Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:19, 4 April 2009

User:Collectonian/talkheader

Case Closed

Hi, I've been checking the Bleach episodes and realize that for the Japanese titles, the only thing remaining of them are the romanization of the Japanese Kanjis, so I'm wondering if I should do the same for List of Case Closed episodes and remove the translated title so only the dub remains. DragonZero (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? Bleach's translated titles and sub/dub titles are close enough so it only needs one. Case Closed's are very different, right? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait...now I see. Someone did that in December, seemingly without discussion. Let me see why that was done before I can answer properly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the same on the Naruto episodes. Also how come the Naruto episodes each don't have separate season articles? DragonZero (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For those, it was discussed on the talk page that those combined need splitting, but it hasn't been done yet. For Naruto, are the titles greatly different? That's about the only reason I can think of that there isn't a translation, as the official titles are close enough to not need to list both (which is actually the case with most anime series). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dragon, its the same for all animes. Pokemon, Dragonball... all have an episode list but dont have their seperate articles. My opinion, each episode is around 20 mins long (commercials removed) and because theres 20 minutes, there will be wayyyyyy to many atricles for one topic. You really want to keep it at a minimum. Things like (andi use them again) Merlin is good as its only had one season and every episode is 45 minutes long AND theres something to write about. This is in my opinion so collectonian, i dont want you linking an... MSMEDIA or something xD Goku1st (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't asking about separate episode articles, but about the titles that appear in the episode list and why there was only the dubbed title and not the translated title, which are different for some series (see List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes for an example of this). And NO television series gets individual episode articles just because of the length of the episode or whatever, as you already know. :P A 45 minute episode can be summarized within 300 words, same as a 25 minute one. ~should probably go deal with those Merlin episode articles, just don't feel like it (or so she said then ended up doing a little cleaning an tagging) ~ The Anime project is just better about stopping that mess than the TV project is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not very, just small differences like "The Summoning Jutsu: Wisdom of the Toad Sage!" was the dub while Ero-sennin jikiden Kuchiyose no Jutsu dattebayo!(Perverted hermit something Summoning jutsu dattebayo). Also seeing the dragonball article, why are they divided in arcs? It seems messy. DragonZero (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's probably why then. If the differences are minor, both aren't used. You mean the main Dragonball article or the episode lists? If the latter, its following the official English arcs because of the lack of verifiable season divisions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, apparently this episode is a special separate from the running series and the ova, should this be placed in a separate section called "Special"? DragonZero (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It actually aired? Interesting...hmmm...yeah, for now I'd say a special section would work. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, on the List of Case Closed episodes list, someone split Conan Lupin episode from the other OVA's and I don't think it deserves it's own space just because it was aired on television and is longer than 30 minutes. Like Bleach, the OVA's have no order and are not numbered. DragonZero (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe rename the section to "OVAs and specials" to clarify it has both? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Final questions. For the List of Shaman King characters, I changed many of he character's names to their English anime names but have been told their names remained unchanged in the manga so I just left it alone and assumed they're right. Recently, a person moved the article Rio (Shaman King) to "Wooden Sword" Ryu, which I assume is completely wrong since that's his nickname from Japanese partially translated to English. I'm not sure what his English name for the manga is, but it should at least be Rio or Ryunosuke Umemiya. Thanks for your help. DragonZero (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

They should all use the English manga names, however I'm not sure what those are as I don't read the series. I have undone that move, though, as even if his English name is Ryu and not Rio, we don't include nicknames in the article names. May want to post to ask at the project to get someone else who has read the legit copies of the series to confirm the English manga names. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I can get many of the English names from my back issues of Shonen Jump, but most of the newer characters you'll have to ask someone else about, since I never got past the first volume (RPLS didn't have vol. 2 last time I checked). 「ダイノガイ千？！」 18:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball

I was checking amazon.com and I found that the Dragon Ball Z series had season divisions of the digitally remastered series. Is this a reliable source? DragonZero (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Amazon itself is not a reliable source for the season divisions, but the actual DVDs are. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, should the List of Dragon Ball Z episodes be re-arranged and maybe have separate season articles? Since Amazon lists what are on the disc and what episodes they are. Also could you check SolanaRanger's edit to Rune Factory 2? DragonZero (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Rearranged, possibly, but separated? Hmmm...I guess it needs it because it is 270k...but I really don't want to deal with it :P It took ages to get all of it merged back and cleaned up into two lists and get summaries added. For now, I'd just go with the rearranging and split if there is a large consensus. I just don't know how the main List of Dragon Ball episodes would end up if its doing double transcludes....ewww.... technically, per size its fine. :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball Evolution Lock

