User talk:AniMate/Archive 7

Natasha Yi vandalism

Hi there, remember the discussion about Natasha Yi's year of birth. So I check the article to Natasha Yi's article and I check the history on Natasha Yi's article and a different IP user is putting false information. I know I already found it's real source from AskMen.com. I am still not an administrator but I already revert edits to the correct year of birth. I found a different IP user by putting false information to 1981. The IP user's name is User:67.52.94.30. So the IP user is putting false information and disrupt the editing. So could you write a warning a different IP user the 67.52.94.30 not to change false year of birth. And remember to check the article of Natasha Yi all the time if you see a false year of birth on a different IP user kept on changing the wrong year of birth. The IP user that's User:67.52.94.30 kept on disrupt the edits the user will be blocked by editing. So I am letting to Thank You for resolving the issue from a long time ago, and I already talk to User:Matty on the same issue. So remember to write a warning not to make disruptive edits to a different IP user. So let me know if you write a warning to IP User:67.52.94.30 not to put false information. If there is problems on the article of Natasha Yi again to a IP user. I will let you know. Thanks for all your help and I will talk to you soon. Steam5 (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Roak here.

Hey man, do you want me to look for sources in spare time for the Shayne Lamas-carly thing? Can I ask you one thing, how's my editing? I did alot of work and I just want to know if im doing good or if I should just recess and read over some examples and stuff (like guidelines)? --Leslie Roak (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Roak here. I need to talk to you about the policy thing. I read that the images of characters like Claudia Zacchara and Sami Brady in the articles are not good. Promotional images/ or images of the actors are not good. Like not good. So I looked at the Jasper Jacks article image in the infobox and that seems like a good example. It should be a screencap, right? So should I start looking for images to replace some of the wrong images I uploaded? Thanks dude. --Leslie Roak (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Promotional images aren't too bad as they are official images that tend to show actors in a flattering light rather than a random screenshot. As for policy, keep reading up and learning. Things like calling minors sexy and frivolously tagging articles for CSD are against policy and can result in a block. AniMate^draw 01:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, gotcha man. --Leslie Roak (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Tara McPherson page deleted?

I noticed the artist Tara_McPherson had her page deleted on July 12th (it appears to have been deleted by you). It mentions something about an ambiguous copyright violation and references her Facebook page. I contacted the artist directly and she's just as confused about what this might mean as I am. As far as she knows, there is no copyright violation. Thank you for the clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoveringMedia (talk • contribs) 08:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The copyright violation wasn't from a facebook page, though the person who nominated it for deletion cited that. The actual copyright violation was from this page from McPherson's website. It was a word for word copy, and even should she release the text we still couldn't use it since it is a primary source and would be self promoting. Recreating the page with reliable sources is definitely allowed and encouraged. AniMate^draw 17:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I understand how the usage of primary sources could really get out of hand. Given that the policy does seem to give the option to use primary sources ("Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment...",) couldn't it be argued that it would be better to keep the article intact with notes that it needs to be rewritten, as opposed to deleting it? I could understand if there were also a question of notability, but clearly that's not the case here. It should be noted that until I'd sent Ms. McPherson an email asking about the deletion, I'd never had contact with her, so I consider myself an impartial observer that appreciates her contributions to the arts, and not as a personal advocate.CoveringMedia (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (EST)

In looking at the original article much of this is a bibliography. If the primary source material were still in question, perhaps the article could maintain the original opening paragraph, followed by the bibliography and remaining sections. This would at least keep Ms. McPherson's presence on Wikipedia, and also give someone time to rewrite the biography section.CoveringMedia (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2009 (EST)

I think a better idea is to start the article from scratch. If McPherson is notable, we should be able to easily find sources that discuss her besides her website. Ideally, a Wikipedia article isn't rewritten from plagiarism, it's written from a variety of sources by a variety of authors who don't have a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, the biography from her website isn't neutral and it is self-promotional. When I have some time I'll work on something, but the next few days are quite busy. AniMate^draw 00:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Carrie_Prejean#Breast_Implants_.28again.29

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Carrie_Prejean#Breast_Implants_.28again.29. Thank you. Rico 03:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

I've given a statement on the article talk page. Unfortunately, I think there are two groups of people actively pushing their POVs on that page, and I have no desire to edit the article. Sorry, but between the rudeness shown to me by people who disagree with me and the rudeness shown to me by people who agree with me, I have no desire to edit in such an unpleasant atmosphere. AniMate^draw 03:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Page move

