User talk:AniMate/Archive 8

Toy block


heheh, that's what you get for ignoring medical advice... :P -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Like to ask a favor
Hello AniMate. Hope everything is well with you and yours. Like to ask a favor, if you have the time, to participate in both the discussions and help in monitoring a particular article, as shown here. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions and would appreciate your input and advice. As always, thanks for the help. ShoesssS Talk 12:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm trying not to participate at AfD. It brings out the worst in some users, and I often find myself losing respect for editors who are active there. AniMate   draw  00:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, that is not me :-). ShoesssS Talk 00:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's just a general statement about AfD and I don't intend to spend time there unless I feel it absolutely necessary. AniMate   draw  00:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin?
Polargeo suggested nominating me for adminship... I feel like there's a good chance I'm gonna get shot down in flames because of all the stuff I've had to deal with on these damn Balkans articles. What do you think? Flames? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm inclined to say flames, but not just because of the Balkans articles. First off, you don't always use edit summaries. Some think it shouldn't be a huge deal, but it is. I've opposed for it in the past, because edit summaries are one of only a handful of ways we communicate with each other on Wikipedia. Secondly, your edits in Wikipedia space are seemingly all focused on the Balkans disputes. AfD work is the biggie people will look for. Since you cannot use tools in areas you are involved with and you don't participate in many other areas, many editors will say that you don't have any use for the tools. Thirdly, you were blocked less than six months ago and have three blocks that were never overturned on you block log. Fourthly, you are not a rollbacker. It's no different from the feature admins use, and a history with it will show other users you can be trusted to revert responsibly. Finally, one or more of those could likely be overcome for most editors, but your friends from the Balkans articles will raise enough red flags that there will likely be little support. If you're interested in trying down the road, I suggest editor review or admin coaching. Editor review is designed specifically to give you feedback and criticism, and spending a few months correcting the issues raised there is a good way to get in shape for an RfA. You'll likely hear much of what I've said here and some things I haven't thought of. Admin coaching is a little more controversial, because some editors believe adminship should be a natural evolution of your editing and not something you specifically try to get. Still, it's useful, and many current admins have benefited from it. That's my (surprisingly long) take on things. I'd say diversifying your edits is the biggest thing you need to do. Spend some time at AfDs, get any article you can edit with minimal controversy up to good or featured status, do some new page patrolling (but start with the oldest), participate in as many RfAs as possible, do some work with suspected copyright violations, don't get blocked, use edit summaries, and figure out exactly how and when you want to use the tools. Not all are necessary, but if you do some of those things, in addition to your normal editing, you may be able to pass at some point in the spring of next year. AniMate   draw  23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, now at least I know what to do - that's certainly an improvement. I honestly never thought about trying for it... I'm willing to start working towards the goal, but I'm afraid it all might be for nothing. As you said, there's a number of Balkans-buddies of mine who'd get a coronary if they saw the RfA (Imbris and Sir Floyd spring to mind, they wouldn't like it at all :). Can two or three users like that sabotage an RfA? In other words, do I really stand a chance? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say you stand a fair chance. RfA participants are usually savvy enough to notice a group of editors "voting" as a nationalistic bloc. Some editors who normally wouldn't bother may support simply to counter the nationalistic BS. Remember, Rjecina tried to tank my RfA like that. It didn't work. The biggest problem you're going to have is likely your block log. Diversifying your focus, edit summaries, and all of the things I mentioned above can be easily overcome and changed. The block log isn't going anywhere. So stop edit warring, obviously, even if you're right. I'd also say that rather than continuing to complain about Imbris or Sir Floyd, you should file for mediation. If that doesn't work, you should draft a WP:RFC/U on one or both of them and have another user involved in the articles certify it. Considering the pattern I've noticed, you'll likely have one filed on you in retaliation. Rather than get angry and try to get it deleted, let it stand. Admins who patrol that area will be smart enough to see what's going on and it will likely be deleted without any input from you. If it's not deleted, civilly respond in the appropriate section and see how it plays out. If the offending behavior fails to change, go to WP:ArbCom. I think these constant threads on WP:AN/I are likely to be about as hurtful to a future RfA as the block log, but if you wait for at least six months from you last block, follow the advice I gave you above, and show that you understand that admins and their noticeboards aren't the ideal way to deal with dispute resolution, your chances should be rather good. Dispute resolution can be slow and aggravating, but there's nothing on Wikipedia in regards to the Balkans during WWII that is so pressing it has to be solved right now. The world won't end if these things don't go your way today, tomorrow, or next week. If you step off the battlefield and up to the negotiating table (aka dispute resolution), you'll find your fellow editors much more open to the idea of you as an admin. AniMate   draw  00:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean... there's something beyond the trenches?!? :) Well, all the steps will have to wait until after I'm done banging my head against the wall for this exam next Monday. Thanks so much for your time and effort. It may be time for me to start looking at the bigger picture on Wiki. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck with your exams. Adminship really isn't such a big deal. I don't use my tools particularly often anymore, and have on occasion considered retiring them for a while so I don't feel required to clean up messes that are more aggravating than they should be. If you're content with editing in one area, then there really isn't any reason to pursue adminship. You won't be able to use your tools for the most part, and if you do you'll likely be desysoped sooner rather than later. Please do take to heart that bit about edit summaries. In the editing section of Special:Preferences there's a field to check so you will be prompted when entering a blank edit summary. It makes it so much easier to see what you're doing without actually having to check your diffs. Aside from all of that, I strongly suggest you follow the last piece of advice about dispute resolution. Admin or not, this conflict has progressed beyond the point where an administrator can actually intercede without becoming involved. Follow the steps... for your own peace of mind. Editing from outside of the trenches is much more pleasant (which is why I've decided to mostly stay away from AfD and those battles). AniMate  draw  00:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello AniMate. Some good advice. At least six months from the last block and better edit summaries would certainly improve his chances of not going up in flames. DYK DIREKTOR has over 21000 edits spread right across the different spaces. Plenty of them in