User talk:Croctotheface/Archive 1

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

Sorry, but it's the truth

In order for something to be defamatory, there has to be a modicum of evidence that it is false, or, at the very minimum, demonstrably provable to a degree where it's certainty is in question. A simple denial does not meet this universal criteria. If it can be reliably proven to be true, it ceases to be libelous and defamatory and enters the realm of being an "uncomfortable truth" or "a truth to which the pertinent individual which didn't exist" . Your actions and opinions on this matter are incorrect, and I would request better mediation than you have offered thus far. I've already put in a request to a few individuals, but I would ask that you do the same. --FactsAndHonesty 17:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Apparently there are other users who believe that your definition of “defamatory” is off. Hughey 12:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that you read WP:BLP and stop adding POV material to articles. Your edits to Al Franken are unsourced and designed to show him in a negative light, which is a violation of BLP guidelines. The warning I posted is a BLP warning. Croctotheface 13:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Al Franken, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Removal of properly sourced material. Hughey 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Hughey. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

You should use another level of dispute resolution before going for a Block. Hughey 14:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Croctotheface

Thanks for pointing out the errors of my citation of Power Slam in the Mick Foley article. I notice you've contributed an awful lot about him, so as you're obviously a bit of an expert I'll bow to your greater judgement. However, knowing the world of pro wrestling as you obviously do, do you really believe the second fall was unplanned? I mean, WWE never let anything go unplanned, let alone the main match on a PPV. Would they really have built the cell so badly that it fell apart? Also, can you believe the claims of a wrestler - even Foley - about anything that happpened in a match? It seems to me that we should follow the usual rule for wrestling ... anything that happens in a match is planned, unless there is proof otherwise.

What do you think?

Paul

I consider myself something of a Foley scholar as well, and it's been my understanding that most people, even jaded 'smarks', trust Foley's claims that the second fall was not scripted. SlapAyoda 00:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification

Thanks for the clarification. But you have to admit it's a bit antiquated, and the word "speech" is a more concise term for yuse in most situations. BabuBhatt 21:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, world

Time has come to ....... say hello, Croctotheface. BabuBhatt 05:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on Talk:Craig Ferguson

I saw your comments that were prefaced with "I'm certainly not an admin. but I'll throw my voice". In matters of editing articles, your voice is just as valuable as the most experienced admin, and given no less weight. I hope that someone hasn't given you the impression that non-admins have less of a voice than other editors. Please, continue to speak up on matters that your have an opinion. --rogerd 22:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved this from my userpage:

How do I get in touch with Croctotheface? I made some changes to an article - My Cousin Vinny - which Croctotheface deleted because of lack of citations. I'm not sure where to get the citations, but since I'm the writer and the producer of the movie. Not sure how I do this. Also - made a stupid mistake - I wrote Midnight Express when I mean Midnight Run. You can contact me at dale.launer@gte.net.

Fun with Halle Berry/Storm/Controversy section

God I hope that isn't her. My plate is full with yahoos right now. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Colbert at White House Correspondents dinner

I have reverted my edit because the paragraph is a lie. His audience did not receive him badly at all. Sure the audience laughed louder at some of the bushspeak because he was funnier, although he was being deadly serious. The loud laughs were in ridicule not admiration.

WWE RAW

How is that vandalism? WWE RAW is the correct spelling, and how it should be referred to in the article. Reverting it back could be considered vandalism too. TJ Spyke 22:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


National Hockey League rivalries: reverting good faith edits

Must have been editing at the same time. I was also doing my own cleanup and adding information. Perhaps we could later coordinate our edits. I don't bear you any ill-will on the Yashin article at all, most of it was not mine. GoldDragon 04:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I compared our edits and some of your cleanup and style are good, but I also feel that you remove some interesting information. I'll incorporate your changes. GoldDragon 04:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't be cordial unless you acknowledge that you can't paint yourself as being the "good faith" editor. Maybe if you realized that you also have no concensus at the moment, we have a "he said, she said" dispute where both our sides carry equal weight. GoldDragon 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A word of advice that you must heed yourself: If you're still unhappy, please take a step back and consider that maybe, just maybe, you don't have a monopoly on wisdom and that there may be something in what I'm saying. If you can't do that, then I have to question why you would want to work on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. GoldDragon 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool (song)