I 100% realise this wasn't you, but any idea why the user who locked it until April 4th did lock it? Was there really any point? :S Goku1st (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was me, in that I requested the page be locked due to the continuing arguments over what dates should be in the infobox and what the release dates are. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am embarrassed ;'( But i got a bit riht that it personally wasnt you who locked it. You got someone else to do it :P Goku1st (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

*grin* Kinda have to since I'm not an admin ;) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you should be an admin :P Goku1st (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not tolerant or patient enough to WP:AGF with vandals, sockpuppeteers, and the really annoying disruptive people who run around trying to make a point and force their views through ridiculously excessive arguing until everyone gets sick of them and stops reading their conversations, or keep changing policies and guidelines then arguing it has "no consensus" just because they don't like it :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Anime Encyclopedia

Am I right in thinking you have the revised edition and not the "properly" updated book (the black one)? I'm just hovering over the checkout button on Amazon, although I'm loathe to give Clements any money, £13 is a bit of a bargain and as a resource it's damm useful. However it's been a looooooonnnnngggg time since I threw my copy of the first edition out so I can't remember if it gives start/finish dates for the shows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs) 08:33, March 31, 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I have the first edition (white cover). I keep meaning to get the newer one, but waiting for it to be a sensible price here :P I can't remember if the second one has start/finish either though...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ordered yesterday, and thanks to the surprisingly low price on quick shipping, should be here when I arise this afternoon. However they used a crappy courier and I'll be asleep most of the day, so I expect it'll be monday... I also ordered Manga: The Complete Guide, although I'm guessing it won't have Japanese publication dates :p Let me know if you need anything from either Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans. I also actually ordered Manga the Complete Guide. It should arrive in a few days since it finally shipped earlier this week :D When you get that copy of Anime Encyclopedia a check on what it has on Wolf's Rain would be great. I looked at it in a store, but was couldn't remember what I read LOL -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and remember! If not, just drop me a message and I'll take a look Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have them! The wolf's rain text is surprisingly long, I'll have to do it at the weekend. Also thanks to the manga guide, if I vagueify (new word? :P) the serialisation of Love Hina, it may be able to be submitted to GAN after all :) I should probably do a new PR though, the last one focused less on the content and more on copyedits of the media and refs section. Or should I just tidy up a couple of the references (the epsiode refs need filling out more) and submit it as-is? Aside from adding a production related image I don't see anything that needs doing after this ref. Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Guessing you don't have a scanner (I use mine for long bits LOL). For the article, the main thing it needs is copyediting. I saw several instances of spaces before a reference, and other minor things like that. Also make sure to fix those all cap refs. :-) I think that and what you already mentioned would be enough for GAN. Before trying FAC, though, I would say go with another PR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wont bother with a scanner (damage the spine on my brand new book? no thanks!), I'll use a camera if I go that route. Space before refs is actually something the automated review gave me, but I forgot about it :p As for FAC, one step at a time! I get the feeling it means rewriting half the article again. Oh and I blame the Japanese for the cap refs, thats what I get for copypasting the page names Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL. A friend of mine said he got a camera that can also scan books for the same reason. Its a Nikon, I think, but don't remember if he's tried it out yet. Actually, I suspect you'd be fine for an FAC...usually the main thing is a more thorough copy editing and likely heavier examination of the sources (and the project getting to defend some again :-P). But yep, GA first. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

All done, and production image added. Still looks a bit barren visually, one or two more well chosen images would be alright wouldn't it? I'm thinking an anime related image (dvd cover or other image of the anime character designs such as a random promo groupshot), and one of the reference books or soundtracks Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, those would violate WP:NONFREE; remember Wiki is still primarily a text encyclopedia so articles generally might look "barren" but that's fine. TMM did have such images, and they all had to be removed before its FAC. The production image, unfortunately, might also have to go purely because it might not meet the quality guidelines (can see the spine and all). If my desktop were up, I'd offer to go find that volume in the library and rescan it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You'd have a job, unless they happen to stock the japanese reference books :p The other comparative images (in the japanese and english vol1) are all too similar and don't show the vast changes made (the design is completely different, the other images available are just variations) I'll try and scan it tommorow, I tried taking it with my camera and one hand holding the book at the same time :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, LOL...guess that one hasn't been released here yet. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Oh My Goddess! chapters lead

