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 at flame baiting, or that are excessively rude may be deleted without response. Comments from harassing editors or wikistalkers will also be summarily removed 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.

Are you here 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:

• Explain the assessment you made on this TV or film article
• Why did you give X article Y tag(s)?
• Why did you change the reflist tag in an article to the references one, or visa versa?
• What do you mean you're "wikibonked"?

Now they called another group to see what should happen. I wonder what will happen? By the way, should now full dates be linked? Im a bit confused.Tintor2 (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep...seems like they will never be satisfied with a merge closing, so now they are attacking the AfDs because they aren't going their way either. And no, full dates should no longer be linked per the updated Date MoS to stop the majority of the date auto formatting. This includes in the prose and the tables...I haven't found a good answer about the infoboxes yet though. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much attacking the AFDs as attacking the AFDers. Ad hominem attacks are good arguments I heard. Suigetsu 02:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, though it seems like they are doing both. The AfDs both seem to be going to merge, IMHO, so now they seek to invalidate them by attacking the nominators. *sigh* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should really merge them soon, since there obviously isn't a single valid argument for keeping the articles regardless of what the fanboys whine about. Suigetsu 02:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they all already were merged, but the complainers undid all three merges, then went on the attack on the talk page. When the AfDs are done and, presuming they close as merge, they each have links to the merged versions for easy remerging. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goddamnit. Suigetsu 02:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suigetsu, be considerate of what Collectonian wrote at the top of this page. What you just wrote sounded very rude, also notice how she didn't respond to you. While you're at it, also try not to be so vulgar here on Wikipedia, as some of the vulgraty can be offensive to some users. Not so much to me, but just keep that in mind. : ) — J U M P G U R U ^■TALK■ 00:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its okay, I understand his frustration with the mess going on over there. I just didn't reply because that pretty much said it all :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. :nP I'm a hickalope. — J U M P G U R U ^■TALK■ 01:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hickalope? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Hickalope. It's a running joke with my cousins, along with "I'm a dorkfish!". — J U M P G U R U ^■TALK■ 01:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St■pid IP's. — J U M P G U R U ^■TALK■ 16:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, many of them are. A few are good though. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on her talk page. One for you; even if you may be backed by policy in a matter, you're still not allowed to edit war. Since this is a content dispute, you can't just plainly revert edits as vandalism. Next time, come get me so that we can settle this before you guys make 50 revisions each, ok? :) Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. This is why I gave up editing most of the Lassie articles awhile back. *sigh* Too much drama, even if I do love the series and want to see it have pretty FA stars beside its name. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to give up; just a bit less conflict would be great. :D Anyway, do you think you can figure this out with Lassie or do you want me to moderate and help you guys reach a decision? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoning them to their sad state is less stressful than dealing with her, as she seems determind to reject anything I do. I firmly believe this article (as well as the series article) could be fairly quickly and easily taken to GA and/or FA with some work, so I'm finding it very frustrating dealing with this kind of thing. The show has a ton of sources, and yet both are start class, and I honestly feel it is because the whole thing is "controlled" by a single fan who chases away other editors, including those experienced in the topic. When I took on editing Meerkat Manor, it was primarily "controlled" by some minor fans (uh, minor as in age not lessor importance), and they were far more receptive to discussing and actually learning from more experienced editors than ItsLassieTime seems to be. As someone who wrestled what was once a very badly done single lengthy fancruft piece into a featured article, two featured lists, a good article, and a featured topic, it is hard for me to deal with her complete lack of respect for other editors and her total disregard for many guidelines, policies, and other editor's experience.

You may notice from her talk page that after my nominating Ruth and Paul Martin's articles for AfD, she went on a pointy spree of AfDing obviously notable character articles.[1] We went through stuff over and over on the series page, though then she acted fairly polite at first and eager to learn, but I finally just walked away rather than deal with that kind of thing over and over. Anyway, I've asked for an opinion from the TV project on which version is "best practices" for this article. Some moderation would be good, though, as I do still at least edit the Lassie articles and would like to not have to worry about her coming behind and reverting everything I do simply because she doesn't like me anymore. Kinda sad if ya think about it, considering I was the one who welcomed her here and praised her earlier edits. No good deed and all that...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it may be hard to stay civil, but I find that the number one cause of these matters spiraling downwards is that people lose sight of what they're actually discussing and just begin a torrent of ad-hominem attacks or berate the other editor(s) for what they did that is perceived wrong, etc. I know it may be hard to try to keep working with someone who isn't exactly reciprocating, but hopefully Lassie will respond on my talk page and you guys can handle this just fine.

