User talk:Arcayne/Arc 3 01.08-06.08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Talk page guidelines

Hi there! I just wanted to drop you a note that I've responded to your comments over at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Maybe this has come up before. Cheers! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Persian Gulf

The mediation hasn't finished; it's still continuing. (I don't think we've yet reached a conclusion everyone can accept yet.) I think the protection lapsed without anyone realising. CloudNine (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Elric

I added the OE reference for the name Elric, which you removed "as its OR by synthesis". Given it has a "citation needed" tag, and I provided a reference for the specific claim, I fail to see how it can be OR. That the whole "Elric as Norse elf" theory is OR, I certainly accept. Had there not been "citation needed" tags liberally strewn throughout the section, I probably wouldn't have bothered giving a reference to this single fact. As there were, it seemed acceptable to reference each fact seperately. Have I missed a particular Wiki convention? As this is only a small point, feel free to ignore if you wish.--Swahilli (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The ref was http://www.behindthename.com/name/elric It's visible if you compare the 13:08 and 19:35 edits on 3rd Jan. Essentially, I added a ref to line 21 "– and "Elric" is a form of the Old English Ælfric which means elf ruler" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swahilli (talk • contribs) 01:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, cross-post. Yes, that was the edit I was referring to. I see your point now, thanks for clarifying.--Swahilli (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rename block log

I'm sorry -- I normally make a 1 second block to link to old block logs, but I missed this one. The developers haven't created block log transfer yet. Andre (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username#Noahwoo → Thylacinus cynocephalus Andre (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Curiouser

Re: I am wondering how this user accomplished changing his name. the previous username was User:Noahwoo and shortly after he comes off his vandal block, his name changes to User:Thylacinus cynocephalus. I am not sure that this is on the up and up, but I am asking you for your opinion on the matter. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thuranx found the answer before I even found your question. Doczilla (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

One, he may have JUST changed his signature. Two, he asked for a name change, and got it. ThuranX (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

An old friend?

BermudaBreeze, or 75.62.218.43? --andreasegde (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Spycraft edits

I have added source references for my amendments. dpmcalister (talk) 21:22 5 January, 2008 UTC —Preceding comment was added at 21:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind, thanks. dpmcalister (talk) 21:35 5 January, 2008 UTC —Preceding comment was added at 21:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately getting citations for some of those tags may be interesting as the game changed owners a couple of years ago and all the information, regarding the first edition of the rules was deleted by the original owners from their forums/website. I'll see what I can do though. dpmcalister (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2008 UTC
I've added changes as requested. Please feel free to check through them and make sure I haven't missed anything. Thanks dpmcalister (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2008 UTC

Same to you!

Happy New Year to you as well! I appologize for not wishing you a Merry Christmas/Happy Hanukkah/Kwanzaa/Ramadan, but thanks for your nice message.

In response to Cindy5a's crazy edit, I removed it and in the edit summary asked her to take it to the talk page if she has complaints. I know we've had a conversation before on the talk page regarding rumors that Reagan had Alzheimer's while president. A New Yrok Times article here has quotes from his doctors stating that, although he could be disengaged at times while president, there was no evidence he had Alzheimer's as it was diagnosed after a series of tests in 1993-1994. Take a look at this page, and there is a quote by Dr. Larry Altman, a Senior Medical columnist for the New York Times, who investigated it. Quote: "I was unable to find any evidence by any medical criteria that is known to the medical profession that Mr Regan had any symptoms or signs of Alzheimer’s when he was President. The signs and symptoms developed several years after he left office, but interviews with senior Cabinet officials in his last term, with his doctors who treated him on a regular basis, and other people who knew him, could turn up no evidence that there was any incidence or incidents that suggested that he had Alzheimer’s." There's this, with, "At times during Reagan's stay in the White House, he seemed forgetful and would lose his train of thought while talking. However, doctors said Alzheimer's was not to blame, noting the disease was diagnosed years after he left office." I know there was spectulation, because we both lived through it, but the evidence says otherwise. Happyme22 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I meant if you wanted to attempt a re-write to the Ronald Reagan article you were welcome to do so. Thus, an apology wasn't really necessary but Thanks for having the grace to do so. I appreciate constructive criticism and that is how I took your comments. Cindy5a (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Cindy5a

I've moved the discussion to the Ronald Reagan talk page. Happyme22 (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not taking oneself too seriously

Writing "daft prick" is a serious sign that you do not take yourself too seriously, which is to be highly commended in this Wiki-world. I actually encourage my Austrian partner to call me a "fucking dickhead" when she feels like it, because not only does it sound very funny, but keeps my feet on the ground. Pat yourself on the back. :) --andreasegde (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Things that make me laugh

I just stumbled on your Things that make me laugh section. I had a good laugh. Thanks. LordHarris 19:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

haha sorry

moved to Talk:Ronald Reagan#Reagan's role in the Cold War Happyme22 (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(January 2008)

What was archived

Courtesy note

FYI, a diff involving your name was mentioned in passing at an extension request that I filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2, specifically, my extended report at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report. No action is required on your part, I just wanted to let you know. --Elonka 03:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, I read your post at ArbCom, but I think there may be a typo in it?[1] I couldn't understand what you meant when you said, "and then supported them as DreamGuy". Did a phrase perhaps get accidentally deleted? A couple diffs might also help to clarify, if you have time to provide them? If you're too busy, I understand, but I thought I'd ask for clarification. Thanks, --Elonka 06:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the diffs, but I still think the post is confusing, sorry. For example, you include a diff of what the anon did, and then a diff of what DreamGuy said, but the diffs don't really back up what you're saying about DreamGuy "supporting the anon's edits". Also, you say that DreamGuy denied being the anon, but your diff is of Dicklyon's question, not of DreamGuy's denial.
Sorry if it seems I'm being overly picky about this, it's just that I've had some time to learn, via hard-won experience, what will and won't be effective. You have to remember that the Arbitrators who are reviewing my extension are not familiar with the details of the case. So just because something is obvious to us, doesn't mean it will be obvious to them. The best diffs that you can provide, are clear slam-dunk, "Here's the editor doing something wrong".
If you haven't yet, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case. Also, I've found this to be a useful exercise: Go to WP:ANI, pick a random thread, something that you don't know anything about, and then read it and try to pretend that you're an arbitrator trying to decide who's in the right and who's in the wrong. I think you'll rapidly find that when looking at a situation with which you're not familiar, you really value the comments from people who can present their evidence in a clear, "Here's what happened, and here's what needs to be done," kind of way. Most threads at ANI, it's very difficult to wade into, because the participants are so invested in what's going on, they think that the situation is obvious to everyone else. When it's really not.  :/
Hope that helps, Elonka 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
My recommendation is to avoid trying to argue with El C and Dmcdevit. Instead, the most effective tack is to ensure that there is a strong case at the Request for Extension thread. If you see something that you posted which you feel is weak, strike it out with <s> and </s> tags. And if you have strong diffs (especially recent ones), ensure that you provide them. It may feel at times that you're "spoon-feeding" a case, but sometimes that's actually the most effective technique, is to spell things out in extremely obvious terms.
As an amusing sidenote, I know that there are times when I was involved in previous Wikipedia disputes, where I felt extreme frustration, at the time, that other editors were not seeing what was so obvious to me. And finally I broke down and posted in very simple "talking to a 6-year-old" language what was going on. Often I was surprised that my "6-year-old" language was what finally got people to move, heh. And even funnier, is that sometimes when I go back and look at old disputes, often even I have trouble seeing what the problem was, until I get to my "6-year-old" post, and then I understand it again!  :) Do you do any computer programming? I've found the same thing when I'm writing code -- it's obvious to me how the program is structured, as I'm writing it, and I may think I don't need comments, but if I'm ever trying to decipher something I wrote, a year after I wrote it, man, those comments are useful!  :) --Elonka 21:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, saw that. I think we should just ignore it. The ArbCom clarification came in earlier this evening, and DreamGuy was blocked for 96 hours. My guess is that El C will delete the page in a few days. Also, I agree with you that El C is normally a really good admin, but I've been disappointed with his actions here. All I can figure is that he kind of "adopted" the DreamGuy case back when it was in RfC status. The problem with the RfC, is that though there were a lot of good faith editors making good faith complaints, there were also a few bad faith editors in the mix, and things got ugly. My guess is that somewhere along the line, El C started identifying, or at least sympathizing, with DreamGuy. But it's really moot at this point. No one else agreed with El C at the ArbCom page, and the ArbCom clerk has issued a clarification which confirmed that DreamGuy had been gaming the system. Hopefully DreamGuy will take this to heart and try to edit in a more transparent, cooperative, and good-faith fashion in the future (which is all I think that any of us really want). I know that I'd really love to put all this behind me, rather than continuing to wonder when and where he's going to attack me again, from which account. He's been sniping at me from a variety of anon accounts for about two years now, and I'm pretty tired of it. But now that ArbCom is finally onto him, hopefully things will get better.  :) --Elonka 06:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
(pre-emptive comment) Yes, saw the changes, and again, I recommend ignoring them. --Elonka 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm disappointed in his actions too. Since it seems that we're trying to convince the unconvinceable though at this point, I don't think it's really worth continuing to argue with him. If he does file a case, I sincerely doubt that it will be accepted, especially since no one else was agreeing with him at the clarification discussion. If he wants to spend his time coming after me, or us, rather than dealing with those who are genuinely disruptive to Wikipedia, I guess that's his choice. As for me, I'm going to try very hard to put all this behind me and just move on with more productive pursuits. :) --Elonka 23:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Will do! Have a good weekend.  :) --Elonka 23:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandlism

Hello I'm not trying to be rude here or anything but how can it be vandlism if I deleted my comment on a discussion board? I mean is it not my choice if I want there or not? If you could please answer my questions it would be much help. Thanks. Headstrong 345 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Headstrong 345

Well I am sorry I did not mean to delete that post. I do not appricate you calling me a bozo it is not nice. Plus I don't think it is a big deal to delete someone else's post I mean accidents do happen it is not right to automatically accuse me of vandlism when you don't even know if that was the case and that wasn't very nice to do!!! Headstrong 345 (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Headstrong 345

Reagan

"A number" is probably more accurate, but the part about the Alzheimer's is too detailed for the lead in my opinion. And thanks for the congrats! Happyme22 (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

oh well

Oh well, here's a whole stack of articles listed for which you too can get a shiney flamin' wiki :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

.........and plenty of POV to wade through on many of them. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't wait any more

I have a thing going on, which has required a complete avoidance of argumentative souls. When that's done, I'm on - but even if Col and DG (or any combination including your illustrious self) get at it, please do try to defuse the situation and concentrate on the article. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sad. Despite his differences with the whole world, he is quite knowledgeable on the subject. To go to such lengths to avoid being civil is, I think extraordinary. Elonka can be quite fiery - but trustworthy. Much of the dust seems to have stirred from this. Kbthompson (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Fiery but trustworthy, I kind of like that image. Sort of flaming-sword angelic. :) --Elonka 21:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh, you're looking at the diff but not the context. Read the "We shouldn't wait any more" section.  ;) --Elonka 21:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, there was a lot of flooding in south Chicago and northern Indiana this past week. I've been run a bit ragged with work. Kbtdoes have a nice way with words. My aunt would prolly like to marry him. She 'loiks dose chaps wit' de lo-vell-ee ways of speaking.' - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which which passed nem. con. with 45 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thank you for your support and all the kind words that were expressed. I will try to live up to the trust placed in me by the community. I now have my homework to do and then pass the Marigolds.
... and if I could have told you about it, I'm sure you would have! Kbthompson (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I would have. Congrats! :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandlism 3

Fine I can go 60 days without deleting stuff since I have only done it a couple of times but some of those that you do see on my talk page is when I was just starting to edit pages and I didn't mean to do it. And I apologize I thought you were calling me a bozo no no but I understand now that it is just an expression. I would also like to know how I can get into contact with a wikipdiean adminstrator? Headstrong 345 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Headstrong 345

Offer to inquire

Thanks for your offer to ask questions.

Enjoy your User Page... well crafted and fun to read. I guess some people vanalized your secion on valdalism? The wiki world is a wild world.

While I am rather inexperienced as a wiki editor, I am not inexperienced in the ways of the world... and it seems that I have run into some serious issues in rather short order!

I am a rugged individual, yet don't feel I need to reinvent the wheel, so I wonder if you can give me a reality check, and the benefit of your experience.

I have walked into a hornets nest in the desert. The Iraq War pages on Wikipedia are not for the faint of heart. It seems obvious to me that it is a ravaged war zone, with many casualities. Just as clearly, there is a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions.

Why volunteer for such duty?

Those that have been in theater for awhile have learned to fashion IED's from resources at hand. They look like innocent packages at first glance: "Wow, there are so many similarities between the two of you. It must be coincidence, right?"

Hidden inside is the "SOCK-bomb".

The question is, will the device go off, and will there be casualities?

Innocent looking, but explosive packages would strike terror into the hearts of some, and make them afraid to go about their daily business, but now that I know what too look for, I shall not be seeking redeployment. I am in for the full tour.

I don't know if you have served in the theater of the Iraq War pages, but if you have, or have similar experience, I welcome your thoughts. Desertion is not an option. My purpose is to defend policy, stand against threats, avoid IEDs. Not looking for a fight, and want all my patrols to go smoothly and without coming under fire... but it seems that comes with the job. 72.245.21.50 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

an idea that will help us both

I have a proposition for you. If you go to the category Fictional characters with accelerated healing and remove all those who don't qualify in your opinion, it would help reduce my workload, and you would be able to remove characters who you feel don't fit the category. In fact, if you started from the end of the category and worked backwards, we could both finish much quicker. This way we both help each other to get what we want. What do you say? --Piemanmoo (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I was thinking of also splitting the category "Fictional telepaths" into DC/Marvel/Anime subcats as well. If you'd like, we could do the same thing for that one too. --Piemanmoo (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandlism 4

Well I was thinking since I have been talking to you so much maybe you could mentor to be the best Editor that I can be, since you have so much experince editing on Wikipedia I think that it would be great. Please get back to me if you can do this. Headstrong 345 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Headstrong 345

Poking

I used to be a union rep and once had a conversation with a manager about harrassment that bears similaries to the point I was making on EL_C's talk page. The manager was trying to impose unacceptable objectives and kept asking his team if they were sure that they didn't want to accept the objectives. Having been told no, he went away and came back and asked the same question again and again and again. I asked many times he could ask the same question before it became badgering and harrassing. We never did agree but I made it clear that asking the thing more then twice was badgering unless they were unable to understand the word no and at that point they stopped. The point relating to you is that I can clearly see that you are frustrated but El_C made it clear that they were not going to do anything unless you produced the specific diffs requested. You didn't do that, you keep on reforming the question and pressing them again. To me that was approaching harrassment and that is I why I asked you to stop. Perhaps I misread the situation, if so I apologise for any offense caused, but I didn't think it was productive your repeating yourself and getting the same answer. I hope you see my point. Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions and call for assistance from anyone

I am encountering a few technical issues, and was hoping someone could pipe in or lend a hand. Until I knuckle down and learn all the ins and outs of wiki html, help from those in the know would be greatly appreciated. The issues are as follows:

  • Aligning up my infoboxes on this page. i cannot get the kitty huffer box to align properly.
  • On my user page, the last barnstar there (the HP one) doesn't appear to be aligned with the other awards.
  • I was hoping to consolidate my archives, but am concerned that by copying and pasting material from, say archives 2-4 into one, i would be cocking up the order of the universe or some such thing.

- Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that for the HP barnstar, you may want to grab the template coding and put it in instead of using {{Order of Merlin}}. That way, you can have some control over it. As for the archive consolidating, take a look at my user talk page. I just put archives away on separate year-based subpages and will do so for 2008 when it is done. As for aligning the infoboxes, lemme get back to you on that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
For the userboxes, why not use {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}}? Depends on how you want them to be displayed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the conversations with Headstrong. I'll inquire him to find out what his interests are, and perhaps I could dispense advice accordingly. As for the editor review, I was actually thinking about having a new one for myself sometime in 2008. I think that if you set one up for yourself, you should be honest as possible about yourself and request input from others in a cordial fashion. Set it up so that if someone wants to trash you, they look incivil as a result. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Assistance with The Natural (film)

Arcayne, would you mind taking a look at the discussion about the unsourced cultural references list in The Natural? I'm trying to flesh out the article further to bring it on par with other film articles, but I've run into a list of influences on popular culture that is totally unsourced and much appears to be OR. Another editor is disputing my take on things and a third-party's perspective would be helpful. Will you do the honor, please? If I'm off-base (pun intended), I'd like to know. And before you say anything about my wordiness, I know (I'm just trying to touch all bases (again intended)). Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I underestimated his attachment to trivia lists. Thank you for evaluating the situation; I didn't expect you to jump into the fray, so thanks for taking point. I'm disappointed with the outcome: the article hasn't had many interested editors, so it's not necessarily good one's walked away. Of course, based on his reaction, his edit history, and disputes, it's probably a good thing. I'm glad I had the essentials of the issues down. Any suggestions on how I could have better handled it are welcome. Again, thanks for helping out.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Natural

I see that you are acting in concert with another user to try to trap me into a 3RR violation. I have told him (and now you) OVER AND OVER AGAIN that the claim that these are unsourced IS NOT TRUE. THE TV SHOWS AND FILMS ARE THE SOURCE. You two have now assumed ownership of the page, which is a violation of wikipedia rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am no longer watching the page, so no further correspondence on this subject whatsoever, PLEASE. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
And yet another young fellow ventures forth into the darkness without illumination. Well, I tried. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, just my $0.02. In the future, you may want to follow WP:BRD. I've noticed that you've been pretty steadfast in ensuring your revision of an article, pointing the other party to the talk page. This seems to have alienated editors occasionally, as I recall from 300. My suggestion in the future is to have solely presented your argument on the talk page to start building consensus. I was going to weigh in later today after seeing the message to you earlier today, but obviously the situation's done. I just recommend considering that the severing of the Gordian knot is not always healthy for editor relationships. (Consider this an advance editor review. ;) Cheers!) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think that the young man was a bit more than incorrect in assuming I wanted to own the page. I was just reiterating what what JimDunning had already said - repeatedly. In this particular case, the version in place was the one excluding the uncited, non-notable info.
I do see your point, however; I am sometimes too steadfast. I think I am a little better at compromising since then, though- Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I did NOT blank it, I ARCHIVED it, which is perfectly within the rules, and so I won't have to look at it for a week after you get me blocked as further punishment for expressing G-RATED frustration at the way you two have contrived to take ownership of the page. You have the page in your control now, so you got what you want. Enough. Finis. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that you did archive it; for that I apologize, Bugs. However, you might want to be pretty careful when accusing your fellow editors of WP:OWN, as its considered pretty serious. If fact, I think you should submit a complaint to WP:AN/I, or just ask an admin if I or Jim are trying to own the article. I believe I provided you with a big ol' list for you to seek one out, but that message may have been consigned to your archive, so you might find it there. You aren't acting very thankful for someone who's skating out a 3RR block by my good graces.
So here it is: you are welcome to post to my page any concerns or questions you may have. I will do my best to answer them. Post another accusation that you quite simply cannot support, and I'll simply delete your messages as noise. I hope that's clear enough. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...

...am I doing time math wrong? (I almost never pay attention to WP:AN3). What is 19:04, January 12, 2008 minus 09:36, January 11, 2008? I get more than 33 hours. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ripper Article

Yes that is now the Jaysweet version. Good! Hopefully we all now agreed that before making major changes to the article we will canvass opinion on the talk page and take note of what is said there. That is my intention anyhow. And be nice to one another...Colin4C (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I had indeed missed that one. Thanks for being so understanding. Hiding T 10:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • What, leave a note on the talk page as well? Yeah, that's not a bad idea now you mention it. I thought the edit summary would suffice, but I can see your point. Hiding T 10:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Santa" user

Ah I see, thanks for explaining! :) Ekantik talk 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you please have a look

Hi !
I thought you can help here [2] . Indeed I think Agha Nader is using improper language. I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia's way of preventing this and because you were previously involved with the topic, I'm asking your help and advice.
Thank you , --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lede

I'm responding to your comment "The Lead is a summary of the article, not a substitute for it." I completely agree that the lede acts as an introduction to the article, and summarizes the material that will follow. But a second purpose of the lede is to be a miniature article on its own, so that (if needed) someone could just read the lede and have a general sense about the topic at hand. If a web mirror were to copy just the lede from all of our articles, it wouldn't be great, be we would like it to still be of some use to readers. This isn't as far-fetched as it sounds; people who are working on CD or DVD versions of WP might decide that only the lede of lower-importance articles will be used, to save space on the disk. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonder Man/Dr. Fate edits

I laughed out loud when I saw the edit summary for this edit[3] immediately after you removed info in this edit[4]. Do YOU see the disconnect between these two? I'll give you a clue - 1964 was 44 years ago, 1978 was 30 years ago, and Simon has also been recreated a few times. Pairadox (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The same treatment usually isn't appropriate for both characters, but no, I don't really see the disconnect. I think that specific quantification of a subject's abilities require more current benchmarking, especially in the wild and wonky world of comic books. the claim to being one of the dozen best wizards in the DC universe requires more recent citation than 1991, quite simply because of all the Crises, both the field of magic-powered supers has changed drastically. As well, Dr. Fate has gone through at least three separate evolutions/retcons since then.
It is for the same reason that the Wonder Man edits were made. People were pushing their own interpretation of power level, and quite honestly, it didn't matter. At all. My edit made more succinct the issue and removed the need for forum-style debate. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Dr. Fate edit was subsequently reverted, so I guess somebody else disagreed with you also. Pairadox (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

Okay, I was afraid this would come up. Yes, Reagan is a continuous polarizing figure in American politics and culture. But just bceause he is does not mean that all legacy-related arguments have to be immediately dismissed on the grounds of two different opinions. I can cite that Reagan had a great impact on the end of the Cold War - I do not feel that he is the only person that contributed to the end. I suppose you, on the other hand, can cite that he did not have a major role in the end because of Truman's policies and Gorbachev himself. What I'm saying is that Reagan contributed to those, that's why it is written (and quoted) as being "almost certainly".

The argument is similar to one regarding Bill Clinton and the economy. Much credit is given to Bill Clinton for the growth/expansion of the American economy in the 1990s. It could also be argued that nothing would have been accomplished during the Clinton years had it not been for the Republican Congress. Yet, the lead of Bill Clinton's article (a GA) includes that he presidded over the "longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history". Both can be cited.

This is the issue that I'm not going to give up on. I felt that you were giving too much undue weight to the senility claim and later the nicknames. I still feel that your dislike of Reagan is making its way into this discussion and influencing you over the facts, although you're probably saying that my like of Reagan is influencing me. True, if I did not care for Ronald Reagan I probably wouldn't even be touching the article but I do and I have facts to back up my arguments. Your humorous analogy of Reagan wearing a red cape with an "S" on it not one that I believe to be correct; I do not feel that Reagan was the single driving force behind the end of the cold war, but I do feel that he had a substantial impact by pursuing the correct policies for the time. I have two NPOV articles, one from Knopf and one from Newsweek that back this up, plus many biographies on the man. Yes, Knopf's is NPOV - he examines both the pros and cons of Reagan's stance in the cold war, and concludes that he had an impact, of course not as great as some believe. Just because he's arguing with facts that Reagan contributed to the end of the cold war does not mean that he shows POV.

Reagan left office with a 64% approval rating, only topped by Bill Clinton at 65%. ([5]) In 2001, the rating was reassessed to be 66%. ([6]) He is one of the most popular presidents, in terms of approval ratings, in history and in modern times. The fact that he played a role in the cold war cannot go unnoticed by us.

I find it nessecary to also state Reagan's support for the Mujahadeen in Cold War section (which can also be cited with the Newsweek article) and I'm going to do that pretty soon. I'm trying to incorporate more criticisms of Reagan, because the Newsweek article had both good and bad; you'll see I added about the poor and minority citizens. The cold war legacy issue is one that we cannot neglect, however. Just because there are two different opinions doesn't mean that it has to be dismissed altogether. Happyme22 (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response as well. Your argument is convincing, but I am still going to largely stand my ground and see what some other editors have to say. We are both reasonable people and if my proposal(s) are deemed to be too POV I'm sure we can work and come up with something. --Hap Happyme22 (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

Hi. I am new to Wikipedia and am having some trouble with some of the editors on the Nancy Reagan article. As you identified here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nancy_Reagan/archive2), many of the items remain written in a Non NPOV tone.

I have cited many sources and offered many solutions to minor details in the article to improve it's viewpoint (on the Nancy Reagan discussion page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nancy_Reagan), but four editors in particular (Users: Happyme22, Wasted_Time_R, SandyGeorgia, and Tvoz) have consistently teamed together in support of each other's actions and edits in moving this article forward to FA status while giving little or no validity to any contrary opinions., despite multiple reasonable requests and many many reliable cited sources.

I have begun the appeal process but the same three editors acted in the same way (the same editors who , and I don't know how to move forward to make the changes necessary. Can you PLEASE PLEASE review my comments on the Nancy Reagan discussion page and PLEASE PLEASE help?

Thank you in advance so very much for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.228.83 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Braveheart (film)

I've added the historical inaccuracies back again which were mentioned in the paper I have. This is a paper specifically about the film and its historical inaccuracies. It's not on the web, but I'm happy to discuss, can email you a pdf if you're interested. No edit wars please.Mike Young (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC).

There's a film about it done by Tony Robinson which mentions the name Braveheart as well. I'll add the reference when I find it. Mike Young (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mirth and Girth

...now exists! Needs work. Mostly about the importance of Harold Washington wrt race relations, and why a lot of people really thought violating Nelson's 1st Amendment rights was actually justifiable. —Rob (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely still there... last paragraph, under "Death". It's under the new paragraphs regarding rumors of cocaine usage and intentional poisoning. —Rob (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Howdy - I'd like to continue this discussion at Talk:Harold Washington. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem, as long as we have an understanding. (Part of the problem is that Harold Washington is in itself underdeveloped and largely unreferenced). I'll remove the seealso tag since Mirth & Girth is already referenced in the paragraph immediately prior. —Rob (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the story for The Island

Hi, I created the story for the film The Island and for more than a hundred others, twenty of the top twenty five all time biggest hits worldwide had my input, mostly in small ways, but I made up the entire story in Titanic. You're just somebody who has never done much, I suppose. I can prove I did the speeches in Braveheart. I got one from Benedict Arnold's before Ticonderoga from my Richardson High School senior English text book, the battle of Stirling speech in the film. Randall Wallace, some guy who bought the screenwriter credit, claimed he wrote that one, too! A biography of William Wallace was one of Steve Spielberg's favorite childhood volumes. My favorite was The Star War, written and published in 1963. DeWitt is my jr. high. Turner was my high school. Buckater is my nephew. Wilson was my best friend in high school. I've made several films backwards, and several more in foreign languages, two in dead languages, but they've all made money, just about. Good Will Hunting and A Beautiful Mind are autobiographical (without the insanity and physical child abuse, math or economics). My name is on the bottoms of the two canteens in Saving Private Ryan and on the doodles in E.T. (biology class). I keep a pretty low profile. The written poems in Dead Poets, the crazy story and alien notes in K-PAX, the missives in GWH (the second hallway question at MIT is wrong, it's what are the constitutional stereoisomers of normal nonane, an easy organic chemistry question. Oh well, there's no convincing a lowbrow, huh? Fix back my edits or be condemned by history as well, what you are, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TogetherinParis (talk • contribs) 10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, okay...So is this an Essjay-type claim, or is this guy as much a legend in His Own Mind as he thinks he is? I mean, what sane person claims to have made up the story for Titanic - a historical event? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Condemned by history - is that a threat? Anyway you look at it, striking screenwriters have way too much time on their hands and should get back to work! Next thing you know, all the cinemas will be full of French movies and Clint Eastwood retrospectives ... cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Naw, it wasn't a threat - at least not one that us "lowbrows" would recognize as such. Actually, i feel so very, very blessed as to have been in the shining presence of such a wit. i think i might have gotten a tan, even.
Nope, it wasn't. It was just indigestion from some plebian fare. lol - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I don't know if this is relevant, but just browsing through your page, I was just intrigued to know your nationality and background. Thanks. ЩіκіRocкs talκ 11:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I was looking through your page, and I noticed you were editing Googoosh. I am not a really big fan of Persian music, but other people in my family are. That's why I asked...and background means the same as nationality. ЩіκіRocкs talκ 06:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mary Marvel

Are you serious? How is correcting a sentence to say "an unpowered Mary Batson" "original research"? I really don't feel like having an edit war over a fictional comic book character, but I don't see the sense in your revert. ---FuriousFreddy (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My revision wasn't meant to imply that the character no longer had any powers period; it was correcting a reference to the character in her unpowered form. By the same token, "an unpowered Captain Marvel" would be called "Billy Batson" or "an unpowered Billy Batson". I changed two places, where the article refers to Mary Marvel in her unpowered teenage form: Mary Batson. But whatever. Keep it this way. I have better things to do than argue with folks over mess like this. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Heroes.S1.full.cast.jpg

I've fixed the copyright tag, and also put in a request at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for someone to help fix the fair-use rationale, so someone may contact you about that. Maybe someday I'll be able to make sense of that template. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 13:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Irish Nazi's

So you know, some of the best spies during WWII were Irish, we gave Britain food and equipment. It wasn't just English soldiers we captured when caught on Irish land at the time but also German, Ireland was a neutral ountry and did not side with anybody —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.255.246 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever

Whatever, I was going to edit it to just Ireland anyway but I see that you already have —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.255.246 (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

T-888

It took me a minute to find it, but it does actually use T-888 in the synopsis. It says:

Fleming works in his lab, working on Cromartie’s formula. He pours a vat of what appears to be blood into his bathroom tub. Cromartie pushes passed Fleming and removes his coat, revealing the full T-888 endoskeleton. Fleming can’t believe what he’s seeing. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Contentious, really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Lead_section&diff=188386700&oldid=188386277

I don't think so.

Could you be a bit less revert-warrior please? ktxbai.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Please see this post. Thank you. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Hiya

OK, thanks. Just curious! And btw, I think the Googoosh page is excellent. ЩіκіRocкs talκ 04:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You and your ego. I never said you made it excellent! Geeeeeeeez...lol...just joking. ЩіκіRocкs talκ 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
OK this conversation is going on quite a bit, but I just wanted to say that it's nice to see some editors actually have a personality and sense of humour. I think some editors are actually robots!!!! :O ....and I'm not talking about the bots.... ЩіκіRocкs talκ 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to ruin your day but....