Hey Collectonian, I just attempted a rewrite of the lead of List of Oh My Goddess! chapters; however, it still needs lots and lots of work. Would you care to read through the second paragraph and give your thoughts as to how it should be restructured, and what information should be cut out or added (yeah, I know, it's still *really* ugly)? (this goes for anyone watching this talk page who happens to have a few minutes, as well) 「ダイノガイ千？！」 22:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. BTW, if you're working on the chapter list, this may interest you. Jump, you have a source for that? :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I knew about Super Manga Blast! already, see SMB 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (hmm, was linking to all 13 issues really necessary?). I was thinking about how to mention it in the list, but hadn't gotten to working on it yet. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well :-P List of Marmalade Boy chapters has an example of noting an English serialization :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL... That works well for a release history as clean as Marmalade Boy's, but I'll have to see how the serialization info fits in on OMG's chapter list (and I need to somehow get ahold of serialization details, such as exactly what chapters were serialized). --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL, true true. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My Progress

Hello Collectonian. I'm particularly pleased with my progress so far. Sorry about the vague editing descriptions earlier, but I was rudely interrupted by a persistant editor. I'm aiming to edit fair and square without any conflict. I have no wish to overwrite anyone's articles unless they're grossly incorrect. Perhaps soon I can look out for requests to fulfill. Do you have any advice on how I may be able to insert pictures? I look forward to hearing from you. Deltasim (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Having looked closer, I do agree in theory that your reverts were fine, they just needed to be explained that the new summaries were too long and detailed (keep in mind, Admiral Maxtreme is also a newer editor). I can't remember what the current rules are on how old an account has to be to upload images. The first thing, though, is to learn the image guideines: WP:IMAGE and especially WP:NONFREE, and look to good articles for examples of appropriate images and how to properly note a rationale and license for using non-free images. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No...April Fools...

Wow...sorry... : ( It was just a joke... : ( Didn't really mean any harm to ya... : ( Heh... – J U M P G U R U 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello...... D: – J U M P G U R U 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just really hate April Fools and all the silliness associated with it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess that you really don't like April Fools, but man! What was that edit summary! Jeez louise! I mean seriously, I imagined you turning into Beelzebub when I read that! That was really flippin' harsh! – J U M P G U R U 23:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well...got my point across now didn't :-P (and hey, I have to spin my head around 360 now and again to keep my powers *mua ha ha* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I guess you'd absolutely hate this and this. =) --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 :  Chat  00:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes to both, and I finally took ANI off my watchlist because of the absolute stupidity going on there. *sigh* At least Google sticks to just one, official and very obvious prank. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

List of The Pretender characters‎

VANDALISM, HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF VANDALISM. I ADD FACTS AND INFORMATION LEFT OUT AND BETTER CATEGORIZE THE INFORMATION—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Grave (talk • contribs) 22:16, April 1, 2009

No, you are once again being disruptive and trying to implement inappropriate changes and add original research to a character list. You have pulled this crap before and it will not be tolerated. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I put a lot of work in fixing that page, stop screwing it up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Grave (talk • contribs) 22:17, April 1, 2009

You are the one messing up the page. I'm the one who FIXED the page, you are just trying to revert it back to a crappy version. You have had this explained to you AD NAUSEUM on multiple other lists. Just stop it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the first im hearing ive done this multiple times. All the information i have ever added on this site is 100% fact. Dont ever, and i mean ever, lump me in with those idiots that but in those random and personal opinions in as facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Grave (talk • contribs) 22:21, April 1, 2009

Sorry, but when you stop doing it, you'll stop being lumped with them. And yes, I know you've gotten away with it on other lists, but please do not act like you've never been warned. Your talk page history doesn't disappear (and, in fact, the warnings are still there) and I was involved in some of those earlier warnings. To point you yet again: WP:OR, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, WP:MOSTV, and WP:CONSENSUS. And learn how to freakin sign your message.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Wow, who was that masked woman? I wanted to thank her....Thank you for the quick response on Mr Daniel Jones re Hershey's.