Thanks for keeping your cool (for the most part :P) up 'til now! Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The characters do exist. You can see them in many official pieces of art featuring the RCO and they are in the novels. You already know about Susann, amd Guderian is in ROM, but the book hasn't been released in America yet. Nothing I put was spam and I did not destroy the article. I simply added two secondary characters who fill out the remainder of the RCO's roster. The Trinity Blood series doesn't have that many notable characters (or many characters at all), but these characters are just as notable as some of the others on this page. I only ask that you let off this reversion thing only a little bit and stop reverting even the addition of a few sentences. It appears really controlling.74.193.217.105 (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And so that you know since you haven't noticed miss: Most of that list page is unsourced!74.193.217.105 (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the characters don't exist, but that they seem pretty minor. The list probably has more on the page that need to go because folks just basically added all of the characters from all three versions, though we've culled others before per the talk page. I've removed Wendy and Peter (as I agree with you there). And yes, I know most of the list is unsourced...its still a work in progress since the novels are last to be released but the primary work. If you want to readd, I won't revert again. The whole list will basically be rebuilt from the ground up anyway when all of the novels are available. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I'll readd it. And Believe me: I am here to help and I understand how you feel. I don't think you are a bad person or editor, it is just discouraging to have even the edition of a word or pargraph reverted at the drop of the hat.74.193.217.105 (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and no problem. I mostly am just trying to keep out the excess stuff, ya know (and I'll admit, the first time you added it, I was like "eh? a werewolf??" :P). If you could put in some notes (either as hidden comments or as basic refs) noting which novel they are in, it would be helpful for later. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What could help would be to add the official picture/roster of the RCO. I will see if I could add it later. We need a picture for them anyway74.193.217.105 (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A single official image of the RCO would be very helpful! If you can find one, though, I believe Wikipedia is set up such that you'd have to register before it will let you upload it (or if you don't want to reigster, you can leave me a note with the link to it and I can can upload). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cell (Dragon Ball). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Suntag ☼ 08:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just making a note that you qualify for one of User:Durova's triple crown awards, namely the imperial triple crown (2-4 DYK/GA/FC). Feel free to nominate yourself at WP:CROWN/NOM. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool! Thanks :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man, if I had just one more GA, I could go for Imperial Napoleonic triple crown *grin* Alas, my current most likely candidate needs a copy editing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am thinking about going ahead and requesting the change to {{Film}} to remove the external links based on the community discussion. I would like to make sure that this does not deprive articles of links to IMDb, AMG, or the official site. Do you have any suggestions about setting up a bot or some kind of method to go through with this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I'm guessing a decent bot editor could whip up something fairly quickly. The anime and manga project did a bunch of changes to some of our infoboxes recently, but I think a single editor just went through and changed all the articles using AWB. There is a page there where one can request tasks be done. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did resent being accused of spamming, though, even if you were joking. :-( --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When a redlink user adds an external link to a guideline page like that, spam tends to be my first thought. Didn't realize at first that you were an active editor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Yeah, I get more than a few askance glances because I haven't bothered to create a user page. I guess I feel that it isn't that important who I am, I'm just here to edit. Anyway, no harm done. Thanks for responding. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries...you aren't the first to be here for ages and make one. Then I see some just make one that's blank to get rid of the red LOL. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this like an early April Fool's joke? I feel like we're on Candid Camera or something. Suigetsu 00:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish. This guy is being total rabid. I suspect that unless an admin steps in and makes him, he is going to just keep restarting the discussion over and over and over until everyone gets sick of it and he drives all editors away so he can do whatever he likes. Either way, this is annoying and disruptive. No real work is going on with the list now because of all this mess.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be insane to open up an RfA for this? (arbitration, not adminship) Suigetsu 00:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure...they are two requests for mediation now on the Cell and Tien S. merges. *sigh* I'd say a RfC/U, but those are pretty useless. Maybe the information arbitration, as I don't think they will take a full arbitration unless the rest have been done? I think something should be done, though. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why are admins like DGG and GlassCobra supposedly supporting the articles and opposing the merges, or is that just a concoction by JJJ? Suigetsu 00:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its mostly a concoction. They did both feel there was no clear consensus to merge on the Cell and Tien Shinhan discussions, which led to their being unmerged and taken to AfD instead. DGG has expressed no opinion on either article on the list page, while GlassCobra did note he supported keeping Cell separate and has been part of the discussion regarding what to do with Trunks and Future Trunks. JJJ999 however, has decided that this all means that the admins "yelled" at anyone who opposed the merges (false) and would help him save the articles (also false, both are fair admins who can put aside their own points of view to accepted a wider consensus). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our vectors cannot handle stupidity of this magnitude, chief. Suigetsu 01:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amused that after the pages of personal attacks and out right nastiness he has displayed, he is calling you rude. *eye roll* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that, I'm surprised that he thinks it holds any weight. I mean, around here, saying I'm rude is like saying that water is blue. /facepalm. Suigetsu 01:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting tired of this... I'm seriously having to restrain myself from going apeshit on this guy. Can you take over the debates for a minute while I have some water, or something to take my mind off of what is probably the biggest hit to my faith in humanity since Janet Jackson's Super Bowl flash? Suigetsu 02:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that until an admin actually puts their foot down, he will just keep up with the personal attacks. I'm rather disappointed that for a discussion with at least 3 admins, no one has done so yet. For the most part, I'm just trying to ignore him at this point and barely even read what he writes. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to fix the saga breakdown. The Namek saga is missing from the context. Can you help me insert it...the Namek saga ends in "Goku...Super Saiyan" and Captain Ginyu saga starts from the episode "Ginyu Assault". - Zarbon (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The saga is not missing. Funimation does not include it in its list of sagas, hence it not being there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. Actually, Funimation DOES include it. Did you manage to buy the season 2 DVD set? You'd see on it, it says "The complete NAMEK and Captain Ginyu Sagas". The Namek saga is not a part of the Captain Ginyu Saga. Please take note of this. I'd stake my life on it. Do I HAVE to show you the actual capture of the DVD BOX released by Funimation to prove this to you? Because NEVER EVER were "Zarbon Transformed" and "Escape from Dodoria" a part of the "Captain Ginyu Saga". - Zarbon (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, Funimation released a Namek saga box set. Suigetsu 02:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Look at the official Dragon Ball Z page from Funimation. They do not have the Namek saga listed. A reliable source is needed to say the Funimation page is wrong. Looking at the covers of the official DVDs, I see no mention of Saga's at all, it uses season divisions instead. Was that an older DVD release? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're being foolish. The site has not yet been updated for the past year. It's still missing information from all the sagas. You shouldn't rely on the website, they are still missing lots of information there. Here's your ACTUAL PROOF: http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/d7/ce/39e0eb6709a003409ba13110.L.jpg - Zarbon (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, although I begrudgingly agree with you, the "foolish" comment was uncalled for. In the future, remain WP:CIVIL. Suigetsu 02:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to insult me here. The back does indeed say that, but does it say where the division is? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I didn't mean to insult at all. By foolish I meant that my edit was dismissed almost immediately without looking into the actual item. No offence, alright. Here's the actual amazon listing as you requested. Just check the images of the boxart for your convenience. The Funimation website is delayed with much of its data and is lacking with too much to name. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000MTOM8A/ref=cm_cmu_pg__header - Zarbon (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The episode break comes from "Ginyu Assault" starting the Captain Ginyu Saga. It was only 7 episodes. - Zarbon (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored your edits. Thanks for providing the source for that. Where does Namek start? You said its only seven episodes, but the division you put in gives it 27? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Namek is not 7. Captain Ginyu Saga is 7. I said Namek is much longer my dear comrade. Namek starts at Friends or Foes...and ends at Legend Revealed a.k.a. Goku...Super Saiyan. - Zarbon (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...you said It was only seven, I presumed you meant Namek. Gotcha. Thanks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome mate. Cheers. :] - Zarbon (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some confusion regarding the sections. I placed your comments and all others in a section at the end of the page, as a "new" section. Hope you don't mind it. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you moved some of comments to totally different sections :P I undid then redid it per what you just said here. Is that what you meant to do? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit on World of Naruto about the "ANBU", I changed it to "ANBU Black Ops" because that is the official English manga title. Then someone reverted it. I then put a section on the discussion, and nobody has responded yet... So do you agree with me? Talk:World_of_Naruto#ANBU_Black_Ops. Agree or disagree...Moocowsrule (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule[reply]

