all I aported yesterday to the discussion regarding your deletion nominations. Still have doubts whether the author and the books are notable or not? T.W. (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) IMDB is not considered a reliable source either, just so you know. It is user edited and has repeatedly been struck down for not meeting the guidelines in the RS noticeboard. You can say that articles should be created individually and you can just link to whatever, but the truth is, that isn't how it works. If you want that, honestly, you might be happier making your own website, or working in a wikia or a private wiki that doesn't mind that. Here, we have guidelines, we have policies, and editors are expected to follow them if they wish to be good contributers to the site. WP:V is one of our core policies and not something you can, or should want to, just brush aside to allow anyone to put whatever they wanted.
And yes, I know I haven't made any comments regarding the huge glut of stuff you added to one of the AfDs. I'm not going to bother. And yes, I still doubt the books are notable. The author's notability isn't the subject of the AfD, so that doesn't matter. Its the individual books. I think they'd be fine as a collective series article, but I do not think they have any notability one by one and nothing you added really proved otherwise. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The bust proves that Elena Fortún is a notable author; the "Celia" books are her most popular and read works; A series was produced in 1992 not for the heck of it, but to add to the popularity of the books which was sadly decreasing at that time; The premiere of the series was a big event because it reflected important icons of literature, not to mention that it featured the collaborations of two important and respected figures, José Luis Borau and Carmen Martín Gaite; Cristina Cruz Mínguez was chosen to play the title role in this big-budget, landmark project. There, it all connects to something else. Where's the notability here? Introduction, plot summary, list and external links. I guess you have further deletion nominations to make. Oh, and I have made plenty of websites which are currently supporting information in many articles throughout Wikipedia, but I won't tell you what they are because I don't have the time to deal with further angonizing from your part, no offense. T.W. (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not antagonizing. If you want to feel that way and play the victim, that's your personal problem, not mine. You're the one who went all ape crazy instead of acting like an adult and calmly discussing the issues. Not that I'd expect less considering you aren't actually an adult, but it would be nice if you'd act more mature if you are going to edit here. I'm just doing my part to ensure non-notable topics are covered. Also, making the claim that other stuff exists, is not a valid argument in any deletion debate or other discussion. *shrug* If you have made websites being used, I'm sure they'll be found and removed if they are not reliable sources in time. They always are, and self-promotion is heavily frowned upon. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't simply throw stuff and publish it on a website, alright? I've put time, research and effort on those sites and no, they will not be found and removed because there'd be no reason to. The purpose of me pointing out that article is to see whether that particular article satisfies your "notability" beliefs. I don't see any difference from that article to the ones you've nominated for deletion, so I half-expect you to either reconsider your criteria or make further nominations, else we have a case of bias which could possibly be stretched into serious nationalistic beliefs and once again, put your criteria at risk. You're the one talking about "abuse", not to mention the ridiculous claim of "harrassment", when you're the one following me around in every article I create or contribute in. Also, I'm 18, closer now to 19, that makes me an official adult, and in terms of maturity, I don't disappoint either friends or family, thank you. T.W. (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you put time, research, etc into the sites. You aren't a scholar and your self-published research is not a reliable source. IAs fro the article, it needs work but it does show that is has been the topic of scholarly discussion, meeting notability fine. And no, we don't have a case of bias, just a case of you determined to whine and pitch a fit. I don't follow you around, you are the one who put a template in the Celia Television article alerting any who see it to your creating the other articles. And, when people act like you act, all of their contributions come under scrutiny. And no, you aren't an adult. But whatever. I doubt you went around telling your family how you called a perfect stranger such an ugly name just because you felt like throwing a tantrum instead of actually fixing the articles (which I notice you STILL haven't done). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That is simply too funny. My dear, a person in this and many other nations around the world are officially declared adults when they become 18 years of age. This important event happened to me on June 25th of last year. As it is expected, you likely have your own federal laws, policies and regulations as well. There's no difference between the articles, you're just intimidated at the challenging of an article that is likely more widely read than the ones currently on question. I did not call you an ugly name, I called Paris Hilton and ugly name, with likely enough back up to support the claim, but that is another story. I linked the ugly name to your profile, which is very different, and since you requested its absolute removal, you may not even be able to prove that the hurtful, catastrophic event ever occurred. Your friend seems to disagree about the notability of the articles and finds the offered sources and support to be valid and valuable. So far, it's only you, as usual, who has a problem with them. T.W. (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice try, but you weren't blocked because you didn't call me a name (and its still in the history, so yes, I can prove it). As for the rest, grow up and move on all ready. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't excusing myself, don't worry. I don't care enough to "try". So much for "not following me around," you missed about a hundred other articles, see if you can spot them all before time runs out. T.W. (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you removed the Naruto media list article...

If you removed the list of Naruto media article, then how will we know what Opening themes and Closing Themes they've used, and in which episodes?
And how will we know the names of the soundtracks and OSTs, especially the singles for the Opening and Closing Themes?
~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2008(EDT)

Opening and ending themes are covered in the episode lists. We are not a CD listing/sales catalog. The soundtracks and OSTs are listed in the main article's soundtrack section. CD singles are not something we list as they are specific to the artist not the series. Collectonian (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, thank you.
~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2008(EDT)

Cleanup task force

See here. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Original in boxes

Which policy is it? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Project consensus, our MoS, and multiple featured chapter/episode lists where the originals are used. Where possible, we use the first volume of the Japanese release of a manga series for the infobox first, the English second when no good versions of the original are available. Yes, we are the English Wikipedia, but that does not mean we completely ignore the original work at all, nor that we downplay it. As Viz used the original covers for their release, there is absolutely no need at all to have two versions, and in-deed it pushes the line of violating WP:NONFREE as there are no significant differences. We only do both covers in the case of something like Trinity Blood where the covers are dramatically differences, and even then, that's something for the chapter list, not the main. Collectonian (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I am looking for the applicable section at the MOS for anime and manga page. It should be written there, if it is not already. If there is a discussion that indicates consensus, I would like to see it. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was discussed recently. I think on the MoS talk page, but if not give me a minute and I'll find the link for you. I need to deal with the personal attacks from another editor first. Collectonian (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
While you are looking for that, I will also bring up the issue at the non-free content to see how other editors feel about having two book covers with English-Japanese text differences and nothing else - I will use a diff as an example. EDIT: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Is_it_fair_to_use_two_book_covers_of_the_same_comic_book_title.2C_with_one_for_the_Japanese_version_and_one_of_the_English_version.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty. Here is the discussion Template talk:Infobox animanga#Infobox image. Looks like we didn't touch specifically on Japanese versus English though. Turning to the Book and Novels projects, it is specifically noted that the first edition covers are preferred, which for manga would be the first volume of the first Japanese release. I agree this should probably be noted in the MoS to help make that clearer. Collectonian (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to enter here and bother Collectian and Whisper, but now that you say that we should use the first volume, in List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters the first one is being used. Do you think we should replace the one of Rurouni Kenshin with the first one? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Doh, didn't even realize the main was using the final volume. I think the final volume is acceptable too. General order of preference is first volume of Japanese release, last volume of Japanese release, first volume of English, last volume of English. We should probably be consistent between the two, though and use one or the other on both. I'm inclined to like Vol 28's because its the normal orientation and dimensions, but probably something to discuss on the talk page.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:43, May 19, 2008 (UTC)

Response section in Iggy Arbuckle

You remember you said that the article needs a response section, right? Would how well the show sells help that? Because it is mentioned here: [1] The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its having strong sales and its leading its timeslot among boy viewers in the UK are both bits from that article that would be good to add. :) Just to note, though, the section should be called "Reception" not "Response" ;-)Collectonian (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Okey-dokey, thanks!!! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cardcaptor Sakura

Why there is a POV tag at the top of the article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Though its been cleaned up quite a bit, it still has some anti-Cardcaptors sentiment (including relegating Cardcaptors to another article to allow it to be a longer hate piece), unsourced complaints about the manga translations, etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your request

See User:Collectonian/Abtract. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Our meerkat-altering friend...

