User talk:ANNAfoxlover/Archive Apr 2007

:)

Hola, Anna! Question: What is your "Signature" page for? Not the autograph book, the other one. DTD_(speak)

¿Que? Do you mean the "List of Signatures" page? A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Red fox userbox

Here is a red fox userbox I created:

• Code: {{User:UBX/Red fox}}
• Result:
  This users favourite animal is the Red fox. (Vulpes vulpes)

. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

James P. Sullivan

I inadvertantly mistyped while trying to move the article back to its original title (you moved it without the discussion I think the move warranted), so now it needs an administrator to fix it. Please comment on what the article should be titled on its talk page, so it can be settled before I list it to be moved. Thanks. Rhindle The Red 05:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:don't

Just because I resized the image doesn't mean it was vandalism, it is WAY TOO BIG. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 14:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a userbox. It seems that you were trying to get me in trouble, as I am trying to reduce my editing of my user page and subpages, and increase my encyclopedia editing. Since you changed it without asking or telling me, that is vandalism. You were probably not trying to get me in trouble, but I could have. And by the way, it's supposed to be that way! A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 14:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism. The image is too big. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 14:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Deskana (ya rly) 14:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The rotating earth. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's supposed to be that way! And by the way, I'm not a guy. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you're not a guy, "guys" is a term I use to refer to a group of people. And you've still not told me what you're talking about. I've not got a clue where this "rotating earth" you speak of is. --Deskana (ya rly) 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's near the bottom of my userpage. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 14:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither of you have done anything wrong. Neither of you have vandalised. Both of you need to relax. --Deskana (ya rly) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

She's right. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 19:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

He's right. A•N•N•A hi!

RE:WP:ARCHIVE

Nope, not even Werdnabot will do it. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 14:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not? A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 14:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I will never have my talk page archived. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not wasting my time waiting for my talk page, it comes up in a instant, and I still refuse Werdnabot. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 19:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't crashed their computer, still, I won't have my talk page archived. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 19:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi, if I can offer some friendly advice... You say that you are planning to nominate yourself for adminship. Looking at your editcount, it's only 1939 at present; you really need at least 2500, preferably 3000, to have a serious chance at RfA, particularly if you're a self-nom. So I'd advise you to wait awhile longer (a couple of months maybe) and chalk up another 1000 edits or so before going to RfA. Hint: participation at WP:AFD is a good thing to do in preparation for adminship, as it helps you chalk up more edits in the WP namespace and gives you experience of the deletion policy and process. I'd also advise you to go for an editor review before going to RfA, just to check on your progress and get some extra input. Don't be discouraged; in fact, once you chalk up some more edits I would be happy to nominate you for adminship myself. :) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your advice (and your signature!). I would like to know where you found my edit count. Could you tell me please? :-) A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 16:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to try User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js again. You appear to have missed the instructions in the comment at the top of the page that I saw when I viewed the source, and I've added it into your monobook. It should work now. --Deskana (ya rly) 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It still isn't working. I have Internet Explorer 7. Now what? A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 17:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This link will automatically generate your editcount using Wannabe_Kate. I suggest you add the link to your userpage or elsewhere, so you can check your editcount quickly whenever you like. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

