User talk:AniMate/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Dear AniMate/Archive 1: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once ag ain welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! FloNight ^talk 22:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canyon High School reversion[edit]

Why did you revert valid, not vandal content added to the Canyon High School (Anaheim, California) article? —X S G 23:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Robotboy; WCWM; Battlefield Line Railway; Ratatouille (film); Rachael MacFarlane; Elizabeth Hoover; Chase (comics); Honey Edwards; Casper and Friends; Benjamin Diskin; AC Comics; Jacqueline Bouvier (The Simpsons); Lisa Ling; Madagascar 2; Her Highness and Silk; Lance O'Casey; Red Star (comics); Lauren Tom; Paul Trueman

Cleanup: Cree Lincoln; Chad Dickson; Teen Ninjas
Merge: Frank Grimes; List of super heroes teams; Marvin White (Super Friends)
Add Sources: Johnny Bravo; John Ratzenberger; George Trevor
Wikify: The Ultimate Enemy; List of The X's Episodes; Marvel Masterpieces
Expand: Ian Beale; List of supervillainesses; Cherry Poptart

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Article[edit]

Please help me get a POV article kept out of Edward Cardinal Egan's page. 75.3.23.157 23:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you help me? 75.3.23.157 23:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau[edit]

Thank you for your commentary on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau page. There you recommend to "merge the event into the article". I would agree, but the problem is that User:Lochdale is frequently deleting most of my edits concerning Elvis Presley. Some months ago, I tried to reinstate this version of the "male friendships" paragraph. But it was repeatedly removed by Lochdale. See [1], [2]. The same thing happened with the Griessel-Landau case, which once was part of the Elvis article. See [3]. I created the Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau article in order to solve the problem by excluding the material from the Presley page. As you are not part of the edit war, may I ask you to include the following paragraph in the FBI files section of the Elvis Presley article, if you agree:

As Elvis was a very popular star, the FBI had files on him of more than 600 pages.^[1] According to Thomas Fensch, the texts from the FBI reports dating from 1959 to 1981 represent a "microcosm [of Presley's] behind-the-scenes life." For instance, the FBI was interested in death threats made against the singer, the likelihood of Elvis being the victim of blackmail and particularly a "major extortion attempt" while he was in the Army in Germany, complaints about his public performances, a paternity suit, the theft by larceny of an executive jet which he owned and the alleged fraud surrounding a 1955 Corvette which he owned, and similar things.

According to one of these accounts, Elvis was the victim of Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau of Johannesburg, South Africa, who was hired by the singer in Bad Nauheim, Germany, as an alleged specialist in the field of dermatology, but had made homosexual passes at the singer and his friends. When on 24 December 1959 Presley decided to discontinue the skin treatments, Griessel-Landau endeavored to extort sums of money from the singer. According to the FBI files, Griessel-Landau "threatened to expose Presley by photographs and tape recordings which are alleged to present Presley in compromising situations." An investigation determined that Griessel-Landau was not a medical doctor. Finally, "By negotiation, Presley agreed to pay Griessel-Landau $200.00 for treatments received and also to furnish him with a $315.00 plane fare to London, England." After having "demanded an additional $250.00, which Presley paid" and a further "telephonic demand for 2,000 £ for the loss of his practice which he closed in Johannesburg", the blackmailer departed to England.

This is much shorter than the Griessel-Landau article and summarizes the main facts. However, it could well be that User:Lochdale will delete the whole paragraph from the Elvis article, as he frequently did in the past. See also this recent discussion. Onefortyone 19:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley[edit]

Don't forget that the most complete version of the Elvis Presley article is this one. Interestingly, shortly after my recent contribution to this article, which reinstated several sections deleted by vandals (see [4]), User:Lochdale appeared on the scene removing the passages he frequently removes (see [5], [6], etc.). Significantly, he did not appear earlier in order to revert the vandalized page. Onefortyone 23:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on your Talk Page, I have removed vandalized text before. You seem to get into these edit wars with numerous people based on your obsession (and that's really what it is) with Presley. Everyone is either out to get you or part of some non-existent conspiracy. This is an encyclopedia. You've made it your Wiki life's work to push your own fringe agenda regarding an entertainer. The reality is, you are going to get into these edit wars with people as long as you continue to push this agenda. Lochdale 05:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As your contribution history clearly shows you did not remove vandalized text on 19 October. It also shows that you are primarily removing my well-sourced edits from the article. There is not a single paragraph of some significance you have written. I have not yet seen you contributing a single quote from one of the major books on Elvis. On the other hand, I have contributed much material to several important sections of the article: Elvis's youth, his music, his movies, his relationships, his male friendships, his consumption of drugs, his death, his manager Colonel Tom Parker, the allegations of racism, the Elvis cult, the FBI files on the singer, etc. etc. You can only remove passages I have written. That's the difference between us two. Onefortyone 17:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheim Hills[edit]

