This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 21 days are automatically archived to User talk:Angie Y./Archive 3. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Along with Pretty Guardian Sailor Lyoko, Jeremie and the Renault Factory, and Blast Into The Past, I will also work on two other stories:
The first one is called The Wedding of Two Worlds. It is a romance/wedding story that foretells of the wedding between [[Jim Moral�s]] and Suzanne Hertz.
A 'sequel' to "Then Jim Rode In" ([1]) that portrays the wedding of Jim and Suzanne. According to a Lyokian prophecy, if an adult virtual warrior (Jim) marries an Earth woman (Suzanne), the two parallel worlds will be alligned together as one world. Before their nuptials, Jeremie and his friends must do battle with XANA, as he plans on disrupting the prophecy.
Blast Into The Future, a sequel to Blast Into The Past.
I got it from codelyoko.net and codelyoko.fr. --User:Angie Y.
Ha! Did you read in the Season 3 preview how XANA is living in the Internet servers of the United States? Gotta love the French for sticking our country with XANA. Have you ever tracked the USA-France animosity in CL? The only time the artists showed the American flag, its stars and half of the stripes were obscured. DISRESPECT! Jeremie@theLab
Yeah! At least the US will finally be on XANA's dooming list. --User:Angie Y.
Xana's lazy now. He's had several months of freedom and hasn't done so much as lift a finger to squash his enemies in the real world. As for the topic of the section, Aelita's able fire devastating balls of energy that are aesthetically pleasing at the same time. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Plus, Odd has been held back a grade for unknown and unfair reasons! He passed the School Finals in Final Mix! --User:Angie Y.
I found some screecaps on codelyoko.fr. under their Season 3 section. CAN'T WAIT FOR THE EPISODE! Jeremie's new superscanning program looks amazing. It appears that, by targeting servers in once country (in the case of his example, Egypt), he can scan the servers of every country in any given continent! He does the same to North America, sending out a signal from Canada. You know why I think XANA is being lazy? If you're going to bring down the world's premier super power, do it style and class. He's probably learning our weaknesses and how he can exploit our computer networks to wreak havoc. That's my hypothesis anyway. And, how did Odd pass his Final Exam? He turned the paper into an origami duck?! --Jeremie@theLab01:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, no! After the return trip, Jeremie agreed to help Odd with his exam questions, as he failed before the trip. Plus, I think they think of Jimbo as an enemy now. :( --User:Angie Y.
File:Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Zim.disguise.pointing.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Angie, I would recommend a mentor
Latest comment: 3 January 200819 comments5 people in discussion
Angie, I know that our constant complaining is not helping the situation. Countless times we have done this, and you continue making these edits. And today, you add this. You obviously will not work with us or listen to us when we put messages on your talk page, so I would HIGHY recommend a mentor. I think that 1 on 1 contact will be better than editors coming here evey time you make these edits. I would be willing to be your mentor, and give me a hollar if you would wish that. :-) Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 00:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
There's no need for the drama. Calm down. You clearly need someone to control the sort of behaviour you have just displayed. Your reaction is an insult to the integrity and good will of the editors who are trying very hard to help you become a better editor. SeraphimWhipp00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
We are not trying to "plan" anything, we are just trying to help. This is what a mentor would be for. Someone to help you cool down in these situations. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 16:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Angie. Please answer the question. Would you like a mentor who will help make your edits better and help you cool down? After your last edits (such as the one to Oscar Grouch), it really makes me want you to have a mentor. As I said, give me a hollar if you want me to be yours Thanks!, ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC) (formerly Codelyoko193).Reply
This is such a positive step. Angie, you are very talented and your writing is vivid. I hope Interrobang can help you use your skills in the best way possible; maybe by working hard on an article you like, to get it up to GA standard? I hope that in the following time, there'll be nothing but praise. I sincerely wish you both well :). SeraphimWhipp01:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Interrobang has asked me if I would also help mentor you when he is not around. I said that I would gladly help out if it was ok with you? SeraphimWhipp18:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Excuse me? I have done nothing but try to be kind to you, point out things you have done that are hurtful so you can understand the effect you're bad behaviour is having. You bullied people and then began accusing them of bullying. You have been incivil and have personally attacked more editors than I can count and not been blocked. You edit war and push your POV and original research. I have stayed neutral with you, despite my personal feelings towards you. Despite all of these issues, I had offered to mentor you, and you accuse me of harassing you. I am more than gobsmacked.