If I may ask a question, as I'm rather confused from what I've read on the official pages...how do I change a REDIRECT? I've written an article on Neisner's (the American dimestore chain) and a previous Neisner Brothers redirects to 'Variety Store'. I'd like to change the redirect to the new article. TaFoofbun (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

When you are redirected, at the top of the page there should be a link that says something like "redirected from". If you click that, it will take you to the actual redirect, then you can access the edit tab. It should have something like #REDIRECT ] and you just need to change the name between the brackets. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A message from the lead coordinator

Hello and congratulations on being elected as a coordinator for WikiProject Films! As the lead coordinator, I look forward to helping set an agenda for the WikiProject for this term and beyond, and I hope that you will actively participate in working through our agenda's objectives. I ask you to take a moment and review the goals of WikiProject Films (listed on the WikiProject's front page and reiterated here):

• To standardize the film articles in Misplaced Pages
• To improve Misplaced Pages coverage of films by adding, expanding and improving film articles
• To serve as a central point of discussion for issues related to Misplaced Pages film articles
• To provide the necessary framework to assist in bringing all articles within the project scope to the highest possible quality

Since you have stepped forward to take on the responsibilities of the coordinator position, my expectations are for you to play an active role in most coordinator-related discussions and to bring new ideas to the circle whenever possible. Since all seven of us will collaborate in discussions, I ask you to take a moment and leave a comment here about your background as an editor (I provided my own background). Outline what you believe your strengths and your weaknesses are, and summarize what you want to accomplish for WikiProject Films this term. ——Erik (talk • contrib) 12:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about split

I think that some of these days (months), List of Bleach chapters should be splitted. However, how the lead and images from the splitted articles should be? Also, should the main list stay as List of Dragon Ball manga volumes or List of Naruto manga volumes respecting the Graphic novel list template? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead needs to be rewritten for each split article to focus a bit more on the volumes included. The lead image can be carried through, or maybe for the first list, split at volume 21 and have it have the first box set image instead. I believe they have now made it possible to do the transclusion's on the graphic novel list template the same as with episodes, so that would be the preferred option. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. The volume 22 starts a new story arc, so it could be easy. I see that List of One Piece manga volumes also made that translusion, but adding both Japanese and English volume titles (The volumes titles from Bleach are directly in English, so I think could be like the Dragon Ball list. However, I think only one the volume 1-21 list should be split for now since there are only 38 volumes.Tintor2 (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, chapter list transclusions are now possible, thanks to Goodraise (talk · contribs) making {{Graphic novel list/sublist}} (he beat me to the punch! =O ). I still have yet to look at the source in detail, to see what improvements I might be able to offer, though. 「ダイノガイ千？！」 18:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Started discussion at Talk:List of Bleach chapters#Splitting. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you do that?

why did you remove the samurai champloo logo and replace it with a picture of the characters? that looks unprofessional in my opinion. anyways if you didnt like the logo you could also put the DVD cover case as well. that will look much more professional.DeathBerry talk 16:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A link to a diff or something would have been useful, particularly when you are asking about something from THREE months ago. Logos are not a useful nor appropriate image in the infobox. I moved the promotional image up into the infobox because it was the only other one in the article, and better than the logo. Its fine for illustrating the series for now. Eventually, yes, the DVD cover would be better, but no one had bothered to upload it yet to neither the main page nor the episode page and I didn't have the time to hunt it down. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Very well then, i'll go and search for it. though the promotional image isn't that good either.DeathBerry talk 17:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

re Talk:Bob Ross and User:Proxy User

Coll, first off - don't revert other peoples talkpage comments as vandalism. Calling you a Wikinazi is violation of policy, and can be dealt with such under WP:NPA, but you have seriously compromised your position by removing Proxy User's comments as vandalism. You would have been justified in redacting the term wikinazi, and warning the editor per WP:NPA. You would also have been justified in removing any attempt at re-introducing the trivia section per WP:BRD, and as you say it is for the editor wishing to include disputed material to provide sources and indicate consensus for recreating a section that has not existed since 2007 (consensus for its removal is proven by the fact that its removal has not been challenged in over 15 months). As for Proxy User issuing a complaint against your actions, I suggest that you invite him to bring it on - I was going to summarily block him for NPA violation for a day, until I saw your response (I would then be required to block you for edit warring on the talkpage) - since he is by far more the sinner than sinned against.

