User talk:Collectonian/Archive 2

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

Characters of Firefly

Recently you contibuted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book. There is now an ongoing discussion stemming from that AfD here if you wish to contribute. [[Guest9999 15:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Done...I wonder what the procedure is if people refuse to comply with the AfD, since it seems there may be some editors who will refuse to accept it. Collectonian 20:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Christmas films and TV specials

Did you delete the lists of Christmas films and tv specials? DanDud88 10:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. Only administrators can delete articles. I did, however, merge Christmas television back into Christmas in the media. An article discussing Christmas in media can be encyclopedic and probably meets WP:N, though that particular article still needs clean up and citing. However an unending list of Christmas television specials is completely unencyclopedic, violates WP:NOR, WP:N, and WP:NPOV. Collectonian 11:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wizard of Oz

Sorry, I didn't realize. I saw one article with British spelling and another with American and some with both so I didn't know which one to do. I will undo all of my edits. Sorry RPlunk2853 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. In general, American is used for articles about American films and TV shows, while the British spellings are often seen in British articles (such as Meerkat Manor). :) Thanks for taking the effort to clean up the other spelling and grammar issues, though!  :) Collectonian 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Tin Man (TV miniseries)

Your treatment of Tin Man appears to be a violation of WP:OWN, and try to simmer down a bit on that. Similarity to a character CAN be noted; it is not an OR violation because it does not actually assert an allusion. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is OR unless you are citing an actual expert or a primary source. You can't just decide X character is similar to wide and shove into an article. And sorry if people wanting to shove OR and NPOV crap into the article in clear violation of multiple policies and the MOS annoys me. Collectonian 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Comparisons are not OR; they are noticable by others and pointing out similar and different facts that have been noted by primary sources is not OR either. You're just trying to prevent people from comparing the original Wizard of Oz to "Tin Man", or at least make it difficult, which is unwarranted. (There are several articles out there comparing one game to another, one religion to another, etc. on Wikipedia already.) — Rickyrab | Talk 17:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not trying to prevent it. I'm saying properly source it and put it in the right section. Yes, there are other articles comparing, but they are (hopefully) properly sourced. If they are not, they should be tagged as NPOV and OR violations and cleaned up. Just because there are a ton of articles in need of clean up on Wikipedia is no reason to go and make another one instead of doing it right the first time. Collectonian 17:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the marking of the original fork as "minor", and sorry about that. I hadn't realized that forks to subpages are considered major, but in any case, I'll take care not to mark those as 'm' in the future. The second one and third one were an additional link and a typo correction and were supposed to be 'm', but in any case, those are moot since you've reverted all three of the forks. Banazir 00:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Gonna hafta agree about "own" on the Tin Man article. Sorry Collectonian, but you seem really intense about managing an article that's just getting started. Maybe it doesn't need to be controlled quite so tightly? It's not like it has a years-long history of edits; it's just getting built. The populist nature of Wikipedia is such that the people create the encyclopedia they want to read...maybe let them do that for a while here before getting so het up about content choices? Thanks for reading. jengod 09:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Terhune Article

Since you are in Texas, I am going to gorgive you for you problems with the Terhune article - I have been envolved with Sunnybank for over 10 years now. Have been associated with the people responsible for saving Sunnybank for preservation to A.P. Terhune (these people have spent over 30 years keeping A.P. Terhune memory alive). The internet page while a fan site is you were not an idiot you would see has more history and facts pertaining to A.P. Terhune then this silly wikipedia space has time for - you chances are vandilism and I will keep reverting them to appropiate sites209.212.28.50 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello Collectonian. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your recent edits to Tin Man (TV miniseries). The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Collectonian and Tin Man (TV miniseries). You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

--Rjd0060 17:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, y'know what? Maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt. The trouble is, where does vigorous editing end and ownership begin? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ownership would be me saying "no no no you can't say that." I have not said that. I said that the allusions must be properly sourced and put in the appropriate section rather than just stuck here and there. I'm an experienced contributor in both the TV and Film projects. I'm not trying to own the article, I'm just trying to keep it in line with both project guidelines and with the over all Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I believe your ANI report was rather uncalled for (usually an RfC would be the first step, I believe, if you think I'm being possessive or unfair), but what's done is done. If I'm wrong, I'll be appropriately smacked around. If not, maybe we can quit all this arguing and actually work on improving the article and getting the allusion and production details (properly sourced) into the appropriate place in the article. There is certainly plenty of material already available to aid in that, I just haven't had the time to go through it and I guess no one else has either. Collectonian 17:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. I thought ANI was the first step and RfC was #2, but you might be more experienced in such matters. Oops. And, yeah, let's improve that article. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wedgie

Please don't leave such templates on my talk page - I am very well aware of how AFD works, I don't need to be explained how to sign my posts, and if you check the page history you'll see that it was not created by me, but by User:129.64.82.92. >Radiant< 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, the notification was done automatically when the AfD was applied. It was probably sent to you because you are the first editor of record. 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay :) In that case might I suggest that this automatic notification thingy may need some rephrasing? >Radiant< 22:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It was done by Twinkle, so may want to make a suggestion at the Twinkle talk page that it be worded to better clarify things Collectonian 23:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppression against allegedly non-notable fiction articles

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be on a crusade to delete many fiction-related articles over their perceived non-notability. Why? You must have some important reason for suggesting a former good article for deletion, Shinigami (Bleach) for example.

It seems that lately many users (and this is not your fault by any means) have been misinterpreting what Wikipedia is and what is not, and the criteria for inclusion/deletion on Wikipedia. WP:NOT is IMO one of the most misinterpreted policies. The only part of WP:NOT which in any way deals with fictional topics is the part about plot summaries, which none of the Bleach-related articles are. It's true that the policy mentions that fiction-related articles should aim to include mostly out-of-universe sources and analysis, however, this in no way excludes in-universe information, which is obviously essential to understanding the topic.

At the same time, WP:FICT is highly overquoted and few realize that it's a guideline (not policy) written by a handful of users, not all of whom are highly experienced with the project, which is highly volatile (changes are always suggested and often made). It aims to interpret the vision of Jimbo Wales and translate it into a guideline about writing about fiction, but who is to say that this is actually what Wales intended? Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge, and consequently, anything that's not in WP:NOT can be included. Of course, WP:NOT does not cover everything (and it should IMO), but in general, common sense should be applied and not blind compliance with the 'rules' of WP:FICT (which doesn't even apply in many cases regarding Bleach).

Moreover, there are many types of primary sources, which generally should be avoided on Wikipedia, and it is the Wikipedians themselves who decide whether a particular primary source is reliable or not, not a specific policy. Some primary sources are clearly reliable, especially ones dealing with fiction (because they aren't written by the fictional characters themselves and therefore have no reason to lie!), and while an article shouldn't by any means be sourced only with primary in-universe sources, the fact itself that it is sourced in that way, is no reason to suggest deletion. Instead, why not try to add reliable secondary sources yourself and contribute significantly to this set of articles, which has indeed been suffering from a lack of out-of-universe sources?

In summary of the above, basically, if the notability of a subject is not easy to establish, and the only sources are in-universe, then it should not be a candidate for deletion. I'm sorry that you're trying to delete or merge many similar articles and hope that you reconsider.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New Info on Trinity Blood

I recently obtained some information from a new novel. You are welcome to contact me via a talk page if you have any concerns. I will add a note on the edit history, each time I use such information.

--AndrewR5D4 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) I did have to remove the statement about Tres because it read as if it were your interpretation of the novel rather than something the novel explicitly states. BTW, I'm happy to say my copy of the first novel is on its way! The ending of the anime was fairly good and I'm hoping the novels go further into the story. Collectonian 05:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Trust me, the original novels are very rich in detail, and mention a great number of characters that were not even mentioned in the Anime or Manga. But yes, Tres does have organic components, and requires the intake of simple vitamins to maintain them. (R.A.M. Vol. 2) Kaya also plays a slightly larger role than Kaspar von Neumann's killing, so I gave her a file.

--AndrewR5D4 05:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'll put the organic components back in, just in a way that doesn't include interpretation ;-) BTW, you don't have to add a new header everytime you leave a message. You can just leave it under the current section :-) Collectonian 05:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I used the copy and paste option, and I am no expert on citing. Thanks for the help.

--AndrewR5D4 05:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No prob :) Best way to learn is to see examples :) Collectonian 05:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

List of characters in the Oz books

I put that list to stop all the Wicked spam, and wouldn't you know it, the Wicked spam starts up as soon as you removed it. I understand why you did it, but for practical reasons, perhaps it should be restored. Without it, the page becomes a chore to maintain.--Scottandrewhutchins 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...not sure what to tell you there. I can understand adding it to cut down on the spam, but at the same time, that's allowing content that doesn't belong there to be added. I have several articles which are vandalized every day, often multiple times a day, so I know it can be a chore. If it gets excessive, perhaps requesting temporary page protection, or maybe adding a link at the top noting that the article is for Oz characters. Characters from Wicked can be found at X or something like that? Collectonian 18:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New Info

Hugue's tale in the Trinity Blood novels, actually appears to be a story in itself. The few chapters that he appears him seem to deviate from the main story, using him as the main character rather than Abel. I added the information about him, but it may be too long. Perhaps Sunao Yoshida decided to make him more distant from the rest of the AX. Oh, and in the original version of Silent Noise, Abel, Tres, and Leon were the only ones available for the mission. Sorry if I wasted your time with this message.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah cool. I'll give it a look :) And not a waste of time at all. Its great having someone dedicated to improving the article while also being wiling to work with others :) Collectonian (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, I was RVVing too quickly and thought it was a page blank. Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 01:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No prob...I was just archiving my messages. Collectonian (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Map of Kalahari Meerkat Project

Could you explain more fully why you removed this contribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.241.32 (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A map of the project is already available from the official Kalahari Meerkat Project which is already linked to from the article. The additional map is unnecessary as it relates more to KMP itself than the show. Collectonian (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a direct link to the map posted on the Kalahari Meerkat Project? I can't find it there. But point taken about the distinction between show and project. Sincerely, Marbrian Dujardin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marbrian (talk • contribs) 01:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Here ya go [1] Collectonian (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of Edit

The information on Helga is common fan knowledge that most people already know. She probably makes her appearance in the later RAM novels. I will add details upon the book's release, but your cite was for the moments, improper.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. I was just guessing since most of your last additions were from it :) Collectonian (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Threats

You are an itiot - no threats implied but you are still an idiot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.50 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 4 December 2007

If you continue to be abusive and nasty, you will be reported. Collectonian 18:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Pine Grove, Norfolk County, Ontario

It strikes me as a little 'heavy-handed' to simply sweep in on an article about a tiny community, put together almost exclusively by a single editor over a relatively long period of time and delete most of its contents without any prior discussion on the articles talk page, or the placement of any warning templates beforehand. If you have issues regarding the overall quality of the article, perhaps you could start by discussing them on the articles talk page first and maybe placing an appropriate template or two before simply "wiping out" most of the contents in one go. It only seems fair to me to allow time for this editor to have a chance to improve their contribution. Thank You. PS I am unable to locate the 'edit summary' window on this page. Deconstructhis (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This editor has had TONS of warnings and attempts to correct him. He's been reported to ANI for his tendency to make articles and add content that is 99% falsehoods, NPOV violations, and his own odd opinions, which he often tries to hide through the use of the minor edit tag. He just doesn't care and ignores all who have tried, including admins. Unfortunately, while its annoying, but he hasn't totally done anything that is immediately bannable, as he doesn't revert clean ups to his articles, doesn't argue about the issues, etc. Many articles he's made have been out right AfDed or CSed. In his case, simply removing the bad stuff is the only way to handle it. I cut only the parts that were circumspect or pure NPOV violations. There is nothing wrong with leaving the article as a stub until an editor who is actually intending to improve the article touches it, nor does WP:EFFORT count as a valid argument for reverting an edit. Many vandals will throwing in thousands of characters into an article, that doesn't make it worth keeping or prior discussion. There is also a reason there is a note below all edit boxes that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." That includes hacking out everything inappropriate. Collectonian (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing his record in some detail, it looks like I may have jumped the gun in terms of my defense of this individuals "work". Maybe it's time for me to take a little 'Wikivacation'! Sorry for wasting both our times. Take care. Deconstructhis (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem and an understandable question. If he'd been anyone else, I would have cleaned up and removed. With him, those who follow behind him have learned to mostly just remove if its circumspect :) Collectonian (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Since you and I are of exactly the same mind about this issue, that was an attempt at humour, not a reflection of any underlying frustration. Sorry if you took offense. I don't really think you are evil or trying to ruin wikipedia for everyone. Only I am nefariously intent on doing that. Eusebeus (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I realized after reading it that you were attempting to be humourous, its just this issue is becoming so huge and the show fans are getting so rabid about it, that I think most would not get it :) Collectonian 21:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Looney Tunes on TV

Recently, there's been a proposal by Agtaz to create a new article about the Looney Tunes television broadcast history; the response has been enormous, and research and development are now underway. Any comments? Suggestions? Ideas? You are welcome to post your thoughts here at my talk page. Thanks. -- Cinemaniac (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering I AfDed the Golden Collections, there really isn't anything I could add. I'd rather see such information in the main Looney Tunes article, but that view is unlikely to be shared. Collectonian 04:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Commandoes

Dear Collectonian, I appreciate the fabulous work you do on the Meerkat Manor website, and I do understand your concern to protect it from unwarranted changes. If you wish to insist on Commandoes, I will not stand in your way. However, in a properly copy-edited book by a reputable UK press (such as, for example, Weidenfeld-Nicolson's Meerkat Manor, by Tim Clutton-Brock, cf. p. 33) one is unlikely to encounter an eyesore like "Commandoes," even though UK-based webmasters may well perpetuate the usage. But why expend such energy on what should be a relatively neutral editorial issue? And on what authority can one contributor demand from another contributor that they refrain from making corrections, merely because they don't agree with them? Help me out here, sincerely, Marbrian Dujardin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marbrian (talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Meerkat Manor show is a UK-based show. The article is about the show, #1. As such, the official website spellings will always take precendence and be considered more authoritiative than other sources, including the Clutton-Brock book. It is not a neutral editorial issue. If you look at the Meerkat Manor talk pages, you will see just how contentious the issues of UK versus American spellings has been. As for what authority, there are policies and guidelines against the changing of UK spellings to US and visa versa. It isn't a matter of disagreement, it was you changing something from the official spelling to the Americanized spelling. Collectonian 02:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Collectonian, so let me get this right: because the UK Meerkat Manor website is considered the most authoritative source on the TV show--which no one would dispute--it is also considered the most authoritative source on UK spelling? And on the grounds of this dubious premise, Wikipedians are expected blithely to follow whichever usage, no matter how erroneous or ill-considered, has been declared to be authoritative? If so, that might well discourage well-meaning contributors from correcting even the simplest errors of style or spelling, for the whole idea of there being a correct spelling must seem somewhat arbitrary. It's a common complaint that Wikipedia articles are poorly edited, in some cases embarrassingly so. I had not expected that this might be a structural rather than an accidental problem.