various wikipedia admin areas. Just three blocks for edit warring is quite minor when put into the context of what he has dealt with. The fact that he is able to keep his cool facing a high degree of pressure and the fact that he is able to remain neutral on Balkans articles and give sound advice to nationalist editors on all sides is a great credit. He certainly has more experience than most editors up for RfA. I suppose the most important consideration is does he want to do it? Polargeo (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I used to be heavily involved in Balkans editing, and I agree with DIREKTOR on most things, but there is little chance he'll become an administrator now. Even should he become one, he will not be able to use his administrative tools in articles related to the Balkans, and that's where he edits most. Administrative duties are mostly boring and routine. You can't use your extra tools to win conflicts. I think DIREKTOR is a great editor, but he isn't ready to become an administrator. AniMate   draw  11:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes agreed. But it is not all about his own conflicts which he generally handles very well. I have noticed some really good conflict resolution/mentoring and general wikipedia editing/technical advice coming from DIREKTOR which is why I thought he could do the job. Polargeo (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I never imagined I'd use admin tools to win arguments! What I'd mostly use them for is protecting articles from being destabilized by edit-warring ("forcing" the parties to start discussing). When incidents such as this occur repeatedly, I would be able to handle the matter on the spot - instead of being called a "constant complainer" for reporting it, or worse, getting blocked myself for repairing the damage too many times. Plus when you're an admin people actually listen to what you say instead of attacking you (in addition to the person they're in conflict with). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * DIREKTOR, you can't use your tools in that instance. You're involved. AniMate   draw  20:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I? (I know about WP:UNINVOLVED) I never saw the guy before that, and all my interactions with him involved reverting very obvious vandalism? ("If a matter is blatantly, clearly obvious (genuinely vandalistic for example), then historically the community has endorsed any admin acting on it, even if involved, if any reasonable admin would have probably come to the same conclusion.") The guy was removing undeniably valid data because he thought I was a fascist and it was "insulting to the dead"?
 * In any case, my main ambition is to become the "go-to guy" for Balkans conflicts to the users from around here. Most admins (for various reasons) shy away from mediation and assistance in resolving these serious disputes (apart from Kosovo). I on the other hand give these articles my full attention anyway. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You're heavily involved in the articles about the area. Except in cases of very obvious vandalism you cannot use your tools in any way. You can't protect articles from POV pushers and you can't block POV pushers. I agree that more administrative attention is needed there, but it can't be from an administrator involved in editing the related articles. AniMate   draw  20:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant with the example: I'd be able to fix obvious vandalism and do something about it on the spot. Every three days someone removes whole sections from the Chetniks article, for example. At no point did I imagine I'd go around "dealing out justice" with my admin tools or whatnot. I'd lose them soon enough that way in any case :). I'd focus my efforts as an admin on dispute mediation. But I'm getting ahead of myself, probably won't pass anyway... xP -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think DIREKTOR can be a go-to guy anyway and often is right now, without the tools. One issue with Balkans articles is that the vandalism is sometimes so complex it is very difficult for an editor such as myself to know who is the vandal. Usually takes the form of POV pushing of some sort to the extreme extent that it is actually complete misinformation and hence vandalism. I thought DIREKTOR was a vandal when I first started editing Balkans articles, I just couldn't work out who was for what. DIREKTOR I think you have to decide if you wish to be an admin and if so work towards it as AniMate says. I think you do stand a chance but you have to work out what you would do as an admin because some of your replies here would earn you oppose votes from people nervous of what you may do with the tools. Polargeo (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing is certain: I'd read-up on the inhibitions in detail, and would never ever use them in any capacity that even borders on anything that is contrary to policy. If my replies here are not in accordance with the rules, that is simply because I never really took the time to study them in detail (especially their de facto application). In other words, as things stand now I obviously have no clear perception of what I could or could not do with the tools. Adminship had never even occurred to me thus far. The point I'm making is that once I've taken the time to fully understand policy on this, I'd certainly never even come close to violating it (i.e. if it is wrong to use the tools in any of my example situations above, then without question I would never use them in such a situation). I am by NO means interested in breaking any policy. That would frankly be stupid and generally wrong. --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well this is all rather academic, since we both seem to agree that this isn't the time for you to make an adminship run. I'd like to point out that great editors don't always become administrators. In fact, I've contemplated giving up my tools from time to time. You're held to higher standard, and occasionally I want to get down in the trenches and fire some shots, but generally feel like I must refrain. Regardless, if you want to work towards adminship, I'd be happy to grant you rollback as a first step, though you should read up on the policy. I'd actually be happy to grant it to you regardless of whether or not you want to become an admin. It's dead useful in reverting obvious vandalism. AniMate   draw  05:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava's ANI thread
Sorry, but I felt the need to undo your closing of Ottava's thread at ANI. Although I agree in part with your reasoning, I don't think closing it will help at this point (as I pointed it out in my edit summary).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I undid your reopening of it. There isn't going to be a consensus for a short-term or long-term block. Outside of those two results, there isn't much we can resolve at that board. Concerned parties can always file a request for comment. That drama magnet isn't going to produce anything useful, and there are other steps in dispute resolution that can offer better and more useful results. AniMate   draw  00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I still disagree. Although I hope it will not pop up again, I "fear" it might not get to rest but rather getting blown out of proportion somewhere else (if not at ANI itself) again. But well, who really cares? If Ottava stops, everything will be fine. *smile* The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It likely will blow up somewhere else, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone does file an RfC about Ottava's behavior. Wikipedia has long had a problem with excellent content creators who interact poorly with other users. The point of the incident noticeboard is for administrative intervention for an "incident". This goes beyond one "incident" and being the drama magnet that it is, AN/I is ill suited for dealing with something as complex as the Ottava situation. Besides, the thread really had devolved into petty sniping and people trying to score points off each other rather than any type of attempt to solve a problem. Likely this will make it's way to ArbCom, and frankly I'm stunned Ottava hasn't been there yet. The situation does need to be dealt with, but when a discussion like that is generating more heat than light, the correct course is to end it and attempt other avenues for resolving the dispute. AniMate   draw  00:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. Unlike you I didn't know this user at all before this incident. I don't know you either but I now can and will take your trustable words . My apologies for undoing your edit as I now see your convincing reasoning. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you can appreciate my stellar logic! Actually, I've never interacted with Ottava, I've mainly just stood at the sidelines, shaking my head. I've also seen more than enough drama at AN/I to know when a thread isn't going to be productive. Alot of the people who participated there should know the same. This will get sorted out eventually, by either by arbitration or a rogue admin deciding to flat out indef Ottava. Considering his behavior, I can't imagine many admins who would willingly unblock without some major concessions on his part. AniMate   draw  00:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Got it and I'm basically with you regarding ANI and drama, which I really dislike a lot although I must admit I somehow participated in it. Time to distance myself from such I guess. And yes, I do appreciate your "stellar logic". ;) Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(←)I've arrived here following a post I made on Teh Kleen's talkpage. I've been considering lodging an WP:RFC/U with regard to Ottava and his conduct. Merely considering mind. I'd appreciate advice on this, though I understand if such advice is not forthcoming. Cheers, Crafty (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My advice is to talk to some of the other editors who have been complaining about Ottava. User:Jehochman comes to mind, as he is experienced with both arbitration and RfCs. Secondly start a page in your user space, perhaps at User talk:Craftyminion/RfC, collect diffs with an eye on actually starting the RfC in a reasonable amount of time to avoid the page being labeled an attack page. If you don't think you'll be able to finish a draft in a few days, collect the diffs off line. Of course take a look at Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Archive. I don't participate there often, but I participated at Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody. In the end it didn't bear any fruit, but it was thorough and well drafted. That's about all the advice I can give you. As I said above, I've not interacted with Ottava Rima, but I recognize that the behavior is problematic and really, really has to stop. AniMate   draw  01:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm considering all these things most carefully. Thank you for your advice. :) Crafty (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I hope you decide to go ahead with it. It will no doubt be the epitome of teh dramaz, but it needs to be done. AniMate   draw  05:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't start a draft in your userspace. Just write it up in a word processor or on google docs.  Starting a draft in your userspace will invariably net you more drama than you might like.  Especially since the tone of the RfC may change as you write it. Protonk (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wise advice, Protonk. :) I'll work something up in the editor of my choice. For myself I'm not overly concerned with dwama, but I appreciate it's disruptive effects. I'm not really familiar with the RfC processes, so whatever happens and should I decide to go ahead with it, it'll be a rush. Crafty (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are people not obsessed with drama actually allowed to edit Wikipedia? Protonk's advice is wise indeed. If you go ahead with this, I would consult with some of the editors who have had conflicts with Ottava, though it might be easier to use the email feature to contact them. Good luck with whatever you decide. AniMate   draw  06:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even more generally, drafting the RfC offsite allows you to leave things half finished without giving the wrong impression. Sometimes the motivation for slogging through old diffs may be anger, frustration and resentment, and the material you produce might look less appropriate after a few hours pause.  It also allows you to abandon or postpone the draft RfC without being accused of lording it over the subject (a valid accusation in many cases). Protonk (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jocelyn Jacks
We are having a problem with the name that was cleary stated as Jocelyn not Josselyn. Please help. --M42380 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The last I checked it was listed as Jocelyn but I see they have changed it now, so I will fix it. Sorry. Sparrowhawk7 (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the external links you are trying to add are not appropriate for Wikipedia. One is to a repository of images compiled by a "fan community". The community does not hold the copyright to these images, thus making them not appropriate. The second is a link to a pay site soliciting our readers for membership. Also not appropriate. Please read up on our guidelines for external links and spam. AniMate 01:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Um quick question, is the above note about the images to me, because if so, then I have no idea what you are talking about, so I won't be able to fix it.Sparrowhawk7 (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I remember leaving the note about a completely different article to a completely different editor. I'm not quite sure why it was pasted here.  AniMate   23:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if I am doing this comment correctly, and the whole Jocelyn/Josslyn controversy probably doesn't matter at this point, but I just wanted to say I believe ABC did actually list the name as "Jocelyn" initially. I recall this because I went to the ABC site to check the spelling myself hoping that it was "Jocelyn" because that is my favorite spelling of the name and I was happy to see that, in fact, it was written that way. But it must have been changed later and they decided to go with the "Josslyn" spelling instead. Still, ABC has been inconsistent with the spelling, and for example, in this recap for the Oct. 6 episode, when Carly announces the name she chose for her unborn daughter, it is written as "Joslyn." (You can see it here: http://abc.go.com/shows/general-hospital/episode-guide/episode-11906/306194?page=2) This could be a typo, of course. But I believe this is the location where I first saw the name written as "Jocelyn," and I suspect it was changed later, perhaps hastily and thus the typo. In any case, they are clearly using the "Josslyn" spelling now, so that is what it should be. 72.229.226.130 (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  AniMate   23:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay AniMate thanks, I was just trying to make sure, so that if I needed to fix something I could.Sparrowhawk7 (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free, and just saying hey
Because I sometimes take two or more days off from Wikipedia these days and subsequently am not there to respond quickly enough to queries or angry comments by IPs who are not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, feel free to answer those queries or angry comments any time for me. That is, if you are still watching my talk page. I would appreciate the help. In recently responding to an IP who was upset about my reverting his edits, I realized just how much I miss having another editor "interrupt" and weigh in for me (like when Celtic Green used to edit here). There was an editor who weighed in when I finally responded to the IP, but it was more to "calm me down" (though I really was not angry, just rather annoyed).