That's quite simple and just about what I was looking for. Thanks a bunch! ;-) A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 17:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. Remember, don't be discouraged by my advice about adminship. Just make another 1000 edits (it's not as hard as it sounds!), concentrating on projectspace, and you'll be ready come May or so. Feel free to talk to me if you want any more advice. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Another way you could get a quick link to your edit count is to put: {{userinfo}} at the top of your user or talk page. It will link you to your edit count and edit summary usage. Acalamari 17:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks! It works great! I can't see why you're not an admin. ;-) A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I should also remind you that adminship is not based on edits alone. If it was, Ryulong would have passed his last RfA with no opposes at all; but that didn't happen. He passed, but he had a lot of opposes; and he had over 40,000 edits back then (compared to over 45,000 now). AzaToth would never have been in a 4th RfA had adminship been based on edits alone, and I would have passed my recent RfA with no problems at all. Adminship is based on a users' experience, knowledge of policy, edits to various sections of Wikipedia...and overall trust in the community. For example, if a user has over 30,000 edits, but all they edited was their user page, then it will be highly unlikely for them to pass an RfA. I'm not trying to discourage you or upset you, I am just passing on my knowledge. As for me not being an admin, my RfA didn't succeed because I had a lot of mistakes from January and February going against me. If you want, you can link to my RfA from my user page and read what happened. Acalamari 17:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • What Acalamari has said above me is absolutely true, which is why I also suggested concentrating on edits to projectspace (particularly AfD), in order to demonstrate experience with various sections of Wikipedia. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd like to add that adminship is oft quoted as no big deal and if you love contributing to, enhancing, and maintaining this project then keep doing what you're doing and don't get too stressed about becoming an admin. I've learned a helluva lot in the past three months since failing RFA so all I'd say is keep remembering how much you enjoy WP. But if you go for RFA then let me know! The Rambling Man 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you know, then, when I do (if I do). An important reason I want to become an administrator is so I can contribute better. Thank you for the advice! Could you review me? See the bumper sticker at the top of my userpage. ;-) A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 23:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In a kind way, the best advice I could give you, is don't do it. You've only been here for 2 months. Many people don't even pass after a year. You've also been involved in some problems (autograph book problem at ANI), which are recent enough to be brought up as an oppose reason. Also try getting some more Wikipedia space edits. Reconsider running in about a year. Good luck then :) --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That was my original plan. Thanks for telling me what I already know. Unlike most people, it doesn't bother me that much. Thanks anyway! ;-) A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 02:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.}

- Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 12:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Aw, thanks! I needed that. What a great way to start the day. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 14:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

To expand on my comments above, I've reviewed you at your editor review. I hope my advice is helpful. :) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion

Anna, who do you think is better, the fox hero in this film, or this fox? (Or maybe the second one's love?) -dogman15 18:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

They are both animated, you know. Why are you asking me this? You know I'm not an animated fox. I hope. A•N•N•A hi! 18:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Pluto

Guess what? The IAU are reinstating Pluto's status as a planet, together with a whole host of other small objects. It was on the BBC News earlier, and I just thought you'd like to know, after I saw your userbox to do with the subject. See here for more details. Mrug² 12:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

If this is your signature now, change it. Now. That is totally ridiculous and a blatant violation of WP:SIG. --Deskana (ya rly) 01:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Man, now I know that I'm not ready for adminship yet. Thanks for telling me before it got out of hand. Whew! :-0 A•N•N•A ¡u6is April Fool's Day 2OO7 01:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (I'm going to change it right now)

You could try Anna (t) (code: [[User:ANNAfoxlover|Anna]] ([[User talk:ANNAfoxlover|t]])). I personally have a redirect from my user page to my user talk page and just use Iamunknown (code: [[User talk:Iamunknown|]]). --Iamunknown 01:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• ANNAfoxlover, why does your signature still contain a link to your autograph page? Per this discussion, you said you weren't going to put autograph links in your username anymore, and didn't want other users to put links to their autograph pages in their signatures. Why go back on what you said? Acalamari 01:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I said disruptive links. The small, grey one that says "hi!" is not disruptive, and it is simple and friendly. A• •F•O•X ¡u6is April Fool's Day 2OO7 01:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

'While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents. That it does not. --Deskana (ya rly) 02:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What needs a citation on Red (Cars)?