No, it is considered the authoritative source on the spelling of the group name, and yes, in this case, you go with what they say not with what you feel is "proper." Collectonian 02:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, Collectonian, do me the courtesy of not mischaracterizing my editorial input as ‘what you feel is “proper”.’ Surely there are more charitable ways to read the intentions of your fellow-Wikipedians, and more welcoming ways to engage in discussion with them?

I have already deferred to your position by not changing back the spelling once more--against better judgement, it seems to me. At this point I am merely trying to understand the reasoning behind that position, to which I would hope to subscribe as soon as it made plausible sense--no matter what I might personally feel is “proper.” This is what I mean by “help me out here.” Sincerely, Marbrian Dujardin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marbrian (talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant no insult by it. As an American, Commandoes looked off to me too, but for things like this (essentially character type names), we must always defer to the primary source on the spelling, even if we think it is a bad spelling. Collectonian 03:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Texas A&M University

Well, it is good to meet another wikipedia editor with an interest in Texas A&M. Our wikiproject can certainly use more help. If anything you can post some good ideas onto our talk page. good luck, Thanks and Gig Em!

WikiProject Texas A&M

Howdy! As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Texas A&M, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Texas A&M University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks and Gig 'em! Oldag07 (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but my primarily A&M interest is in TCE, TAES, and Ag, since I work for TCE. I posted that news, though, because Murano is the currently Ag head. :) Collectonian (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

New Idea

Do you thing that adding the Four-City Alliance to the characters section in Trinity Blood would be a good idea? Probably not, but I'm just asking. Hugue's story in the novel is separate from the other chapters, and was labeled a "side story" in the book. I just thought that since they play a decent role in Sword Dancer's life, they might be noteworthy. Just asking for you opinion before you decide to delete it. I don't want to write it for no reason, and I will understand if you plan to delete minor characters as you have in the past.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

For now, I'm inclined to say no, since it is a side story rather than part of the main. It can be used to flesh out Hugue's section, which I think you already did. :) I am debating expanding the novels section, though, to include a short summary. I'm still trying to see if that's considered good or not, though. If its good to go, though, noting Hugue's side story there would be great! Collectonian (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

hi! this is totally not my place to intrude

I really do apologize for overreaching, and I'm not familiar with the background to your interactions with Stco, other than the very obvious. I'm also a terrible wikipedian. But I just happened to see his note on Jimbo's talkpage and then his own, and I'm wondering if maybe you could be persuaded to look closely at his user page? I'm sure you've felt some very legitimate frustration, but if there was ever an opportunity to rack up a few extra karma points & extra-AGF, I think this is it. I've never spoken or interacted with him, nor with you, and again, I'm very sorry for butting in where I'm mostly ignorant. Thanks for considering. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in that you do not know the background. If this has been Stco's first incident of being uncivil and harassing towards an editor, I'd have been far more willing to just write it off as a momentary lapse of judgment and work with him to improve things. However, he has been blocked before because of it (with a totally different editor), multiple editors have tried to help him learn about image issues, and he seems to have the same MO. He blows up, then apologizing, while still going around to other editors and dissing those he is supposedly apologizing too. For me personally, this is our second go around, because he disagrees with my cleaning up articles that result in his excessive images being removed (which means they will get deleted because they are non-free and not being used).
Even if he is autistic, that still isn't an excuse at all. He isn't the only editor on Wikipiedia with autism, and others do not seem to have the same problems controlling what they say. I have LJ friends with autism, and they don't act like that either. If he can't control himself, he shouldn't be attempting to be an editor, much less an admin. Period. Thank you, though, for alerting me to him still running around complaining after his "apologies." Collectonian (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I was pretty up front about my ignorance of the background, I'm not sure what purpose was served by agreeing so sternly. Did I give you some reason to doubt my intentions? Or do you just object to my having spoken up, even if honestly mistaken that I might somehow be helpful? Maybe he really is a jerk, and maybe he's someone with sub-optimal communication skills to whom WP means a lot, and who is frightened at the prospect of being blocked. I obviously don't know. But I do know it's a spectrum disorder, with a variety of manifestations. I also know I've seen much more incivil behaviour from editors with no such mitigating circumstance. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 00:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not a jerk, but I do get upset sometimes and I lose it. I know this is to Collectonian, but it's a part about me and I am repling to it. Thank You.--Stco23 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It is true, other editors have been uncivil, to varying degrees, and some are down right jerks. In truth, while it might seem like I'm being stern, in truth, I'm reacting to Stco23 as I would to any of those other editors. I gave the benefit of the doubt. I tried to hold my patience through the entire Chip N Dale issue (if you check my archive, you'll see our many previous exchanges). I also hoped the new issue with Garfield N Friends would go smoother since we'd been through this before, but it was not and instead he got even ruder. At that point I stopped assuming Good Faith and took a harder look at his history, his interactions with other editors, and his behaviors on other articles. Even then, I sat here for over an hour before doing my AnI filing. If he had not already been banned for incivility, I would have taken the report to that board instead, but as he had, I felt it might be time for an admin to step in, take a look at things, and see what might be done to resolve things. Despite what it might seem, AnI is not soley to get someone blocked (which would be temporary), but can also result in someone getting mentorship or other help and instruction to help them be better editors. Collectonian (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I was rude to you the other day. I did not think I was rude to you. Please reply to this and my top message. Thank you.--Stco23 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my previous comment was directed toward what I perceived as your chippy response to my good-faith (if unhelpful) intervention, not to his behaviour. As I said, I can't judge that. However I do appreciate your latest comment. In fact, I've already suggested mentorship as a possible course of action, on my talk page, and as he seems willing to consider it, maybe that's a really good idea. I think it's entirely conceivable for an editor to be rude, even repeatedly, and yet without real malice, and sincerely desiring to improve. That really was my only point, and I thank you for listening to it. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Looney Tunes on TV Article Proposal

Never mind. Despite a fairly intense response from various editors, consensus has been reached: There will be no new individual article concerning the Looney Tunes television broadcast history. Oh, well—at least I tried!

This does not mean that, of course, such information could not be added to the main Looney Tunes article. . . — Cinemaniac (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: from Kaos42 Subj: Iron chef America

I realized that before I got your message. Thanks anyway. I originally undid my action because I messed up the format of the table and forgot to preview it.

BTW, any idea when the next NEW battle is going to be?

Kaos 42 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think they may have finished airing all the new ones for this season, so probably not till sometime in 2008. Collectonian (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Stco23

There was a reason why I put that one up there. I put it back on there because it has all U.S. Acres characters on them which should not be taking off. Please reconsider.--Stco23 (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion about excessive images before on the Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers article. The DVD section is extremely short and does not need three images. Having the US Acres characters on them does not make it an appropriate image to include in the section. Rather, considering finding a good group image of those characters to include in the character section (but not the DVD cover image, which would not be good quality for the character section). Collectonian 18:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have had enough with you. I am put both images up for deletion and your image that you resized as well. I don't think you care about images and I wish this was a text site because people like you don't want a lot of images on this site. Bye and don't talk to me again.--Stco23 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
~shrug~ If you do not like the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, that's your choice. You can think I don't care about image if you choose to. I have, in fact, uploaded quite a few images to the site. However, I only upload and use appropriate images per the policies and guidelines. It is also your choice to remove the images since you uploaded them. DVD sections don't really need images at all, I just left one in each article as an attempt to compromise, but its removal is perfectly fine with me. This site is already primarily a text site, not an image farm. Collectonian 18:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
What I am saying about the last question I told you is that you are mean and you don't care about people puting image on this site. Youtube is a better site then this because you can show what you have and you can't here. If you want to get rid of peoples images of things you can do that here but you can't on youtube. Bye.--Stco23 (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This isn't YouTube nor is it an image gallery, it is an encyclopedia! Collectonian 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep and when am trying to put information down on the DVD's, you delete them because you don't think they belong on this site. I had information about the Garfield and Friends DVD's on this site and you deleted them and they are information, and encyclopedia is about information. Are you being fair or are you trying to get rid of information about articles. bye.--Stco23 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please don't ignore me because I want to resolve this and I don't want people to ignore me. If I was the boss you would not ignore me.--Stco23 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You are most liking resting for now, sorry about the top message but I thought you were ignoring me. When you come back, please answer my question. Bye--Stco23 (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to put both Garfield and Friends DVD images together. Let me know. by the way I got rid of those messages that don't mean nothing. Bye.--Stco23 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have put the two images into one image so you don't have to complain about me putting two images on that article. Good bye.--Stco23 (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The only reason why I put it large is so people can see it better and not to ruin the DVD article. Thanks for considering my new photo.--Stco23 (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please i'm sorry for what I did and I let this issue go A long time ago. Those thing I said I changed my mind so don't consider blocking me please. I decided to put those image together so you would not complain about the matter. Please reconsider what you are doing. Thank you.--Stco23 (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I said that I hated you was because I was upset at the time and did not think that there was no way to reason with you about those images. I took those DVD's with my camera and I own those copies. Fox does own the rights though to put them on DVD. I am just putting images on wikipedia for information only and not to make people unhappy. I though that I was making you unhappy by keep putting two DVD images on wikipedia, so I put them together instead. Please I am not trying to hurt your feelings, but please don't hurt mine. I am different from you. To find out look in my user page if you want to know. Please don't hurt my feelings, I have had too many images that I have uploaded deleted because people take them off and I am not allowed to put them back on. Thank You.--Stco23 (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I responded on that page and so far no one has responded. Do you think that you made a mistake putting that down or do you think no one is going to respond to that comment you made about me. Let me know about that. I will say that there will be no round three against us. please respond to this message. Thank You.--Stco23 (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a busy page and sometimes replies take awhile. I do not think I made a mistake in filing it. If it were your first incident, its one thing, but it is not. You have been blocked for not controlling your temper and not stopping to think before you post. Collectonian 02:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you think they should do to me, I did say I was sorry, and I changed those two images and made it into one. I did respond to you earlier and you did not respond to it. I also said it on that one page. What do you think would be right.--Stco23 (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
That's up to them. Collectonian 02:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I am just saying what would you like to do, not them. I should have said that instead. --Stco23 (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to not have to get into this discussion over every image while doing clean up of TV articles. I'd like to see you making an effort to realize that while you do "own" the photos you upload, your uploading them is not a guarantee that they will be kept or used, nor is it appropriate for you to harass or be rude to editors if one of your images is removed from an article. I'd like to see you learning the non-free image use policies and adhering to them, as well as reading and complying with the WP:CIVILITY policy. I've had my moments where I've lost my temper with other editors, and at that point, get away from the computer. Go for a walk, watch TV, eat something, anything but letting yourself explode at someone else. It doesn't help the situation at all. Collectonian 03:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been calm for over 3 or 4 hours, I did get tense when you put my conduct on that one page, I was scared that you wanted me to get blocked because you didn't like what I was doing. I have not been mad at you since this afternoon. I was angry to find out that the two images were taking off that article and wanted them back on. I know you don't want to many images on one page, but I don't too much on one article, I only put one or two images on one article. I want to resolve this problem between you and me. I hope we can settle this. Bye for now.--Stco23 (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I just don't think you appreciate me that's all. If you appreciate me, let me know. I do agree with some of the things you do, but I don't like that you take away things when you don't tell anybody about it. I think you should tell people next time what you are doing, like merging three articles into one before you do it, so people won't get upset over it. Please don't consider me an enemy. I am trying to do better as a wikipedian. I think you could have told me to put two images into one. If you do not like two images on one article, you could put the two images together into one image instead. You might be an adminstor someday with your kind record. Please drop are problems and we will try to help each other. I told my problems to Jimbo, I want my problems to be settled. Maybe we will work together instead of fighting with each other. Bye for now.--Stco23 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of appreciation. During the Chip N Dale issue, I tried very patiently to explain the issue with the images, with the extreme need to clean up the articles, etc. The merging was done to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The image removals were also done for the same reason. I also tried to help you understand that images of every single DVD release are not necessary nor appropriate for TV show articles. Indeed, having images of the DVD release are usually the last resort when a show logo is not available. I tried to compromise by leaving in one image. When I got to the Garfield article, I saw you were the one who had uploaded the image, and in an effort to ward off another argument, I went ahead and compromised by leaving in a single image. In another article, I would have removed them all (indeed, I have in other articles).
You may have noticed, no other editors really complained because they understood they were necessary. When, during my clean ups, if multiple editors get upset, then I leave it be and just AfD the articles, as I did with those Chip N Dale ones. The Chip N Dale article is looking much better and more inline with the TV style guide and with what a Wikipedia article should be. Garfield N Friends is heading towards the same. This is good for the articles! They may get a higher assessment, and maybe one day get towards GA or even featured status.
My number one concern in all of my editing is for the good of the article. It isn't as if I don't partially understand how you feel. If you look at the history of List of Trinity Blood characters you'll see I worked for weeks to clean up that article, thought it was doing pretty good, and another editor came and removed ALL of the images. I hadn't uploaded them, but it bothered me and I reverted. I could have been nasty about it, but we both calmly discussed it and he explained why it was done (as you can see in my archive). Rather than being defensive, I learned and worked to fix those image issues. It was, in part, from my own experiences that I learned about the image policies and the need to be more selective with the use of non-free images. Collectonian (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea if you would use your email address to allow private messages. I tried to do a private message, but you don't do emails. Please consider emails. Thank You.--Stco23 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think that would be a good idea. :) I prefer to keep communications here as it is easier to keep track of and, in the case of problems, easier to refer to. It is sort of like keeping work email separate from my main email. Collectonian (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way I did not complain to Jimbo about you, I told about my problems with wikipedia and want him to help me with it. Maybe I could get help by other people, Maybe even you. If you got anything let me know. Bye.--Stco23 (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
If you saw the last comment before I corrected it. It was a mistake and I forgot a word. Sorry.--Stco23 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we got over our problems together an I hope we can become friends. I did not use my autism as a excuse, I only said I was different from other people. I did get so upset at you Friday I didn't think you were going to report me after I said thanks to you for liking how I did that one image. I do have limitations with my autism and think it sometimes has something to do with my communication skills. I don't always communicate with people because of it and that is why I get upset, I maybe it's change too, maybe I don't like change on this site. Autistics don't always like change. I will try to be a good wikipedian and if you want to be my mentor thats ok too. I'm very sorry for harassing you those times I didn't like what you were doing. I don't put a lot of images on one article because I don't know where I could find them on different sites, I only do DVD that I have. I do think DVD history should be on these TV and Movie articles that were released on DVD and someday there might be Blu-Ray and HD-DVD History as well. I don't know if you would disagree or not if you do, That's ok. Keep my comments on for tomorrow, I may want to take to you again. please respond to this message ok. I hope you can become friends. Peace out.--Stco23 (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you went to bed if not, please reply to the top message ok. I am going to bed so bye for now. Talk to you tomorrow.--Stco23 (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you please respond to my comment so I can get out of your hair. I had a message for you on top of this message and you have not respond to it. I know you are busy, but I would like a response from you. Thanks.--Stco23 (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response. DVD releases do indeed belong in the article, but as text descriptions or, for multiple releases, using one of the standard tables. Having images aren't really necessary and can get really excessive when you start adding in special editions, limited released, etc. I know of some shows that have had no less than five DVD releases so far, and I suspect will be glutting the Blu-ray and HD-DVD releases soon (i.e. company keeps milking their most profitable titles LOL). Having separate pages is also unnecessary and fails notability per the established guidelines of Wikipedia.
I can certainly understand not liking change, but hopefully we've come to an understanding on why the changes were made and why, in terms of Wikipedia, they are an actual improvement to the article as a whole and have paved the way for additional improvements. :) Collectonian (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Regent U

