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)

Ante Pavelić

What do you want to fix in the article? I think that we have neutrality in the article, however, I think that there is no neutrality in the Ustaše regime section, so if you would tell me what do you want to fix, I'll do it. Thx.

--Wustenfuchs 15:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the article is in particularly bad shape. If you think that that the Ustase regime section is biased, why not leave a note on the talk page laying out what specific issues you have with the section and we can go from there. AniMate 18:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any issues. I just thought you find that section biased. Well, I thought that because you said earlier that Ustaše were fascists and allies of Germany, and you want to point out their acts I thought that this can have connection only with the Ustaše regime section, because other sections don't involve fascism. For me, the section is fine, too short though, I want to expand it. I wrote this version a year ago, now I'm expanding it. --Wustenfuchs 21:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not that it's necessarily biased, but my general problem with the article is that parts aren't sourced well or at all and some of the sourcing is suspect at best. Let's look at some of the problems in the Ustase regime section:

On April 13, 1941 Pavelić entered Croatia and spent the night of April 15 in Zagreb together with his Ustaše emigrant escort. He began his duties as Head of State and formed a new government. Not long afterwards his family joined him in Zagreb.[citation needed]

Obviously this isn't cited, but is it notable? Perhaps the day he returned to the country is notable, but does it really matter where he spends the night? If the date he arrives in Zagreb is important, surely there's a way to present this that doesn't sound like a travel diary. Also, when exactly does his family join him and is their arrival notable? How long is "not long after"?

To gain favor with their Axis allies, the new Croatian government introduced a similar one-party state. Ustaše and all other political parties, including the Croatian Peasant Party, were dissolved. Many Croats who wanted to help develop the Croatian state were jailed as political dissidents. They included Maček who was imprisoned in Jasenovac concentration camp and later placed under house arrest, a situation that lasted until the end of the war. Since Pavelić was Poglavnik of both Ustaše's and the Croatian state he held absolute power. As part of the development of a personality cult he was represented as the second most important person in Croatian history with his name linked to that of Ante Starčević, "liberator" of the Croatian people. Many artists wrote songs in Pavelić's honor whilst a host of sculptures and paintings were produced including a statue by Antun Augustinčić and a portrait by Ante Kaštelančić.[6]

This entire section uses one source, a film by Jakov Sedlar, who I understand is not the most neutral of filmmakers to put it mildly. There's a lot more, but I think it should be discussed on the article talk page and not here. AniMate 23:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ofc, please, say what's wrong and source that supports such claims. I couldn't find any other source, and Sedlar's documentary is one of the rare sources which explains this. There's no literature dealing with Pavelić's biography. If you take Tomasevich, you will find nothing about the subject, or Pavlowitch, same thing. However, Matković explained this in his book Povijest Nezavisne Države Hrvatske (History of the Independent State of Croatia).

Literature is a big problem, so any source is good (ofc if reliable, and Sedlar's documentary is, since it was made with help of some historians). In February, I think, I started to replace Sedlar with other sources, because of the problem you have - English speaking people won't watch it, and another, biger problem they won't udnerstand it so they won't know did I lied or something like that. Books are, I think, always more reliable, where you can see the text and put it in Google translate (if you don't understand Croatian). And I can erase those unimportant infos, no problem with that. I'll try to add only significant infos from Matković's book. But really, about Sedlar, I can't find any literature to replace him since historians don't deal with his biography so much. --Wustenfuchs 21:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

My sister

Mr. AniMate, will you pass a message on to my sister's (Flyer22's) talk page under her ArbCom review, even if you have to paraphrase? Mr. User:PhilKnight and others know that in my sister's absence, I have been taking care of the articles she worked on. Unfortunately, I cannot take care of her talk page because it is semi-protected. This is what I told Mr. PhilKnight, and there are no details in it that are too personal, so don't worry.