Can you undo our friend Leslie Roak's move of Port Charles to Port Charles (TV series)? It seems like an unnecessary disambiguation, as the TV series should be the primary topic over the fictional location.— TAnthony^Talk 17:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, he then redirected Port Charles to Port Charles, New York (fictional city), not thinking about the fact that every link to it is meant to go to the series article. I fixed that, but ...17:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've undone the move. I can't believe this "new" user archived my talk page. AniMate^draw 19:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I hadn't noticed he'd done that, but I was wondering why it was empty all of a sudden.— TAnthony^Talk 20:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I love this guy. He's a 22 year old lawyer who attends the fictitious University of Malibu and gets married on a Tuesday and still finds time to edit every day surrounding his wedding. I can practically see it. "I now pronounce you man and wife." "Honey, I really need to go edit Carly Corinthos now." AniMate^draw 20:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Plus, not a lot of guys concerned with soap articles are marrying women. You and I should know!— TAnthony^Talk 20:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I thought you had a girl! AniMate^draw 20:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL.— TAnthony^Talk 20:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I know how you feel about General Hospital articles, but if you can bear it, perhaps you'd like to contribute to a rewrite of the Claudia Zacchara character background. I'm running out the door, but the section (and likely the entire article) is a hot mess. Normally, "sexually lethal" would be my pet peeve (does that mean she has a poisonous puss?). However, describing her as "viscous" takes the cake. AniMate^draw 21:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Yo, i just wanted to help out the talk page (it was clutter) and I wanted to help you out so we can get over the anger over the images and the age things. So how's it going? --Leslie Roak (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL

Dude, we have someone that seems to hate us mutually (TAnthony AniMate), I feel so close to you! — TAnthony^Talk 03:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. It's official. You complete me. AniMate^draw 06:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and we're the same person now too, see User talk:Clau5dia8 ;)— TAnthony^Talk 00:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder who is responsible for User:TAnthony_AniMate? I'll likely work on getting together a sock investigation when I get back to LA. I guess Roak's two month honeymoon or whatever is off. Sad. AniMate^draw 06:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You missed some stuff today; Roak's been blocked for 24 hrs for calling you an "ID*OT" after my warning, and I finally opened a sock investigation.— TAnthony^Talk 21:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I threw down some evidence and informed him of the report. We'll see what happens, though his block should clearly be extended since he's editing with User:Leslie Roaker II. AniMate^draw 22:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Liz Webb age

if she is 26 and jason is 35, ten years ago when they began a relationship, he'z like 25/26 and sh'es 15/16. thats gross. thats a lie. --Clau5dia8 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article

Hey, AniMate. I know that you are busy. But since you are currently editing a little bit until you get back from your vacation, which means you are able to be addressed about this now, I felt I would go ahead and ask you for your collaboration on the Luke and Laura article. As seen in this link, Rocksey and I are currently working on it. If you watch her talk page, you may or may not already be aware of this. There, I said, "When AniMate gets back from his vacation, I plan to ask him if he would not mind cutting down on the article's plot; he is most definitely good at trimming plot sections. We would have three different editors focusing on three different parts of the article, which is good and may make this process go faster."

So what do you think? Flyer22 (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing time is rather limited, but I'd be happy to go over things once I get back home. AniMate^draw 16:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, AniMate. That is all I am asking for on this matter; I know that you are currently busy, as stated above. I do not know much about the history of General Hospital, except for what I have read or viewed on the Internet about it (and what I have viewed has been little) and in addition to watching a bit of the current storylines this year. I know of Luke and Laura, but I have not watched any of their storylines. I am concerned that if I were to try to cut down on the plot, I would cut out important or very relevant detail. Besides that, you are better at cutting down on plot than I am.

I have not forgotten your request of me to fix up the Sonny Corinthos article. It is currently much better now than it was when you asked me for help with it, but I will eventually add more real-world content to that article when I get a good chance to. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong or not? That second part keeps getting removed, and now that first part has been removed for the first time. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's right. I'm sure that like many of us, the IP would rather forget the heinousness of Luke and Felicia. AniMate^draw 01:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Besides, all three IPs are from the same region in Illinois. It's likely the same person on a dynamic IP. On another note, how would you feel about replacing that picture of Luke & Laura. Genie Francis looks awful. I think the picture of their wedding would be more appropriate. AniMate^draw 01:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I figured it was right; in fact, I knew it had to be...since you left it in. I also figured that IP hates those mentions for some reason. As for a different main picture of Luke and Laura, I do not mind. I do not think Francis looks awful in the current one, LOL, but I would not mind a change. The thing is...the one of their wedding was deleted from the Supercouple article and their article. Though I did not upload it, I was advised not to upload it again because of that; I would link to these discussions, seeing as I took that image deletion debate to WP:Deletion review, but I am too lazy to do so at the moment. I believe you read the initial deletion debate about that image during the time I was furious with Damiens.rf for tagging a bunch of images I had uploaded and taking up a lot of my talk page with those deletion nomination notifications.

The current lead image in Luke and Laura's article also shows how they look these days (their age range), but go for it if you feel that the change is best. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Silver state Trio

This is not the same Mark Gray that already has an article, so a redirect isn't any good. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Episode count GH

Hi. Another user with an ip number that starts with a 7 changed the episode number on the General Hospital template before the actual episode was uploaded on the ABC site. Please give him/her a little hint of not doing so.Wingard (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave a note, but this is such a silly, pointless thing to get upset about. AniMate^draw 21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

KSNEMC1

KSNEMC1 is clearly not getting it, and I would say is worse than TimothyBanks. At least TimothyBanks understood/understands WP:Common name; he simply did not always follow it. KSNEMC1, on the other hand, genuinely does not seem to grasp the guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest inappropriate actions by Caden

Earlier today, this user went to my talk page and falsely accused me of making attacks on another editor when I didn’t, and went on to cry foul to administrators about it. I noticed that you have been dealing with this particular person for the last couple of days. So perhaps it was best to tell you this. Caden and I do have a history spanning three months, a history I never wanted in the first place. Two such incidents occurred with both of us involved, and in both incidents, I came out on top of the argument (more or less). If I have to venture of a guess, this person still has EXTREME disdain over me over all that has happened between the two of us. And therefore, he has been keeping an eye on me, wikihounding me. A citation has been issued by an administrator in the past for his wikihounding offense on me. And here he is again. Whenever he sees something that is unjustifiable in his eyes, he will ruthlessly come in and intervene, getting involved in things that are none of is business to begin with, rehatching old wounds, and continuing in his old habits of causing disruption to other editors like me.