FWIW, IMHO, I don't consider the work by first time editor Tntwtvl as vandalism. Don't bite the newbies. ;) I would recommend putting back their work into the article and inviting them to the discussion page or, better, going to their talk page and telling them the reasons for your concerns directing them to WP's core policies and welcoming them to editing. Again, IMO. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant to just hit rollback. However, I HAD already put back his addition, cleaned up to remove the NPOV and stuff and to better conform to the MOS. He didn't pay attention to the edits and added it again, so I removed the second edit as a duplicate. I left him a note reminding him to check recent edits before readding and to source stuff, especially direct quotes. Collectonian (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed all that. They added in some additional info that was also reverted. IMHO (really, just an opinion), let them make additions to the article, give it a little time to percolate and then go in and modify with NPOV in mind. I'll do the research for references if they don't do so. They are making positive additions to the page (see my comment on their page) but do need to learn the policies of WP. IMO. I feel kinda silly "lecturing" such a long-time and resilient editor. I just don't wanna go into edit-war mode again. ;)∴ Therefore | talk 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
LOL, true. At least what he is adding is less contentious this time, if badly formatted and seemingly copy/pasted from somewhere. If he does anymore, I'll just let them be unless its really bad, then go clean up tonight when I have time to do source searching, if you don't beat me to it ;-) Collectonian (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Geeze, this editor tries one's patience! (Not you, natch!) Maybe, just maybe, they can be molded into a decent editor. We'll see. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops...guess I annoyed him. *sigh* It would be nice to see if he can be molded into a decent editor, since he seems to want to add content. Just wish he'd at least look at the MOS. :( Me thinks he may have some personal bias or something, though, with his focus on the law school and trying to give it higher billing. Collectonian (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think there is any question that they are involved -- but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I just got a positive response from them on my talk page, so I think that they can be molded. Again, time will tell. Thanks for your patience! FWIW, I have no connection with Regent but got involved with all the contention about the Bush hires started. I likes to mediate. ;) ∴ Therefore | talk 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully. I'll mostly leave him to do what he wants, though I did have to undo his move of the reputation section. Its where it belongs per the MOS and easier to fix now that it might be when he's done doing whatever other edits he has planned. The rest I'll fix later, though I'm having to sit on my hands as he continues to just copy and pastes from the Regent site. ;-) Collectonian (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(unndenting -- I hate countin' colons ;) ) I left a message at User talk:Ttnrwtvl#Regent University rewrites making it crystal clear that, in the future, they will be required to add citations and to paraphrase. They have been given fair warning now and if (hopefully not when) they make further unsoruced, copyvio additions, I say, reverse away. I think I've given them a fair shot at proper editing. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 00:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL...I just copy, paste and add one more :P I'd never keep it straight. I saw your note and cool beans. Hopefully he'll study the changes and learn from them. BTW, Regent has some gorgeous images on their site, but I've emailed them to confirm their license includes use on Wikipedia (and see if they'll give some high res versions). I've been searching for an image of the original campus for the history section, but no luck so far. I think the current Admin building may be it, and its one I requested an image of. :) I did some ref clean up (loved how we managed to both do all that editting with out running into each other LOL) in the article, as well, combining some into named headers.  :) Collectonian (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'll take some credit for that. I have an RSS feed for the page and every time I noticed you made a change, I just cut and pasted it into a new editing session. Makes life so much easier. :) Good luck on the pics -- I've never had any luck adding in pics even when I received an AOK to use via email. But I'm sure you're more of a champ as I've given up as it tis outta my skill level. ;) ∴ Therefore | talk 01:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahh! I wondered about that. LOL Hopefully they will give permission. Campus is a bit too far for me to drive over and take some pics like I did for Blinn. ;) Collectonian (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Re

Dont throw a warning at me, and do not call my edits vandalism. I just told you why I reverted your edit. Those links may not fully comply with the rule, but they are good sites, whether you think they are or not. I'll prove it. If you had bothered to navigate through those sites you would see:

Mew Mew Power Uncensored

  • Analyzes the difference between Tokyo Mew Mew and Mew Mew Power.
  • Gives info about the manga and anime series. I actually checked, and that info is correct.
  • Gives month and date when the manga was translated and when 4kids licensed Tokyo Mew Mew, when they changed the name, etc (actually look through the site.
  • Analyzes each episode and lists all the differences as much as possible. THen gives how much of the original content was kept.


Mew Mew Alliance

  • HAS THE ACTUAL PRESS RELEASES FROM 4KIDS RELATING TO MEW MEW POWER.
  • news relating to Mew Mew Power, such as when it was aired in other countries.

and just to think you could seen of this yourself, if you took the time to actually navigate through the sites. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

They are fan sites and they are NOT appropriate and violate copyright laws. They are NOT allowed and adding them is vandalism. Collectonian (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I JUST GAVE PROOF THEY ARE OK AND YOU BLEW ME THE HELL OFF. You are annoying me. I gave plenty of proof and you reply with an "they are fan sites. fan sites are bad" answer. It is oh. so. amazing how ignored me completely. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 23:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what else they have, the fact is they are not appropriate. Whether you like it or not does not matter. Wikipedia policy takes precedence. You want to use the sites, do so one your personal computer. Do not add illegal site links to Wikipedia, period. Collectonian (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You still blow me off. If you are not even going listen to me, I'm done with you. I'd rather talk to someone else. I give you all these reasons, and you comes off as "Sorry, idiotic person lower than me. I dont care what you say". Your being one huge ass prick. I'm going ignore that part of the rule, partially by your attitude. PERIOD. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 01:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You be quiet because you are in danger of being blocked for incivility. You keep it up you will be reported angelofdeath275.--Stco23 (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Too late, you opened your big mouth and now you might be in trouble of incivility. You could have talk to other editors about it, but you didn't. I can't help you angelofdeath275. Bye.--Stco23 (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I Have A Question

I see that you know the day you got your account on wikipedia. I want to know how you got it. Did you remember or did you get it from this site. Please don't ignore me. I want to know so I can put something like yours on my user page. Your answer is important to me. Please answer that on my talk page. Thanks.--Stco23 (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I sort of guessed by looking at when my very first edit. My account may be slightly older than that, but I figured it was close enough ;) So looking at your contrib history, I'd guess your's was created around June 12, 2005. Collectonian (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought you got yours on the help desk or something. I didn't think you found out on your contributions. You didn't have to look at my contributions to find out about mine. Thanks anyway.--Stco23 (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem :) Would be nice if it appeared in our preferences area like our edit counts, though. Collectonian (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


the list of star trek characters

Thanks for fixing the issues box. It was making the page look a bit ugly. :) --Rockfang (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Not sure what caused it to flake. I didn't see anything in the history showing it was changed, so guess just a temporary glitch :) Collectonian (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Idea

I believe that you already gave your idea input on this subject, but I was wondering if you would reconsider my idea to create a minor characters article, seperate from the main characters article in Trinity Blood. I have seen such articles included in many other articles on Wikipedia, and I believe that it wouldn't be a bad idea, as even minor characters in this series are given personalities, history, and a brief amount of time in the light. Its not like the minor characters in this series just sit in the background and barely talk.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm, but no, I do not think it would be a good idea. There being similar articles is not a good reason to create a new one for this particular show. Many minor character articles go through AfDed and get removed. By the argument of their having personalities and history, everyone in the world would have their own Wikipedia article ;-) There really is no reason to give the minor characters coverage beyond the episode summaries and possible mentions in other character sections, as appropriate. This is in accordance with WP:FICT and the guidelines on how to write about fiction. :) Collectonian (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

"For instance, the average middle class person, living in the United States, making between $20K and $60K per year is unable to be able to afford precious gemstones, let alone a lower-middle class person, making $15K to $30K" is not common knowledge. It is your presumption. You can not explicitly state that such people can not afford precious gemstones. I am one of those people and I could easily afford to get a few gemstones a month for jewelry making, if I choose to. I also know people who make handmade jewelry who can as well, and they make less than me. You are not an expert in such matters that you can, or should, explicitly state what you think, nor should you make sweeping statements without sourcing. Both of the articles read link a jewelry making fan site, not like an encyclopedic article. I just rewrote the handmade jewelry article to bring it closer to Wikipedia standards. Take some time to note the massive changes to see how it was changed to be more neutral, remove OR, etc. I did not nominate the article only because it is unsourced, but because it is not notable on its own and already covered in jewellry. For now, I'm putting a merge tag on handmade jewelry as it does appear to need more discussion in the main jewellry article. You seemed to be making a snide remark, which is inappropriate and unnecessary (WP:Civility), but I'll presume you didn't intend it to be such since you are still new to things. To answer your question, yes, I do visit Michaels and Hobby Lobby frequently. I even enjoy doing craft kits. Collectonian (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also one of those people (yes, in the lower-middle class category), and my understanding is that unset gemstones (precut but not set) are typically sold in bulk - which would make them unaffordable for people like me. Certain gemstones, like diamonds, would be out of my price range, let alone gemstones AND precious metals. If I bought one, I certainly could not buy the other, and afford food, housing and (last but NOT least) health insurance/prescriptions at the same time. Most people that I know that are hobbyists do not use gemstones and typically use premade findings. My point in trying to save the article was to keep a reference in some form to jewelry making as a hobby. Since you also do craft kits, perhaps you might share some of my concern in this matter. I apologize that I got frustrated with the markup language within Wikipedia. Since, as I stated, I do not write web pages, this markup does not come easily to me. Thus, the reason that I have not used the proper method of redirecting pages from broken links, and the reason that some references ended up in external links instead. Again, I apologize that I got frustrated with the markup language within Wikipedia. Userafw (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
PS I just checked the handmade jewelry page, and I appreciate the work you did in making the page more encyclopedic. Added a source to the reference section, so this article is no longer completely unsourced. It does need more sources however, and probably more content, to address the significance of jewelry making as a hobby. Notability is difficult to address in things like lists, especially, and jewelry (jewellery) making is included in a list of hobbies which is included in a list of basic hobby topics which is included in [Portal Contents List of Topics] under Arts and Culture.Userafw (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Giant Monsters

Perhaps I will wait awhile then, a few months say... you never know, someone else might have the same idea I did. I still vote that the redirect is confusing and the article should be renamed if possible, and some disambiguation provision per WP:D put in place. I had the misfortune of arriving on the scene after the issue had been "settled" so had no say in the matter whatsoever. Another reason I oppose notability. Userafw (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your changes were NOT a disambiguation provision. If there were other shows, films, whatever called "Giant Monsters," then a disambiguation page would be appropriate. Disambig is used when multiple articles have the same or similar name, not "this is a show, and here is a list of some giant monsters." Collectonian (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but what happens when someone decides that the list of giant monsters is not notable, and attempts to get it deleted?
The next person who arrives on the scene after that when the page is missing or redirected is more than likely to be confused by a search for giant monsters bringing him to a TV host page when he/she is really trying to remember Godzilla, King Kong, or the name of some more obscure giant monster, like perhaps the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. Perhaps I should instead create a page called "Giant Monster" (with no S on the end)? Also, I believe there is precedent for disambiguation in a similar case. If you look at the entry for jewellery you will see it is redirected from jewelry and a reference is made at the top to distinguish Jewelry the musical group (if there had been or should be in the future a Jewelry film, the same could apply) from jewellery the fashion accessory and art form. Userafw (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Should you create the article? Not really. If someone can't remember what they are looking for, that won't help and that is what Google is for. If it isn't notable, it isn't notable and doesn't belong, period. There are plenty of search engines for that kind of thing. Wikipedia is not a search engine.
Your example is no where near the same thing. Jewelry has that note because it and the musical group are the exact same word, hence the note. That is an appropriate use of a disambiguation where the main name is used for the most popular topic and a disambig for the rest. King Kong, however, is not the same phrase as Giant Monsters. Someone doesn't search for Giant Monster to find King Kong, they search for King Kong. Collectonian (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Google is not always effective for this type of search, and you may not realize it, but people do attempt to use wikipedia as a search engine. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracyWP:NOT, and no, it is not a directory either, but lists play an important part of the wiki. Then again, it is also not a democracyWP:NOT, so if you are an admin you do obviously have the option to lock the page up tight so that I could do absolutely nothing about it. But if you are not an admin, you would have to get an admin to do this task for you if you have a sufficiently persuasive reason for this. Keep in mind that I do not use any tools or bots, or else I probably would have had no trouble inserting references, fixing picky stubborn formatting issues and so on. Also, checking the latest version of WP:NOT search engine is actually not currently in the list of what wikipedia is not. Just so you know. Userafw (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
To be such a new, inexperienced editor, I find it interesting that you disregard the views of more experienced editors and administrators with such casual ease. Since you don't seem to feel you need to follow the advice and corrections given by those in the know, I don't think I'll bother wasting my fingers or time to type out any more for you. Good luck editing with that unwillingness to be corrected and learn. Collectonian (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to visit my Myspace blog anytime - I actually did learn a few things from you about formatting on here but you did not make it easy for me. You might find it amusing, its at http://www.myspace.com/userafw (munch, munch, crunch, munch munch....) Reference on my blog is to this page WP:Spider or WP:NCR I also find it interesting that you visited more than one page that I had edited in different topics, and found the need to revert both of them, despite lack of vandalism. I am sorry that you do not see how others interpretations of the same policy can differ from your own. I do not disregard the views of administrators, but apparently there are some areas of policy that are not clear, or not easily applied. Writing a good article is not an easy thing to do, or every article (would that they were) would be featured article class. When scanning a style manual, one tends to skim the material to gain the information most relevant to what is being edited. Adding references is not easy either, or I would not have messed it up at least 5 or 6 times before getting the link to display right - only to have that same link removed promptly because it did not meet a different criteria or the entire edit was simply reverted indiscriminately. Colons (as explained to me by a more experienced editor) and semi colons are easily confused and typoed since they are both on the same key on the keyboard. Please do not assume that I discount the views of editors and administrators due to these issues. Userafw (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't go to MySpace, ever, so I'll just trust you haven't violated any Wikipedia policies by commenting about any particular editors or the like that, and only in your overall experiences. Whenever I encounter an editor who seems to either be new or who makes mistakes common to those who are inexperienced, I will check their contribs to go behind and do clean up and checks. Reverting is not reserved for vandalism and can be used for good faith edits as well, if they go against against guidelines or policies.
Nope, no policies here were violated there, except perhaps the wikipedia policy wp:NOT"wikipedia is not a blog". Information about temporary things (like say, mood or otherwise temporary things like what one is doing at the time or thinking about) is the sort of thing that one would find on a blog, along with say, mediocre karaoke singing. Userafw (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Writing a decent article isn't that hard, when one takes the time to learn. Adding references is not that difficult either, again when the relevant instructions are read and, if needed, checking other articles to see how its done. I'm not assuming, it is your actions that give me that impression. Collectonian (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
One could say the same thing about business writing, but one should realize that not everybody has mastered business writing. Likewise about technical writing. On a forum where newbies are common, it seems a breach of etiquette to make a big deal about a faux pas considering that perfecting style and learning about Wikipedia does indeed take some time and some editors may be more bold than others. I believe you have made the wrong inference from my actions. Userafw (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: speedy tags