DG is back...(as a number - no prizes for figuring out which) Colin4C (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, not under this IP...but how many does he have? Jack1956 (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Dreamguy anon IP has been blocked for 3 months [7] Jack1956 (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If only that were an effective corrective tool... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

IP user and Nancy Reagan

Hey I just wanted to thank you for defending me and the article with this posting on the IP's talk page. He is whacked! He's crazy! According to him, all edits must be discussed on the talk page and there are mutliple users (namely User:Wasted Time R, User:Tvoz, and especially myself) that are out to get him and have been bullying the NR article nonstop. He seems to be digging up supposed dirt on me and why the NR FAC was "problematic" and "unjust", and how multiple users have bullied him because we (namely me) own the article. It's insane. And I've ingored most of it. Unless I am attacked specifically in this upcoming medcab request (which is completely uncalled for), or the FA status of the article is placed in jeopardy, I'm going to ignore it. We (Wasted, Tvoz, me) told him that not all the content he wanted to add is suitable for an encyclopedia, and those that are not completely topic specific to NR should go in other articles. Well he didn't like that. He didn't get his way, so he's called a medcab, a Wikiquette on me, and contacted User:Raul654 to try to get him to intervene. You're right: he's acting like a fourth grader. --Happyme22 (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be reminded of this comment. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hap, you are welcome. Anon user, I don't need to be reminded of anything, as I am well aware of the situation. Consider that you might be better off seeking other people's input rahter than offering it yourself. Keep your ego in your pants. If you don't you might find something rather important excised. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan is set to be featured on the main page in about five minutes. Just be alert when you log on, because there is going to be some heavy vandalism! I requested protection and it was denied because it's going to be featured, but here is only some of what happened when Nancy was TFA. As for Nancy's current situation, it appears the medcab mediator called it off - haha! Thanks again, Happyme22 (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Heroes.S1.full.cast.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Heroes.S1.full.cast.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. This is because it is an image depicting living people, which is easily replaceable. 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.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, is it your contention that the image is in fact readily replaceable? I ask, because I haven't seen a cast ensemble grouping image anywhere on the web. Perhaps I am in fact mistaken in my research, but I uploaded it with the conviction that an alternative image does not exist. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it is my contention that there is a free equivalent that could be created. WP:NFCC #1 requires that no free equivalent is available or could be created, it says nothing of "readily replaceable". Apologies for the poor choice of words in my original message.
Just about any fair use image of any combination of living people is not permitted on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
(You don't need to duplicate a response on my Talk page; for the duration of this conversation, I've watchlisted your page)
I am puzzled at your idea that a free image of the vast ensemble exists or is "readily available". Perhaps you have come across such a thing, and could point me to it? Wikipedia use cast ensemble and band group images all the time, as evidenced by just a cursory glance through the 'pedia:
Film & Television
Music

...the list goes on and on, but I think I've presented fairly conclusive evidence that "just about any fair use image of any combination of living people" is in fact permitted in Wikipedia, and in fact is utilized in many, many FA-quality articles. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Harold Washington

The Mirth and Girth topic is better handled in a separate article than the statue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole RFC on the matter that seems to be endorsing my removal of the {{seealso}} and omission of the image. Just follow along on the talk page. However, if you have a strong interest in the article, you may want to nominate it at WP:GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Read WP:BLP and reconsider the necessity of the actual image on the article. I was merely mentioning GAC because you seem to have an interest in the article and as you can see from my web page I like to help articles at least get up to GA status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ooopps!!! Well in general consider the necessity of the image and the way it degrades the article although factually correct if added. I think it might be like putting a picture of a JFK mistress in his article or something. It would an irrelevant inclusion, but probably unkosher. I would have to take time to find the right policy to send you to, but there are probably people active at the RFC who may better directl you. After the RFC is resolved, I encourage you to nominate the article at GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reagan talk page posts

Definitely. Sorry for the inconvenience, I'm pretty new at this. xD (ApJ (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Ah, okay. Well, could you please explain to me why Wikipedia's definitions of things aren't good for references on Wikipedia? That doesn't make any sense to me... (ApJ (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

JFK

That wasn't me. That's not my IP address and that was vandalism to my page. You'll see User:Rise Above the Vile undid it. --Happyme22 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries! It was just a question :) --Happyme22 (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started an ANI discussion about your latest post

Link is here. Benjiboi 10:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cruft

Without a doubt, it's cruft. Maybe you could feed this to Betacommand's bot... good nourishing for it. :) The article could be more in line with the standard layout of film articles, like I just created a stubby The Fast and the Furious (film series) because of a fourth film article being repeatedly recreated. Dunno if you want to expend the effort to dig up all the URLs and numbers. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Crazy

No problem. --Happyme22 (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Arcayne

Hey man, Dan here. 'Hope all is well with you.

I JUST got your message (relatively new to contributing to Wiki, so please forgive in advance). Your knowledge here is incredible, and literally "credible" if I might add.

In-so-far as nesting, neither Elly, Woods or Rustin are nested within the dot com (Blair). This, for various reasons. Wait a sec, I can post this in discussion. I'll grab a beer and meet you there...

- Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.115.225.54 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Exhaustion

Actually, I sat down to write the what's what on BLAIR but found myself getting too deep into it, too deep for what I can invest in tonight. I'm up to my ass in edits currently and am exhausted. I'll catch up with you later. Bottom line, the externals were all unique of which I'll explain why later. It's not that important they be included, and as I read your bio and learned more the protocol of WIKI it makes sense more and more. You know exactly what you're doing. Just keep our official site and "making of" site and it's solid brother.

- Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.115.225.54 (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
You have consistently edited on here with principles and done what you think is in the best interest of the project. You give deep consideration to issues. You are a defender of the Wiki. David Shankbone 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • They are more strict in their interpretation of fair use on Wikipedia than a law court would be, far more strict. That's why it's important that people put in work in obtaining good, original, open content. Speaking of, listen to my recent addition to the Anger page. It is, quite possibly, my most favorite thing I have added to an article. I finally figured out how to do OGG files. It's brilliant - it'll cheer you up. --David Shankbone 01:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

reagan

what the hell is your problem 'sport'. i don't understand your objection to updating a succession box to a template and sorting the footers. --emerson7 04:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's look at this closer, then. To begin with, while the article is not the article o' the day, it is still a Featured Article. As well, the excessive categorization was correctly termed by another editor as non-necessary and a bit (he was more generous in description than I would have been) over the top. See WP:NOT in that we are not a list. Endless categories that accomplish the same task are unneeded. Add to that that some of the categories are simply false, and you have my reason for reverting it. When you see the same edit - unaltered - reintroduced without discussion after another editor reverted it, it tells me that someone is choosing to forego the idea of discussion. That sort gets zero rhythm with me, so I essentially told you such.
Now, you can take the advice of two different editors and discuss your edits, or you can again reintroduce the edit and get reverted again. Your call. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
i'm not sure i understand what you mean by over-categorizing. i added no additional categories...i simply put the items in order. i'm still looking for the applicable mos, but the correct order for the footers has FA tags following the categories. --emerson7 05:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
if you'd first taken the time to figure out what i was doing....by maybe asking.... at any rate, your behaviour has been very unwiki-like. --emerson7 05:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Update

Good job on your recent edits. I am impressed by your contributions at Googoosh. The article seems to have potential to become a Good article candidate. In the past we have been on the opposite side--and sometimes same side--of issues. You once said that my POV turns up in my edits. I have recently edited the Hadi Khamenei article [8]. A significant part of the article is authored by me. Please take a look at the article and offer any advice. I am particularly interested in its neutrality.--Agha Nader (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

hello

why did you say a swear word on egdars talk page? Alexoxo (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to this post. Sometimes cuss words are used by people who don't have other words to use. Sometimes, cuss words are used to express extreme emotion. My usage of it was to indicate my level of disappointment with a user who had fallen off the good faith wagon, and I helped them back up onto it. If it offended your eyes to see, I am not really sorry for using it, but I am sorry you were offended by it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla's RfA

.: Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :.

Googoosh

Why won't you leave the Googoosh page alone? You're like a cyber bully. Who the hell are you to tell people what they can and cannot put on that page. If someone wants to improve the Googoosh page by helping people to know when upcoming concerts might be, let them! It doesn't matter if we're not ticketmaster. What is your problem? Are you even Iranian? Let Iranians, who know much more about her, deal with her page. Go be a annoying somewhere else and leave the editors the heck alone. Nobody likes or wants your input on what should be on the page. It's like there's a whole system of you and your friends who go around messing up pages. You should be blocked for vandalism. GO AWAY! - unsigned comment left by 76.239.18.123 ([[User talk:76.239.18.123) 13:43, February 18, 2008 (UTC)

What's funny here is, that the above is the re-factored "nice version". Hi Arcayne, feel free to delete my comment along with the above should you choose to do so. And one more thing, we aren't ticketmaster. R. Baley (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that wasn't lost on me, and gave me a chuckle, Apparently, he thought that saying swear words was going to get him in trouble. As for deleting this, that's okay. If Shankbone can take worse criticisms on his User Talk Page with aplomb, I can cowboy up and try to do the same. Thanks for pointing our the user's absurdity and clarifying that we aren't a ticket agency. I've since reverted the user's changes on the Googoosh page which, according to the anon, makes me a bully - so maybe I will also steal the anon's lunch money and give him atomic wedgies in the schoolyard. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Replied at my talkpage. R. Baley (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate?

Hey man is Operation Spooner's user page entirely Wiki appropriate? It doesn't put down any specific people, but it puts down the idea of concensus, votes, and using discussion pages. Any thoughts? Happyme22 (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Its been addressed before. He will eventually screw up and break the rules,and then his page will serve as the concrete overshoes that send him to the bottom of IndefiniteBanned Lake. Some of this is a waiting game, Hap. And yes, it does violate wiki policy, but until there is a recent reason for pursuing an addressing of his behavior, its prolly better to leave it alone for the time being. Spponer cannot help himself - he will self-destruct all by himself. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As I think about it, if you want to bring the problem to a wider audience, you should post on the discussion page for WP:NOT. They might be able to offer some advice or - if nothing else - will be aware of the pov attack page. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't plan on doing it right this minute, but probably will eventually because it really bashes all the established Wiki policies. Happyme22 (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to post, don't wait too long, as I know that some admins tend to split hairs over what is stale. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why...

should I care what you have to say. Parable1991 (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Because I can report you for vandalism and you will end up getting blocked, like you have now. When someone tells warns you that a certain edit is vandalism, either stop making the edit or start asking questions. Flip answers on my talk page before committing the same vandalism again is probably not the smartest thing you've ever done, but then, I don't know you. Enjoy the block, sunshine.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't care because you do not have the power to exercise authority so I don't have to answer to you. Do you really think that you will make a difference in what I edit. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, moonshine but you've been drinking too much. Parable1991 (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, sure. Tell, me, how long were you blocked for vandalism last time? Listen carefully: I don't care what you edit, so long as you do it within the scope of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Every single time you make a bone-headed series of edits like the ones that resulted in your block, I will be there to revert it and report you. Now, if you edit like a grown-up, you and I will - joyfully - never interact, and you can get back to your Driver's Ed and popping zits in the mirror. I think we're done here. There is no further need for you to write back to me, unless it is a tearful apology. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've brought the situation up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disturbing edit summaries by User:Dumrovii.2C possible sock case, if you want to comment there. VegaDark (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that will be for deciding at the AN/I discussion. I wouldn't oppose it given the evidence. VegaDark (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Don't feed the trolls, man... maybe you're getting a kick out of your own personal snideness, but it's definitely not going to help matters. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, Erik. I'll add a comment on the AN/I posting, but the postings I made in response prolly fed the trollish behavior. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have not the time or energy to listen to your complaints about your automobile accidents and oral herpes. I do not what you think or what you write. I take you not a shred seriously and since I have no respect for you and your griping about how you can tell other people to do things for you, I won't listen to your banter. At least until you mature somewhat. Parable1991 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, yes. Erik, you were most certainly right. This fellow is doing quite enough to get himself removed forever. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Didn't say that. :-P He's just not worth responding to, as it only encourages him. Hopefully he (and you, pal) can learn not to start up pissing contests down the road. :) Not totally out of the realm of possibility, in my overly optimistic opinion... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Show/hide

There are several problems with using show/hide in an article. One BIG problem is that people using certain scripting in their browsers can't make the show option work at all. Ah, well. I will commend, though, for a really clever idea. Doczilla RAWR! 08:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dreamguy

Quite right, and not before time. Jack1956 (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability question

The best answer I can find is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Red links which states: A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link. There is no need to brainstorm all occurrences of the page title and create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics. (My emphasis). I think that answers your question, in that yes, it seems notability does apply to dab pages. There's more about adding links to redlinks in the section, so you might want to read it all, but the broad thrust is most certainly that items deemed of insufficient notability can be removed. You might also want to raise the issue with Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, they'd likely know more than me. Hope that helps. Hiding T 17:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • No problem, you're very welcome. Hiding T 17:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice

comment. :) -Hap Happyme22 (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL. And if he brings one with anchovies or pineapple, he's out of the club. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Persian gulf mediation

All I did was to change the box format to the coffee-roll standard. I've got nothing to do with the mediation request. Incidentally I'm updating the main template now - do you have a cabal-related image you'd like put onto the new notice? Happy‑melon 17:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, is there any reason why the template has to be substituted? It does make rather a mess of talk page wikicode. Happy‑melon 17:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Him again

Check this: It's the Kodster!, and this: Sexybabe10. I think they're both the same. Sorry and all that...--andreasegde (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Him again

Check this: It's the Kodster!, and this: Sexybabe10. I think they're both the same. Only been on three days. Sorry and all that...--andreasegde (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Page blanking

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I am Tony Sidaway (see this edit for confirmation). I don't want to get involved in the disambiguation issue you raised at the moment, but I'm continually monitoring the situation. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

re: hi

everything is fine i just havent been on much, thanks! SJMNY (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

Do not bother posting all the same nonsense you've said in the past to my talk page, as I will just remove it. At no point have you ever demonstrated an accurate understanding of Wikipedia policies, actual knowledge about the topics of articles you insist upon blind reverting whenever I make even the most unobjectionable change, or even a true willingness to work with anyone, so there is no reason for you to post to my talk page. You have nothing of any value to say, and insisting upon posting there even after it has been made clear to you months ago that doing so was pointless is nothing but continued harassment. Please demonstrate some good faith for once in your Wikipedia history and stop your nonsense. DreamGuy (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Awww, I think the little guy likes me. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Funny how he asks for good faith, isn't it? --clpo13(talk) 21:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Funny how both of you are acting all high and mighty about this. No matter the past transgressions from any parties involved, I highly recommend focusing on editing and saving the quips for amicable exchanges, lest you want to be painted as uncivil and cocky down the road. Wikipedia's not the place to play Internet tough guy, so just acknowledge the other side and move on. My $0.02, if you'll have it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
DG has a history of ignoring calls for consensus and pushing his own view of how an article should read. --clpo13(talk) 21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I know, that's why I mentioned "past transgressions". Does that truly give you the right to make snide remarks? DG made a specific request, so unless he's doing something wrong at the moment, abide by it and refrain from being clever, that's all I'm suggesting. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Point made, Erik, but as Cipo pointed out his transgressions aren't remaining in the past. However, your point remains valid in the more important ways of not sinking to the level of that which we are taking issue with. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the distant past, either. :) Even if someone fouls up five minutes ago, we have a system to deal with these foul-ups. Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't exactly structured for gloating without fear of reprisal. Every little thing gets picked up, as you may have noticed from others contesting you, Arc. I don't want to act holier-than-thou as I'm not so innocent of ragging on another editor's lousy conduct, either, but I try to move on. In any case, though, I don't mean to stretch out the discussion, as I hope I've made my point. You have a good wit about you, pal, but it's just a matter of keeping it in check when the situation calls for it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I consider myself appropriately counseled, and I will try to act on it. Thanks, Erik. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I truly hope Arcayne will never lose his sense of humour (or be forced to limit it in any way) as his comments always make me laugh out loud. Wikipedia needs more humour, as it has enough of Sam the Eagle-type frowning patricians. My name is --andreasegde (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC) and I approve this message. Now, who wants to talk about politics without mentioning the word change?