When I go on Wikipedia, I go on there to look up information on about anything. When I see an information that doesn’t look correct, I fix it in the most professional of ways. When it comes to Caden, I sense that he comes on Wikipedia to see what fight, disruption and drama he can cause today to any editor who oppose him in any sort or fashion. He is more focused on the animosity and hostility aspects of Wikipedia more than the productive aspect. His various history longs speaks for itself on here. I am sick and tired of editors such as Caden bothering me when all I want to do is look up information and do constructive edits on Wikipedia. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I too have a history of conflict with Caden, so there's not much I can do other than ask him politely to lay off. I'd be happy to leave him a note, but cannot take any administrative action. AniMate^draw 22:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want me to leave him a note, let me know. AniMate^draw 23:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

First off Keltie is not telling the truth. Earlier today he left personal attacks in his edit summaries towards IP 68.50.128.120 calling this editor "obnoxious". I left Ketie a warning to cease his personal attacks but he deleted my warning and called me "obnoxious" in his edit summary. I then placed a template on my talk page asking for admin help. Admin Chzz looked into it (see my talk page) and gave Keltie a warning to stop attacking the IP. Keltie then removed that warning from his page. I have no disdain for Keltie so I can't understand why he's here attacking me and asking you to take action against me. All it shows is that he's out to have me blocked. He's hated me for a long time I guess? Anyway Keltie has a long history of attacking newbies, established users and IP's. Look at his talk page, he's been warned by several admins and several users for his disruptive behavior. He's no choirboy and I resent him saying these lies about me. Caden ^cool 02:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And I rest my case on Caden's unprofessional behavior. If he doesn't have disdain over me, then why is he getting into my personal affairs here on Wikipedia like he did the day before, and also three months earlier? How contradicting on Caden's part. Clearly there is motive involved as to his actions towards me. Am I going to have to to open up that huge can of worms again? Otherwise he should just simply mind his own business as I do to him. Clearly to him, mind his own business is harder to him than it is to most other editors. Do you see me get involved in Caden's other virtual fist fights, such as his current battle with editor Exploding Boy? I don't think so, because it is none of my business. Obviously Caden thinks he have to right to get involved in my and other editors business, as well as stirring havoc on various issues on the Wikipedia noticeboard, even when it didn't involved him initially, and he just comes in the middle because hostility and chaos is his game. I have seen first hand of such atrocious acts by him. That's is nature, looking to pick fights here on Wikipedia. Seldom does he do any type of constructive work here. He is seen on talk pages and noticeboards battling out with other editors. Those are not traits of a true Wikipedian, and time and time again Caden has demostrated that feat. I know a lot of other editors would concur with me on that. His various history logs speaks for itself. Perhaps leaving him that note right now would be the best of ideas. Thanks again, AniMate, for looking out for me and others whom Caden has endless issues with. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Keltie, calling another editor obnoxious is a personal attack. It's much easier to save the keystrokes and just type "revert". Also, on Wikipedia there are no "personal affairs". Anyone can get involved in anyone's affairs. Caden, you don't need to police Keltie's edits. You do have a history and you didn't need to become involved. If you don't like an editor, you don't have to watch their every move. You do quite well with your edits to bands and to Playboy models. Stop seeking out drama. Hope this ends this. AniMate^draw 06:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is all that simple as a keystroke. Thanks again for words of advice. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you feel things have gotten too confrontational between you two, post to one of the noticeboards. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, let me know. I know some great administrators who are quite neutral (they've disagreed with me in the past and I don't agree with their stances now) who would be willing to sort things out. AniMate^draw 07:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been posting complaints on the noticeboard. If it wasn't for Caden doing what he did the last two days, all I would be doing right now is going about my business, and focusing on the important things, the articles itself. And not focusing my time and energy on an editor who clearly cannot be civil towards other editors. To say the very least, I am very disapointed that Caden felt the need to disrupt my day, and other people's day of editing with his nonsense. And I said, enough's enough. I don't take pleasure going to the noticeboard. But it doesn't mean I won't if I feel that I'm serverely bothered. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't be taking any action against Caden or against you. I'm clearly involved. Politically and socially I disagree with Caden. Completely. I'm pretty sure he knows that. That being said, if you find yourself in another conflict with him, let me know. I'll look at what's going on and will make, at least, a recommendation or I'll let some neutral administrators know what's going on. Oftentimes the boards get jammed with the drama of the day and more complex matters are ignored. That's the best I can do. Good luck with future editing and try to keep the drama on NPR level. AniMate^draw 08:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Note to AniMate

Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks isn't necessary, though it is appreciated. Right now things are on Melrose Place drama level. I prefer the Antiques Roadshow drama level. AniMate^draw 08:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

Re: User_talk:Daedalus969#Block
Note for 3RR there doesn't need to be a warning given, AN3 guidelines say: "A courtesy warning (such as {{uw-3rr}}) may be given on their talk page, though warnings are not requisite for a block." This is reinforced in the edit warring policy here.

