User:Collectonian/talkheader

I'm tried of dealing with Talk:Naruto: Clash of Ninja (series)#Naruto Shippuden:Clash Of Ninja Revolution 3. Can you post something to support my claims those site are not reliable for the games release? DragonZero (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Master Dude mentioned it being confirmed in his "ShonenJump Manga today" (dated the 23rd), which I'm assuming is referring to the July issue, which I also received. I'll check for any mention of Revolution 3 later today (I typically ignore the VG stuff) to confirm the veracity of that statement. ···「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? Talk to Dinoguy1000} 06:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finally looked; page 14 discusses two Naruto games (Ninja Destiny 2 and Clash of Ninja Revolution 3). The Revolution 3 blurb says "The Revolution continues with the newest sequel in this celebrated series. Over 30 characters, including some new Shippuden ones, are here and ready for battle. The game, which covers the Gaara rescue story arc, has Wi-Fi multiplayer matches, over 30 fighting environments and an overhauled combat system. You can even have co-op tag-team four-player matches!", and is followed by a short list of information: "Title: Naruto Shippuden: Clash of Ninja Revolution 3 • Publisher: Tomy • Developer: Eighting • Platform: Wii • Release Date: Fall 2009 • Price: TBD • Rating: RP (Rating Pending)". ···「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? Talk to Dinoguy1000} as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AnmaFinotera. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Why request speedy for an template that is in use? Rich Farmbrough, 16:59 25 May 2009 (UTC).

I requested speedy of an inappropriate copy/paste move. The valid template in use is still there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about Template:Infobox book series? Rich said on my talk page, "It wasn't cut and paste, it was the first stage in the merge." Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sign it is being merged, and what does renaming it have to do with doing the merge on the Novel series infobox? Just not making much sense to me. It seems like he is planning to do the merge backwards, against what the TfD results were??-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I want to know why you persist to remove Shahrazad (a MAJOR one shot character from an entire arc who is more important than plenty of those who are there like Mirka Fortuna or Noelle Bor. She's as equal in importance if not more than the Marquis Gyula) and novel information of character from Trinity Blood's character list. Also why you support inaccurate information such as Trinity Blood having seven published manga volumes? There are eleven so far with another coming up soon.

This continuous removal is what makes Trinity Blood fandom regard the wikipedia article as abysmal in quality I let you know.

So please, I ask you to know why do you do this? Are you unfamiliar with the canon or the fandom beyond the Anime? Thanks. 190.246.150.25 (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you continue violating federal laws and Wikipipedia policy by trying to add stolen, copyrighted contents from other websites into Wikipedia articles? If you want to make a correction, make a correction, but do not continue trying to add stolen content. Per WP:COPYVIO it will continue to be reverted as vandalism. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'What' stolen content? I wasn't aware I stole anything from any website when I typed down that information. 190.246.150.25 (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are telling me you typed that all up yourself, and it just happens to be word from word from another website? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact, a friend of Germany and I were the ones who originally put up the first official correct information of Shahrazad in the net (previous one dictated her to be hired by the RCO which was incorrect) a couple of years ago. Then that was "deleted" because someone mistook Shahrazad for a "minor character" which she isn't, she's of equal if not more importance of Gyula, likely because they have only seen the Anime. I simply put it back, correcting the spelling of her name and all (because in ROM IV novel it's spelled Shahrazad). 190.246.150.25 (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say from an earlier Wikipedia article, I said from another website, period. At this time, it is copyrighted info from another site, and your claim can't be substantiated, so it can not be put back. As for the rest, she is still just a one-shot character, by your own admission. Any importance to a specific character's history can be noted in their section. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's MY writing, if somebody else stole it and put it in a website up to them. I deleted the OLD Shahrazad description a while ago and wrote it from scratch from a modified the full version from my lj blurb and my rp character history to place it there. Lets remove Gyula, Mirka Fortuna, half of the Orden (Suzanne, the von Neumanns, etc), Noelle, Havel, Süleyman, and all the "one shot characters". She's not just one episode/short story one shot character, she's the protagonist of an entire ROM novel with Esther, ten manga chapters (one of the six manga arcs) and was so "unimportant" that featured in her own manga cover and several colored and non colored frontpieces. From which "website" this was supposedly "stolen"? May I ask?

I'm rather busy right now but tomorrow I'll type up a new blurb and I hope this one won't be mysteriously in another (unsourced) website.

Also you deleted my additions of novel Caterina and novel Mary (that you can see were mine) and the corrections of Trinity Blood having 11 manga volumes. Why? 190.246.150.25 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In copyright violations, all edits are reverted, not just selective. When one violatse copyrights, there is no trust that the other edits are good. The correction on the number of volumes, however, has been rectified. Any actually Gyula was removed, several times, and I actually agree with some others being removed. Others did not and, if you check the talk page, consensus was to allow them to stay despite their minor nature. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that recently! Thanks XD!

I'm really surprised that Endre Kourza was allowed to stay in a giant blurb when he's just a one shot, one short story villain without weight or character development from RAM I, Emmanuelle D'Annuznio the villain from ROM IV is far more important and he appears in back stories of the Church. Or Baybars. He's like a cameo character in ROM III, but anyway... I will write a new Shahrazad's profile and added parts of her influence in the Esther's profile (because she plays a HUGE role in her development, in fact, she's the one who makes Esther want to change the world: take action). Sorry if I came out as snappy earlier, but I was personally annoyed when Shahrazad who thousands more important than those minor characters was removed for being a "minor" character or when my own writing was challenged.