ANNAfoxlover, you added a need for citation regarding the use of the airhorn sound effect for Red in the movie Cars. In your opinion, what needs a citation? That the Grover 1510 was the horn used for the effect (it was, no other horn sounds like that), or that the Grover 1510 is reserved for use only on fire apparatus (which is also true)? I'm not convinced a citation is required here, but am interested in your thoughts. Fjbfour 02:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That the Grover was used for the effect. A• •F•O•X ¡u6is April Fool's Day 2OO7 02:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been a firefighter for thirteen years. To the best of my knowledge there is no other airhorn model that has the distinctive sound of the 1510 Stuttertone. I've been around them long enough to know. I respect that simply "because I said so" is not an adequate proof, however. I will amend the article accordingly. Thanks for the clarification. Fjbfour 05:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship Suggestion

Don't nominate yourself until you have at least 1500+ mainspace edits and your mainspace count has the highest number of edits of any category. (See what I'm talking about.)  ~Steptrip 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A good idea is to have more mainspace and Wikipedia edits instead of user and user talk edits. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Both Steptrip and Captain Panda are correct; take a look at my edits when my RfA began. I had nearly 2100 mainspace edits and 635 Wikipedia edits. My mainspace edits weren't commented on because I actually had enough, but my Wikipedia-space edits were too low. Bear in my also that my RfA was unsuccessful, with a support rate of 59%. I've been around longer than you have here, and if my RfA was unsuccessful, yours will have even less chance of passing than mine did. Acalamari 18:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right, I'm not ready for it yet, and I have been here nearly twice as long as you Anna. RyGuy 17:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Zantaggerung has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I enjoyed looking at your userboxes( and would like to use a number of them on my page if I knew how!) My page is much more plainlooking. . . From looking at your userboxes, I decided I liked your outlook and your input on life in general. I would be very appreciative if you looked over my page and voted on the thing I have on the bottom of it.

Zantaggerung 16:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What this user is referring to has now been moved to User:Zantaggerung/Poll. --Deskana (ya rly) 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand the poll, but it seems a little too religious for Wikipedia. Bu thanks for the smile! ;-) A•N•N•A hi! 17:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your signature, and a barnstar :)

I'm not sure if your query about your new signature at your editor review was addressed to me. If it was, I'd like to say that I have no problem with flashy sigs (I have one myself) but, as you've already learnt (per others' comments on the talk page above), some users find them irritating. However, this won't hold you back at RfA so long as you can demonstrate adequate editing experience across all areas of Wikipedia; from checking your editcount I can see you're making very rapid progress. Keep up the good work! :) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I've decided to award you this barnstar...

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Awarded to Anna for being cheerful and good-humored in the face of criticism, for working hard to improve her editing, and for following advice from others. Walton Vivat Regina! 13:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks a lot for the barnstar! That's my second one! I feel like a success. Yeah, big deal. Anyway, I think your signature is just fine. A•N•N•A hi! 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox heading

Please don't remove the sandbox heading like here. --Deskana (ya rly) 02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I've seen other people do it, and the heading was put back. But, well, okay. Now I know better. Thanks! ;-) A•N•N•A hi! 03:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In Regarding Your Userboxes

Yes, I did indeed read your Userboxes. But, I have even more Userboxes then you! See my Userpage, and read down to the "My Userbox" section. I currently have...well...You can find out for yourself I suppose lol. --OdinReborn 17:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ready for Adminship

How come you still have the ready for adminship sign up? I though you said you weren't going to run soon. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 20:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

YO!

You have inspired me to beef up my userboxe. And yes, I did read all yours. One question, though... Can I sign your sig book again with my new sig? I'm not well versed in HTML formatting (I prefer CSS myself) so this is what I have. Thank you for inspiring me!

1. That's okay, as long as you put your new sig like this:

#Your old sig
##Your new sig

Okay? Okay! ;-) A•N•N•A hi! 22:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes

Please do not nominate articles on AFD if they have recently survived that process with a "keep" result. You was kept in AFD three weeks before you nominated it. Wait at least two months or so before renominating such articles. --Coredesat 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

For your work on RC patrol ...