I'm an admin; and, I didn't create the article. Thanks for helping out though. :P Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 14:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Opps! I didn't see admin on your user page or a reason for the decline, so I thought you'd just removed it. I'm sorry :-) Collectonian (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misinformation

I know that the purpose of a nomination is not to force the improvement of articles, but it does the job. Thanks. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

True...I've seen a few borderline articles suddenly get a massive turn around when its at risk of deletion.  :-D Collectonian (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Activity

I see you are tagging and such on a number of articles on my watchlist. Take a look at this archived discussion here. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Um...okay, but what am I looking for here cause that is one insanely long discussion :-P? Not going through anyone's watchlist or anything like that, I'm just going through doing assessments for the TV Project as part of our effort to clear our list of 4k+ unassessed articles (working on the Es tonight). In addition to assessing and doing project tags, I've been tagging any that I notice have some major issues. Collectonian (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems that certain editors were concerned that the reliable sources tags were not legitimate. They were mostly brought round to the idea that the tags were valid, but some were not. Many others were concerned about the rapidity of my tagging, and expressed the fear that their articles would be deleted because of my tags. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Reliable source tag not legitimate? Good gravy...what a strange idea. Not sure why anyone would think "their" articles would be deleted...all they have to do is address the issues. Can't ya can't win for losing though...its either "OMG, don't you AfD, you didn't tag" or "don't you tag, it might get deleted" :-P Collectonian (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well, there it is. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, hopefully if any gets annoyed, they'll look and see I was doing project assessments. I think I've tortured myself for one night though...50 articles assessed for the project! Wait...50! @_@ no wonder my eyes are killing me! Wee. Collectonian (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Iola?

Iola, Texas has a note that residents "will vote" about incorporation in November of 2007. I did a quick Google search to find information about this, but couldn't find anything. If you're local, could you find a local source on this? I tried asking a Houston-area editor, only to find that Iola is not at all near Houston :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it was voted on and the vote was yes: http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/11066041.html :) Updated the article Collectonian (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi,

Thank you for your recent cleanup of the Tokyo Mew Mew articles, as it was long due (and recently I have had almost no time to edit Wikpedia).

Regards, G.A.S 18:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I have a two week break coming up soon, so I hope to do some more extensive work on it to bring it back in-line with the MOS. :) Collectonian (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been going through old discussions re this article series, and have commented here. Have especially a look at the foreign Wikipedias, and the mentioned prior versions of the article. There might be useful content you would like to use. Good luck on the article improvement. — G.A.S 06:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) Collectonian (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

About your edit to Princess Tutu

For this edit, you gave the summary "removed per MOS". For my future information, per which particular MOS? (Amen to article issues, btw -- it's been on my back burner to look at for a while.) —Quasirandom (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles). I know I also read a recent discussion on the issue that agreed that full staff lists were not appropriate and should not be included in the production details type sections, but darned if I can remember where it was now. In general, though, notable folks should be covered in the infobox, intro, and relevant sections (director, voice actors, producer, etc). Collectonian (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That's the MOS I was looking at. I read "notable production staff (typically: directors, leading voice actors, and sometimes producers or other personnel)" as saying to list the directors, leading voice actors, and sometimes producers, but not the full list. (I'd also include soundtrack composer, myself, but oh well.) If you could find that discussion about full staff lists, I'd appreciate it. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: CSD'd pages

In general, any page that is speedy deleted can be re-created if it will contain appropriate content. You're more than welcome to re-create the Pure Country talk page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What is going on?

[2] Removing sources is a very bad idea. It is also frowned upon to delink a template while initiating a deletion discussion for it. -- Cat chi? 13:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think you misunderstand the use of the template. Please check the source. It does not just contain the official website. -- Cat chi? 15:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
No, linking to fan sites that blatantly violate copyright laws is what is a VERY bad idea and extremely inappropriate, nor should cites EVERY be called a "source." I removed those links again. I removed the template because it contains illegal links, then nominated the template because while the first link is the official site, the rest are fan sites and not appropriate for inclusion making it seem useless. WP:EL and WP:COPYVIO are two policies to get more familiar with, particularly when working with anime articles. Collectonian (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Gadget Article

All I'm saying is I don't see much discussion one way or the other. I looked at Talk:Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers#Merge of Character Articles but all I see is your proposal, one objection, your announcement that you've done the merge, and then another objection. If there's someplace where someone agreed with the merge, I'd like to see it. In the meantime, while there's nothing wrong with boldly merging, repeatedly doing so while there are objections outstanding seems counterproductive. Powers T 02:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Until now there was no real objection. As I said, Sto23's arguments stemmed from other issues (see my archive log for our lengthy discussions), so that doesn't really count. The only other complaint, you may notice, is very specifically about the Rat Capone article which got AfDed because it was too minor a character for merging. He made no actual objection to any of the other merges. I could see objecting and reverting if others have been upset, but thus far, since the merge, there have been no complaints about it. This particular article, along with all the other character articles, have been merged for almost two weeks without any arguments against it. The Chip n Dale article has been vastly improved because of these efforts. I'm not someone who is just merging and abandoning. I plan to do much more work on the article during my upcoming break to address the lack of sources.
Anyway, to me, almost two weeks without a real objection is silent approval. So far, your only objection seems to be to against one of 5-6 merged articles and your only reason given was that you felt there was not enough discussion. I can't tell if you are really objecting to the merge itself, or if you are saying the merge was done improperly or something. All appropriate content was merged per the TV MOS and WP:FICT. Individual character articles are rarely notable as been shown repeatedly in AfD. The articles really should never have been created in the first place, but people object to just AfDing the article if merging is the preferred option, so I merged first.Collectonian (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, my original objection was that the merge was completely undiscussed. As I said, it's fine to be bold, but when an objection is expressed to the merger -- as a) I thought stco23 was doing, since I had no way of knowing there were existing issues between the two of you and b) I myself did when I reverted the redirect -- it's better to discuss it rather than just revert good-faith objections. On the merits of the merger, I'm looking for reliable sources on Gadget. I have a feeling they exist but I might be wrong. Unfortunately, the ridiculous number of fansites obscure the results of a normal Google search. Powers T 14:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

LEGEND FAQ

Hello. I maintain the LEGEND FAQ site (http://www.figmentfly.com/legend/index.shtml) and you removed it from the LEGEND (film) wiki page. Why did you choose to do this?

The LEGEND FAQ site was used as source material for the LEGEND director's cut. You can find more information about this on the History of the LEGEND DVD page (http://www.figmentfly.com/legend/different4k.html) if you scroll down to the year 1999 and the section called The Project Takes Wing.

I believe that the LEGEND FAQ contains a lot of valuable and interesting information for people who come to the Wikipedia and search for information about the film LEGEND.

Figmentfly (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI and WP:SPAM would be good policies for you to read. The site is still a fan site, which is not an appropriate linking, and there is no proof of any claims made on the site about any connection to the movie. Collectonian (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The LEGEND FAQ site does not sell or advertise anything - it is there purely for informational purposes and attempts to back up all of the information of the site with some sort of reference where available. Are only officially sanctioned websites from movie studios acceptable for the wikipedia?
As for proving the claims on the site, I'm not sure exactly what proof you would accept. You can find my name printed under the Special Thanks on the back of the booklet of the LEGEND Ultimate Edition DVD (and if I remember correctly it is also listed as a special thanks in the credits of the LEGEND documentary). I could also ask the LEGEND DVD producer to write me a blurb for the site (which he may or may not do) but that wouldn't prove anything to you as you might doubt he wrote it. What proof would you accept?
Figmentfly (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
To prove the claims, a reliable, neutral third party source would have to verify the claims, such as an article talking about Legend and mentioning the site as an official source. In general, external links should be kept to a minimum. See the WP:EL for the general guidelines of inclusion. Collectonian (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
So, if I am able to provide a reliable, third party source to verify the LEGEND FAQ site's use as one of several official sources for the DVD then the LEGEND FAQ link would be acceptable on the page? How would that work? Would I have a link to the LEGEND FAQ and then a reference link to the reliable, third party source right next to it? Who decides what is a reliable, third party source? Figmentfly (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's reliable source guideline and verifiability policy would dictate. And actually, if a reliable, third party source verified the FAQ's use for the DVD, not only would the link be acceptable (a note would be added to the talk page to show verification) but mention of it could also be incorporated into the article itself. Collectonian (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merging Jin Kariya

Good to see that you are going about this the right way. I fully endorse the merge but request that an actual section be made in the destination's talk page so that we may voice our opinions on the subject. That would make things a whole lot easier. Sasuke9031 (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Woops. Don't know how I missed putting a matching tag on the List of Bleach Bounts page. I've added it now along with a section for discussion. Collectonian (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ren Sohma

Hi, I've restored the history for this article; you should be able to merge it now without any problems. east.718 at 02:23, December 22, 2007

Thanks! All merged in :) Collectonian (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Show jumping

IMHO, I think you overdid the tags on show jumping. The article does lack footnotes, but there ARE reference works. It does need a rewrite to be less confusing, perhaps, and I will be the first to agree it is far from GA status, but there have been some experienced riders working on the article, the "expert" tag doesn't seem appropriate, and I really don't see significant original research in there, either. (A lot of horse knowledge is, to this day, transmitted word of mouth and is widely known yet rarely published in books) My thought is if you question material, slapping a "fact" tag on the questionable statements is preferable to an overall tag. My point is simply that a bunch of tags without any explanation is not going to improve this article much. (The original creator of the article IS pretty prone to not cite anything, even though I KNOW she's using references; I've mentioned this to her in the past, and have been ignored, so I'm OK with the "no footnotes" tag) It would be more helpful to tag it in specific trouble areas, keep the "confusing" tag if you wish, but place your specific concerns on the talk page. Montanabw(talk) 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If it is not apparent to an experienced editor that the article is backed up by verifiable reliable sources, then it won't be apparent to a casual reader. The article reads more like a fan piece than a scientific article, and while word of mouth may be passing true information, it does NOT meet the Wikipedia policies regarding verifiability and neutrality. If the editor of most fo tose articles is using references but refusing to cite, honestly, start removing her additions until she learns. Ignoring corrections from other editors repeatedly regarding a core element of Wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to continue. The entire article needs clean up and overhaul from an expert in the field who also is well versed in properly writing and formatting an article for Wikipedia and the applicable policies and guidelines. I will copy this conversation to the talk page to provide the addressing of the tags. Collectonian (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

edit summary, r179726439

"MOS says specific product names should not italized" — Which MOS? I don't recall seeing that; the closest would be "Commercial products other than media works" under "Neither" in MOS-T, but Blood+ is a media work. —TangentCube, Dialogues 04:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I presumed media work refered to shows and movies specifically, not to the DVDs themselves. I've never seen DVD release titles italicized in any other show page, so I presumed that was the way it has been interpreted. If it is supposed to include DVD releases, then I think the whole title should be italicized not just Blood+. For anime series, volume 1, 2, etc are part of the titles the same as season 1, 2, etc or complete collection is a part of the title for a TV show. Blood+ seems to be using the more standard Volume 1, while Trinity Blood (as an example), uses Chapter 1, Chapter 2, etc for the volume names. With Blood+, there are currently two solicitations, one for Blood+, Volume 1 and one for Blood+, Part 1 which are very different in terms of length and price.Collectonian (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
re "volume" as title: The problem with that arises when a series uses only a number for volume identification. Before Galaxy Angel's second season became known as Galaxy Angel Z, Galaxy Angel 2 could have referred to either the second volume of season one or the entirety of season two. Even now, it's likely someone may confuse Galaxy Angel 2 with Galaxy Angel II (the game); if we add "volume" when it's not there to disambiguate between the two, that would be the same as admitting that the volume designation is not really part of the title. Expand that to manga, and you get Genshiken 2, which could be either a manga volume or the second anime season. Even if the word is fancier than "volume" or "disc", such as "livre" for Le Chevalier D'Eon or "straight" for Manabi Straight, I think it would be better to not consider it a title and reserve that for non-numeric subtitles.
re "volume" versus "part": I don't have a good answer for this yet, though in this specific case, perhaps we're better off taking "Blood+" out of the individual rows and just marking the volume/"Part" releases. (And if any emphasis, quotation marks, since this seems to fit the "elements of a larger work" criteria.)
Or I could be doing it wrong. That's also possible. —TangentCube, Dialogues 08:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
That would work on the anime, but the manga and novel series have multiple subtitles :P And its true, on a few series it can be very confusing, at which point an exception should be made, but I think for the majority of series, it works out okay. Most seem to include Volume or something similar. Then you have some like Ceres which has Book 1: Aya and so on through all 14 volumes (ditto the release of Fushigi Yugi).
I can certainly see both ways, though, and its something that isn't really addressed well in the anime/manga MOS, so hard to figure out which way is the best. The majority of the time anime and manga individual volumes are listed in sources, stores, and solicitations with some kind of volume designation, so I tend to think that it would be the best way to go because its the most common way and it is what our source is using. I think it can also be particularly important for differentiating between Bootlegs. For example, the Meerkat Manor bootlegs use similar, but different titles, so having the full official title helps people know "this is the real one." Collectonian (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


Userbox

Hey! You thanked me for fixing User:Collectonian/NanoUser. If you have more of your own userboxes, I can fix these, what are broken or help you improve them. Regards, Kubek15 (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...it got changed awhile back, don't know how I missed it in my watch list, which I guess is what broke it.  :) So far the others I've done seem okay. Collectonian (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

an AfD closing statement worth reading

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwellers of the Forbidden City. --Jack Merridew 10:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow...that was kinda foolish of the nominator, though if someone was questioning the notability, an AfD was probably not far off anyway. Very interesting closing statement, and agreed, worth reading. :) Collectonian (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The someone was me, among others. You can read more about the closer here and here. --Jack Merridew 10:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Parchment paper

You placed a notice on my talk page about a copyright problem with the article parchment paper. I think perhaps you made an error -- that page is just a redirect to parchment so it can't be a copyvio and and there's no copyvio notice placed on the target page either (nor has there been one recently).