Stay off the JTR page. Only DG knows what he's doing there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.102.172 (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

300 (film)

Regarding the minor edits:

Apologies, I only changed a few words, and felt that the edits were minor enough. I'll reserve the Minor Edit tag for spellchecking and grammer in the future.

Imacphee (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-14 Persian Gulf

It seems the main issue at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-14 Persian Gulf was never resolved. In this edit, you said you would provide a source to refute the quote from Gary Sick. It seems you did not do this at the Med Cabal page, so I request that you restart discussion by continuing where you left off, by introducing your refutation source. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 03:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good grief

I believe that our guitar-playing friend has many, many (a lot of) accounts, and has been using them for some time. It's not a problem, as anti-vandal editors have been stopping it so far, and maybe we should just "Let It Be", as it's not that dangerous. The person involved must have access to a lot of computers. Oh well...--andreasegde (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Humour

"His attitude would have him scrambling all over the street picking up his teeth like chicklets". This is so good I suspect you are a writer, and if you are not, you should be. Brilliant stuff. :) --andreasegde (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Awww, I think the little guy likes me", made me laugh so much. What a great put-down, without it being one, and being extremely funny at the same time. BTW, don't thank me, just keep on keeping on, as someone once said to someone...--andreasegde (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday and Today

Yesterday and Today has been nominated for a GA. I wonder why it has been nominated without any talk about it. Have a look at the talk page.--andreasegde (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Vick

Vick was basically a fringe element of two or so episodes. The only episode that focused on him was after he had already been destroyed. He just isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion amount the ranks of Arnold, the T-1000, the T-X, etc. Cameron is in every episode. I believe Cromartie is in almost every episode, although I'm pretty sure there are one or two that he is not. We aren't including the terminator Carter, who appeared in one episode. So, that's why I did it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Watch it on Talk:Persian Gulf. Comments like this are not acceptable. Also, please do not insinuate that AlexanderPar is attacking you. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bringing you up was entirely relevant. Proposal #5 is the issue at hand, and you were one of the editors who opposed it. AlexanderPar did not say anything personal about you; he was referring to your actions with mediation, which is relevant. He even suggested you go back to mediation and point out the problems with proposal #5, just like you said you would two months ago. There are no personal attacks here. In the cited diff above, you acted snidely with your edit summary "jjez, read a book, wouldja?" and comment that you would bitch-slap him. Please read the relevant policies: WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. There was clearly no violation of policy on AlexanderPar's part. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Singled out for comment? The whole mediation process came to a standstill after you didn't post your refutation of proposal #5 on the mediation page. The discussion will of course center around your actions/attitudes toward the particular issue (AlexanderPar first brought up your edit and proposal #5; both issues relate to you). There are no attacks in doing that. Once again, read WP:NPA. Learn what a personal attack is before classifying any comment made about you as an attack. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I only pointed out that all edits to the mediation page essentially stopped after you commented that you would post evidence refuting a claim. Such action never occurred, and discussion stopped. I see these two events as being related to one another. Furthermore, I never stated that the issues in the article or the failure of mediation resulted from your actions. You had made an edit after I unprotected the article, and that was brought up by AlexanderPar on the article talk page. As for your comment regarding NPA, I just want to say that I was made an administrator because I have knowledge of policy and I know how to properly apply it. In my tenure as an editor, I have gained more experience, and I am well-versed in many policies. My overall experiences as an editor of Wikipedia, not my adminship, have made me very knowledgeable of policy. From this, I can determine that AlexanderPar's comments were in check with our NPA policy. There is an issue of commenting on content, rather than users, but doing so does not constitute an attack. Also, if you see the policy, you might find an interesting relevant tidbit: Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not take your comment about the mop as an attack. I get that frequently, so I don't think much of it. I didn't plan to respond to that comment originally, but I felt that I needed to clear things up. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

Back to you, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipbip (talk • contribs) 20:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

Well, according to this, it looks like he's willing to start the mediation again. If he changes his mind or something goes wrong, let me know. Khoikhoi 03:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Reply to offer

I got your message about twenty minutes ago, I was on the phone to one of my professors who may have something growing on his liver that could be a killer. Have to tell you, has me nervous. He's already been through several cancer scares. This is getting too much. Hope to hear again from you bro or sis, whichever you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.154.131 (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hermione Granger

Hi, I noticed that you added back the category to her page. You probably didn't know that (as the creator of the category) I was the first one to add her to that category on March 7. The next day Beemer69 removed it, and I didn't add it back because I knew I was stretching it when I added her in the first place, her being one of the oldest ones in the category. Then in the CfD faithless pointed out to me that someone else added it back. He said he thought she didn't belong in the category because she was 37 by the end of the series which I didn't know at first, so I removed it again. That's when you reverted me. It's not a big deal, but I'm not going remove it again because I know that different people have different opinions of who belongs in this category. That is one of the problems I'm having at the CfD. As the creator of the category, I'd like to see it stay of course but so far I am still in the minority. For An Angel (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with For An Angel, and I think it's going to have to stay that way: NOT A FICTIONAL LITTLE GIRL. She ends the series as a 37-year-old, which is an adult age, mind you, most certainly not a child's age. Thanks. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 04:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but the category was meant to be used for characters who were best known for being in their little girl form. For example Pebbles Flintstone has appeared as a teenager and adult in various spinoffs of The Flintstones but she still belongs in the category because she is best known for being the baby from the show. There's going to be cases where it's open to interpretation of course like in Hermione's case. However, since she was an adult only in the epilogue of the last book it's not unreasonable to see why some people think this is a valid category for her.
PS: By screaming "No edit wars!" after reverting someone is not only ironic but it doesn't automatically give you the right to keep your version of the article. You could have come here to discuss the conflict before reverting. For An Angel (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's all calm down, head over the HG discussion page and iron this out, okay? :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No Hard Feelings

Hi, I think my proposal (we can fix it up more) is the best on the issue. Obviously, if later on you find a scholar that actually and explicitly contradicts Bosworth, Sick and etc. (that is they explicitly say that the name was not political and it was used prior to the 20th century by the Arab world and here are the Arabic texts), then we can move that wording to later on section. I await your good faith :) --alidoostzadeh (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

JtR image

Sorry to butt in uninvited, but is this what you are looking for?[9] 17:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, not sorry to butt in, but if you are going to discuss things related to the Ripper article, you should do so on the Ripper article talk page. The image in question is not about Jack the Ripper, it's about the Whitechapel Vigilance Society. If you'd ask in the right place you'd have people who would be in a position to know to answer it. And you should know by now that Colin is one of the worst people to ask these sorts of things... well, at least you would if you knew enough about the topic to know his lack of knowledge on the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, DG didn't post the link to the image. I did but forgot to sign my name. Jack1956 (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Original image dates from 1888, so is copyright free. Jack1956 (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

Sure, no problem. It looks like you're going about it right, if the people involved don't respond, I'd recommend dispute resolution. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I hope it doesn't come to that. Hopefully some WP:TEA will help, and everything will be sorted. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hi - since you've approached User:Orangemarlin about your dispute and he's archived your conversation, you can consider it read. Leaving null edits with edit summaries continuing to advance your side of the dispute ([10]) is not constructive. I'd suggest either moving on or pursuing some of the other steps in the dispute resolution pathway, but continuing to argue your case on a user's talk page after he's archived the discussion is uncivil. MastCell Talk 18:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ostap R's user page

The userpage in question is a violation of WP:SOAP and most likely WP:POINT. Where is the policy that states removing policy/guideline violations from userpages is a personal attack? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, how about here? Specifically, that part about "threats of (or) vandalism to userpages or talk pages". Additionally, what you replaced the removed text with was not of the user's creation, and the phrase, "On Wikipedia, ignorance is strength" was not meant to educate the user but instead as a dig. Most uncool. Hence, my comment. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I still don't understand how what I did was a personal attack. Removing policy violations is not a personal attack, is NEVER vandalism, and is practiced with great regularity inasmuch as people use their userpages to make points or to soapbox. As for whether he likes what I reverted his page to, that's not my concern. My only concern was to remove the violations of WP:SOAP and WP:POINT. If he'd like to change his userpage to something he likes that does not violate policy, he's welcome to do so but ediors may not use their userpages as a soapbox. I see he's removed the violations himself, which is very nice and shows that he's happy to follow the rules. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Please, its blank now. Lets end this. Ostap 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Arcayne, replying to your question on my talk page. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I was still typing when you came by. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

apology

Sorry if I was less than civil earlier. Ostap 20:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandals

For some reason, a notice wasn't provided for the indefinite ban. You can go to a user's contribs and click "block log" at the top -- it shows that the user's been indefinitely banned. There just isn't a message on the user/talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I do wonder about the psychology of these vandals. Are they not under the impression that their acts are a rollback away? It bores me, really -- waving away flies until someone comes by with the swatter. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Just a tip, but if you feel that he's violated his ArbCom sanctions, you'll probably get better results by posting a clear report at WP:AE. Link to the case, cite the sanction he's violating, give some recent egregious diffs, and you'll probably get a fairly rapid response. --Elonka 03:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He is on very strict sanctions about civility and assuming good faith. Based on my own look at his contribs, he's been violating that pretty regularly. Just pull together some diffs, you should have plenty to choose from. --Elonka 04:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup

I suspected that was the case. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reagan

Sorry about not inserting the change of "go further", but I thought you were talking about the first sentence of the second paragraph in the section. I guess two sentences are better off now. Happyme22 (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Err, exactly where? Happyme22 (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hey it is me Broncofreak12321 i lost my pass. so if you ever want to get a hold of me my name's now Dursely User: Dursely

Vigilance Committee image

Thanks for that. It was uploaded to the JTR talk page so that people can see it for themselves in all its glory. Jack1956 (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Happy" Easter to you too

One of these days I'm going to be the first one to wish you a happy holiday (and if I had some sort of photo to place here, I certainly would!). Thanks for all your help with everything. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"volunteering"

Hi Arcayne,

I think you're overinterpreting my post; nothing I said should be construed as a commitment to monitor DreamGuy's behavior in the future. You are, of course, welcome to bring any future incidents to my attention. In such an event, I will take the behavior of all parties into account, as I have in this situation. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam edit on Ibiza

Checking the link, it's really nothing more than a advertising site, and coming from an IP with no other edits, it made me scratch my head. WP:EL tends to be rather strict on this. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Good Humor
I award this to Arcayne, who has made light of many stressful situations with his good humor and upbeat attitude. Keep up the great work, Happyme22 (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thanks ever so much for the barnstar - I truly appreciate it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You deserve it; your humor is occasionally overshadowed by your tough-talk attitude :) --Happyme22 (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey AC!

At the risk of offending you, I would like to talk about the HP disambig page. I have respect for your edits and contributions, but I believe that you might be off the mark on this one. At any rate, let me know if this is something you can have an open mind on, because if not, the low priority of the subject is just not worth a real argument over. Let me know and thanks, R. Baley (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

ha. . . "offend" was a poor word choice on my part (as was "argument" now that I look over my comment). R. Baley (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts on the HP disambiguation page (bear with me, I written out a few things):
  • I've been looking at the HP disamb page and the article traffic statistics for a couple of the associated articles. Basically, my thoughts are that disambig pages are there for navigational purposes for the reader (in the guideline it says, "When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?) much like section headers or internal wikilinks. Whatever all of the other various rules associated with Dab formatting and the like, the primary purpose is to help a reader find the page they want with as little trouble on their part as is reasonably possible.
  • For people who enter "HP" in the search box, the page is viewed about 800 times/day (link). Of those 800, about 50 per day (not wishing to know about Hewlett-Packard) end up at the HP disambiguation page (link) (All numbers are for February). Now I don't know if any of those 50 people are trying to find Harry Potter, and I can't imagine that if they are, they can't figure out how to type it out to get there. But as the page is mainly intended to facilitate website navigation, the Harry Potter page should be there, in my estimation, as a clickable option.
  • I really don't want to get sucked up into a debate on the issue, as ultimately it's fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things. But it seems that this is going to be a never ending mini-battle, as people keep ending up at that page and trying to add it. I've been trying to look at it as objectively as possible, and I really can't remember seeing such a high threshold for inclusion on a disambig page before (though I have seen debates over positioning, order, formatting, etc.). Anyway, that's my view on it, I thought I would talk to you about it to see if you would reconsider your position on including the link. Best, R. Baley (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I am impressed with your statistical analysis of the navigational hits on HP and HP_disambiguation. That said, I was wondering how you arrived at the conclusion that "of those 800, about 50 per day (not wishing to know about Hewlett-Packard) end up at the HP disambiguation page ". Forgive my ignorance of this particular statistical analysis, R. Not that I am thinking you are meaning to do so, we are both aware of statistical bias, and your common sensical approach of 'people keep adding it, so why not have it?' might be - to you - what is indicated by the page stats.
My main issue with HP being used as a dab term for Harry Potter is that aside from a small number of headlines in newspapers (to conserve space and ink costs) and fan forums, it is never considered as such. When the segment using the term is (in the words of Jimbo)
"extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not" 1
We don't cater to Harry Potter fans, or Republicans, or the Green Party or to Ripperologists. I think the reason why it goes back and forth is that new users come to WP all the time, and many of them are young and have read the series. Its more an issue of people, after using the forums where the term used (alongside 'ship' to denote relationships) than that of an inernet phenomenon or a meme in development.
We stay neutral, and including a non-notable acronym term that is used only by a minor segment of the literate population of the English-speaking world isn't neutral. Removing it as it comes up is likely never-ending, much like the removal of cruft and vandalism. I am not saying that the mostly anon users that add it are doing dso in bad-faith, but they are new enough to the Project to be unaware of the undue weight portion of the neutrality rules.
You know, I am not sure if I ever crystallized my views on the topic before as much as I have now. I owe that to you, R, and I appreciate the catalystic input. I think that if JKR (itself dab'd as it appears in almost every newspaper at some point) wrote a book entitled "HP and the [insert clever yet otherworldly name here]", we would have sufficient reason to include it. So far, there isn't. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The 50 out of 800 is basically a deduction. The stats tool showed that the HP page is viewed 800 times per day. When "HP" is typed into the search box, that takes you to the Hewlett-packard page when you press "Go". I'm guessing that most of the people who end up at the HP disambig page are getting there from the link at the top of the HewlettPackard page (though it is possible to get there from the links at the top of other articles, it's less likely, because typing in "HP" doesn't take you to those other articles). R. Baley (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, just checked for capitalization, some of those hits to the dab page could be coming from the horsepower page, as typing in "hp" takes you there -not the hewlettpackard page. It appears the statistics tool, while useful, does not differentiate between "HP" and "hp" and "Hp". R. Baley (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but we don't know what they are looking for on the dab page, once they are there, as you just pointed out. Any guess is kinda supposition , as the stat tool is a bit inexact towards that end. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Okay, what's up?

