This user may have left Wikipedia. AniMate has not edited Wikipedia since 23 April 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Picture of the day

Libellula depressa, commonly known as the broad-bodied chaser or broad-bodied darter, is a dragonfly in the family Libellulidae. One of the most common dragonflies in Europe and central Asia, its range extends to England, central Asia and the Middle East, with a few limited populations in Scotland. It is not found in Ireland or North Africa, however. This insect is around 39 to 48 millimetres (1.5 to 1.9 inches) in length, with both the male and the female having a broad, flattened abdomen which is brown with yellow patches down the sides. In the male, the abdomen develops a blue pruinescence that covers the brown colour. Both fore and hind wings have a dark patch at the base. This male L. depressa dragonfly was photographed at Wolvercote Lakes in Oxfordshire, England.Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp

Archive – More featured pictures...

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

25 April 2024
In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS) Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

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.

-- Wusten fuchs 15:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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. -- Wusten fuchs 21:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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. -- Wusten fuchs 21:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.— Magog the Ogre ( talk) 18:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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

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 - Youreally can 22:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

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 - Youreally can 22:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

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) reply

"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 - Youreally can 22:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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 Youreally can 06:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

Zad 68 21:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Is Florencia Lozano on contract with GH cuz for one she hasn't been on in like 2 months or one month and she is listed as a contract member but I never heard of her being on contract, it sounded like it was a guest appearance for a couple of weeks. I'm asking you cuz I don't wanna get in trouble with Musicfreak. P.J. ( talk) 04:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I agree that it is odd that she hasn't been on lately, but according to TVLine, which I would consider a reliable source, Florencia Lozano was put on contract. AniMate 00:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

alright man I was just making sure, but I did remove Bruce Weitz from the recurring section since he was killed off after all But I will leave Florencia on the list. P.J. ( talk) 04:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Bruce Weitz is going to be appearing on the show this week. Until there is confirmation that he is no longer taping, I think we should leave him as recurring. AniMate 05:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Is Kassie DePaiva still taping with General Hospital or should she be taken off the cast list? P.J. ( talk) 03:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, AniMate. You have new messages at Musicfreak7676's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

_{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 17:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Have you released any of your content so you can display some here or can you link me to some?  Ryan  Vesey 21:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I haven't released anything, because this is how I make my money. I'm not about to start giving it away for free in a place that is so often toxic like Wikipedia. I'm also not overly comfortable linking to anything about me. I value my anonymity. AniMate 22:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC) reply

As of now, I've removed the "Abortion" section from the article. Though Yahoo! Voices is user generated, Dray is giving her take on the progression of the storyline, which is what anyone else, professional writer or not, would do. I don't see why a viewer giving their take on the way a storyline is going can't be used in the article; Carolyn Hinsey of the New York Dailey News is obviously a fan of soaps who only gives her opinion on what is going on with soap operas; I really don't see a difference in either of them giving their opinion on a storyline. That section of the article is not relying on Dray's article for information about the character, or the actress, etc, Michael Fairman, Daytime Confidential, Soap Central, or any other soap websites can be used for that. I also want to know if I can use this link in which the writer briefly discusses the storyline and several others, here is the link: Soapdom's Most Memorable Moments of 2006-- Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 06:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

There is a massive difference. Yahoo! Voices isn't a reliable source. There is no editorial oversight. Using the logic that anyone's opinion is right for a Wikipedia article completely throws out the policy in regards to reliable sources. Using your logic, every editor of Wikipedia could write something on their user talk page. What they write could then be included in articles. Imagine if everything anyone wrote about a political candidate became fair game for articles. Imagine if everything someone wrote about ethnic groups they didn't like became fair game for articles. Reliable sources must have editorial control, otherwise all sorts of nonsense would be included in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.

As for soapdom.com as a reliable source... my gut says that it is not. Ask some of the other regulars what they think though. AniMate 07:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I will keep you inform if I witness another incident (which hopefully, I won't).