Atlant (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted and recreated by an admin as a redirect. Before it was deleted, it was pure COPYVIO from two or three manufacturer sites. Collectonian (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks.
Atlant (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Tags on Everett Bellian and Xavier St. Cloud

Hello, I noticed you tagged Everett Bellian for deletion. I agree this character is not notable enough to have his own page; but I'm working on a list of Highlander characters right at the moment (User:Rosenknospe/Sandbox2) and I planned to make Everett Bellian a redirect to it. Trouble is, I have a problem with the template I'm using on the list (User:Rosenknospe/Sandbox3), so it's a slow process. But I assure you the page will not stay forever as it is, so I hope you won't mind if I remove the delete tag. The same applies to Xavier St. Cloud. I can't make a case for him at the moment as I have not researched him yet, but eventually either he will have his own page and it will be a GA or this page will be a redirect. Please do tell me if it's not OK. (By the way, if you could help me with the template or know someone who can, I would really appreciate it.) Merry Christmas, Rosenknospe (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...an interesting format. Is the template you are using based on the Episode template? I'm not very good with templates myself, but perhaps one of the maintainers there might be able to offer a hand.
I'm glad to see someone is working on a list already :) One thing to keep in mind, though, is that lists also should only include those characters that are notable and play a significant role in the series. Characters who only appear in a single episode are rarely significant to a series and usually are reserved only for mention in the episode summary they appear in. Beyond that, I think its a great idea and I don't mind the deProdding since you're working to fix the issues :). Collectonian (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I stole the code from Template:Episode list and modified it to suit my needs, but as I don't really understand what I'm doing, I'm perfectly unable to see what the problem is. Hersfold very kindly had a look at it and fixed everything but this. I have asked someone else and might go to the Village pump, but your idea is good too, I think I'll do it. I like this template, it has an anchor that allows other pages to link directly to the character inside the list ;D
About the characters that should or should not be included, I think you're talking sense. I'm still going to list all Highlander character articles though, just for now, if only to keep track of them. I know it may be too much, but on the other hand, I don't know how the guys at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highlander are going to react when I tell them I want to make redirects of almost all articles about Immortals. (That's me being shy. That's the way I am ;) There are about a hundred of those articles, and I think we can keep, say, twenty of them, and I haven't discussed it with the WP yet, I'm trying to get that template going first. So I settled for a list, as a compromise, to soften the shock, you know. Lists we can prune. If, When, on the way to FLC, it turns out that the list is too crowded, then I can delete the non-notable ones. I have no problem with that. I prefer to do it this way anyway, rather than doing a short list and be done with it, so that I'm sure I haven't forgotten anyone. Thank you for your kind words, and I hope Santa Claus has been generous, if it's part of your customs ;D Rosenknospe (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Good idea :) I have found that sometimes putting all in teh list first does help, then later dealing with pruning and sourcing and all. :) Its been an okay Christmas, though most of my presents won't arrive until after Christmas :( Collectonian (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

merges and prods

You've marked some pages both for proposed merge, and Proposed deletions, which is a little confusing. Since merging is always preferable--and you suggest it in your deletion summary--I'm removing the prod tags. If the merge goes ok, just edit the page to give a redirect. If it doesnt, and you still want to propose deletion, do so then. DGG (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I did both to encourage a quick merge, if merge was desire at all. Neither really seemed to need a merge since the list already had a summary, but offered it as an alternative. Usually the results are that the proposed merges are either ignored or removed with the usual fan reaction of "OMG, don't you dare." However, I noticed you removed several as being "an appropriate length for an episode of a major show" which seems to indicate you only de-prodded them because you don't agree with the WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT guideline. None of those articles asserts an ounce of notability, they just repeat the episode plot, as has been noticed for over a month. So sending those to AfD.Collectonian (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Diane Salema

I restored her Official bio in External links, per WP:EL, which states that "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't mean to remove that one. Collectonian (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You're giving us Crash fans a bad name...

...please, do not go about saying comments the way you did. If I was as "empty-headed" as you think I was, then why did I actually have a say as to why Doctor Nitrus Brio should not have his own article? Please, don't think those things. CBFan (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you were empty-headed, and you're the only one giving fans a bad name with your behavior over the Uka Uka article and your inappropriate responses to other editors. Collectonian (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You know full well what I mean, and, once again, you have no right to tell such blatant lies about me. I am not giving the Crash fandom a bad name and I am not giving anyone an inappropriate response except for you, but only because you're refusing to take anything I say into consideration. I gave you two (now three) workable suggestions...I'll repeat them again if you missed them: Keep Uka Uka's article or delete everyone but Crash's...but you still continually insist that Uka Uka can't have his own article for no reason whatsoever. And you can stop with this Crepass nonsense as well. I meerly informed everyone about the article deletion so that they could have their say and that, if they wanted the article to be kept, why it should be. But noooo, you had to tell lies about me...AGAIN...to get your own way. Look, either post some reasons, take my suggestions into consideration or leave the article alone, because I, like all Wikipedians here, will not stand by and let someone destroy an article just because they have something against whatever it is the article is on about. CBFan (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
YOu can call it what you want. It is canvassing to selectively "alert" people to "save" the article. You didn't just say, hey the article is up for deletion, you may be interested in giving your comments. You asked them to save it. That is canvassing. Collectonian (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
As I told you, several times before, telling blatant lies is very immature. As is continuing this nonsense conversation because you've actually taken my suggestion. Now you're just randomly beating a dead horse, so I suggest you stop rubbing it in, there is no need anymore. CBFan (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

LEGEND FAQ Redux

Hello again,

I was able to find a reliable source for the LEGEND FAQ and I'd like to see if you agree.

In the magazine the Widescreen Review (Volume 9, Number 9, Issue 44, Pages 106-111, December 2000) Bill Hunt (who runs the http://www.thedigialbits.com website) interviewed Charlie De Lauzirika (the producer of the LEGEND DVD). This article is available for purchase on the Widescreen Review website - http://www.widescreenreview.com/

Here is the question and answer that I think qualifies as a reliable source.


WSR Hunt: Let's talk about the film itself. Legend "lore" describes the existence of a number of different cuts of the film. I know that you worked for a long time to find a particular, never-before-seen cut for this new DVD. What don't you describe the tremendous effort you went to to track it down.

de Lauzirika: The Director's Cut was a nightmare to track down. In doing research on this, I had been in contact with a certifiable Legend fanatic named Sean Murphy, who runs the Legend FAQ along with Geoff Wright, and based in part on his info, and a lot of background from Legend editor, Terry Rawlings, I realized that we were looking for one of three cuts. ...Credit really needs to be given to Garth Thomas for breaking the case. And I should also thank Sean Murphy, Geoff Wright, and Paul MacLean for all of their support.

Figmentfly (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would qualify as a reliable source :) I've added it to the article. I should note, however, that because you do run the FAQ, I've also had to add a COI tag to the article for you, per the WP:COI guidelines. This is done whenever any one associated with an article is confirmed as being who they say they are so other editors can be aware of it (for example, see Talk: Roger Ebert and Talk:Meerkat Manor). This, however, does mean that any edits you make to the Legend article will receive extra scrutiny as an account with a self-identified COI (and its usually preferred that you suggest any major changes on the talk page instead). Collectonian (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you - I appreciate what you are doing. Figmentfly (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Chip N Dale Rescue Rangers

Why did you tag your own resize for deletion. I think you should put a fair use rational on it. The resizing is what is showing on the article and it is yours. Narlee is not responsable for the fair use rational. Please put a fair use rational on the photo, It would be great if you did it. Thank You.--Stco23 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Narlee is the original uploader, hence the notice going to her. I resized the image to bring it into fair use rational compliance, but as she is the uploader and the one who took the screenshot, I think it is more polite to her the change to do the rationale first. Looking at her contribs, though, it doesn't look like she is active right now, so I probably will go ahead and put a fair use rationale on it before it is deleted. Collectonian (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What is acceptable in a film article

Please learn about how the limited use of screenshots particularly if they have a full rationale are accpetable in a film article. Many featured articles on wikipedia have two or more screenshots. Please DO NOT revert my edits again like you did to Speed (film). Only two screenshots are there not three, and they identify the main characters in the film and help improve the quality. This is within our policies see:

{{tl:Non-free film screenshot}}

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 16:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I highly suggest you read the WP:NFCC policy which was recently changed. In particular, sections 3 and 8. A fair use rationale alone does not automatically mean you can just add all the screenshots you want. The Speed article is too short to support two screenshots. I have reverted your edits again.Collectonian (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well it is certainly long enough to support 1 screenshot of the scene which is central to the film. I've removed one screenshot but I won't tolerate you removing the other. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 14:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I still think its completely unnecessary and one of the NFCC watchers will probably ax it, but I've left it in. However I did resize it. There is absolutely no need to have it be 280px when its already competing for space with the info box. Collectonian (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)



Re: One Minor Note

It seems my stupid checking of just not sending the message to the last person who edited the page doesn't work very well. Thanks for telling me, I'll figure out a better way. BJTalk 03:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No prob :) Collectonian (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

regarding your "Official references to Disney films - tagged as trivia" edit

Please join in the ongoing discussion on the talk page regarding why that was included and may not be trivia (considering it's been covered by the filmmakers in 3rd party sources). If not the Enchanted talk page, then it has been on various other talk pages that I'm sure you can track down. Let me know if you can't find 'em. SpikeJones (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and done :) Collectonian (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Recent books

Why did you write that Category:Recent books was "Yet another attempt to get around the deletion of the current fiction and spoiler templates."? Pixelface (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Because that is what I feel it is. You keep doing stuff to try to get around the deletion of the spoiler template even though you've repeatedly been warned not to, you try to wear down other editors who disagree with you and refuse to accept what the overwhelming consensus has already told you, repeatedly. Collectonian (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well you're wrong. That category has nothing to do with the spoiler template and I didn't create that category to wear anyone down. I thought it would be a useful category. You're totally wrong. --Pixelface (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
As you say, but as you can see from the CfD, many many editors disagree with your belief that it could have any use or value at all and I'm not the only one to be suspicious of your intentions. Collectonian (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well when you flat out lie in your nomination, I can see why many editors would believe it. If you don't think the category has any use or value, that's fine. But I have no idea what the current fiction and spoiler templates have to do with that category. Please tell me. --Pixelface (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't "flat out lie," I offered my view of things. Do you honestly believe every other person saying delete didn't do their own research first? Editors are not a bunch of sheep you know. I could very easily see you using the Recent category as a way of "warning" people that articles may have spoilers. You've offered absolutely no valid reason such a category is even needed and your red herring argument regarding the Recent deaths category holds no water.Collectonian (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well your view is wrong. What "research" did the other editors do? You could easily see me using the category as a way of warning people that articles may have spoilers? Is that so? And how would I do that? Category:Recent deaths is not a red herring. If Category:Recent deaths is a valid category, then I think Category:Recent books is also a valid category. Do you have a problem with Category:Recent deaths? Why don't you go list that for deletion? --Pixelface (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
And if anything is a red herring, it's your mention of the {{current fiction}} and {{spoiler}}. --Pixelface (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It is a red herring. Once a book is done, its done. No factual information about the book will change, nor would factual information about a film change. Its contents are not going to change. With recent deaths, often there are questions about the method/cause of death that does cause constant changing of information (such as the recent assassination). Recent death is valid because the information will change, while recent book/fiction is totally unnecessary. My mention of those templates is completely valid when you continue to work against consensus and try to find aways to get around it.Collectonian (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
And once someone is dead, they're dead. Articles about recently deceased people and articles about recently released books do change, quite frequently — and both kinds of articles often need attention. And you keep forgetting that there are non-fiction books. Your mention of those templates is the real red herring here. I'm not trying to find ways to get around consensus. You're trying to spin this into some spoiler warning issue. --Pixelface (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Reverting my Comment..

I'm sorry to see that my posts I made on Crash Bandicoot 3: Warped aren't up to your standard and that Wikipedia is not a 'game guide', and that you've taken it upon yourself to revert, which is a nice way of saying 'delete', them. Its just slightly disheartening to find that, after you spent many minutes trying to help other people and improve your article, that it has been deleted. And what gives you the right to go round deleting people's work anyway? I'd have waited for some feedback before speaking for the rest of Wikipedia and deleting it. But obviously your too busy and haven't got the time. Well don't worry from now on; I'm not going to try and bother improving your posts.

You should feel very proud that you've tidied up your page and kept posts by new people such as myself out of the way. I'd like you to send me a reply, but I doubt you'll give me one; you'll be too busy deleting someone else's hard work.

