User talk:AniMate/Archive 10

2010_City_of_Bell_salary_controversy
Your views on this discussion would be welcome. Talk:2010_City_of_Bell_salary_controversy. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 16:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that. please see note on talk page. Thank you for your input! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the subtle irony alluded you
I would appreciate you not editing my sig. I was attempting to illustrate my point, which you have prevented through your censorship. Ronnotel (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you were just making a point, I wouldn't have edited it. However, you were making a WP:POINT and I would appreciate you not disrupting Wikipedia to do so. AniMate 21:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, exactly how was I being disruptive? Is there some sort of list of words that can never be used on Wikipedia? ;) Ronnotel (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but you were intentionally being offensive. Come on, you know what you were doing and there are other ways to make yourself heard. AniMate 21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know what it is that you thought I was doing. I was attempting to introduce a deliberate absurdity in order to highlight a tenuous assumption. However, you unilaterally censored my expression because you felt it was somehow unworthy of the debate. I object to your methods. Ronnotel (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi AniMate, a user on my talks page keeps writing that Im vandalizing, this is not true, because I always write down my sources when I edit a article, this person keeps telling me that im vandalizing, I hope you can do something about it. We are in a edit war in the Istanbul football league article, I wrote down 4 sources in the talk page of the article. Redman19 (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

g1 speedy for Yoga can stop your stammer.
I was a little surprised to see this G1 speedied, since it certainly made sense when I saw it and placed the prod. Perhaps it had been vandalized or something before you got to it? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It didn't make much sense, but I probably should have deleted it as unambiguous advertising as everything pointed to one blog. "Deep the asanas and speculation techniques to are part of yoga pose largely preserve the emotional and natural balance of the personal" and "Concentrate on yogasanas such as Sinhasana and Makarasana, in snowball to speech therapy as a compatible form of healing" are practically incomprehensible. If you feel strongly that this must stand for the seven days of prod, I'll happily restore it. However, next time you prod something you feel can be salvaged... don't prod it. Fix it. Instead of leaving it at a title that clearly isn't okay like Yoga can stop your stammer., try at the very, very least moving it to something that makes sense like Stuttering and yoga or Stammering and yoga. If you feel there is information that can be useful but that there isn't enough for an actual article, redirect it to a useful target, like Stuttering therapy. If you really feel process is super important, and that a prod must run for seven days when it has no chance of becoming an article, I'll happily restore it with the prod intact. If you have a problem, explain it, but what you've left here doesn't really give me much to go on. I guess I'm curious about what exactly you're objecting to. AniMate 06:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. No need to restore it; I agree this article title has no business being an article - I had suggested to the author that any well sourced information could maybe be included in Yoga. I was just objecting to the G1, since I think out-of-place speedies can be intimidating among other problems, but like you said G11 is probably reasonable. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Interaction Bans
Hey, AniMate! I don't think I've ever seen a situation quite like this before, and I was hoping you could help me to understand it. Per WP:IBAN, "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are banned from interacting with each other in any way." I take this to mean two editors in good standing here; sockpuppets of banned users are not allowed to edit any page or discussion according to policy, correct? I was unaware that an interaction ban could be initiated between an editor and potential future socks of a banned user. Strange cases are what they are: but policy seems clear here. I must be missing something - I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and I know you to be an excellent editor and administrator. Is there a case of precedence you could point me to: I'm quite confused about this particular interaction ban. Thank you! Doc9871 (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a really long convoluted mess. There have been off site legal proceedings, arbitration cases, armies of socks blocked, issues taken up with the foundation, etc etc etc. Perhaps the wording wasn't perfect, and maybe calling it a topic ban would be better. Regardless, Pfagerburg doesn't need to be reverting Jeff Merkey's socks anymore. There is far too much history there, considering he was banned for a year for his behavior already. This is my attempt to let him return to actually editing without obsessing over Merkey's participation here, which is indeed extremely problematic. Without Pfagerburg withdrawing from further reverts of Merkey, there is no way I would have unblocked him, and he agreed. If you have a problem with the way things are resolved, please reopen the discussion. AniMate 07:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with your decision at all, and I know that it's a horrid mess. I just wanted to be sure that it was an unusual case (which it is), and that socking to avoid a ban should is in no way being condoned or tolerated.  Policy does not usually allow for exceptions (though there's "wiggle room", and policies can and must be changed), and I've never seen an interaction/tpoic ban like this before.  I don't think it's against policy for any editor to pursue socks of banned (or blocked) users, BTW, but I'll defer to you on that one.  Let Pfagerburg move on and edit; and hopefully the socking will cease, right?  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish "horrid mess" was all this is. It's really bad, and exacerbating the problem by allowing someone who has had off site legal interactions with Merkey to interact with him here will only make it worse. Should Pfagerburg find any more Merkey socks, he is allowed to report them, but his reverts really aren't helpful here. Make no mistake, Merkey's edits aren't welcome here, but Pfagerburg is far too close to the situation to be the one reverting them. Reporting them should be enough. If you really want a lesson in how horrid Wikipedia can be, google Merkey and Wikipedia and donation. I think that was the high (or low) point of this mess. AniMate 08:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Disturbing. Merkey's socking is a real problem, and it's no wonder he's banned ;> This is an eye-opening case I stumbled into, isn't it: and those are always the best ones!  Pfagerburg agreed to the terms you set forth, and I of course certainly agree with your judgment here.  If he needs to seek help when dealing with the socks, I would help him myself if he needed a hand.  Thanks, AniMate, for showing me "more" about the history of this thread! :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I set up an account
You sound reasonable enough so I'm writing back.

You said that if it was "widely accepted" that this was a hate crime then it should be called such on wikipedia.

How widely does it have to be accepted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marionwayne (talk • contribs) 03:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw no mention of procecutors in the article.

I did see however that some people are claiming the sicko's had white friends (yeah right like they could have friends?).

However "Michelle Malkin on her blog and on Fox News's O'Reilly Factor program, have also repeated this accusation.[12] Prior to the DA's statement, Newsom's mother sympathized with the "hate crime" position stating, "It may have started out as a carjacking, but what it developed into was blacks hating whites." --Marionwayne (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The mother is rather close to what happend. --Marionwayne (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are opinions. In this case, the state had the option of prosecuting this as a hate crime. From the article:
 * "There is absolutely no proof of a hate crime," said John Gill, special counsel to Knox County District Atty. Randy Nichols. "We know from our investigation that the people charged in this case were friends with white people, socialized with white people, dated white people. So not only is there no evidence of any racial animus, there's evidence to the contrary."
 * Our opinions of the perpetrators of this crime cannot color the article. We cannot rely on people's opinions, even the mother, to characterize this as a hate crime. We have to rely on the charges that were filed, and in this case no hate crimes charges were attached to the case. AniMate 03:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah "special counsel" I was looking for a procecutor.