Ask Abtract. I have no idea why (s)he continues to battle with me while failing to assume good faith. Not to mention stalks me, invents lies, makes insults, etc. I don't know how much longer I can go on with this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe Abtract can get off without a ban for saying things like this. It's exactly this behaviour which irritates me to death, including the level of ignorance. What to do? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks man. I have read the posts, but bare in mind that I'm not the one who instigates the fight. And though I often try to reason with the editor, civilly if I might add, all I get is things like accusations of personal attacks, insensitivity and borderline taunts. And it's really hard trying to avoid this guy, since many of the dab pages I tag for cleanup are "fixed" by this particular editor, then the controversy triggers, not by me though. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Superfriends?

Oh man, don't get me started. We have a 'older cartoon' network that features this and I'm getting a faceful of how lame that show was. Just for starters there was Aquaman, the 'token useless superhero' who they bring with them to show how much better the others were (In one episode they bring him along to the desert. The desert. Because a guy who can breathe underwater and talk to fish is gonna be all sorts of use in a place that has neither...), and Zan and Jayna (okay, Jayna can turn into all sorts of creatures. That's cool, but the best Zan can do is various formas of water? Ooh.).

And don't even get me started on that damn monkey. HalfShadow (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Post on my page

Apologies if I offended you Arcayne. I have the greatest respect for you as an editor and meant my jibe in good humour. Clearly it didn't come across the way I had intended. The "sweetie" (not sweetheart by the way) thing was intended to make the post sound less (if at all) threatening. Again my apologies. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm flattered that you were impressed by my edit history. No you've never pissed me off Arcayne. I've always admired you albeit at a distance because you seem to be at my intellectual level (well, almost) I have so few worthy opponents, I always miss them when they're gone. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice of Pending Action RE: User:Arcayne

A Wikiquette_Alerts section has been opened regarding User:Arcayne. Interested Wiki Editors may add comments here:[11]05:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

CoM comment

I’m behind a couple days and trying to catch up… I’ll reply to the last part of your CoM talk page post to me here since I don’t want to clog up the article talk page, particularly since the heat on that page seems to have cooled thankfully. I wasn’t sure what your assumptions about my feelings meant, you can explain more if you like, but regarding my attempted intercession months ago to help improve interaction that we began behind the scenes and that fell by the wayside, I apologize for dropping off…I got busy with life, the crisis between you and Viriditas seemed to pass, and the whole thing sort of lost momentum. I also began to feel I may have overestimated my ability to help (I have a certain general way of looking at things that not everyone can relate to) and wasn’t sure you were really still interested. Let me know whether you think it would be helpful to pick it up again. I’m still willing to help in whatever capacity I can. You can just reply here or email me if you wish. --MPerel 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

EU=NGO

Hi just so you know, anon editor:75.58.54.151 has lifted your statement that the EU is an NGO from Talk:Fitna_(film) and posted it (including your signature) on both talk:European_Union and talk:Non-governmental_organization. Arnoutf (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Just trying to make sure I'm write on that, its always safer to check witht the experts when an expert states a fact so confidently. Thanks.21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.54.151 (talk • contribs)

Flag issue reported

I have reported the Flag discussion to WP:WQA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapowow (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Matter concluded with warning to the issuing contributor, and RfCU filed on a likely sock.
I'm sorry, but this matter has yet to be concluded by a simple warning issued against me for calling you a bad name; nor has the sock issue vindicated you, as it is undeniable that me and 75.57.165.180 are different editors. Kapowow (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reagan concern

Actually, I reverted his edit twice, and then made another edit that had nothing to do with the prior two. So technically I didn't violate anything, but came close. And smart thinking about the email; I'll do it right now! -Happyme22 (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, harassment charges..... wow. Anyway, thanks for trying to do something, and I'm sorry that you were wrongfully accused in the process. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Harassment Actually a bizarre post

I consider your 'contact' and mischaracterisation of my edits to be a form of harassment. I'd like to ask you to not contact me further, on any matter whatsoever, in any way shape or form. Thanks.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, you mean this post?
Reagan edits
As per your repeated (1, 2, 3) edits in Reagan, I was wondering where in the proffered citation was the text:
As with many actors, they were always a superstitious couple, and she consulted atleast one astrologer and adjusted his presidential schedule to try to ensure that he was not harmed again.1
I looked through the reference, and did not find the statements which you ascribed to the reference. As the wording seemed pretty discriminatory, could I trouble you to re-phrase the statement before re-adding it?1
I am curious as to how my contacting you regarding a misquoting of a citation to be harassment. As for contacting you, I would like to remind you that you do not own even your own user and user talk page. Whenever a situation arises with your edits in an article I am involved in, you will get message about it. If you have an issue with this, I strongly suggest you contact an admin and discuss the nature of user and user talk pages, as well as the proper definitions of harassment or civility. Consider my short note of enquiry far better than say, a complaint filed at an admin board. As I am not being uncivil or harassing (contacting you once is not harassment, btw) in contacting you regarding a potentially embarrassing problem that you find yourself in (ie, misrepresenting a source in a Featured Article and then edit-warring about it), I would wonder why you would send such a message to me. The next time you characterize an innocent edit as harassment, I will report you, out of simple protection to the community. Good day. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Your intent to, and further example of harassment has been noted.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Yet another satisfied customer of the American Egocentrism system of Self-Education. Moving on... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Laughing

Sorry, I can't help it. Cheerio Tvoz |talk 08:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh- I stumbled upon a really long and convoluted appraisal of your social skills somewhere and thought, oh yeah, that's our Arky. Laughing only with the greatest respect, of course. (And I hate those little colorful buggers too.) Tvoz |talk 14:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, that's where I saw it. I find that page to often be a great source for late-night entertaining reading, and I wasn't disappointed last night. Tvoz |talk 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm once again amazed at the energy expended over minutiae. Tvoz |talk 15:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Well I was thinking of the "beat on each other", "dick" and "don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining" ones (and the last one may well get an airing from me in future, but not on WIkipedia!). I agree that they aren't exceptionally strong, but when faced with an editor such as the one who posted the Wikiquette about you it is often a lot easier in the long run if you maintain the high moral ground and leave them to howl at the moon. The best way to deal with an aggressive but incorrect editor is to use as few words as possible, and make sure that they are all backed up. That way, when the admins (inevitably, in this case I think) get involved, your position is easily understood, an their's is the rambling, incoherent rant. Pyrope 15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have raised the issue on an admin page and they will doubtless take a look soon Take a breather for now, I think you have both expressed your viewpoints adequately already, across a number of talk pages. I think what you are seeing as multiple socks are actually the product of a dynamic IP, and the user concerned has not denied that they are one and the same. It is deeply odd that someone so obviously experienced chooses to operate as an anon IP, it is also very strange that they are so vindictive as regards whipping up support for their point of view on the Wikiquette discussion. And if you are reading this Mr/Mrs Anon IP 75...whatever, your posts themselves may well have bee neutral, but your choice of who to notify certainly wasn't. Anyway, time for you to sit back and wait to see what happens with the checkuser request. Pyrope 15:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Did so, and lo an behold, Buddha provided.
That's not a checkuser result, that's just a WHOIS enquiry. I'm not sure that you listed correctly btw (Case should have gone under the account name, with the IP addresses as the socks), and the admins are absolute sticklers for proper formatting. It doesn't appear to have been transcluded to the main page yet. You may want to contact an admin (try the one who performed the WHOIS) to check its status. Pyrope 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The problem is, if it is a simple case of running WHOIS on a series of IPs that is a very different prospect to a full-blown checkuser. Anyone ca do a WHOIS check, only admins can do checkuser, and it takes quite a while. I still reckon that you should contact an admin for advice. Take a look at the activity on the checkuser main page and pick an admin who seems to run a lot of checks, they will know the score. Pyrope 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that s/he doesn't have the admin bottons needed for checkuser, so try another one. As far as staying calm goes, been there, done that, learned the hard way. I even resigned from Wikipedia for two months over one dispute, just to lower my blood pressure. The best trick is to write out your initial response as you would normally, be as sarcastic and abusive as you like, and then instead of hitting "Save page" hit the Wikipedia globe. Choose an article on the main page. Read it. Then go back to the previous comment. It is surprisingly hard to be unreasonable a second time round; by that time you have got the frustration out of your system on the first (aborted) reply, and are able to put things in a much more reasonable, neutral tone. Pyrope 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If that was a £10'er, you certainly got yer money's worth .... I've come to complain about this dead parrot ... what do you mean it's a cheese shop? I tried to read some of it, but fell asleep half way thru' ... exeunt producing 'flags of all nations' from seeming empty breast pocket. Best wishes. Kbthompson (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Aye (he said with a grin as he wiped off his chin). Wench! More souls! I hunger!- Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pyrope seems rather pally with Arcayne. Kapowow (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the posts better, sock-puppet. I was responding to someone else. It must be odd to see two people actually conversing without the use of sock-puppetry. Maybe you could go away now. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

the book never won the a pulitzer, it was allegedly ( i doubt that as well) nominated, but never won. also, even if it had won, there is no point in mentioning it, the page is not an advertisement for betty mahmoodi. (—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdo777 (talk • contribs) )

i respectfully disagree, you usually see -this and that- winner or nominated in movie posters and book advertisements, not in encyclopedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdo777 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorcerer's Stone reverts

I'd rather not, because to be quite honest I'd only get the typical "America needs to be in everything" kind of response. If you feel that America should be special from other countries that have retitled the book for their country then fine, be my guest. Because I really don't see why it has to be mentioned every single time, you might as well note every single title change to the book. Jammy (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the British publisher had nothing to do with it. J.K Rowling said in a confession that the reason for the name change was because Scholastic thought that American children might not find the book interesting as "..the Philosopher's Stone". And if it has to be mentioned in the first instance then I might as well remove the second instance it is mentioned in the article in question, which would've made more sense to have the fact the book is known in America as "Sorcerer's Stone" as the only time mentioned in the article. Jammy (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Scholastic and Bloomsbury are two different companies. And as for the times mentioned in the article, I've only removed two notes that the book was retitled in U.S. I will be keeping a eye out for when the book retitling has been mentioned more than once, and thanks for letting us sort this out in a reasonable debate. Jammy (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes that is what we are agreeing to. Jammy (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing citations

A editor once said "Utterly agree about citaitons in the Lead, but you cannot just remove them. If you are going to remove a citaiton in the Lead, you have to put it where it belongs in the body of the text. It isn't as if you were removing cruft or vandalism, so please act with more care when relocating citations, please." That would be you, counseling another editor against removing "HP" with citations from the intro of Harry Potter on 19:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC). -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it nice to know that an editor can mature and learn more about his working environment in just five months? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

You are mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Arcayne. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Ibiza tags

Believe it or not, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias should be readable. 49 fact tags (forty-nine!) make an article unreadable. That's why we have the {{unreferenced}} boilerplate. I am going to revert your edit, as you didn't actually give any kind of reason for reinserting 49 fact tags. I appreciate it would have taken you a while to splatter them across the article, but facts tags exist to aid improvement - tagging every sentence as unreferenced makes the article worse, and the general {{unreferenced}} tag achieves the same goal while keeping the article useful. Rather than keep adding fact tags or deleting content, perhaps you could try and find references and actually improve the article? Google is only a click away. Neıl ☎ 21:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a little common sense, pal. If we blindly removed all content on Wikipedia that has been uncited for some time, that would be a heck of a drop in KB. I think that the section template suffices, and Neil is right, the overload of citation-needed tags is rather grotesque. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
With respect, I gave Neil my reasoning in both his user talk page and inthe article discussion page. If he is for some reason unable to see that, then I can do no more than shrug. As for the adding of citations, I am the only one who has added any citations in the past three weeks. And Erik, if the kb drops, then so be it. Encyclopedias are not the place for uncited material; Neil might be confusing this for a forum. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you about uncited information, but it would be highly detrimental to remove it wholesale. It's not effective to attempt to run a tight ship in every single regard. Wikipedia is never going to be perfect, and I think it's a bit too harmful to trim as much fat as possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)In those articles where citation is likely to be found, if one but make an effort, swapping cn tags for a general one that doesn't indicate where the citation is needed is simply lazy. I think its worth noting that every person who has reverted out the cn tags hasn't bothered to add a single citation. That sort of shoving it under the rug behavior is deplorable. I don't play those reindeer games. If folk don't like the citation tags, then find the citation. It's not that hard to understand.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, consensus seems to say the boilerplate tags are the way to go. The only person agitating for every sentence to have a fact tag is yourself. You did indeed give your reasoning - as did I. It's only your opinion that your reasoning makes more sense than mine. I, equally, believe my reasoning to make more sense than you. As that would leave us at an impasse, I guess we have to look at what other interested parties have said. Erik, here, and everyone else on Talk:Ibiza, seem to think you're wrong. Please, do not continue to impose your own preferred version against consensus. You might be confusing this for Arcayneopedia. Additionally, removing uncited information is only really appropriate if it cannot be verified. Not when it is not presently verified. Neıl ☎ 21:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that was delightfully AGF of you, Neil. I noticed that while you have visited the article to bemoan all the citation needed tags (not fact tags, btw), you didn't actually add any citations. In fact, no one who has come there to complain about the effect of the tags has added a single citation. Why do you think that is? Some people would simply rather complain about living in a world of crap than be troubled to work a shovel. Do the work, and until you do so, please stop complaining about how I draw atention to the problem. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added six references. That is six times more than you have added. You are officially now not allowed to lecture me on worlds of crap until you have added at least five more references. And that is official. Neıl ☎ 22:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Lol! Well, don't let me stop you from adding more, Neil! Are you sure you are going to be able to find all that needs citation - since you seem adamant about not having the individual tags in place? And your count is a little off. I have added three citations. But no matter. If you can add six citations in such a short time, just imagine how many you could add if you spent even an hour on it? Imagine if everyone who complained aboutt he cn tags actually spent one hour finding cites for it instead? I am pretty sure there wouldn't even be a need for any tag. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Replied to your latest on my talk page. Neıl ☎ 23:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deleting dopplegangers

Hello. I'm deleting user pages for users that don't exist. (WP:CSD#U2) When you "created" these doppelganger accounts, you forgot one key step -- registering the accounts so no one else could. : - ) If the accounts are created, I can either restore the pages or you can simply re-create them. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcane is registered. User:Arcaney is not registered. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I've squared it away now. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On dynamic IPs

Just a note, because I think all this is a misunderstanding: some ISPs don't issue fixed IPs to their customers, they either give a short "lease" (typically 24 hours, but it can be less), or even use a new IP for every request (AOL does that). While this is unfortunate for us, this does not mean that the "anonymous" user is trying to avoid scrutiny. This is most probably out of his hands. -- lucasbfr talk 09:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. Either way, RfCU saw fit to give him another chance, and I am not going to gainsay Thatcher. The anon gets another chance. What he does with it will determine his fate. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I did not "get another chance". Your charge was baseless and a waste of Wiki resources. When following Thatchers advice as you state you will above do not also forget Thatchers request that you formally charge me at WP:AN/I if "If you've really got examples of one IP saying "should we do this" and then another IP saying "yes we should" as if they were different people," is good advice. I personally am tired of seeing you throw around false accusations. You formally accused me of the SPECIFIC charges of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks" without a single piece of evidence. Your abuse of peoples time and the judicial mechanisms must stop - this is not the first time you've done this. It's just the rare moment when someone took the time to call your bluff.75.57.165.180 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, sport, my comments on your user talk page (1, 2, 3, 4) have all been polite overtures to help you learn to work within Wikipedia. Clearly, you need to relax, spank your Inner Child, have a good cry over it or whatever. Your behavior has become tedious, and you are only serving to marginalize yourself. If you don't want to listen to me, listen to Avb, who has no great love for me. Two editors, giving you the same information should serve as a light bulb over your head that tells you that perhaps you should consider the advice you are being given. You are clearly intelligent: act that way.
Lastly, unless you are providing me with official notification or genuinely seek my counsel, I would appreciate you not coming to my user talk page to complain about me. I can pretty much guarantee that here at Arcayne's user talk page, the Complaint Department pretty much ignores complaints about the management. G forth and edit, little bird. Fly and be free. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

re.