...is at it again. Why isn't there a warn-4 for unsourced info, I wonder? Anyway, I've warned, but I'm off for a bit--I thought I'd pass the info along and let you AIV him if you'd like. What a pain. Gladys J Cortez 00:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess at warn 4 they figure just call it vandalism. I've requested page protection since they are jumping IPs all over the place. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The templates you are looking for is {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} or {{subst:uw-error1}}. The full list is available here. There is a template for almost everything:). G.A.S 05:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

MFD Close

Hi, I did not nominate the page for being a bad proposed policy but instead for being a duplicate of WP:TOV. Please do not remove the nomination without discussion. Nakon 02:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That should still be discussed on the proposed policy's talk page. If consensus agrees, then it can be redirected/merged to TOV as necessary. The MfD instructions are very clear, though, that even if you feel it is a duplicate, nominating it for outright deletion is not appropriate. Please discuss on the page's talk page instead. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

On a side note

I've reverted your edit here as the subpage has now been created. Nakon 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No prob. :) I was going to watch to see if he created then add back afterwards. Looks like they just went in reverse. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not remove Miscellany for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Miscellany for deletion pages, as you did with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:School threats. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 02:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I reclosed it as WP:MFD is not the place for that discussion. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


"YYH" citation

I have to ask, why did you remove it [2]? Couldn't really find a more reliable source than that. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Which one? I removed a few in there, including a lot of Geocities link (non-RS) and IMDB (non-RS)? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It was a reference to an American Shonen Jump magazine. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
For it being abbreviated YYH? That didn't really seem necessary considering the series name. :) If it is, though, should be properly formatted as actual ref rather than note. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
How do I do that? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Use the {{cite journal}} template. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

New article

Hi there! I'm considering creating a new article and am working on it in my userspace at the moment. It is to be based on Template:LA TV and the information given in the infoboxes at channels such as KCBS and KNBC. I've started in LA because it's where I live so it's a little easier for me. I've only done 2 so far but I'm not sure if all the information would be necessary (such as antenna height, strength and location perhaps). It's not formatted correctly yet when it comes to dates and alignment, so just ignore that. Do you think it's a subject worth tackling? If it is, I might consider doing all 210 media markets for a WP:FT! Thanks in advance, -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...the broadcaster side isn't my forte per say, but I think it could be an interesting list idea with potential for feature topic status. The main thing, of course, is the referencing for everything. You might also want to ask over in the TV project for ideas on what would be good to include or not include. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the FCC's pages will be an excellent start for referencing, especially for current information. They might also carry the details for previous call signs and affiliations, too, but if not I think it will be available elsewhere. Most stations also have their own website, too, which could be helpful. Good thinking re the Wikiproject. I'll do that tomorrow as I'm off to bed. Night! -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User:Abtract

I think he just broke WP:3RR, though I'm unsure because the content of the page has changed throughout the edit war. Should we file a report or something? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Filing now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Appears he is going after me. What to do about this guy? It's as if he likes harassing others (me in particular). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll refiled the RfC/User. I had it userified after seeing he was at it again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And filed: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a small word of advice ... if you want support, shouldn't you be advising "sympathetic editors" of what you have started? I wouldn't want you to be ignominiously timed out again. :) Abtract (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm already doing notifications. In the interest of fairness, I've started first with the people you yourself noted as people who "tried to help." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well done, you took my advice and you picked two good ones who, I agree, actually tried to resolve the issue in a helpful way ... unlike you. :) Abtract (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. I was already doing it when you left your message, as I'd already planned to do. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability Guideline

Collectonian: thanks for looking at my article on William Honnyng, and the addition of the Notability box. I am quite new to Wikipedia, so was not sure about this person's notability. As to third party references, I have listed many; the person was an MP in the English parliament... and has a biography published in the official History of Parliament, so I figured he was adequately 'notable'. Many other Tudor MPs have wiki articles. In Wikipedia:POLITICIAN#Politicians it includes 'members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature'. Would a better link to the 2 published biographies be a welcome improvement?

But sure, as MPs go, he wasn't exactly Winston Churchill! So, grateful for advice before you zap my hard work off this wiki, or I waste time trying to improve it. When I wrote an earlier article on another person of similar (or even less) 'notability', another wiki editor thanked me for the contribution. Perhaps that encouraged me to contribute more to wikipedia; your feedback sends a contrary message. Honyng (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My tagging does not mean I will "zap if off this wiki." I tagged it for notability because the article isn't clearly expressed. Yes, he was an MP, but did he do anything significant? In looking closer, I see he was arrested and possibly had some controversy during his term? Also, I was unable to confirm the existence of the stated sources and it seems like people disagree on how to spell his last name? Some of these needs to be made clear. I think he likely is notable, the article just needs to be tweaked to note this. You seem to have an interest in biographies, so you might consider joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and checking out their page for tips on how to tweak the article. I've gone ahead and put the article in the project for you. I'll also remove the notability tag and replace it with a clean up one to better indicate its needs.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

History

You arranged to have a copy of the previous failed RfC but I cannot locate my commenst on the current version ... if you have some means of making this available to me will you do so please. I want to avoid recreating my comments. Thanks. Abtract (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

They should be in the copy at [3]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks you're a gent ... well you know what I mean. :) Abtract (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the pending action. I've endorsed it as well, and am quite surprised that this fellow hasn't quite figured out how to play well with others. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User rights

I've changed your user rights to rollbacker since you're a trusted user :). Seraphim♥Whipp 22:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Motivation

I'm intrigued; what is your motivation for your second attack on me? I am genuinely interested. And, out of 100, how do you rate your chances of achieving a block? Abtract (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider it an attack. It is an unfortunately necessary corrective measure because other dispute resolution attempts and attempts by multiple editors to help you not engage in such behavior have failed. My overall goal is not a block, but you to change your behavior and to see an end to the edit warring and to the outright nastiness between you and Sesshomaru. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you talked to Sess about his attitude or have you simply taken sides? Abtract (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
As you should be aware, I have warned Sess about edit warring with you. I have not warned about his attitude as I have not seen any signs that his attitude is unwarranted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any guilt feeling about the bitch episode? Abtract (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not feel any guilt about it at all, as I still feel it was appropriate considering your other actions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
In what way was it appropriate? Considering I made a perfectly reasonable edit summary which you clearly misunderstood and went on and on and on ... and indeed on, Why did you do it? Abtract (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I prefer to simply not have any contact or discussion with you. The thinly veiled insults and snarkiness are annoying. The RfC has been endorsed, so I'll let it run its course. In the meantime, I strongly suggest you avoid running around behind myself (or Sesshomaru) undoing our edits as it gives you the appearance of being the stalker you accused him of being. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am reliably informed, by no less than Sess (and others), that it is perfectly Ok to watch users contributions and follow behind them to correct their mistakes ... (s)he does it all the time and, since you have taken his/her side, I guess you are happy with it too (note spelling). Abtract (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
An RfC has already been filed against you, so you continue edit warring and basically admit to wikistalking? That will not help your case at all.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Being bold at WP Policy and Process pages

400
400

Hi, I noticed that you reverted and chastised an editor for making an undiscussed change at a policy page. I have no problem with your action. I've been working for a while on the Consensus policy page and have suggested hat it is a good practice to talk first on delicate articles and process pages. This practice is discouraged by the consensus of editors active at the consensus page. What are your thoughts? --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflictx3:P) I agree. I don't think changes should be done to policy changes, or heavily used guidelines, without some discussion and consensus. Making changes that aren't just minor fixes (grammar, spelling, etc) often leads to confusion and to people using such changes as a reason to declare the policy or guideline is in dispute and should be ignored. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Governance reform. Look at my description of Death by a thousand cuts, which another editor today called Goldfish editing, where a little fish constantly nibbles at the issue. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That is a very interesting guideline, and I have to agree with many of the points brought up. While the consensus model works well for articles, it tends to become a mess with policies and guidelines because some folks will always disagree and refuse to yield, even in the face of a vocal majority. I've seen it become a total nightmare in places like WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE, to the point I had to take them off my watchlist to lower my wiki-stress. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Note

You have broken the three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Despite the edit summary, this is not simple vandalism and 3RR applies. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, normally I would agree, but Abtract's reverts were in a way defacto vandalism. He was reverting solely out out of retaliation and to deliberately trying to goad me into a 3RR violation due to this RfC/U I filed against him a short while ago. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If you believed his edits were a form of harassment, you should have walked away. Responding to perceived retaliation by violating policy is a Bad, Bad Idea. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
True, and I know you are right, but it would be nice if there were other ways of dealing with harassment besides walking away and ignoring such horrible behavior. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Collectonian/Archive 6. The user in question was reverting solely for disruption, likely stalking because of yesterday's event and the RfC. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would have preferred too if you had walked away :-) --Matilda talk 01:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I shouldn't have let him goad me so easily. I do thank you, though, for looking at the whole situation :) I was hoping he might actually change his behavior, particularly with the RfC against him endorsed by one of his supporters, but instead, he seems to have chosen to act like this. :(-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract/sandbox-2

Were you aware of this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I saw it. I considered mentioning it in the RfC/U as an attack piece, but with the stuff at the bottom he will probably say he was just taking notes for an RfC against you. Might still be worth noting, though. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure looks like an attack. What bothers me most is that he accuses me of "stalking" while being the "stalker". I know I'm not violating any policy, am I? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I've seen, no. You sometimes let him goad you into being a little less civil than we're supposed to, but its understandable and (as we see above), he's good at doing it. His actions of late are becoming almost disturbing, particularly his seeming to take to randomly stalking both of our watch lists so he can do retaliation edits. I think it might be good, particularly in light of his activities today, to go ahead and mention that page in the RfC. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Go for it ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Added. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract RfC

Thanks for your advice on my talkpage; I have certified my resolution attempts. I may include some comments if I feel there is a need, but have watchlisted the page in any case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball sagas