Latest comment: 6 January 20086 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, just wanted to say, thanks for confirming the Nights thing. Little pieces of info like that are important for an article. So, thanks again! (Oh, and Invader Zim indeed rocks. xD) (ApostleJoe (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC))Reply
Sure! So are you into NiGHTS? I ask because there's a lot of info that needs added about the series, and I forget a lot about the first game (its been ten years since I played it...).
Yes, I am into NiGHTS, and the concept of dream worlds in general. The episode "I'd Rather Not Talk About It" gave me nightmares, because I despise Jim's muscleheaded attitude and constant insults! Angie Y. (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have no idea who Jim is. But I know that he is way too muscle-headed! xP Well, I'm going to go try to collect as much information on Reala as possible to justify creating him his own page. Join me, won't you? xD (ApostleJoe (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC))Reply
Latest comment: 15 January 20081 comment1 person in discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Undoing edits
Latest comment: 22 January 20082 comments2 people in discussion
That would make him a meatpuppet. Thanks for confirming that. Now when you have him help you to edit war, I can report the both of you. Keep your POV out of the articles. You've been told countless times not to, and I believe you are intelligent enough to understand why. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
You may yell all you like, it won't change anything. Your edits are POV. Practically everything you write is POV, I'm sorry to say. You have a consistent and frankly annoying problem in this regard, and it would save everyone a lot of trouble if you'd figure that out. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 February 20081 comment1 person in discussion
Angie, this edit was uncalled for. Several people here are correctly informing you that your additions are opinions. Comments written in wikipedia need to be verifiable. Your additions may well be true but if they are not verfiable in an independent source they should not be added to an article. The other users are correct to revert your edits. David D.(Talk)03:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for uploading Image:Tronborn.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Sixteen consecutive edits (in the primary character article) is ridiculous. Please familiarize yourself with the preview button. Thank you. Beemer6906:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 20 February 20084 comments2 people in discussion
Please stop making edits to school diva that don't have reliable sources. I am working to support the article with really good content in order to keep it from being deleted - please wait a minute before editing it, and only add information that has sources. Thanks! • Freechild'sup?16:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Seriously Angie, this article is being watched by more than one editor who wants to delete it. If you keep adding stuff without any kind of citation it comes across like a personal paper or something, and that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If it helps, look at a paperbound encyclopedia and read a few entries, then think to yourself, "How would they write about school divas?" Then find reliable sources and add to the article. Thanks - we're on the same team here. • Freechild'sup?16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
An editor has nominated Barbara Weber-Scaff, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Weber-Scaff and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Grandpa's Magical Toys
Latest comment: 29 February 20084 comments3 people in discussion
I noticed the Template:Tl template you placed on Grandpa's Magical Toys. While I understand your desire to see this article remain at Wikipedia, the template is intended for articles that are currently undergoing an AfD discussion. I have replaced the tag with Template:Tl, and I have placed the page on my watchlist in case someone decides to try to nominate it for deletion. But in the meantime, I suggest that you attempt to find some independent sources that can help prove the notability of this particular video of the Wee Sing series. --RoninBKTC13:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 March 20081 comment1 person in discussion
Angie, you again inserted unsourced opinion into an article (Four poster bed) after fair warning was given not too long ago that any such offense would thereafter be considered vandalism, because you know the rules. And as for the "slaps you" comment, surely you can get your point across without being childish. Thanks. Beemer6903:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
AfD nomination of List of Rugrats characters
Latest comment: 10 March 20081 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has nominated List of Rugrats characters, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rugrats characters and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 March 20081 comment1 person in discussion
I have again reverted your edit on the above article, as it was an unsourced highly POV personal comment. Please do not add personal comments into the article, especially unsourced.♦Tangerines♦·Talk14:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Retirement
Latest comment: 12 March 20081 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 21 March 20087 comments4 people in discussion
