User talk:Arcayne/Arc 3 01.08-06.08

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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 user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arcayne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

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)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(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. -- AnmaFinotera (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

User:Prom3th3an/notice

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)

Het Arcayne

Hey this is Broncofreak i lost my pass. but this is my new account. seya User:dursely

Hi

I would need third opinion here, would you be so kind and take a look. Thanks --Makedonij (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is about refernces are they good enaf to beet Slovenian point of wiev, i mean is that book Zbornik more neutral then national census? --Makedonij (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked for me to render a third opinion in the article, its best if you address me in the article discussion for the duration. That way, no one can claim that I am offering preferential treatment (since I won't be). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sory my mistake.:)--Makedonij (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I surely have no objections to you giving third opinion. --Eleassar my talk 14:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Negal/Nergal

I did provide a citation: that the spelling was given as "Nergal" in the reprint in Weird Secret Origins, which you can see on Nergal if you haven't reverted it.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I'm unclear about how to cite something like this that is essentially internal. Do I need to change it to something like "Negal (sometimes spelled "Nergal"[1])". --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be easier to cite if I had a copy. Info is from Rich Handley, who runs the Roots of the Swamp Thing web page. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The bset site I know of is DCUGuide.com, which lists them as "Nergal I" and "Nergal II". the spelling "Negal" that appears in The Golden Age Doctor Fate Archives and Countdown to Mystery does not appear, and unlike Handley, this site seems to think that the character in Hellblazer is a different character. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who Trivia issues

I'm somewhat busy this week and so am not monitoring some pages as I might otherwise. If you decide to pursue the issue of trivia further in regards to the Doctor Who pages and need a voice of support, could you drop me a line on my talk page? I tend to agree that the material in question could easily be integrated elsewhere. At the most, it seems that the trivia in question might be limited to continuity between the two different series. That might make a bit of sense. Anyway, hope you don't mind the comment.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, it's hard to remember the slight differences in language sometimes. What I mean the program in it's original form (1963 to 1989?) and the relaunch starting a few years back. I'm not necessarily saying that the trivia should be accepted under those circumstances (it's easier in mind to just dismiss the continuity section altogether), but there is certainly a stronger case there then when pointing to a small unimportant facet of an episode and saying "look! It was in the show last year too!". Basically, I'll follow your lead on this one.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

spartans in halo

spartans are in halo, don't remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halolove (talk • contribs) 23:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

have you played halo? it's in the game —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halolove (talk • contribs) 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
check the game please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halolove (talk • contribs)
what is 3r? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halolove (talk • contribs)
Check it out: WP:3RR - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR guide now in WP space

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR/Administrator instructions Enigma message 00:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(notice of orphaned uploaded images [forest of the dead candidate images]. Seven days to decide on which to use, me boyos.)

thanks

Nice, upbeat reply. Always welcome! (20040302 (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Forest of the Dead

Your constant removal of continuity points, despite there being a discussion underway to whether the section should remain (which you started), is nothing short of vandalism. You want something changed, you wait for a discussion to be completed and then it will happen if it goes your way. You don't do what you believe to be right first, as that leaves an highly controversial edit on the page while s discussion is ongoing, which could possibly be days. You surely must understand that! As for seeing the discussion page, I'd love to know exactly what you'd like me to see. As of yet I haven't seen any support for any of your edits or proposals. U-Mos (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
As many times as I say the same thing, it seems you're always going to ignore it. So I'm not going to bother. The only reason I'm writing here is I feel it's only courteous to inform you that I have sought editor assistance to resolve this matter once and for all. Furthermore, you should be aware that I was very offended by your last post on my talk page, finding it not only insulting and patronising, but hypocritc to a point where it was almost laughable. U-Mos (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. Again. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Could I get your eyes on this?

I took a look at the edit. Abba Chag Molad is Hebrew and means Father of the Holiday (I guess a parallel to the European "Father Christmas"), Nikolas HaTsadik means Nikolas the Righteous (Saint is a poor translation of the word) and Tatty Nittl means Father Nittl. I have no idea what Kloyz Der Heiliger means as it's certainly not Hebrew. It looks more German or Yiddish to me, both of which are languages I don't know. All in all I think it's not translated correctly to be in an encyclopedia, but I don't think it has anti-semitic roots. Bstone (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

MarnetteD

Having just cleaned up an article and felt "bullied" by User:MarnetteD, I was not surprised to find your debate on style with them. I have added a note in support of your observations of his style, but hope that this editor will recognise this "opportunity" to change and that the project will not lose a valuable contributor. Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Serenity edits

Thanks for your message, but I've only made a single edit to that page recently, and so don't consider myself to be involved in an edit war. Any back-and-forth seems to be mostly between User:Fnlayson and User:71.160.105.83, and has already been taken to the talk page by others. --Nalvage (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Vertigo315

Posted response in the that page. Thanks.(Planecrash111 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

I posted my response in the page that Vertigo posted on. Thanks.(Planecrash111 (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC))

Fact File

The fact file is a BBC editor's blog. It is a source which notes the same conclusions the fans make in their heads, and provides a source to cite. It's not livejournal, it's not blogspot, it's bbc.co.uk.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet another noticeboard thread

There is another thread about you on a noticeboard, this time from U-Mos, on WP:AN/I. AvruchT * ER 21:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

In your signature, maybe you could include a link to the noticeboard, to save the complainers some time. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Or you could try being nice to people - or, would that be too radical. As I keep telling you, regardless of the rights and wrongs, people don't like WP:DRAMA - and if enough people throw enough of the brown steamy stuff, some will eventually connect with the rotorary distribution device ... Kbthompson (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Dude, I am not being mean to the guy, who seems to have skin so thin its practically translucent. Check my edits. I am being civil, whereas this dude keeps pushing and pushing. I repeat, I am not being uncivil to the user. And of course you are right; sometimes where there is smoke, there is fire...or, in this case, someone creating a lot of smoke to obscure the source issue of content policy dispute. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You've been a lot better recently; but the complaints keep coming and Baseball Bugs is quite wrong, we'll just create a redirect from your talk page to WP:ANI to simplify things. Have a nice hot Brownian motion generator and get the party of the second part to cool down. It's not just about being civil, it's about not pushing the wrong buttons on these people. What's that word - I can't quite see, it seems to have been struck out of this dictionary you lent me - ah, there it is diplomacy ...! Kbthompson (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: recent comment

I'm typing it right now; I'm placing it there because the request at WP:3O names multiple articles and, as someone pointed out at AN/I, generally covers this television series (as well as changing what is on a wikiproject page). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just that the continuity section on that particular article, as well as continuity sections as a general rule, are okay. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because articles outside of this series do not use them isn't a reason to exclude them. It simply goes with what is said by the relevant guidelines, and I believe I addressed those guidelines in my third opinion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Forest of the Dead edit

I meant that there have been academic papers and books written about, for lack of a better word, "continuity" in such literary works as Sherlock Holmes and King Arthur. Admittedly, Doctor Who's own Discontinuity Guide (or even the Television Companion) isn't as academic, but that doesn't mean that it's all fancruft. DonQuixote (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, it isn't necessarily bad, but that doesn't mean that some of it can't be bad. About the wedding dress...could go under production, but then again TV shows like to recylce props so it might be too trivial. DonQuixote (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Miami Vice

Do you think you can give your opinion to Miami Vice? Johnnyfog (talk · contribs) appears to be vastly reorganizing the page to something that doesn't conform to WP:TV guidelines. Here's what I mean: his and pre his edits. El Greco(talk) 13:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. What an unhappy guy

I think I can guess who are you talking about. Quite true, just a little bit of anger is enough to thwart a newbie. Compulsive anger, in this case. I'll keep an eye. Best regards, Húsönd 00:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Let's try this again

I accept your apology, and offer mine in return. I'm happy to forget any and all bad blood between us in the name of Wikipedia (that sounds awful, but you get my drift). I will say that I don't believe either of us are guilty of personal attacks, which in my mind constitue out-of-wikipedia insults. But, as its page says, there's no solid definition for that, so I apologise if my posts were seen in that way. The reason I mentioned that is because it was your saying "personal attacks" in the first place that led to you rather falling in my estimation, hence the further incivility that arose. What I'm getting at is it's rather a catalyst for arguments to use a term that can be very serious in Wikipedia. I am guilty of this myself by calling your edits "vandalism", and I'm sure that had a similar effect. So that's something we can both improve on. I will certainly make an effort to be more civil when opposed, and I hope you will do the same. The main aspect that is tending to flare up these debates and arguments is where you have edited articles at the same time as opening discussion, or editing despite the current flow of discussion. This gives off an impression of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong", something I'm sure you don't feel and even more sure you don't want others to believe of you. I never for a second believed your ultimate aim is anything but to improve Wikipedia, but the way you sometimes go about it can cause disruption and arguments. I hope you can see this as constructive criticism, and use it to help us both improve and move forward. Of course, please feel free to inform me of any ways you feel that I could likewise improve my manner here. U-Mos (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Tea