I have a favour to ask of you, if you're not too busy though. First, do you feel the saga pages (see the non-italisised links) should be deleted? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, yes, either deleted or redirected back to the appropriate episode lists. Ewww....man, those all look like a mess. Seperate dub/Japanase ep lists too? What has the DB project been doing :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The various discussions at WT:WPDB regarding the sagas and character lists have taken a pause (appears everyone's "too busy" nowadays). My request of you was this: could you WP:AFD the sagas with your WP:TWINK feature? I think the reasons are pretty obvious. The lists of episodes, characters, etc., I can take care of (with Sephiroth's help if possible). Your response? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you think they should be done separately, or as a group? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like it's faster as a group. That about right? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I imagine those who review AfDs might appreciate it anyway ;) Not really faster, since Twinkle can't do group noms though. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Which would you prefer? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll do a group nom as they are all the same. I'll do it later tonight, though. Right now I'm uber stressed and would likely mess something up. *sigh* Whoever said house buying was fun lied. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The searching part is fun, the buying part isn't. And yeah, we could redirect them to the episode lists to avoid the trouble of a huge AfD. If someone comes in and does a mass revert, start a discussion at WT:DBZ, cite WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N, and redirect them again. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - Sephiroth, as annoying as it is, I'd much rather go through with afd. We tried discussing it remember? We got nowhere. At least the rest of the community will be advised. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd actually favor doing redirects first. From the current trends in AfD, that would be the likely result anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you talking about the saga redirects? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Redirecting to the ep lists would be sufficient as well, unless there is a lot of mass reverting. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm afraid of. This is why I'm suggesting a groupal afd. What do you say? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If it hasn't been tried yet, I'd say do the redirects. In the summary, note they violate WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:N, and WP:FICT and that they are inappropriate breakouts. If someone reverts, undo and encourage them to discuss if they disagree and then in the discussion explain further that they violate the already noted list, and that such articles have been deleted regularly in the AfDs. So far, this has worked with several other story arc articles I've merged in with little to no fuss. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You kinda lost me. Are still going to do something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiichi Goto did? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That a no? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just tired and trying to do to much at once. What Sephiroth and I meant is to go ahead and just change all the saga pages to redirects. If someone argues, beyond a blind revert, then we start a discussion. If that fails, then we can AfD. It also works better as one can't say we didn't attempt a merge/redirect first. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How to find subpages

Out of curiosity (noting that you discovered Abstract's attack page for Sess), how does one find the subpages a user has created? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

By using the Special:PrefixIndex page. :) Put the user's name in the first box, then select user from the drop down. Results come out something like this (my list). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, dear lady

You are a lady aren't you? I seem to remember reading somewhere that you were. With regards to the 10th Kingdom character articles, I know you redirected them and I was wondering if you still had access to them. If you do, would you be so kind as to permit me to add them to my user page? I could take a look at them and attempt to re-write them in a manner that is not plot regurgitation or original research. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know about a lady, but I am female :P Anyone can access the old articles by going to the redirected names and looking at the history. A list of the redirects can be found here. However if you want to try to make character articles that would not fail WP:FICT, I'd honestly suggest starting anew as the old ones are in the wrong format, most badly named, and all were nothing but plot and OR. Keep in mind that any character articles have to meet the notability requirements, which includes significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, availability of creation/conception information, and availability of reception information. I think this is likely to be very difficult to meet for any of the 10th Kingdom characters, as the movie seems to have been unnoticed and unremembered by quite a few folks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you m'dear. And of course you're a lady, don't be so hard on yourself. Thank you for that, yes you may be right but I think it's worth a shot. I shall follow your advice and start anew. I think I'll need to recreate the 10th Kingdom category while I'm at it though. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I notice you've started some other film character articles already. You may want to finish those first, and aim for GA with them. It will be a good way to help see what is/isn't needed in a character article, before moving on to a new set. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed I have, did you like them? I shall follow your advice and finish those off before commencing work on the 10th Kingdom character articles because I have a feeling they're going to take quite some work. They are diabolical aren't they! I think I'll do articles for Virginia, Tony, Wendell and Christine and listify all the others. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm....to be honest, no. I don't feel any of those meet the requirements of notability to exist, most are unreferenced, and they seem to be all plot. They are not appropriate nor notable character articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No accounting for taste. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a matter of taste. Off wiki, I enjoy reading such articles, but for Wikipedia, character articles need to meet the notability requirements and follow certain guidelines. You might want to look at some featured character articles to get an idea on the preferred structure and on how the plot should be balanced with real-world information. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Collectonian. I shall take them onboard as you're obviously a woman of distinction. I apologise for any offence I may have caused. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


No offense taken :) I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I disliked it just to dislike or anything. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Jolly good. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed Page

While I appreciate you helping us fix up the Case Closed page, did the chart with all the movies really need to be deleted? It was rather useful. At the very least perhaps we could move it some where? - Prede (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it back for now, but it really needs to be converted to prose, and the release dates fixed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't it orginize it better in a chart? I think the reason it was made into a chart in the first place was because it looked sloppy, unorginzed, and confuseing in prose. I'll see if I can fix the release dates... are you sure they are incorect? Thanks for putting it back though ^.^ - Prede (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it should be prose, in chronological order. I know it has quite a few movies, but it doesn't seem like there is much to say about any of them other than that they were released, and any licensing information. For the release dates, I meant they need to be fixed to be more specific. All were claimed to be box office hits, so finding the exact release date in Japan should be doable. We like specific dates for releases were possible. Once its redone into prose, and sourced out, it might be that it will need to be split off into its own list (rare for movies, but this is a rather lengthy series). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gordonastill

I think Abtract is trying to incite something with you. Have you read his "smart aleck" comments on that talk page? Might be worth noting in the RfC. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for all his accusations of stalking, he seems to be the one stalking me at this point. *sigh* I've asked an admin if such actions are a violation of policy. He also canvassed for help on the RfC, which resulted in someone who obviously didn't read any of it just coming in to leave a rather pointless set of comments to disparage folks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It definitely seems like a violation of WP:HARASSMENT, wouldn't you say? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, going to add that to the RfC for policies being violated. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Now he's warring on Bitch (disambiguation) despite the fact that there is a dicussion on the talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed. If he reverts again, I'd recommend going ahead and reporting. With his history and the current RfC/U, he has already violated 3RR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Care to comment back here? The argument is over a fitting, neutral primary topic at the Bitch dab. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've commented, though I'm sure he will say we're colluding or something. Mikkalai and Dbachmann both have already rejected his version, so consensus is already there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: MOS image

At WP:MOS#Images: Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location.--十八 23:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...it says second level headings, though. The soundtrack is a fourth level heading. Still, I'll just move it to the right. I hate it when images are put in a different section from what they are illustrating. :P Its probably more accurate MoS wise, since Kiba's head is more face towards the left than the right. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a stretch to extend the MOS to lower than second-level. I could bring it up on the talk page, if you'd like. And besides, aren't one of the jobs as editors to create ascetically pleasing articles that are well formatted. How it is now, with two images so close together (soundtrack/manga) I think it looks much worse than lefting the soundtrack and placing it 2 lines above in the anime section. You could, say, create a soundtrack list ala Music of Final Fantasy X-2 or the like (recently passed a GA nom).--十八 23:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like clarification, as quite a few articles I work on with multiple images have the same thing done (left aligned under level 3 and below). It seems to me like the MoS is really speaking to a technical issue specific to level 2 headers rather than an aesthetic one as it looks the same either way. And no, on the soundtrack list. It only has two, and I personally disagree with the idea of throwing them off elsewhere. Article isn't too long and not much else to say about them. I am suprised Music of Final Fantasy X-2 passed GA as it looks horrible with tons of excessive white space all over the place. That isn't aesthetically pleasing, nor easy to read, nor particularly necessary or notable. :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
FF music is quite popular though, as shown in the reception section on that article. Plus, I don't think you can get around the excessive white space unless the images were removed completely. Plus, a list provides more insight into who contributed to the albums, and provides the track listing (plus other things like creation/reception which could be added in time). It was only a suggestion.--十八 00:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Further, Two soundtracks on a list are not as bad as you put them off to be, though I was going towards a universal listing of albums under Key Sounds Label.--十八 06:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, FF music is popular, but the white space is really off putting. It isn't the images causing it, though, it seems to be a combination of the track lists and the infoboxes. I don't think such a list would work well for Wolf's Rain, and would likely do a merge suggestion or AfD on list slike that if I came across them. I know there were discussions that a track list doesn't belong in any article except for a single album, and even then maybe not, but I guess that's since been changed if the FF list made GA. I don't see much point in a track list myself, particularly for anime soundtracks where a list of song titles only makes any sense or has any value to someone who has actually seen the series or heard the music already. Artist info can (and should) be summed up properly in the prose anyway. But ah well. That's them, and Wolf's Rain is Wolf's Rain and I'd rather it just stay as is. The article is not very long due to the lack of production info, so splitting isn't needed for size issues. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
A track listing does more than just list the songs. The two lists I provided show the inclusion of lyricist, performer, composer, and arranger, showing who was involved in what and how the albums were produced, all of which is encyclopedic knowledge. The point is that sometimes a split doesn't have to be necessary to create a new article. Sometimes you (or I) just create a new branch list article, such as creating an episode list before it appears on the main article, or the same goes for a chapter list, and soundtrack listing. There is still more you could write about the Wolf Rain soundtracks, is all I'm saying.--十八 08:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Our edits

Seriously, I don't think there should be some barricade between you and I. I have come around to see some of your views, though some of your aesthetics (images must be placed in the section to which they apply!) I think go a bit too far in lue of more visually appealing articles. The point is that images appear in or close to the sections they are used to illustrate but don't always have to be inside these sections, and is why I myself have seen so many people lefting images above second-level or higher headings, instead of always righting them in lue of placing them in the section they belong in (especially if this conflicts with another closely spaced image, like is the case at Wolf's Rain now, or when an infobox gets in the way, as in Kanon in the Setting and themes section, or Clannad (visual novel) with the Principal characters section). So I would suggest that you might want to become more flexible. You, I've found, are very stubborn. Your stubbornness in fact is up there with User:Ned Scott and User:White Cat, two of the most stubborn editors I've ever seen on Wiki. Not only that, but you tend to bring in your personal views into discussions, and assume bad faith, or at least come off as being non-neutral. A good example is with this edit of yours. Things like "hacked and trashed" and "ugh" should probably be avoided. It's good to remain neutral not only in articles, but also in disputes.