The idiot doesn't seem to understand that just because you have sex withsomeone it doesn't mean you like them (think slave owners).

But you're right about opinions.

Still does the stance of the victims mother mean nothing? --Marionwayne (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, which is why we included her statement in the article. It sill doesn't mean we classify this as a hate crime though. AniMate 04:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So it comes down to the opinion of a special counsel who has a vested interest in preventing lynching vs the opinion of an angry mother who's lost her child? --Marionwayne (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It comes down to what the crime was prosecuted as, simple as that. AniMate 04:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But there again we run into the problem of the special counsel having a vested interest in preventing lynchings. --Marionwayne (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We can only go by what the prosecutors say in this case. You're saying that the prosecutor chose not to classify this as a hate crime to prevent a lynching which would involve a large enough group of people to overpower the Knoxville Police Department, break into the Knox County Jail, and publicly murder four individuals. Consider the number of lynchings in the US. Find me one time in the past 30 years that a mob has managed to lynch a prisoner in the US. The prosecutor wasn't worried about lynching, and if he had been able to add a hate crime to the charges he would have. That would have made getting the death penalty that much easier. Still, they weren't charged with a hate crime. The only way for us to categorize these is to take all emotion out of this and simply go with the charges. AniMate 04:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking of the danger of people on the street being lynched at near random. --Marionwayne (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The prosecutor didn't prosecute this as a hate crime because the facts of the case didn't support this being a hate crime. Channon Christian's father even said he didn't think the attack was racially motivated. Inferring far fetched conspiracy theories about lynchings doesn't make a very strong argument. AniMate 04:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Wikipedia has a policy you should read at WP:Verifiability. We can verify that the prosecutor said these crimes were not committed because of racial bias. We cannot verify that he said that because he feared that if this was declared a hate crime that other people would go out and commit hate crimes before the case had even gone to trial. AniMate 05:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 City of Bell salary controversy
Will do. Have a safe flight.  Will Beback   talk    07:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Carl Paladino
Your renaming of the gay speech section is OK. However, I strongly disagree that the comparisons to the email controversry is original research. It is clearly and instantly varifiable based on the page that was reffed. Dozens if not hundreds of people are talking about it on that one page. What do you think? 216.40.148.144 (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments on a news article aren't reliable. For all we know the dozens if not hundreds of people discussing this could actually be one person spamming the article. Unless the comparison is actually brought up in an article in a reliable sourc, we cannot jump to the conclusion that the two are related. AniMate  07:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The policy: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below." Do you actually believe that people are going to challenge the fact that people are comparing Mr. Paladino's sexually explicit emails with his views on gays and "pornographers" ? That fact is explictly supported by data which can be found on the NY Times page. People may disagree about the meaning or validity of that comparison, but the comparison is, in fact, being made. The comparison can be found in comments section of every article reporting on this speech. (see HuffPost) I am willing to wait until tomorrow to try and find you a so-called "reliable" source, but I really think your interpretation/comprehension of the policy is flawed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.148.144 (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Put another way, comments on a news article are reliable if they are offered to prove that comments are being made on a news article. Now, comments on a new article would not be a valid way to prove that the NY Times itself made the comparison, but that is not what I wrote. 216.40.148.144 (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense to the people commenting on the story, but their opinions simply aren't notable unless someone chooses to write about them. I can go on any number of message boards or news sites and find comments that are being made. Using your logic, I can go on a right wing website, find comments stating Andrew Cuomo is gay or is trying to turn our kids gay (please don't actually make me go to a right wing website to prove this), and insert that into his biography as a fact. Is it true that people are saying that or other salacious things about him. Yep. Are comments by anonymous readers on a website or to a newspaper article notable enough to be in someone's biography. No way. If you'd like we can bring this up at Biographies of living persons/noticeboard if you like. I can guarantee you everyone there will agree with me though. As it stands, most of the "controversy" sections in that article read more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia article. It really needs to be worked on.  AniMate  07:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry
Sorry, AniMate, if my last edit summary sounds snippy at the RfA for Elen of the Roads — the question I pose there is sincere! But the edit summary may sound testy and sarcastic. I don't do this sort of thing well, but I seriously wanted to address yours concerns, since the limited number of content edits has also been a reservation of others. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't and haven't read the edit summary. I simply don't understand why people are willing to trust someone who has so little experience editing articles. AniMate  15:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your reservations are important and understandable. As you say, it's a matter of trust. This is a hard thing to quantify, I agree. It's built over time, through a series of interactions, thus hard to document. Which is why I asked whether there were specific skills you had in mind that might be lacking if a user hadn't written enough copy. Of course, it's also true that a user might have written a great number of high-quality articles, and not be suited as an admin for reasons of character or temperament, just as in traditional publishing the best writers aren't usually the best editors. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

IP adding infobox soap character 2/sandbox to all soap opera articles
Needs reverting. Infobox soap character 2/sandbox isn't all that different, but it describes the relationships as "Family." Not all of those relationships are family. I would go around and revert all of his or her edits myself, but sigh. I'll take care of it gradually. Flyer22 (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The IP has different IP addresses, by the way. And Infobox soap character 2/sandbox adds the much debated age field back. Flyer22 (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

 * Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
 * There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
 * If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Percy Jackson Task Force