Further, considering the page's edit history there most certainty was disruption caused by edit warring and a 3RR violation by the user. I do not block unless it's justified by policy. I would hope that unblock requests are to be discussed with the blocking admin before being granted. The wording at unblock requests says specifically: "Per the blocking policy and block appeals guidelines, unless exceptional or expedient circumstances apply, administrators should not unblock a user without prior discussion with the blocking admin." So please do explain why this hadn't happened, ie was this a case were it was an exception to the rule? Thanks. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with my unblock. Had I waited for you to get back online, the block would have expired. I'm not perfect. That's why I try to make it clear that any administrator can undo any of my actions. AniMate^draw 09:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And I now realize that I haven't made that clear on my user or talk page. My bad. For the record, undo any administrative action I do. My judgment isn't perfect. AniMate^draw 09:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I brought this up for two reasons, 1) the policies on blocking and unblocking both say to discuss with the blocking admin, unless it's an exception. I wanted to know if you felt it be an exception, and if so why; or if you just goofed? We all make mistakes, trust me. 2) I wanted to know why you thought the editor hadn't edit warred? Thanks. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question wasn't blocked for edit warring. He was blocked for 3rr. Again, I'm not perfect, and I don't think I goofed. Basically, I saw a good faith editor who likely learned his lesson. AniMate^draw 09:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well okay, then why they hadn't 3RR'ed then (as they had done so in my opinion). Either way it's over, I just wanted to know if I had done something incorrectly and you caught it, and why they were an exception to blocking policy as I wasn't contacted about it. The block is undone now, and would have expired at this point anyhow. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Your interpretation of things was not wrong. It was different than mine, but not wrong. I haven't run into you before, but I'm certain you're better at this whole "admin" thing than I am. I hate stepping on toes and hope your's aren't too sore. AniMate^draw 10:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confident I'm no better at it :) I'm cool, it's just when I block someone I try to ensure it's within policy and is justified. Undoing the block with the reasoning you gave leaves me up to possible criticism by the editor once they return. Thus I wanted to get some info from you in case I had made a mistake. That's why I wanted to know why you thought they hadn't 3RR'ed and if you felt them to be exempted from the usual way of doing unblocks. I realise it may have came off differently, but I was honestly trying to double check to ensure I wasn't being a knob, not the other way around. Thanks for your quick clarifications! Nja²⁴⁷ 10:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad we're okay. I likely won't be taking anymore actions in regards to Daedalus969. Things are much easier when I don't. AniMate^draw 11:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Explanation for undid revision

I undid the revision by that ip number because the episode hasn't been uploaded on the ABC site yet, and I left a note on that ip number's talk page. Wingard (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Groan. Such a silly and honestly pointless thing to care about... My advice to you is to stop watching these pages to see if someone gets to the edit count before you and to just let it go if someone edits it before ABC has uploaded the video. If it has already aired, then the episode count is correct. You've really got to stop controlling this so tightly. Maybe to fill some time you can even start updating the other soap operas that don't have a person to come every single day and only update the episode count. AniMate^draw 22:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy header

Mind if I steal it to use? Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me}   06:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

NEVER! ALL FOR ANIMATE!</sarcasm> Of course you can. So depressing. AniMate^draw 06:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, and nice sig. Same font as mine. :) Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me}   06:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely possible I stole it from you. I'm not so great with the signature formatting and would probably end up destroying the entire encyclopedia should I attempt the shadow thing you did. AniMate^draw 06:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Destruction

For Mumtaz Mahal by 74.12.102.219. Ahmad2099 (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle article

You say that my contribution to the Susan Boyle article is "trivial": however if you were to google the term Virgin and Susan Boyle you would see that hundreds of newspaper articles have been written about the subject. I agree that not everyone will find the info of interest, but many will. I therefore think that you are being heavy handed in threatening an editor with being blocked simply on the grounds that you personally (and a number of other editors) don't find the information interesting. Petershipton (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The user 74.12.104.201, never stop changing the article and deleting the fact that Mumtaz were a mughol Queen, making her a persian as his will with no such a source. I recommend a temporary blocking for the IP. Thanks Ahmad2099 (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Erk! Sorry about that, accidentally hit rollback while clicking on a random spot in my watchlist. delldot ∇. 04:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No biggie at all. Before I got used to my new computer, I had a note at the top of my page pre-apologizing for my accidental rollbacks. AniMate^draw 05:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nu-Lec Industries Page Deleted

The Nu-Lec Industries was deleted recently. We are Nu-Lec Industries and are adding our company on here. How do we go about the copyright legislation when we are copying our own company site???? Could you please elaborate on the COI deletion and how we can go about getting our page up??? 4 September 2009