That said, this edit summary you left confuses me. Particularly, your recent demoting of the Air (visual novel) article from GA where I am the major contributor. If you really did want to stay away from articles I was involved in, you wouldn't have done that, or at most you would have brought it up first at WP:GAR like I tried to suggest, but like I said, you are very stubborn and I, as of now, have not been able to win up on any of your views. I won't assume bad faith and suspect you were trying to provoke me, as I think that's a ridiculous notion; you were merely trying to make sure that GA articles really are of GA quality, which is admirable I assure you, but it can make someone very irritated to come in one day and see someone demoted it, especially without a discussion (and even more so since we've had disputes in the past). To say the least, I was not pleased. Even if you were within guidelines, there is such a thing as working with your fellow neighbor. If you saw that your neighbor was trying to build a house, you wouldn't demolish it, you would suggest things that he should do. I assure you, 100%, that if you had brought it up at WP:GAR first, I would not have even have been half as cross as I was that day with you because at least that way consensus could have told me what you were very forcibly trying to do. In the end, we got the same result, it was demoted for a month and now is back to GA at much better quality than it was before. My point? We should generally respect each others major contributions. My recent edits to Chibi Vampire I think reflect that.

Anyway, to say that we don't agree on anything is going a bit far now. A lot has happened since Kino's Journey and Ballad of a Shinigami, and as I've said I've come around to see your view on many subjects. The issues at Ballad I had with the references, and infobox are moot now for all I'm concerned. I still cannot agree on you with the placement of images, however, like the anime box set at Ballad currently which I think is fine, but you can't stand from what I've seen. I think everything else we can generally agree on now, which is pleasing since I never was able to agree with User:White Cat on anything! :P --十八 05:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Air I demoted before realizing you were a regular editor and during my brief stint in being on the GA sweeps crew, before deciding it was not worth the amount of abuse you receive when you do it, even though I had followed the procedures as dictated. I learned my lesson there and gave up on all GA reviewing and GARing. I was pleased to see it regain its GA status after the work was done, though. It was never a personal thing nor something done out of malice. I just had a naive and foolish notion that GA should be kept up to GAC always, as FA should be kept to the FAC and FL to the FLC.
For the hacked/trashed remark, hey, we all have our moments, and I would never claim to be perfect. And yes, I bring my personal views into discussions. We all do, we're human. ;-) I was annoyed at the proposal, as I felt it was done in blind ignorance, and I tend to be a bit protective over the anime and manga project stuff. I've yet to meet even one editor who hasn't at times shown some display of temper or emotional response to things. And yes, I am stubborn when I feel I am right, and I have found that most of the times I am. I am flexible where appropriate and where I can clearly see that a policy or guideline conflicts with my own view. If, for example, the discussion on non-free says that the TMM images are in violation, I would fix them myself along with every other one I have uploaded. I will not, however, do so without making absolute certain they are wrong, as everything I have read on them, and my experiences in FA/FL when such things do come under close scrutiny, says they are fine. Indeed, I find the interpretation of the heading thing interesting, when many FAs pass with the images just like that.
In a way, though, perhaps its no different from when I de-listed Air. You noted that if it had gone to GAR, you wouldn't have been as cross. I feel if you had simply left a note rather than just resizing, it would have been better. In particular, with the TMM list, the talk page notes that we plan a peer review when I've finished the last of the merges, so if it is a major issue, it could have just been brought up there. I found it particularly...(searchines for right word)...aggrieving because I tend to be a hardliner when it comes to non-free and fair use. As an artist and a photographer, I have a strong interest in ensuring those guidelines are met and have always done my absolute best to meet them.
For conflicts between us, I find the best way to avoid them is to avoid one another. We may not disagree on everything, indeed we do often agree in project related discussions. However, there are core things regarding article formats/images, etc that we do disagree on enough that it makes it difficult to work well together on the same articles. I've avoided it by de-watchlisted any articles where you seem to be a major editor, regardless of any desire I may have to also work on them. Ballad of a Shinigami was one. I would like, however, not to do the same on TMM or Wolf's Rain which are two articles I take particular pride in for the amount of work I've put into them, and my on-going efforts to get them to GA/FA quality. I rather not feel like I have to abandon them just to keep avoiding the problem, hence my asking you to avoid them. Chibi Vampire is one I've done a lot of work on for the lists I've created, but I can walk away if needed, since I haven't seen the anime nor have I read the series leaving me limited in what I can do as I wish to avoid spoilers anyway.
As a semi-amusing side note, using neighbors is a bad example as I reported mine to my landlord for trespassing on my property and tried to get them evicted. I have also called the cops on them and others for noise ordinance violations and loose dogs :-P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, you seem to be taking this to an extreme. To go so far as to clearly avoid articles I majorly work on, I think, is messed up. It makes me feel bad that you don't edit the articles you want just because you and I disagree on some things. The point of collaboration is to find a middle ground between editors, and as long as we find that middle ground like we did at Kino and Ballad, I don't think we should avoid each other. You may ask me to avoid articles you work on, but I know I won't just because I dislike the notion of not being able to edit any article I may want to (even if it might strike up a lengthy discussion, like with the TMM images), and I don't think you should avoid articles I work on for the same reasons. You may want to to avoid disputes, but disputes are unavoidable on Wiki; it's an inborn flaw in the programming, and no matter where you go, there is always some dispute. I myself have very little to no interest in the series Wolf Rain or Chibi Vampire (and have never seen either in length), but that didn't stop me from expanding the Other section in Chibi Vampire, or getting clarification on the header/image placement on Wolf's Rain. Nor did it stop me on discussing the images on the TMM character list which you know how I feel about them, and I hope will end soon with a worthwhile conclusion. It is not my intention to deter you from articles I happen to edit, but I can't stop editing articles I want to edit either, and I don't believe you will find many on Wiki who would be willing to do the same thing either because the spirit of wiki has to do with collaboration.
In my experience, there is only one time where I outright avoided an editor and article. Way back when, there was a major content dispute on Air (visual novel) in June 2006. This was about 3 months after I joined wiki, and the two major parties involved other than myself were none other than User:White Cat (was Cool Cat at the time) and User:Ned Scott. Suffice it to say, it was a bloody battle of supremacy which left the Air article (and related Air branch articles which included character articles, episode articles, soundtrack articles, a manga article, and an anime article, plus the Air (film) article) in complete shambles for about 6 months. Then in late 2006, I reworked Air and brought it up to GA; it was, in fact, the first Key-related article I got up to GA. After that I reworked the entirety of Key-related articles on Wiki and have gotten 9 of them up to GA (soon to be 10 with Ayu Tsukimiya I hope), and eventually I will get the episode articles up to FL as well. The point is that during that major dispute with Air in June 2006 (the so called "Black June" as I call it) I outright avoided any editing to the Air articles and even getting involved with White Cat, and even when I started editing Kanon in October 2006, I still neglected the Air articles for another two months. Then in early 2007 about a year ago some repercussions occurred between White Cat, Ned, and I again on the issue of Air, though it was less bloody than last time. In effect, I outright dislike White Cat; I think he is a terrible person, and has shown himself to be disruptive many times before in other issues (check this block log for User:Cool Cat for one to see how many times he's been blocked). I still respect Ned, even though I know he's particularly stubborn and can be pig-headed at times. So I don't want you to dislike me, or my contributions. I don't dislike you, but I have found it find it vexing to work with you in the past. I am trying very hard to see eye to eye with you on issues, but of course there will always be disputes. In short, I think we are both very good editors, and if we combine forces there is much we can do, even if we have to go through a mountain of discussion at times.--十八 08:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are always going to be some disputes, but if I know that editor Y and I will likely to end up in a some dispute or another, I find its better to avoid interacting. It is a big wiki, so generally its easy to avoid it. I realize most people won't stop editing, hence my just removing myself from the equation where I feel it best to avoid increasing conflicts. Basically just a matter of picking the battles, particularly at times when other issues are causing an excess of wikistress. No need to add on more unnecessarily. I don't dislike you, nor do I dislike your contributions, even if I disagree with the tiny images :P (another random side note...that is one of the longest block logs I've seen yet! @_@) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's a big wide Wiki out there, but when you confine the majority of your edits in or around one WikiProject, it tends to be a much smaller Wiki, I've found. As for picking the battles, I guess I generally try to stay out of conflicts first before they may arise too, but in a round about way. Like I doubt I will ever majorly edit articles like Naruto or Pokémon (despite liking both series) because I don't want to get into any disputes that may arise from any of the hundreds of people who regularly edit those high-traffic articles. Frankly, I dislike editing articles were tons of people contribute because it's hard to match my pace with others at times. That's why I initially worked on Death Note back in late 2006, but gave up soon after, and now it's not even on my watchlist anymore because I got tired of the pace. That, and I find it easier to contribute when I don't have other editors breathing down my neck which creates edit conflicts. On a side note Ned's block log is smaller, but still has many entries.--十八 09:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now I do have to laugh a bit, because I have thrown myself into the insanity that is Naruto to work on cleaning it up even though I've never read it or seen or, nor want to. Smart man to avoid it! Can get quite intense at times, especially over the whole media list issue. Agreed on avoiding Pokemon, though, as well as Sailor Moon (much as I love love love the series)...they have gangs to big to deal with. I also dislike editing were tons contributer most of the time, and usually avoid airing or on-going series because of the extra issues of people wanting to do blow by blow summaries and stuff. Chibi Vampire was a exception because I came to it looking for info on the novels and their relation to the manga and found it couldn't tell me. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Last of the Summer Wine