A nice cup of tea and a sit down

Dear Arcayne and Viriditas: You are hereby invited for a cup of tea!
Disagreements on Wikipedia sometimes turn ugly and foster distrust among editors. Soon, two users won't stand each other and will be unable to solve their differences in a peaceful, constructive way. That is a lose-lose situation. Please consider opening a truce, put aside all your past grudges and start anew. If you do, you will realize that WP:AGF is once again within the reach of a handshake. No grudge is irreversible so please sit town, and sip your tea before it gets cold. I'm sure you'll go through this. :-) Húsönd 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A call goes out to fight the fancruft

Can I et a witness?!?! Then, can I get some help? Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series)is killing me. From the strange "U.S." designation in their title, to the LOADS of cruftian statistics, this is a crfteaters smorgasboard! Any help you can give would be appreciated. Padillah (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

forget the lightsaber article

Check out Lightsaber combat - oh my lord! --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

First rule for starting an AfD: create the AfD page first, don't tag the article first. You'll confuse a lot of editors if you place the tag first, before you even know what name to use. Then, second rule: find out what AfDs exist for the article previously. The article in question, at first glance, has had two previous AfDs, so the proper name would have (3rd nomination) after it. GreenJoe -- Killerofcruft knows who I'm talking about, created a huge mess by not getting the AfD names right. I'd suggest reading the prior AfDs carefully. While it's possible that consensus can change, if you simply give the same arguments as given before, the results aren't terribly likely to differ, wasting a lot of editor time. By the way, prior solicitation of attention regarding an AfD should probably be disclosed, if you are both going to comment. My opinion.--Abd (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the advice. I did read through he prior AfDs. Most of them were submitted due to a lack of sources. The article currently seems to rely all too heavily upon one source and a ton of extrapolation from it, resulting in an in-universe bag of cruft. I would welcome any assistance you could provide in properly arranging/setting up the new AfD, Abd.
As for soliciting help in an AfD, I should point out that the solicitation was for assistance in creating it correctly, and not in support for it. I personally despise meat-puppetry and canvassing. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure. My comment wasn't a criticism, just a suggestion as to how to avoid the appearance of canvassing, particularly with a user with a name like Killerofcruft. I'm a radical inclusionist, myself, I think that we are asking the wrong question: aside from copyvio, libel, and nonsense and hoaxes, we should be asking how to *classify* articles, and there would be a bottom classification which is like a junkyard, searchable with our tools but not necessarily by google, raw material that might someday become more notable (higher in the hierarchy) articles if RS comes to be sufficient. AfD inherently sets editors against editors, where one group of editors argues that the work of another group of editors should be deleted, not merely replaced with minimal RS text (stubbing) but with practically nothing. That's why I'm calling AfD an "editor-killer," I see lots of editors immolate themselves on the process, from incivility and stubborness. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Afd

Hi, no worries, it's complicated, but I think you used the wrong template: {{subst:afd1}} instead of {{subst:afdx}} which led to the wrong page being linked in the template on the article page(Hence old discussion page). The second template (afdx) should be used if it's been at AFD before. Also, it didn't help that it has also been at AFD under a different name before (it appears the article has survived 5 AFD's), which confused me too, hence my delay in the botched fix (and responding). Hope that helps? I'm sure there are people with more expertise than me out there who could answer the question much more intelligibly if required! regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 19:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lightsabre combat

Great job, I've have a read and a go at some of the cite stuff later. Check out Lightsabre where I've been following your example and trying to turn it into a real article. --Killerofcruft (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek

If you have a moment, please check out those additions. My argument (and that of others) is that being a fan production it should not have such a large section - representing undue weight. Also the idea of inserting it into the list of Star Trek Films is just silly. --Killerofcruft (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been in exactly your position before, K. I have learned through hard experience (some rougher than others) that opening a discussion in the pattern of WP:BRD often tends to work wonders. The goal is to prevent edit-warring and have smooth transitions between edits, especially contentious ones. After you were reverted, you should have created a section in article discussion to state your case. While the other dude is off his nut in calling it vandalism, my advice to you is to just let the comment go (he's a fan, after all, and you are "attacking" his/her baby), and move on. If it gets more out of hand, go to an admin and ask for help reining in the behavior. Only by staying above the fray does the other person more exceptionally note themselves as the trouble-maker.
I'm opening a section in discussion to foster some conversation on the topic. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. Rollback

Hello Arcayne. I have now changed your user rights to rollbacker. I usually do not do it because I opposed the process of granting rollback to non-admins, but I've decided to open an exception for you as my previous interaction with you has fully convinced me that you're experienced and trustworthy enough to have it. Have fun. :-) Regards, Húsönd 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

about User:Killerofcruft

Since you seem to have befriended this user and are working with him, you might warn him about his behavior, it looks like he's trying to get himself sanctioned. You are welcome to look at my contributions and his, of course. I hadn't looked at his contributions for days, though he seems to think I'm wikistalking him, but I did just look, and it seems he is preparing evidence for an RfC or AN/I report over me.[15] He narrowly escaped blocking yesterday, and, as I pointed out in today's AN/I report over his behavior, the AN/I report yesterday closed with a mention that it was adequate as a warning; yet he, as I point out today, dismissed it as a "lot of crap." If he keeps this up, he's not long for editing here. (I could document, solidly, every "accusation" I've made regarding him, but haven't considered it necessary, since I was *not* arguing that he should be blocked, quite the contrary, in the first AN/I report. That might change if he continues on this suicidal course.) So.... a word to the wise? A stitch in time?--Abd (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I will let him know. It bears pointing out that you and I haven't had the best of interactions, either, and I know from personal experience that when you don't agree with someone, you do tend to snipe at the other guy and poison the well of editorial discussion. As well, the unsubstantiated accusation of sock-puppetry that Killerofcruft notes was never withdrawn or apologized for, and you doing so might have gone a long way to avoiding the situation. Lastly, if keeping a sandbox/sidepage of unfortunate interactions was against the rules, I can name at least three editors who would be blockety-block-blocked 'til the cows came home. It isn't, on its face, uncivil or telling of bad faith; on the other hand, watching his edits (how else would you know of the sandbox additon?) opens yourself to claims of wikistalking and harassment.
As previously noted, I will let him know that I believe he is stepping over the line (I happen to agree with you there). Maybe the both of you could step away from each other for a bit. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I have decided that the best policy with abd is not to respond to him or respond to any comments he makes about me, it just seems to feed into his.. well I don't know what the problem is - looking at his talkpage, he was warned off for following people before. I take your other points on board and will act upon them. --Killerofcruft (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent idea. I hope what I said actually helped, K. Abd, I hope that satisfies your request as well? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Good work. Arcayne. And good idea, Killerofcruft, now to be known henceforth as User:Allemandtando. New Leaf. Turn Over.--Abd (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wolves of the Calla

Hi - Those references are indeed there, particularly the Dr. Doom resemblance which is made quite a big deal out of. I don't know what to tell you about citations, I guess I could thumb through my copy tonight and find the specific chapter/page numbers, if that would help you feel better. But the major question is, do we need to cite facts about the work itself (as opposed to others' opinions or statements about the work). I think not, as these are inherently verifiable and have the implied reference of the subject work.