And you're right, being a good editor does not give one the right to put down fellow Wikipedians. And if handing out official warnings and eventually applying a block is what it takes to have this behavior stopped, then so be it. Farine ( talk) 08:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I seem to have quite upset Musicfreak7676. You can take it from there if you want. But I personally won't be posting anymore on his talk page because I don't want to put any more fuel to the fire. Farine ( talk) 01:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to call you buddy or not but I am. I wanna letcha know that been keeping myself occupied on The Walton article ya know. I fixed up the episode guide, fixed a few errors and all of that, have not been causing any trouble. Just wanna see how you were doin. Lost a friend of mine from Church a few weeks ago to suicide, something went wrong in his brain, and I didn't find out until Sunday. His name was Jake. As for the GH article, been keeping an eye on it but that's it, haven't done any editing well yeah I admit I've done just some editing but not as much as I did. Ya take care of yourself my friend. P.J. ( talk) 04:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC) reply

It's too obvious that this account is a sockpuppet of User:TVFAN24, the user that was blocked indefinitely for his/her personal attacks on Musicfreak7676. Should he/she be reported to SPI? Or should we close our eyes on this for now and observe his/her interactions with the other users before taking actions?

I'm not saying that this user should or shouldn't be blocked. But we should definitely keep an eye on it because it is an account that is being used to evade a block. Farine ( talk) 19:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Definitely take it to SPI. Comparing their edits, this shows quite a bit of overlap between the two. I think a checkuser is probably necessary to confirm this though. AniMate 21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi there, i am still waiting to hear back from you at User talk:اردیبهشت. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.175.12 ( talk) 17:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I started reverting changes to this page, but then realized that the changes sort of made sense. I don't have anyway of verifying the changes. The obvious cite would be the date of the show. I am not going to watch the show. The IP is not leaving edit summaries. I sort of apologized to the IP for warning him. Please avoid reverting simply because I reverted. Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 00:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I didn't revert because you reverted. For years a banned user editing from anonymous IPs originating from Canada has been obsessed with changing the last name of Carly from General Hospital. He started out as User:Randy Jaiyan and has popped up on and off since 2008. AniMate 00:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your recent edit to the Blair Waldorf page. -- James26 ( talk) 19:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I wasn't trying to badger you, AniMate--I thought the ";)" would have made that clear; sorry if that wasn't obvious. No disrespect was intended: I know fully well that there are significant differences between editing then and now, and the project then and now. Anyways, Writ Keeper is a total asset, and if his RfA succeeds you'll find him a pleasure to work with. If it doesn't succeed, my guess is he'll still be around being helpful. Happy days, Drmies ( talk) 01:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi AniMate. I'm trying to come to a consensus at this discussion regarding the inclusion of some primetime dramas that have been called soaps/soap-like in the WP:SOAPS project. If you have a minute any opinions are greatly appreciated. Take care, Kelly Marie 0812 ( talk) 02:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi AniMate, you closed a topic-ban for DeknMike. There is an ANI discussion about his recent edit here, appreciate your input. Zad 68 15:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi AniMate - I was wondering if you could help me move a page? I think it's not working because the destination page has an edit history... from what I see A.J. Quartermaine was redirected to A. J. Quartermaine back in 2007, with edit comments "naming conventions." Myself and another editor believe it should be moved back to "A.J.", no space, and there's been no opposition on the talk page for a few days. Reasons are it is his WP:COMMONNAME and how reliable sources spell it. I tried blanking the redirect page but it still wouldn't move. Thanks so much for your help! Kelly Marie 0812 ( talk) 07:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Blargh! One of the few days I actually check in here and someone asks me to do a history merge. Grrrr... I guess it's time to brush off my rusty tools and see if I can still remember how to do this. AniMate 07:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Actually, the only history there seems to be fixing the redirect, which can be deleted without merging. That should teach me to complain without looking at what actually is involved first. AniMate 07:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Haha - thank you so much!!! I owe you a favor! Kelly Marie 0812 ( talk) 08:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi AniMate - I've done some organizing over at the wp:soaps discussion on infobox changes, and we seem to have come to consensus on most parameters in question. The two main remaining parameters (romances, and whether or not to split/specify family parameters to individual male/female or not), are pretty split on editor opinions. First of all, if you have opinions and want to weigh in, great! But more so I am asking your advice as an admin on how to finalize these issues? I have a new infobox ready in my sandbox that has most the discussed changes done and I'd like to update it with the consensus of these last parameters and then ask that it be used to replace infobox1. Thank you! Kelly Marie 0812 ( talk) 23:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm only on here sporadically these days, and I probably won't weigh in on the infobox changes. As for finalizing, you'll just need to move it to Template:Infobox soap character 3 (or wherever you want it) and it can then be used in articles. As for making sure it is the one people use, that's entirely up to the community. If a lot of edit wars pop-up, and I do expect some just because there are users here who write like this is a fansite, you'll have to file an RfC. Also be aware that someone who doesn't like the changes may decide to take it to AfD. That's Wikipedia though. Everything here is a crapshoot and the only guarantee is that you'll have to deal with idiots. AniMate 02:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Wouldn't consensus at WP:SOAPS suffice to make permanent changes to soap infobox1? It's locked for editing but we could request an admin to edit it? I created the sandbox just for ease of not having to ask for 10 different confusing edits. Also, what would you suggest we do on any parameters in question that can't come to consensus on that page? Kelly Marie 0812 ( talk) 03:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Wikiprojects have no real authority in anything. Any consensus they come up with isn't really binding. However, if you want to make the changes to the first soap character infobox, I'd go to WP:RFPP and request that an administrator change the protection level to semi. As for being unable to come to a consensus, you can always file an WP:RfC. AniMate 04:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Okay, thanks - I had figured wp:soaps had started the soaps version of the infobox. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 ( talk) 05:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Are there any guidelines on what constitutes consensus? IMO the romances section has reached consensus both in quantity and quality of answers opposing its inclusion. But it being such a close discussion and myself being on the oppose side, I'm not sure if it's okay to consider it concluded to take that off. I'm getting anxious to finish the discussion as (at least the articles on my watchlist) are a mess of infobox switching and warring (since some had started to test box2, and it spiraled from there). If you are around would you mind taking a look and letting me know if you think consensus has been reached? Thanks so much. Kelly Marie 0812 ( talk) 22:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC) reply