Anyway, how have you been doing lately, on and off Wikipedia? Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If I see something, I'll definitely consider saying something if I have something to say. As for off-wiki, I'm delightfully busy and really happy with some of the work I'm producing. On-wiki. Ugh. I'm so sick of the GH fangirls I want to scream. I'm also more and more convinced that there needs to be some sort of article improvement drive, because 95% of soap articles suck ass... and that's me being polite. Taylor Hayes (The Bold and the Beautiful) is one of the best examples of an awful soap article. It's my current project, though I don't watch the show. Cleaning up after all of these IPs is exhausting.  AniMate   02:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is nice to "hear" that you are doing well with your work off Wikipedia. Right now, I am busy writing this screenplay that I am unsure how to classify genre-wise. It has a bit of psychological and horror aspects to it, but it is also a bit more complicated than that. It is not straight-up horror either. I am usually not interested in writing straight-up horror, though I loved horror movies growing up. I would rather this film not be R rated if it ever gets made.


 * Fangirls? Yes, yes, Wikipedia has been driving me crazy because of that sort of thing...and vandalism (of course). Those are the two main reasons I take these breaks from this site, other than off-Wiki work. My interest in editing here has seriously declined; I stay here now more out of addiction. What I mean by that is...editing here is now like a stressful habit. And by stressful, I mean that I keep coming back to check up on articles, revert vandalism or "off edits." If I am not here to do that stuff for certain articles, those articles will suffer. That type of stuff drives me crazy. So, really, now I feel that Wikipedia is more of a hell that I signed my soul over to. I am unsure how others who edited here often were able to escape, had the will power to permanently leave this site and articles they created or largely contributed to behind. But I seriously wish that this site would enforce a "sign up to edit" rule; in my view, it would drastically reduce vandalism here. Would it reduce editing? Maybe, but I feel that Wikipedia would still thrive without being open to IP editors.