Thanks for the warm welcome to Wikipedia..—Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk • contribs) 11:59, 30 December 2007

Um, I suggest you take a moment to read WP:OWN - no on owns Wikipedia pages and additions to pages are NOT comments, but content. As it says on the page whenever you add or edit a Wikipedia page "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." You may have spent a lot of time working on an article, but if it does not fit in with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, yes it will be removed, if not by me then by otheres. That is part of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia isn't a forum, and people don't make "posts." This an encyclopedia. Articles must contain verifiable information from reliable sources that is notable and of an encyclopedic nature. All new editors are strongly encouraged to take some time to learn these core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as well as those that apply to articles they work on. Otherwise edits they may see as "improvements" may not really be improvements but only work that ends up removed or heavily modified. You may also wish to read up on the civility policy governing interactions with other edits. Collectonian (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle labelling

Hi, I think you're entitled to remove Pixelface's somewhat querulous comments from your talk page, but please don't label them as vandalism. Unwelcome they may be, and it's inappropriate for him to repeatedly place them here, but they're not vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 01:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. I just get aggravated when people do that sort of thing. I don't delete, I archive, which falls in line with user talk guidelines, and I should have the right to stop conversing with someone. Collectonian (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree that you can remove stuff you don't want to reply to--whether you call it archiving or deleting doesn't matter. Cheers. --Tony Sidaway 01:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Blood+

Oh okay then; sorry about that. XD --SilentAria talk 01:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No prob :) Collectonian (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD notifications

I noticed you have notified projects regarding articles for deletion, that's why I come here. Those of us that monitor the soap opera pages had no clue the Ethan and Theresa page was even nominated because we weren't notified, the television project was. Soap articles need to be notified at the WP:SOAPS project if at all possible rather than the television project. They don't have anything to do with soaps. I'm really upset because that article would have gotten support if we had known. I know, not at all your fault, just expressing my feelings. Thanks for your time. IrishLass (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I only notify projects I am a part of or do some work in. I don't do anything with Soap operas, and as I think the whole project should be axed and merged back into the Television project, I will continue to only notify the TV project on those articles. Despite what you may think, soaps air on TV so yes, the Television project does have something to do with them, more so than a vanity project. As for not being notified, it is up to each project to work to ensure editors are monitoring AfDs and PRODs in general. In the projects I'm in, several editors regularly take time to browse through both sets to update the deletion lists. Collectonian (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

peer reviews

Happy New Year to ya, Collectonian! I thought I could solicit your assistance. I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might like to critique them:

  • Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
  • Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Comments and suggestions are appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.

If you have the time, it'd be great if you could look over those two articles and assess their flaws and weaknesses. Thanks, and, again, a Happy New Year to you! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for me view on the two articles. Just wanted to elt you know I haven't forgotten the second article and will try to take a look at it later today. Happy New Year! :) Collectonian (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Executive Stress

I have removed tags as the airdates are now referenced. As I've said expert attention is not needed as it is unrealistic to get more information (although feel free to try). As a member of the Wikiproject, feel free to improve the article yourself.--UpDown (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

American Dragon: Jake Long

I am referring to a previous edit that you made: ([3]) It seems that article 12 of Links normally to be avoided at WP:EL was updated when you removed that blog that was created by the producers of the show and that website that was created by the creator of the show. TrackFan (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay...feel free to undo that edit then. I thought they were just regular fan blogs. :) Collectonian (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound harsh when I made that comment. TrackFan (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick thanks for reverting the vandalism on user page.--UpDown (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob :) Collectonian (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Planet of Dinosaurs

I disagree with every single one of the tags that you placed on this article, and am therefore removing them. I see no deviation between my edits to this article and the guidelines set out at WP:FILM.

  1. Lead tag - The lead is perfectly compliant with WP:LEAD. It summarizes all the major points and headings in the article and does not introduce any information that is not already present in the body of the article.
  2. NPOV tag - No explanation given and I can see no place where the it isn't NPOV. The film is not specifically praised or trashed and all the opinions expressed in the review section are cited.
  3. Refimprove tag - Every statement contains a citation, except for the plot, which does not require any per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot.
  4. Tone tag - Again, not sure what you're referring to here, but having reviewed nearly 100 articles for WP:GA and having had several of my own passed, I'm not sure I understand what the problem is.

Further explanation is definitely required. Cheers, CP 09:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You asked for an assessment. It was given and I explained the tags in my reply to your assessment request. To expand even further: The lead is missing very basic pertinent information that should be in the very first few sentences of a film article. Please check the film MOS and re-read WP:LEAD, and take a look at some GA or FA film articles to get a better idea of what the lead should contain. The second paragraph of the intro doesn't come across as neutral and seems to resynthesize the reaction rather than just summaries. Ref improve doesn't just mean every statement needing a citation, but also the need for better references, as most of the ones in the article appear to be reviews rather than neutral sources. Reviews are fine for some basic info, plot interpretation, and reaction, but more neutral sources are preferred for other aspects of the film's discussion. Collectonian (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I disagree on most counts, but thank you for the input and apologies if I sounded crass. I'm used to "ask for an assessment" = change "stub" to "start". Anyhow, given the nature of the film, I doubt that it's even possible to fix most of the above. I considered doing a reformatting of the cast section, but couldn't think of a way to do it without it being original research. Anyhow, my aim was to get it out of Stub territory, not make it a GA, so I'm fairly satisfied. Cheers, CP 09:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey just to say thanks for the heads up on writing episode articles, i'll have to read more into it but it was all in good intentions you see, and my reorganising the page Vision of Escaflowne was just to make it easier for the user to get around the page especially with the episode link at the top. But thanks anway.

mickyfitz13 Talk 23:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The Vision of Escaflowne article needs some work, but the episode list is in okay shape. It just needs a little clean up and the intro expanded (and probably some grammar checking LOL). Escaflowne's article are on my list of articles to give some heavy work to, after I finish redoing the Wolf's Rain one (almost done with the main, working on the character and episode lists now). :) Check out Blood+ for examples of a B class anime article to see the MOS in action. The List of Trinity Blood episodes is a good example of what we're aiming for with the anime article lists for single season series (it is currently nominated as a Featured List Candidate). Collectonian (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey you beat me to editing the Escaflowne page last night, i already had an episode list built up in my Sandbox page, check out the history if you don't believe me. But it looks like you have the Escaflowne area under control, feel free to copy the episode table from my sandbox if you want. mickyfitz13 Talk 10:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I appreciate the idea, but the one in your sandbox is missing the Japanese titles, so I'd have still had to do about the same amount of typing anyway :) I did, however, wipe all the episode summaries. I've seen the exact summaries in several places and I just can't tell if they are all copied from Wikipedia or if ours were copied from one of them, so will leave it blank for a rewrite, hopefully later this week after I finish rewatching Wolf's Rain and doing up its summaries. I'll also add in the DVD releases later and fix up the intro to get it more in line for B class status so hopefully it can go under peer review within a month before aiming for FL status. :D Collectonian (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Good, I will try my best to see how I can help, but i'm bogged down with work at the moment (exams). Happy New Year to you and goodluck. mickyfitz13 Talk 12:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No prob. Good luck on those exams! Collectonian (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Justice League of America (TV movie)

Hi, you added this tag to the above named article. I wish to improve this article. In regards to the tone request, could possibly point out a few "tone" errors in the article please, I'm having a bit of trouble with it, that way I can remove/edit any. I would really appreciate the help, if it's not too much trouble, cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay...for some reason now I can't remember why I tagged that one for tone. I think it was the talking of the bootleg. To me, the paragraph reads like its advocating or approving of as it gives no sourcing and no discussions on what, if any, action was taken against such bootlegging. Collectonian (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
OIC, well actually I think you was right for tagging it for tone, it reads should be written in a formal tone. I realised that the text had a rather "creative writing" feel to it (I apologise, I know why I did this, I often slip into it by accident when creating large piece of texts). Well I've made a big edit to it, I'd really appreciate it if you could have a look and tell me if I've gone to far. I removed a pic, added more refs etc.
I see what you mean about the bootlegging, I didn't even add that originally (I tend not to revert edits, even if they're shit because I do not want to appear as having a case of WP:OWN) so we can remove it if you think it's best. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Tone looks better. I didn't mean you needed to cut down the cast/character list. The length was fine, just some tone corrections to sound more neutral. I didn't quite mean you needed to cut the plot down that much. The general guideline for plot is about 400-700 words, and now that I see the shorter version I realize your original one was within the proper size. It just looked longer because of the image. *doh* I didn't think to check the word count. Mostly it just needed the image removed and to make sure the plot's tone stays neutral and is a straight reporting of what is seen/said in the movie with no interpretation (interpretation needs sourcing outside of the film). I've removed most of the tags, and put in a few in-line fact tags for places where references are needed. Collectonian (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey

First of all, I'm not some newbie, so please don't post templated message on my talk page (especially not "Welcome" messages). I've been editing on Wikipedia for quite a long time, with almost six times as many edits as you, so I know my way around the block. I've reworded the Youmex page to be more verifiably factual and less pulling information from places for which I have yet to find sources (despite knowing the information is correct). So, stop using Twinkle to revert me or you may end up violating WP:3RR. And please get off your high horse. Thanks. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiLawyer ^^^ Ryan4314 (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are as experienced as you claim, then I'm sure you know about the WP:CIVILITY policy, so I suggest you strongly work on your attitude. You have been abusive with other editors in the AfD already, and such abuse and unnecessary rudeness will not be tolerated long. You should also know about reliable sources and recognize that you have yet to provide any good ones for that article. For someone so adamant about having it kept, you are are making it hard for anyone to want to. Collectonian (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, did you even bother to read the refs? And the wording changes? Obviously not as both were very clear in what they said and meant, and all the changes only restated what the refs said. As for my attitude, it's due to running into people like you who don't bother reading anything or listening to anything other than what they want to see, damn the consequences. You are abusing the rollback feature in Twinkle to remove valid edits adding legitmate references and legitimate wording changes to address the very things you have expressed concerns about. I have protected the article to prevent anyone from editing it until you can sort out what the hell you want in the article. You obviously don't want legitimate references added, and you obviously don't want the wording changed to more closely match the references, or you wouldn't keep abusing Twinkle to revert these changes. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I checked every reference. They were not legitimate references. You did not make real wording changes, only put back what you already had in there and to add in more unsourced material. You have said that Youmex released CDs under the Futureland label, and it may well be true, however without a valid source that explicitly states it, you can not then modify the article based on your own research. Find a REAL source that meets the WP:RS guidelines, and I'll put in the Futureland stuff myself. So far, none of the sources you give state that. You can not extrapolate or guess from catalog listings or store catalog numbers. I am not abusing the Twinkle function, you displayed ownership issues over this article in the AfD and in reverting the legitimate clean up of the article to remove all unsourced materials. Your list of series was not confirmed by a single source you listed. (and my last rollback was a misclick as I intended to do a regular rollback with comments). You are the one who refuses to listen to other editors telling you the sources are not valid (I wasn't the first, I just addressed the issue instead of letting the article get deleted for having badly sourced content). You are also the one who deleted my far more legitimately sourced content and the source I added which confirmed several of the anime series from the ANN list. I was actually shocked (and appalled) to realize you are an administrator with the behavior you are showing on this article and on the AfD. Collectonian (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are saying that none of the references provided verified that Youmex worked on those series (in one capacity or another), than you are lying. As I told you elsewhere, the company has been defunct (or at least absorbed back into the parent company) for almost ten years, so finding online sources is extremely difficult. The sources I used in the article were perfectly legitimate, and you removed them. Catalog listing are perfectly legitimate resources for record labels as they have absolutely no reason to list anything other than what the label really is (and every reason to list only the correct information so people can actually find it). For older companies like this, that is one of the few places where you can find that information short of looking at the back of the CDs or LPs in question (which I have done as I own several of each). You have no idea what you are talking about in this case.
And I did make legitimate wording changes. Please go back through the history and actually read what I put in my last edit to that page. I completely changed several of the sentences. If I removed anything you added, I apologize, but it likely got mixed up in all the legitmate information you were removing when you added whatever it was you claim to have added. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Could you explain

Could you please explain what the number in this means?


   * (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Iraq War‎; 23:44 . . (+2) . . Luke0101 (Talk | contribs) (→OIL as a motivation MUST be added for a non-biased view)
   * (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Rationale for the Iraq War‎; 06:48 . . (-50) . . Luke0101 (Talk | contribs) (→Human rights)
   * (diff) (hist) . . Rationale for the Iraq War‎; 05:08 . . (0) . . Luke0101 (Talk | contribs) (→Human rights)

Like, what does the "(+2) and "(-50)" and "(0)" mean? Thanks. You have been very helpful. And also, thanks for the friendly newcomer message you sent me! --Luke (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The + or - indicates how many characters were added or removed during an edit (while a 0 means no characters were added or removed). :) Collectonian (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The "0" can also mean that the added and removed characters were equal (i.e. 8 characters added and 8 removed). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks --Luke (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI

I apologize but I accidentally removed one of your comments at ANI due to dome problems with edit conflicts and locked database's. You probably will want to re-add it. You can see the edit here. Also, I noted the history of the page for others. Again, my apologies. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle access revoked for 72 hours

Based on your use of Twinkle to edit war, I have removed it from User:Collectonian/monobook.js and protected the page for 72 hours. You should never edit war, and using Twinkle to do so with an administrator and tag his contributions as vandalism is highly improper.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob and understandable. My second revert as actually a misclick (meant to edit), but not going to worry about it. Arguing with an admin, even if I think is abusing his powers, is obviously a bad idea. Collectonian (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
That is not the issue. You were blindly reverting, as far as I could see. I saw the interactions with Nihonjoe to be improper (through Twinkle), and acted upon it. If you have issues with an article's content, bring it to the article's talk page, and don't continue to rollback and bring what you perceive as abuse to WP:ANI when no one is right or wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not blindly revert. I checked the new "sources" and they were no better than the ones removed and still did not support his assertions. His edits mostly just put back what was removed as unsourced. Oh, I admit, I got annoyed. People insulting me in edit summaries tends to do that, so I'm fine with the Twinkle revoction, though I'll hate having to use the old fashioned method for dealing with legitimate vandalism on other articles for the next four days. However, I do think his removal of CSDs from his own articles is at best a plain conflict-of-interest and at worse abusive. Other editors would be warned for such an action and given a block if they did it multiple times, but because he is an admin it is all okay and people should just look the other way? That seems like a double standard to me. Admins should be held to higher standards than us regular editors, not lower ones. Collectonian (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I already addressed the CSD removal issue and indicated I was mistaken. I don't remember ever seeing that in the CSD policy before. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
CSD tags were removed from both because even I think they were invalid. It can't be a spam deletion for something that's simply an article on a company, and your use to tag the redirect for WP:CSD#R3 makes no sense, as there was no typo or misnomer.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying I disagree with the Youmex article not qualifying under CSD. Obviously, I don't think it does as I said Keep in the AfD. My issue is specifically with Nihonjoe removing CSDs from articles he created rather than using hangon and letting another neutral admin evaluate it. Collectonian (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Depression Page