Thanks for keeping an eye on Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. Some folks don't realize when they're in the wrong. I didn't bother resetting the clock last time ES appeared, figuring it was a waste of time as he'd be back soon. I'm afraid he'll keep popping up for a while. -Will Beback 04:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that was true. Moving forward, would you like to assemble a short summary of ES's transgressions to post on WP:AN? I think you're right that he has exhausted the community's patience. -Will Beback · † · 00:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you get blocked for WP:3RR by someone applying the "letter of the law", and an {{unblock}} doesn't work, you may contact me for further assistance, but I've blocked the IP for the moment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka[edit]

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I appreciate that you took the time to comment, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. Though the RfA was unsuccessful, I intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 10:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested[edit]

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ownby[edit]

I am the creator of the Ben Ownby article. Wikipedia provides that birth dates are to be included when "well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_birthdays. In this case, Ownby is certainly "well known" (Oprah, national news conferences, CNN, Today Show, 636,000 google hits, etc.) His date of birth is clearly "widely known and available to the public"- http://www.moioof.com/Missing%20Children.html amongst MANY others. Wikipedia includes birthdates of crime victims, even sexual assault victims and yes-even when they are a "CHILD". See Elizabeth Smart and Kara Borden. Please do not remove this date of birth again or I will consider it vandalism and report it as abuse unless you have a Wikipedia regulation which distinguishes this boy from the two girls above. Your vague notions of "privacy" have no force in Wikipedia. You are free to start your own site, with its own rules.Tommypowell 22:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday[edit]

I wasn't talking about you! I was talking about the Tommy guy! I know you haven't said it ;-P Cbrown1023 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs[edit]

Per your comment on the Tommypowell userpage: AfDs are not really considered as votes. Thanks. Edison 18:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated attempts to censor 2 year old articles[edit]

Those birthdates were put up in 2005 by other users and have been up for 2 years without complaint. I have asked you many times for language in the BLP which distinguishes between birthdates for people of different ages or different occupations (actors/musicians only as you have claimed). You have been unable to respond. Birthdates, where available, are routinely included on Wikipedia pages-there is NO exception in the BLP for alleged crime victims Tommypowell 14:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments[edit]

I am considering filing a RfC regarding this WP:BLP issue, any objections? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 21:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism by Pokemaster1234[edit]

Pokemaster1234 has decided to vandalize my userpage. Maybe it's time ban that user. Dogface 13:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

52 Deletion[edit]

I just noticed you deleted someone's entry to Week 12 - an abscure reference to 52 to be sure, but as the SOBEK=52 is listed, the IG34 comment is more than valid. I won't add said the anonymous user's contribution back until I hear from you. --Squashua 16:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof![edit]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, AniMate! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nat Wolff[edit]

I am Nat's friend and I do the wikipedia stuff for him, and he might tell me the correct thing to put on. Furthermore, he allows me to have this and I will make it known that he is my friend. PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE USERNAME. Nat Wolff 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Zea[edit]

How long did you give me, half an hour??? --Scottandrewhutchins 21:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This made me think he was notable. It's the only Jerry Springer episode that was presented in full on VHS: http://www.amazon.com/Jerry-Springer-Cut-Off-Manhood/dp/B0002VXW0C/ref=sr_1_2/102-1581933-0004145?ie=UTF8&s=video&qid=1173374786&sr=8-2

The fact that there are links documenting the case makes it stand out even more so, but it could also be a similar case to the perpetually-banned as non-notable Brian Peppers. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheim Hills[edit]