This is what I asked him: Can you send me details of what went into deciding my sister's case? Or send them to my sister? I wasn't asking for her to be unblocked. I was asking for her name to be cleared. But why was the decision to keep her blocked made? Is it because you believe my sister's lying? That I'm my sister? Is it because I've continued to edit articles she looked after since her block? I explained why I'm doing that, and now that she's doing better, editing articles she didn't is a form of relief. How can ArbCom have adequately reviewed her case without letting me provide them with other behind-the-scene details of how I socked, or my sister's medical records to show that what I said happened to her after her block did happen? Why do you think I'm lying or that my sister would be so sadistic as to pose as me, any sibling, and make something up like this? Nothing in her contribution history shows her as the kind of person to lie like this, to sockpuppet (especially when it's not beneficial), and to be so heinous. This isn't a "good account, bad account" case. I was never bad, most of the time. If you all had just allowed me to give you my phone number, you could have confirmed with my mother or my sister's doctors that I'm telling the truth. My sister is now receiving the help she needs, and I don't know if she'll be back to edit Wikipedia later this month. All I requested of you was to let me clear my sister's name. If that meant unblocking her with the edit summary "Mistaken sockpuppet, sorry" or something similar, then so be it, but I doubt she would have started editing again so soon after her unblock. You didn't even broach the topic of if I'm allowed to edit Wikipedia as an IP or under a different account if my sister returns to editing there, or that I can't because I'd be tempted to support her in discussions or because you'll think it's my sister with a double account and will block her again. Thanks for your time, I guess.

So you see, Mr. AniMate, I sent more than one email to ArbCom about my sister's case. If they wanted to know that it's really me on the other end of this computer, they should have made an effort to contact me and let me provide them with proof that at least the incident after her block happened. As for edit history proof, they must not have had good analyzers on the case. Why would my sister log out and use a proxy to comment on, edit and revert things that she could have done while logged in? In these cases, she would have had nothing to gain by editing as a proxy or using an alternate account. I want to make a bigger confession, broach some things I did not tell the committee. Look at this: Why would my sister leave a message like this on her user page?[1] That's right, I'm JacobTrue (a sockpuppet of Banking honesty). Notice how I put "true" or "honesty" in my usernames? Was the JacobTrue account too stale for the committee's CheckUsers to see? Do they think my sister posted this message to her talk page in anticipation that she would be caught sockpuppeting? My sister doesn't think like that! She told me loud and clear: "I'd prefer you didn't make a habit of following mine or supporting my edits. If you're supporting me because you truly believe me to be right, that's fine, though I'd still prefer you not follow me to every article and agree with me." I did it anyway!

Why would my sister edit war with User:Tobby72 at Physical attractiveness when she could have just signed in and reverted him and took the issue to the talk page like she did when she was finally fed up with me and Tobby72 edit warring with each other? That simple message on the talk page stopped Tobby72 right there. Do the CheckUsers believe she edit warred and edit warred and when she saw that she wasn't getting her way, she decided to log in and play nice?

Well, how about this: Why would my sister pretend to be a man at Talk:Social effects of pornography and at her talk page[2] and go off on Avalongod? She has nothing against Avalongod. Do I? Hell yeah. He was causing more work for her and was biased in some of his edits about negative media effects.

Why would my sister leave a comment like this[3] on her user page? Or this one[4] and not even double up at the article talk page? She completely blew me off!

And to admit to something I'm deeply ashamed of, why would my sister do this to herself?[5][6] Look at how it made her feel?[7] I only did it because I wanted her off of this damn site and I knew that it would get the article talk pages shut down so that she wouldn't have to respond to this IP[8][9][10] anymore. Yeeeep, I framed the IP.

There's something else. Under her unblock request, my sister talked about our edit summary styles. She's right. She has an obsession with capitalizing things that should be capitalized, maybe a part of her obsessive-compulsive disorder (a disorder she spoke of in this link[11]), and would never purposely use lowercase letters for the beginning of sentences or for the letter I.