Answered there. It depends on whether ANBU is an accepted abbreviation/short form also used in the English release. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a shot at it? I just tried to rework it a bit during some copy-editing, but I don't know, something about the lead paragraph seems wrong. Or is it just me? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it a whirl, let me know if that's any better. In the end, I think it should eventually be four paragraphs, but its hard to do much more with it until the rest of the article is copyedited, as I had trouble understanding some parts. The reception info could use some info on the sales of the anime series, if available. So much more work needed...weee -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adjusting it. Off the top of your head was a copy-edit request already made? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, not yet. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the lead a bit more. Does the to-do list need to be updated?Tintor2 (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this Date audit, script-assisted; see mosnum | Delink common terms

And I'm wondering if you used some kind of shortcut instead of delinking the dates and such one by one.DragonZero (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using a script to do it quickly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you use a script?DragonZero (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You add it to your monobook.js file. If you aren't familiar with them, though, you shouldn't start with a script like this as its easy to make a boo boo. Usually one of the first scripts people use are thinks like Friendly (tagging and welcoming) or Twinkle (reverting, issuing warnings, filing ARVs, xFDing, PRODs, and CSDs). Once you have it installed, the script will add new tabs at the top of the page or maybe new links to the left side, that you can click for additional function. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two more questions. Since I recently had a name change, I can't access my discussion page anymore and everytime I do it takes me to the usurped DragonZero. Another question is whether I should delink names in red that about voice actors or actors.DragonZero (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw when it was being done and I think the admin who did your name change didn't quite finish doing your talk page. You may want to ask him to double check that. For the voice actors, in general yes they should be delinked unless its likely they will have articles made for them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long title. Help.Moocowsrule (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule[reply]

I just re-read the WP:MJ and realized I was pretty wrong... so sorry, you can delete this...Moocowsrule (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule[reply]

O_O. OMG!!! Tōhō Project is more popular than Touhou Project according to Google! Revisit back on.Moocowsrule (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule[reply]

Left a response there, but seems Touhou Project is the more commonly used name. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have made a RfAR here with you as a named party. You are invited to make a statement in respect of the request (You may wish to review both the request and the main page before doing so.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]