AniMate

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)

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 Wikipedia: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 • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Percy Jackson Task Force

Hello, AniMate! I'd like to invite you to join the Percy Jackson task force. We work on improving Percy Jackson & the Olympians articles and would appreciate your help. Cheers! Perseus!Talk to me 20:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• 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. --Cyclopia^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. --Cyclopia^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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive648 where Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) 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 [1] 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#Marcus Terentius Varro. 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. SnottyWong ^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. AniMate 19:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)