There is an abundance of evidence showing that my sister is innocent. I don't understand the Wikipedia hierarchy at all! My sister has to be branded a sockpuppet forever, but users like User:Yogesh Khandke are given the benefit of the doubt and are unblocked? 67.221.255.12 (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You aren't doing anyone any favors here. You have repeatedly and consistently made decisions that that are detrimental to her reputation and future here. Read WP:Meatpuppet. You use the same editing style. You edit the same articles. And despite Flyer22 being blocked for a month, you continue the same behavior that lead to her being blocked in the first place. You're continuing to edit articles to help your sister. You are a meatpuppet, and you are still breaking the rules and it is so clear that you have no intention of stopping. Let me quote you from the policy page: For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." You have been told repeatedly to stop "helping" but you seem unable or unwilling to do so. You are apparently editing via proxies and admit a real world connection with an editor who is currently blocked. I could go on telling you how unbelievably stupid you've been, but I don't think you'd listen. There's not a thing I can do except pass on to PhilKnight that you still maintain your innocence while continuing to use proxies to edit. AniMate 02:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Same editing style? Mr. AniMate, did you not even look at the evidence I showed you? I may have tried to copy my sister's way of incorporating words, which is how I learned to cite and other things, but I like to think that I'm different for the most part. Capitalization is a big deal for my sister, I'm trying to tell you this, but you aren't listening and are only lashing out at me. There are times that I use abbreviations like "rv.," and I know that my sister would never be able to do this without it driving her crazy. None of what I've said is ringing any bells for you? What about the links above that make no sense to attach to my sister's hand? You don't know my sister as well as Mr. Herostratus or Mr. Legitimus, do you? That's why you're so skeptical. Maybe if she'd sent you a note just like she did to them before she did what she did after the block, you wouldn't be. You're talking down to me because, like any good sibling, I'm here trying to clear my sister's name and am looking after her work? I can't be by her side right now, so why not try to help her like this? I don't think it's dumb. She couldn't send an email to ArbCom. I had to! And when I did, they didn't keep in touch with me, I had to do all the work by emailing them! They didn't ask for my phone number or anything. What I said happened to my sister after her block could have easily been proven if they'd just made the effort. I emailed ArbCom like others asked me to and that didn't work. So what else was I supposed to do? Drop it because that's what you would have done? Well, I'm not you, Mr. AniMate, and I'm sorry that I ever came to you for help! Maintain my innocence? Wow, that tells me all I need to know about how you see my sister in this. 67.221.255.12 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm "Methinks he doth protest too much."Doc talk 07:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Me thinks you need to read up on my sister's case, where WP:LITTLEBROTHER was already broached. So many asses on Wikipedia. Me thinks Mr. Herostratus got it right. 67.221.255.12 (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Calling me an ass does nothing for you. Or your sister. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 08:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just calling them like I see 'em. Just sayin'. And to answer your edit summary,[12] I'm done trying to win. I said so on Mr. PhilKnight's talk page. You can leave me be now. 67.221.255.12 (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I could leave you be, yes. But, you seem to think that this is about you, when it's really about your sister. I'll let AniMate kick me off the case, thank you very much! Cheers :> Doc talk 08:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So you're just here to WP:Troll and pick a fight with me? It is about me too, because I was a stupid asswipe and now she's blocked. And there's more to it than that, but most of that has been WP:OVERSIGHTED. If I were to talk about it again here, without being as vague as I've been about it higher, that would also be oversighted. 67.221.255.12 (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Now it's "troll", eh? I'm not here to pick a fight. I call 'em just like I see 'em, too. My call is: you are definitely not going to win whatever it is you're looking for. So stop bothering people like AniMate. Move along. Doc talk 09:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What else would you call butting in the way you did and antagonizing me? You're calling them like you see them without the facts. You aren't helping this discussion, so why are you here? To protect AniMate? Does he need your protection from someone who asked him to look at evidence and pass it along? Do you need to tell me that I'm not going to win anything when I said I'm done trying to? You do all that and "troll" doesn't fit? 67.221.255.12 (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I am an unrepentant (talk page stalker), and I butt in wherever I want to. If I am unwelcome on a user's page, they will let me know; and so far I am still welcome on this page. If you don't like the way I "break things down", you are more than free to disagree with me. If you think I don't know what I'm talking about at all, you could be sadly mistaken. By all means, carry on as if I never said anything. Doc talk 09:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not mistaken, but there isn't anything more to say at the moment. 67.221.255.12 (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're in the country of... Anonymous proxy. How's the weather there? Doc talk 09:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Tailsman67

