User talk:AnmaFinotera

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please specify a descriptive "Subject/headline" for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed.
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by .

I prefer to reply to comments on the page they were left, so if I left a comment on your page, reply there it is on my watch list. If you leave a comment here, watch this page until the discussion is done as I will only leave replies here. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, an attempt flame baiting, or that are are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right, don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you. I'm something of a neat freak, so I regularly archive items from my talk page when the discussion is resolved or closed, hence the archive box over there. ->>

Are you hear about an edit I made? You may want to check my user page first to get some general info on some common questions about edits I make. Here are some quick links as well:

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

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

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

I'll just wait for the new logo. I won't bother you about it anymore. AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Guess

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

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

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

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

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

Re:February 2008

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

The issues have not been addressed, and you obviously have no idea what the issues mean. If you continue to remove the tags, you will be blocked. Collectonian (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the issues have been met. There are references added to the article, obviously you have no idea what a reference are then. You are just adding tags to the article for no reason. Ie. the Animal Planet article, one of the tags says add additional references when there are clearly many references added to support the article. Regarding the Animal Planet (Canada) article, there are references added, exactly how is this article confusing, anyone with a grade 5 education can understand this article, that tag does not need to be added, and cleanup to the article has been made. These 3 tags can be removed. 99.236.63.51 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no. The section called "references" provide no citations, so there is no evidence they are actually used and are relaly just external links. The article has not been cleaned up and it is confusing as it seems to repeat the basic stuff from the main AP and doesn't even explain its relation to AP - regional channel or just same name, different country. The introduction makes no sense and provide no context for anything it says. Your insults aside, leave the article alone if you aren't actually going to contribute to it. Collectonian (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have the right to remove offense crap from my talk page. Collectonian (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like I have the right to correct an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdfielder (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't correct anything, you just removed the source. Collectonian (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

FY character list

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

Feel free to put the links back in. When the injunction is lifted, they will all be made redirects, hence my not bothering to link. Personally, I'd rather scrap them all together and start over, because they are hideous, but then I'd be "deleting" stuff. *sigh* Collectonian (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've understood me. I'm not talking about the links being in the article at all - I'm talking about the links being in your edit summaries when you merge content. In WP:MERGE, it says that to comply properly with §4(I) of the GFDL, you have to put in your edit summary something like "content from old article name", to help keep the history of the words intact. That way, even when the old character articles are merged, someone can go back and easily follow the history of the words and who contributed them. -Malkinann (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...I didn't know about that at all. I've never done that with any merges I've done. I'll remember that for future edits though :) Collectonian (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please have a read through WP:MERGE? I find it a bit dense, and I'm not sure I've got the full story with it, so any insight you can shed on it would be helpful! ;) -Malkinann (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you got the right idea :) I never even noticed that part about noting the merge in edit summaries. *doh* Thanks for pointing that out. For the FY character articles, I think selective merging would be the best approach, because most of the character articles have hideous formatting and lots of OR and creative interpretation. You've been doing fine with the ones you've done so far. :) Collectonian (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

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

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

Ace of Cakes

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

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

Protection

Hey there! I noticed your request for protection of your userpage at RFPP, and have done so. If/when you want to protection lifted, you can either ask me on my talk page, or just make an unprotection request at RFPP. Happy editing! :) Jmlk 1 7 06:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated :) Collectonian (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page is protected as well, but with an expiration. I recognize the same vandal, as they have made an appearance on my talk page several times before. I used to think they'd give up, but I suppose some people just make hobbies of the dumbest activities ya know? :) Jmlk 1 7 07:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again :) Collectonian (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Channel Australia

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

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

Re: InuYasha and Date Formats

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

Good question, really. I've seen it both ways in some articles, and being rather regional, I tend to go for Americanized. I personally only use UK style in articles on UK shows. ~scrounges around in the MOS ~ Okay, it looks like either can be used for the article, so long as its consistent. The only main requirement is that for US-centric articles, the americanized should be used, while UK ones should use the "international" format. :) Collectonian (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does Canada style the dates? I ask this because the English dub is from there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]