Regarding this: the section is referenced by the sheet music and the song itself. I don't know what else can be done. Velten 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I need more help. Can you see the talk page? Velten 00:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Scare Quotes

Right now the sentence is "Bond discovers the tell that Le Chiffre commits when he is bluffing." This is grammatically wrong, because you are using 'the tell' in the wrong context, hence the reason why quotations are used, because "the tell" is the title of name given to a players' bluff. Bignole 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you do not like quotes (which it says "should be avoided" not "do not ever use", because again there are exceptions to every rule) then something needs to be done to illutrate the fact that this is the name of an aspect of poker, and not someone talking to another person. Bignole 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Casino Royale

Hi. You added a OR tag to the development section. I totally agree with you. However I'm not sure how to deal with it. I've explained at Talk:Casino Royale (2006 film) and would welcome your opinion. Thanks -- Mark83 13:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Guess whos back

I've done some research into this vandal constantly changing the years at an almost schizophrenic capacity. Here are some of the possible pseudonyms/sock puppets of that person.

-- Hrödberäht 20:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Update More related/possibly related anonymous IPs:

-- Hrödberäht 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Update Further confirmed sockpuppet anonymous IPs and users:

-- Hrödberäht 07:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

About some changes...

I am here to speak to you about the Saturday Night Live Celebrity Jeopardy article. The 'Categories' Section was there before I added on to it, but it is a necessity to the page. I think it should be on there. Don't you agree? Who are you to judge whether it is encyclopedic or not? It adds a little bit of humor to the article, since readers will see how funny and unusual Celebrity Jeopardy can really get. If you don't mind, I think we should put that section back in. However, I agreed with your removal of the other section that I added onto. That was fine, but the categories really need to stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dizcuzzion (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

2006-07 New Jersey Devils season article

Sorry, but mind if I ask you what your reasoning behind nominating this article for deletion? Why is this information not proper for Wikipedia? Ksy92003 22:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. When I was alerted that this articles was nominated for deletion, the way that you said it made me believe that you were unaware that such articles existed for other teams, other leagues, and other sports, as well. Part of the reason why this idea was created was to keep the main articles for being too long. For example, take the Calgary Flames NHL team. On their team page, there is a lot of information about their history. But it's too big to include information on the individual season and break it down and analyze every season. That's why Resolute came up with the idea to create an article for each individual season, to include a lot of sufficient information without overcrowding the main page.
I understand why you nominated that article for deletion, because you thought that the New Jersey Devils were the only team to have such an article, being unaware of the amount of similar articles across Wikipedia. That is understandable. All of us have worked hard to get these articles up and contain sufficient information, and on behalf of all of them, we are all glad that you now know that there are some for all sports, not just for one particular team. Ksy92003 06:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I Heart Huckabees

There is a new debate on the name change at Talk:I ♥ Huckabees. Bssc81 19:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale

I agree that the description of the scene I added doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the plot summary, but that's because the plot summary is to sparse to begin with. If people were allowed to add more detail, it would become a little more robust and representative of what actually goes on in the movie. If you think a long summary is too much for people to sift through, a brief synopsis could provided in addition to a more detailed one.

Theo Fleury

Hi, thanks for the edit to this article, but do you not consider the link to the article in the Sun to be a reference?