 * Worst soap opera article? I have seen worse than Taylor Hayes, but that could be because you have been fixing that article up. I see articles such as Paul Ryan (As the World Turns) as worse, because they have so little in them. Ones with too much plot are also some of the worst in my eyes when they do not have much of anything else. Flyer22 (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read this version of Taylor Hayes. The horror! My favorite is where Thorne takes Taylor to "an AAA meeting" to deal with her drinking... or tire problems. -- AniMate   12:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes!! You have done wonders with that article. Its previous version, before your work on it, is one of the worst articles I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Resonse to AniMate
Re: Veronika Zemanova article edits. You wrote: "Unfortunately, the external links you are trying to add are not appropriate for Wikipedia. One is to a repository of images compiled by a "fan community". The community does not hold the copyright to these images, thus making them not appropriate. The second is a link to a pay site soliciting our readers for membership. Also not appropriate. Please read up on our guidelines for external links and spam. AniMate 01:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)"

I respond: what I objected to was that both you and Damiens.rf arbitrarily made deletions without sufficient or accurate explanations. To classify the External Links I contributed as SPAM was incredibly mistaken. Upon further consideration, I agreed that the Actiongirls.com link stressed product over information and was just about to remove it WITH THAT EXPLANATION when you struck in. On the other hand, I do think the Fans Community Collection website Link was an ESSENTIAL photo-reference guide to Veronika's work as a model. And I don't at all buy your copyright concerns re the latter either. It is a well-documented website in which neither Veronika's photos nor videos can be downloaded for commercial OR non-commercial gain. So why on earth do you object? C'mon, AniMate, put THAT Link back!(talk) 12 November 2009

Warcraft on RfD
Hey there, just letting you know I redid your delete close of that RfD per the guideline that a redirect nominated in good faith with no other comment defaults to delete, and given that the only non-nomination comment was also a vote for delete. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 18:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was going to relist but fell asleep. Deletion is fine.  AniMate   21:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI closure
A few questions:
 * 1) In your estimate, how many female editors took part in that consensus?
 * 2) What do you suppose would happen if an editor of Britannica (or any other normal workplace) posted that image on their office door?
 * 3) In your opinion, how is it that site culture changed so much in the seven months since Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yayay/Userboxes/Cleavage that the issue merited early closure and archiving?

Durova 366 00:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Not nearly enough.
 * 2) They would be dismissed, and rightfully so.
 * 3) I agree that the picture should have been removed, but I don't think AN/I is necessarily the right place to have the discussion. However, I did not close and archive the discussion.   AniMate   01:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair answer. As one of the site's more experienced female editors I've seen the effect this sort of thing has on morale. If there were an encyclopedic purpose being served that would be another matter, but the only thing this does is make the site less diverse. If you don't think ANI is the appropriate place to address this, what would be after the editor's user talk fails? Another complaint was already on the board regarding that person's conduct. What venue do you recommend? Durova  366 03:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the thing, I don't know. WP:AN might be better, since attracts less drama than WP:AN/I. Frankly Wikipedia doesn't have a good venue for these kinds of discussions. Since the user agreed to take the picture off, there really wasn't too much left to say. Whether or not these types of images should be allowed seems obvious to me, but whenever something like this comes up a large group of editors starts screaming about freedom of expression. I don't know what to do about these kinds of situations. I'd like to hear what you think though.  AniMate   03:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its the weekend and I likely won't be around too much since we've foolishly agreed to host thanksgiving here. Still I am very curious on your thoughts about these types of user page violations. It seems like there should be an easier way to take care of them than the usual ANI drama or that policy should be clearer. I've seen you posit before on the lack of female contributors before and agree that we likely need to do more to make the atmosphere more hospitable. Share your thoughts and I'd be happy to work on something with you, though I'm not sure what exactly that would be. -- AniMate   05:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your holiday. :) Remember the WebHamster userpage debates?  I defended him on allowable but not recommended terms because the image was used to make a statement about the user's opinion on presidential politics.  If the current fellow had actually been improving the biography of the person in question then that would have been fine.  All I ask is enough context to demonstrate the material serves a function within project scope.  Wikipedia isn't censored, but it isn't gratuitous either.