Put more bluntly, the fact that you can't recall the particular reference doesn't put the onus on someone else to prove it's there, any more than a citation to a print source that you don't have at hand needs to be further documented. Jgm (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't say I was absolutely correct. I simply said I didn't recall seeing it there. However, any inclusion in the face of a questioned statement puts the onus on the adder (or defender of the statement), and not the person questioning the statement. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(Exploring the process now, not arguing about the Wolves page): Ah, but how? As an example, if I am editing the article on Nero and state that "Nero is mentioned dispargingly by Hamlet in Act III, Scene 2 of Hamlet by William Shakespeare, reflecting the negative attitudes towards the ruler prevalent by the early 17th century", what do I need to cite? Maybe the second half of the sentence is deletable as OR if I can't find an independent source for it. But if someone says "I don't remember that part of the play", does that really put the onus on me to document that it is true? Wikipedia asks for verifiability, not proof on a plate. Jgm (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(Putting on my Wiki Paper Hat O' Smarts™) Using the above example, you would need to cite both halves of that statement; first, as the article is about Nero, you would need to cite any mention of him in another source. As well, you would definitely have to cite how someone else has drawn a connection betwixt the statement from Shakey and the negative attitudes of the 17th century. I would tag the first half (after trying to find the citation myself), and I would likely tag or remove the latter half. While it is true that the litmus is verifiability, the lack of verifiability - in the face of opposition - usually means removal. So, short answer would be yes; if you inclusion is challenged, it would have to be cited to satisfy that challenge. Now if someone is being a dick, thats another story altogether. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

But the question I had is how to meaningfully cite a fact (not an opinion) regarding a readily available primary source. In other words how is this:

Nero is mentioned dispargingly by a character in a Shakespeare play,

[2] reflecting the negative attitudes towards the ruler prevalent by the early 17th century.


Functionally different from my original text?Jgm (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Weird Secret Origins
  2. ^ Shakespeare, William (ca. 1600). Hamlet, Act III scene 2. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

Well, I think you accomplished it via the citation to the source. Maybe its just me, but the source might not be readily available to al of our readers, and having it available for them to find it is helpful - part of our job here, I think. As for the second part, I presume that wasn't a point in debate, right? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yay me

The Original Barnstar
For being the one to finally tackle trimming the fat from lightsaber combat. --Killerofcruft (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
For searing the arm off of lightsaber combat.


Despite this. ;-) --EEMIV (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

From padillaH

"...I've been managing to learn that kicking the crap out of people with my rather sizable (and of course humble) wit and intellect almost never makes folk fall at my feet in worship." O.K. Who are you and what have you done with the real Arcayne? Don't mess around, this is serious business. And then I come here and find you AGREEING WITH PEOPLE!!! This is too much. Do you need to sit down? Are you gonna be OK? Seriously, thanks for the help and the warnings. Keep looking out. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Thanks, I think. Gads, what a churl I must have been... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Some Help Please! :)

I have an article ("Gabriel Murphy") that I have entirely re-written from a previous version that was deleted on Wikipedia and instead redirected to another article. I have now placed the issue on Deletion Review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_28 and was hoping you could review the article and provide your feedback. Thanks much for any help LakeBoater (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on your page. Essentially, while the person may be of stellar character, there doesn't appear to be notbility beyond his current noting in the parent article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you...

Hey Arcayne. I have a big favor to ask you: when the time comes, would you be willing to co-nominate me for adminship? I brought the idea to User:SandyGeorgia, who directed me to User:Balloonman, an admin who has assisted in coaching me. They have already indicated their willingness to co-nom. Please check out my coaching page for additional credentials before making your decision. I ask you because I am a Republican, and according to Sandy and Balloonman, I may get some "drive-by opposes" simply for that. But I also ask you as a friend, whom I believe I have cooperated diligently with (and vise-versa) and as a student, as you helped to educate me and teach me the "know how" of Wikipedia.There is no pressure; if you feel I am not ready to be an admin, that's okay. Happyme22 (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to a challenge

Arcayne, would you possibly be interested in helping me get a BLP of a controversial figure to FA? I could use the help of someone with your experience in the process, and your fastidiousness will undoubtedly be an asset in the process. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. I will let you know what time I can afford for a new article on Monday, as I am away this weekend. Until then. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Is that a "no" or did you just get caught up killing off fancruft this week? :-) Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
No, just the real world, gripping my nethers for attention. I will take a gander at the stuff tomorrow. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough; I'll be out of town until Sunday anyways, so I won't be much for dialogue until then. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up

FYI, bearing in mind you seem to be fairly involved in all this now. TalkIslander 17:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reagan scandal article

Hey, sorry if I've caused some stress. Please see my talk page and Talk:Presidency of Ronald Reagan#Merger proposal. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. I'm just going sailing with some friends down to Oceanside, but I won't have any computer access. That may be a nice thing :) Carry on diligently protecting articles from vandalism while I'm gone :) Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

further star wars clean-up

Check out the following - here, I think many of those can be merged - either into some form of new article or to existing articles. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, though its something that should be discussed in a larger forum. Perhaps merging the religious aspects of the force into a single section (or two opposing sub-sections) in the main Force article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Started at the SW project page - I'm going to take a stab at cleaning up Force Powers, while the discussion is ongoing. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Remember, everyone gets to have fun. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:FotD 007x.jpg

This image fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 and therefore violates Wikipedia policy and was deleted. If you disagree with my assessment, please appeal the issue to WP:DRV. The discussion at WP:IFD is closed. -Regards Nv8200p talk 14:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't get to impose your opinion in a ted discussion. In the case of a tie, the image stays. If you are unhappy about the outcome, you can certainly nominate it for deletion again. You do ot get to use admin tools to support your interpretation of NFC. Period. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought my response was quite correct. You kept demanding what justification there was for the deletion, and I provided it. If you don't like the answer, that's your prerogative, but being huffy about it doesn't give me any reason to re-address my response. Corvus cornixtalk 07:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I was a little huffy, but I it is because you (and a few others) missed the point of the question. Admins don't get to overrule IfD discussions. In the case of a tie in discussions, the image stays. An admin doesn't impose their opinion and close/delete the image anyway. It is not about whether the image meets NFC#8 (which you and I both know is amorphous as hell and is abused mightily as such), thought he closing admin wants another bite at the apple, away from IfD. If he thinks it isn't appropriate, he is allowed to nominate the image and roll the dice. He doesn't get to use his admin tools to enforce his belief. The entire point of Wikipedia is that everyone's opinion has equal weight, and an admin using his tools to push his personal view is precisely the opposite of that. He didn't like the way the discussion went, so he decided to impose his interpretation of NFC. Never mistake my arguments regarding the image deletion to be about the actual image, (though there is nothing wrong with the image). We do not stifle debate and we do not negate consensus. and an admin who does that runs the risk of marginalizing serious editor input as non-consequential. This is what I take issue with. No one is the smartest person in the room at Wikipedia, and Nv seems to think he's got better judgment that the rest of us. It doesn't work like that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Admins don't get to overrule IfD discussions - untrue. Admins are required to ignore opinions on XfD discussion when the opinions violate policy. And I can only see one opinion - yours - that the the image didn't violate fair use. Corvus cornixtalk 07:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW, asking other admins to wheelwar your way isn't going to win you any friends. Corvus cornixtalk 07:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you are wrong. First of all, if I disagree with an admin, and a bunch of other admins run to defend them from the wacky editor, I am going to ask an admin to give me an honest assessment of the situation. Perhaps you do not understand what the term wheel war actually means, because if you did, you wouldn't be accusing me of it. Now who's being snippy?
Secondly, it is an opinion of the closing admin - and I guess you, who should have contributed to IfD, if you felt so strongly - that the image was incorrect. The debate was tied. In the case of a tie, the image, the article, the category stays. So it wasn't just me saying the image was fair use. There were two in favor of deletion, and two opposing (and the arguments for retention did NOT violate policy)- a tie. DRV isn't for arguing the matter in a more favorable forum for deletionists; it is for addressing problems with the deletion. The deletion was improperly done. If someone thinks the image sucks, the IfD is the place to do that. If you think it sucks, nominate it and and find a consensus for removal in the correct way - via IfD. . - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
In the case of a tie, the image, the article, the category stays - where is that written in policy? Corvus cornixtalk 08:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the original question was to identify where policy says an admin has the authority to delete images despite a consensus to keep or tie, when all arguments are equal. The reason it wasn't answered is because that authority doesn't exist. In order to even try to, the arguments of the detractors have to be attacked. Most people do it in IfD as "comment" or simple discussion. Out admin here decided his opinion was more valuable that two others and deleted the image all by himself, stifling further debate. Please don't play sematical games with me when I am being candid and honest with you - it belittles us both. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Corvus cornixtalk 08:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Nor did you answer mine. Please feel free - guests first. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

HP articles and Notability

Hey there. I would like you to the discussion taking place in the WikiProject HP regarding the Notability of the remaining articles. Cheers! --Lord Opeth (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Reward

The WikiProject Doctor Who Award
I, Weebiloobil, hereby award this barnstar to Arcayne, for his consistent and worthwhile - if a little misguided occasionally - edits to Doctor Who articles. His persistence has rescued many an image or article. Well done! - Weebiloobil (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You deserved it - Weebiloobil (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I very much appreciate the recognition here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome ;) Oh, I looked up the official policy for the problem with the Forest of the Dead pic, and you are definitely right. I have commented as such - Weebiloobil (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Joker's outfit

Hi !