Angie, why do you keep telling me to take up the issue of the pop culture section with DanMat? It doesn't matter who wrote the material and it is not exclusive to the person who posted it. Most of the content therein was deleted because it is in-universe format and does not belong. Sorry to disappoint you, but Wikipedia is not a Lyoko fansite. Beemer6923:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh be quiet! Regardless of what you say, regardless of whether or not it was in-universe, I am presenting facts from the series in regards to the martial art. You are not a Code Lyoko fan, so you can't judge me or what I contribute to Wikipedia! I am a part of the martial arts WikiProject, and I am doing what my duty is in that project. Angie Y. (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
They are indeed facts. I think it looks pretty good, and it does deserve a mention in the article. Plus, more information seems like a good thing to me. The section is for popular culture, and the two things mentioned there, Code Lyoko and Mortal Kombat, are indeed popular. JunKazamaFan (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
That's right, I am not a Lyoko fan, as is the case with many others. Therefore, the section needs to maintain a neutral viewpoint. You want to mention them, fine; simply mentioning that this character practices PS will suffice, rather than an essay consisting mostly of unimportant details non-fanboys who want to read up on PS couldn't care less about. Beemer6900:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm aware of that. Plus, removal of the in-universe tags constitutes vandalism, as is reverting the removal of the nonsense edits and telling me to "go away." The tag has been replaced and you've been reported to an admin. Enough of this. Beemer6901:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 21 March 20082 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Angie. As some people have pointed out on your userpage, you are still editing, yet you have this template on your userpage. I respectfully request that you remove this template from your userpage, as you are evidently not retired. I know WP can be stressful sometimes; if you're feeling this way, perhaps you would rather just take a break? Thanks. seresin ( ¡? )08:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Please note the following section in the policy on userpages:
"Removal of inappropriate content
If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it.
If you do not cooperate, inappropriate content will eventually be removed, either by editing the page (if only part of it is inappropriate), or by redirecting it to your main user page (if it is entirely inappropriate)."
Latest comment: 23 March 20082 comments2 people in discussion
After reviewing certain comments you've made ([5], [6], [7], [8], spirit of edit warring) I'm giving you a formal warning now. Stop being incivil or you will be looking at a block (which will not be made by me, but another uninvolved admin). This is just another example of creating a negative environment. You've been given plenty of warnings; this is a last warning. Seraphim♥Whipp00:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Seriously. I've been "retired" for 3 months, and you STILL haven't cleaned up your act. GET. IT. TOGETHER. I honestly would have blocked you in February, even after I'd been REALLY nice to you. I've been looking at your activties since June 2007 (when you approached me about your anti-TTN revolt), and you have not changed. As I said before, Asperger's is NOT an excuse. My friend has Asperger's, and he is usually wonderful (just sometimes thinks you're saying something bad about him). STOP!!! STOP!!!! STOP!!! STOP!!! And now I'll stop rambling. (Ignore the "Thanks!". Thanks!, ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 18:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 April 20081 comment1 person in discussion
Angie, just a friendly note, about 55 of your past 500 edits have either "oops" or "whoops" in their summary and appear to be minor corrections to edits that you just made, so perhaps you should try using the "Show preview" button and proofread before you submit. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Really? Are you a fan of Code Lyoko too? I conceptualized the idea for "Zeus Jim", and my friend Rhys Byron Davies drew it for me a few years ago. I still have both the sketched version and final colored version. The idea for Jim having the power over the element of lightning was my idea, yanno. And it makes sense, because Jim has been electrocuted quite a few times in the series, and lightning represents strength, too. He also isn't a fatso anymore. ;) Angie Y. (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
May 2008
Latest comment: 25 May 20083 comments3 people in discussion
Looks great! I am sorry you have been harrassed and abused by other editors i have been treated the same way sometimes but i dont let it get me down. JeanLatore (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm gonna need a little help with that. Plus, many good articles are being redirected by snobbish, elitist editors - the same ones that abuse me. Angie Y. (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 June 20082 comments2 people in discussion
How are you doing? I hope you had a good weekend. Anyway, I proposed an idea at WP:VPP, go to near the end where I wrote the "Probation/Rehabiliation" proposal and tell me what you think please. All the best, JeanLatore (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
"The Barnstar of Improvement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Angie, I first encountered you a year ago during the whole TTN issue... and you really had some issues with dealing with anger. But now you've made a major improvement and you a great help to the Wiki! !!!!