... I am giving you a barnstar!!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For all of your hard work with reverting vandals and going unnoticed for quite some time, I, Steptrip, award you The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar.  ~Steptrip 16:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope the barnstar made your day as much as this:

                                                                                  
__              __
\ \            / /                                                                  /\
 \ \    /\    / /  ____    _   _     ____    _____    ____     _____    ____       /  \
  \ \  /  \  / /  |_  _|  | | / /   |_  _|  |  __ \  | ___|   |  __ \  |_  _|     / /\ \
   \ \/ /\ \/ /     ||    | |/ /      ||    | |__| | ||__     | |  \ \   ||      / /__\ \
    \  /  \  /     _||_   | |\ \     _||_   |  ___/  | __|    | |__/ /  _||_    / ______ \
     \/    \/     |____|  |_| \_\   |____|  |_|      |____|   |_____/  |____|  /_/      \_\

I hope you like both of them. Regards,  ~Steptrip 16:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

:-O I can't believe it! This has made my day so much better! (screams loudly) Thank you so much! (continues screaming loudly) A•N•N•A hi! 19:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem.  ~Steptrip 20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Madam or Sir,

You have two userboxes that seems to contradict each other: "This user would like to be a teacher" and "This user is a teacher". This is not really important but it confuses the reader.Coffsneeze 23:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And your point is... A•N•N•A hi! 00:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You may or may not change it. :) Smile! Coffsneeze 14:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Autograph book

I have listed your autograph book up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ANNAfoxlover/Autographs—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

Can I have your regular sig on my autograph page please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMan53 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 April 2007

Okay, but, um, who are you? A•N•N•A hi! 17:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Bob and Darrell.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Bob and Darrell.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You

You recently put the tags {{cleanup}} and {{rewrite}} on the article You.[1] Would you care to elucidate on the talk page what the problems are that you see with the article? Perusing it, I see nothing particularly wrong with the article that would justify these tags, and they provide no hint what improvement might be desired so that they can be removed. Thanks.  --Lambiam^Talk 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that I think about it, the {{rewrite}} template is no longer needed in my opinion. I forgot to tell everyone that I would be away for a family emergency. Just got back. (yawns) so tired... A•N•N•A hi! 20:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tags. Don't tag pages without discussion on the talk page and a meaningful edit summary.--Golden Wattle ^talk 04:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

On my 1280x1024 resolution screen, your userboxes are a chaotic mess. I hope you don't mind if I edit them to make them a bit more uniform. Skult of Caro (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much! That was quite a surprise, but it looks great! It looks so great... A•N•N•A hi! 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to help and thanks for the barnstar. The userboxes would look more uniform if the Pixar userbox wasn't so large. All I did was put them in a 3-userboxes-per-line table. (I'd try a 4, but it might cause your userpage to scroll) Skult of Caro (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, I never really noticed any problems, and I run 1280x1024. They look much nicer now, anyway. --Deskana (ya rly) 22:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Random new user message

Why exactly did you give me one of the generic new user messages? Nemu 00:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What? Is there a better one? A•N•N•A hi! 00:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, ususally the message should have a point. Seeing as my last edit there was removing some pointless characters, it makes no sense to leave that message. I'm sure if there was a need for the message, there are ones to use with experienced editors. Nemu 00:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You vandalised the article. There's a point. A•N•N•A hi! 00:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to point to the difference you are refering to? I haven't done anything as far as I can recall. Nemu 00:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Anna, see WP:DTTR --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Anna, User:TTN's edits to List of Cars characters absolutely were not vandalism. Not only were they clearly made in good faith, but they improved the article. Please be more careful in what you judge to be vandalism. You may want to re-read WP:VAN to make sure you understand what is and is not vandalism. Gwernol 01:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I did assume good faith, and thanks for the link to WP:DTTR, but Nemu did vandalise the article, to be specific, the Lizzie section. He said that Katherine Helmond was the widow of Stanley, which is not true, and is vandalism. Let me see if I can find a link to this edit... A•N•N•A hi! 14:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my revert. A•N•N•A hi! 14:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not vandalism; that is a misplaced point. If you can't understand that I was trying to say that the character had those three characteristics, something is wrong. It was done to not have a random sentence fragment (but it ended up a little funky looking), and it was done out of good faith. You really should read the link that Gwernol left if you still think otherwise. Nemu 14:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I did assume good faith; it was just a mistake. A•N•N•A hi! 14:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I strongly suggest you stop tagging Sandboxes for MfD. This MfD will end as keep and end as keep quickly. Per policy, users are allowed to have subpages to work on Wikipedia related things. Do you honestly think that an autograph page, a collection of flags, or pictures of New Mexico are more beneficial to Wikipedia than my list of school pages that I need to work on in my sandbox? Metros232 15:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are talking about, but it is just an MfD. Leave it there, and we'll see what happens. A•N•N•A hi! 19:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Any proposed deletion, whether its at MfD, AfD or in any other forum, must have a reason that is based on Wikipedia policy. Sandboxes are clearly permitted per Wikipedia policy. Ignoring this and nominating all personal sandboxes was ill-advised and verges on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Gwernol 19:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• As per my comment at your editor review, you should not use minor edits when nominating a page for deletion - see Help:Minor edit. You should also use a meaningful edit summary and it would probably be courteous to advise major editors, particularly when in this case you were messing with their user space. As an editor you appear to use user space rather a lot for what I see as very frivolous purposes. My sandbox is not frivolous but related to editing the encyclopaedia - as far as I can see this also applied to some of the others you nominated. Moreover, as was observed, all pages were within the guidelines - you failed to specify a reason for deletion, other than vandalism - a glance at the pages concerned could see that they were not the work of vandals, and I personally found your labelling my userspace as such extremely offensive. Your actions in this instance were poorly thought out and poorly carried out.--Golden Wattle ^talk 03:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