Currently community banned by you, under two rangeblocks, back on 98.71.48.246 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). See User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67 for more info. Salvidrim! 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think MuZemike or another checkuser would be better than me at handling this. AniMate 19:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

CheckUsers don't have access to anything another Admin wouldn't in cases like this; I was notifying you because you issued officialized the de facto community ban. I'll let MuZeMike know instead. Salvidrim! 19:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

CAKE

Commander v99 (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Commander v99 (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving Kristina Corinthos Davis back to Kristina Davis

Could you do this, possibly? I noticed you did this before and the last one someone moved it, they wrecked it badly. Please and thank you, we'd appreciate it, especially since Kristina Davis is her WP:COMMONNAME. I tried to request the move, but it said it was done. =/ _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 22:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. AniMate 22:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Hopefully now people will leave it! _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 22:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for getting back to me. I am new at this. So I want to add stuff to the kelly sulivan page. I know the actress and she wanted it in more detail. If I take infromation from broadway.com under references do I just put that I got the infromation from there?? Or do I have to write it from my own words completely All information on how to proceed to get her page added correctly would be very helpful! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allen.corrina (talk • contribs) 03:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

RE:General Hospital title sequence

I did not created new sentences on this section. All I did was drastically reducing the section on March 8th. I've reduced the section by at least a good 50%. But all the sentences you currently see on this section were already there before March because I did not added any new infos.

I've removed the "Original research" template on this section because I thought everything was okay with this section since I didn't hear anything from you or Soapfan2013 after leaving a message in both of your talk pages. The only user who responded to the invitation was Musicfreak7676 and he was okay with my proposed changes. I can put back the "original research" template for this section if you want. But I'm strongly opposed to the use of the "Multiple issues" template on top of the whole article when it's only one section that has issues. The "Multiple issues" should only be used as a last recourse when it's the whole article that needs helps which obviously isn't the case here.

To conclude, I'd like to say that I never cared for the "Title sequence" section and I personally wouldn't mind if it got deleted altogether. The One Life to Live article doesn't have any of that stuff and this has never taken anything away from the article.

Feel free to contact me if there's anything. Regards. Farine (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for generosity in extending un-blocking to Pdfpdf!. jmcw (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

YRC

Hello, AniMate. You have new messages at Foxj's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— foxj 02:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheers!

		A beer on me!
		Thanks for interceding. JHunterJ (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, AniMate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've replied. AniMate 19:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

DRV?

In regards to the discussion at George Ho's talk page, we aren't actually talking about deletion discussions. George is very active in initiating move discussions, while JHunterJ is active in closing them, and Anthony Appleyard tends to agree with George. DRV isn't really an appropriate venue, and I also think going to an overly sympathetic admin needs to be discouraged. Anyway, wade in at your own peril. AniMate 19:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Nod. There was a discussion recently to have DRV cover requested moves. In the end, you're right, they chose to start a separate page/process for reviewing RMs. Sorry for the confusion.

That aside, nod. I've been in discussions with george (and his mentors) in the past.

You made some very good points, I hope he listens. - jc37 19:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a page for reviewing closed move requests? That would solve a lot of this. AniMate 19:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

See WT:DRV#Requested move appeals which led to this. Looks like it's still in "proposed" state though. - jc37 19:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Panonian

Hi, AniMate, I'm curious why you did not block Panonian for the violation of his topic ban. I'm not questioning your discretion, just wondering what your reasoning was.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm very involved in the situation. AniMate 18:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for being dense, but the only involvement I see is at ANI. You weren't involved in the arbcom decision itself as far as I can tell. If as an admin you take a position at ANI that a user has violated his ban, does that mean you can't act? Did you have some other involvement with Panonian that makes you subject to the limitations of WP:INVOLVED? Sorry if I come off as pushy on this. I'm more interested in understanding your application of policy as an admin than whether Panonian is blocked. That said, if you feel pushed, please tell me, and I'll back off.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's really more of general involvement in the area. I've done quite a bit of editing where he was just topic banned from. Besides we've crossed paths several times and I know PANONIAN would consider me involved as well. AniMate 23:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, I appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