You said : "By noting the garb as Arab (and not Middle-Eastern), you remove the legitimacy of the image inclusion". Well , the text in the picture shows the exact naming of the Iran . I think showing the fact that the comic-book writer shows Iranians as Arab is itself a kind of anti- sentiments. I mean:


A- The anti- sentiment is towards Middle-Easterners,specifically anti-Arab
B-The writers does not distinguish between Arabs and Iranians
C- [conclusion]The writers add the Anti-Arab hatred to the of Iranian hatered...

Indeed one of the problems for Iranians after 9/11 is to be counted as Arabs ( and hated as Arab !)--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely my point. It presumes that the natural progression of the article is a folding into another anti-X sentiment article. You (being Iranian) are thinking you are being discriminated against because you are Iranian, when in actuality you are being discriminated against as being part of a group of people who happen to include Iranians (specifically, Middle-Easterners, as Arabs is a generically-used for folk from that region). The removes some of the specificity of the antipathy, thus loosening the claim of the article on it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
To be honest , that's the reality ."Being part of a group of people who happen to include Iranians" is the point.Most people of the western countries does not know the Iran as a separate entity from the Arabs.Although that weakens the article , but the reference says so.Do you think that means to get the part to the Anti-ME sentiment? Anyway , the exact name of Iran is used in the comic ....--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This is why I think it is important to instead denote the outfit as Middle-Eastern, so as to not water down the intent of the image, which notes Joker as an ambassador of Iran (not an Arab country). If you want to stick with Arab, that is fine, but the merge proposal will likely occur shortly thereafter. If you wish to revert, I will take that as a sign that merging might be more encompassing that an article noting a sentiment that might very well surpass simple anti-Iranian sentiment. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Well , anyway , I think it's not morally correct for me to change it as I want( the source is exactly saying the thing that we are going to change!) , but I won't change it if you think it fits better to the article that way . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Arcayne, It means more to me than you could possibly know that you of all people took the time to attempt to console me. You are a noble person, indeed. I will never forget how you came to the aid of a fellow Wikipedian in distress. Peace be with you, Jeffpw (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles Newsletter

Beatles editor, Dendodge, wants to start sending out The Beatles Newsletter again. If you would like to receive it, please leave a message on this page. All the best, --andreasegde (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Me smell pretty

It's true! Bstone (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter

The June 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input

Unfortunately, you're talking to the wrong guy. I'm not the one who made this personal. He took a general comment, personalized it and attacked me. Since then, I've simply defended myself. And I will not have someone who can't even master the basics of reading comprehension tell me that they look down on me for not serving in the military when I made it quite clear that I had. I would ask why you chose to tell me that I'm wrong, but haven't put the same thing on his page? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see a loss. I see a guy who is trying to cover his ass because he was shown to be wrong. Further, his last response was still a veilled attack or maybe you missed the part about " real high speed ". Again, I find it interesting that you address only me and not him. Where you see him "getting me", I see a guy who got his butt handed to him and when he realized he couldn't hand, he tried to back away saving face. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who

That was an entirely WP:POINT edit after my comment above, which you then repeated after I reverted. I have blocked you for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Feel free to appeal the block using the {{unblock}} template. — Edokter • Talk • 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Actually, the change was made before Edokter commented. Arguing that I am being disruptive for simply offering a difference of opinion, the definition of disruptive behavior doesn;t actually apply. Furthermore, as Edokter is currently involved in a dispute with me in no less than three articles, you aren't suposed to use your admin tools to end the dissent:


"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved."Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes 1


We disagree with one another. It was suggested that Edokter avoid my edits, but instead, he chose to instead engage continually with me, using incrreasingly aggressive behavior, accusing me of POINT, DISRUPT, WIKILAWYER, etc. I am surprised I wasn't blamed for the Kennedy shooting as well. Clearly, if my behavior was disruptive - which I do not think it was - then by the same definition, Edokter deserves a block as well. Not once in the discussion with him in article or article discussion space did I attack him or violate the rules. I would also point out that in at least four articles today, Edokter has walked right up to the line of 3RR, reverting no less than three different editors. I ask to be unblocked because heated (and civil) discussion and dissent is not cause for blocking, and an admin blocking someone he is in disagreement with is ever less so.}} - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm discussing with the blocking admin. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Very well. I would also point out that edit causing the block (2) was followed by the beginning of a new discussion section on the subject (3) less than five minutes later. Edokter seems to think this was done to spite him (as opposed to BRD-type editing), and thus blocked. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have unblocked you. My block was out of process, but within resaon. Editing a guideline in order to prove a point is usually regared as disruptive. You know full well that such changes needs consensus first, especially after the first revert. Since you have come in to the Doctor Who project, you have been adament about changing our style guidelines to fit the rest of Wikipedia. Your methods have not only irked me, but others as well. This was simply the drop. You have actually managed to do where others have failed; to push me over the edge.
And just to explain what BRD means: Bold, Revert, Discuss. Once you are reverted, you discuss first, you do not revert again. — Edokter • Talk • 00:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't really sound like the apology I requested.
I am sorry my "methods" have irked you, Edokter. Perhaps you should follow the previously-offered advice, and avoid interacting with me. My 'adamant' stance was borne out of the idea that th DW wikiproject could be so muh better than it is currently, if only the fancruft and zealotry could be kept at bay. My sole intention is to make the wikiproject and by reflection the encyclopedia better. Accusing me of wikilawyering, disruptive editing, and failing to recognize your behavioral and procedural mistake in blocking me either here, your page or in the AN/I page you opened to cover your ass has largely eliminated you as a perceived positive influence in the project - at least as far as I am concerned. You want my respect back, you need to earn it. You dug a hole here; now dig your way out. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for the block. I just want to say what irkes me. The DW rpoject is not what you call filled with fancruft and zealotry; on the contrary... This project is known to have a strong stance against fancruft. You coming in trying to 'clear up the place' is, to put it blunt, misguided. This all revolves around the infobox. You bring your arguments, that's fine, but you also keep citing the so-called "bigger consensus" which several other editors, including me, have told you is non-exsistent. And now when I point you to an already existing guideline (WP MoS), you go and change it without consensus.
Now, if the project would actually agree with your proposals, I will accept that consensus, but there isn't any. And because of that, you do seem to try to force the issue. And that is something I am allergic to. — Edokter • Talk • 01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Apologies generally don't have conditions or sentences that begin with but.. Just an observation. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
No, the don't but insisting on prostration seems counterproductive, Keeper. Edokter, I appreciate the apology, and your explanation. I would point out that I repeatedly try to seek a new consensus because I am convinced that the project would be improved by the ideas I propose. It doesn't mean I am unwilling to work with others, it simply means I am not going to simply accept the status quo without a helluva good reason. I've been provided with one for continuity sections that will do for the time being. I have yet to be provided with one that insists we need to use BBC credit rolls to determine who is a companion and who is not. I know you can do good work - I freely say that. Characterizing my edits poorly tends to poison the well of discussion,a nd I am pretty sure you know this.
In order to prevent a flare up, I propose we talk to each other on the user talk page to - if nothing else - keep things civil. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Good response, I'll back away slowly. Sorry Edokter. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Another shining example of my Fan Club

Sorry for any misunderstanding. You've made it clear that you have earned two Oxford degrees. You should display this proudly on your User Page along side your many other groupings, achievements, interests and barnstars: Good luck to you. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxon.This user is an Oxonian.