Yeah, that one has been on my radar for a while now. I do intend to make it a project. What I've been thinking about I would like to do is to break it up into similar pages as List of The Simpsons episodes. Both The Simpsons and Last of the Summer Wine are such long running shows that their pages both could have become extremely cluttered. I think, though, the people who did The Simpsons' pages handled it extremely well and created a model I can work from. Redfarmer (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea. It would really help the load on that page, and clean it up quite a bit (as will removing all those notes that Gordonastill keeps adding despite my asking him to stop and reverting him...*sigh*). I've done some of the episode list hacks, so if none of the existing ones will work for it, just let me know and I can make a new one for the list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've began the transition for the first few series if you'd like to take a look and see what you think. Also, I was wondering if you could be persuaded to reevaluate Last of the Summer Wine as I have now implemented all of the suggestions you made for it at WP:FAC. Thanks. Redfarmer (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Done again. ;) I can say this...you're keeping me busy. I like it! Redfarmer (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
~grin~ and thanks! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing warnings incivily

Wouldn't you say this is an insult and a bad faith removal? It isn't the first time he's done something like this against me. He of course deserved the warning since he deliberately tampered with another user's talk page. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

While he is allowed to remove anything from his talk page, his edit summary is an insult and a violation of WP:CIVILITY. His removal of the warning itself is a defacto indicator that he has read it so it should not be replaced, per WP:BLANKING. If he continues doing what the warning told him to stop doing, the warnings can still be escalated. I would not, however, bother with leaving another warning yourself, as he'll just ignore it. Maybe add a statement to the RfC noting the continued incivility, with a link there as well as to any other instances. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do. Here are the earlier instances: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant you should write the statement and add it to the RfC to show your side of things. Just make sure to try to keep it neutrally worded and calmly point out these instances. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Where should I right it? Is here ok? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ignore him Collectonian. So, response to my question? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Not only ignored, but removed, as he has already been warned about the stalking of both myself and you. For where to put, yes, you can either expand where you certified, or you might want write up a fuller statement under the "Additional Views" section. Depends on whether you want to give a fuller history or just an update since the RfC started.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Canus page

Thanks for the pointers. I tried again, perhaps getting through step 2 this time.--Wloveral (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, though the AfD didn't need (2nd Nomination) on it, so I've fixed that for you :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again, much thanks.--Wloveral (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


Mango

Ok. I see now. thanks.Mattkenn3 talk 02:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute re relevance of headquarters images in articles

Please reply at Talk:Facebook. Judging from your peculiar comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive3, we have fundamentally different views as to the use of images in articles, and this may become a recurring issue, so I would like to resolve this sooner than later.--Coolcaesar (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fires on the Plain

Again about the reception section being overly long, it works nicely, but should some of it be cut? Feature articles have quite varying lengths for the section. I don't think they should be cut, as we couldn't find many other reviews from the actual release. I am thinking of cutting the Jamie S. Rich thing again, or making it shorter. And, because it was also a DVD review, it could be used in the "Distribution" section. The Distribution section should also have release information, which I don't know how to find. I'll ask Dekkappai. Happy editing. Yojimbo501 (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

If you have the time, comments at the peer review for List of Naruto characters would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a look and try to add some comments in the next day or so. I'll be quite interested in its Peer Review and its FLC run since I'm attempting to get a character list there myself soonish. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I usually bypass peer review on the way to WP:FLC, but given that I'm going into untested waters, it would be best to get comments first. I probably will need a copy-editor for an article as big as this also. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, a copyedit would be good. Finding one, though seems to be a shot in the dark :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, many apologies

I'm afraid that while experimenting with editing my page stealing borrowing some of your excellent ideas on user page design, I did something I didn't know was possible (and maybe shouldn't be) and created a page in your user space [8]. Stupid of me not to be more careful, but I can't delete it obviously and thought you should know about it. Abject apologies.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Woops! No worries, though, an admin has already deleted it. In the future, though, while code borrowing is fine, you may want to be careful to edit before saving, to avoid accidentally having a historical version like[9]. :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was a big clue. In the future I'll slap anything more than 2 lines into a text editor and work on it there. I knew to make sure your username wasn't in it, but my implementation wasn't especially good. :-) Thanks for your forbearance, and is there an idiot's guide to all this code for formatting?--Doug Weller (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Cheatsheet has some of the basic formatting, while WP:MARKUP has a larger list (step two :D), and Help:Wikitext examples is probably the biggest list. My user page uses a combination of regular wikicode and some basic HTML/CSS (like the div tags). Some of the more complex parts, I picked up from studying other folks pages too ;) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yet more pages I didn't know about, that's great, thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Soundtracks

Hi, collectian. I finished cleaning the Naruto soundtracks section, could redirect those articles? (Naruto Original Soundtrack, Naruto Original Soundtrack II, Naruto Original Soundtrack III). I think there are two more, but I dont remember (Im sleepy).Tintor2 (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If the clean up is done, feel free to redirect :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
And done. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks^_^Tintor2 (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Collectian, could you pay a look at Sagara Sanosuke. You must probably know that the article is being reviewed now for GA. The only problem is some grammar problem, could you check it? ThanksTintor2 (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed it was being called for prose issues on the GA. Was a copyedit done on the article? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems the main problem was the overuse of Sano which I have already solved, however I think you must already know that the prose its my "Wikipedia weak point" so Im unable to make some reasonable copyedits. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep. If I'd known you were going to send to GA, I'd have recommended a copyeditor hit it first. :) Mine isn't my best point either, so I always try to get a CE before going. Might do an LoCE request (they might go faster with it being on hold) or ask over in the project. I think there is at least one LoCE member who is also active there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you ask for that? No idea how to do it. Sorry for bothering.Tintor2 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Its actually pretty easy, just follow the three steps at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests. (teaching to fish ;) ) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. I hope it may be work, I thought that the project was inactive.Tintor2 (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think its really so much inactive, as its just very slow going, backlogged, and maybe low on copy editors. For the request, you did fine. The only minor boo boo was you forgot step 3, adding a short summary of what is needed. I updated the base with that so the article talk page will update properly :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh my... well... dont know what to say^_^.Tintor2 (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional "panelists" parameter in Television infobox

Please join in the relevant discussion I have created at Template_talk:Infobox_Television#Panelists. Also please do not revert edits without first reading them. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I read it, just misread it and say "presenter" as "panelist". More descriptive edit summaries would help, as would not changing a widely used template like that without first discussing and getting consensus. :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
My edits summaries are fine. There's no need to try to get the last word in. Bradley0110 (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Last word. (sorry, couldn't resist :P) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Bah. (Though technically "resist" was the last word!) Bradley0110 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Staff lists (Elfen Lied)

Whoa, who said that we couldn't have staff lists? I happened to like how well formatted that list was.--十八 19:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Its been agreed on multiple times in the project talk from what I recall (can't find the convos at the moment though), and such lists are deliberately excluded from being included in the MoS because of it. Staff lists are also not included/appropriate in TV articles nor film articles beyond the few major contributers already included in the infobox. In general, its considered trivial directory information. Sourced, prose discussions of the significant staff (producer, director, music, etc) is fine, but not a list/table just listing a bunch of the production staff members.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I guess. I'd still like a definite discussion on the matter though. I've always hated them (because they take up too much space, and are embedded lists, though Elfen Lied's was the only one I've come across that was done well I thought), but I often see them used, especially in anime-original articles (Darker than Black for example).--十八 05:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
They are usually the first thing I strip out while cleaning articles. Most are just copied from ANN. A project discussion might be good, if nothing else to get the project stance "officially recorded" one way or the other. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jump Square

Mind taking a look at this? Pretty much a one person article, and he means well, but doesn't...distinguish between what is encylopedic and what is trivia. I've managed to get more of the useless information stripped out and the article reorganized, but it still needs a hefty rewrite and general style overview. Since I feel like I'm not good at writing in an appropriate style, I've avoided actually editing the article much. Doceirias (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoa....that...that...so many tables and so many ELs! Wow. I'll see if I can tackle some work on it in a bit. Trying to get two peer reviews done firts :)Meanwhile, for some organization, I'd like to think that Shojo Beat is one of our better formatted magazine articles (actually following the style of some regular ones), if that would help any. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might find this interesting

Given our discussion in WT:MOS-AM, I thought you might find this interesting. Kraftlos, the user who volunteered to straighten out the Elfen Lied article, spun out the information on the manga: Elfen Lied (Manga)... I'm not going anywhere near that one.--Nohansen (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I will :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

I accept that if I continue on this way I will be banned form Wikipedia and I won't want that to happen. I will stop with all this but I just want to let you know that the 3 word story is not a game at all. It has nothing to do with Linkland and is completely seperate from it.

It is like other pages in the Dept of Fun and should not be deleted unless all other pages like this in the Dept of Fun are deleted as well. Anyway how is the 3 word story user page actually being used as a social page? Darkside2000 (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Iggy Arbuckle - still start class?