I am not here to "violate anything" but you seem a bit confused about some things that might save some of your time on the latest edits to the talk page on Anaheim Hills. Yes, I did get most of the information for the intro from that realtors site. He sent me an email (more like spam) a long time ago about real estate around here, and I decided to add some of the stuff from his website. The only problem was I couldnt find the email or recall the website when a "citation needed" thing was added. And the history of Anaheim Hills. The lady that does that was the chief real estate editor for Anaheim in the United Way Airline Magazine about a few months ago. In the article she had charts, and had a similar history written to describe both Anaheim and Anaheim Hills (it was an editorial on popular tourism). So, I found her website to be pretty reliable if it was in a large distribution magazine like United Way. And, I meant Charter Schools when I was describing the Distinguished School awards. I added middle school by accident, but meant charter schools in Orange County. And the weather you seem confused about. I emailed the weatherman for the OC Register, and he told me to look up the weather for Corona for Anaheim Hills when I was adding that section. He says that the two areas have almost the same weather, and in the paper, he uses the weather data for Corona as Anaheim Hills, so I added Corona as he told be was accurate. And, the DR Horton, Lasco, etc. corporations. DR Horton has its Orange County design studio located next to our Home Depot, and they serve almost all of the OC in designing a home. And the Lasco, etc are all corporations located in the Anaheim Business Center located at Santa Ana Canyon Rd. and Roosevelt Rd. in Anaheim Hills, however many of them use PO boxes in "mainland" Anaheim. Everything on the page now has merit to it, and I wish I could go back and add sources because I was dumb enough not to do that from the beginning. Please dont delete this, and know I am doing this out of the stress that this will save you when you go to clean out this page. Thanks. 69.232.50.194 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devlin[edit]

I know we can't talk the subjects on the articles talk page, can only talk about the content. I saw you were the last person to edit the article. This guy really discusts me, how can people like him exist? How do they become what they are? Why do they abuse those who need our trust the most? I just had to vent - thanks for listening. --Mjrmtg 22:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to read my post on AN/I and commenting on it. Regards, NN 01:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again, I appreciate! I suppose getting involved in a content dispute can make people lose their objectivity. Will keep you informed. NN 01:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More thanks, I am following your advice about how to proceed. NN 03:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AniMate, can you enable your e-mail function please? --Mardavich 12:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The matter has been resolved with an apology from Yannismarou. Thanks for your time and advice. NN 14:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your latest message on my page. As you can see from posts by Miskin this issue still generates much passion. Hence I think the acknowledgement by Yannismarou that the block was wrong following assertions by you, Chris73 and Georgewilliamherbert that the stated reason WP:POINT was not valid is still a very good outcome. Not a perfect outcome but still a very good outcome. It certainly establishes the principle that admins involved in content disputes should get other admins to do blocks, which is a very good outcome. Thanks again for all your support. I am refraining from replying to posts on this matter from Miskin and Domitius as the issue is considered closed. NN 00:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Nayan Nev[edit]

