AniMate

I just got a new laptop, and the keyboard is significantly smaller than my previous machine. If I make some typing mistakes while getting used to it, please forgive me.

Picture of the day

Colias croceus, also known as the clouded yellow, is a small butterfly of the family Pieridae, the yellows and whites. Its breeding range is North Africa and southern Europe and eastwards through Turkey into the Middle East, but it occurs throughout much of Europe as a summer migrant, sometimes as far north as Scandinavia. In Asia, its range extends into central Siberia in the north and barely into India in the south, although it is not found in Central Asia. The species can live in any open area in the countryside, including downland, coastal cliffs and fields containing the caterpillar's host plants, at an elevation up to 1,600 metres (5,200 ft) above sea level. Colias croceus has a wingspan of 46–54 millimetres (1.8–2.1 in), with the upperside of its wing being golden to orange yellow with a broad black margin on all four wings and a black spot near the centre forewing. This mating pair was photographed in Pirin National Park, Bulgaria.Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp

My sandbox

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

2010_City_of_Bell_salary_controversy

Your views on this discussion would be welcome. Talk:2010_City_of_Bell_salary_controversy#Article. 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)

Wikipedia: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)