I don't have a problem with it. Yahel Guhan 03:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR header

Hello Arcayne. Your recent 3RR report against JHunterJ needs to have 'ARTICLE NAME' filled in on the first line. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


This might interest you

You might be interested in this discussion, in which I was told that my comments were not wanted ("If I want your opinion, I'll ask for it"), and my posts were refactored numerous times. Sound familiar? I filed a complaint at AN/I about it, but it was basically ignored. Just FYI. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you want to read the discussion in the order it actually occured, before it was refactored, I've reconstructed it here Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think he got that quote wrong. I think it's "If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." If you're talking about the one I think you are (I'll call him the V-rocket since he seems to go ballastic frequently), all I can say is that for a guy who's been on here 3 1/2 years, he's still got a ways to go in the learning-to-get-along area, and might be working himself towards some kind of administrative sanction (again), but we'll see. How long ago did you file that ANI? I could add a couple of things to it, like being accused of making accusations of plagiarism, and being accused of wikistalking. It's true I went over the line suggesting sockpuppetry, but it sounds like he's good at leveling that charge himself. However, ANI might not be the right place, RFC might better. What I don't get is how friendly he prides himself on being toward newbies. If that's so, how long is it before he turns on them? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
At Arcayne's request, I'll refrain from further comment about this subject here, as it can only fan the flames. We've all had our run-ins with this guy, and we all know ways it can be dealt with if we choose to go that route. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Zombie computer?

Hey Mister 'I-Have-Insect-Porn-on-my-User-Talk-Page-&-You-Don't, I was wondering if I could ask what a zombie computer is, as noted in this edit. The anon had vandalized my page and, at first, I thought it was another anon with a very close IP address. Could the two be related? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See Open proxy for details. But to keep things simple relay websites that hides someone's true IP address. Considering http://75.125.166.19/ leads to a default installed of CentOS at the hosting company ThePlanet.com, I wouldn't be surprised if that server is relatively unmaintained and has been compromised as a result. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't you an admin?

Are you really not an admin? Do you really not even have rollback? Why?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I keep the oppose at RFA, already templated and handy - so it can hit the skids before the proposer posts .... 8^). In respect of recent additions consider the executive punishment withdrawn. It does look like someone might be truly, truly two stops short of Dagenham. Kbthompson (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Limey bastard. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (so no one freaks out, Kbt and I were joking)

Re: Protection

One of the first things I can teach you is that we don't pre-emptively protect pages, and since your user page hasn't had any recent vandalism, protecting looks unnecessary. If you want to learn about admin tasks, a good first step would be to read the stuff on Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list to be familiar with policies. VegaDark (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Name-calling

Who has been calling me names? Just Abtract? Otherwise, I am not aware of this. Please reply on your talk page, as I have watchlisted it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

'Twas User:Abstract, and I noted my issue with it. Name-calling isn't designed to resolve differences. If I called you a coprophytic feltch monkey, I would imagine that you would take exception to it. Not that Abstract called you that, but your tagging along with him is putting him on edge. Maybe give the little guy some space. If he cocks things up, there are other editors who will call him on it. Just a facet of the advice I gave him last night. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: HP

I don't think the use of an acronym in disambiguation has anything to do with notability of the acronym itself, but if you want non-fansite sources where HP is used as an acronym, this is a good place to start. Sceptre (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've demonstratively proved that it is abbreviated to HP (not common usage, but usage nonetheless)... You're welcome to create WikiProject Hewlett-Packard if you want. Sceptre (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a new strategy, R2: let the Wookiee win.  Randall Bart   Talk  21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Help, I don't know what you mean... is it something I did to an article somewhere? Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay. It's because when you copied and pasted the Ibiza article onto one of your own userpages (busywork), you also copied but forgot to disable all the metadata (categories/interwiki links) carried by the article. All that metadata relates to the article in the main body of the encyclopedia, not your copy of it on your userpage, so it should be disabled -- otherwise your userpage turns up in category listings (Ibiza, Islands of the Balaeric Islands, etc) and claims to have versions in all those other languages! Hope that makes sense. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup. It's the simplest method (the <pre>...</pre> tags) I've found so far that keeps the metadata in view but not affecting the main encyclopedia. If/when you paste the article back into the encyclopedia (or, at least, its External links section), just remove the tags. At last, something passed on. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What you called edit warring in Anti-Iranianism article

It may look bold but be fair, You single handedly had deleted everything you did not agree with. Things which were sourced and everyone agreed with. The simplest way to save the article was to revert all changes and then discuss each issue one by one. The discussion will follow. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC) First of all you began to insult me, when I was nice to you. NEVER AGAIN SAY YOU LOOK FOOLISH. OK? yes your edist were bad and having reviwed your edits it seemd that you had an agenda to let anti-Iranianism look less bad than it was. Things about the movie 30 should be deleted, the molestation of the Iranian shop keeper should be deleted, and despite the fact that there were so many examples and arguments to sustantiate the arguments you also questioned the truth in the sections on the Netherlands and Turkey. People like me have collected facts here and added to the text. It is indeed still a mess with regards to the text structure, but facts collected should stand. You can ask citation and I say I do not have problems with that, but if you delete the text so fundamentally, it will be very difficult TECHNICALLY to discuss things separately. As for the shop keeper: Iranians have a look. They look middle eastern and in addition Iranian shops have usually flags of Iran aor written as Iranian or Persian shop. It can happen that many rednecks would kill a sikh Indian for an al qaeda Arab, but this was not the case. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

At this time, the discussion on all parts is more in depth than I am comfortable dealing with. I am going to call in an Administrator to review the case and take the appropriate actions he deems necessary. Please hold further discussion until your contacted by an Administrator. Dustitalk to me 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Socks

Arcayne, just a heads-up...I think this may be related to your IP sockpuppet problem. Possibly a banned editor. Kelly hi! 21:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re. Fitna protection

You're welcome. Keep up the good work! Regards, Húsönd 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Catwoman edit summary

Really? Seems clear to me. Bernard Ferrell, in his edit, makes it clear that Finger and kane were working together. Without specific citation that Kane ONLY recieves credit by editorial decision, leaving two names there equally is more indicative of the creative process and of who was responsible. It's simple. ThuranX (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Procedural note: There is a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Arcayne which concerns you. You may wish to comment. - Philippe 22:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. You need to suppress your personal rhetoric when you get involved in disputes. It does not help you at all in these situations. Stuff like this is unacceptable no matter the circumstances. If someone needs to get blocked, report it thusly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I lost my cool there a bit. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ubbi dubbi

Thought you'd appreciate the link : ) - jc37 02:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I do, though I cannot remember where I used it recently. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I know about the link! LOL! I used in in a discussion recently, though I cannot recall for the life of me what it was about. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, Figured it out.
Btw, clean up this barnstar mess - what were you, raised in a cosmic nursery? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad you appreciated the link. As for the rest, thanks for your opinion : ) - jc37 04:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fitna

I get why it has spread to other boards. Please, do not spread it on to my talk page. AniMate 08:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. AniMate 08:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries. You are still welcome to address my comments in Talk:Fitna. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Never post on my user page again

As you kindly asked me to refrain from posting on your user page in the future, I would expect the same in return.

Never, ever, ever post on my user page again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapowow-on-holiday (talk • contribs) 12:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

possessed

Dorftrottel (ask) 17:22, April 16, 2008 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. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Your opinion please.

Arcayne, I have proposed a compromise directly on the talk page of Fitna (film). I know this compromise is not the ideal version for you, since you really want "productions" in the info box. However, I do think that if it is explained in the entry text, and even perhaps also with a footnote, then this isn't so big of an issue. At least with scare quotes its more apparent that we are not talking about a person with that name. Anyway while this debate rages no work can get done on the entry. Please come weigh in on the compromise suggestion. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pay to view sources

This has been discussed several times... but Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_24#Fee-based_source_citations is a good place to start. Blueboar (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your own actions?

I would like to ask you to consider your own actions in all of this. These citation requests have been removed by two separate editors on two separate occasions, and both times you have reverted to your preferred version of the page. You have conceded one point does not need citing, but have still added a citation tag to it, and you have added a citation tag to part of a sentence which is already cited. You may wish to consider whether your actions are being viewed by others as taking place in good faith or as being obstructionist. I note you have now removed citations provided. This is counter to policy and at this point I am unclear how to proceed. I apologise if you felt I was poking you. My intent was to provide the information as requested, which I once again have failed to do to your satisfaction. Hiding T 07:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As to WP:POINT, perhaps you would care to explain why you have removed the citations in this edit, [12]. I am at a loss as to how to proceed. I can find no part of policy where it is stated we should replace citations with cite needed tags. Hiding T 07:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • If you think I've been a jerk, then I apologise. However, I don't think your reversions help foster co-operation either, and in the same manner you have asked me to question my actions, as I have above I would ask you once again to question yours. Is there a need to revert edits to your preferred version? You may also need to think about keeping cool. You have twice reverted editors who have had the temerity to remove tags they viewed as being unnecessary, something they are allowed to do. Do you think your reversions encourage other editors to remove the tags, do you consider your actions to be in any way intimidating? Hiding T 18:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Would you mind if we clarified something? Did you read my reasons for removing the tags before you re-added them? 84.92.54.229 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry, became logged out for some reason, Hiding T 18:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:300 monster.poster03.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:300 monster.poster03.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Went to Fair Use to find out what the heck is going on. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hey, couldja explain this?

Hmm.. after reviewing everything and looking it over, I'm not comfortable with the close I made, and as a result relisted/reopened it. Wizardman 00:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a very tight call one way or the other, and I figure reopening it will make consensus clearer for the person who does close it. Wizardman 01:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Off-putting in 300 discussion

Apparently it's all been deleted. Basically you were telling stupid people who wanted 300 to be accurate history that they were stupid in no uncertain terms. Nothing really wrong with it except it just makes the tone of the page negative and harsh. Actually I notice you had toned it down as in your reponse to the guy that wanted to quibble over the frame-by-frame definition. I'm a flamer from way back, but I try to reserve it for people who are being rude rather than just stupid. But, it's just my opinion, so feel free to ignore. Sorry if the discussion page was the wrong place to comment.YAC (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Children of Men, etc.

If that other user would take off the blinders, he would see that I was trying to help him. In addition to making false charges against me, and generally behaving like a hothead, he told me to buzz off; so once I got an answer to the specific question I had, I have given him his wish. He can fight this battle till doomsday if he wants, and I'll just watch from the sidelines with some amusement. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I recall that you cautioned an admin about giving me rollback rights. I figured that was a fair caution, given that I can also be a hothead sometimes, but I think I'm generally a better user than I was a year ago. What I don't recall is what specific issue we might have had, or when. That may sound odd, but I try not to dwell on these things too much unless they get to be a real problem, like User:Tecmobowl was. And maybe we don't need to go there, or we could up with a scene right out of Duck Soup, where Groucho has forgotten what specific insult Trentino had leveled on him, and then manages to have Trentino repeat it and cause another scene. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It was over The Natural, this past winter. Notice I'm no longer obsessing over it, unlike V-guy and his pet articles. But I can't find where he accused me of puppetry. Can you point out the spot? Danke. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

MOS

Letting you know here as well. The MOS for films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On a treasure hunt? LOL. The brain damaged man was Christopher Nolan's Memento. The closest that I can think of displaying all the credits at the beginning would be one of the Monty Python movies. They used to display the credits in the beginning, but I don't that's modern enough for you. Got me on the other as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
More of a snipe hunt, I am thinking. Thanks. I went to take out the trash and the title came to me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably not the answer you're looking for, but Monty Python and the Holy Grail not only had all their credits at the beginning but turned the opening credits into an extended joke about moose and llama and so on. Of course, they had to, because the film ended abruptly. I'm guessing you already knew that. :) As suggested above, it used to be that the opening credits contained most of the info, although they were fairly snappy. The ending credits were usually just a quick reprise of the lead players and their parts, over a quick reprise of a tune from the film. (Trivia: Do you recall what tune played over the closing credits of It's a Wonderful Life?) This began to seriously change in the late 60s and early 70s, possibly at the insistence of unions, though I'm not sure. I don't know what the record is, but I would think Superman (1978 film) is among the leaders. The opening credits were outlandish enough, and the closing credits just went on and on, even referring to deleted scenes (there was no Concorde scene retained in the film). It went so long they had to play two different songs to pad out the track. Someone remarked to me at that time that they even had credits for the guys who went for coffee and donuts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And the boy gets a cigar! Yes, the bouncy number Buffalo Gals (which refers to their city, not their appearance, The Far Side joke notwithstanding) was used early in the film and was also played over the closing credits, such as they were - one or two screens worth. And if I recall correctly, in the final scene the group was singing Hark, the Herald Tribune, er, Angels Sing, accompanied by piano, and then seguéd to Auld Lang Syne, in which we got to hear the reason why Jimmy Stewart didn't pursue a full-time singing career. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Donna Reed, eh? Well, she always played a sweet sort of lady. I like a feistier sort, like Phyllis Coates. Or Betty Boop. However, although the years were not kind to her in the long run, probably the most beautiful woman that ever walked this earth (or at least got photographed) was Ingrid Bergman in her prime. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's always a matter of personal preference, there's no right or wrong. I don't know Diane Lane too well. Lauren Bacall was OK, but she was "spoken for" by somebody you didn't want to mess with. :) Ah, but Grace Kelly, now you're talkin'. She had astounding screen-presence. If you didn't already know she eventually married into royalty, after seeing her on-screen it wouldn't have come as a surprise, as she had that bearing naturally: blonde, beautiful, intelligent... Like an adult version or parallel-universe version of Marilyn Monroe. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the Kirk problem for you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked at what you did in the DIFF and then I looked at the page and knew immediately that there was a stray <ref> code somewhere in the lead. I just had to find it. Finally I saw it sitting there in the middle of a sentence, so I removed it, and the rest is history.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf

The edits appear to be violations of WP:SOAP, and there is concern that they also may be sockpuppets of one another. In my opinion, perhaps not User:Lebanese heart, but the other two have substantially similar edits. I am adding more diffs to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Abdullah bahajri, and I invite you to comment, confirm, or contradict (sorry, I have a weakness for alliteration) any of the information there. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, WP:RFCU's are only to be used if there may be policy violations other than the sockpuppetry itself. Please see the introduction to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Thank you, and thanks for commenting on the issue. -- Avi (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Even if they are reasoned, I think they fall afoul of WP:SOAP. It is almost as if the editors(s) are trying to get the article into talk space, which shouldn't be done. If anything, they should userfy the information and discuss the points of contention in the talk page. -- Avi (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
And further, I do not believe the arguments are supported by verifiable and reliable sources, and thus, no matter how finely crafted, would be inadmissable under the prohibition against original research or synthesis. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it seems that he was a sock. However, I am not convinced that his post on the Persian Gulf article was a violation of WP:SOAP. It may be appropriate to point out that I fundamentally disagree with that editor about the validity of the term Arabian Gulf. The term Arabian Gulf, in my humble opinion, is not the correct name of the Persian Gulf. Despite this, the editor carefully constructed an argument that supports my opinion that the Arabian Gulf should be mentioned in the lead since it is used by many people, legitimately or not. The accusation of soapboxing has been levying against the user erroneously. Although the editor posted provocative revisionist claims (which I strongly disagree with) about the history and demographics of the Persian Gulf, it was not soapboxing. The claims fit neatly into his argument. For instance, his statement "Therefore, that gulf should be named by those people who live around it and they are Arabs (Pure Arabs) in both sides (Population of Arab people in Ahwaz is more than 9 Millions) also its a part of the Arabian Peninsula" attempt to legitimize the term Arabian Gulf by arguing (though incorrectly) that the coast of the Persian Gulf is inhabited by Arabs. His claim that the Iranian coast line is inhabited only by "Pure Arabs" attempts to support his argument. I believe this is quite different than arbitrarily posting pro-Arab revisionist claims about Iranian territory on the talk page (which would be soapboxing). In any case, his attempt to support his argument in this fashion is very weak. We should look at the other parts of his argument which are enlightening and strong. He cites many European scholars who used the term Arabian Gulf--a strong refutation of the assertion that the term Arabian Gulf is confined to Arab states. Can we focus on those parts of his post instead of his fringe views about claims of "Arabistan"?--Agha Nader (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Soap-box

