User talk:AniMate/Archive 2

Plot summaries

Hello, AniMate. I changed the Kendall Hart Slater article back to my edit before your changes to it. I see your reasoning for removing the headers from the plot summary, although for soap opera characters, it's sometimes needed because of their longer history than prime time or film characters. See Pauline Fowler, for instance. But the reason that I undid your edits to the Kendall Hart Slater article is because of your changes to the tense of the plot. Wikipedia's plot summaries should be in present tense, as is addressed in this link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Tense. I know that link states preferred. But a good (or great) formatting style for Wikipedia is considered to be when an article's plot summary is worded in present tense. To read up on more of that, you can click on this link. I was opposed to it at first as well, but now it seems really right to me, perhaps because I'm used to it now. But having the plot in present tense, with the year in which it happened if it's a soap opera (though years are not usually needed for present tense of film plot summaries), as to clarify that it's not happening now makes a lot of sense, considering that just as if watching a movie, a television show, or a play, it really does seem as though it's happening as you read.

Anyway, any other changes that you made to the Kendall Hart Slater article and were a great improvement to it...but were undone with my revert of your edits, it would be good if you were to add those changes back. It's just the tense of the plot that I objected to due to seeing how Wikipedia works with that whole topic.

I'll see you around.

Take care. Flyer22 (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Flyer22 (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --El on ka 05:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adolf eichmann's photo

i don't know why you said that my scan of eichmann's book cover was dubious(nor did you mention why yourself).anyway,please let me know if there are any problems.also,if an admin reccommends the best photo to use among these 3 photos, then please abide by it.thanksGrandia01 (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Eichmann

Please have a look at the Noticeboard thread regarding your request. My interpretation, which seems to follow the consensus of others, is that the third image (Image:Eichmann.jpg) is the only option for this article. Though the resolution is a little low, it's the only free image, and free images almost always trump non-free images, unless the non-free images are of greatly superior quality or provide significantly more information of relevance. The book cover would be fine in an article about the book itself, where critical commentary from reliable sources is provided, but - given its brief mention here - it's not the best choice. I note, also, that the third image has been placed in the article already. Hope this helps, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User to be warned

Mattjdw, who keeps making attack pages. I was about to warn him myself, but remembered what you said. Best, --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 13:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. nat.utoronto 22:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Heads up

Thank you for the heads up. The user is formerly "The Parsnip!", a self-professed Anglo-Christian who has started up a new username. He's upset (for some personal, yet completely undefensible reason) about the use of a picture of an anti-Christian musician named Varg Vikernes appearing on the Wikipedia. One could speculate for hours why he's pursuing this specific instance, and several months later at that, but never be certain why. I say boredom, that's just me. Anywho, thanks again for notifying me about the "discussion". It's really quite humorous. Logical Defense (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Hey man! Thanks for reverting the SPA. Really appreciate it! Peace--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna import a script

I want to import a Recentchanges patrol script into my Monobook. Could you unprotect it just for a sec? --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 01:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I found your script works best on tthe PS3 browser, as it keeps you from editing the wrong space flat outright. Still, good script! --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 01:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do know he's not an admin, right? —B o L 01:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no I didn't. But Metros wouldn't do anything. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 01:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: About your autoblock

Thanks for your note. I'm glad you don't think it was my name who vandalized those pages. I still don't know who did it. I'm going to ask my relatives/roomates about all of this and hopefully have my name cleared up on this situation. I disagree with the deletions of the pages I'm deeply interested in as well, but I don't go around deleting and going off on the admistrators. I'm against vandalizm as well as you guys are. And, some of the adminstators do owe me an apology for declining my request(s) to be unblocked without me having a chance to rebuttle, and sending rude messages on my talk page. Again, thanks for your note and hopefully this will all blow over and we can move on from it. Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]

I did rebuttle, and got negative feedback from an admintrator. But, all of that is over and done with now. I just hope it won't happen again. Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Justice League Task Force (comics); Naruto; Tornado Twins; WCWM; Nur für Deutsche; Star City (comics); Autolycus; Trabuco Canyon, California; Rumbula; Republican Governors Association; Sunset Beach, California; Superman Family; Justice Society Returns; List of Adolf Hitler speeches; Michael Akins; Thanos; Smash Comics; Roz Weston; German Blood Certificate