 * I've been asked before. The answer is still no. I don't see much benefit in working on a task force whose members I've had to do a fair amount of cleaning up after. AniMate  20:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification
As you participated in the ban discussion of SkagitRiverQueen, you are being notified of this Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Tareq Salahi AfD
The tag you put on the Tareq Salahi discussion page to note the Nov 2010 AfD wrap up is linking to the earlier 2009 AfD discussion. I'm not sure how to fix that but perhaps you know. To be specific, there are two tags saying the article was nominiated for deletion, one for Nov 2009 and one for Nov 2010. In both of them, "the discussion" link takes you to 2009's discussion. 74.7.121.69 (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured it out. Just added "_(2nd_nomination)" to the page name. 74.7.121.69 (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ehm, I am baffled by your close. I didn't want to "invalidate" anything; quite the opposite, I wanted to validate the discussion by putting it in its proper place. I find your close quite irregular -procedural nominations happen all the time for various reasons. Could you elaborate on that? I'd really like the discussion to reopen in the proper place. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the mistaken impression that redirects equal deletion. They do not. AniMate  21:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirection reduces the article to a mere pointer. Unless there is a significant merge, it's practically the same of deleting. I understand it's not always equal to deletion: but it was in that case. There are of course shades and interpretations. Anyway what worried me more is that people took it as bad faith and, like you, like I wanted to invalidate a discussion while exactly the opposite was my intention. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Slave breeding in the United States
Thanks for your message. Most of my edits at Slavery in the United States consist of reverting vandalism. I'll post a note on the article's Talk page and ask for assistance at Slave breeding in the United States. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden is at it again
You may recall the thread at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive648 where was shown to be disruptively removing cleanup tags. I've been sporadically monitoring his contributions, and while he stopped doing it for a few days after the ANI thread, it appears he has started testing the waters again yesterday. See where he not only removes the Multiple issues tag at the top of the article, but he also removes six Citation needed tags without adding any references. Also of note is the resulting discussion at Talk:Natural theology. He clearly has no intention of becoming a non-disruptive contributor to the project. You indicated your opinion at ANI that any further instances of disruptive cleanup tag removal should result in a block. Do you believe that this instance is enough evidence? (Note that I am also posting this at User talk:Black Kite, who is another admin who commented that any future infractions should result in a block.) Thanks. Snotty Wong  express 16:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * re this, while you're of course correct, unfortunately wp:v is one of the 'rules' that Dream Focus thinks is ignorable. pablo 23:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. I guess I enjoy exercises in futility. AniMate  23:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have written in ANI where you are wrong. You may be right but the way you explain it makes you look like the wrong party. Don't look at this as criticism, just advice on how to write ANI complaints effectively. Good luck. Try to peacefully resolve the matter with the Colonel. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well thank you for your wisdom. Actually, I don't think you have any idea about what you're talking about. AniMate  19:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert has agreed with me and closed your ANI complaint. So according to you, I have a lack of wisdom and so does Georgeherbert. I would advise you to be nice to others and explain your ideas. When you just cross out "thank you for your wisdom", people can interpret that as sarcasm and rudeness. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Me? Sarcastic? Perish the thought! AniMate  19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Be happy in life. Don't fight with me.  Wish you the best.  பின்லாந்துF (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Less than a week later, he strikes again. See User talk:Jclemens.  Snotty Wong   chatter 18:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've completed an RfC/U draft at User:Snottywong/RfC draft. If you get a chance, take a look and let me know if you have any comments.  Thanks.  Snotty Wong   express 21:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Request Indefinite Block of Account User:Pfagerburg
This user has been repeatedly warned to stop posting materials about Jeff Merkey on Wikipedia. He has been involved in Court proceedings he initiated and lost against Merkey. His contributions shows he continues his pattern of harassing postings. This user was banned and has been blocked for this conduct numerous times. Unfortunately, he is not going to stop until someone stops him. Please indef block this user for violating his last unblock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.131.234 (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pfagerburg
Hi AniMate, I see started editing again about Merkey. You unblocked him on two conditions, as I understood them: that he confine his Merkey concerns to the various boards, and that he demonstrate he's here as a regular Wikipedian, not as someone who focuses only on Merkey. See here. It seems to me that he's violating the second, and that this is not a healthy situation. Almost all his edits to Wikipedia since 2006 have been Merkey-related. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been debating about what to do with this. In the unblock discussion I had with him, I did state he could report possible Merkey socks to the appropriate noticeboards. If I remember, he was going through old edits by possible socks and reverting them needlessly, which was the problematic behavior. I'm not sure what I should do here. He's not violating the letter of the unblock, but perhaps the spirit. Looking through his report, he's likely right. Those were Jeff Merkey socks. Is reporting socks disruptive in and of itself disruptive. I'd say no. The action of going through every old article that Jeff Merkey ever edited was the disruptive action. If you'd like a total interaction ban between the two including reports, I think that needs community consensus. I wouldn't oppose, though. AniMate  01:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * When you were unblocking, you wrote: "I'm still concerned about your motivation to continue to edit. Clearly I can't demand that you edit to prove good faith, but I would like you to understand that your purpose here is not to continue an off site dispute with Jeff Merkey, but to improve the encyclopedia. You are here to actually edit and not to deal with Jeff Merkey, right?" AniMate 06:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since then he has made nine edits to articles and talk, and 14 edits related to Merkey. So he has violated the agreement reached with you when you unblocked him. Is it reasonable to ask me to take this yet again to AN/I? The concern is this: if he were a regular Wikipedian, his pursuit of Merkey would be within the context of an overall contribution. But allowing him to use Wikipedia solely for the purpose of pursuing Merkey starts to look as though we're facilitating what I believe Merkey has described as cyberstalking. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, I suggest you re-count my edits. Since being unblocked on 21 Sept, and up to 18 Nov when you posted above, I have made 23 edits (including minor edits properly marked) to articles or article talk pages. Three edits to my own user talk page have cleaned up discussions or added notices about being very busy (hence the very few edits made since then). In accordance with the conditions of my unblock, I reported sockpuppets to the appropriate venues. Most of the edits related to that were notifications that I am mandated by WP policy to place on the user's talk page, and a few of them corrected a typo I made in one of the IP addresses I reported. Per the agreement with AniMate, I did not revert the IP sock's bad-faith accusations on a few talk pages. I did however post a proof of identity on another IP's talk page to show that I'm not the IP in question, for the benefit of any administrator who might be looking into the matter, but that was three weeks ago.


 * If WP, and SV in particular, is facilitating the harassment and "cyberstalking" of anyone, it is Merkey's harassment of me that is being permitted. In fact, I feel it is even being encouraged by threatening to block me every time I say anything about his harassment or his violation of the lifetime ban he earned by calling my workplace twice (which he later admitted in a sworn statement) and trying to get me fired (which he denied).