Just look at the gallery of the links at the bottom of his post, he's advocating the websites of a bunch of fringe terrorist organizations. --Sia34 (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm NO, the only other user whose posts may come even close to this user is Pejman azdi, and his posts have been removed on several occasions as well, and nobody takes him serious in the PG discussions anyways. --Sia34 (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

History of the term Iranian

Elton suggests that Cyrus used the term Iran. I have also encountered some sources that say his subjects, including Persians and Medes, referred to themselves as Iranians. From my understanding it is accurate to call the people who lived in the territory of modern-day Iran during the Achaemanid Dynasty Iranian. I consulted a student on this matter and the student disagreed with me. However, I have not found contrary evidence in the form of a written source.--Agha Nader (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

re: soapboxing

Well, I mainly reverted it because it was a comment by a (proven) sockpupet, and thus comments by socks are to be reverted. By keeping his/her comments, we are in encouraging them to continue editing Wikipedia. Even if the comments were completely accurate, they are still to be removed according to Wikipedia policy. Restoring socks edits in part or in whole (in this case comments by what is apparently a banned user) are in fact a blockable offense, as it's against wiki policy as well. Khoikhoi 03:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"take complete responsibility for the content by so doing" does not mean that one is allowed to restore/reinstate edits by a banned user, it means responsibility for the consequences of restoring such edits/comments - which is a block in most cases. See Wikipedia:Banning policy#Editing on behalf of banned users. It's not kosher to restore the edits of these socks after cleaning them up. Khoikhoi 07:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The rules are clear that reinstating edits by banned users are not permitted. By doing so you take full responsibility and that responsibility includes consequences for reinstating edits by a banned user. The whole point of reverting banned users is to discourage them from coming back, by "cleaning up" their posts, you are proxying for them. Khoikhoi 00:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Sorry to take a while in replying, I was out of the country. The link you left in your post no longer seems to work -- perhaps the issue has been resolved? --Javits2000 (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, in looking over the material at your subpage, and keeping in mind that I know nothing about the dispute, it doesn't really have the feel of something worth salvaging -- there's a tremendous amount of soapboxing, i would have to agree. At the same time, looking at this article, I would agree that it needs some serious improvement, but I would think it would probably be better to start from scratch. That said, I can't say it's a project I would be interesting in working on. --Javits2000 (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Based on your assessment, I likely won't pursue citing it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

 Blocked: three days for edit warring. You and Viriditas are both recalcitrant edit warriors, and have been going at it for several days on Children of Men, and it's getting quite disruptive. The discussion on the talk page seems to have spiraled into mudslinging and I can't forsee any useful conversation coming from it, so some time on the bench may be beneficial for both you and the situation at the article. When you come back from your block, please remember to make use of our various avenues of dispute resolution instead of bypassing the negotiating stage with hostile behavior such as continuous reverting. east.718 at 18:59, May 1, 2008

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I would point out that I have been, for the very most part, polite with the other party. I have not mischaracterized their posts, edit history, accused them of sock-puppetry, forum-shopped for a consensus, and edit-warred in the absence of discussion or consensus. As well, I would point out that I did not game the system by offering a tendentious edit and then request page protection to lock that version in place less than 10 minutes later. My next step, after posting my concerns in Talk:Children of Men was to file a wikiquette alert, as DR and mediation have repeatedly failed with Viriditas. Since it does in fact take two to edit-war, I accept that I should have taken the matter to AN/I long before this. I am not submitting an unblocking request, per se; I would ask that my civility in the face of repeated personal attacks during the discussion be taken into account and lessen the block duration. If such is granted, I would not edit the CoM article (or the subject ) until Viriditas' block ends, wherein he would have the opportunity to participate in a renewed effort to find an equitable compromise. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)."

Decline reason: "We will not permit one or two users to force the protection of a page, negatively impacting on other users who DO NOT edit war. Block stands. — Nick (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

(edit conflict) I was closing this with the comments: Civility concerns are among the least of the problems in this dispute and being polite about being disruptive doesn't lessen the disruption. However, you have not been as civil as you'd claim. For example, snide passive-aggressive comments about the other party, such as in this block request, are hardly what would normally be called "polite" or "civil". This dispute is certainly getting beyond edit warring disruptive as well, justifying a slightly longer block. here and here are little more than huge mounds of bickering. Both of you certainly know better. — Vassyana (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Might I trouble you to point out the "snide, passive-aggressive comments" in my unblock request? If an accurate description, how is it in fact snide? And if I have not been polite in my dealings with the other party, could you perhaps present an example or two of such? Understand that I am not debating the block reasoning; I am requesting you provide examples of that which I do not see. If I am making mistakes in how I perceive politeness, I would want to know them, and avoid such in the future. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
For example, the comment: "... I would point out that I did not game the system by offering a tendentious edit and then request page protection to lock that version in place less than 10 minutes later." Comments like that are clearly a way of accusing someone else of that exact action. That style of comment is not an isolated incident for you, with some comments more snarky (or snide) than others. One can be accurate without being derogatory or derisive. Vassyana (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Er, is that not an accurate assessment of what happened? The very first line of WP:GAME states:
Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith, to deliberately thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship.
By editing outside of consensus (aka communal editorship), and then seeking to have the article protected less than ten minutes afterwards to prevent that edit from being subject to revision, how is that not gaming the system?
Now, if you mean by snarky or snide that I was instead guilty of calling a spade a WP:SPADE, I will grant you that. However, I do not see how calling it such was derogatory or derisive, though. Please help me understand. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
To Vassyana: Vassyana, are you confident that you are a neutral, reviewing admin, to deny a request for unblock, considering you've blocked Arcayne yourself in the recent past? this seems to me to be a good place to recuse yourself and let others talk with Arcayne (I'm not endorsing the block, or endorsing any future unblock at this point, just pointing out the block log to anyone else that wanders into this page... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp

You are among those with over 100 edits at Ronald Reagan who has edited it this year. You may want to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack Kemp/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter third opinion

Hey, I have a request to make of you. Could you give us an opinion at Talk:Jimmy Carter#James Earl Carter, Jr.? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I know it's late, but thanks for the help at Jimmy Carter (and for the help at Reagan, which was really pissing me off!). Just for your own amusement, if you want to read the full story on Reagan check out WP:WQA#User:CyberAnth. I should have known better than to have gotten involved in Barack Obama articles :-) Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I first began looking at Obama's article about two months ago; it happened to be undergoing an FAR and other problems. I gave my comments on the article at the FAR page, and was greeted by one of the main editors. I put together a list of things that I thought needed to be improved in the article for it to retain its FA status, many of which, after a long battle, were implemented. Not to be vain, but the FAR was closed before moving into FARC, and they said it was largely because of my list. But I was up many hours debating with editors, and I was definitely labled more than once as a POV-pusher, anti-Obama, etc.... :)
Then about a month ago, I searched Wikipedia for Obama's former pastor, Rev. Wright, and noticed that all the material regarding the controversy was split and crammed into the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article, and the Jeremiah Wright article. So I put them together in what was the Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy article (now the Jeremiah Wright controversy article). Needless to say, it went up for deletion twice, and four moves were proposed, but with the help of some users, we were able to keep the article. The problem is that many of the users on that page are ardent Obama supporters, and were viciously trying to justify everything Wright said, or place the comments in context. What's more, many of the users just don't discuss anything; for instance, we had a compromise paragraph drawn up on the talk page and about three or four editors agreed to it. So we implemented it, and it was immediately reverted by (not to point fingers) one of what I call the "gang of three" — User:Ewenss, User:CyberAnth, and User:Cryptographic hash. Each has caused many problems on the page and each is very unwilling to discuss anything. So recently CyberAnth just really pushed me over the edge (check out the talk page) and I retaliated, explaining that I am not an immature editor, and linked to both Reagan articles as examples. Well he immediately went over to the RR page and slapped POV and unbalanced tags on it. He also went over to NR's and put in some unverifiable material about her being addicted prescription meds. So I reported him at WQA (here). Luckily, the disagreement and stalking appears to be slowing down, but please continue watching both pages.
And that's my story :) --Happyme22 (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I've responded to your query here and FYI I've started a discussion at the Reagan talk page. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Highlander entries

Got your message about the Highlander articles -- admit that I was curious about what you meant by "mistakes"; all of the information comes straight from official sources, and is reference-cited in each article line-by-line. Also, other Highlander-universe entries (Duncan MacLeod, the lists of Immortals, et al) have been using and citing information from the official novels and comics for years now, with no issues raised.
(Unless maybe you meant "mistakes" from a technical/coding standpoint?)
Also, I wasn't sure what you meant by the dating-citations (the Highlander universe versus "our" universe), as the in-universe historical dates are a fairly important factor in comprehending the storyline and characters...also, with regard to Endgame, the comic book reference to the third film is, again, a valid official factor, and one that must be taken into consideration when looking at the whole date-issue for that particular film.
That, and there was a major edit-war last year in which that citation was settled upon as a compromise between the two sides; removing it breaks that balanced perspective.
Anyways, I'm more than happy to try and reach some sort of compromise on this – every media SF/fantasy franchise (including Star Wars) has in their Wikipedia entries information from non-filmic sources where applicable (for example: Luke Skywalker), and the Highlander universe isn't really an exception to this precedent. If it's a technical issue, I'm more than willing to be corrected, and hope I can help with this. 98.212.251.84 (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(responded to the user on his page)


Hi there, I see what you're saying now about citations and whatnot – there's a template for specific references, if it comes from a non-filmic source. I can definitely do that, and will also tag uncited stuff as it comes along. I also agree that there should be a greater level of citation here on Wikipedia; once in a while I'll come across something that's a total "WTF?" moment, that is clearly wrong, yet present and uncited.

I apologize for any misunderstandings earlier about "wikifying" the dates – I was looking up something to that effect to explain it earlier (with no luck), but what you just said just clarified it for me (no linking to actual dates). Definitely cool; I thought you might've meant a total "no-dates" citation-thing altogther.

I'll work on modifying the information I entered earlier – once it's up, take a look at it, and see if there's anything I should've caught/tweaked/et cetera, as far as the citations go. Anyways, glad we could work this out, and thanks again. 98.212.251.84 (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, what did you mean?

Did you post that I made meritless claims? What about them was meritless, if I may ask? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding - I was saying if you made claims that were meritless in other steps of DR (even after his misconduct ceased), then only would what he said be considered relevant. (My point was you so far haven't, so his theory about some sort of dual has no bearing). Does that make sense? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
YEs, it does, Thanks for clarifying. Btw, not for nuthin', but the spelling is 'duel' as in a battle between two folk. Dual refers to two sides of something, like the dual natures of good and evil, etc. I think you just picked up on MPerel's misuse of the word. No biggie, though. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I did - cheers for that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding user page for IP adress

I've replied on my correct talk page. --EivindJ (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA?

Hello Arcayne. I've been monitoring you for some time and I was again wondering why aren't you an administrator already. You seem to surpass all the usual requirements. Would like to launch an RfA and possibly get some new tools that would assist you on your work here on Wikipedia? Should you be needing a nominator, I hereby offer to nominate you. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good you mentioned the recent block, that would indeed be an RfA killer. At the same time, you demonstrated very good character by acknowledging the block and the road ahead. Well, if you want some advice for becoming a better candidate, here goes:
  • Refrain from edit warring. No warring, no blocks. :-) Try to talk your differences with users whom you disagree with instead of engaging in a revert war. If a user refuses to discuss, or trolls about, you'll have your arguments naturally favored.
  • Help at admin-oriented tasks. Countervandalism would do, we're always in need of more vandalfighters. Clerking at WP:AIV would also help you understand which users are to be blocked, and which aren't.
  • Monitor WP:RFPP in order to understand which protection requests are to be accepted, and which are to be declined.
  • Participate in deletion discussions, especially WP:AFD. You may try WP:DRV too.
  • Consider providing some feedback to users listed at WP:ER.
  • Consider creating your own editor review once you believe you've made some improvements.
  • Participate in WP:RFA.
  • Get familiar with the criteria for speedy deletion (e.g. see how they are being applied at WP:AFD).
  • Keep writing articles. :-)
  • Talk with users. Be friendly and never uncivil.
I hope this helps. Feel free to ask for advice whenever you need. Best regards, Húsönd 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Errol Flynn

I noticed that you did this edit to Errol Flynn. I am trying to purge any edits by Howard Johns, mainly IPs 206.56.xx.xx.

If you look at Cesar Romero History you'll see some of the same stuff added.

The edits by 200.56.197.206 (talk · contribs) (on 30 December 2007) & 200.56.197.252 (talk · contribs) (on 2 January 2008) are either Howard Johns himself, or his publicist. They constitute Original Research and POV. Un-Verifiable gossip and innuendo is what I see, from a guy just trying to sell books mainly about dead people. Cheap trash robbing the pockets of someone in their grave.

If you would like to help let me know. I calculate at least 146 articles. I have started, but wouldn't mind some help if you want to.

IP4240207xx (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

DONE (I hope) I think me and User:Wildhartlivie got them all. Be vigilant. IP4240207xx (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91)

Hello,

DG has pulled The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91) down three times today. I have reverted twice but that is my revert limit..need help from an Admin. I have a hard time thinking he is for real but he certainly causes damage. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Arcayne. I think I ought to mention that I refer to an edit of yours here, in case you wish to respond. Your edit summary seems to express a misunderstanding. Being reverted three times is not the point; being reverted by three users would be. Berean Hunter is edit warring just the same as DreamGuy is. No difference at all. Well, except that BH is asking you above for "help"—which could be taken by the suspicious mind as asking for a tag-teamer—reinforced by the fact that you did team up with him, allowing him to avoid that "revert limit". To quote your quote, which you might more appropriately have directed at BH as well as DG: Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Regards, Bishonen | talk 10:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC).
DG is ignoring a long standing conscensus of several different editors that the article in question should not be redirected. It is not just a dispute between him and Berean. If you look at the edit history you will see that DG's redirects over the past few months have been reverted by a variety of different editors. DG has never once justified his redirects on the Talk page. Colin4C (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I have placed a request for discussion on the talk page. Can I remind everyone to keep it focused on the content and absolutely polite no matter what the provocation - or the temptation to use sarcasm. Kbthompson (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You already know this, but waning you again so you can't claim you don't know...