Cleanup: Human Torch; Maxima (comics); Harry Potter newspapers and magazines
Merge: Najara; Mission Viejo, California; Nordic race
Add Sources: Bongo Comics; Erich Priebke; Parti national social chrétien
Wikify: Wonder Twins; Closed-loop transfer function; Miss and Out
Expand: Royal Roy; Paneriai; Animal Man

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I'm sorry I drove you away, and I'm sorry I probably was being a stuck-up pushover while you were only trying to help. There's no excuse for anyone to be behaving like that. I should've thought about the possible consequences of that, and I'm just sorry. Please come back? Please? --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 03:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I do race and write. As for being a kid, I'm not. I'm sixteen. I've been racing for seven years, first in go karts, now in Arena cars]. I drive the #75 Hometown Heroes/Steel America car for GPMotorsports (no space). Thus where I got my username. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 18:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Summers page

Hey thanks for your help with this. I would be happy to work with you on the page as well :) We should start on it sometime tomorrow or so. I'm always on around 3-4 PM if its ok with you.

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]

I got on later than expected, lol. Its about 5:41 PM (EST). What time is suitable for you?

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]

Yes, I heard and seen those pages being vandalized, and again it was not me. I believe it was one of my relatives. Please believe it was not me who's been doing all the vandals.

And, I haven't found any info on Hilary Summers just yet, she is a hard woman to look for, lol.

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]

Crap, I haven't found any suitable info on Hilary Summers all this week. How about you?

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]

AniMate, please follow the discussion here regarding Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk · contribs), Glitter1959 (talk · contribs) and Gabriellerosey (talk · contribs), who have all disrupted FAC in a similar pattern, have the same sig method, and edit the same articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ineversignsodonotmessageme, I don't know if you'll be checking here or not, but as you can see I did go ahead and added some things to the Hilary Summers page. I know that you're blocked, and your page is protected so I can't leave this there for you. Hopefully, you'll see this and realize I didn't forget about our plan, but things got too hectic for me to really contribute on a subject I know zilch about. AniMate 07:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks re Pavelić

Support much appreciated, both the note on my page and also in the subject talk. I sometimes come close to throwing in the towel at Wikipedia. By the way, I couldn't see where the RFC shows up. If you get a moment could you point me in the right direction? Regards Kirker (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puppets

I have deleted deleted comments of banned user User:Velebit puppet (Stagalj and others). Comments and answers has been writen when this user has not been allowed to write. It is very ease to find puppets of banned users in articles which are speaking about coutries of ex Yugoslavia. User:Velebit is writing fantasy stuff good Serbs and evil Croats. User Afrika Paprika is writing similar stuff about good Croats and evil Serbs. In my thinking AP1929 is puppet of user Brkic (because of his Ustaše thinking) or Afrika Paprika. For now it is not possible to do anything. Users Stagalj/Standshown/Smerdyakoff has edited 4 months before first has been blocked --Rjecina (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otac ti je 'puppet'... Once again, AP1929 is my one and only wiki account, and it will remain that as long as I am here - which will probably be a very long time considering uneducated, 'anti-fascist' (self proclaimed), pubescent teens such as yourself are here. I am only here to shed some light on NDH topics and I do so following the rules and regulations of wikipedia - backed up by sources and good information. What you are doing - constantly trying to discredit me - block me etc, is exactly what communists did best :) - However, it doesn't bother me because you can not and will not silence me, nor will you stop my research, nor will you mock my archives.

@AniMate - I apologize for having to leave such rubble on your talk page - but I can not stand when people talk behind my back. Take another look at the discussion on the Pavelic page and you will note much progress and new findings. Once again, I am here to shed some light on NDH and search for the truth - If I wanted to give you my personal POV I would do so - and it would be much more extreme then what I am presenting here as a professional. Thanks AP1929 (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal

Do not remove content just because you feel like it. If you feel there's a need for sources, request one but don't just delete content as you did in the List of Supercouples article. KellyAna (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved per BIG ORANGE BANNER) I am really offended that you just called my edit vandalism. According to your logic, you could put any and every couple ever on television into the supercouple list and no one would be able to remove them... they'd just have to ask for a citation. That is absurd. For instance, a google result for Edward Cullen and Bella Swan. I know you've worked hard on the article, but you need to remember to observe WP:OWN. Also, vandalism is a serious charge and describing a good faith edit as vandalism is unacceptable. AniMate 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you left a vandalism warning template here describing this IPs edits as a test, when clearly they weren't just a test. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning behind this at all. AniMate 23:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm offended tht you don't understand the big orange banner on my page and that you claim I assert ownership of the article, which I don't. I just watch for vandalism and unnecessary addition and removal of content. KellyAna (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not paying attention to your big orange banner. Can you explain how my edit was vandalism? You shouldn't reintroduce the material again unless you are able to prove it. AniMate 23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was put up for deletion and nothing was done while it was up for deletion. Good faith would be to request a citation, wait a REASONABLE amount of time, per guidelines, and only then, if references are not added to remove it. Because of the AfD all work stopped because we assumed it would actually be deleted. Requesting citation is the first step, which you chose to ignore. As for my "warning" if you look at the contributes by the IP, you can see where his removal of content could be construed as vandalism. KellyAna (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there's no reasoning with you to understand why the article had no improvements over the last week. KellyAna (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC disruption

I'm not happy about the situation, either, AniMate, and I spent many many hours mentoring AnnieTigerChucky (talk · contribs), who was very similar early on, but who turned into a productive editor after months of patient tutoring (starting with serious offenses like copyvios and blocked many times). But Glitter1959 was disrupting FAC in ways that abuse of not only my time, but too many other editors' time, and we'd talked to her many times about it. She seemed to understand, but was right back at it all too soon. In other circumstances, I would have gotten involved with mentoring her, but she was really making making things hard on FAC. Each disruptive FAC takes not only my time, but Gimmetrow/GimmeBot's time and every editor who takes the time to review the FAC until I can close it. I wish it could have worked out another way, but she didn't avail herself of any sort of mentoring apparently. Hey, glad the strike is over ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Hi AniMate. Just want to say thank you for your support on the List Of Supercouples article. I cannot believe the c&^p we are getting from the people who police this article! I put the article up for deletion last week, unfortunately it failed - the article is just a joke, and I certainly got a barrage of poorly reasoned arguments as to why I was wrong. Anyway, you might be interested to know that tonight I did a bit more digging, and discovered proof of what we already know - the article is just a load of original research. Have a look at the references for the "supercouples" - I click on about ten of them just now and NONE of them verify the claim of "supercouple" WHATSOEVER. The word is not even mentioned, sometimes the couple themselves are not even mentioned! More worryingly the four points at the beginning of the article - supposedly verified by scholars, no less, also has dodgy references. 2 of them lead to non-exsistent website, one to a page on Amazon , and the other one makes NO mention of the "claims" at all. Very interesting.... I'm sure some of the references are valid, but there are certainly more than a few that are just fake. Keep fighting the good fight!! Paul75 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, calling editors "crazy." That's really gross incivility in a big way. And AniMate, I'm not "reading anything into anything this time, he flat out called Flyer22, IrishLass, and I "crazies." There's no reading into that.KellyAna (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you were leaving this comment, I was actually leaving him a comment asking him to refactor his characterization of the contributors to the article. AniMate 00:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amended with many apologies to all parties concerned or offended, although I do not recall "flat out" calling anyone a "crazy" by name, it was an insensitve generalisation on my behalf on the numerous numerous Wikipedians who contributed to the debate on this topic.Paul75 (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AniMate, thank you. Paul, you said the people who police the article and the article actually has three names listed as those who are main contributors. That seems to me to indicate your comment was directed to those of us listed there. Thank you for retracting your comments. KellyAna (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider the matter of the "crazies" closed as KellyAna has (if not accepted) acknowledged your apology. We should drop hurt feelings and just focus on the article. AniMate 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not directed to anyone at all, and again I can only apologise for any hurt caused, it was not my intention. To be honest with you, I don't even notice the names of the main contributors, and didn't actually know such a thing existed until you pointed it out. It was a general term as I felt frustrated that no-one was listening to my points. Apologies, I will go and eat some humble pie now....Paul75 (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, case closed. Thanks AniMate Paul75 (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much

For completely ruining the list of supercouple's article. Your cooperation has been appreciated and hope you're happy now that you've got your way. Apparently it's your way or the highway and I'll be taking the highway and removing the list from my watchlist. Hope you are happy. KellyAna (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm decidedly unhappy that you're so unhappy. I just tried to make the list conform with WP:NOR as listing great love stories and very popular couples in a list that is supposed to be about supercouples is synthesizing a lot of information under one banner where much of it doesn't belong. I am sorry you feel this way, but I'm fairly certain there is nothing I can do to make you feel better. AniMate 16:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Nazi human experimentation

I don't think there's any specific rules for citing documentaries, but I would think that if you follow the rules for citing a television show, or the transcript of a television show, that would work. I'm personally not a huge fan of citation templates, but if you're looking for a template to use, it seems like most of the references are online/web citations; you could use {{cite web}}, or {{cite news}} for the ones like BBC news.