 * Just today, I became aware that another IP from New Mexico is harassing me by making a false accusation and asking AN/I to ban me. NuclearWarfare nailed it in one, but regardless, PLEASE do look carefully at my contributions. Where have I continued this "pattern of harassing postings"? Reporting violations of site policy is not harassment. So what is harassment? I think he has given us some fine examples:


 * He had the various sockpuppets, such as the IP's from Utah who were all over my user talk page, and the particularly egregious and since-renamed sock "PaulFagburg".


 * He continues to post from various IP's in the Albuquerque, NM area (per a geolocate) in violation of his lifetime ban. When various people reverted those edits, he decided it was me, and placed sockpuppet notices on multiple user pages with absolutely no proof.


 * And now he's trying to get me blocked by saying that I'm continuing to post about him, again with no proof, and in fact proof to the contrary in the form of my edit history over the last three weeks.


 * I think it ought to be painfully clear to all but the most willfully blind who is harassing whom. Pfagerburg (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How is Merkey harassing you? I see him (or someone) responding to your repeated posts about him. But the pursuit seems to stem from you.


 * One of two things seems to be going on here. Either you're a regular Wikipedian who, in the course of his business on the site, happens to spot Merkey socks and reports them, but for some reason uses a sockpuppet account to do it. If that's the case, please tell us what your main account is. Or you're not a Wikipedian, but someone who is pursuing Merkey on this site to stop him from editing here. If that's the case, please stop. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you even read what I pointed out above? But I realize that I didn't provide any links, and so I'll do that now. Enjoy.
 * IP's harassing me on my talk page:
 * Several of his socks have been reported or reverted by other users, but Merkey has claimed those users are me, and posted sockpuppet notices with absolutely no proof.
 * And then there was the account "PaulFagburg" (which has since been renamed to "Renamed User 0003" ) who was identified as a Merkey sockpuppet, but he tried to claim the account was me   full list of that sock's edits.
 * The most recent AN/I, which happened a full three weeks after I reported his latest batch of sockpuppets, and is also entirely without any proof. Pfagerburg (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, we have a disconnect here. I consider myself to be a "regular Wikipedian" already. I keep getting this elitest vibe from you that I don't edit "enough" to merit consideration. I'm sorry that I have a full-time job, attend graduate school, volunteer in my church, and spend time with my family, and so editing Wikipedia isn't my full-time occupation. I'm sorry that I haven't made enough edits to meet your as-yet-unstated standard for being a "regular Wikipedian." I make contributions, though they may be infrequent, both to articles, and to helping enforce the rules of the site. I spot Merkey socks, and I report them, in line with Wikipedia policy and the agreement I made with AniMate after you unfairly blocked me. It is Wikipedia policy that "stop[s] him from editing here."


 * I don't appreciate your insinuation. This account is not a sock of any other account. Pfagerburg (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We've been through this many times before. Almost all of your 730 edits (272 to articles) since you started editing with this account in 2006, from your sixth edit onwards, have been about Merkey. Your seventh edit is about you being indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry after you posted about him as an IP.


 * On June 1, 2007, El C wrote about your unhealthy fascination with Merkey, because at that point around 20 of your 30 edits were about him. You were blocked for a year by ArbCom because of it.  You've been involved in legal action with him because of it. And still it continues. The denials make it even more worrying, because the edits are there for everyone to see.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If I posted as an IP, it was an innocent mistake; I have my browser set to aggressively clear cookies, and I occasionally wind up posting after my log-in has expired, but I don't notice it.


 * Amongst my various edits, I am reporting socks of a banned user. Your refusal to admit that this is legitimate behaviour is what is worrying. The edits are "there for everyone to see." There is harassment on my talk page, or an impersonation account, or whatever, so I report the socks, and in return I get abuse from the deranged person behind the sock, and threats from you.


 * Please explain how "the pursuit seems to stem from [me]" in the case of the "PaulFagburg" account. Or the absolutely-without-evidence sock tags on the user pages for Long Time Lurker or 24.37.221.6. I'm eager to understand your reasoning on how the documented victim of stalking (that would be me; I'll e-mail you PDF's of the affidavits from my employer if you like) is somehow responsible for it. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You appear to have started the situation, and you are continuing it. If you leave Merkey alone, and don't talk about him, write about him, write to him, or act in any other way toward him, he will leave you alone too, and the problem will be solved. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "If you leave Merkey alone ... he will leave you alone too." Yeah, I tried that.
 * After the Arbcom case, I left him alone completely. And 11 months later he was telephoning my employer trying to get me fired. Go back and read the AN/I.
 * Look at the timeline of his various efforts, especially the timing of his "PaulFagburg" sockpuppet. When he created that account on 15 Sept 2010, the most recent interaction I had was on 8 Sept 2010, when I removed his harassment from my talk page, and on 7 Sept 2010 when I tagged a sockpuppet and CSD'd an article that sock wrote. He was aware of it at the time, as he asked AN/I to take action, which was declined. So then a week later, he decided to harass me again.
 * This most recent effort of his is three weeks after I opened a sockpuppet investigation and an Arbcom enforcement action against him.
 * Every time I disengage, he decides to come back and stir the pot again. I submit that he is the one continuing it.
 * I don't want any interaction with him at all. But that doesn't mean I'm going to sit back and let him slander me by claiming I'm socking from Canada or any other place or account, especially with ZERO proof.
 * I've got a better idea. He's banned from WP for life, so how about he stops editing in violation of his ban? That solves the problem, too, and in a way that's better for the encyclopedia. Pfagerburg (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not the whole story. You were banned by ArbCom for one year for harassing Merkey. The ban ended on July 30, 2008. After your return you almost immediately (within 18 edits) started posting about him again, complaining about a phone call he made to your employer three months earlier, in which he complained that you were using the company's computers to pursue him. You also say during that AN/I thread that, during your year-long ban: "Other than reporting his real-life harassment, I have pretty much left him alone this past year, especially here on WP ..." But "pretty much" and "especially" suggests there was, indeed, some interaction.