I think you're looking for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. AniMate 22:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Aha - yes that works! Thank you! Kelly Marie 0812 ( talk) 22:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Hey AniMate. I was speaking with another editor about this and they advised me to contact an admin. I nominated Sharon Newman for GA and the first reviewers signed the GA Review in October. Basically nothing has happened. I was really eager to finish this GA Review and always fixed everything asap. I'm really frustrated and discouraged. I will be taking a bit of a WikiBreak soon; I'm moving and won't have any time for Wikipedia. By the looks of it, the review won't be done by then (In 8 days) and I'm losing patience. I was wondering, what can I do to call off a GA review?? Ar re 03:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply

It's super, super simple. Just ask the reviewers to close the review, and you can renominate at any time. AniMate 04:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply

it's really hard to get a hold of them. They aren't very active and I have to wait days to get a response. I can't rely on asking them to close the review. I want to close the review, then re-nominate it before Dec. 11, because afterward I will be unavailable. It's very frustrating :3 Ar re 09:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I'll close it for you then. I would say enjoy your break, but if your move goes anything like mine have gone... buy some booze. AniMate 10:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC) reply

ahah thanks, :) Ar re 10:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm a bit confused. The GA template on Sharon's talk page says it did not meet good article criteria. Forgive me for asking so many questions, I've never had a situation like this before. Is it possible to just nominate it again? Or maybe, get a different reviewer? The annoying this is how long these reviewers take to reply to messages I give them. I'm committed to fixing any points they would leave me, but they didn't seem to care which is very frustrating for me. Ar re 10:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC) reply

You can renominate it tomorrow or right now. The only reason it "failed" is because you no longer wanted the review. For the record, you can always request different reviewers. AniMate 10:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Okay, will do. How do I go about requesting different reviewers? Just asking someone else? Ar re 10:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC) reply