Is it still a start-class article, or is it ready to be considered B-class yet? If not, what can be done to get it to B-class level? The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is still Start class. Remember, start class is the broadcast of the classes, encompassing a wide range of articles. To get to B class, you basically have to be "not quite GA level," which would require all relevant major sections from the Television MoS to be included (and the overall Wikipedia MoS to be fairly well followed), with appropriate length content, and a good level of referencing. The "Settings" section seems misnamed, and has a lot of unsourced plotty info, while there is no actual "Plot" section giving a synopsis of the series. I'd recommend axing the legends and culture stuff all together. Its borderline OR, and "crufty" rather than encyclopedic. Unless those areas have received significant coverage in third party, reliable sources, they don't need inclusion here. Reception needs expansion with critical reviews. The references also need cleaned up. They are not using proper names, missing author information, and sometimes date information. Make sure you using {{cite web}} for web sources and filling out available details. Its getting there, but still more to go.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

TPIRFanSteve, wouldn't ya know it, he's causing problems for you!

He is a long standing(and I mean LONG STANDING!) problem on this site. I have no idea how he has avoided a ban, but this is ridiculous. He's been basically "run out on a one way rail" from the Price Is Right articles and similar, now I notice he's harassing you all over here as well. The best bet is not to confront the troll(which he has proven to be here) and report it to AIV. The more people who report him(in this case, he's harassing editors of a different spectrum), the more likely they'll finally block him. It would be great if they could get the scumbag off here for good. Have a good day. 70.9.93.116 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.59.99.168 (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
deceptive sig struck by R. Baley (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Never met the user, but I'm pretty sure we shouldn't call other editors "scumbags" RC-0722 361.0/1 15:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't pay any heed to this one Collect, it's another sock of Hdayejr. Just look at his contribs.— DædαlusT@lk / Improve\ Contribs 15:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not. :) Already removed one message he left. No idea why he choose to leave that message here anyway, haven't dealt much with TPIRFanSteve in quite awhile. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

May, 2008

I do need a little help from you. May i ask why it's up to me to prove it and not Sesshomaru? I asked him if he could prove otherwise, but i've heard from various other editors that he always backs out of discussing these issues with them, as if he's afraid. So please give me the steps i have to take if you would please. Thank you. Thatwazezee101 (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are clearly written as OR and guess work that admit within their own words that they can not be supported by the series. As such, if it is challenged, you need to provide a valid source backing up the claim, or it can (and has been) removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. But as i asked, is there a valid source that says otherwise? Thatwazezee101 (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
A valid source is not needed to dispute it, only to validate and verify it. The lack of sourcing is what "says otherwise" and makes in inappropriate for inclusion.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have reported this editor to WP:AIV for his ongoing incitement on my talk page and other unconstructive edits. Collectonian, can you undo his change to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball‎? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you help with Greek (TV show)?

An editor Thelegendofvix keeps adding a "Name of show" section in, though many editors, myself included, belive it is unnecesary. Since there are (not that I can tell, anyways) coordinators for Wikiproject TV, and though you are a Wikiproject film editor, could you help in determining weather or not it is due weight? I'm going to ask other editors to. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed, along with some other. Not even going to ask why an article that is really just a stub has a standalone character list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I admire the speed in your response and edits, something I probably wont be able to do. Do you think the issue is over? No offense, but basically we are all just restating the same reasons why it should be taken out. Thelegondofvix will probably try to find some way to worm it back in. Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Should be. I filed an AN/I against him, and if he continues, he'll just get himself blocked. I'm keeping the pages on my watchlist just in case he tries anything. Good luck expanding it out, hopefully at a better base start :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had to put up with some very unreasonable editors in the past and decided I wasn't going to put up with another, or let others be offended by rude editors. I saw your response to the guys talk page, and, while I had the smallest suspicion that he was, indeed, a sockpuppeteer, where did you get evidence that he/she was a suspect? Oh, and another editor suggested that we just have a link to a website stating that the whole "Greek" thing was a joke, and explains that they didn't use the correct letter. I have no real intention of editing the article much more, lest a sockpuppet comes up. I am to concerned with current Japanese cinema articles to do that. I also wish to find mor information for the articles Osamu Takizawa and Mickey Curtis, which I started (though, unlike Thelegendofvix, am keenly aware that they are wikipedia's and not mine, though I still post on my userpage that I created them, a fact I am actually rather proud of ;)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yojimbo501 (talk • contribs) 18:02, May 29, 2008

No prob. He's still ranting away over at ANI. I don't know if he is a sockpuppeteer or not, but having a non-editing account wake up after over a year to put back his edits after he got a 3RR warning was suspicious enough to warrant a report. The admins haven't closed the case one way or another yet. Nothing wrong with being proud of our creations or our work, so long as we don't get like him (who, of course, decides to bash me and my pride and joy, Meerkat Manor, because I *gasp* won't let unsourced crap go into a featured article! Gee...wonder why I should want the article to maintain its featured status? :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope this will end soon. I saw he tried to make a sockpuppeting case against you. That was unnecesary, and if you ask me, he is unconstructive enough to be banned. Thelegendofvix has really pushed the limits. Do you think the people who said that they thought the name of show section was usefull were his sockpuppets?

I let others the articles I created, besides, if anyone could find info for those articles, I'd be greatfull. I think the main reason with trivia sections being a problem is that they are often unnsourced. Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea. If he keeps it up with the false sockpuppet case, he will likely be blocked because he pretty much admits he is only filing it because I filed one against him. Its pointy and disruptive. Combined with his slow edit war over the name (seems like its really been going on for months), he doesn't seem likely to stay an active editor much longer. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it goes back to April 2007, making the conflict a year and 1 month long... That is a pretty long time. It seems that this editor is very repetitive. can we view this editors contribs to see if they are good faith or constructive? Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I already checked them. Pretty much the only editing he's every done, beyond he current ranting and false sockpuppet cases, has been to Greek TV and its talk page, with 2 posts each on two other talk pages[10]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Just checked that to. I've put in some comments for the ANI case, and the sockpuppet case. I'd like to suggest that Preshuzz is not a sock, as only one edit suggests a connection. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
He may not be, but it was suspicious enough to warrant a report and investigation. If its shown its not, then the case will be closed. Not a big deal. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Gatchaman

Delete the One piece anime article if you wish since Democracy has spoken but surely you must see sense in this. I have made some addition Gatchaman pages to distinguish them from one one another I feel a template needs to be made also.

Plus I feel Eagle Riders and Gatchaman II should be redirected to their respective pages rather than Science Ninja Team Gatchaman.


I feel the articles Gatchaman II (TV Series) should be renamed Gatchaman II and Eagle Riders (1996 TV series) renamed Eagle Riders. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, both of those need to be put back into the main Gatchaman article. It is not appropriate to go ahead and split them out after making a split proposal without allowing discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Full Moon o Sagashite

I see that you undid my edits to the Full Moon o Sagashite page. I understand why you did. The reason why I had added that sometimes it is mistranslated as Full Moon wo Sagashite instead of Full Moon o Sagashite is because when you look it up on YouTube, most everyone has it as "Full Moon wo Sagashite." I was confused and looked it up on another website and saw that it is often called "Full Moon wo Sagashite" by mistake. That's why I added it to that page, I was only trying to help, not trying to mess it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chibi-anime-Girl (talk • contribs) 12:22, May 30, 2008

Fansub transliterations (which is what that is, BTW, not a translation :) ) are not anything we generally bother to note. We would only note something like that if it is covered in third-party reliable sources as being relevant. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cats & Dogs. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

One Piece

Hello. Regarding One Piece, I personally feel I did nothing wrong unless you're talking about the Monkey D. Luffy and Roronoa Zoro article in that case, I must removed some guy's supposed link to the "Eleven Supernovas" article on the account it never existed. I merely bold-sized them. That's all. If anything I should have erased it. Please reply Uglyguy2006 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you also added in a "prologue" which doesn't belong and is copyvio (though unless you were the IP not logged in, I think you were mostly restoring the one the IP added). Mostly you kept undoing it after I cleaned it out. Maybe it was by accident, but that sort of thing didn't belong. The plot should be a summary of the manga, not a repeat of the prologue or a teaser. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyways, whatever it was, sorry about that. It was an accident. I just wrote the word "Prologue" to the edit of the plot, as well as the actual plot. My mistake. Uglyguy2006 (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No prob :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Exorcist

The excorcist (film) seems to be in disscusion on weather or not the imagery is subliminal or not. I think in the talk page where an editor first posted the issue, we can clearly see he/she is ignoring wikipolicy's. I am still don't think the section should be taken out, but I think it needs a look from other editors. Yojimbo501 (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Just noting that it might be a bit faster if you just tagged unnecessary redirects with CSD R3 and left to administrator, or just give me a list of redirects and I would run through them and delete the unnecessary ones. It's quicker and avoids the clutter at WP:RFD. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I had CSD tagged tem, but another admin declined them all. Said they weren't new and they were all plausible. :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello, Collectonian. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, Black Kite 00:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC) (Note:link is here).