 * The point is this: you must leave him alone entirely. Don't write about him, don't write to him, don't tag what you think are his sockpuppets, don't report them, refrain from any contact of any description. That is the only thing that will put an end to this, if you want it to end. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, your failure to AGF is astounding. Did you read the AN/I, where I explained precisely why it took 3 months for me to raise the complaint?
 * "Several weeks ago, I contacted the checkuser ombudsman to determine if Merkey's claim that he had checkuser results was true."
 * "Once my block expired, I began looking for the appropriate page to post a question to the CheckUsers and find out how Merkey got CU results. I found the proper page, but it listed an e-mail address (facepalm - so I could have e-mailed them immediately, block or not) and sent them an e-mail. The ombudsman committee replied that they would look into the matter, but it would take a little while. So I waited. A month later, I inquired again, and was told "sorry for the delay, no, nobody CU'ed you." And that was 1-2 days before I started this AN/I."
 * By the way, as to his claim that I was "using the company's computers to pursue him," he later gave up on that claim, and instead claimed that I had used my company's telephone system to call his workplace in 2008. The fact that he changed the claim entirely ought to give you an idea of how reliable his evidence was. Oh, but he had solid evidence that it was me on the phone: the caller ID gave the name of my company. Just one problem with that: the company name which he claimed had showed up on the caller ID in 2008 had ceased to be my workplace in Oct 2006.
 * As for writing that I had "pretty much left him alone," I believe I was referring to a comment I wrote on a message board in early 2008. I can't find it right now, but it was the first time Merkey was discovered to be evading his ban. Another message board user pointed it out, and I believe I said something along the lines of "uh-oh, violating a ban gets it re-set."
 * I am really tired of you willfully distorting what I have clearly written, refusing to read what I wrote, and then mis-stating the facts that are there for everyone to see. You and I are done, until such time as you are actually willing to read what has already been written. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact remains that for almost four years you've been posting on Wikipedia about Merkey to the exclusion of virtually everything else. That should give you pause. I agreed to your unblock on the understanding that you'd be editing in general, and not about Merkey. You've violated that, and so I hope Animate reinstates it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, the only reason this latest round of Merkey related editing occurred is because Merkey, or someone with an IP in his area, added tags to accounts accusing them of being Pfagerburg's socks. If he had gone after Merkey's edits apropos of nothing, yes I would block. However, responding to sock allegations isn't unreasonable. I'm not going to reblock. AniMate  22:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Pfagerburg said above that he started the latest round when he tagged what he thought was a Merkey sock on September 7, then the next day posted to have an article deleted that he thought Merkey wrote. That's not what people do if they don't want to have anything to do with someone. Animate, this issue was settled. He had been indefinitely blocked and was unblocked on the understanding that he was here to edit Wikipedia. He hasn't done that. What is the point of laying down conditions then ignoring them? The Pfagerburg account is one that has been used almost exclusively in pursuit of a named person for almost four years. I don't understand why any admin would feel that was an appropriate use of Wikipedia.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article that set this off was created by the user name PaulFagburg. I see impersonation, homophobic slurs, and socking. If this is the account that started it, they went after Pfagerburg first. No, I will not block for this, and frankly I don't see why any admin would consider the actions of the user behind PaulFagburg and the various other IPs an acceptable use of Wikipedia. AniMate  23:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You have the chronology confused. That account was created on September 20, after Pfagerburg had resumed hostilities. And anyway that's missing the point and playing his game; two wrongs don't make a right. The interaction has to end on Wikipedia, no matter who started what. I've asked on AN/I for the block to be reinstated.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. The IPs Pfagerburg reported first added sock tags to an IP and a user page accusing them of being Pfagerburg's socks. Pfagerburg responded by filing an SPI. I don't think that's unreasonable. However, I would like some assurance that there is no connection between yourself, the IP, and the Long Time Lurker account. All of you seem to have some focus on Merkey, and I don't think it would be too hard to get a checkuser to look into this. AniMate 05:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, do get a CheckUser to look into it. Aside from Long Time Lurker and the 24.37.221.6 IP in Canada (eh), there's 69.17.50.67 that geolocates to Silicon Valley, which others have identified as a sock of Vigilant. I'm not the only person who thinks a twice-banned user should stay off WP. Pfagerburg (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not adding my own analysis
Did you even look at the sources cited in the article?