Thanks for telling me! I'm new to Wikipedia, and it's a bit confusing. I want to make a new page on the causes of depression, because I'm writing on that for a college course I'm taking.--Luke (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusaism, however the Causes section does not need to be in its own article. Subarticles from major articles like this should be done by consensus on the article talk page and thorough discussion. Please remember, Wikipedia is not a place for a student's original research, but for neutral verifiable, reliably sourced encyclopedic discussions on a topic. Collectonian (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote on the cognitive causes of depression. No original research or anything. What do I do to create a new page on the causes of depression?--Luke (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You first need to suggest the split on the article talk page and give appropriate reasons for the split and why you feel it should be moved to a separate article. Collectonian (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And suppose people agree, then I just create a page? Thanks --Luke (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a strong consensus, then someone will create the page. It would be better to let an experienced editor create the page first, then you can work on it. However, if you have information to add, you can always go ahead and edit the existing Causes section, though if you plan to make extensive edits, you should also bring those up on the article talk page first. Collectonian (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'll probably be adding my edits to the discussion page in a few more days. --Luke (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

JLA

Hi, I put the text back in, made it less creative and removed the fan-boy original research comments (that I didn't add by the way). Added a few refs and removed some stuff I couldn't find refs for (nothing major really). Would really appreciate it if you could take one last look before I put it up for rating again, cheers mate Ryan4314 (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Look better. The only other thing I noticed is the character list formatting. I believe the MOS prefers a format like this:
  • character name, descriptive sentences. Played by actor name.

So the first one would be something like this:

  • Dr. Eno, has his own meteorological institute and is also the terrorist known as The Weatherman. He is driven by financial gain and is seen escaping at the end of the film. Played by Miguel Ferrer.

(in his case, not sure the character wikifiying to Weather Wizard is right since they aren't quite teh same character, but I don't know enough about the show to say for sure. :) Oh, actually one other thing. It won't affect an up to B, but to go any higher, make sure all of the sources are using an appropriate cite template, like {{cite web}} or {{cite book}}. That's one of the first things that will usually get mentioned in a peer review or higher note *grin* Collectonian (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG yes you're right! The Weather Wizard is a huge bit of OR, I forgot about it (someone else made the connection), I'll have to change. Just read about your run in with that admin, such a shame. I really think that once they decide they want to become an admin they shouldn't be allowed to edit articles (barring maintenence) anymore, having an interest in contributing to a encyclopaedia does not make the next logical "step" to run the administrative side of it. Plus they love to intimidate users, like that guy above "subtlety" mentioning the 3RR rule and then his admin pal blocking your tools, ignoring the dispute resolution advice of "take some time and step back" and "building a consensus". Ryan4314 (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Should I keep their superhero names in the MOS format? i.e "B.B. DaCosta / Fire", or just "B.B. DaCosta,"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Good question...I think it would work well either way (having all with name/superhero name or having the superhero name mentioned in the description). Article is looking much better :)
And thanks for your words on the admin thing. Kind of annoying that a double standard seems to be applying (punish one, but not the other), but oh well. Most annoying thing is losing Twinkle. I watch quite a few articles that are vandalized almost daily, but leaving warnings manually is such a pain I'm just undoing and letting the users go unwarned. Collectonian (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Fuck it, don't even bother reverting vandalism, to quote the offending admin "They obviously don't want vandalism reverted, or they wouldn't of abused their powers and removed your Twinkle" ;)
I'm gonna add the proper format for references tomorrow, cheers for the help. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No prob, glad I was able to be of assistance :) Collectonian (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh by the way, do me a favour, let me know if the thing with that admin goes into to any sort of public debate, that I can add a opinion/vote to, cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I filed an ANI, which is what lost me my Twinkle access, so alas, I think it won't do any good to bother fighting anymore. Collectonian (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Are they gonna give them back? Ryan4314 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm supposed to be able to reinstall it after 72 hours. Collectonian (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
LOL which proves it just for punishment, thought admins weren't meant to punish. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Category: Showjumping horses category

You can change this if you want to. Cosmetic changes are always OK by me. :) Wallie (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been changed to Category:Show jumping horses after the CfD. :) Collectonian (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Vision of Escaflowne page

Define "excessive"; if you cannot, then I urge you to put the non-free images back. Not only is four nowhere near excessive, but there are featured articles with far more than four images - all of them being non-free. Just because an image is not "free" does not mean it can't be used. If they enhance the page (and they do), then they should be used within the rules. -Biokinetica (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to read the WP:NFCC policy and the several discussions on the talk page. The removals were done at the requirement of policy and the Wikimedia Foundation's rules (which trump all policies and guidelines and consensus). There are, in fact, now mass removals of ALL free images occurring in articles due to there being far too many on a single page. I pro-actively removed the excessive ones to keep the article from losing them all. The Non-free image policy is very clear on minimal usage. The Vision of Escaflowne page had too many. The individual character images on the character list will be replaced with more appropriate group images. Collectonian (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That talk page isn't helping. It's the same war-zone it's always been, and once again, nothing has been resolved. Yes, we all want group images, but the reason they aren't there is because no one has any provided by the copyright holder that are acceptable for an encyclopedia or this article's specific needs. We're not always blessed with beautiful widescreen images such as this one. If group images are available for animé character lists, then they are used. If they're not available, then the most common action is to resort to individual images. This isn't done to spite deletionists, it's done because there's no other means of primary identification of the important characters. The line about exemptions to the rule is there for just such an occasion; there is no group montage, but this article needs to identify the characters you removed. Part of this has to do with significance, as the images you deleted were of very important characters. -Biokinetica (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of group images available for Escaflowne, so that isn't really a valid argument in the case of Escaflowne. No one having uploaded the images yet does not automatically given an exception for individual character images. Rather it means the article has none until someone does the necessary uploading. New images will be put in the article that comply with NFCC as part of the over all clean up of the Escaflowne articles that is currently underway, work that will bring the article up to B class or higher and hopefully result in at least one of the lists getting featured status. I started with the main article first, however, as it is the most crucial aspect. When its good, then I will work on the episode and character lists. Collectonian (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I never said one had to be uploaded in order for it to merely exist. And you can't 'invalidate' an argument with a statement you can't back. People (including I, personally) have looked all over the place for suitable (not just any piece of internet trash) group images of these characters. If you're so certain that you've found something no one else has, then produce it instead of making up fables of it's existance. There's no screenshot of them all happily crowded around the camp fire, so I know that's not it. The only other option would be promotional images, which are scarce, and too low quality to serve their intended purpose within this article. And all the images can technically "comply" with NFCC, the only distinction is in how they're used. It's already known that you're going to try to follow the rules, the question posed is of your interpretation. -Biokinetica (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I will created the images when I rewatch the series and get them from the DVDs. There are group images that can be used to keep the article down to just a few images rather than individual images for every character. I've watched the series enough times to know that, hence my assertion there are. I plan to do that as soon as I'm done rewatching Wolf's Rain and finishing up its episode summaries. I don't think the article is suffering all that much from not having images for a short time, other lists never have images and the list as a whole has bigger issues that need taken care or. If you really think its somehow a bad article just because it has no images, go ahead and put them back if you want. .I'll just remove them later when I do have the group images ready, presuming the rule enforcers don't do strip them all back out first. Collectonian (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean screenshots of a couple of characters who just happen to be in the same frame? That's not too different from individual images, and that solution usually turns up mediocre visuals that hurt the article anyway. When people say "group image" they're referring to something like this. That one's actually not bad, but I have a gripe with the five in the corner, as they aren't 'left-to-right list'-friendly. You can't "point" to them without taking out photoshop and litterally doing so. And when this argument is had doesn't really matter. No one is in any sort of urgency, I've just seen to many articles get "revamped" by people who can't deal with images for their lives. They usually end up knocking the format off balance or forcing it into something complicated, yet insist it's for the better of the page. -Biokinetica (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree, that image wouldn't be very good. And yes, when I say group shot, I mean screenshots that have multiple characters on the screen or official/promotional images with multiple characters. Whiel it may seem like its not any different from individual images, those kinds of group shots are allowed because it lets multiple characters be covered with one image, thus reducing the number of NF images and bringing the page into compliance. If it helps anyway, take a look at List of Blood+ characters. That is one that I and some other editors have already cleaned up a lot to bring into compliance using group shots, all taken from the series itself. Before it also had an image for every character. The only minorly annoying is the shot of Diva's Chevaliers because James' back is to the viewer, but it is much better than it was and it meets the compliance requirements even with the two individual images remaining. List of Trinity Blood characters is another one that has also had many individual images replaced with group images, though its still a work in progress because we have editors on that one, and I don't have the DVDs yet to get the shots myself. :P Collectonian (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Great debate, so you are saying that it would be much better to gather images (screen dumps) of the selected article using DVD screen dumps as long as you personally own the collection, this will somewhat reduce the copy right infringement of the image, am i correct? Still this debate makes a dull day brighten up a little :). mickyfitz13 Talk 13:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. :P Anyone can do a screen shot from a DVD collection. It's actually where most of individual character images tend to come from. It is still a screenshot and they would still be non-free images that require the appropriate fair use rationale and fall under the NFCC. The main difference is that having access to the DVD makes it easier for me (or any other editor) to get good images for articles, as they can easily do a perfect frame capture from any episode. Often times, images that are found on fan sites or the like have been cropped, edited into a wallpaper, or are just plain low quality. ;) In the case of cropping or editing, they really shouldn't be used as that makes them a derivative work which violates the copyright. So having access to the DVD also makes it easier to be able to say: yes, this is the unaltered copyrighted image from X source. :) Collectonian (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not exactly true; most screenshots are actual screenshots taken from raws and fansub releases (as many animé articles are written in real time along with the series' airing), often being of considerable quality. -Biokinetica (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess it depends on the series. Some series, yeah, you can find decent quality screenshots on other sites, while others are a little harder (especially older, less popular, or unlicensed series) :) Collectonian (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean "other sites"? People take the screenshots themselves with fraps. Most fansubs are DVD quality, and end up looking no different than screenshots from an actual DVD. -Biokinetica (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops, mean on some sites :P I don't agree on the fansubs being DVD quality, though. They are far from in 99% of the cases. Good enough for viewing but not nearly as clear or crisp an image because they have to be compressed enough that people would want to download. DVD quality would require huge download times and massive file sizes :P Collectonian (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
That's simply not true. They use the same codecs DVD publishers use, sometimes better. DVD9 doesn't support H264, when just about every current subber does. That in itself makes the fansub superior to the DVD. Even the resolution of the DVD is inferior: 720x480 for NTSC, 720x576 for PAL. I have fansubs at 1280x720 (720p). Fansubs now are coming in standards that equate to High Definiton. And file-size is never an issue, as torrents are easily capable 400+ mb/s upon a new release, those releases rarely breaking 250mb. This usually takes the shape of a download that's less than 10 minutes. But good luck on the article. -Biokinetica (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I used to work with fansub groups so I know they are below DVD standards. Fansubs are not superior to DVD, they are inferior. Collectonian (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Don Markstein's Toonopedia

Hi. I removed your speedy deletion tag. This site is notable -- see my [Don Markstein's Toonopedia|earlier comments on the talk page]]. --A. B. (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure it meets the WP:WEB notability requirements, however I think at minimum it should stay tagged for notability until someone actually makes the effort to assert it, so I've put that back. Collectonian (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Please check the Google News link I previously left on the talk page. Also, you should understand that Editor & Publisher is a leading magazine -- that ref alone establishes notability. --A. B. (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I checked the link. Only a few seemed usable and they have not been used. A single link does not establish notability on its own, the article must clearly establish it and that one does not. Collectonian (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It was good?

Dia dhuit. So nothing was wrong with mo edits? They just did nach want it on the site?