To note

As per my comment on the article talk - I would also request you avoid editing and administrating in relation to me as you hold a clear citable opinionated position - we have many admins that are uninvolved and please defer to them in relation to any issues in relation to me - thanks - Youreallycan 22:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

As a request - please don't hat/close discussions or take any admin actions I am involved in - we have hundreds of admins - as you have expressed on multiple occasions a desire to restrict my ability to edit and can be cited as such, please allow unopinionated administrators to take any required such actions - thanks - Youreallycan 22:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you needed to say this twice, but I haven't taken any administrative actions in regards to you. Hatting that discussion seemed to be common sense, since the issue was resolved. Wanting another user to admit that you were right and he was wrong doesn't seem to be productive, but I won't hat again. Finally, in your first post here you complain that I should not take take any actions because I am opinionated, but in your second post you state that you want opinionated administrators to take action. I'm a little confused. Perhaps instead of two contradictory posts you should make one clear and concise statement. AniMate 22:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"I'm not sure you needed to say this twice," - I felt I needed to as your position/comments has appeared so strong in regards to me - as for my comment, Its clear it was a missie - I have added un to the comment - thanks - all the general positions are inline - Youreallycan 22:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I will not take any administrative actions against you, however I refuse to recuse myself from closing discussions you happen to be involved with if I think it is necessary. AniMate 00:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - I appreciate and accept that. I have recently moved to a one revert editing standard and am settling into that, Its not that I wanted to be proved right but that I gave the user the opportunity to have the whole issue removed and it was he that rejected that by reverting so we moved to discussion and ino there was then no excuse to hide it - I hope moving forwards to be able to improve my editing and with that, my wiki relationship with you and would be grateful of your advice and feedback in future - best regards Youreallycan 06:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Alex West

Hi Ani. This [13] is a BLP violation. It cant be seen any other way. Caden ^cool 21:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It's been two days and Crakkerjakk hasnt replied to me. Caden ^cool 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification

WikiThanks

I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Reply to questions by Fæ. If you wish to comment please take note of the guidelines at the top of the page and either the same page or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop may be suitable. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Fæ (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, AniMate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Zad68 21:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ban?

I was bullied into a ban of the Messianic Judaism page, not 'all related pages'. How is 'related' measured? For what limits? Can I change an out of date reference on a Christian theology page? The issue the others' opinion on the start of the MJ movement, and their refusal to consider any other opinion. Stopping all edits is a pretty broad interpretation. As it stands, they can add spurious opinion to all 'related' pages as they define it, and then tattle is they think I made a change they didn't like? --DeknMike (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

General Hospital title sequence

Hello AniMate, first-time writer, long-time reader (of Wikipedia), so I apologize if I break any talk rules. My question/comment/suggestion is in regard to the title sequence section that was removed from the General Hospital main page on May 10th. I had found that section enjoyable and factual some months ago and was disappointed recently to find it gone, and that the remover found it "not notable." I read the discussion and you also cited the lack of sources, which is a worthwhile objection to its inclusion, however, I request that it be reinstated as it was for these reasons: --I respectfully submit that it is notable for fans of the show who are also "title sequence" buffs for tv shows and movies alike, of which I am one, and it is also a history of a daily part of the show. --The General Hospital page was not alone in that other soaps have similar content: Witness Loving, The Young and the Restless, and especially All My Children for very similar sections. --Most of those sections do not have citations, yet I was not able to find discussion/dissent on their pages. On one of them, The Young and the Restless, it says "This section needs additional citations for verification." Why not include a disclaimer at the top of the GH section rather than deleting it entirely? Once again, I have watched the show since the late 1980s and found it factual, but the only citation I could give is "my memory," or "episodes watched during those years," but that doesn't necessarily make it automatic-deletion material. --None of the deleted information could be found anywhere else on the Internet. I know, because I looked! I look to Wikipedia for information like that; it's entirely possible that a well-informed fan or someone in production wrote the section and didn't footnote it. The section was originally added on January 18, 2006, and some of the specific information about the theme music from the 1970s was added on January 24, 2006 (both according to the page's history). Thank you for your time and work on this page and I look forward to future discussions. Inhan Lagur (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a major problem here. Articles at Wikipedia must be verifiable. That's a policy. Please read WP:Verifiability. The title sequences might be interesting to a certain section of fans, but they are not notable for an encyclopedia. A policy that goes hand in hand with verifiability is WP:Notability. If something is worthy of inclusion here, then someone should have written about in a WP:Reliable source. In this case no one has written about the various changes to the General Hospital opening sequence, or if they have no one has been able to find the work in which it appears. I'm going to be looking at the other articles you mentioned, and I'll likely drastically trim them or excise them completely.