 * Organizational cultures shift from locker room atmospheres to mixed gender atmospheres at around a threshold of 15% women. Wikipedia's right on the edge of that.  If the ratio slips much more then it becomes a place where most women don't want to be; the remainder would fall into three groups: frustrated idealists, queen bees, or just so thick skinned that they don't care.  I don't have a complete solution to that, but one part of it seems to be to react to stereotyping of women exactly the same as stereotyping by race or religion.  Durova  366 07:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your signature
Your signature keeps making me thing my screen is dirty. Kinda funny, --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All part of my master plan. I'm secretly a computer screen cleaner salesman. Try my product. -- AniMate   04:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

debbie shlussel
the fued is very important, because it went on for months, with each side talking trash, its its not like it just minor, everyone that follows shlussel and the young turks knows about it. and that nickname has just stuck to her, everyone on the internet refers to her as shwang wang wang debbie shlussel... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 03:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous
There is latitude and there is ridiculous. This is ridiculous. Those allowing ridiculous vile slander, personal attacks, and gross incivility only make it worse. No wonder wiki is so jacked up. — Rlevse • Talk  • 10:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk back. — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from a Sockpuppet
Hi. No, I'm not here to drop a sig on you. I don't think we've meet much, but I've seen you about a bit; more, recently.

I've long advocated dispute resolution over dispute prolongation. The lack of effective resolution leads to the grudges you are concerned about. I don't feel that I carry grudges; it's more a matter of having continuing concerns. Too often, when some dispute arises, a 'solution' is arrived at that is primarily about addressing the symptoms of the dispute and this leaves parties frustrated. This is analogous to dealing with a pot boiling over by slamming the lid back on. A typical lid will not work as hoped in this metaphor and it doesn't work well on this project. One obvious revision of this approach is to use a tighter lid; i.e. a pressure cooker. This does work a bit, and for a bit, but the heat's still there and this is not always the appropriate way to cook. Should we be surprised that we get blowouts? It's happening with great regularity on a great many issues.

I have been here for years and have had more than typical involvement in disputes. In many ways, I agree that problems need to be dealt with harshly. But we can't just stand in a circle and open fire. I'm not here with 'the solution'. But I do believe that focus needs to be less on symptoms and more on underlying causes. Years ago, I left in frustration, and it was because I saw gamesmanship triumphing over realities. When something flares up, the focus needs to be on what the root issue is. Terms like disruption and civility miss this completely because they skip right over the 'why'.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Smallpox Hospital
Hmm ... pretty good so far. One suggestion, though, you might want to take a look at its NRHP nomination (you'll have to have JavaScript enabled to view). That would give you the information to write a nice little section describing the building.

Sorry to be so late in responding ... I've been busy on some NRHP articles of my own.

Have you thought about DYK? That "only landmarked ruin" thing would make a great hook. It's not too late yet. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the DYK window is seven days from the beginning of a 5x expansion of a stub. There's still time based on when you began expanding. If you want I'll write the description of the building, and nominate it (we'd both get credit).

A lot of NRHP articles are short and stubby because of the lack of documentation outside of their nominations, which aren't always available online. Daniel Case (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