WP:ANI

Extended content

Hi. Since you agreed with User:TenOfAllTrades, I'll ask you what I asked him: Re WP:ANI#Tentative solution would you please clarify what exactly it is I've done to merit inclusion in your list of editors introduced with "Based on their mutual sniping, insults, accusations of bad faith, and incivility in the thread above, I'm inclined to block all of the participants in the discussion above, for at least 24 hours. As an independent admin with no knowledge of any of the parties, I would welcome some sort of clear, concise, polite presentation of why that wouldn't be an optimal solution for Wikipedia. During their break, perhaps they could go read Unclean hands. Right now, I'm utterly unimpressed by the postings here by..."? In particular I'd be interested in whether you made any attempt at all to look at the background, or are responding purely to the ANI thread. Are you even aware that I'm an admin attempting to mediate the topic Domer edits? Thanks. Rd232 talk 17:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Mm, I see your edit summary was "Either present your complaint clearly and civilly, or take your bickering somewhere else". I thought I had presented it clearly and civilly. What was unclear? What was uncivil? Rd232 talk 18:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Rd232 talk 18:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC) I didn't exactly agree with him, but clearly it isn't a productive discussion. When discussions deteriorate into silly sniping, the best course is to archive it. AniMatedraw 18:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Oh fine. Let's add that to the WP:ANI instructions: Attempts to disrupt threads with sniping will be responded to by... archiving the thread. Did you even look at the links I provided in the first paragraph of the post? Rd232 talk 19:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC) PS, as part of your archiving you didn't change the WP:Talk and WP:NPA-violating subheader (Wikipedia:Talk#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages). Rd232 talk 22:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary

Don't think I don't appreciate you taking the time to get into this. I'm sure every single involved User would be happy to end this petty nonsense after all these months. Anyway here it is: a proper detailed summary of the entire HUGE dispute. Its a very large post because it encompasses five different disputes, one of which is complex and lasted almost six months. The whole thing revolves primarily over the Hey, Slavs article, but also around every edit I made yesterday it would appear... Its hard to narrow-down the dispute in general, because it can be about just anything. The pattern is that of retaliatory editing - its almost like I went to "war". I apparently "declared war on him" by restarting the discussion on Talk:Hey, Slavs. What followed was "retaliation": provocative edits designed to pick a fight (Template:Infobox SFRY and Independent State of Croatia) along with WP:STALKING and reverting (SR Croatia and Template:History of Croatia). If I were to edit right now you'd see the pattern in like ten minutes.

Anyway, down to the details. The current disputes involve 6 articles:

• Hey, Slavs
• Socialist Republic of Croatia
• Template:Infobox SFRY
• Template:History of Croatia
• "Poglavnik" dispute (two articles, same issue)
  • Independent State of Croatia (the issue is discussed on this article's talkpage)
  • Ante Pavelić

Each of the article disputes is different and needs resolving, but Hey, Slavs is really by far the most massive. So I'll take it from the top:

#1 Hey, Slavs dispute

Hey, Slavs was the national anthem of SFR Yugoslavia. Its a pretty complicated issue, mostly because the dispute sort of "branched-out" after User:Imbris added more and more disputed edits, and I could write a whole article on how the dispute progressed - but here it is in a nutshell. It started on 18 May 2009 with this edit which introduced a new term on Wikipedia: the "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language". It was supposed to be a silly little dispute, but since even a template color is problematic, it really got out of hand.

The informal mediation by User:Dottydotdot recommended this version as "the most neutral & least POV" [1]. Imbris of course, claimed that the whole mediation was "out of procedure", that "7 days is too little to close the matter" and such in this trademark lengthy post, and simply went on as usual (you can see the whole discussion in the Decision talk section). Not only that, but he was (and is) contradicted by virtually every involved User: User:No such user, User:Hxseek, User:Ivan Štambuk, and myself. Dot finally signed off basically recommending we get MEDCOM to enforce the decision since she couldn't [2]. In retrospect we should've immediately done that. I guess nobody wanted to turn out stupid bringing-up these silly issues to MEDCOM. Pretty soon Imbris wore everybody down, including me, and got his way. I recently noticed how he whittled-down the article and restarted the discussion trying to get some small concessions out of him. I got the same accusations of "sinister communist plots", ad hominem attacks and remarks + I got stalked and old Imbris quickly began starting fights on other articles in "retaliation".
My honest opinion, of course, is the version recommended by Dotty is the only "normal" state this article has seen for the past five months.

If you want to really get into this, here's a "quick" courtesy rundown of the current issues on Talk:Hey, Slavs:

• Issue No.1: "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language". Just to be clear, the Serbo-Croatian language has quite a lot of names, with variations used throughout its history. Its modern English name, however, is overwhelmingly "Serbo-Croatian". "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian" has 266 hits on Google [3] ("Croato-Serbian" itself has 3,310 hits on Google. [4]), while "Serbo-Croatian" has 2,430,000 hits on Google. [5] I reverted his edit simply because he introduced a completely unused "XorY" term ("Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language"). "Croato-Serbian language" is of course another name for the same language, but User:Imbris likely feels its "more Croatian", and is insisting on its usage alongside "Serbo-Croatian", the more Serbian name. Imbris responded to the Google test result by calling me "the statistician extraordinaire" (LoL :) and writing-up a massive post on why all the above does not matter [6].
  Recently this dispute has started afresh and you can see the arguments quickyl by reviewing the "Serbo-Croatian version" section of the article talkpage.
• Issue No.2: "Location of the Serbo-Croatian entry". This issue is even more petty. It revolves around the status of the Serbo-Croatian language entry in the article. Basically, User:Imbris wants it in alphabetical order, and won't allow me to set-up a seperate section for the lyrics of the national anthem, or even to place them above some of the entries. I simply stress that this version was the national anthem of a country of 25,000,000 people and is not equally relevant on Wikipedia as all the other language entries.
• Issue No.3: "Deletion of Montenegrin and Bosnian language entries". User:Imbris removed the Bosnian language and Montenegrin language entries from the article. He's apparebtly been taking advantage of everyone else getting plain sickened by all this this (pardon) crap. User:Ivan Štambuk called him out on that.

There's more, so if you're really loving it all so far recommend you read the whole of Talk:Hey, Slavs/Archive 1... LoL xP

#2 Socialist Republic of Croatia dispute

(The discussion is rather short, you can find it here)The "Socialist Republic of Croatia" is the most common name for the Croatian federal state within the SFR Yugoslavia with 206,000 hits [7]. This state, however, went under a number of different, less used names:

• 1943-1945 "Federal State of Croatia" (WWII federal state, non-communist)
• 1945-1963 "People's Republic of Croatia" (Stalinist)
• 1963-1990 "Socialist Republic of Croatia" (Market Socialist)
• 1990-1991 "Republic of Croatia" (Capitalist)

(In 1991 the Yugoslav state, the Republic of Croatia, became independent.)

Each time these name changes occurred, the state also underwent relatively significant reform (along with the rest of Yugoslavia). The most common of these names is "Socialist Republic of Croatia", which is why the article is named thus, and it encompasses the entire 1945-1991 period. This is also true of all Yugoslav federal unit articles.

The problem now is User:Imbris' new idea that the last of these name changes in particular should be treated as a "seperate state" since he likes the last one most :), which is why he's editing the article infobox and claiming that the Socialist Republic of SR Croatia "lasted only up to 1990", when a "new country" came by. Again, this is a "retaliatory edit" prompted by my attempt to expand the SR Croatia article. When I asked his what's he doing on the talkpage, he said that he basically wanted to change the article name into "Croatia within socialist Yugoslavia" since "'Croatia within socialist Yugoslavia' is definitely most common name" [8]. After I did the Google test and provided him with the results [9], he started claiming that WP:NAME now suddenly does not apply and that I'm "using it to fabricate data" [10]. I told him that an independent country known as the "Republic of Croatia" did not exist from 1990, and that that actually would be "fabrication of data", but he's just sticking to this now and I can see this discussion slowly sliding into the old useless spiral. His last reply was unrelated to the main point of my post, its vague and concentrates more on me than the article... [11]

#3 Template:Infobox SFRY dispute

Imbris wants blue I want red. :)

Seriously, I fixed-up the template last winter [12]. Among other things, I decided to further my plans for a communist takeover of Wikipedia by switching the color from blue to red. I did so for a number of reasons: 1) because this is a template for subdivisions of a communist/socialist state, 2) because the flags and CoAs of the six federal republics of SFR Yugoslavia are mostly red (see them all in the table here), 3) because the infobox locator maps for the six socialist republics are - red (example, SR Serbia). I switched the color in good faith to improve the articles. Luckily for the free world, User:Imbris came along after ten months and decided it was a "non-consensus edit" for the purpose of "communist propaganda".

(In the meantime, I also promoted Fascist and Nazi propaganda on Template:Nazism sidebar and Template:Fascism sidebar by fixing-up their color. So far I'm getting away with it...)

#4 Template:History of Croatia dispute

This dispute is another complicated dispute on a more-or-less arbitrary issue. Typical. User:Imbris is again promoting the legitimacy of the Independent State of Croatia. We're basically disputing the makeup of the third group of links. The third group covered the period between 1918 and 1991, the period of Croatian history during which it was a part of Yugoslavia. This is my proposed version of the template, this is User:Imbris' version. My version is communist :)

Here's the basic issues again:

• User:Imbris removed the heading "Croatia within Yugoslavia" and replaced it with "Modern history" [13]. This is in spite of the fact that "Modern history" obviously does not simply stop in 1991, and that that whole header was actually created to cover "Croatia within Yugoslavia"
• He removed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia entry from the template, even though the country was directly (no autonomy) a part of that country for 21 years, and replaced it with the Banovina of Croatia entry (apparently forgetting that the Banovina of Croatia, formed in 1939, existed only for 2 years before Yugoslavia was occupied).
• He's now completely replaced the WWII period with the entry of the fascist Independent State of Croatia. Even though Croatia existed during WWII as the Yugoslav Federal State of Croatia, and even though the Yugoslav Front article covers the history of WWII Croatia, it is nowhere to be seen as that article is apparently "not of good enough quality" and "does not deserve inclusion". The Federal State of Croatia entry, that of the only legitimate and internationally recognized Croatian state of World War II, is also stricken from the template entirely.