You can go to WP:GAR to ask for a reassessment, but really the best thing to do is just start a new review. AniMate 20:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oh okay... i would just like to thank you again for your assistance:) Ar re 03:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Hey Ani I was wondering if you could tell me why the article List of Pets of the Year was redirected to the article of List of Pets of the Month. There was no consensus or discussion for the redirect. Nothing on the talk page about it at all. I can't find out why it was done and I don't know who redirected it. Was the article deleted? If so, why? If it's deleted why didnt anybody notify me? I created the article so I should of been informed if it was deleted, redirected or whatever. Caden ^cool 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure. There doesn't seem to be an article at either List of Pets of the Month or List of Pets of the Year. Some more info please? AniMate 22:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't understand where those 2 articles went. But nothing on this artcle List of Penthouse Pets says anything. Caden ^cool 22:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Ah, Penthouse pets. You left out that rather important word. I thought we were talking about a list of cats, dogs, and birds that had been named pet of the year by some veterinary journal or something. It looks like User:Vanjagenije moved List of Penthouse Pets of the Month to List of Penthouse Pets. He also redirected List of Penthouse Pets of the Year to List of Penthouse Pets. All of the information from both lists should still be there, but you should contact him on his talk page or leave a note at Talk:List of Penthouse Pets if you're unhappy that they have been merged into one list. AniMate 23:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply

As for there being no discussion, every contributor here has the right to WP:Be bold. It's a guideline, and just one step below policy. I'm not planning on getting involved, but I think merging the lists makes sense so that everything can be in one article. Also, there is a template at the bottom of the page devoted solely to the models of the year. AniMate 23:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply

LOL Sorry about the confusion. But yes I'm unhappy with the move and the merge and the redirect. I left a post on the talk page so maybe that might help? Merging the two lists was a major mistake. Playboy still has 2 separate lists and no merge, redirect or move was done there. Anyway thanks for the feedback. Caden ^cool 23:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

	Happy Holidays
	Hi AniMate, hope you are having a great holiday! Thanks for always answering my questions or helping out when I ask. All the best! Kelly Marie 0812 ( talk) 03:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Look dude, I don't wanna get blocked again, but I really don't think they are leaving GH, none of the other soap sites are reporting them leaving, ABC Soaps In Depth is not, soaps.com is not, soap central is not, only zap2it, you would think if they are really leaving, all of those sites would've reported it, and they aren't, I've checked. Temporarily or not, all of the actors signed contracts with GH. Only one website is reporting them leaving temporarily, and how reliable is that website? P.J. ( talk) 05:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to say thank you for looking at a very difficult situation and being willing to step in. It's not an easy task to attempt, and I appreciate your efforts. — Ched :  ?  20:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Much appreciated. Honestly, I've been watching this unfold and feel like I've been watching a slow motion train wreck. I'm sure it will end eventually and all we'll have to show for it is a great deal of upset and a bunch of mangled bodies. AniMate 20:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC) reply

If I've not expressed my respect for you in the past; then that is my failing. I put a lot of weight behind all that you do here. — Ched :  ?  20:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks again. Truth is I don't do much these days. Like a lot of long time users, I'm fairly disillusioned with the project and my participation is minimal. You do good work as well, much more than I, and hope you can find a way to contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia again. If you find a recipe that makes this place enjoyable again, let me know. AniMate 20:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi there. :) I'm here hoping you would be able to support me in moving Tequan up to his contract position in the GH cast list. Another user won't let me move him up due to lack of a source and I tried to argue that SOD and the other typical sources don't always report the cast changes but he's been on contract since November in the credits and his Facebook and Twitter list him as a 'regular' on GH. Would you be willing to comment in the topic and back me up? I'd really appreciate it. --Alexisfan07 (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be a source for this, so I can't support this right now. AniMate 04:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Greetings, AniMate! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I have filed an RFARB. Though I'm sure you can tell, I am incredibly frustrated with this process already. I want to offer an apology for flying off the handle. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 18:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I think this is a good idea, and there's a strong case. One of the bad sides of Wikipedia is that it isn't censored. Don't get me wrong, I don't think articles should be censored, but some people have taken that as license to allow some really over the top racist and sexist statements to stand. Among some users there is definitely an idea that the types of posts left by Apostle12 are okay, since he didn't use any of the big no-no words. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a straight, white boys club and until the project gets out of that mind set, it is going to continue to decline. Apology of course accepted, because I understand since I was extremely upset at the attitude some of the editors expressed in the first incident report. I still don't understand how a topic ban failed to gain consensus there. AniMate 02:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