I know you've read the bold text at the top of my talk page, as you were whining about it earlier. The fact of the matter is that you are not acting in good faith, as confirmed by other editors the last time you tried to raise complaints against me. It was determined by multiple people that your actions constitute harassment and an attempt to try to bait me with attacks so that I respond in a way you can complain about even more. You already know that your harassment is not welcome, so stay off my talk page. You've already been warned personally multiple times, so you have no excuse. DreamGuy (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that means he read the warnings, doesn't it? --clpo13(talk) 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Some people learn with the carrot, and others learn with the stick. Maybe he will eventually need more of the latter (as has been the case before), but until then, its best to avoid feeding the behavior. He isn't going to bully folk while I am around, but he is otherwise not really worthy of excessive worry. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract and RfC

Just wanted to let you know that another RfC/U on Abtract has been started after a recent return to the edit warring behavior, including 6 reverts on one article. It's available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract. As someone listed as having attempted to aid in the situation by both me (filer) and himself[13], I just wanted to make you aware of the RfC in case you wished to make any comments regarding it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised, and not a little hurt, that you added your name ... is "more than a few difficulties with this editor" how you view me? I have had "more than a few difficulties" with you but that's life and I would never report you :) Abtract (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you are hurt. Had you found a way past the flippancy into actual helpfulness and altered your demeanor, you wouldn't be up for a second RfC. I think Collectonian makes some good points, and you blowing them off doesn't speak well to your willingness to alter that pattern of behavior. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabel - International reaction to fitna

Notice Hi, I have accepted the International reaction to fitna case. Please see my comments on the case page and on the International reaction to fitna talk page. Prom3th3an (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, You may want to check on the "International reaction to fitna" mediation, i suggestion has been made and your opinion is required :-) thanks, Prom3th3an (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Research may be all we have

To take the subject of our discussion further, I am raising the point of OR on the WP:NOR discussion page, under the tile "But OR may be all we have". It is time we found some kind of compromise over this. Cheers,--Marktreut (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that DC comics or Frank Miller might take wikipedia to court for speculating on the parentage of a minor, one-off, hardly-seen-before-or-since character? Get real!--Marktreut (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No, that is not what I am saying, though Miller could have a case, if such were to occur and remain. Wikipedia is a collection of articles on every subject. The policies that guide the Wiki are consistent throughout the Project so as to preserve neutrality and be more encyclopedic in their coverage. We don't make exceptions to those policies for one article , because the exceptions could easily set precedents for other articles wherein the subject matter would open the Project to significant liability and challenge our neutral stance. As evidenced by the conversation in the NOR discussion page, this opinion seems rather consistent. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I suppose you're right in taking out the reference to Lana Lang. After all, Lois and Harper may have named their daughter after the cousin of the great-aunt of the sister of the son of the great-great grandfather of Harper's mother. Makes sense.--Marktreut (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent Snape Edit

Yes, I agree that the page is about Snape in general. However, the section in question was about the fourth and fifth books. In the books, Harry only gets jumble impressions when he casts the shield charm, and later sees Snape's memory by looking into the Pensieve while Snape steps out of the room. In the movie, Harry does not look into the Pensieve, and Snape's "worst memory" is seen when the shield charm backfires. It's different, since in the movie it is an accident, so Snape is overreacting; in the books, Harry is in effect snooping into the memories he has seen Snape remove before the lesson begins, so Harry is far more culpable. The edit I reverted substituted the movie plot device for the book plot device in a section which is about the books; the edit summary said "this summary is for the books", not "this page". Just wanted to clarify as well. Regards, Magidin (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

If you have the time, I would appeciate you looking at this. Abtract (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

I'm sorry to have left you with a 'bitter taste', but I don't see what the problem is here. The public issue -- whether MZM should be allowed to run an admin script -- was not resolved in private. On the contrary, the quick resolution of that bit of drama means it is now possible for the script issue to be discussed in public.

All that was resolved in private was MZM's giving me his assurance he would not continue using his script until it had been discussed (and my asking Pilotguy whether he objected to my reversing his block, which he did not). This only had to be made private because the dialogue on MZM's talk page was so confrontational as to make him uncomfortable replying, for which I don't blame him a bit. I too dislike doing these things privately, but in this instance it seemed like the least problematic course of action. This is not a case of cronyism, but of respectful discourse in a quiet place, so to speak. My intuition seems to have been right, and for the moment the problem has gone away. If this is not an appropriate implementation of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules then I do not know what is.

Please do let me know if any other complications arise from my decision, and I'll be glad to deal with them. Kind regards — Dan | talk 05:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also I have only just noticed the comment about the Bush administration. I don't think this is a very helpful way to debate. Might I suggest you keep your similes apolitical, and your comments focused on argumentation rather than rhetoric? — Dan | talk 05:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: When reverted

I agree with everything you said in theory. But let's look at the cases in point: the "little shop" mentioned in a direct reference to two previous episodes. That's in no way speculation, it's a blatant reference. I don't fully understand what you mean by synthesis, but I assume it's along the lines of making very contrived links to previous events (such as the archaeologist-benefactor relationship point that you quite rightly removed). It certainly ain't that. Squareness gun: a weapon that has been seen in a previous story, given the name that Rose Tyler coined in that previous episode. Again, nothing wrong with that. I reverted under the assumation it was a mistake, as these points are blatantly notable. I will not revert a second time without discussion, but I would conversely invite you to explain exactly how these points are not relevant/notable. U-Mos (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(Discussion moved to the user's talk page) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to look at how you are using the word "referencing", U-Mos. In the episode, the Doctor did not say "remember when I said I like a little shop?", which would in fact reference something that happened before. However, he does not say that. The reference to the earlier situations is one we are making ourselves. That is the core of synthesis. We cannot connect those dots; we can however, cite (a reputable, reliable and verifiable) someone who connects those dots for us. It doesn't have to be "very" contrived. Anything where it the connection relies upon you - and not a citable source - to do the connecting is synthesis. It's a form of original research, and we aren't allowed as editors to contribute in that way.
If you would like me to explain more about some of the subtleties of synthesis after you read the WP:NOR bit on synthesis, please feel free to ask. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the removed paragraph did not use the term "referencing", which I guess is minorly incorrect in my above comments. There is no difference, in my mind, between this and the messaging through the psychic paper point that remains. That was not specifically mentioned, but it had been seen before. In fact, the sonic blaster's previous appearance was more specifically mentioned, as the Doctor used Rose's name for it. And the "little shop" is a reference, pure and simple. It was a point of comedy in New Earth, refrenced a year later in Smith and Jones and referenced in exactly the same way in this episode. It's akin to the "are you my mummy" line in The Poison Sky, which I don't think anyone can deny is notable. On a side point, I opened a section on the talk page of the article as you advised so of course your views on the issue are welcome there. U-Mos (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Control

Can you take control over me, i mean when i'm editing, just to control if i brake some rules and inform me, so i wont be blocked every time when i writte something about Macedonians ??--Makedonij (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(Moved to the user's talk page) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To the talk

Replied on Talk:Silence in the Library. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Don not

Post comments and threats on my talk page. If you have something to say, say it on the article talk pages. --Kurdo777 (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Arcayne, there is absolutely no need to editwar with Kurdo on his own talkpage. The page is for communications not posting permanent shame messages. All your warnings are kept in the history of Kurdo's talk page anyway. BTW, the request to have article-related matters on article's talk do seem reasonable it would help a third party to get their opinions Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


300

I understand your concerns, I really do. But I have followed that particular issue for some time now and I am engaging in the talk pages of pertinent articles. I do not have to repeat everything in every article, for the same "issue". An accurate summary, directing to the relevant sections and discussions, in the ...'edit summary box' is most sufficient, I think. --157.228.x.x (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning

This is a warning for your recent behaviour. If you delete this message; fine. If you delete it with a rude edit summary, or persist with any of the disruptive edits you have been making recently, you will be reported to WP:ANI.

  • Civility. Tossing about accusations of being aggressive, when there is clearly no aggression, is incivil and a personal attack.
  • Disruption. Filing frivilous RfCs, deleting talkpage comments, quibbling rudely about politeness with other users, making threats, claiming others are always in the wrong, claiming that only your view is valid and all others are beneath contempt and wiping valid talkpage comments with inflammatory edit-summaries is disruption.
  • Trolling. I don't know if you're intentionally trying to cause trouble, but it sure looks that way. Such behaviour is trolling and is not tolerated.

Please take note, particularly of the following passage (repeated due to its importance): If you delete this message; fine. If you delete it with a rude edit summary, or persist with any of the disruptive edits you have been making recently, you will be reported to WP:ANI. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, oh please, file the report, TT. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

^- that, is not particularly helpful. You need to take a break from each other. Come back to the content issues after the weekend and make genuine efforts to understand each other's positions. Kbthompson (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess I did let my disbelief at the misbehavior get the best of me. In my defense, I didn't really want to interact with the fellow, and he began following me around. The AN/I he filed was pretty...shall we say, unfairly biased. I have no problem with waiting out the RfC (I filed it after all). :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately, people do not like WP:DRAMA, and you would be wise to avoid it. I'd say it is pretty difficult for anyone to get involved in the RfC, it needs to ask simple questions and seek simple comments of position. Pointing back to a long discussion is counter-productive. It's a mechanism for making progress in an issue that is deadlocked, not really designed for resolving long complex arguments. In the end, you need to engage with the other editors on the page. That means politely and without drama - people may well have a short fuse, but you don't have to light it (and I'm not making any judgement about anyone involved in the current dispute in that observation; merely about human behaviour in general). Now take a break from it, and return to it in a spirit of generosity. Kbthompson (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The sun is now well over the yard-arm, and time for a long cool (London)-gin-and-(Jamaican)-ginger beer. Kbthompson (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That sounds despairingly like a shandy...FREAK! lol
If you look at the RfC, what you suggested (no drama, etc) was the model used for the RfC filing. Users like TT turned it into a Lifetime TV Movie of the Week (and that's drama, my friend). I was polite, even when one of them started getting dismissive. I sometimes miss the old days, when I could just tear into creeps like that, and send them weeping into closets. Being civilized is hard, sometimes. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It comes down to what people are here for - and that should be to write an encyclopaedia. Pointing fingers at people and saying 'they started it', is not considered helpful. I'm not saying you have to agree with people, merely seek to obtain consensus. Sometimes, you will have to accept that consensus is not 'right' - a bit like democracy; it's a terrible way to run a railway - but it's a whole lot better than the alternatives. That also means you have to bear some responsibility for trying to cool situations, rather than inflaming them. From your previous edits, I think you believe that you need to give as good as you get. That is not the wiki-way grasshopper; avoiding conflict and achieving some level of agreement (even if only to differ) is the wiki-way (and helps everybody's blood pressure).
As to g&g, it's a perfectly respectable Edwardian drink; and with the correct ingredients perfectly balances the tartness of the gin with the true freakiness of unsweetened ginger beer .... Kbthompson (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[14] is a personal attack, even using the term "creep" to refer to someone is a personal attack here, despite the fact that it may not be so bad in RL, please remember to keep cool when things get hot, and I do understand you are having a problem with another editor, but staying calm is far more respectable then losing it. All the best, Chafford (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That diff contains no personal attacks. The term "personal attack" is generally overused, overly dramatic, and unnecessary. Watching this (from a distance), I have observed Arcayne being civil at all times, in all posts. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Calling someone a "creep" is something you consider civil?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[Out] bizarrely, I didn't think he was referring to anyone in the current debacle in that sentence - but I suppose if you're looking to interpret it that way then it could be interpreted that way. On the other hand, I notice you thought it perfectly OK for him to explicitly call me a 'freak'. Perhaps I didn't explain myself sufficiently to Arcyane (for drive-bys to understand): if you spot a spill of kerosene, please do the decent thing and put some sand on it - adding a match doesn't do squat for no-one. Kbthompson (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Well let's take a look at what was said: "...users like TT turned it into a Lifetime TV Movie of the Week (and that's drama, my friend). I was polite, even when one of them started getting dismissive. I sometimes miss the old days, when I could just tear into creeps like that, and send them weeping into closets."
That's pretty clear in it's intent. Particularly when Arcayne has made it abundantly clear that it is me specifically who he is referring to as "getting dismissive". The comments of Arcayne on this page do not exist in a vacuum and should not be treated as such. Responding to a comment made in context is not synonymous with one projecting personal interpretation.
"I would certainly appreciate you backing off of the dismissiveness."
"look at Saturn's rather passive-aggressive behavior (which is corrosive to a friendly, professional editing environment)."
"Had I specified Saturn's snippu aggro,"
"Actually, my perception of Saturn's behavior is spot-on, and it is your belief that it is wrong."
As for the bit about you being called a "freak": Firstly, silence is not synonymous with an endorsement. Second, the entirety of the sentence you are referring to makes zero sense to me (local slang?) but read in a friendly manner. So why comment on it?
If you think my comment (assuming it was me you were directing the comment at) is of a drive by nature, I submit that perhaps you haven't been following the dialog closely, and are therefore may unaware of some of the context at play here.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I can only reiterate what I said to Arcayne (above):

Pointing fingers at people and saying 'they started it', is not considered helpful. I'm not saying you have to agree with people, merely seek to obtain consensus. Sometimes, you will have to accept that consensus is not 'right' - a bit like democracy; it's a terrible way to run a railway - but it's a whole lot better than the alternatives. That also means 'you have to bear some responsibility for trying to cool situations, rather than inflaming them'.

As a number of admins have said - you need to get along. You may think that you bear the crusading sword of truth, to slay the ogre of Arcayne. In reality, it's just disruptive. You're all valued editors and leave ANI without a stain on your characters - and that's how it should be - we don't want to lose any of you as editors, we want to see you all make contributions to the project.
Continuing the discussion here (on Arcayne's talk page) is not only futility - but could also be considered harassment. This is not a forum for discussing Arcayne's behaviour any more than ANI is. Neither forum is one that will issue a blocking over a content dispute and the snippiness between you. You could try Requests for arbitration, or Requests for mediation; if Arcayne is really incivil - and I don't see any evidence of that - go to WP:Civility.
The whole point of this conversation with Arcayne was to try to get him to understand why he shouldn't get into these situations in the first place, and why he should interact with others with no unnecessary drama. This is not about him, or you, or assigning blame, it's about understanding the project and it really would be better for the project if everyone could get back to doing some useful editing.
As to Arcayne, I'll continue to try to mentor him. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Kbt is right in that I often do feel the need to give as good as I get. If I get rudeness from you, you aren't going to get my full good faith. It is something I need to let go of, but it is a part of my personality and upbringing; when pushed into a fight (and let's face it, Saturn, you were spoiling for one, as I challenged the format of your article), you don't back down. That might work in RL, but I am increasingly understanding that WP doesn't champion or condone that sort of behavior.
So,I will bear more responsibility to keep things calm, and to seek out more eyes (and properly notifying folk when necessary) when others get rude instead of responding in kind. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

It relates to a link I followed, where you refered to a group of people as "creeps", sorry for the confusion. Chafford (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand, the whole point of the message was to gently remind you about the issue, not to slap a huge warning on your page like some editors feel the need to do. Chafford (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Olive branch time

OK; breaking rules by editing your talkpage now ;-) I read over your comment here and am happy with the response. We both learnt some lessons, made some mistakes... Let's now call an end to it; we've both abased ourselves!

As a side-issue, Saturn really isn't a "friend", I'd never encountered him until the discussion in question! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bygones being bygones, and all that. I am sorry for having pushed your buttons. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it OK if I close the thread on ANI with {{archive top}}? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we aren't supposed to do that. After you comment in AN/I that you are satisfied with my comments, an admin will close it, if tey feel it should be. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See? Less than 5 minutes after you noted your satisfaction, Barneca closed it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)