hi :)
Latest comment: 9 June 20081 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 June 20082 comments2 people in discussion
Please abide by NPOV and WP:OR--there's no reliable factual source in the world that supports referring to Barney in article space as "a dopey dinosaur". Thanks. Gladys J Cortez19:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 25 June 20082 comments1 person in discussion
Hi how are you doing my friend? I hope things are going well. I would like you to read this recent opinion here, then contribute what you learned to the article of Boumediene v. Bush, a very important article on wikipedia. Thank you. JeanLatore (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 30 July 20083 comments2 people in discussion
File:Information.svg Your edit to Aelita has again been reverted. The trivia section is unencyclopedic, and your edit therein was speculatory and had nothing to do with the topic (please stop looking for excuses to insert Code Lyoko references into articles). Also, the next time you don't include a reasonable explanation in the edit summary when you revert article content, it may be considered vandalism because you're coming across as engaging in an edit war out of defensiveness for the subject (WP:OWN) rather than the good of the article. Beemer69chitchat04:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 July 20081 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry I can't help. Based on the use of the word 'Jello', it seems to have an obvious American origin from not earlier than 1902, when the word was first used as a trademark. JMcC (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Neverland as a dream
Latest comment: 7 August 20084 comments2 people in discussion
Rather than continuing to add it back every time someone deletes it, why don't you find some third-party source that presents the argument that Neverland was all a dream, and cite it. As it is, what you keep adding really isn't any better than Original Research. - JasonAQuest (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've seen it. I can see how you might interpret it that way, but I can also see how someone might simply conclude that the kids came home and went to sleep as if they had never been away. (Like they did in the book.) If the "dream" interpretation were as self-evident as you seem to think, other people wouldn't keep removing it. But since you seem such a fan of it, I'm suggesting a way for you to get that viewpoint accepted into Wikipedia: by documenting the fact that you didn't just come up with it yourself. Don't argue with me or anybody else whether it's correct (which is pointless); find an independent source for it. If you persist in adding this interpretation into articles without providing a citation for it, you should get used to other people following Wikipedia protocol and deleting it as the personal theory that it seems to be. - JasonAQuest (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Furthermore, some guy getting up in front of reporters and saying something, is not even remotely the same thing as "Barack Obama has admitted" that it happened! That was libel, Angie. - JasonAQuest (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Let me rephrase that, then. Larry Sinclair has admitted to having homosexual relationships with Barack Obama. Is that alright now? Angie Y. (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
--PeaceNT (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding Template:Tls to their talk page with a friendly message. Cheers and happy editing!
You need to understand that threatening other users, calling them names, and other forms of playground behavior are contrary to Wikipedia policies. Putting a disclaimer like "I'm saying this to you kindly" does not excuse this kind of uncivil behavior. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please stop adding unnecessary cruft to MK-related articles, as you continue to do with Shao Kahn. Saying he has a "God complex" is opinion, and excess information about who or what worships him in the TV series is in-universe and unimportant. Plus, you need to quit assuming that I or anyone else haven't watched the episodes simply because we remove content that has no place at all in the article. Beemer69chitchat05:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 October 20084 comments3 people in discussion
ObamaCrimes.com states the following on Barack Obama's REAL place of birth:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and Democratic National Committee [DNC] filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss on the last day to file a response, for the obvious purpose of delaying Court action in the case of Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Their joint motion indicates a concerted effort to avoid the truth by delaying the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama was “natural born.”