Your edits

I suggest you change your password, log out and log in again. Black Kite 08:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And done. Is there any kind of log showing log ins that can check to see what happened? That was beyond weird, and more than a little disconcerting as I have an insanely secure computer system and am ridiculously careful about where I go online, so I'd hate to think it was hacked. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I noticed this on my watchlist and indef blocked you to prevent the person that compromised your account from continuing. If you think you're fine, then post a message here and I'll unblock you. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Much as I hate the idea of being blocked, I'd like to try to find out what happened first before being unblocked. Would a check user show if the edits were done by a different IP? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it could, but I'm not that familiar with the technical details, and I've never seen a checkuser request being used in this regard. If you want, I can unblock you and you can make the request, or do you want me to file a request for you (I think any request I would file would be substantially more difficult for a checkuser to deal with, as you're probably more familiar with the technical stuff on your computer)? It's up to you, but feel free to send a message to me or any other administrator if I unblock you and your account is compromised again to be blocked once more. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I changed my password and logged out/in. Hopefully that is enough. Please go ahead and unblock me. I think I will file a checkuser though, to see what happened. I'll also keep an eye out on my contribs for awhile in addition to my watchlist. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Woops...my IP is still autoblocked, so I still can't edit. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. You should be able to edit now. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Is this you doing the reverts in the last few minutes? Just checking. Black Kite 09:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it would seem so. I think I know what may have happened now. I must have accidentally clicked Firefox's "check page links" while I was grabbing diff links to update Abtract's reports, and the stupid thing activated the rollback links! I just hit it again while grabbing more diffs. Can someone remove the rollback privilege from my account? I never asked for it or wanted it anyway, another admin I don't know gave it to me. While I appreciate the meaning, its been more nuisance than useful and Twinkle works far better (as its links were completely unaffected). Of course, I'd also like to figure out how to turn off this dumb check page links "feature"...blech. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Since some of your edits rolled back to vandalism ([11]), I've blocked you again temporarily. Hang on for a moment. Black Kite 09:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. If you could undo those, I'd really appreciate it.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Collectonian, if I remember correctly, there was a big thing about this happening quite regularly on a large scale by lots of good-faith users about a year ago, and was due to a bug in the (at the time) latest version of I think it was the Google Toolbar. Can you make sure you have the latest version of the Google Toolbar? Dreaded Walrus t c 09:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't use the Google toolbar, but I found the culprit. A Link Checker plugin I installed ages ago when I first started using FireFox and totally forgot about. I've removed the silly thing as I never used it (intentionally :P), so that should fix the problem. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've removed rollback, but you'll have to fix those last few reverts manually because rolling back will revert both your edits. Unblocking now. Black Kite 09:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I manually reverted the edits in question. Feel free to fix if I made a mistake anywhere. Dreaded Walrus t c 09:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, to all of you for your help :) Glad the thing didn't get to run through the entire page of contribs I was looking at before I realized it was going nuts :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Give me a shout if you want rollback restored. Black Kite 09:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I prefer Twinkle's rollback since it prompts for a reason why. The rollback ability just rolls with no chance to say why. :P Now, I'm gonna go to sleep...my alarm rings in less than 1.5 hours! Wee...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know you and came here to ask if your account may be jeopardized after seeing this, [12]. It has your name but is signed by another if I am reading this correctly. Anyways, I thought I would bring it to your attentions. If you are aware of this edit in the WP:Energy please except my apologies, just trying to help. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. A technical issue caused some undoing of another editor's edits, so had to go back and undo them. The post itself is from Abtract whose edits were some of the ones accidentally reverted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your Recent Edits

Collectonian, I just wanted to drop you a friendly reminder to remember the 3 Revert Rule. It seems that you and another editor are in violation of this rule. If you would like to have a specific edit made, please take it to 3rd Opinion or try contacting another editor or Admin to voice his/her opinion. Failure to follow the 3RR could get you blocked. If you have any questions, please drop me a message. Thanks and Happy Editing! Dusticomplain/compliment 01:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, however in this case I feel it is extremely important to note the history here. Abtract has already been blocked once for his continuing harassement and wikistalking of myself and another editor. His "edits" to Meerkat Manor were just another part of that campaign and, as such, nothing more than vandalism. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point of view, but if you disagree with someones edits and violate 3RR in trying to keep the article in the way you want it, your just as guilty. Its better to allow the other user to put it in his/her way and contact another editor or Admin for their point of view on the situation, rather then trying to handle it yourself and get yourself blocked in the process. Remember this, as its not an huge deal if something goes wrong- it took myself to learn that. Dusticomplain/compliment 01:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of "putting it the way I want it," it is removing false tags. Everything he tagged with {{fact}} is properly sourced within the article text. References should rarely be in the lead, as the lead is intended to summarize the article, not provide new information. He isn't doing anything to aid in the article, only trying to annoy me. Also, please note that the 3RR he filed was done after an AN/I was filed against him due to these very edits. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And did you point this out to him? Civily? What was his response? (sorry, too lazy to look myself lol :D) Dusticomplain/compliment 01:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
In detail, no, because he doesn't care. He only tagged to tag. In one of the reverts, I noted the article was sourced, he claimed it wasn't because he didn't bother to check (or just wanted to get me to violate 3RR). He continues to harass me for no other purpose than to do so, and to prod me into 3RR violations so he can justify his own harassment and ludicrous proclamations that he is somehow a victim. He admitted as much (as can be seen in the RfC/U), and this is a long term, broader issue (as can be seen on his talk page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's wait and see if he does anything else here, and if so, I'll support a block on his part. Good for now? Dusticomplain/compliment 01:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. Hopefully he will stop for awhile, though I'll admit, I'm not going to hold out a lot of hope after the extended history and his previous false promises to stop. It would also be appreciated if Abtract would stop throwing around "wikibonk" like its some kind of disorder or disease or intended insult, particularly when he's only throwing it around now when I've removed that from my user page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Meerkat Manor dispute

I read more into it, so, I think the whole Meerkat Manor dispute should be referenced here, don't you agree? Might help our case more. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I debated expanding again, but the RfC is not getting much attention. I can see now why there was a move to ax RfC/U and just let cases go straight to AN/I or Arb Com: lack of active participation. Still, I'll add an update shortly, after seeing what the AN/I result is and if he is reblocked. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
RfC expanded, as well as the on-going AN/I against him as a result. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits

A lot of vandalization of my recent edits [except my sandbox] are from my sister. The New Orleans Idol thing is completely false. I know this sounds like a feeble excuse, but it's true. Is there any way to delete the article more quickly? [if it hasn't been deleted already?] Cruise meerkat (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it has already been deleted. For future reference, though you can request an article created by your be CSDed if you are the main one to do anything to to it. You would just need to add {{Db-g7}} to the top of the article. I'd also recommend making sure your sister doesn't use your account anymore. Make sure to log out between editing sessions, and that she doesn't know your password. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Still stalking at Aladdin (disambiguation)

He is still harshly taunting me there, making harassing edits (using a parent cat over a subcat, etc.). Would do you think? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was about to template myself for edit warring, but is reverting an edit by a wikistalker ok per policy? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it is, but unfortunately it would be best not to revert again as you are both at 3. Just wait till he gets himself blocked, then can go back and clean up the crap he's done. Request page protections on any other pages he starts reverting, explaining its being attacked by a harassing stalker and give links to the RfC and AN/I. May also want to leave a note in the AN/I.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have left a comment about this at WP:AIN. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox TV channel

I fully protected that and left a note on the talk page. Hope I got the right version ;) - if not, just let me know and I'll roll back to the right one. Thanks for the catch on this one! SkierRMH (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and yep, its the good version. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of a template