Greetings. First of all I would like to openly declare that I find the incident against Yannismaru disgraceful to wikipedia community. It only goes to show how a disruptive user, who has provoked nothing but disputes can get away with it, and also receive an apology from a well established contributor. I'm the only person who has been a regular editor in the article Sparta for the past few months, and also I'm the only person who has participated in the dispute with NN since the very beginning. I think it is ridiculous that I wasn't given a chance to participate before the judgement on Yannismaru was passed. Please see my comments at User talk:Chris 73 for further details. Miskin 22:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. By the way you speak to me, it feels as if you have already taken your decision, and your side. Please read my messages to Chris closely, I never acted as if I were the owner of the article, nor did I ever try to stop Nayan from editing. What I tried to prevent him from doing was his disruptive editing, which involved removing referenced material and replacing it with POV, moving ref tags around to random positions, reverting before talking, and others. If you go through the edit history you'll find out that I actually built above his edits and never removed them unless of course he failed to cite a source. As a matter of fact, the entire "Rise and Decline" section was created after Nayan initiative, which of course began as POV-insertion. I also tried to be lenient and understanding with NN, without claiming to have been perfect, but the "new editor" argument has its limitations. The Talk page is _huge_ and I doubt that anyone took the time to read it all, which is only normal. But if anyone had done so, he would have realised how NN's sole objective was to remove a wording that he didn't like, eventhough it had been sufficiently sourced and no counter-source was ever presented. Frankly I don't understand how can you be so hard on Yannismaru. He did a mistake, yes, but it was a human mistake that took place during a hectic moment. I'm used to this kind of thing, that moment was so hectic that I quit discussion and refused talk to NN unless it would be under an official content-dispute process (which I pretty much still retain). And that was before the horrible one-hour block was put. And in all seriousness, you are concerned about Yannismaru not having fully understood "wp:point" and you're not concerned about all the other editors not having understood WP:ATT?? There's a certain utility gap between the two policies which I cannot help but notice. Miskin 23:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, as the oldest member of the original dispute, I honestly find it ridiculous to see NN get victimised while Yannismaru gets black-listed. I've been the bluntest of all editors who opposed NN's position, but as I explained to Chris, I do this because I never compromise on a non-negotiable WP:POLICY issue, especially one of such a fundamental scale. In fact I think that all editors should be like this, but people like NN and all those neutral editors who supported him, make me feel as if I'm trying to enforce a utopian practice. I repeated to Nev like 1 million times, that if he came up with one single counter-source, his request would become negotiable. I could not care less whether Sparta or Rome are called superpowers or supervillains, the only thing I care about is editing by the Rules, whose very existence attracts me to wikipedia in the first place. Miskin 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and effort. I was not offended, I just felt bad for the one-sided criticism that was passed on Yannismaru, and not just by you, but by all the participants who got the wrong idea in the AnI. I'm not really accusing any particular editor, not even NN, what troubles me most is the inefficiency in some parts of WP. Take care. Miskin 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on that, whether or not the word stays, it should be unlinked and/or preceded by "ancient" - this is the next compromise I'm willing to propose. You're also right about my fixation on the rules, but I need to feel the security of at least some rules (say wp:att), otherwise, I wouldn't find spending time on edits to be worth it. So in order to feel that security and make edits, I need to feel that those rules exist by protecting them at all cause. Finally, I do acknowledge Yannis' mistake, but I cannot acknowledge NN's victimisation, nor ignore his prior behaviour upon passing a judgement on Yannis. Yannismaru was after all, in an unorthodox manner, judged for his mistake, whereas NN was not. He got away with it and became victimised, which I consider extremely unfair. That is all. Regards
PS: I'm not as weird as I sound on occasion. Miskin 00:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe RFC is not such a bad idea after all, we should give it a chance since you've already started it. I made some edits on the entry, I hope you don't mind. I'm sorry but I can't ignore NN provocations after today's episode with Yannismarou. He indirectly called me a liar in order to avoid responsibility for everything he's done so far, and who knows, maybe even get another apology. He thinks that now all WP is on his side. Miskin 03:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I was going to ask for your permission but I then saw your message and I rushed on the thought that you might remove it. Already done, I took the dispute in his talk page. Of course he's going to avoid responding. Miskin 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at how NN is dealing with my request [7]. This trolling behaviour of provoking-denying-irritating has been going on for some 10 days now, non-stop, all communication between us has been on this level. You cannot imagine how tiresome this may be. I hope you have no more doubts that all this is done on purpose in order to simply irritate other editors until they're rude to him, when suddenly he's going to turn smart again and report them for something. You've already witnessed how he tried to call me a liar, now you can witness also his trolling, and maybe understand that he's not at all the victim he's been pretending to be. Miskin 04:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Yamaoka[edit]

I would have nominated it, TBH. Her WP article is now the top hit on Google for her, and the next 4 are blogs or videos. The Salukis were ranked fourth in their division in the NCAA tourney and were just eliminated; no mention of Kristi was made at all. Most importantly, it's not a biographical article; it's an article about an accident, and other than that, we know nothing about Kristi as a person. I'd probably post about it on the talk page to see the reaction, but I fail to see how it doesn't meet AfD criteria. The only reason it didn't the first time was because of a knee-jerk 15 minutes of fame reaction, and the article hasn't changed substantially since the "Best Week Ever" reference a week after the accident. MSJapan 11:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the point I made all three times, and policy clearly states that people are generally not notable for accidents they were involved in. MSJapan 12:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California[edit]

I know the article has been semi-protected for a long time, but an indefinitely banned user just edited it two days ago. Is unprotecting it really a good idea? AniMate 20:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. You can see that the semiprotection didn't keep the banned user from editing it. And that user's edits should be pretty easily identifyable, assuming he/she always puts in the same stuff. I've been unprotecting a lot of long-protected articles lately, in hopes of supporting the assertion that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. (I would appreciate extra eyes here.) Let me know if you feel strongly about this. But it seems the article needs to be watched closely anyway. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 21:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up. I went a head and requested semi-protection again. Look at the history of the article... it's... it's not pretty. I agree with your intentions, but right unprotection is not realistic. AniMate 05:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Looks like you were doing a pretty good job at reverting, but I know that gets annoying after a while. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 20:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder[edit]