What do you mean with your comment at ANI, not doing myself any favors, etc? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 10:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Multiple requests like this make it, rather fair or not, look like you're trying to game the system or forum shopping or stacking the deck in your favor. Pick any or all of those. Wikipedia works best when we focus on compromise and not trying to win via administrator intervention. I agree that arbitration is needed in regards to Apostle12, and when I'm a little more focused I intend to post to the arbitration request, but all of these requests for intervention don't look good and really aren't helpful. AniMate 10:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I get that, and I am not trying to win anything. As I've always maintained, I'm trying to gain clarity about this environment. I may have phrased it badly in one of my ANI filings, but there do seem to really be rules one can disregard and ones that one can't. I guess I can understand how my actions might be interpreted as looking for "win via administrator intervention" but in most cases it's just because there's noone else around, and i don't see how asking for additional input can hurt. These articles are contentious, but I've been given little reason to give others the benefit of the doubt even as i have tried to the absolute best of my ability to AGF. And I think I have been a lot more successful at it than many folks, to be perfectly honest. One of the first things I did after spending significant time here was to ask for editor review. I really am committed to trying to get better at this, at least as long as it lasts. If I fall victim to WP:BOOMERANG or some such it will still have been worth it for the practice it's given me in trying to address interpersonal disputes while remaining true to the values i share with this community. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 10:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

It appears things are wrapping up with the arbcom case, there are now 4 votes in favor of suspension, with a topic ban to follow. I wanted to solicit your input on how I could have better handled this. I feel like I should not have had to spend as much time as I did on getting people to review the relevant history; there was always the temptation to just walk away, but I was also uncomfortable with the idea that doing so would allow the propagation of falsehoods or rumors. I have suggested elsewhere that perhaps more mechanisms for review of editor behavior are necessary, or more cooperation with the content-focused noticeboards, but I'm sort of grasping at straws. Any input would be appreciated. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 17:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Dispute resolution sucks here. Part of the problem with this case in particular was that there seemed to be a willful blindness by several people at the original incident report I participated in. Perhaps part of the problem in this particular case is that Wikipedia is so homogenous when it comes to editor diversity, because I don't see how any reasonable person could read Apostle12's "stories" and not come to the conclusion that he shouldn't be anywhere near articles dealing with race. Honestly I would have loved for those defending him (especially Dennis Brown and TParis) to have gone to their black friends and coworkers, read his comments to them, and see what their reactions were.

This should have been a straightforward topic ban for Apostle12. That it wasn't says much more about Wikipedia's failings than your own. He probably would still be editing in other areas had that occurred before the case, and I suspect his retirement was more about how indefensible his statements were, rather than his interactions with you. That having been said, should you find yourself in this position again, don't keep resubmitting the same report hoping for a different outcome once it becomes clear that no action will be taken. Kick things up the dispute resolution ladder. I think you would have avoided a lot of frustration on your end (and mine) had you decided to file an arbitration case rather than multiple incident reports.

The only real piece of advice I can give you is to talk to members of the arbitration committee after the case is closed. I think User:AGK was in charge of this case. Approach them after the case is closed, explain your complaints or issues and see what they have to say. User:Newyorkbrad might also be someone to discuss things with. He's an arbiter, and he's also a community member who saw right off the bat that there was a problem and suggested the topic ban in the first place. Additionally, I and others have noted that your complaints are often WP:TLDR. If you discuss things with Newyorkbrad, the two of you can write novels back and forth to each other. Despite being one of our most respected members on ArbCom, everyone knows he has a problem writing way too much. I'd also consider User:Sandstein. He isn't on ArbCom, but he works on almost all of the cases that come up at WP:Arbitration enforcement. If dispute resolution isn't working for you, talk to the people who are working on the front lines.

Hope this helps some. AniMate 19:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC) reply

