User talk:AnmaFinotera

The Gundam related articles you reverted.

The articles in question (METEOR (Gundam) and Support ship Eternal) where revised to remove bad merge templates. There is still no discussion of the merge and the templates have been there a long time. Please consider the possibility that the placement of these templates may have been an act of vandalism. It is my understanding that there are two options to merging. First: Merge the articles without discussion. Second: Use the relevant merge templates and start the discussion with the reason why you believe that the articles should be merged. 97.115.129.240 (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is not required with the merge template unless the merge is controversial. And no, the placement was not vandalism and there is no valid reason to even think it might be. As the templates have been in place for such a long time, it seems clear that there is no actual opposition to the merging and the merge can be done at any time without discussion. However, as neither is notable, they have been tagged for deletion instead. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The placement of merge templates without providing a reason is at the very least rude, and yes I did note the WP:PRODs (Proposals for deletion) on those articles. 97.115.129.240 (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really rude...and a reason may have been noted in the edit summary when they were placed (I didn't check the history to see). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was Silver Edge (talk) who placed the merge templates. 97.115.129.240 (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be an established editor, and very active in the video game and Gundam areas. Looking at his contribs around the time, it seems like the tagging was done as part of a lot of clean up being done in the Gundam articles with many being tagged for merging. Most likely, they were just forgotten during these efforts. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and thank you for your time. Allen 97.115.129.240 (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome letter and instructions!

Dear Collectonian,

Thanks for the welcome letter and instructions! It would be my honor to learn from you and other members. I will definitely ask your expert advice and help.

Thanks again for your contribution to Wikipedia and the world!--Garbolia (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite welcome. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Templates indicating problems on an article don't mean anything, so there's no need to worry, as the owners of the article have already been made aware of what people think YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty...here's hoping the FAR stops the personal attack stuff and actually gets back to focusing on the article :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brief

...semiprotect because of random IP abuse. Let me know if you'd like it lifted sooner, or if you don't want it at all. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and definitely wanted. Any way you can delete those edits from the visible history? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Let me try. If your user page has more than 5000 edits it blows up, but let me check... Antandrus (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This page has a large edit history of over 5,000 revisions. Deletion of such pages has been restricted to stewards to prevent accidental disruption of Wikipedia. Please contact one for assistance." -- Evidently there's been a software upgrade since the last time I did this (I don't do as much adminning as I did, say, three years ago). If you really want them to vanish you might want to find a steward at Meta. Antandrus (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay :( Thanks anyway :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Deskana (talk · contribs) is online, and I believe he can oversight those revisions for you, if you'd rather go that way. Regards, Javért ^☆ 00:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll ask. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry About the Vandalism Case

Sorry about that. I thought the red vandalism link led to a page about vandalism. Didn't even know that was gonna happen, I swear! Well, at least I know how to revert vandalism now! I always learn something new everyday! Thanks... sorta. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Twinkle docs before using...it is a very useful tool, but also powerful and those who use it are held accountable for errors. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know I was using Twinkle until I saw your message. Please forgive me... D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Just make sure to take some time to read the docs. Its what added those new links :)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Satan or Hercule?

This has to do with the character discussion, but I would like your opinion. Since the season sets use a dub where Mr. Satan's name is what it is and not "Hercule," can we change it?? D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I'd just wait, let the discussion finish. Remember, there is no deadline :) If consensus is to use the manga names, they will all be changed anyway. If not, then can bring up the issue of the dubbed names on the different sets. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]