Saw it. Thanks for the heads up. I am asking that the troll be IP blocked. I guess he just needs a hug from someone. I am afraid I am not the one to offer it. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

heads up on WP:ANI

antoehr whackmobile non-reggie (non-registered users) has reported you to WP:ANI for going to Oxford. I'd advise you to go and defned yourself but since that's not even against the rules I cant imagine what you could say inr esponse. Smith Jones (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Only that someone who canvasses across articles and projects that I have never been a part of is the very definition of NPA. I'm going to see if we can show this little IP cloner the door, shove him through it and lock it from the inside. Or, you know, something to that effect. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the range of your antagonizer's IPs looks very large and it looks like a lot of unrelated edits are coming from it as well. I'm not sure a range block or set of range blocks are going to be plausible. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Some weird stuff. Lemme know if the guy acts up again. Wknight is probably right about the impracticability of range blocks, but your fan should at least have gotten the message that he's not welcome here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who

What edits are you referring to? Ophois (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Those edits where you reintroduce edits repeatedly after it is reverted repeatedly. The fact that it is being reverted tells you two things: A) you are dealing with someone who is stubbornly unwilling to discuss their reasoning (or continue discussing it) and B) your repeated introduction indicates that you need to convince folk more. BOLD and IAR are all well and good, but not when they create bad blood. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
And, FWIW, "penultimate" is a suitable word, because it means "next to last". Sceptre (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Clom is said to be missing in the episode... the Doctor reads through the list of missing planets and says something like "Clom?! Who'd want Clom?" Ophois (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I thought I would ask, to be sure. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You are something special

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
The fact that you could put editorial differences aside, and help another person in deep distress, with whom you were often in serious conflict, deserves special mention. You embody the best of Wikipedia, and I am proud to be your colleague. God has a special place in Heaven for people like you Jeffpw (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow

While I appreciate your answer about why you chose to post to me and not the anon editor, I was a little taken aback by your reaction to removing posts on my talk page. If you notice, I delete pretty much everything on my talk page. I don't really leave much up there. There is no reason to take the deletion personal. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert

No probs, though if I'd known they'd already abused you on your talk page I wouldn't have suggested they brought it here :). Still, you're not a true Wikipedian until you've developed your own fan club! (btw, I wasn't getting at you for your penultimate comments...I was just interested since I hadn't come across that useage.) Gwinva (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Stolen Earth lede cite

I don't think it needs to be cited as it is readily apparent from the article itself. My interpretation of LEADCITE is to only cite quotes, unrepeated material, and contentious material about living people in the lead section. Sceptre (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And even including the Independent review, nearly every other review I've seen (and will use) sings the episode's praises. Sceptre (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that it's an uncontroversial fact that reviewers commended Davies and Bleach. Having to supply six citations for that would make the lede itself look as bad as you say the lower parts of the article are. Sceptre (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Consensus for lead sections is, or appears to be, for editor discretion. You can add a citation to the lead if you want to. (Oh, and about the double/quad cites in the broadcast section, that's to cite the challengeable record fact. Sceptre (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Stolen Earth - B or A class?

Just asking your opinion here - I think it should be A-class as it is more definitive than even Partners in Crime and Doomsday, and my intention is to put it on FAC within the next 36 hours. Sceptre (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

happy Birthday, America!

I made this as my birthday present to America. Thought you might enjoy it. Jeffpw (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Laughter

"any thoughts of us being smarter than average are egoistic and doomed to an editorial kick in the crotch", with which I totally, and utterly agree (and it made me laugh a lot, as always :))--andreasegde (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan Cabal

Hi: Would you kindly provide your opinion about the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_3#Alan_Cabal for the article about Alan Cabal? Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Brothel

What you can try to do is search for specific keywords in search engines, such as brothel "amy waddell". You can type Brothel (film) or just click on the link. In the future, when you search for an article and it does not exist, it'll look like this. You can click on "Create the page". Also, to start off, you can copy {{Infobox Film}} and fill out the information. Include small sections for the film's premise and the film's cast. I can help you find more information about it if you want. You can also go to WP:MOSFILM#Categories (just expanded that section, actually) and provide the related categories. When you create the article, go to the talk page and include {{Film|class=Future|importance=}}. Now you can go to Brothel and modify the hatnote (see WP:HATNOTE) to say, "For the 2008 film, see Brothel (film)." Let me know if you need any specific help! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The article has been started. I will work on it a bit more this evening or tomorrow afternoon. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The true name of Darth Maul

To proof the true name of Darth Maul is Khameir Sarin you can go to the side http://www.geocities.com/the_black_binder/chmaul.html http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=48984700 http://www.geocities.com/darth_ann/minfo.html http://members.aol.com/PrinceG0R0/sith.html http://home.tiscali.nl/~freintje/darth/02_maul.html http://sithlore.net/sithlords.html http://www.freewebs.com/therealimperialsenate/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.86.199.99 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that particular link does not point to a reliable source. If you are interested in learning more about how to determine how we determine and adjudicate the reliability of sources, please follow this link: WP:RS. If you have other questions, please feel free to contact me again. I will have removed it by the time you read this. If you find a more reliable source, please go to the Darth Maul discussion page and post the link. Thanks for contacting me about this. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but that second source you inserted - the MySpace profile - is not a reliable source, either. Please read WP:RS. If you are unwilling to explore how we determine the reliability of our sources, I will be unable to assist you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, you can keep adding the wrong sources in, or you can actually read the relevant policy and better coordinate your search. Until then, I am unable to assist you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

John Winston Ono Lennon

Here are but a few links i found using google of John Lennon's will. All of the ones I looked at started "I, John Winston Ono Lennon". I have gone through this before with another user and that is why I may have seemed frustrated.

[16] [17] [18] --Omarraii (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Arcayne I know we talked about this before and I would be honored if you co-nominated me for adminship. Balloonman has started an RfA page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Happyme22, and I will accept. This is if you are still up to it... Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: cite that please

They're referred to as stories across the whole of Wikipedia, as far as I've seen. It would be a project issue to change that. U-Mos (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is inaccurate. When someone calls a particular thing a story, it is especially confusing when that particular thing is represented by a wide range of media. In this case, episode is a better term to use, because story suggests printed media. As well, I am a bit wary of your utilization of a wider Wikipedia consensus, as you yourself quite clearly argued against such in discussions about how Doctor Who articles and the eponymous wikiproject didn't need to follow that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
(removed unsolicited post from user blocked from my page)
Sorry, I remain unconvinced. His word choice in Wiki-en, in an article which has multiple media expressions was not as specific as necessary. In a film that is only a film, it is appropriate to use 'story', as there is no medium in comparison/contrast.In films based on tv series (X-Files, Sex in the City, etc.), the proper notation is to predicate the word 'story' by which medium it was presented in - ie., 'an ongoing story in the series of alien subversion was not continued or addressed in the movie.' In those articles with more than four different mediums (tv, film, radio, books, comics, etc.), the need for clarification of story usage - or substituting a media-specific word like broadcast or episode - is more concise and therefore desirable.
Lastly, as TT has made a significant point of banning me from his user talk page, I would ask that he practice what he preach, and avoid littering my space with his posts, except in those situations where he is required to notify me.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring

I appreciate you trying to clean up the responses int he DRV discussion. However, I placed my comments where I did so as to provide proximal responses to the comments made. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand. And I could say the same thing about my response/comments as well. It's why threads are typically kept chronological. The indentation of both was the same (highlighted by asterisks).
As I look over the rest of the discussion, it could also probably use some clarification/refactoring. Our goal should be clarity for those who may be commenting after us, and for those who may wish to read this in the future.
That said, thank you for your comments. Was there anything in how I fixed the threading which you still have inssue with, in light of the above? - jc37 20:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no. You have addressed your points excellently and appropriately As an admin, you should feel free to weigh in, if my posts have been over the top. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Beatles Day!

Happy Beatles Day! Just a message from the Beatles WikiProject! Have a great day, Arcayne/Arc 3 01.08-06.08!

...... Densock .. Talk(Dendodge on a public network) 11:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: nothing (feel free to delete any time)

AAAARRRRGGGHHH!!! (huff) (huff) (huff)... thanks, I needed that. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel your pain. Once Heroes starts up again, it will be more of the same. Maybe its time to start combing through the reviews again, and try to find something which ties everything down, so we don't have to undergo a temporal loop every time a new person comes to the page. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we may need to organize the archives a little differently for this topic. It's going to take some effort but it might be best to organize them by topic. This way we can refer new people to a comprehensive list of all discussions on a given topic and hope they care enough to actually read past discussion. It should be clear who's reding and who's not within a few responses and we can seperate the wheat from the chaff. padillaH (review me)(help me) 14:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padillah (talk • contribs)
I don't think there is a precedent for that, and it might cause a lot more headaches than it resolves. It might be easier to create a series of links to the pertinent, archived discussions, and let the contributor simply click on the link, instead. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at Spartaz's talkpage

Hi Arcayne. You may wish to see this discussion at AN concerning that matter. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was about to post to AN/I myself. Yay for saving time, and boo for it having to go to ANI. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Spartaz has since invoked the Right to Vanish. D.M.N. (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments elsewhere

This is merely a suggestion, but I would suggest just "letting it go". From what I can tell, you're not currently doing yourself any favours with continuing.

As for your proposals, by all means, feel free to start talk page discussions concerning NFCC, expecially #8. (There's actually several currently going on.) And while a new IfD now may not be appropriate, please feel free to start a new DRV nomination. Note though: If you nominate the two for a new DRV, be prepared to support any statements with references. Atm, I don't think that the community will have much patience with unreferenced statements concerning past events.