It does, thanks. As a sidenote, I realized that I was reading the majority guide wrong, and that the decision is still in flux. Apologies for jumping the gun. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 21:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi there! I was wondering if you could help me with something. I would like to move Victor Newman and Nikki Reed to the new title "Victor and Nikki" per WP:COMMONNAME. It would also be to match the articles Nick and Sharon, Luke and Laura and J.T. and Colleen. However, it is preventing me to move this article as a redirect page already exists under this title, and I am instructed not to copy and paste the article to the other page. Do you think you could help me in moving this page? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Regards, Creativity 97 22:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Can't help, sorry. I think the moves are a terrible idea. Luke and Laura are the defining couple when it comes to supercouples and don't need last names. However, we are writing an encyclopedia for all readers, not just soap fans, so some formality is needed and that includes last names. Please take this to WP:RM because I won't be doing it. AniMate 14:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your input. Creativity 97 20:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello I'm SoapFan12, I was wondering how the system of the infobox works? Who adds a new parameter to the template? Can you make a further understanding for me? The reason, I am asking is that we are having a disscussion about adding crossover parameter to soap info-boxes, to clear any confusion. Therefore, I would like to know, if an excellent amount of people agree to add a new parameter, who adds it? Me or an Administrator? Am I suppose to get someone like you to get involved in the disscussion. I am just very confuse.  —  SoapFan12 ( talk, contribs) 12:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Anyone can change an infobox if it isn't under any type of protection and as long as there appears to be consensus to change it. If it is protected, you can read and follow the steps at Wikipedia:Edit requests. AniMate 17:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oh okay, thank you so much. You have a been a great help! Thanks again! I am so grateful!  —  SoapFan12 ( talk, contribs) 19:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Hey thanks again. We have a consesus to add the new paramater however Template:Infobox soap character, only allows administrators. Therfore, I was wondering if you could add it for me? The parameter should be called ″Crossover apperances″. See Template:Infobox soap character 2 to see how I have done it.  —  SoapFan12 ( talk, contribs) 13:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Never mind. :)  —  SoapFan12 ( talk, contribs) 14:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC) reply

You've instructed Soapfan2013 to stay off of my talk page and to not speak personally of me, and it appears they're back making personal comments about me after agreeing not to, and insulting my editing on the website. This is against the promise and agreement they made with you. And they appear to be even more posted on anger than they were prior. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Steven I. Weiss may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• that Weiss is "One of the most energetic, talented, dedicated people I've met in this world."{fact}}
• Atlantic's]]'' [[Jeffrey Goldberg]],{{fact}} and generating mentions in ''The New York Times'',{fact}} ''The Washington Post'',{{fact}} [[NBC|NBC's]] ''[[Rock Center with Brian Williams]]'',{{fact}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 17:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi AniMate. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! -- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 16:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I am inviting you to leave me some feedback, 18 months after you opposed my RfA. Do you still believe I am not fit to be an admin? Do you believe I have been able to improve past the concerns you have brought up? Do not be afraid of being too harsh, I am specifically welcoming criticism as I believe it is the best way to improve and I am always looking to learn from my mistakes. I am particularly looking for feedback as to whether you have objections to myself lifting the self-imposed 1RR restriction I had agreed to towards the end of my RfA. If you don't have time to comment, don't fret it either, this is nothing I'll lose sleep over. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I would like your opinion on this here please. Thank you. Jester66 ( talk) 07:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Sending this to all active editors who were involved in that AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Kapisa (2nd nomination). Doug Weller ( talk) 11:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, AniMate. Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know . You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot ( talk!) 01:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?

1. Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
2. Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
3. Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project ( Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 19:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, AniMate. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi AniMate.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, AniMate. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. ( T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. ( T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate you weighing in again on this: /info/en/?search=Talk:John_Fleming_(American_politician)#Request_for_Comment:_2017_discussion_on_The_Onion_.22incident..22. Thank you! Tomuchtalk ( talk) 15:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Please revisit the Rfc on Jewish diaspora and amend your opinion to reflect what you think of my alternative proposal. Debresser ( talk) 06:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I uncollapsed your comment so I've obviously already read it. I don't feel it necessary to revise my opinion. AniMate 18:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC) reply

WikiLGBT is on Twitter!

Hello AniMate! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex ( talk) For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 03:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, AniMate. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi. I saw several years ago you addressed the NPOV issue on Eddie "Piolin" Sotelo but its still very skewed. Did anything come of that? I'm surprised an article of a living person has survived this long in this manner. I was going to try to see if I could find some newer material since 2013 that could make this article better. thank you MoviePhan ( talk) 00:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, AniMate. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, AniMate. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi! can you please check out this Florian Munteanu case. I've seen plenty of pages here on Wikipedia with actors who played a single role in a movie. I don't understand why some people complain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4F8:1C17:530D:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 14:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Awesome

Ten years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. —  JJMC89 bot 00:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. —  JJMC89 bot 00:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC) reply

The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021.-- Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC) reply