#5 "Poglavnik dispute"

I dare to hope that, in spite of this kind of malevolence, this issue might actually be resolved. Its a factual dispute, and I was thus able to simply drown Imbris in sources. This probably doesn't warrant any special attention, but since this is one of User:Imbris' retaliatory edits it falls into the category. We were talking about the translation of the title of the WWII dictator of the Independent State of Croatia, Ante Pavelić. As you may know he was known as the "Poglavnik". The word was created by the Ustaše (they loved to create words :), and it is derived from the Croatian word "glava" meaning "head" (Po-glav(a)-nik). The literal translation is "headman", "leader" is also used as a simpler translation. The whole discussion is here, btw.

Imbris' was apparently trying to provoke another fight (in retaliation for Talk:Hey, Slavs) by removing the translation altogether from the articles Independent State of Croatia and Ante Pavelić, claiming that "headman" is not used. However, I presented a large number of published sources, including Britannica, that use "headman". Now I've suggested that we mention both translations in a note by the word "Poglavnik" in the articles' lead. (Of course, Imbris insists that his translation comes first [14] :) I'm still not sure whether he accepted my proposal or not after his last edit... it would be a first if he did, though. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Admin, I want to report about multiple vandalism for the article Jerusalem. Every time I add the fact that Jerusalem is the offical capital for Stat of palestine according to The Palestinian Basic Law, some users come to delete it. then there is this guy Hertz1888, telling me about blocking policy, but he did'nt send the blocking policy for the other users whom were deleting my edits. can you see those guys whats wrong with them, because I am totally tired of this subject. they wirte what ever they want and delete any thing dosen't agree with thier own will. Thanks Ahmad2099 (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note: This user has been disregarding repeated requests by various editors to respect an existing consensus, and invitations to join in discussion, and has reinserted the same edit five times. Please see this message. The specific issue is under discussion currently (or has been recently), and the wording of the lead results from many lengthy previous discussions, with general agreement to make no fundamental changes without consensus. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The dispute

Seeing as how I'm a "little girl that complains admins all the time" :), I thought I'd just give you a nudge regarding finding a resolution to that mess. I can imagine how tedious it looks, and believe me, I wouldn't be bothering people about this if I thought I could end this on my own. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

AniMate, I'm going to start really annoying you if we don't get this mess under way :). Seriously, if you're too busy for all this I'll just bring the issue to MEDCOM. Believe me, I'd be the first to understand if you don't want to get you're hands dirty with all this. Its not like you're "duty bound" or anything. I'm on the verge of giving up myself, but when I remember that Users giving up is what Imbris has always counted on, I get motivated to end this once and for all. He never edits on "main" articles (like Serbo-Croatian) where he'd grab too much attention, he keeps to the fringe and uses obscurity and persistence to have his way.

Persistence aside, I don't think solving this will be as difficult as the Summary post suggests. Dotty already got involved, read through the arguments and came to a decision. Its just sad informal mediation was... informal (see second paragraph of #1 Hey, Slavs dispute subsection for diffs and all). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have very little time to devote to Wikipedia right now. That I'm on at all is due to the fact that I'm not really paying too much attention to what I'm doing online, and I feel like I'm going to have to actually concentrate if I'm to wade into this dispute. When I say busy, I mean a major real world project just fell into my lap, and I'm extremely excited about it. If I had known about it, I wouldn't have even stuck my nose into this dispute, but here we are. I'll be sketching for the next couple of days, so don't expect to see me around much, unless it's late at night, I decide to break things up and make a few random edits of no consequence, or I come upon some major blocks. I'll have some time this weekend. That's the best I can offer. Sorry. AniMate^draw 17:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Kk, no problem. Imbris pretty much thinks I'm an idiot for seeking mediation (again), and I guess he got to me. No rush then. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Centerpin fishing

I remember bumping into that article a few weeks ago, covering my eyes and moving hurriedly to something else. I thought I could just manage something after you deleted most of it! --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Toy block

The toy block goes to administrators who accidentally block themselves. Cheers! Durova³¹⁹ 02:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hee! Great minds think alike when it comes to self unblock messages I suppose. Thanks, I'll display my toy blocks with pride. AniMate^draw 03:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That kind of self-loathing isn't healthy, AniMate, I recommend you see a medical professional... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Every great administrator does it at least once. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. AniMate^draw 07:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Delusions of grandeur? Its worse than I thought --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be careful about criticizing me. Clearly I'll block anyone. AniMate^draw 07:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Rules of Wikipedia ?