Another thing: Why Lilith being Abel's lover was removed? (This was added ages ago). That's in the novels and remarked as an important trait of hers, likewise her being the Nania Sancta/Night Saint. Since the first one, RAM I, From the Empire and ROM I Star of Sorrow. Oh I noticed you asked for profiles in discussion page? Sunao actually published profiles and long backstories but in his book: Canon. Several of them were translated from his book (the four Krsniks and the Orden mostly). I also translated Antonio's recently. I don't know if you had been told of its existence, there's also a few chapters of the ROM novel Sunao was working on when he died and future history development notes that he couldn't write: like the new war of the Empire and the Outer world. 190.246.140.163 (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if whiel editing you added the cites to the specific novels/page numbers (if you aren't sure on formatting, just add as hidden comments so someone can fluff out the details later). I've only read RAM 1 & 2, but I don't remember that about Lilith. For the profiles and backstory, for the most part, no that shouldn't be added unless its a key detail that may explain something from a novel/manga/anime bit. If there are development type notes, though, like what went into creating/conceiving, those would be great in a new section at the top. Character lists needs to be brief, without a lot of in-universe and plot details. For ideal character lists, see List of Naruto characters and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters, which are both featured lists. Alas, the Trinity Blood character list has been sadly neglected and really needs a thorough cleaning. It was also built from the anime first, and with Tokyopop's history on light novels, its unlikely most editors will ever get to read all 12 of them. I did hear they had solicited the next volumes, though, so *crossing fingers* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested, please join our discussion currently over at Talk:List of Disney theatrical animated features regarding what qualifies as "theatrical release" vs "Direct 2 DVD", as well as what qualifies as being part of the Disney "canon" vs breaking it out based on conflicting info from "official" sources SpikeJones (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left some notes on the first. for canon...that seems really a odd discussion all together. It seems rather pointless, no offense, to even try to define a "Disney canon" unless Disney itself has, since its their film (and there is no Disney "genre") per se. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much the "canon" text, as the overly WP:BOLD set of edits by one editor who is basing (I'm assuming in good faith) their edits based on one official reference that contradicts a different, but equally valid, official reference. As you saw, we're trying to have reasonable discussions on the topic but they are refusing to bend to previously-determined consensus as they rely on their one source for all info. (sigh). SpikeJones (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...have you tried reminding him of WP:CONSENSUS? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the book Manga: The Complete Guide have something about the series that can be added to reception? By the way, if you are searching to improve the Card Captors Sakura article, a user has found a lot of production from Clamp as seen in Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it does. I'm without a home computer right now, though, so may take me a couple of days to get it added. Clamp is great about releasing production info, just have to get my hands on some (and sit down with the manga volumes to see what's in there too). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finally cleaned up the lead of the article (a bit late, almost a year, hehe). Should the plot also mention the OVAs sequel?Tintor2 (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, since they aren't part of the primary work. It would be more of the anime/manga adaptation change, but needs sourcing. Better to leave it to a short 1-2 sentence summary in the main, with fuller summary in the episode list/OVA articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Additionally, I added Aoshi, Saito, Yahiko and Sanosuke to the plot section to give example of the enemies and friends. Should Misao and Megumi also be added?Tintor2 (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should, as both play large enough roles, even for supporting characters. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm looking for the Disney Vandal since The Rescuers article has been quiet for a while, but Ducky78-88 made some suspicious edits recently on the page that previous DV socks have made, especially about Medusa. Can you give me your opinion? Cactusjump (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. He was blocked. :) Cactusjump (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your spidey-sense is getting better ;-) I reverted a few edits missed that he did, but glad it was a fast catch. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm wondering if we can get a semi-protect on The Rescuers and The Fox and the Hound like Lady and the Tramp has. What do you think? Cactusjump (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox and the Hound is already semi-protected. Will request The Rescuers protection be reinstated. Also expanded on the new long term abuse report. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks. Cactusjump (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for calling you a bad word. Really am, because I don't usually go around and call people names. It's just I'm really tired of oh so many dumb people that deny whatever they don't know or not willing to know. You didn't do anything bad, not knowing japanese is not a crime, so please forgive me for the anger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.24.97.162 (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this person strike you as incredibly similar to our old acquaintance Jupiter Optimus Maximus (aka Illustrious One, aka YourLord)? The contribution history seems very similar to me, with similar patterns (unreferenced psychoanalysis of fictional characters, adding categories related to such, concern over List of fictional narcissists, etc.). Also he identifies as being from Chester, England, and all of JOM's previous IPs trace to the same general area (Manchester, Liverpool, & Chester, which are adjacent to each other). There's enough of a similarity here for me to consider opening up a SPI, but I thought I'd ask for second opinions first. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His recreating that deleted list sends up a huge flag in my view. I think a SPI would be good. The name and edit summaries are signature YourLord/JOM as well. His note on your page very much mirrors his comments in the last SPI. 22:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)