I would normally agree with you about the race of the suspects being irrelevant, but unfortunately a lot of people on the right think otherwise. Many see this as a rallying cry for white victims of crimes by black perpetrators. Unfortunately, looking at what material is out there, that aspect of this story has legs. The majority of info out there about these two kids does have to do with allegations of the media covering this up in an effort to shield black criminals... and that's what the (semi) reasonable sites are saying. There's also a lot of false articles circulating around the web about black groups planning a celebration over this and other things from hate groups like Stormfront.org. These groups are all over this, and as this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit we have to work with the people we don't agree with. I say let them have African-American in the article, and trust me as a black man that really pisses me off to put it in there... but its a compromise I can live with (for now). A lot more information is going to come to light as the trial starts, and I think a lot of the "facts" are going to turn out to be nothing more than rumor and speculation fueled by prejudice. Until then, work with what we have. If you want to read an interesting take this incident, check this blog out. I never thought I'd agree with someone espousing Libertarian views and promoting the NRA... but there you have it. AniMate 19:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point!Before this gets into an all-out edit war, I would like to take a consensus of the use of race in describing the suspects, which is listed right under their photos. If I am shown a picture of a Caucasian – Asian – Afro/American and a Latino, I believe I do not need a description of race for it to be necessary for me to distinguish the individuals’ race within the group. The only reason I see it used in this case is for inflammatory reasons. For that reason alone I believe it should be removed. And I'm a Republican :-)Shoessss 19:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't know how to send messages through Wikipedia, or contact members independently so I hope I'm doing this right (any pointers would be appreciated).

With respect to the Channon Christian Christopher Newsom article, my objections are stated quite clearly in that page's discussion section. Considering the current structure, and content of that page, I do not feel it necessary to raise a dispute, but thank you for the links.

Pointing out that there is a pattern to the edits of an individual(s), and that this pattern conforms to a certain political agenda is not a personal attack. This is exactly the type of thing that belongs in the discussion section of a topic as controversial and sensitive as this.--Douglasfgrego 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimelibrary is a news source, not an "opinion piece". Over two hundred other Wikipedia articles cite Crimelibrary.com

Chesspieceface 21:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Thanks for the clean-up. Do appreciate the help.Shoessss 17:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

Did you actually follow the instructions on the request for mediation page? I ask because it looks like you just made a new page, rather than going through the process listed on the mediation page. However, I've never filed a request, so I might be mistaken. AniMate 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, especially in this situation. I’m lucky enough to have two coaches that I can go to for advice. Once again, especially in situations just like this. Also wanted the outside mediation for the fact that everyone is so close to the situation and polarized concerning not only the facts but the implications of the writing, that I thought it best to get a third party involved. Taking my coaches advice. I had actually asked two to three other administrators’ to get involved but two were just leaving on vacation and the third wanted no parts of this. On one hand, I can’t blame him, but on the other it is a situation that has to be resolved one way or the other. Have a great day.Shoessss 17:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AniMate I do appreciate your thoroughness. When I posted everything looked OK, but I do thank you for following up. Let me know when I can repay the favor. Shoessss 23:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Improperly filed request for mediation[edit]

Done. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 66.230.200.151 lifted or expired. Request handled by: —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation[edit]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for archiving[edit]

Thanks for archiving the Talk:Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder discussion page. After thinking about it, that was a better idea than the one proposed under the WP:Ban as suggested, and some say mandated, by a few people. My concern, in removing the section, was actually the same concern Simplemines alluded to, it looks like a cover-up. Even though everything and anything anyone writes here is never actually deleted and can be reviewed with just a click or two. With archiving the section, you avoid this allegation. Thanks again, for heads-up idea. Shoessss ^talk

Status update request.[edit]

Hello,

As a courtesy follow-up on your EAR, please provide a status update ASAP. --Aarktica 12:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Just out of curiosity, have you stepped through the procedure outlined by WP:DR? As was mentioned in the reply arbitration is seen as a last resort; is that an option you are willing to exercise? --Aarktica 19:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of the EA system is to resolve requests for assistance where possible. As an assistant, I work toward that goal — one incident at a time. --Aarktica 21:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder[edit]

AniMate Just a heads-up, I just had the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder article un-blocked. Looks like you have worked out most of the contentious material at this point. Nice job and "Good Luck". • ShoesssS ^Talk22:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP[edit]

Yeah I certainly wouldnt dream of suggesting we move Ian Gow to Ian Gow murder et al but for unnotable people I think it shows respect and we need to do it if we are to construct a serious long-term online encyclopedia. And its the poor departed kids who are the most important. El C has my full confidence as an admin. You are on my watchklist and lets stay in touch, SqueakBox 01:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Elite Hills[edit]