I hope this helps. - jc37 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how I am digging a hole with my request, JC37. Maybe you could explain it to me a little better. If you wish to speak candidly, you can contact me off-wiki. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I was referring specifically to a note at User talk:Hiding, and more generally to your recent comments.
While this is something that may be taken somewhat with a "grain of salt", it just appears that you've started to rub several people the "wrong way".
You seem mostly earnest in this to me, and I thought I'd attempt to offer you a suggestion based on my own experiences. ("Been there, done that", just doesn't sound as collegiate, I suppose : )
I hope this helps : ) - jc37 08:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I know that some folk who express displeasure with my edits are not really the sort whose applause I am seeking. However, if you could tell me how I am rubbing folk the wrong way, I would really appreciate it. If you are telling me that my way of saying things is rubbing folk the wrong way, I really want to know about that. Likewise if it is the choice of topics I choose to bring up. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuity stuff

Why on Earth did you remove my addition about continuity between "Family of Blood" and "Journey's End"? I don't see how it counted as an "improperly sourced evaluative statement", and I thought it was a significant bit of continuity, probably intentional. Christopher Powell (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the statement (removed here) from Journey's End:
This same music played during the episode Family of Blood, during the scene in which John Smith (the Doctor, transformed into a human by the Chameleon Arch) and Joan Redfern have a shared precognition of what their life together would have been like, up to and including Smith's death Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).. In the latter scene, John Smith's last act is to ask "is everyone safe?", meaning his children; on learning that they are, he says "thank you" and passes away. Ironically, at the close of Journey's End, the Doctor has made sure that all of his "children" - the Children of Time – are safe, and his last words in the episode are "thank you".
was evaluative, and therefore synthesis. The citations in the removed area were referring to the article noting The Family of Blood, and not to a notable comparison between that and Journey's End. Additionally, the 'Children of Time' reference - also uncited - was wikilinked to Companion (Doctor Who), and that term doesn't appear anywhere in that article, cited or otherwise.
That was why I removed it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I still don't see things your way, I'm afraid. My citation was not to a Wiki article about "Family of Blood"; it contained the proper citation information for that episode as broadcast. Perhaps you misread the citations, or perhaps I don't know how to cite properly - although I took other citations to episodes from the same article as my model. Also, I don't see how my contribution is 'evaluative', except for the word "Ironically", which can be taken out with no loss of intelligibility. The continuity point is factual, and I think it's notable. Do you mean that identifying the link between the two episodes counts as original research? If so, I'm not sure how all "Continuity" contributions wouldn't count as such. I take your point about "Children of Time"; the companions are not listed as such in the wiki page on Companions. Dalek Caan referred to the companions as such repeatedly throughout Journey's End; I can add that to the entry. Christopher Powell (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for presenting your arguments so cogently, Daedaulus/Chris (not sure which to call you, so feel free to clarify); so many folk add so much drama to their posts that the original point tends to meander, so kudos to you. :)
My issue of the synthesis bits is that it is you connecting the similarities between these two episodes, and not a citable third party (like a reviewer or a member of the cast/crew). This originally came up in the episodic articles with the mentioning of the squareness gun. Before it was cited, it was an editor connecting the fact that it had appeared in an earlier episode. Once everyone learned there what synthesis was, and how to avoid original research by simply citing someone else noting it, everything was copacetic.
My main issue with synthesis is that there are a lot of Who fans in the project and active in the articles who eat, sleep and breathe Doctor Who. Just like a math teacher who is a whiz at high calculus, they cannot fathom why anyone would not wish to immerse themselves in the subject, and wouldn't want to know all the tiniest details of the episode. This oversight tends to exclude a lot of readers coming to the article for the first time, who may be new to the article or subject. That level of detail simply makes a lot of them move on to the next article. Synthesis involves one person advancing a position that two things are connected - in this case, the usage of music and the comparison of children from two separate episodes. As doing so is a violation of one of our cope policies, we aren't allowed to do it.
The 'ironically' usage was part of what I was referring to by 'evaluative', the other part being the comparison of the Children of Time as the Doctor's children to that of "John Smith's" children.
Hope that explains matters better for you. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Call me Chris, and thanks for the kind words. Our posts have crossed each other in cyberspace; while I was typing an addendum to my earlier comment to replied to me and updated your own page. What I was going to say was this:

I see the source of the confusion; I think there was an error in the code I wrote for the citation. I've re-written the entry. It should be clear that this is not original research: all of the elements indicated are present "in-text", as music or as dialogue, in the two connected episodes, not inferred from analysis or synthesized from multiple sources. This may not have been immediately clear in my earlier post.

But maybe that's not what you mean by 'synthesis'? As you explain it, it seems to me that to point out a noteworthy connection between a single discrete item (e.g. the Lost Moon of Poosh) in multiple episodes is not synthesis, but my contribution is synthesis because the connection it makes is not a single item but a concatenation of three items (theme music, children safe, last words)? And that the real reason you're against this is that it's too involved and fannish, and puts off the general readers for whom Wikipedia is intended? In that case I see the reasonableness of your position.
Still, I plead the case for my revised posting, on two grounds. First, the policy you cited describes synthesis as the putting together of discrete elements from multiple sources, but what I've done is only to summarize connections that are actually there directly within each episode; no speculation is involved (as opposed the the "squareness gun" question prior to its being cited). Second, I think this particular connection, although a bit obscure, is really interesting; knowing it adds to the poignancy of the final scene of the final episode of regular-season Doctor Who that we're going to have for quite a long time (and the final Russell Davies regular episode). So, I'm asking you to think about it a bit before rubbing me out a second time. ;) Cheers.Christopher Powell (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Ar, you rubbed me out while I was typing that. Fair enough. Still ... take another look at what I'm saying; what do you think?Christopher Powell (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Chris - yeah, sorry about undoing the re-addition. Before we add it back in, let's make sure we can find agreement first, okay?
I am sorry if you think I am calling you fannish - maybe I need to find a word with less 'icky' ascribed to it - but I do think that there is a proximity issue. You might be too into DW to see that a neophyte might not get the same nuances you do - 'forest for the trees and all that' - and head off in another direction, certainly not our intended goal. However, being a fan isn't the real source of the synthesis; being far smarter than the critics who review the show is the crux of the problem.
Your evaluation of my synthesis argument is mostly accurate (and bully for you in using concatenation correctly in a sentence :) I've never had the opportunity to do so); to avoid any synthesis, we need to have someone who is not an editor (ie, an outside, reliable, verifiable source) to say the same thing - to make those connections. That it is poignant is undeniable; it clearly indicates you are a writer of some talent. I would recommend that you get a job with a news source and start writing reviews. Then you could be citable! :D
Until then, though, I think our hands are tied. thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
No, no, I wasn't offended by being called fannish; it's entirely apt. I hope I don't seem prickly. Anyway, let's see if I can't untie our hands.
My impression is that entries in "Continuity" sections of pages for TV series aren't usually cited to independent sources, and that it's normally sufficient to cite the relevant episodes if the whole point in question is a detail or details actually present in the episode. On the page we're talking about, for example, I count eighteen citations; thirteen of these are to Doctor Who episodes and only five are to outside sources. Of these five references, one is to a casting question, one is to a detail in spinoff media, and one is to an opinion expressed by Julie Gardner; only two are to details found directly within the episodes. Of these five citations, one is to Doctor Who Confidential, and all the others of which are to the BBC "Fact File" web page for the episode; none are to "the critics". My impression, from having read many continuity sections for Doctor Who, Battlestar Galactica, and Carnivale (yes, I'm a huge nerd!) is that this type of citing is common practice.
As I read it, the policy on "synthesis", as written, doesn't exclude this sort of thing. The policy defines synthesis in this way:

Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources.

The example given bears this out: the hypothetical author has combined material about "Smith" and "Jones" with material from the Chicago Manual of Style; they have done their own original research bringing together material from multiple sources to make an original point.