Cheers --Zegoma beach 18:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any sources cited in that section. If there is a source for anything in that section, then put it in there. Croctotheface 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Call - Done. Thanks again. --Zegoma beach 18:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

NHL Captains

I think, the Atlanta Thrashers official website may be the place for multiple alternate captains source. My reasons for the note? An anon-user was confused by the up to two line in the alternate captains section. He didn't understand that it meant (3- letter players per game). The Islanders? Peca was captain, Yashin was alternate captain, Lapointe & Strachard were rotating alternates captains (home/road). I'll try & find a source. GoodDay 05:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about posting on your 'user page'. Is there a way, we can explain to unfamilier readers, how some teams have a captain plus three or more alternates? Unfamillier readers (like the anon-user who earlier argued with me, over the Devils alternates) get confused with the fact only 3-letter players can be in a game at one time. They don't understand, alterenate captaincies can also be rotated. GoodDay 05:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed the edits, looks great. PS- Here's another potential problem for unfamilliar readers Multiple Captains on a team. GoodDay 06:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Signing out for the night, I've added mention of co-captains & tri-captains to Captain article, GoodNight. GoodDay 06:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Carl "CJ" Johnson

Due to the fact that the last time (prior to my recent edit) I edited the article was more than 24 hours ago, I am, in no way, close to violating the 3RR, so I'm going to assume good faith and think that you have the wrong person. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit me § Contributions ♣ 03:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that might be the 4th revert; I'll go check. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit me § Contributions ♣ 03:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If he's been warned, he needs to be blocked: 4 reverts. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit me § Contributions ♣ 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert P. Casey

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

Thanks for your hard work on improving Robert P. Casey. You deserve some tea. If the disputes continue, please let me know; I'd be glad to help. But I hope that everyone sees that the current version is much closer to good article status and WP:NPOV than it was yesterday. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 06:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Misinterpretation

You recently advised User:190.40.106.154 to stop vandalizing articles. But, I thought you would like to know that he in fact reverted the vandalism you blamed him for, which was in fact by User:220.239.167.29. [1] -- Hrödberäht 06:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the warning to the other users talk page. -- Hrödberäht 06:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mike Long

Thank you for your work on the Mike Long article. It's much better now. - CronoDAS 03:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity Jeopardy

The point is Sean Connery appears to answer the question honestly, but it is not an answer at all, because the wager turns it into a slur and not an answer at all. -Mike Payne 06:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • God damn... this article is like your pet project, lol... Good. :) -Mike Payne 06:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

( )

Yeah, there are too many ( ) in Wikipedia articles ;} -- The Hybrid 05:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike Long and MTG Secrets

Why mention "MTG Secrets" at all? It's not important. It's just advertising.

The source for the cheating incidents is a long, detailed message board post by former pro player Peter Radonjic, available here: http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-449059 Will that do? 84.55.83.49 17:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Users can remove warnings

Consensus time and time again has been that users can remove warnings from their talk pages; removal indicates that they have read and understood the warnings, which is all they are meant for — they're not intended to be permanent scarlet letters. Since both parties have stopped the revert war, I think it's done its part; let's take it to the article talk page. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Although they are, of course, encouraged to archive them rather than remove them outright. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RAW

[2],[3], [4], [5], [6], Ahem Ahem.-- bulletproof 3:16 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sense of humor

Hey, it's nice to come across a Wiki-editor with a sense of humor ;-)

Bill O'Reilly

Ironic that on your talk page there is so much discussion regarding proper citation, and yet you cannot follow your own apparent rules. This is what O'Reilly said according to FAIR and the actual audio.

"We give you genuine information instead of the calculated spin stuff. We're the only show from a working-class point of view. . . . These other [talk shows] – they work for each other and their friends in L.A., New York and D.C. They're all just talking to each other! It's true. I understand working-class Americans. I'm as lower-middle-class as they come." The FAIR report (link 43), http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1070

This section needs cleaning to which I have not yet had a chance to do, but in the mean time, don't include what is considered hearsay as fact regarding BOR. The citation you wish to attribute as factual by BOR can be considered libelous. The actual article you site makes the statement that Franken says that BOR said this. The article then uses that citation to say that BOR said this. This is how gossip works, wikipedia should be better than that. Arzel 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If I get a chance, I'll try to locate the New York Observer article in question. It's a matter of how much time I have to go a local college library and check their archives. Croctotheface 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)