Note: I did not remove the other tag on the page which had it up for deletetion... I just removed the copyright infringment tag. Its basis was that a fansite (which is itself a fringment of copyright) held copyright over the pages contents. That was a mistake and no reason for the page to be deleted on that basis alone. Strickly speaking, I know it did not copyright that page because a bunch of us took the sources for it dirfectly from the series. On that note, I point out that if everyone gets the same information from the same source, we will all end up with basically the same thing written down. Lets face it, some things just can't be explained in that too many ways...Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That tag you removed was a CSD (Candidate for Speedy Deletion) tag. The CSD was on the basis of copyright infringement, but it was still a CSD tag. As such, and as you are noted to be the author of the page, it was not appropriate for you to remove the tag. Rather, you should have placed the {{hangon}} tag below it, then explained why you felt it was not a copyright violation on the talk page. Being a fansite already violating copyright infringement does not mean we have free reign to copy/borrow substantial from that page. Indeed, its all the more reason not to use it at all. The article was highly likely to be deleted in the AfD anyway, as it was not appropriate content for Wikipedia, violating WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:OR, and WP:V. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Dude, no offence but we didn't copy the site! I'll explain this more clearly; that site has claimed this before and we explained to them we didn't. In fact, their information is just common knowledge on the fandom that everyone is using (note: There is only so many ways you can say "Water is a clear liquid"). We had a big argument with them over this before for doing just this, when no one copied any information off them before. I don't remember that I created the page and was quite satisfied with it being deleted the other way it was written off (failure to follow proceedures and so forth).
I do apologise for doing the wrong method, its been a while since I had to save a page. The AtD though, we had time to discuss that, the CSD tag is the thing I'm disagreeing on and I'm not intereasted in the fact it was AfD because that not what I'm disagreeing on here. Gettit - The AfD doesn't bother me at all, its just the CSD that does. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one who tagged it for copyright violation. Someone else did. An admin compared the two and agreed. There are actually many ways to say "water is a clear liquid" (ask any scientist to say it LOL). For this, however, it seems the two were close enough, and with there already being a history of concerns about it, the deletion seems to have been valid. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
While your AfDing One Piece pages, since this is a matter never resolved, can you go other all our pages and come to the conclusion if their worth anything. I've had arguments with other editors before over loosing pages. I admit this is getting out of control for the most part and I took a slaughtering when TTN and I tried to sort the pages out. In the end I had to admit defeat and TTN had to back off and leave the pages. Trying to get everyone to understand the valuelessness of most of the pages has run thin, esp. since we got the wikia to replace the need for those pages. As I explained to everyone before, we only need the main page, the most we could have gotten away with was a anime page manga and possibly one for each game because they are under a different project.
I don't like the idea of deleting pages, but when their uneeded I don't see why you should have them. A lot of the time, I'm just editing them to keep them vandal and dumb edit free. People don't put references on them and when I do, they remove them. They've been told off countless times for not sourcing information. Overall, if you wish to AfD, I will not oppose you anymore, I'm long past caring because of the other editors round here. I only opposed that CSD because it was there was an incorrectness for it. I've told the only other editor Gune who is major around here that we pretty much can't keep the pages going any longer and to expect any you AfD to be gone. The only pages I'd not want to see go are the main SHs pages, and the crews pages, but I long ago accepted they aren't nessecary.
My opinion of hte OP pages has been for a while that with the wikia in place. They are simply distracting everyone from the wikia, which was orginally opened as a counter measure for wikipedia deletes and give fan s a place they can edit freely without fear of wikipedias wrath of guidelines and reglations saying why and why not a page can or can't exist. As TTN and I both agreed on before, the wikia should have seen most, if not all, of the wikipedia OP pages retire. And with not enough reglaur editors here putting the effort into quality in the last year, we're pretty much spiralling down the staircase to bad editing hell. Now would be a good time to for any AfDs. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been slowly going through some others and either prodding or AfDing, as have one or two other editors. The story arcs is going, the ep lists getting combined, and the main article is being redone to comply with the MoS. The various character articles need trimming and merging into a single list or two. This seems to have mostly been agreed to awhile ago, until the injunction shut stuff down. I plan to get that restarted/revived soon. I think you'll fine the mood is, for the most part, getting back towards most editors being ready to do the necessary clean ups. The anime and manga project is also working on creating a clean up task force for the sole purpose of tacking anime/manga article clean ups, including taking on several of these larger series for overhauls. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Franky

Franky is the only one that has that name. You came out with an edit saying that without any sources saying Franky isn't the only person named Franky while the Disambiguation page says other wise. He is the only one with the name Franky. That edit I did was extremely valid. Gune (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the one piece wiki, I just added it because you kept on demanding sources.

32.97.110.142 (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Um. No. Franky is a common nickname for men named Frank and Francis. Nor is the one piece character the only person or character in the world with the name Frank. Now stop messing up the disambig. You are being extremely disruptive. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually no. The common nickname is Frankie. It is never spelled Franky. Only in One Piece is it ever Franky. Gune (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are wrong, as noted by my easily and quickly finding two more Franky's on Wikipedia. Multiple editors have already told you to stop, so I suggest you do. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Provide the evidence then. Show these two other Franky's that you claim you found. Gune (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I already added them to the disambig page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

List of minor characters in Xena: Warrior Princess

Can I add images to Article List of minor characters in Xena: Warrior Princess? (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

No. Per WP:NONFREE and the rules of the Wikimedia Foundation, major character lists should not have individual images, only 1-3 group images. Minor character lists rarely meet the requirements for having images at all as they barely meet the requirements to even exist. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I can not raise the Article Xena, it is very small and has low quality. (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC))
What do you mean by raise? Increase the quality? It needs a large amount of the excessive plot cut out, to be reformted as a proper character article (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Character article structure for guidelines on structure), and a refocusing on the real world aspects of the character. Also, of course, everything should be well sourced with reliable references. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review limits

Hi Collectonian, I noticed you have two peer review requests in at WP:PR, which were entered on the same day. There is a new policy on limits for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy, which is summarized on the PR page. I am not going to remove either of the two requests made on the same day, but if this happens again, they will be removed in the future. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. Since you participate in PR (thanks again), what do you think of this as a notice? I thought I would give a notice like this on the first instance, then remove on the next.

Yes, sorry about that. And I think a notice is a good idea, especially at first for those who are likely familiar with the PR and don't read the instructions anymore ;) The second PR was done for another editor who isn't comfortable doing with the creation process yet (that's why I added his name after my sig ) :) Normally I try not to have more than one going at a time myself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I figured there was a simple explanation. As long as it is only two, I think a notice is in order. I will show more teeth when the next six or ten nominations in one day comes along. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I would hope no one would be that crazy (hope) :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Gatchaman

I was slowly adding the episode list from Gatchaman II from a legitimate source and before you decide to slap me down again i got from TV Rage a recognized sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Tome#TVRage

Dwanyewest (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, if you want to add an episode list, then please add a proper one. Shoving in a numbered list of the English titles alone does not improve the article, and only makes more work for the editors who will have to clean it up later. Also, TV Tome is a horrible source for anime series. It does not have the original airdates, the Japanese titles, nor the transliterated titles, which a good anime episode list should have. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Article assessment

Thought you would like to know since you update quite a few assessments and since it is not clear where start class ends and B class begins:) — there is a proposal for a new C-Class assessment at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Ratification vote on C-Class. — G.A.S 11:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Start has always been the broadest class, but not sure I support the idea of a C class either. Do think they need to put the word out to a much broader range of people, at the least notifying all projects since we're the ones you get to deal with most of the actual assessing and would have to update our guidelines accordingly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Blue Dragon

I heard that you were the one who redirected Blue Dragon (TV series) back to the video game page from Sesshomaru. Like I mentioned that if there are more anime-exclusive characters showing up on the video game page, then it would get overcrowded. Don't you think that should be separated like they did for Mega Man Star Force. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:34, 4 Jne 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, however the Blue Dragon (TV series) was not an appropriately named or formed article. It wasn't even a real attempt at making such an actual series article for the anime at all[13]. Is the anime series based on the game itself, or on the Blue Dragon: Secret Trick or Blue Dragon Ral Grad manga series?-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the entire series since the second Blue Dragon anime seems to take place after the defeat of Nene. I think we need to improve on that article. Especially with it's anime exclusive characters like Bouquet and Logi. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I do see your point, I'm just trying to figure out how it should be done. If the anime is based on one or both manga, it should be there, similar to Star Ocean: The Second Story (manga), but if it is based on the game, it would be its own article, Blue Dragon (anime). Did some quick searching, and it looks like it is based off the game, and that is has a sequel Blue Dragon: Tenkai no Shichi Ryū. The Blue Dragon anime is said to be "loosely related" to the Blue Dragon Ral Grad manga, but neither seems to be based off the other. So, my inclination would be that it should have a separate article to cover it and its sequel (and the sequel's manga). However, I think it might also be good to ask in the Anime and Manga project before going forward, as some folks there might have a clearer idea of the relationship between the manga and anime adaptations to help determine who goes where. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Where do I find the Anime and Manga project? Rtkat3 (talk) 4:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have placed it under the project. Do you think it should've been labeled anime or TV series if it's page is restored? Rtkat3 (Rtkat3) 5:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You added it to the project page, which was not correct. I meant leave a message on the talk page of the project asking about it. I'll go ahead and post one though. If created, it should be labeled anime, per our current naming conventions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
When it's file is restored, let me know. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The file will not be restored, either way. A new article would be made, properly following the Anime and manga MoS and with more than just a chunk of plot summary :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Xena?

Sections as Personal Life, Skills and Powers and Lesbian subtext were withdrawn, why? (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

They are not appropriate sections for an article. The first two are excessive plot summary, which violates WP:PLOT, WP:FICT, and the TV MoS. I believe the Lesbian subtext was merged into Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture as it is series wide rather than character specific. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The section Character History could be divided into two, then mix Xena Dark Past and her new life. It could be divided into sectionsEarly HistoryandThe New Lifeas had been done before? (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC))
That is not necessary, at all. The character history is already too long. It should NOT be a huge plot summary. The in-universe history of the character should not be the central focus of the article, but the real world aspects. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Xena: Warrior Princess had 134 episodes, just count on the page, or look at any website. (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC))
I know how many episodes it has. That isn't an excuse for excessive plot details about the character. Himura Kenshin is a GA character article for a character from a 28 volume book series and a 95 episode anime series. Note the emphasis on the real-world aspects, not plot and in-universe details. Rukia Kuchiki is another GA character article, from a 33+ volume book series and a 173 episode television series. Again, far less plot details than the Xena article (indeed, the whole article is smaller than Xena), with an emphasis on the real world aspects such as conception and creation of the character, reception of the character, and any plot details written from an out-of-universe perspective. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Collectonian, could you please reduce the size of your signature? The font-size: 12pt; formatting creates text the same size as the <big> tag, which is discouraged per WP:SIG, and effects surrounding text. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 03:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. Never seen that page before. Be useful if it were linked from the preferences section since I was looking around for Sig guidelines quite awhile before just making do. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, much better. Thanks. Linking the guideline from within the preference section about sigs wouldn't be a bad idea. I know the first time I tried to create a signature, it violated all kinds of things (it was truly horrendous). Thanks again, - auburnpilot talk 04:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Iggy, again.

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

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