It is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the “qualifications” to be President of the United States pursuant to our United States Constitution. Obama cannot produce a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist.
Stop right now. The editors at Barack Obama, left, right, and center, will not tolerate pushing such a laughably horrible source as "Obamacrimes.com". I strongly remind you that the article is on probation, and by insisting on introducing your conspiracy theories into an article about a living person, you risk being blocked. --GoodDamon12:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Regarding new page Berg v. Obama: "obamacrimes.com" can hardly be called a reputable, impartial source: It is in fact run by Berg! Besides, Berg v. Obama is NOT the page to discuss what we personally think about whether Obama is qualified to become President, and it is NOT the page where we try to argue Berg v. Obama ourselves. We are not the lawyers, litigants or judges here. We are only to be recording the facts on this case as it progresses.
File:Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
Latest comment: 22 November 20083 comments2 people in discussion
It's not necessary to provide the same old lengthy explanation of the Shao Kahn/Mileena program scene in the edit summary over and over again, as it's irrelevant to why the edit has ever been reverted before. sixtynine• speak, I say •01:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Your edits to the Teen Titans character article have again been reverted. It is unsourced and unofficial material that does not belong, as fansite opinion is not a viable source. Unless the show's creators or a legitimate third-party source explicitly reveal the inspiration for the character, it stays off, and I couldn't find any such information that you alleged came from the site. Lastly, your persistent reversion of the page without any explanation in the edit summary constitutes edit warring and needs to stop. Your cooperation is appreciated. sixtynine• spill it •05:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Manning
Latest comment: 14 December 20085 comments2 people in discussion
I have, again, reverted your addition to James David Manning, as it constitutes original research. I see that you have some history of tendentious and hot-headed editing, and I suggest you discuss on the talk page to gain consensus for your edits on that page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Could I trouble you to add the source to the article, not simply to put it in the edit summary. As things stand, your edit is still not accompanied by a reference on the page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 January 20092 comments2 people in discussion
I have undone your move of the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories since there has been (mind numbingly) extensive discussion on its talk page regarding this article name and the current consensus seems to be against any change. If you feel strongly about the issue, do feel free to start a new discussion on the talk page - although I should warn you it would mean kissing your weekend goodbye :) Abecedare (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I concur. As a person who has swam uphill through mud in an attempt to get the name changed, I can assure you the resistance of those who "don't want the title changed to anything that lends this nonsense even a scintilla of credibility" is quite strong. I think it fairly certain that another renaming discussion at this time would be met by significant amounts of irritation and exasperation by those who oppose and anything resembling consensus would be near impossible. JBarta (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 21 January 20092 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Angie,
Regarding this edit. The begging and starving, etc., are the effects of her father disowning her; he isn't proposing to actively turn her into a beggar (however one would go about that), just pointing out what will be the inevitable effects should he disown her. Shakespeare includes them for dramatic purposes, but Wikipedia doesn't need to dramatize its articles, if you see the distinction I'm aiming for. Personally I would encourage you to self-revert that edit. --Xover (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 March 20091 comment1 person in discussion
This is Interrobang, remember me?