--Expo776 (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden RFC/U
FYI - A request for comments has been started on User:Colonel Warden. Since you participated in this ANI thread which preceded this RfC/U, you might be interested in participating. If so, please see Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Thanks. Snotty Wong  confer 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Son of Neptune
I have been blocked out. I read my talk page, saw what you wrote and I suspect you are somewhat involved in this process. Note that I have a shared IP address and my brother, I believe is the one who might have rewritten the Son of Neptune page. I guess someone has connected one and one and realized that whoever rewrote the page and me share and IP address. He is a huge Percy Jackson and Heroes of Olympus and Kane Chronicles fan so I suspect him. I questioned him and he replied "No I didn't." So I wonder if you can fix this. I'm kinda taking the blame since we're both using the account. Camphalfbloodseries (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I read about blaming it on a brother. I'm not going to say anything like "I did it" because I didn't. I request an unblock. Camphalfbloodseries (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not? I went to the country France, World War II, and Zebroid. Can't edit them. Camphalfbloodseries (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Camphalfbloodseries (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Artwork
How is your artwork going? I meant to tell you before that I'm pretty good at drawing myself, though it hasn't been a hobby of mine since my late teens. Can you draw from memory? Because I sure as hell can't, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's going well. I actually had a showing not too terribly long ago and sold everything. I'm still not the primary bread winner in my home, but between that, teaching, and some of the coloring work I've been doing, I'm doing better than I ever have been. I can draw from memory, but rarely do. When I do draw my style isn't particularly natural and my work with acrylics doesn't appear anywhere in nature. AniMate  02:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's beyond awesome (everything going well, and selling everything). You should definitely be proud. I'm so jealous that you can draw from memory; I always wonder how people do that. It's amazing to me. I try doing it, and the faces or whatever just become all fuzzy to me. Arggh!! Anyway, I'm happy for you. Flyer22 (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's a nice shift from drawing for a company to working for myself. Still, it's nice to have the security of someone else paying the bills. AniMate  03:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have quoted you
I have quoted your powerful argument at Talk:Jared Lee Loughner. I hope you dont mind. Active Banana    (bananaphone  23:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I never mind when someone acknowledges my awesome powers of reasoning. AniMate  23:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocking
Hi, I was wandering if you could clarify this. The fact that you blocked another user, for being rude to this user is confusing to me. Considering the user in question is rude and a bully. I have been through everything I can to get help on the matter for the way CloudKade11 has spoken to when I disagree with one of his lazy edits. Any help you can give? PS. All information will be in the history of the page, he deletes most of his comments. Jayy008 (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I reblocked a ban evading sockpuppet. If you can show me some diffs I'll be happy to look in to the situation. AniMate  07:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't no he was a sockpuppet, I apologize for troubling you. Jayy008 (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Maria Pavelić
"Glib little boomerang remark". Ouch! Note that I used "IP-hopping" because: and our friend at AN/I are either the same guy switching IP's (not technically against policy, but certainly not the most desirable thing for IP editors to do) or it's a WP:MEAT situation. You're right: it is more complex than you think I thought it was. Please forgive my "glibness" ;P Doc   talk  01:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He's probably not purposely switching IPs at all. You'd be amazed at the number of editors who are on dynamic IPs. AniMate  01:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True, esp. with all the "Blackberries" and similar devices out there. It makes CU almost obsolete many times. He really still does need to notify the other editor, esp. since he's the one he's been continually warring with; we don't want him to think that he doesn't. The bright yellow banner at the top of the page when he created the thread should have been ample instructions for him, and now he's got a second board discussion to inform him of. Cheers :> Doc   talk  01:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Gabi Hernandez
FYI, she's back. User:24.34.144.92, adding decorative images. Sigh. Rm994 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Question re current ANI thread on Khaled Mohamed Saeed image
Hi, AniMate. You may have noticed from my ANI post that I agree with you that the image of Saeed's mutilated corpse "crosses some lines we shouldn't be crossing", which I thought very well said. Now I hope I'm not being officious or inappropriately interfering, here, and I understand that you must necessarily be far more aware of all the issues that surround this controversy than I am. But it's my impression from reading between the lines that at least some who want the image in the article might be able to hold their noses and go with the idea of a prominent external link... The pic doesn't belong in the article, in my opinion: Besides the argument I made at ANI to that effect, it also seems to me that we should exercise some degree of respect for the subject's loved ones, who will no-doubt see our article at some point. But I also feel the article would be truncated and incomplete without recourse to the photo, especially since it has strongly influenced current events in Egypt. ( See here, for one example. ) So, with respect, I wonder if you, also, might be able to live with a prominent external or subpage (if a free image can be found) link, provided it was clearly labeled with a warning as to its graphic nature? I didn't want to ask you at ANI because, being so "public" a forum, I felt that might put you on the spot, a bit. But could you, do you think, tolerate such a compromise at all, assuming people on the other side of the issue could also do so? Thanks, –  OhioStandard (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with your suggestion is that we write and format articles for readers not to appease editors. There is always collaboration and compromising involved, but I can see little value in deviating from our manual of style here. A standard external link should be fine here. AniMate  02:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken re readers versus editors, and I dislike the idea of deviating so markedly from the MOS, as well. Still, I feel pretty strongly that we do a disservice to our readers by not making the comparison between the "before" and (the admittedly horrific and repellant) "after" prominently accessible: The smiling image of the young man that we have in the article currently seems to me to inappropriately downplay the crux of the issue that has so contributed to the fury over his death. That's just my opinion, however, and my inclination in this is to defer to all of you who have been discussing this at length... Hmm; could you live with the idea of some prominently featured in-article mention of the EL, e.g. a sentence just below the current picture that said something like, "See external links section for link to image of ...", however that could best be phrased? That wouldn't be a very elegant compromise, I admit, but it would seem to address what I see as the strong arguments on both sides of this contentious and difficult issue. What do you think? Could you tolerate this as a compromise solution for the conflict? Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Belchman
There have been some civility issues with User:Belchman at Wikipedia talk:IPA for Portuguese and Galician; I tried getting a response at ANI to no avail and I notice that you were a participating admin in his previous civility issues. Maybe you can give him a push in the right direction. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 03:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User: Garfieldpooky
First of all, hostility unnecessary. There is such a thing as RESPECTFULLY disagreeing with someone. Second, if you notice, I moved pages of characters on soap operas that have been cancelled. Yes, there are a lot of soap marriages, but these women can't get married anymore because their show was CANCELLED. Just thought I had to emphasize some things to get my point across. If you have a problem with my edits, just let me know politely and we'll discuss.

Notification of ban appeal
Hi. In case you are unaware, has made an appeal to BASC which has been forwarded to the Community for discussion. I am notifying you as you participated in the ban proposal (which was enacted and is now being appealed); you would have some awareness of the context which led to the measure being imposed. Your input would be appreciated at the discussion: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Why you deleted the Days Of Our Lives template on Wikipedia? Didn't you think it was necessary? It gives great info in my opinion. Will it be recreated, and if the name will change, what will the new name be? Please answer this question ASAP. Wingard (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's ok. it happens to us all sometime. Glad you fixed it though. Wingard (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:AugustAugust
Hey, AniMate. It's clear that this user needs to be blocked. Preferably for good. All the warnings in the world haven't helped to stop this user from violating WP:COMMONNAME, and I'm beyond tired of warning and reminding him/her. Flyer22 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorely tempted. I'm probably WP:INVOLVED, but I'll support you if you take this to a noticeboard. The last time that AugustAugust communicated with another user was 2009' so ... AniMate 20:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are one of the administrators who warned this user before. So of course you are involved in that way. Plenty of administrators have warned users before blocking them. So I don't see how you'd be in violation. The policy states: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." And from what I have seen, you acted purely in an administrative role toward this user. But if you are uncomfortable blocking him or her, even for a few months or whatever, I understand. Better to be safe than sorry. Plus, this one would likely start back up again after the block anyway. And I have no doubt that if permanently blocked, he or she would just create another account. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm involved in the same editing area and have reverted the users edits. I am involved here and AugustAugust and I have had testy talk page interactions. Again, I'm sorely tempted but won't be blocking. AniMate 20:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, you were right to revert this user's edits on the page moves, as any administrator would have been justified in doing so. But maybe you mean you've reverted other edits made by the user? I did take a look at AugustAugust's talk page and saw an old discussion where you weighed in briefly behind me, so I suppose I understand what you mean on that (though I still view that involvement as minor as well, and say that you were acting without bias). No need to apologize. Like I stated, better to be safe than sorry. I'll probably report him or her to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (as suggested in my previous edit summary) if he or she acts again, which will no doubt happen (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Might want to take a look
Since you were involved in the previous discussions on the same topic, you might be interested to join in this discussion.