TTN

You think someone should report User:TTN? I technically should've given him a 3RR warning for blanking a huge load of information, but didn't and it is getting rather disruptive. -WarthogDemon 07:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do think someone should report him immediately. It is going to get way out of hand if nobody does. How do I report him? A•N•N•A hi! 13:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly would you like to report me for? Removing pointless information? I'm not Mr. "Discuss every single minor change on a talk page for a week", but that certainly isn't uncivil or disruptive enough to report over. Reporting me just because I'm removing info you think is important (but policies don't) is just like issuing me the new user warning. If you still feel like it, I would probably go for an RfC. Nemu 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop doing it. NOW. Those edits are not minor. You are removing very much main information that you consider to be pointless. Many other people have a different opinion. Before making major edits, such as removing very large amounts of information, discuss it on the talk page. Always. Also, make sure you know enough about the article's subject, which you do not, based on your assumption of what Cars was about. Stop it now. A•N•N•A hi! 21:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am being bold (woo...). I try things before bothering to discuss. This is a dispute between three people. It's not as if I'm going to a religion article and cutting sections; I am just cleaning up articles related to fiction. I know enough about the movie to edit it. Even then, there is nothing saying that I cannot (I know what should and shouldn't be in an article). Besides the thing with the statue on the list, what have I removed that's "important"? I have removed game guide info, cut totally minor characters, and cut trivia. To discuss all of those on each page is a huge waste of time (I don't see you reverting me). Nemu 21:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would revert your edits, but my computer always shuts down right before I do. It happens every now and then with a few large article and talk pages, such as User talk:Patricknoddy and User talk:Deskana. Well, I would ask you to write down the plot of Cars to see how much you really know about it, but I think that's a little extreme. Also, a "game guide" has tips on how to win the game, which should not be on an encyclopedia. But the main plot of a game article is just as important as the main plot of a movie article. And your argument about "it's not a religion article" is a pretty poor argument. All articles* on Wikipedia are important. They are all encyclopedia articles, and all should be edited carefully, and the editors should know enough about the article's subject. Stop removing this info immediately, and could somebody revert his edits so my computer won't shut down? A•N•N•A hi! 21:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please go look at the featured articles like I have been telling you. You seem to have no idea of what belongs on video game articles, or fictional articles in general. You use WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, "Notability is inherited", and WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Those are not legitimate reasons to keep anything. You keep spouting those without ever saying why the info is important. The religion thing is more geared to how controversial it is, and the number of users that edit it (more than three). Nemu 21:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about the stupid religion!!! (D-:<) A•N•N•A hi! 21:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What? Are you actually going to respond? Nemu 21:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No.

So you have not come close to countering any of my arguments (based off of policy), yet you're acting as if I'm the one who can't back up his argument? Nemu 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No.