Anyway, I see you've made tons of progress but you're still not quite there. If you need help, give me a shout-out. Thanks! (and I'll stop rambling now), ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 17:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi
Latest comment: 11 May 200911 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 21 May 20092 comments2 people in discussion
I wanted to say thank you for your attempt at restoring sections of this article as well as forewarn you that you might be stepping into a potential minefield. The Energy Vampire and Vampire Lifestyle articles - as well as a few others - have been fraught with accusations of promotion and sock puppetry from a number of sources. Your best bet would be to make sure you cite any and all changes you do, reference third party reliable sources as much as possible, and take anything anyone says - myself included - with a big, heaping spoon of salt.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have nominated Schoolmarm (teacher), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schoolmarm (teacher). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
A tag has been placed on Schoolmarm (teacher) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding Template:Tl to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have nominated Andy Berman, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Berman. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Latest comment: 12 August 20093 comments2 people in discussion
I saw that you had put the same plot section back into this article a few months ago. I had removed it for various reasons mostly because it is in no way encyclopedic.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 29 July 20093 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Angie Y.,
I've noticed over the last several months you've made quite a few edits to articles related to Romeo and Juliet, particularly the ones that relate most directly to Juliet (i.e. Lord Capulet, Lady Capulet, Count Paris, etc.). While I'm overjoyed to see more editors take an interest in the Shakespeare related articles on Wikipedia, I'm concerned that your edits appear to consistently introduce more colourful and emotive language. While I appreciate that you may have a personal emotional affinity for the character, Wikipedia's language should be neutral, properly referenced, and not contain original research. The way of writing that you seem to have used in some of these edits is often called Editorializing (making subjective value judgements) and very problematic under the Neutral Point of View and No Original Research policies. For example, elaborating on how harshly Lord Capulet treats Juliet, and how Lady Capulet does not support her, when she refuses to marry Paris may evoke an emotional response from the reader, but the policy on Wikipedia is to simply present the reader with the facts, properly cited to a reliable source, and allow them to make up their own minds. Editing in this way is quite difficult, I know, on a subject were one has a personal attachment of some sort; so to avoid any potential of this creating some sort of conflict in the future, I would like to suggest that you voluntarily refrain from editing any of the Romeo and Juliet related articles until you feel confident in yourself that you can do so without slipping into this category of problem.
Far be it from me to go around telling other editors on Wikipedia what to edit and how to do so, but I also do think that these many small edits are in aggregate becoming a problem for the quality of the articles in question (which, I am quite certain, is not your intent). What do you think? Could this be a workable solution? Can you think of any other way to resolve this problem? --Xover (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, first off, Lord Capulet threatens to disown Juliet thus turning her into a street child. Second, there should be a description or two on Count Paris' true intentions with Juliet - does he want to marry her for love or does he want to marry her simply because her family is rich? Angie Y. (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oh, certainly. I'm not in any way suggesting you've added irrelevant material, or that these issues should not be covered. I'm simply worried about the way in which it's been added. When you place so much emphasis on these issues, and describe them with such emotionally loaded words, the neutrality of the article is compromised. Please don't misunderstand my intentions here: I do, of course, think your contributions are valuable—and, as mentioned, I'm always happy to see more people interested in improving the Shakespeare related articles on Wikipedia—and there's nothing wrong with editing only in those areas where you have a personal interest. But I've discussed the specific way you've edited these articles once before and you still seem to be having a little trouble with finding the right “voice” (neutral, not passing any implicit value judgements) for this subject. That's why I suggested that perhaps it would be easier if you simply refrained from editing these specific articles until you feel more comfortable with the proper encyclopedic language to use. Perhaps you could suggest any such needed changes on the talk pages of the articles first, and let another editor try to formulate it into encyclopedic language for you? As an alternative, try to find a good scholarly source for these things to see how they talk about these issues, and make sure you cite every addition to that. For the articles related to Romeo and Juliet, the following are the main sources:
Saw your note on the Renaissance Center talk page. Let me know if you have any sources or more information about the podium that you know of that we don't have. We know the base is built on a 14 acre site and we know the square feet of the podium structures beneath the towers. Haven't located the dimensions of length and width for the base itself. Thanks. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Angie. I'm Interrobang², do you remember me? I've been off the project for quite some time, but I plan on returning. I was wondering if perhaps you'd like to start up our mentor thing again, or just talk? Thanks! (and I'll stop rambling now), ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 17:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Unreferenced BLPs
Latest comment: 2 January 20101 comment1 person in discussion
File:Information.svg Hello Angie Y.! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondarysources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 0 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the Template:Tl tag. Here is the list:
An article that you have been involved in editing, Wee Sing Video Series, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:Str trim]]. Thank you.