As far as the aftermath is concerned, I think both of the items you pointed out (victims and nuremberg code) would be important to include. The article does a very good job of describing the various experiments, but without some type of information on what came out of this in the end, I don't think the article is complete. It seems like the article starts to provide some insight into the aftermath under 'modern ethical issues', but with only two sentences, that's merely just a statement and not really a discussion on the aftermath as a whole. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supercouples

Thanks for the kind words. I've added it to my watchlist, and will try to come up to speed. In the meantime, I recommend:

Stay as civil as possible. If you've said anything that was uncivil, consider deleting it. It's a very powerful technique for de-escalating a dispute, and getting things back on track.
If you haven't yet, post some requests for opinions at related WikiProjects. Soaps, and maybe WikiProject Television or WikiProject Film
Consider Wikipedia:Mediation
Think about what would be required, not just to improve the list, but to actually get it to Wikipedia:Featured lists status. Look at some other lists that made the cut, and see how they've been done. They may give you ideas to help break the logjam.

Good luck, El on ka 08:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, thanks, I appreciate it. :) The word "effortless" makes me smile, but I appreciate the sentiment. When I watch shows like Dancing with the Stars, I often hear the judges praising how "effortless" the dancing looks. When in reality I know how much hard work went into making something look like it wasn't hard at all <grin>. In any case, thank you for the barnstar, it made my day. :) --El on ka 00:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supercouples

Thanks for your message. I am weighing in on the debate again, although I think my views are fatally opposed to Flyer and KellyAna's, and I think coming to an agreement that pleases everyone is near impossible. But you never know! I have taken a look at the list of fictional anti-heroes....and shuddered! I'd love to rip into that, but where does one start?! I just think all of these lists are so unnecessary, it is not just the supercouples list, all of them need to go. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a fan websites. It detracts from the whole experience.....anyway, I'm sure attacking the List of fictional anti-heroes will make me even more popular! Can't wait.....Paul75 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With tbat attitude I'm positive that an agreement is impossible to come to. I'm going to tell Elonka I can't work with this and let her off the hook for editing the list. Obviously Paul's goal is to have all lists gone because he doesn't like them. He also has little knowledge of what a "fan site" is if he thinks a list as comprehensive as the Supercouple list is fan based. I guarantee you, if it was fan based, there would be many removals from the list. KellyAna (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope that Elonka stays with the list despite KellyAna backing out again. Unfortunately, her attitude is diametrically opposed to what Wikipedia is about, and I cannot imagine how someone who reacts so poorly to differing opinion online deals with differing opinions in real life. AniMate 20:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)That was rude. Avoiding conflict is "reacting poorly"? Wow, so does that mean you go looking for fights? I just can't deal with the fighting that will continue to occur with Paul and his "all lists should be deleted" attitude. Are you actually saying "all or nothing" is really what Wikipedia is all about? I never got that impression until today. KellyAna (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for causing you offence KellyAna - I will try and make sure my opinions fit in with yours next time I express a point of view. I am entitled to not like lists for exactly the same reason you do like them. I'm not sure what planet you are living on, but I am living in a democracy where I am allowed to have a differing opinion from another person, and I am freely allowed to express those opinions. You need to pull your head out of your arse and start behaving like a normal, rational human being. Many many apologies to AniMate for expressing these views on her talk page. Paul75 (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And they call me rude? You two hold those cards in spades today. KellyAna (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your arrogance, sheer bloody mindedness and complete disregard of anyone else's opinion is enough to push anyone to rudeness - you have constantly heaped it upon me since I dared venture into the Supercouple world and I am sick of it. Perhaps if you were slightly more agreeable people wouldn't react to you so badly. Paul75 (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your definition of constantly? I left the article and haven't said anything in quite some time. Is that "constant" to you because that's not the definition of the word I learned. I learned it meant "non-stop" and since I stopped long ago, "constant" is relatively impossible. And my being "agreeable" isn't the issue, you attacked quite handily and rapidly without giving a damn about civility.KellyAna (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to avoid conflict on Wikipedia and collaborating with people who have vastly differing opinions is how good articles are written. You do seem to react to conflict poorly and you seem to determined to see only the worst in me and Paul. If pointing that out is rude, then I guess I'm rude. You're welcome to contribute to the list any time. AniMate 21:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't productive, and I've got a ridiculous amount of work to do IRL. Paul, I suggest not posting on KellyAna's page anymore. I've gone above and beyond to try and make her feel welcome at the article, and she has made it clear she is not interested in collaborating with us... so just let it go. AniMate 21:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed AniMate. It's getting ridiculous, and as evidenced I can't control my anger anymore. Paul75 (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SSP