Correct. There was nothing wrong with your edits, its just individual movie characters do not generally need their own articles. :) Collectonian (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Enchanted (film)

Hi. I was wondering which sections of Enchanted (film) you think need the attention of a film expert. The only technical aspect of the article is the Production section, particularly, the section on the aspect ratios. The other sections have information that is supported by relevant sources. Regards, Ladida (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Expert attention doesn't necessary refer to a need for sources. The article needs expert attention from the project to bring it in-line with the Film MOS. Collectonian (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I may be wrong but I thought we require expert attention when we need expert opinions on a technical matter. Articles in the scientific field like Chemistry or Mathematics require expert attention when the information is technical and the sources contradict each other. If all the article needs is to be brought in-line with the Film MOS then can't we do that ourselves? I am not objecting your suggestion for expert attention if it improves the article but it's just that you didn't provide a reason for adding the tag (unless I missed it then I apologise). The article in its current form does follow the Film MoS. I just wanted to know what aspects of the article you feel needs expert attention so I can help improve it or ask the administrators for their opinions on the format of the article. Regards, Ladida (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is its primary purpose, though it can also be used to refer to a big need for cleanup/restructuring per the MOS, deal with excessive in-universe issues, etc. things someone experienced in the project would know how to fix. And yes, you can do it yourself if you want. It would probably be helpful if we could just tag for MOS issues, but there isn't one for it that I know of specifically for film (might be something the project needs to do, as video games does have a tag more specific for that). For now, I've removed the tag and replaced it with something closer in meaning to what I was trying to point out.
The article does not quite follow the MOS. Some specific things that need to be reformatted or restructured: character list (table is not a good option here), soundtrack listing (needs to be put in regular soundtrack format and any appropriate, sourced information from notes incorporated above or below the list), the Promotion section is unneeded as there was nothing unique or particularly notable about the promotion for the movie, awards section needs to go to prose, and the official references belongs under either plot or production details along with the cameo appearances. Collectonian (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

CBFAN

I respectfully suggest that you disengage. Let an uninvolved admin deal with it now. Just ignore and move on. I'm leaving the same message for Collectonian CBFan. - Philippe | Talk 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am Collectonian :-P and yes, I'm trying to. I think its a good time for a nap and hopefully it will all be resolved when I wake up (or would just have been a nightmare). Collectonian (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
See what happens when I change a message too soon, thinking I've cut and paste the wrong version? Oh well. Of course you're Collectonian, my apologies. Good call to go take a nap. Have a cup of WP:TEA too.  :-) - Philippe | Talk 22:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Enchanted (film)

I just read your reply. I'm a bit busy at the moment so it took me a while to see it. I'll try and fix it up. Thanks for the explanation. Regards, Ladida (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no prob :) Collectonian (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

CBFan

Is it possible to also block CBFan's IP (79.74.13.75)? He used it before to vandalize the 3RR report, and is now using it to continue to push his POV and continue to be disruptive by vandalizing the userified version of the List of Crash Bandicoot characters to put it to what he wants and be uncivil on the article's talk page. I userfied the page in an attempt to work on the clean up and get feedback from other editors before implementing after CBFan's heated reaction, but he seems determined to accept any one else's ideas or allowed the article to be cleaned up, though it is full of OR issues and needs formatting fixes. :( Alternatively, if his IPs can't be blocked, can that page be protected from anon editing? Collectonian (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected that page. Stifle (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, its appreciated. Collectonian (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, that is not true. I have not being even remotely trying to "push my PoV and continue to be disruptive". I explained, clearly and politely, what the problems Collectonian had in his re-write, of which there were several (Sentence fragments for the voice actors, characters being in the wrong section, mis-information), were, then I corrected them, noting him in the process. When I come back, he starts going on about me vandalising and I go and find he's gone right back to his old, relatively mis-informed, relatively mis-constructed, version. Collectonian is being too possesive if you ask me. He's refusing to accept any constructive edits or criticism PURELY because I made them, when in this instance I was trying to help him correct his mistakes. Really, I think you should un-protect the page. I am honestly just trying to be of assistance. 79.74.122.255 (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

In the last month, you have created a new WP:FL. From what I can tell, this is your first one. Congratulations! You may not be aware of WP:LOTD. We are experimenting with selecting Lists of the Day so similar to the current WP:TFA and WP:POTD features that run on the main page. I invite you to participate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes

Hey, I noticed you added an {{underconstruction}} tag to the aforementioned article. I was just about to take a stab at it due to the current discussion at WT:ANIME, but didn't want to conflict with whatever you're planning, so cementing out the details here seems good. I think separating by seasons (List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes (season 1), List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes (season 2), and List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes (season 3)) is best, similar to the structure at List of YuYu Hakusho episodes. My big issue is that the English version's episode listing is completely different, so I'm even wondering whether a separate List of Cardcaptors episodes is preferable. Thoughts? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, feel free to go for it, since I haven't started yet and you do such awesome lists :) You're probably right on the idea of doing three season lists rather than trying to put all 70 episodes on a single page. The extra fun is that there are two English releases. I think the seasons in these lists should just deal with the Japanese and the uncut English releases, which were not aired on TV just released to DVD. The Cardcaptors version had an episode list in its main article, but it was all wrong so I removed it (it was the CCS list, not the Cardcaptors one), so might be good to do a list for it as well. They changed so much and merged/hacked the originals, it would be easier to have the list separate than to try to make notes in the regular list to tie the episodes together.

AfD question: Recombinant text

I have very little experience in AfD matters, and am asking for your input before nominating an article for deletion, because, quite frankly, I do not want to be seen as someone who capriciously nominates articles which do not meet AfD standards.

If you have time, please take a look at this article. It was created by the person who—as the intro asserts—is the very person who coined the term. Most of the edits are by that person. Most, if not all, of the sources link back to this person. I mean, at best it appears to me to constitute OR, at worst, self-promotion. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. What do you think?

I selected you and many other editors pretty much completely at random; I picked one day's AfD archives, and clicked on the talk pages of the first two or three dozen editors' talk pages I came across. I hope that in using this selection method, I will get editors who are well-versed in AfD policies, yet who also represent a good cross-section of AfD philosophies. I will monitor your talk page for your response. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree it should be AfDed. The term has no notability and the article is original research in the form of a personal research essay. As Wikipedia isn't a web hosting service, and the only one using this term is him, it is not something that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Collectonian (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Restructured Enchanted (film)

Hey, Collectonian. I have changed several sections and reorganised some sections in Enchanted (film). Do you think it needs further restructuring? Individual sections may still need improving but I think the general structure of the article follows the MoS now. Regards, Ladida (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think its looking great. I've removed the tag. About the only thing I might suggest is maybe moving the official references up either above merchandise or under the production section. Great work on the article as a whole. I've also reassessed it to a B. :) Collectonian (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks, Ladida (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#The Television Episodes Edit Wars. John254 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank for the notification, though I disagree with being included in it. I have added my statement. Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, they won't take the case. I participated in the prior case and ArbCom is not going to rule directly on the content issue. I think the consensus among admins is that blatant disruption will be dealt with harshly from here on. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Good to know. I was mildly annoyed with being included as I have attempted to actually do what people complained about TTN not doing, starting merge discussions first if I feel there will be some complaint and attempting to do the needed work in a more friendly way. Of course, several times people have made no remarks on the merge discussion, then after the merge is done, complain anyway, but its stayed fairly civil throughout. If no consensus can be reached for a merge after explaining, then and only then have I resorted to AfD (rather than just straight redirecting). Collectonian (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I may have spoken too soon. Not to worry, though. I don't believe you've done anything wrong. A lot of editors who've been given the moniker "resurrectionists" have been busy reverting and their sin is disruption. Their day will come. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

Thanks for making a nomination at WP:LOTD. The system works best with more voters. Please also come by and vote before voting closes on the 20th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the votes. Good luck next month.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • grin* Thanks for the reminder. I'd meant to do it before and got sidetracked :-) Collectonian (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What?

Not protesting, just wondering what you are talking about in terms of the Trinity Blood Article. If I could give you information to cite data books, I would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewR5D4 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What are these data books you keep referencing? I haven't seen any information about them online at all. I reverted the edits because they contained too many NPOV/unneutral statements without a source. Particularly "While she appears to be young, Mirka Fortuna is in fact a scary old lady who likes to scheme, and would sacrifice her own flesh and blood to accomplish her goals. Her plan to expose Suleyman with her own grandson as bait is proof of her ill nature. Some would say that she is selfish, arrogant, and twisted" is not supported by the anime, and seems biased against Mirka without proper sourcing that explicitly states it. Its also redundant, as the same basic information is given in the paragraph above, but allows the reader to decide what they think about her actions. Collectonian (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll grant you that much. What does the acronym NPOV stand for exactly. As for what you stated earlier, the data books contain detailed information about the main characters and locations, and came with the Collectors Edition DVD's only. From what I have seen so far, they are based highly on the Anime, but make references to novel information like Isaac's profile did. The small booklets are licensed by Trinity Blood Partners and Funimation Productions Ltd as it says on the back cover. If you need information for future citing, I will see what I can do.
On a lighter note, the edits in Mirka Fortuna's article were a bit redundant now that you have discussed it rationally. I'm also glad you kept my good grammatical statements. Upon ready Asthe's profile, I found the original version to be a rough read, due to the constant use of unnecessary commas and lousy wording. I added that small statement about her personality, because she does display kindness. (If not rarely) I was just trying to do the character justice.
--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
NPOV = neutral point of view :) I put back in some of the grammar fixes you made, since they were good. Just easier to revert and add back those than try to hack out the rest. I'm sure all of the character articles will continue to be expanded as the novels come out, so I'm not sure the DVD booklets are needed as a source unless they add some information not already found in the anime, novels or manga? Any info on production details or stuff like that? Collectonian (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You are right about that, because most of it is either historical background (Which fit well when I edited the information about the Empire itself) and information most likely seen in the novels. What do you need exactly in terms of production details?
--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...name, publication date, publisher at minimum, I think. Author if they have one listed. Collectonian (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Back says "AX File, Trinity Blood Collector's Edition Chapter V" The data in small letters says "2005 Trinity Blood Partners Liscensed by Funimation Productions Ltd. All Rights reserved" I don't know if that's enough, but that's the information for one of the books.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes...I saw it earlier. That sufficient for doing a cite tag, but need to know what specific parts are sourcable from it. Collectonian (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by that? Are you telling me to cite information within the article. If that is the case, than I will have to give you information about the other Data Books as well. The above example is only for 1 book as you can guess.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If information for any of the books are currently used in the article, yes, each of the books must be properly cited where it is used. Collectonian (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Legend

What is the problem? I only provided a source for Cruise playing an elf. I can put elf back in without the source, but that wouldn't carry as much weight. Seriously, you take yourself too much... Jon Jonasson (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The way you put that link it, it looked like link spam. Also, its factually incorrect. According to the movie, he is a hermit, not an elf. Gump is an elf, not Jack. Collectonian (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I have since realized that Jack, aka "Jack O' the Green" is an allegory of a Jack in the Green or Green man forest deity character. And while he may be some kind of fairyfolk, you are correct, he is not so much an elf. Jon Jonasson (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please provide a reference for hermit, or restore my edits to Legend (film). I already agreed he isn't an elf. Jon Jonasson (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, in Celtic mythology, "Jack in the Green" is not a tree, he is just symbolized by a tree. The folk-fair practice of dressing someone as a tree is an offshoot of the celtic mythology, not the cause of it. Read deeper into the article without being so rash. Jon Jonasson (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
"Tom Cruise stars in this timeless tale as young Jack O' The Green, a free-spirited hermit who becomes a hero when he combats the evil Lord of Darkness (Tim Curry) to rescue Princess Lili (Mia Sara) and free the universe from its curse of icy winter night." - from the American Press Kit. Collectonian (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added the citation to the article. Collectonian (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Press kits are written for the Hoi polloi with no understanding of myth and symbolism. Jon Jonasson (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
That really isn't your call to make. Unless the movie specifically calls him something other than a hermit, an official source does, or an actually reliable source does, we will use what they do. Nor is the plot section a place for discussion the allegories, myths, or symbolism in the film, it is for straight summarizing of the film. Collectonian (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Can't think of a better guy to be an admin :) Collectonian (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Expedition Robinson

Survivor and Expedition Robinson is the same thing, despite the fact they have different names. For example, Let's Dance is the Swedish version of Dancing with the Stars. Strix is a Swedish television company that was founded in the 80's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.72.47 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If Survivor is the same thing as Expedition Robinson, they wouldn't have separate articles. One show being inspired to copy another's format does not make them the same. Collectonian (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw that long time ago, but sites on Wikipedia are made by people, that cannot know everything and make mistakes like everyone else, and I am sure those who made these pages were not aware of the fact that ER and Survivor is the same thing. American Survivor has been televised in Sweden since the beginning, and everything is just the same as ER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.72.47 (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOAPS

Hi, I'm commenting a bit late on this archived conversation you had regarding WP:SOAPS; IrishLass had mentioned it and it got lost in my Talk page. In any case, I feel like I have to clarify something regarding your perception of the Project. We are well aware that it is a descendant Project of TV, but it certainly allows us to focus efforts on improving the articles in this genre which previously were lost in the thousands of TV pages. The fact that you notified the TV Project about the article IrishLass mentioned and no one got involved sort of proves my point that the general membership of TV isn't concerned with the genre. And I don't think you can call it a "vanity project" any more than the TV project itself. — TAnthonyTalk 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • shrug* I disagree. I think SOAPS should be a workgroup under television (are there any non-television soap operas? Genres don't need separate projects anymore than individual shows and after seeing what the SOAPs project calls improvement, it seems to have no disregard for its "parent project" or existing Wikipedia guidelines and policies, filling the encyclopedia with literally thousands upon thousands of articles on episodes and characters that never should have been created. Few to none peet WP:EPISODE, WP:FICTION, or WP:N. If there were a system in placed, I'd recommend the project be forced back down to a work group so it can fully be under the TV project for better oversight. As for notification, that isn't my job. I "notified" TV by including it in the deletion sorting because I'm in the Television project. I do the same for any other TV article I AfD or find while browsing the AfDs. I do the same for few other projects I'm a member of. I do not del sort for other projects. Those projects should have people watching the AfDs same as we do. And since any SOAPS AfD would also be in the Television AfD, it probably be even easier just to watch the TV ones. But that's up to y'all since you want to be a standalone project. Collectonian (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I actually agree with some of your points; many people who edit soap-related articles regularly are merely adding miniscule plot details, listing distant relatives and creating articles for soap opera infants — but the bulk of those are IP editors who aren't even part of the Project. We are relatively small and just gaining momentum again, but we do have overall goals that include making soap articles fully compliant with the usual TV and fiction policies. We've begun actively merging and cutting articles and changing tense in an initial "cleanup" phase, and have been slowly identifying articles and implementing the necessary references and real-world context with notability in mind. The first standout achievement of the Project is Pauline Fowler, the first soap article to achieve Featured status. We generally get what needs to be fixed, it's just a daunting task.
This Project was definitely created before my time and I imagine before the concept of task forces was widely known, and I could see it morphing into one in the future. But I feel like you may be thinking this upstart, specific little Project came along and "stole" a bunch of TV articles. In fact, when I came along in May 2007 and added the Project to WP 1.0, it had about 300 articles, hardly any of which had a WP:TV banner. I spent many hours scouring through categories and such tagging articles for the Project — I think we're up to like 2900 right now — and few of them had any WP banners at all, let alone a WP:TV one. A number of these articles probably have no right to exist, but many were actual series, and WP:TV had not adopted them yet. Step one in cleaning house is seeing what you've got and organizing, right? Your point about oversight aside, I don't think WP:TV needs the burden at this point. — TAnthonyTalk 03:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Depression article

On the question of how I redirected the depression article, you said this caused some kind of GFDL problem. What kind of problem does it cause? just like to know more.

Sardaka (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

By Wikipedia policy and the GFDL, content from one article used in another must retain the credits to the original authors. The proper way to rename a page would have been to move it. Instead, you copy and pasted the article to a new name, which means the new article has none of the history of the existing article, and thus the credits. It also meant the new article had none of the talk page history of the old, which could be seen as a way of refactoring comments. If/when consensus is reached on a more appropriate name, it should be done properly to ensure all history and content are retained. Collectonian (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of objective criteria

Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up :) Collectonian (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: TracyLinkEdnaVelmaPenny

Thanks for telling me that. I posted a note at ANI. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)