Latest comment: 9 March 20101 comment1 person in discussion
Do NOT continue adding unsourced, original research material into our articles. This simply isn't allowed, and if you continue, you will find yourself blocked from editing. DO feel free to improve our articles with reliable sourced material at your convenience. Do NOT restore unsourced material which has been deleted unless you also include a reliable source supporting it. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to bring them up on the relevant article's talk page. You may find yourself surprised at how eager editors are to help those working diligently to improve our articles. If, on the other hand, you feel the need to express your opinions on a particular subject, please feel free to do so on your own blog or via some other means. Just don't do it in Wikipedia's articles. Rklawton (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Uncited original research
Latest comment: 14 May 20102 comments2 people in discussion
Angie, I see that you've been told many times that you need to not add your personal opinion to articles without having reliable sources to back it up. Can you please try to remember this? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 27 May 20106 comments5 people in discussion
Angie -
I believe that you came to Wikipedia with the intent to contribute positively. However, reviewing your edit history and warnings history, it's clear that you have consistently edited in ways which are not compatible with the project's core goal (building an encyclopedia) and core values (WP:PILLARS).
It's regrettable to have come to the point that we are at now - multiple people have tried to talk to you about your editing problems going back several years. There was an attempted mentoring in 2008, and other attempts to engage constructively. It appears that you did not understand or take them seriously.
As many others have said, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, full of facts, not personal opinions. You have consistently violated that in multiple ways - one, by inserting your personal opinion into multiple articles (recent example: [10] at Priceline.com), and two, by adding information generally without providing reliable reference sources (see our policies on reliable sources and on source verifiability).
A month's worth of this type of issue would not be that big a deal. Four plus years of it is too much.
Again - I believe you came here and have been editing in good faith. If we come to the point that we can see that you understand these policies and would edit in a way compatible with them going forwards, I would expect that we can undo the block and let you proceed to edit again. Any administrator can undo this block if we have good evidence from discussion here on your talk page that you do understand the core policies here and will edit properly going forwards.
If your long-term problematic edit pattern is due to personal issues, then it's best for the project if you don't edit until those issues are resolved. You need to get your behavior under control, we can't let you continue to be a problem here regardless of whether the problem is really under your control or has some deeper cause. Again, your behavior is the problem and that problem must stop. This block appears to be the only thing that will stop it (especially if as you say there are deeper issues at work here). DMacks (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
That's a shame. Perhaps you should have thought about that during the several years you were repeatedly warned about why your participation was inappropriate. You have proven repeatedly that you are not able to participate by the standards of this site, therefore you should not. Please stop wasting our time here. We really don't respond to begging, only to getting the problem solved. Your behavior has been a long-term problem that you were unable to solve, therefore we have solved it. DMacks (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Block - I support the block. Angie, you play by your own rules - an approach best suited to blogging. I wish you every success. Best wishes, Rklawton (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Suggestion
Latest comment: 30 May 20105 comments3 people in discussion
As someone on the autism spectrum myself (PDD-NOS, mercifully mild, but still), I know it won't be easy to convince the community. JzG/Guy seems to be onto something here, and it's at least worth a shot. What have you got to lose at this point? I know it can feel like talking to a wall, but don't worry- people are listening. You seem to be interested in show-related articles, so maybe you could check for mistranslations of Japanese names, or find an article that needs to be flushed of a POV. That's an area that's fairly high-traffic, and several people can examine it. Don't worry about the people who are brushing you off- I'm sure you can be helpful here. They'll back off when you can prove them wrong, and I'm sure all of them are hoping to be proven wrong. Go for it!! The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, just that. Your situation is unfortunate but Wikipedia is not therapy so I'm afraid it's very much up to you to learn how to fit in here. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 June 20107 comments4 people in discussion
Do you remember me? You first encountered me a few years ago during the TTN debacle, and from then I always made sure I kept up with you. Jetlover and I really wanted to help, and I felt that we really made some progress. However, it didn't seem to be enough, and you were banned. Whether this is because of your refusal to change, or the community's to help you, but I truly feel that you deserve a place in the project. I'd love to come back onto Wiki after a 3-year hiatus, and have you as a top priority. Thanks! (and I'll stop rambling now), ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 14:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Bali ultimate is a liar. Nanette's section is NOT vandalism! All the information in her section IS ACTUAL INFORMATION FROM THE SHOW. Angie Y. (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's trivial, and it's all unsourced original research. What you wrote would be excellent material for a blog but not for Wikipedia. The fact that you don't understand this difference is why I wholeheartedly support your banning. Rklawton (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
To clarify, I'm well-aware that you're already blocked -- that was a warning that you could be reblocked with your talk-page access disabled. You've been offered some good suggestions on how to return to the community -- I would recommend that you follow them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Angie, many fo your edits are not appropriate for an encyclopedia, but Wikia perhaps. You've be given links to the appropriate Wiki policy pages for years, but it has apparently not sunk in. I'm sure many (myself included) would love to help you actually understand it after all of this time, but you must reach out yourself. Thanks! (and I'll stop rambling now), ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 00:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Notes on ANI discussion
Latest comment: 1 June 20101 comment1 person in discussion
As I think you're aware, there's a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding this recent block. I don't believe it's necessary, and while my suggestions haven't been fully agreed with, I think you should look at that discussion because even those that advocate this block envision you returning to the community to continue to edit. I hope you'll do so. I hope you'll take this advise and return to editing, with the concerns expressed recently in mind. I look forward to seeing you back again soon. Shadowjams (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
?