This is very mature and respectable for a person who wishes to become an admin. Nemu 22:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I brought this up with User:Gogo Dodo. He definitely needs calming down as it this point he's taking everything personally. -WarthogDemon 04:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIii

Is there anyway I can ask people to sign my autograph book without getting into trouble? WikiMan53 (talk) (click here) 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably if you only ask one or two people on a rare occasion. But if you do it repeatedly, it is considered massive spamming. Oh, well. Let's work on the encyclopedia! Let's find a good article we know everything about and add as much to it as we can! And about the autograph page? My advice is add it to Category:Wikipedian Autograph Pages and then wait. Also, you can put something on your userpage and/or subpages. But don't worry about it too much. The point of an encyclopedia is to be an encyclopedia. BYYYYYYyyyyyEEEEEEEeeeeeEEEEEEEee! ;-) A•N•N•A hi! 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

I have placed User:ANNAfoxlover/Flags for speedy deletion, since you wanted it deleted, I tagged it as so. The given reason is:

The user who created this page has requested that it be deleted (it can be recovered in the edit history).

You may remove it at any time if you change your mind. I just thought that tagging it as speedy deletion would get an sysop's attention better, and it might go faster.

By the way, I signed your autograph book. Happy collecting! --24.136.230.38 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. --Deskana (ya rly) 23:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! A•N•N•A hi! 01:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Anna if you want a page YOU made deleted add {{db-author}} to the top of the page and it will be deleted.

Thanks! A•N•N•A hi! 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki links and categories

Hi Anna, I have reverted your recent edit to You as it removed the See also section and also the Interwiki links and the categories. I assume you only intended to remove the See also section? Even if that was okay, the Interwiki links and Categories should not be removed. I am not convinced the See also section is "not needed" per your edit summary though. It seems like at least some of the See also links are useful. Can you provie your rationale for removing them? Thanks, Gwernol 18:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... yes, I also noticed this. Next time, Anna, please provide a slightly more detailed summary that isn't as broad. RyGuy 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I only meant to remove the "See also" section. But what were any useful links in the section? If there were any, please only keep those. A•N•N•A hi! 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Anna - I suggest you leave the article alone if you do not realise that Thou for example might be a useful see also link - both articles refer to the 2nd person. --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!!

Congratulations for finding the super secret hidden page! Here is your barnstar: User:Selfworm/HiddenLinkAward Enjoy it since you've earned it! _selfworm_ ^{( Give me a piece of your mind · Userboxes · Contribs )_} 05:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

I wanted to say Congrats on your barnstar! Please click my make a sig link! WikiMan53 (talk) (click here) make a sig! 02:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Boilerplate text

Please don't leave Boilerplate text in article-space as you did in List of Finding Nemo characters. It looks disturbing to see text such as

Deb is voiced by [[<actor>]].

in live articles - and unless it's a subpage in your user space with no categories, then it's a live article. Also, the < and >' that you have used throughout this article is not a part of wiki-markup (on this site at least). Where you have used [[<fish>]], you should simily have used [[fish]] to link to the article fish. Inserting the < and > characters breaks the linking. Good content though, I would love to see more like it!Garrie 05:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, I can see that you meant the <fish> and <actor> to be replaced by a specific name - but where you don't know it, you could probably leave it general or in the case of actors names, leave the XXX is voiced by .... out completely.Garrie 05:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Pixar, Pixar, Pixar!

Hi, I just wanted to give a suggestion for the pixar userbox. Shouldnt it have luxo as the picture. Tell me what you think. Also i support wiki project pixar and i would lke to know how i can help (P.S. Disney does have to do (a lot) with Pixar but i do agree it shouldnt be under disney since they have short films which are not disney brand) Anyway Pixar is the best company ever soooooo u probably know why I'm contacting you (if u dont by now its because u seem to be involved in ALL of the pixar projects) Martini833 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hey Anna, I recently passed RfA. If you're still interested in becoming an admin in the future, I can offer you admin coaching to help you learn new wikiskills and prepare for an RfA in a few months. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)