There are several fan wikis out there dedicated to soap operas and hosted by Wikia. Here's the link for a General Hospital group here. AniMate 22:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, and for letting me know about those links. I will defer to your knowledge of the Wiki policies, I did not realize that it would be such a major problem. Inhan Lagur (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

advice please

I see you mention that you are interested in Wikipedia copyright violations. This is very thoughtful of you. The next time you see one, please alert me because I want to learn about this and how Wikipedia acts.

Auchansa (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick question....

I tried editing on the Stephanie Adams page but noticed it was fully protected. I also see a long thread of people telling someone named Fasttimes68 to stop editing on that page and he is still trying to blank out facts on there, such as her graduating college. I visited a page that allows users to vote for him being banned but see that it has been archived. Will I ever be able to edit her page? Why is he trying to question her college education now as well as what was written about her in Playboy? She has some updates I saw that weren't included, such as her guardianship case. Why were they removed? Just wondering.... DAMVan01 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Barts1a/Arcandam

I think you may want to do some reading before you start accusing people. Arcandam (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why Arcandam was trying to stir up trouble... Fingers crossed that they will stop posting now... (If they do you'll probably know before I do! :P) Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 04:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It must be a sad day for an admin when he receives a message like that. Arcandam (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The only sad thing here is your behavior. Stop harassing Barts1a now. AniMate 04:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I expect you to apologize for your weird accusations. Did you spend some time reading before you posted your nonsensical message on my talkpage? Arcandam (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. I know quite a few admins who wouldn't be happy with messages from incompetent users and/or trolls thanking them for threatening good users.

(edit conflict)x3So after being severely warned for stirring up trouble you decide to stir up trouble elsewhere... Is the usual person that operates the Arcandam account currently operating it? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 05:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point, you are trolling again. Arcandam (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't make empty threats and please read WP:INVOLVED. Arcandam (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making empty threats and leaving a warning does not make me involved. I read your messages to Barts1a, they were needlessly confrontational and posting on someone's talk page after they have asked you to stop is not acceptable. I'm not sure why you've chosen to start this conflict with him, but it needs to stop. Drop the stick, walk away, and leave him alone. AniMate 05:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You clearly didn't even spend some time reading before you posted your nonsensical message on my talkpage. It is an empty threat because we have a policy that forbids you from blocking me because you clearly are involved. Arcandam (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Needlessly confrontational? I think it is about time that someone starts to tell Bart the truth: he needs to change. I checked a random sample of his edits and it contained many mistakes. If you don't want me to post on his talkpage, does that mean I need to revert them without giving him a chance to explain whatever he was trying to do? Arcandam (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If people wanted to talk to me about my editing patterns they can feel free to do so. Leaving confrontational messages such as what you left to me are not talking about my editing patterns, they are needless harassment! Please note that just because you have an issue with my editing patterns does not mean that others have the same issue otherwise they would have bought it up as well! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 05:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:INVOLVED again. I'm acting purely in an administrative role. I'm not a buddy of Barts1a, and have been fairly critical of him in the past. If leaving a warning makes an administrator involved, none of us could ever leave warnings. I warned you as an administrator and my only actions here have been made as an administrator. Again, you need to drop this or you will be blocked. Leave him alone. Simple. Wikipedia is a fairly big place, and I don't recall seeing anywhere that you have been appointed the person officially in charge of policing Barts1a's edits. If you really feel there is something pressing that needs to be dealt with, you can always post to one of the noticeboards. You are also clearly aware that he has a mentor. If you're that concerned, you can always post those concerns at User talk:Worm That Turned. Now both of you need to walk away. There's nothing left to say here. AniMate 05:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)