Finally, WP:TRIVIA is a guideline - to be followed by application of common sense and disregarded if there is an overwhelming need demonstrated. Information that is notable should be included in the main content, and non-notable content need not appear; it is only where either WP:UNDUE would be applicable, while notable including some material in the main body would give it too much emphasis, or the article is so long that a list of more minor achievements/facts is best held in a separate list. Consensus that it should exist outside of that or similar criteria is insufficient. I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're right. I keep forgetting that even if its extremely insulting, it can't be considered "vandalism" by itself and that my response was no more appropriate than his. And understood on the trivia. As hard as it is to even find reliable sources about his life, as he was apparently a very private person, I can't see how they could source most of that stuff that was in the old section. *shaking head* Meanwhile, he is now claiming that because the one person he canvassed agreed with him, that "consensus will soon be reached." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now commented at User talk:Proxy User#re Bob Ross and matters arising. I am watching both talkpages should there be any need for clarification or other assistance needed. Any discussion regarding the return of the trivia section (or its contents under another title) should be at the article talkpage, and again if input about the appropriate application of either WP:TRIVIA or WP:Consensus is required please let me know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, and will do. Think I'll hit the A&M library again...I keep hoping one day all these tons of reliable sources on his life will appear :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of Law & Order characters#Wholesale edits of article

The owner of this sprawling list has offered a set of questions and answers for others to read. Enjoy. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed...blech. I replied there and updated the Television project. Looking at his talk page, he warned not to do it 2 years ago and apparently just ignored people then as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

and he's reverted us both again, now. I left him another warning/question. It's well into evening here, so this is your call. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering that, including the folks in the TV project discussion, he is the only editor saying "leave my list alone" I'd say he's being very owny and have restored. If he keeps it up, may file RPP. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I EC'd w/you re WP:PEOPLE and wasn't saying much other than what you did, so I didn't post a dupe. I don't even understand his last comment, but he's risking a 3RR, which I warned him about on my talk page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

He actually just did revert 4, so I've left him an official warning. *sigh* As long as he's been here, you'd think he'd just plain out know better. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the 4 years now; ya, he really should know better. I expect he's stop given the multiple warnings. If not, there's the usual way. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just one question: which of you is going to be giving me my time back? I've been working on that article on an almost daily basis since May of 2007. Taken all together, that's days out of my life I'll never get back, and now you two smartasses come in and say, without bothering to be so much as polite about it, "Hey, you know all that work you did? Forget it. It's gone. It doesn't meet our personal, totally subjective standards for what does and does not count as a good article. Oh, and if you disagree, we'll block you." And so, with less than two hours' debate, all that work is rendered null. So, do I get that time back now, or do you just tack it on to the end of my life? -Craverguy (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No one is giving you your time back. You have been here more than long enough to realize that yes, Misplaced Pages does have policies and guidelines that govern both editor behavior and article content/existence/etc. You choose to violate guidelines having been warned before you started your efforts that it was not appropriate. You choose not to learn or to ignore long standing guidelines on character list formatting, content etc. It has nothing to do with "personal, subjective" standards, but community-wide consensus and standards that you, again, either never bothered to learn or just choose to ignore because you feel this is your personal playground (which, of course, it is WP:NOT). You also apparently have not bothered to learn WP:CIVIL in your 3-4 years here, from your need to call people smartasses because they actually are attempting to improve an article. And you were warned for editing warring, not disagreeing. It is not less than two hours of debate, more like 12 as the discussion started with the overseeing project. It is not just three people who disagree with you, but closer to six. Big difference between that and a bold edit that is disagreed with by a lot of people. Also, look at the bottom of the screen next time you edit: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...by others, do not submit it." Might also want to read WP:EFFORT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I really have no idea why someone would spend two years of their life on such an ephemeral endeavor; that is beyond the fanaticism at the root of the word 'fan' and I expect there's a large dollop of hyperbole included. This is a great project, but it is discriminating. My suggestion is to redirect your efforts into areas that have long term value. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bambi

Hi Collectonian, thanks for the headsup re Tellytubbies. ϢereSpielChequers 20:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No prob...pretty much anything from that 65. or 68. IP asking for unprotection is likely to be him. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you name the heading "Bambi"? :P – J U M P G U R U 23:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The original sockpuppetter is User:Bambifan101 :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)