Dane97 and his page moves
He's still at it and messed up Babe Carey in the process, removing all the edit history. I'm going to requested moves, since it will take an administrator to fix this mess and I'm not sure when you'll be available. I don't feel like reporting him to the Administrators Noticeboard right now. Flyer22 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm having some major connectivity issues right now and the cable company won't be around until Tuesday (I'm editing from my phone with 3G). This user has made a whole lot of silly redirects and seems to be involved in this new batch of "list of (insert soap opera) miscellaneous couples". Pretty worthless articles that won't ever have sources beyond network decals. Once I get back online I'll go through his edits and take some of this to AfD. AniMate 03:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you get a chance, check out . This is almost certainly the same user as the account is doing the sane nonsense page moves, solely focusing on soaps, and the 97 is a dead give away. It wouldn't surprise me to find we have a nice little sock farmer here. there's been a lot of activity lately with ABC soaps on Wikipedia, and none of it is remotely encyclopedic. I'll definitely be doing some more investigating when I get back on line, but that will be Tuesday evening at the earliest (I have Bo faith in my cable provider making this easy or showing up on time). AniMate 04:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about your connectivity issues, AniMate. I'm of course glad that it won't hinder your editing for too much longer. And, yes, I have noticed Blue Dog97 (97 is a dead giveaway, but I hadn't been focused on Dane enough to notice until now). I didn't worry about his miscellaneous couples articles because it was at least giving a home to some couples and I saw him use the sources from Téa Delgado's article for his Todd Manning and Téa Delgado entry, which made me optimistic about other entries being sourced. But I have no issue with you nominating these for deletion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He's being investigated: Sockpuppet investigations/Dane97. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work. Looks like a lot of the IP edits were him too, AniMate 04:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, and I just got through fixing Babe Carey again. Turns out he cut-and-pasted moved it the day he was being investigated for sockpuppetry. I suppose it was one of his last defiant acts before being booted out. I doubt it's actually the last defiant act he'll make on Wikipedia, though. They usually always come back. And I'm pretty sure it's him in this edit I reverted as well. Flyer22 (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually submitted another SPI, but not with the user you suspect. User:Linus2011 is without question Dane97/Bluedog97. Same focus on random redirects, including redirects to those awful List of miscellaneous soap couple articles, which are all now nominated for deletion. You may want to add your suspicions to the SPI case page, though I have a feeling this latest SPI will show several more socks have been created. AniMate 16:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And I was right. You should also keep an eye out for IPs that are in the 99.141.**.*** range. They geolocate to the Chicago area and I'm 95% certain they're being used by this sock master. It isn't static but a could with those first five numbers were blocked at the same time as Dane97/Bluedog97/etc and their only activity was on the same ABC soap pages our dear friend loves to edit. AniMate 17:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good grief. It seems he's going to be a problem for some time. I'll definitely keep a lookout for such IPs beginning with those numbers and otherwise. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey. On Todd Manning's talk page - The IP who is now on their final warning, demanded Victor have his own article. I think he may of created this account now, hopping onto it after a final warning. User talk:Victor Lord Jr. - Juding by the naming after the character in question and the content of the userpage - it looks like a joke account to cause trouble with.  Rain the One  BAM 04:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Equestria Daily
A new deletion review has been created regarding an article you've recently discussed. Dr. WTF (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

George Ho (formerly Gh87)'s bad editing
George Ho has been criticized for his deletion nominations of soap opera character articles, as seen in this section, for example. And I criticized different types of his editing in this section. No matter that he tagged it as WP:Wikihounding, my points were valid, as others have echoed my sentiments. I must ask why he is still allowed to nominate and/or propose articles for deletion when it is clear that he doesn't understand the deletion process, as recently as this incident? As that link shows, he still doesn't fully even understand WP:Notability. It was already suggested that he stop nominating articles for deletion because he doesn't know what he's doing (see that first link). Yet he's still doing it. He doesn't seem to listen at all, another example being that he continues to start sockpuppet investigations about IPs despite having been told more than once that such investigations are not done. Further, he is hell bent on wiping away all All My Children character articles, more so because it is a cancelled show than having anything to do with the state of the articles themselves. Some of these articles can provide notability and/or be fixed up, and he just ignores that, judging these articles on their current state. He recently proposed that two soap opera writer articles be deleted, Margaret DePriest and Lorraine Broderick. I'd never heard of the former (who has also written for prime time), but the latter is a well-known, Emmy-winning soap opera writer. And some books on Google Books confirm this. But, no, this user does not check thoroughly; he just glosses over things, and if he doesn't see notability instantly, he nominates for deletion. He looked right over Tina Cole, and rather focused on these soap opera writers. Only after I pointed this out, did he tag Tina Cole for something.

I am so tired of this user fouling up Wikipedia. Is there nothing that can be done? I bring this to you because you care about soap opera articles. 74.51.143.11 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Beatrice Arthur
If you would note the title cards for either of her series, she is billed as Beatrice Arthur. Lucille Ball is commonly known as "Lucy", but she is not found at Lucy Ball (which is a redirect, as I take it you are aware Bea Arthur already was to Beatrice Arthur) nor was she ever billed as such. Common name is meant for individuals whose given name is markedly different and would be unrecognizable to those who otherwise would know their stage or common name, or who chose to be publicly known as something other than their full given name, like president Jimmy Carter, who, for example, used that informal variant, rather than his formal given name of James, for his presidential library. As the lion's share of Ms. Arthur's credits are billed under the full Beatrice Arthur, and Bea is simply a shortened variant that she used on occasion to show familiarity, this is not such a case. Was your move the result of consensus at the article's talk page, and are you planning on doing a move of the talk page as well? If not, I request that you move it back and start a discussion there to see if consensus supports such a move. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved the the talk page, not sure why that didn't get moved. Just looking at google hits, "Beatrice Arthur" gets around 272,000 while "Bea Arthur" around 1,130,000. I'd argue that Bea is the common name there. "Lucy Ball" gets 498,000 while "Lucille Ball" gets 4,150,000 hits. Lucille is the common name there. AniMate 18:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 15:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have taken your advice and posted the matter on WP:AE -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 09:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi AniMate,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