Hi, what should I do if I saw someone breaks the rules of Wikipedia ? Ahmad2099 (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Imbris again

I've taken your advice and will start undertaking serious action against User:Imbris' disruption on Wikipedia. I'm still loathe to start bothering people with this, so I let him have his way in the issues I described above. However, now he's followed me to more articles and has started damaging their factual accuracy as well [15], which will likely lead to more edit-warring. Edit-warring and disputes is literally all he does...
This has to stop, I'm going to talk to Ricky81682 first, I want his take on the issue. Plus if he feels he can take action immediately it might spare me the trouble of writing more reports on the truly amazing extent of damage this user has inflicted through fanatical persistence. I understand you're unable to use your admin tools, but I'd still appreciate if you could back me up with a brief effort (if you share my general impression of this user's behavior, of course). An outsider striving to maintain objectivity may not immediately get the whole picture if I'm the only one bringing this matter to his/her attention. Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Maura Murray

Hi, I don't normally badger people who disagree with me at AfD, but in this case would you mind looking at the sources I've found covering the disappearance of Maura Murray? I'm fairly sure that they demonstrate the notability of this case. I'd tidied up the article after the last AfD, but I neglected to suggest a name change to refocus on the case rather than the individual or to include more sources, apologies. Fences&Windows 00:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Could you weigh in at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#Drew_R._Smith_.E2.86.92_Ender_The_Xenocide on [16]? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 06:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Kristina Davis

I didn't copy it from that wiki, but I copied it directly from the place it was, the miscellaneuous characters list. If it's the same on both websites, that's not my problem and majority of the wiki editors get their articles from wikipeida any. Is it ok if I re-write the article my way following all the guidelines ofcourse. --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 01:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What would you have done?

As is present to anyone watching my talk page, I recently got into an unpleasant interaction with User:Law Lord and reported him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Despite his past harassment of me (which he was thoroughly warned about) and what I feel was his recent harassment of me, it did not seem to be thought of as anything worthy of them warning him about this time. Though one of the editors gave him advice about not templating editors over not using edit summaries for minor edits. You sometimes use minor edits without edit summaries as well. Would you not have been angry or annoyed by him templating you about that? If you had a past unpleasant history with him and then he did this to you, templating you two more times after you removed his initial template in frustration, would you have reported him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Of course...you are an administrator now, but even administrators report matters there, right? I am just so frustrated about this; things like this make me really want to quit Wikipedia permanently. Some people ask, "What would Jesus do?" I ask, "What would AniMate do?" Flyer22 (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)‎

Honestly, in situations like this, you're doing the right thing: blowing off steam at a neutral, safe talk page. The other thing you should do, is tell him to stay off your talk page. We don't own our talk pages, but users are given some latitude in regards to who posts on them and what kind of behavior constitutes harassment. If you'd like, I'll post a note on Law Lord's talk page asking him to stay off of your talk page. I can't take any administrative action for users I'm friends with, but if the harassment continues, I'd be happy to back you up on WP:AN/I. Considering that you edit in some contentious areas and deal with some contentious editors, you're rarely on the admin boards, so I'm inclined to be supportive of you in these situations. If you want to focus in another area, I think we should start a Guiding Light task force. There are likely a lot of articles that need to be redirected, merged, or what not. Since it's canceled and the articles aren't edited often, it shouldn't be difficult. It would be nice if one soap wasn't overly fan dominated. AniMate^draw 05:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Don't be mad. I undid an edit of yours on Diablo Cody. I think the link ot Jenny, Juno would be more appropriate for the article on the film. If you're irritated, look at my talk page history for an edit summary just for you. AniMate^draw 05:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Aw, AniMate considers me a friend. I am flattered. Really, I am. I would have expected you to refer to me as an acquiantance, which is how I refer to everyone I am often friendly with on Wikipedia. Us being on rather friendly terms, though, is why I did not report this to you and rather took it to the Noticeboard. I really do not feel like talking with Law Lord ever again; the way he talks to me in that sly and often condescending manner about what he supposedly has not done only irks me. He was asked to stay off my talk page before, and almost a year later he was right back there again yesterday. I just find it insane that I was still on his watchlist. Had I really been on there without him noticing me all this time? I doubt it. As I stated at the Noticeboard, my talk page has not exactly been inactive or even mostly inactive all this time. Why would he not notice me through his watchlist all the other days I have been on it, but suddenly now? And why not take this person he is not familiar with off his watchlist, to avoid cluttering it up, if I was really an unfamiliar person to him? Yeah, I am not buying that he had forgotten all about our original encounter. It is also better that you do not warn him about not going on my talk page, unless this type of mess continues; he will simply see it as a personal attack on him, as well as this conversation (if he has not seen it already).

Anyway, a Guiding Light task force? Would we be able to round up enough editors for one? Or do you mean just you and me, LOL?

And the See also section I added to the Diablo Cody article? I mainly did that as a compromise with an IP I reverted just before that (you saw my revert of the IP, I am sure). But a little after I added that See also section, I saw that mention of the film is already in the Juno (film) article and that it is better left there. I was waiting for someone to revert me on that addition, anyway, and am more than fine with it having been you.

P.S.: Yes, I looked at your special message for me in your edit summary, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

By a task force, I meant the usual suspects at soap articles. Perhaps, Rocksey and TAnthony if they are interested. That's really me just putting it out there since I have no free time to devote Wikipedia these days and it needs to be done. AniMate^draw 04:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Flyer22 (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Scribner

It appears that User:Scribner has taken your comments as meaning he has a right to ignore both consensus, the article probation in place at Sarah Palin, and wp:3rr (let alone wp:point). It may be helpful to clarify that you haven't given him a free pass around wp:3rr. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I need your help

I'm editing an article about my department in Paraguay that is the Misiones Department. I'm having a problem with the infobox. Hope you can check it and help me. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcetw (talk • contribs) 05:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)