the Logan family article emptied out?
Hi there, I know you don't normally edit B&B articles, but the complete blanking out of it in 4 successive edits (starting with this one, then this, and this, and finally this) seems a bit odd, and I didn't see anything on its talk page other than that it had survived a deletion petition. Would you know if that a legitimate edit, or can you restore the pre-emptied-out version? Thanks, Shymian (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI and PilgrimRose
AniMate. Appreciated for your input but an RFC is out of question at this point and in the future. As I said at ANI, I'm just looking for an admin to watch over this also so I see now it would've been better to choose one (admin) if s/he is up to the task of oversight of this particular area.article. Never mind, as it was my first threat I started at ANI I guess I chose the wrong venue for my intend and concern. Best and happy Holydays, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you might be confused about the function of RfCs. An WP:RfC/U is designed to look at user behavior. They're messy, drama filled, and often unproductive. A content WP:RfC is a mechanism to get more eyes on a specific issue affecting an article. My reading of the talk page seems to indicate that PilgrimRose feels the article is filled with anti-Americanism. Check out Requests_for_comment/Politics,_government,_and_law. It's a great way to get some diverse opinions about the content problems leading to the disagreements, without focusing on a specific user. Rarely is there any kind of drama involved with a content RfC. Think about it.  AniMate   23:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I'm not confused at all. I know about RFC's and if I thought such would be necessary and probate at this time I would've gone for it. But honestly. Why do editors always assume the worse case scenario? Asking for input (and admins input is mostly valued higher by most editors) before things might get out of hand should be a good thing. It would (at the end) take less admin time and Wiki could only benefit from this. Some of these still simple issues are getting blown up and can and do sometimes end up at ArbCom. I don't think this should be the standard and I think we can do better than this in most cases. But well, this is just my lonely opinion. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: If I ever get confused I won't hessitate to ask you for advise ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * RfCs are 1000% better than an admin coming in to save the day. My opinion, or the opinion of any other admin, are as equal as yours or PilgrimRose's. Coming in and waving the admin flag to get order just sucks, and most of us don't like to do it. Content RfCs on the other hand aren't the worst case scenario... they're one of the best. You get fresh eyes, fresh ideas, and fresh perspectives. I've seen RfCs on articles where the editors were largely in agreement on everything and just needed some new blood to help them figure out the direction an article should take. They're a useful tool, and I'm not sure where you got the idea that my recommending one was because I saw the worst case scenario. I looked at the talk page, everyone's position is pretty clear, and it looks like a stalemate. Administrators cannot use their position to break that stalemate. All we can do is delete articles, protect articles, block users, and unblock users. Editors who comment on an RfC can help establish consensus. That's what you want, and frankly your reluctance to explore that seems pretty silly. Good luck on the talk page, though if an administrator does need to come in and police it, it will reflect poorly on all of you for not doing the sensible thing and trying to find a real solution... especially when someone has told you what the sensible thing to do is, and you won't.  AniMate   01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * AniMate, sorry but you really didn't get my point at all. You're looking at or better said flying over the article's talk page as it is and not at the history (which would be hard to ask for anyways and so I didn't ask any admin to take a look at the past, just to KEEP AN EYE ON in the future. You don't have to do that at all and as a mater of fact you're IMO riding a dead hoarse that is already eat up by worms and mages. Just let it rest as I pointed out at ANI when I said it's time to close this as nothing I intended will come out of this. I hate to say this to you but could you just stop the whole thing? Could you please stop pointing out RFC as it clearly is the right way to go, NOT!? It's not my first day here on Wiki. Have a good night, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear AniMate; Bigtimepeace did what I intended to accomplish at ANI what I tried again to lay out and explain to you here on your talkpage. Unfortunately there was a lack of understanding each other and I apologize for my bad grammar and English I showed at the end. I don't want to get into details as they're personal but also no excuse. Please accept my apology. Things over there (at the article's talkpage) seem to have cooled down for now and hopefully they'll stay this way for now.
 * Thanks for your time and effort trying to help out, sincerely, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy AniMate's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

copy vio
Hi, let me go get them, I googled a bit of the text and found it at other locations and coupled with the fact that there are no citations..I 'll get the links, I added the site to the template, did you look there? Off2riorob (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

this was the search of our text that I did.. and here was one of the places I found it duplicated