Latest comment: 3 June 20103 comments3 people in discussion
On your ANI section, many editors suggested that you give ideas on how you can edit properly with sources and in a non-or way. Do you have anythink you'd like to give us? I don't want you to be banned forever. Thanks!, ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 17:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, in regards to the characters section on the Angela Anaconda article, most of the information about the characters is true to form. And in regards to Veruca Salt's theatrical variations, all of that info is true too. Angie Y. (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
"Truth is not the criteria for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article... The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true (my emphasis). This is important to bear in mind when writing about topics on which you as a contributor have a strong opinion; you might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave. We cannot be the correctors and educators of the world. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. (again my emphasis)" Please read and digest that paragraph, as what it says is at the heart of the problems you are having editing Wikipedia. If you can understand what that paragraph says, and act on it, then you would be welcomed back I'm sure. Harry the Dog WOOF19:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Wikia
Latest comment: 3 June 20102 comments2 people in discussion
Try that one; and there are many others. You could be an admin there. No one will mind your style. Collaborate with people who love what you love.Jack Merridew18:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 June 20104 comments3 people in discussion
I suspect Angie has now started up a sock puppet account (User:Mencken2010) to evade her block. The pattern of edits is the same: unsourced opinions on some (or all?) of the same articles she's already obsessed over. If the editing pattern continues, then I recommend submitting these two accounts to checkuser. Rklawton (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for uploading File:CODE LYOKO2 SCN-8.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding Template:Tlc to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mhiji22:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
A cup of tea for you!
Latest comment: 21 August 20112 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Angie! I know it's been quite sometime since you've edited. I do hope you'll see this cup of tea! I just wanted you to know that your contributions are valuable to making Wikipedia what it is, and I do hope you'll participate with a new edit or article. Thank you for your contributions - past and future! SarahStierch (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hi Angie Y.! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more!
Get involved by:
Visiting our website for resources, events, and more
Meet other women and share your story in our profile space
There are no references cited to support notability of the article subject WP:GNG. a Google search revealed no WP:RS compliant sources to support notability. Most statements in this article are unsourced WP:OR. The only referenced part of the article, "Bolivian Rapes", is better suited to be merged with the article Incapacitating agent.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother May I? until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 July 20181 comment1 person in discussion
Mother May I? was speedy kept. However, an editor has now nominated Jodi Forrest for deletion. If you know of sources that can be used to improve it, you may want to use the {{adminhelp}} template to ask for your statement to be copied over to the discussion. Don't sock or edit logged out, though! Yngvadottir (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
While a prolific voice actor, subject does not pass WP:BASIC – a couple of very incidental mentions in Variety, but nothing in the other Hollywood "trade"-focused media publications such as LA Times" or Deadline Hollywood, etc. Also article has been effectively unsourced since at least 2009 (IMDb doesn't count...).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ling Xiaoyu until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Himeko until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoiled child until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.