Can you please explain why you insist on deleting the note added to the pages affiliated with the article? This page is still a page on Wikipedia, and has not been deleted, therefore comments affliliated with this page should be accepted. Reverting is inappropriate until this page moves forward at which time it would need to be evaluated. Also, the term The Elite Hills is a real estate term and is not used in any political realm (like the Golden Triangle in LA is not used in the political spectrum) so sources relating to the government are simply scarce. 75.43.199.111 05:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's Ericsaindon2. He recreated The Elite Hills that had been deleted back in July. Thanks for reporting it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong[edit]

Heartening to know there are still a few "normal" wikipedia editors keeping an eye on this article. I was beginning to feel a bit alone fighting blatant POV-pushers. Thanks for stopping by! Ohconfucius 13:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :D[edit]

Reply[edit]

I want to thank you for your feedback to my talkpage. I wanted to assure you that as soon as I get back from the field, I'll start contributing to mainspace, this has been my goal, but I've been gone for about three weeks and I don't have ready access to references. I might actually retire for a couple of weeks, Its harder to find time to edit here at work. But just as yours, mine will be temporary. Best regards, Mercury 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defending[edit]

Don't think of it as defending the AFA. Think of it as defending neutrality and the core principles of Wikipedia. I have a lot of sympathy for that view, which is why I think the best idea is to back up the alternative reason for keeping the category, thus satisfying almost everyone. I think this content dispute (which is really very minor) should have been resolved months ago, but the trench warfare style of debating took root very quickly, unfortunately. Orpheus 00:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's a pleasant change to have constructive disagreement. Go easy on the others - they may be entrenched and digging in further, but it's force of habit, a reaction to the mind numbing pointlessness (seriously - if you want to feel better about not being involved earlier, go and read the archives). This is where conflict leads to. Better to debate in a spirit of inquiry and overall improvement, I think. Orpheus 09:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation[edit]

Why don't we go ahead and implement the compromise anyway? It seems we have consensus on the talk page that there's nothing wrong with the proposed additions, so the current discussion (if you ignore Hal, which I've decided to do) boils down to "We think paragraph X is necessary to justify category A" versus "We're fine with paragraph X but it's not necessary to justify category A". That would satisfy all reasonable participants in the discussion - the "category at all costs" crowd get to keep the category and don't have to keep arguing about it, and the "wait... hang on a minute" crowd get the sound footing of a neutral justification to make them happier about supporting the category.

Here's some links - some are WP:SELFPUB but should be ok backed up with the neutral sources. Some of them require academic library access, which I have but you may not. Have a browse through the ones you can get at and let me know what you think.

Key words - homophobia, political correctness, setting the agenda. Orpheus 11:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFA[edit]

Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I haven't had the chance to spend much time at Wikipedia recently. However, today I decided to be bold and step in, to moderate the AFA talk page. Personally, I think the homophobia category is appropriate if the discussion in the article clearly relates to the AFA's role in the public debate of the use of the term "homophobia". I don't think it is appropriate to label them as being homophobic. I would not support their inclusion in the homophobia category just for that reason. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of doing something useful instead of arguing, how's this for a first pass at the homophobia debate section we discussed before? [8]. Orpheus 06:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I think the article is better for your contribution to the discussion, and your principled stand on the category. Orpheus 01:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, congratulations - this edit was the one megabyte mark in the discussion. We should have some sort of prize ceremony :) Orpheus 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGF Please[edit]

You really ought to assume good faith. I was disappointed to see this gem. Mercury 11:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question...[edit]

... has an answer :)

It's here, and it's fairly detailed. It took slightly longer than I thought; it's probably self explanatory why upon reading though. Please read, and let me know if you have any follow-on questions, either on that page or privately as you wish.

Thank you - and if you have any more, do ask :)

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Elite Hills (Orange County)[edit]

"The Elite Hills (Orange County)" is a creation of Ericsaindon2, and is a term rarely, if ever, used by others. So any editor linking to that article is probably ES2. Good catch. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:UbZaR, the creator of Platinum Triangle (Los Angeles), is not ES2. Their style and interests are different. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury[edit]

You mention me several times in your decision to support recall. May I address your concerns? Durova^Charge! 12:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LTA on Ericsaindon2[edit]

I'd been thinking of doing an LTA page for Ericsaindon2 for some time, but his latest appearance last night (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anaheim Hills, California, (Anaheim) for more details, prompted me to start one. Feel free to add more as needed. Blueboy 96 00:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ See Thomas Fensch, The FBI Files on Elvis Presley (New Century Books, 2001).

[1] See Thomas Fensch, The FBI Files on Elvis Presley (New Century Books, 2001).

[1]