THEY!
They removed your warning because they don't wanna hear it. I don't find that acceptable. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 22:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, I didn't mean to put a personal attack on Wingard. I apologize and it won't happen again. Creativity97   Talk?  22:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Curse you Ironholds and your well reasoned close. Don't you ever show your face on this page again! AniMate 12:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it count if I'm hiding it? Only an emergency session of Parliament passed a law demanding I wear a brown paper bag at all times. Ironholds (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/F&aelig;
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:F&aelig;. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not...
I'm not trying t start a fight and I don't think so is the case with MF either. He just pointed it out calmly, and I replyed to his statement as calmly as he pointed it out. But I agree with you it's a trivial detail, one minute before, or in some case seconds, even though it seems like one minute. In those cases it was a matter of seconds. For me it's no longer a race, and I defintely calmed down since my last block. No more fights as you can see. Wingard (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear AniMate,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem and the Fae RfC
AniMate, in my opinion, your comment accusing others of homophobia for engaging in dispute resolution ("The focus on Fæ and his past incarnations does in fact feel a little homophobic.") I have listed in this section in relation to the Fae RfC constitute an ad hominem attack on the drafters of the RfC. Since ad hominem arguments attack the character of the person (in an attempt to damage the credibility of their message), I believe such debate tactics violate WP:NPA. Also, an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, and thus provides little help in addressing the validity of the issues raised in the statement of dispute. Please refrain from ad hominem arguments in the future. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have raised the issue of this "warning", which Cla68 is spamming to multiple editors, at Administrators' noticeboard. Please feel free to comment on this issue on that page. Prioryman (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be— —Critical  22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

move of Margaret Brown to Molly Brown
Just a head's up. The above move was made contrary to consensus resulting from a requested move. There are questions on the above article's discussion page, which you may wish to address, along with unaddressed double redirects created through the move. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 18:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Asexuality article
Hey, AniMate. Last year in December, the asexual flag and information about it was removed from the Asexuality article...for these reasons and reasons currently stated on the talk page. A new editor, however, added material about it back just yesterday. The sources the user included were removed by LadyofShalott, because, like last time, only bad sources are present. The new user has since then added the same bad sources back.

Like I stated to Tea with toast, the only reason I didn't revert the first time is because I was sure that a revert war would ensue...and being engaged in a revert war with new users (meaning users who don't understand how Wikipedia works) is the worse. This user isn't even all that new; he or she is clearly aware that the flag was removed and why. Could be Violet Fae, for all I know. So what do you think I should do in this case? In the case of a revert war where one of the users is right to revert, are they right to keep reverting...in the sense that the material is sort-of vandalism or essentially unsourced material? Should there only be one revert and then a report filed against the user if the user continues to add poorly sourced material to the article? I'm speaking in the case of when there are just two users involved. Like I stated, LadyofShalott reverted. So if I revert now, and LadyofShalott were to revert again, I know that that's okay. But the user adding the material would eventually need to be reported if we have to keep reverting him or her. What I hate about cases like this is that if you take it to an administrator or administrative noticeboard, it is likely to be treated as only a content dispute. I'm not speaking of you; nor am I asking you to take action. I'm just noting my experience dealing with such matters. Anyway, I should probably send this user a Welcome tag for an introduction to this site and a note about why his or her sources keep getting removed, right? And then take it from there? The only thing I worry about is that this user may be Violet Fae, someone I do not have a good relationship with at all and who eventually left Wikipedia in a huff late January (claiming to never come back to this site). I'm not sure if she feels adding forum sources is okay, but, on the talk page, she defended the flag being in the article, and more than once showed that she doesn't understand how Wikipedia is supposed to function all that well. In my experience dealing with sockpuppets, they often like to show up and test the waters...and then their heavy editing starts after that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
Good afternoon, could you please visit the Page Syria. Deletion of facts provided with reliable sources. The deletion was with no reason by Kudzu1 identified as a vandalism. Thanks. Ahmad2099 (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Tareq Salahi
I think the subject of this article is editing the page again, this time as an IP editor (vs before under his own self-promotional name, which you blocked). Negative info, although well sourced, is being blanked. Can you help? Thanks Hammertime2005 (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ante Pavelić
Can you please check the talk page. I know it takes alot of free time to you but you said you will check for neutrality and spelling. Cheers. --Wusten fuchs 19:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Give me a couple of days to check things out. AniMate 10:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Account!
I have found a user, who's been blocked, returning under a new name making the same exact edits they once made. And they aren't even trying to hide it. 97.88.38.179 and User:As1278 match exactly the blocked user User:As15878. Obviously, they have an issue with the idea that Lisa Niles is not returning to General Hospital at all. I don't know how to open an investigation to possibly block them, but I figured I'd bring it to your attention. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 01:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no time to check things out. Try WP:SPI. AniMate 10:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone is already helping me, so you get disregard this. Thank you. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 16:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Flyer22
Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I've redacted a few of your comments at User talk:Amalthea. I agree the IP should not be posting such information, but I also think that we should not be repeating what the IP said. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely fine with that. AniMate 20:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Salvidrim!  00:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
I thank you my friend,you are the only person(user) who stood up for me,I give my thanks.74.163.16.20 (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I am confused. I can understand some measure of wariness, but what is the reason behind the block at this point?  Salvidrim!   01:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which of the relevant pages you have on your watchlist, so I'll just leave this here: 74.163.25.91.  Salvidrim!   16:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban
Heya, at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents you have raised the issue of a topic ban. I have also requested an interaction ban on Yrc from interacting with me, as he has been warned previously about harassing myself when was editing under Off2riorob. So there is the harassment issue to take into consideration, and I think an interaction ban on my self is warranted in the circumstances. Could you please take a look at my request at the above, undoubtedly you will see it anyway, just wanted to give you a heads up as you have commented there already. Cheers, Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 04:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ante Pavelić
Sorry but... if you could participate in the discussion. I addded a new section you could check for neutrality and spelling. --Wusten fuchs 13:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ante Pavelić (2)
Hello AniMate. Wustenfuchs has put requests on the GOCE Requests page both for the Ante Pavelić in mainspace and the version currently in his user space. Clearly, it makes no sense for us to copy edit two versions of that article when one is going to be deleted. I've put both requests on hold until the version of the text that we should copy edit can be identified. Please would you have a look at our communication at User talk:Wustenfuchs and come to an agreement with Wustenfuchs as to how you want things to go? I will watchlist his and your talk pages and the (mainspace) article's talk page, so I know what's happening. Please would you let me know when an agreed version is ready for copy editing. (I would prefer that version to be in mainspace when we copy edit it, so that we're sure that everyone who wants to influence the content has had a chance to do so). Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)