and I think it was here too. Off2riorob (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing looks similar to me...I recommend having a little more of a look.I will tomorrow, but it seems funny...similar text all uncited...Off2riorob (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
If I could get you a present, I would. But what would you want? Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello re: diffs
Am I doing something wrong? I don't understand why you know that I'm collecting diffs from my own page. I do not have great technical expertise here, but if I'm doing something wrong, please tell me what it is. Thanks. Malke 2010  06:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again, thank you for getting back to me. I don't understand the rule, but when I am finished collecting them I will move them. Thank you for making me aware of this. Malke  2010  06:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, I wanted you to know that I have deleted all the diffs from my talk page. I had a conversation with another admin and I understand how they must have looked, which was not my intention.  I was only collecting them so I could show them to the admin and be efficient about it so as not to make her have to slog through all those talk pages.  I was not aware that putting them on my talk page would be a problem.  Won't do that again and hopefully things have calmed down for the other user. Thank you. Malke  2010  16:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Mediation
How did I miss your post?? My apologies for the belated response. :( Ah yes, DR and mediation. Of course, I'd like nothing more than more eyes on these issues. However, because noone really cares about this stuff, one of two things happen. Either nobody even shows up, or the guy that shows up has no knowledge of the issue and even less desire to waste any time trying to get to know the sources and the problem, and these sort of disputes are usually pretty complex. So what happens is that the mediator most often simply takes the middle ground, regardless of the fact that the "middle ground" is rarely or never correct. Then I get the annoying "you're all the same" attitude to boot. In short, it rarely works the way its supposed to, if at all. In fact, that's the main reason why the Balkans are one of the the "badlands" of enWiki. Since the Tito article is pretty big and of relatively decent quality, I suspect it might get attention if someone were to file for mediation. But again, experience leads me to believe a superficial handling of this complex matter will likely be the outcome. Nevertheless, if the disputes flare-up again I'll take your advice. Thanks for your help :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing
Thank you for telling me, won't do it again. :D Malke  2010  00:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Damiens.rf
You may unblock him if you get suitable assurances. I think you'll have more luck negotiating this than I would. Jehochman Brrr 01:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll keep an eye on things.  AniMate   01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Dalejenkins
Hi. I saw your comments on ANI and on his last IP talk page, and I just left him a bit of advice. I will look into his history more if he makes a reasonable reply and would ask that you consider allowing him to do the SUL unification. I'll be busy for a day or so, so no hurry. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Great advice. He'd be wise to follow it, and I'd be happy to help with unification. Consider leaving a note on his IP page, just in case.  AniMate   05:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and for the bit re the IP:talk page; I'll do that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Carthage44
Hey. I wanted to say that I felt your removal of this editor's talk page privileges (for apparently removing block messages) was a bit heavy-handed. I didn't see where that was being disruptive, it was just a sign that the person read the message. Now, I don't expect you to have to answer for your actions (nor should you) - but I just wanted to put my voice on here in saying that I disagree with that particular action. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 04:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Carthage has been extremely disruptive and uncommunicative. Neither are acceptable. This is my way of letting him know that the type of behavior he has displayed today will not be tolerated. If another admin feels I've been to heavy handed, they are free to unblock or restore talk page access. I am not infallible and I explicitly state that my actions can be undone without discussion.  AniMate   04:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By removing his talk page privileges you're engaging in pointy and disruptive action yourself. I trust you will block yourself and remove your own talk page privileges in the interests of fairness? Nev1 (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll get right on that. Thanks for being helpful.  AniMate   04:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Damiens.rf and rollback
won't happen again. My apologies to those concerned. Antonio Martin (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, everyone is entittled to a "rollback" mistake. It

Days images
Dude! Can you recall who we had Days image issues with back in the day? In my old age my memory is failing ;) "New" editor Gabi Hernandez has begun adding or replacing many Days character images and I'm wondering if we're dealing with the return of a blocked user from the past like IrishLass or something. She makes newbie mistakes but also seems to ignore warnings, and rarely makes comments or uses edit summaries. You know the drill!
 * PS, weren't we supposed to get a drink at some point???&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 01:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Things are nuts right now, and the constant rain isn't helping. Anyway, I can't remember a problematic user in regards to images. IrishLass was blocked as a sock of User:KellyAna if I recall, but their issues were incivility. Maybe you could ask Dougie Wii who I think is active in NBC soaps. With my mind in eight different places right now and my body only able to be in one, I'm afraid that's the best I can do right now.  AniMate   19:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Unconcerned"?
I think you have somehow sorely misinterpreted my (quite numerous) posts at the BLP RfC if you can come to the conclusion that I'm unconcerned about unsourced BLPs. I've supported several of the proposals there, and been quite vociferous in the defense of the admins who did the delete-on-sight spree, even if I don't agree that's the best solution. You can oppose my RfA all you like, but it should be for accurate reasons. Thanks. PS: If anything I've posted there seems unclear or weird or whatever, I'll be happy to clarify it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 23:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Belchman
Be aware that if he continues to call users "idiots" and "fools", I'm going straight back to ANI with that guy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. I decided to reduce the block to 24 hours. His attitude was bad, but hardly the worst I've seen.  AniMate   21:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Belligerent" is what I would call it. He raised questions about drugs, then yelled at us for questioning his basic premise, and I started wondering if was "using" himself. Hopefully he's calmed down by now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Implying a user is on drugs isn't exactly civil either.  AniMate   22:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not "implying", just "wondering". He just went ballastic on us for no apparent reason. Maybe not drugs or alcohol, maybe just a bad day at the office, or a fight with the wife, who knows? But no obvious reason except he felt like yelling at some of us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you think my thoughts are unfair, after the stuff he said to us, then so be it, and clobber this section if you want. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 20:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC) again PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: at my talk page. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 21:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)