So as I see it, we are thrown back on "common law", as it were. The issue isn't "being smarter than the critics who review the show", since they're not in the picture at all; we're back to where to draw the line on a continuum in terms of complexity. If every point had to be cited to "an outside, reliable, verifiable source", then most of the material currently in "Continuity" sections would go. On the other hand, (A) some continuity points aren't worth noting because they really are just trivia; and (B) others could be said to constitute original research because they bring together a range of quite subtle points in a complex way, as to really constitute an original analysis of the source material and not just recognition of commonly observable facts. Both of these criteria act as effective barriers to Wikipedia being piled high and deep with abstruse esoterica compiled by febrile, obsessive fans. The question is where to draw the line along each of these continua, and it seems to me that that's a judgment call.
One could argue that my contribution is a bit trivial, given that the same or similar pieces of music are played during many different scenes in Doctor Who, like any serial, and Wikipedia is not the place to catalogue them all. But the combination of music, action, and dialogue I mention makes it genuinely unique, I think; I'm confident that it's intentional (though if I said that on the page, without citation to an independent source, that would be speculative, and so the whole entry would constitute the advancement of an original thesis).
On the other hand, you could argue that my contribution is above and beyond observation and venturing into the realm of original analysis, on the grounds of its relative complexity. My response is that it's not that much more complex than most of the other points mentioned in Continuity sections of Doctor Who episodes, and I think it's worth it, given the particular significance of the point in question.
So, what do you think? :) Christopher Powell (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. On the face of it, I don't think your statements regarding the music are trivial - B5's Chris Franke composed very specific themes for the different characters that slowly evolved during the five-year arc, and then blended in pretty cool ways (no, you are not a bigger nerd than me; I still can quote Kosh - Truth is a three-edged sword). Similarly, it is quite likely that the musical director for the series has specific basic themes for the Doctor (as the constant character). The key here is to find a source that says that.
My opinions that most continuity sections should go the way of the dodo are fairly well-known; to me, they are little more than trivia sections. Sceptre (to his notable credit) has managed to do away with them in The Stolen Earth, integrating most of the continuity points into the other sections of the article - in much the same way that many editors cannibalize trivia sections. In the final analysis, the only reason for justifying their continued presence after GA is that most folk have simply stopped trying to fit the trivia into the rest of the article, but are unwilling to let go of the remainders. It may be unfair to think so, but it just seems like lazy editing. Most of the points in the continuity sections of all the DW articles should be integrated as Sceptre has done. It makes them better, more complete articles.
If you come across some of these synthesized statements, point them out to me, and I will help you to convince others of their unacceptability. That goes for any article where you feel you are dealing with synthesis. Using the presence of these other trivial, synthesized or simply unimportant bits as a defense isn't an adequate defense, I feel. A synthesized statement (your edit) is not rendered less synthetic because of the presence of other edits that are entirely without merit. I hope you understand what I am saying without taking offense. I feel your heart is in the right place, and I am not trying to chide you for trying to point out what others might have missed.
That said, I agree that a lot of inclusion is a judgment call. Sometimes you have to pick your battles, and in others - just like in a marriage or other, healthy LTR - you hold your tongue and let the other person win. If you don't, they turn feral over the slightest things. Without naming names, I know of at least three editors who have since turned nasty because I selfishly wouldn't let them win even one argument. I have since learned to either ignore them, or wait until I can build a more sane consensus, so it isn't just me making a point.
I think that if the point you were trying to make in the statements in our discussion were not an evaluation by yourself, there would be a source for it - people in the entertainment field aren't really the sort to sit on their hands when it comes to patting themselves on the back. Since we don't have anything addressing that (yet?), I think the most likely culprit for this insightful connection is you, Chris. Intelligent and generous as you are, we cannot cite you making that connection. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this...

Please read this and take it seriously, at least for the next seven-and-three-quarter minutes. This would probably entail not deleting it with an edit-summary along the lines of begone, trollish poster, I am not feeding you! I am also posting this on the administrators' noticeboard so that they can be aware of my attempt to extend an olive branch in this late stage of the game. Our feud is getting us nowhere. I know we don't get on, but ostentatiously squabbling (me as well as you) won't help anything. It holds up our joint goal of producing a good encyclopedia. I comment on disputes in the WikiProject that I feel I can add to. You comment on my talkpage when it suits you, and refer to me as a newbie and a troll when I assume that the arrangement is mutual. I am offended by this. However, you are doubtless offended by things I've done in relation to you, as well. My aim isn't that we become the best of buddies, or that we see eye-to-eye on policy issues. My aim is as follows:

  • We stop the quoting of policy to each other. WP:TEMPLAR, WP:3RR, WP:AGF, WP:TROLL, WP:HARASS, WP:NPA, WP:CIV.
  • We don't watch each others' edits and just wander round the site taking sides against each other (I don't really do this, and I've not noticed you doing it either; it's still a perfectly commendable thing to do!)...
  • We feel free to contact and interact with each other on talkpages, ours and others' and articles'. We read each others comments without prejudice, not immediately assuming that the other has nothing of value to contribute.
  • We don't refer to each other as anything, trolls, newbies, gits, bastards - it's not necessary.

These aren't going to resolve our basic disagreements, but they will make sure that we don't mess up Wikipedia for other people (poor old U-Mos' talkpage looks absurd!) - and it will make our times better. While you have pointed to occasions when I have turned down the offers of getting over this argument, you have been highly unpleasant in our turn. It's a Romeo and Juliet situation, up to a point!, and it would be rather nice to stop it before it gets to a more advanced stage.

What do you say? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 19:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's essentially what I have been asking you to do for weeks, now. You have been advised by several different people to avoid my edits, and I had been considering that the only way to curb your behavior was to seek behavioral modification. I am glad that you finally took the oft-requested step of DR. I appreciate the olive branch, and I think one of the best ways to proceed is to simply avoid inserting ourselves in each other's conversations with others. I have been guilty of this (tho' you have too) and will stop immediately.
You will note that I do not have a banner on my user talk page for weeks on end drawing attention to an ongoing feud that only one person is interested in pursuing. You do. Nor do I continually submit, not one, but three separate AN/I complaints regarding your perception of my behavior. I think, if you are genuinely interested in pursuing a 'detenté', you will remove the banner from your user talk, and withdraw this AN/I complaint (now number 4) as potentially resolved. It is best served being mediated by a single admin, anyway.
If you are willing to do these things - and can remain polite in discussions and usertalk space - then I am willing to accept the olive branch you are offering and proceed in good faith.
What say you? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I think is uncalled for for you to attempt to defend your actions while still attacking mine. I attacked your actions and mine equally.

You haven't been requesting that we withdraw our talkpage-bans for weeks on end. The latest ANI thread from today is not a complaint.