Hiya - just a quick note. Could you please take care not to use second-level headers ==like this== on SSP reports? The reports are each on a subpage, and then transcluded onto the main page - whilst the headers look fine on the sub-page, when they're transcluded they mess up the table of contents on the main page. Thanks! _GB^T/C 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. How did I end up on your talk page, then...?! Sorry about that! _GB^T/C 19:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah - sorry, have realised I lumped your edit in with his when I did the diff. Thanks! _GB^T/C 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why I did it

[1] Does it really matter?--KingMorpheus (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phylicia Rashad

Which do you feel we should go with for her birthplace? Valid sources either state Harris County, Texas or Houston, Texas. Which is it? Or is it since Harris County is located somewhere on the line of Houston, does it really matter which we state?

Look at the edit history and you'll see that I restored further after you. The reason I did that is because I thought some newbie vandal had vandalized her birthplace or didn't really know that they were/are wrong. That restore of mine took away a few good edits, though. So if you could put those back in, it'd be great. But the bigger question is should Houston, Texas go back in? Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KKK=Neo-Nazi

I appreciate what you're saying here. Even though GSTS is offended by being called a Neo-Nazi, he never denied being a member of the KKK, even after accusations from not only me, but several others. The ADL considers the KKK a Neo-Nazi organization, especially after the merger of the KKK and the Aryan National Front. I will accept the ADL definition of what makes a Neo-Nazi group over just about anyone else, including a self-professed KKK member. In fact, I attempted a couple of times to place the tag of Neo-Nazism to the KKK article, but GSTS kept reverting, despite the evidence of the ADL. I guess the ADL wouldn't be a reliable source to a KKK member. Furthermore, I was not attacking GSTS in any way--I was merely labeling him correctly. His anti-Semitism was clear to me, so he really did not deserve much civility (considering racism is the ultimate uncivil action). I hope this is clear. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OM, you really don't need to explain anything to me. He's splitting hairs about something unbelievably offensive. Let him hang himself. Ani Mate 05:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the troll is blocked. Ani Mate 05:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Yamaoka AfD

You've placed this for AfD, yet over a year ago you felt a fourth AfD would be bad faith http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristi_Yamaoka&diff=113014691&oldid=113014352. This is now the fifth nomination. The argument you raise for deletion was broadly, and deeply covered in the prior AfDs, all of which resulted in keeping the article. Perhaps you'd like to reconsider? SpectralAgent (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Ani Mate 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the AfD has ended with a supposed rename and cleanup, I'll just mention that the earlier redirect from this article to a section I created on Dangers of Cheerleading in the Cheerleading article (which was also a request on the Cheerleading talk page) has all the info in a cleaner and more condensed format as per what that article requested, and retains sources. Therefore, reinstating the redirect might cover all the bases all at once. MSJapan (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting this article to Cheerleading is not how the AfD closed. It closed as no consensus. The closing admin suggested a rename, but that is not the conclusion of the AfD. In fact, only one of 11 people who commented on the AfD even mentioned the possibility of a rename. Nobody else did. It's no consensus, pure and simple. 50% keep, 50% delete, only the nominator suggesting merge, and only one suggesting rename. If this article turns into a redirect, it will be undone as this not supported by the AfD. --SpectralAgent (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The King

Perhaps you'd be intersted in the discussion on Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta, its where all the action's at ;)
--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't blame ya, I'm getting sick of that myself. Tried to get someone to end it... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

btw, I can't believe this, the history major just said that Britannica is wrong, and he is right! ROTFLMAO!! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Byrne

I wrote a valid article about a real elected Canadian politician approximately seven months ago, and somebody else vandalized it within the past 24 hours. Try paying attention to the edit history of an article next time. Bearcat (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]