User talk:AnmaFinotera

I always reply to comments made here at this page, so please watch this page until the discussion is done. Please note that comments which are uncivil, contain vulgarity, or are excessively rude may simply be deleted without response. I'm also 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. ->>

Here about an assessment on a television or film article?
As part of both the TV and Film projects, I frequently make assessments on articles as part of the process of clearing out unassessed articles. Normally with these quick assessments, I do not leave notes explaining the assessments. If, however, you would like me to explain why I assessed a certain article at a specific grade, I'm happy to do so. Just start a new section below and let me know which article you are inquiring about (and please wikify the titles).

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)

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)

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.
• new 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)