I can't commit to not involving myself in disputes you are involved in; it's not workable. The U-Mos issue, for example - it's my WikiProject just as much as yours, its affairs interest me.
Other than that, fine. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
As a further point, it's generally inadvisable to wipe stuff from ANI. However, since the thread was merely intended as a notification, I thought it appropriate to close it. While you consider that we're not done yet, I am not planning to "thrash this out" in a public forum - this and my talkpage should surfice, surely? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) No, I have been proposing a different take on how we interact with one another for weeks, as I did with U-MOS. He accepted at that time, you simply deleted the post and ignored it. The note about the talk page banner was an example of a bad faith on your part; you've since removed it, so it concludes that part of the discussion. As well, I've removed the AN/I complaint (as that is what they are actually considered - and no, I won't call it a move to cover your ass), as part of the agreement; deletion removes it from the archives. If you insist on keeping it as an archive, there will be no arrangement between us. I will not have it count against me in discussions, when the appropriate venue for the discussion was in WP:MEDIATION or using a neutral admn to hammer out our differences. Bluntly, I am tired of you filing an AN/I complaint every time you feel your ego is bruised. AN/I is for significant breaches of behavior, and while it is admirable that you are trying to fix a problem, AN/I isn;t the place to do it - it looks like drama, and is largely unnecessary.
Lastly, I am not suggesting that you avoid any DW conversation with me; that is unreasonable. But, when I am having a discussion on a user's page about a point of dissent between me and that user, it is inappropriate for you to insinuate yourself into that conversation and pretend to act as a neutral third opinion, when the nature of our relationship specifically defines you as less than neutral. In such cases, it is better to recuse yourself; if I am so terribly mistaken, have faith that others will weigh in and correct me. As it was, your inserton in the conversation with U-MOS created a conversation 3x larger than the actual discussion on the subject between myself and U-MOS. The current WP:WHO discussion is an appropriate example of when to weigh in (so long as it stays polite - and no, continually or subtly revisiting the point of my education brought up byt he trollish, blocked anon is not conducive to polite editing).
So, if you understand my post, we can use it as a starting point for improved editing relationships between us. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec comment) I thought it best to simply discpose of the AN/I complaint altogether, as whether or not you wish it to be seen as such, it will be viewed by some simply scanning the page as how TT is being so reasonable and I am not. I am unwilling to allow such a characterization - unintended or not - to perpetuate itself via the placement of the section. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I will not commit myself to staying out of any dispute within Doctor Who. You don't own your disputes and I am entitled to chip in wherever I so wish. If you are not happy about this then deal off.
"I've removed the AN/I complaint (as that is what they are actually considered - and no, I won't call it a move to cover your ass)" - I really don't have the faintest idea as to what it means, but it doesn't sound pleasant. I don't get the impression from your responses to my balanced entreaties, that you are interested in reaching a fast and balanced conclusion to our dispute. If this is the case, deal off. I'm not playing games. We can agree to stop now, or we carry on fighting. As long as I'm not wasting my time on a pointless negociation. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not playing games, either. You've agreed to the removal of the AN/I. One sticking point dispensed with. I am glad to have that part done.
As I said, I am not opposed to you contributing to discussions in article space or article discussion (so long as your intent to remain polite continues); my note about the conversation with U-MOS was that you inserted yourself as a Third Opinion which, due to your issues with me you were incapable of rendering neutrally. You should have recognized the reality of that, as well as understanding that U-Mos and I were handling the matter completely civilly and calmly. For the second time, I do not care how you respond in open article or policy discussions. Those are not specifically between two specific users (as my conversation with U-MOS and this conversation here), and you have every right to weigh in there (again, so long as civility and politeness reign). Your contribution to the conversation between me an U-MOS was akin to barging in, and it largely wasn't necessary, and did not lead to anything but more rancor because of the nature of insertion. Hopefully, you understand that.
This improvement of relations between us is not going to improve overnight, so a very good method of allowing them to do so on their own is to make an effort not to specifically seek out arguments with the other to become involved in. Clearly, neither of us respond well to that. I am not saying you have to lessen your involvement; I am suggesting that the project is big enough for you to avoid seeking out discussions to disagree with me. That, more than anything is going to improve relations between us. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
OK......... I understand that you view my intervention with the U-Mos issue as "barging in" - however, your suggestion that I was siding against you as a matter of principle is unfounded. I actually provided numerous convincing arguments against your POV... while you may not view them as conclusive, you must admit that there was substance to them other than Arcayne your wrong U=MOS is right as lalwyas :-) However, as I've said, the issue is irrelevant because I am not going to sign away my right to contribute to any policy discussion, no matter who it involves and where it takes place, as long as it is on-wiki. You don't own your talkpage, much less U-Mos', and thus I am fully entitled (such an entitlement brings benefits too!) to monitor and contribute to material on any Wikipedia page.
However, I suggest that for now at least, we agree to a 100% ban on the following between us: quoting of behavioural policies (WP:CIV, WP:OWN - yes I know, but from now! - WP:3RR, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:DR, WP:3O - except for seeking one, obviously); snarkiness and sarcasm and attempts to score minor debating points; references to university education (mainly for me to watch myself but also worth trying for you); anything explicit in edit-summaries (as in, let's stick to r, cm, reply to Arcayne, commented, oppose and other generic things). ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 21:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Finally, some good movement...I can agree to that. Please do not consider my comments as asking you to sign away your right to respond; I am only asking that they remain polite and appropriate to the conversation. And be aware that I do appreciate you recognizing my issue with yoru involvement in the U-MOS user-talk conversation.
I agree to not quote policy to you, as well. I would be so bold as to suggest that, for the time being, we temporarily institute a 1RR or 2RR limit on reverting each other's edits (as I think it is too much for either of us to ask for a ban on that - we differ far too much on just about everything for that not to yank our chains). That is not proposed as deal-breaker, but a suggestion to further keep us out of one another's hair until things cool down.
This is my last post for a while - i am going sailing before the weather goes pear-shaped. Have a good weekend. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

John Adams (TV miniseries)

The article has a section titled Critical reception. I am exactly not sure why the title is "critical reception" instead of only "reception". As far as I have seen in other articles, this type of paragraphs are generally titled reception. What do you think? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just a term, referring to the idea that the notable reception is usually from critics, ie. reviewers. It is not referring to the importance of the comments of those folk, or their importance in the whole of the article. Hope that helps. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who Continuities

Thanks for linking to your archive; I would have been quite lost otherwise.

So now I think I see the real reasoning behind your edit. You'd like to do away with all "continuity" points not cited to independent sources, but you know there'd be howls of outrage if you did that unilaterally, so you're just getting rid of the most 'egregious' ones (as it were) until you can come up with a more complete solution. It's not that these points are forbidden by the letter of the law, because they're not, but they violate its spirit, and your own informed sense of what constitutes a good article. Which is fair enough, if unfortunate for me.

I wonder if we couldn't have reached this conclusion earlier. When you wrote, "Before we add it back in, let's make sure we can find agreement first, okay?" and "Until then, though, I think our hands are tied." I got the impression that you were on the verge of being convinced by me, but felt constrained against your inclinations by The Rules. I can see that that wasn't so (you were just trying to find a nice way of saying "Chris, please don't re-post your contribution until you've heard me out"). If I'm right, then you're not a reluctant bureaucrat, but a reformer, out on a campaign.

I suspect the sensibility you're trying to enforce warrants a more explicit Wikipedia policy somewhere, to the effect that "Wikipedia is not a bulletin board", which is what people who post to "Continuity" sections are trying to use it as. I suspect such people, like myself, don't think of what they're doing as "original research" but as using a public-domain space to compile a shared record of interesting observations. Which, now that I put it that way, evidently is not an orthodox function for an 'encyclopedia' (but I've never been a fan of orthodox functions).

Well, sigh, and best of luck. Cheers. Christopher Powell (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I should concede even more, gratuitously. I suppose that taken literally, "putting together different sources" includes even saying "the Lost Moon of Poosh was mentioned in this episode and in Midnight", because Journey's End and Midnight are two different sources. So I take back what I just said about the "letter of the law"; it does exclude continuity points. I was blinded by the ubiquity of common practice to the contrary, and my habituation thereto. Cheers. Christopher Powell (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free

Since you've selected to remove the discussion before I could respond, Feel free to remove this response as well, once you've seen it.

My response to your last question, would have been:

My suggestion was that, merely a suggestion. It's up to you as to how you present yourself to the community.

At this point, I don't think I have anything further I wish to suggest at the moment.

I hope you have a good day. - jc37 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry.
Er, I just archived the weekly stuff. i hadn't heard from you in a few days, so I guessed there wasn't anything more that you wished to add. I certainly wasn't 'doing away with' the comments, which I found of value. I just archive at the end of the week. No offense was intended. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your clarification. - jc37 23:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Check your email

As I sent you an enquiry. - TheMoridian 07:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. As a consequence of editor conduct and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground, Yorkshirian (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: DK

You got to see an IMAX screening!? Awesome! I probably will see it on a regular screen... we'll see if there are any captioned venues this very weekend. I'm trying to keep my expectations low, but the reviews get me giddy. I shall sprint, indeed! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Heroes: Peter Petrelli

Yeah sorry about how it said i deleted that section what happened was that my little brother deleted that section, he was pissed of at me, and i kept my self logged in on that day and he saw the pages i watch and decided 2 get people mad at me by messing up a page to get even with me.- RREDD13 (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images

Hello, I noticed that you participated in discussion at WT:NFC regarding one of the criteria, significance. I don't know if you will make much leeway changing policy, but I wanted to inform you that I am proposing a component for WP:MOSFILM for proper implementation of non-free images. When I wrote it, I thought of incidents like what took place at 300. I imagine you may have some input about that. You can see the discussion here. Thanks, Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am truly tempted to read the Plot section... unfortunately, I found out that the studio has not distributed any captions for theaters' captioning systems for the opening weekend. Argh, the wait! I will drive out of my way if I have to see this bad boy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Veni, vidi, loved it! See my thoughts of the film here. Let me know what you liked in particular! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

Thank you!
Arcayne, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

O, what to say to my friend Arcayne... the simplest way I can say it is thank you. --Happyme22 (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Mickey and Sarah Jane

Hey, if you feel that Mickey and Sarah Jane should be credited as companions in "Army of Ghosts"/"Doomsday" and "School Reunion", there is a discussion going on here. Ophois (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: editing similarities

Thanks for reminding me, but I hardly see any reason to do that. If a user is making dubious and/or biased edits for weeks, and if users are starting to show up supporting his/her actions and following him/her everywhere, then I might consider an RfCU. But I'm not going to worry about some muslim making a few failed attempts to add a non-notable movie to an article, and neither will the checkuser-users I think. No need to shoot on a fly with a cannon. Cheers, Face 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

About Allemandtando

In case you didn't notice, Allemandtando has "retired." He had finally pushed and goaded enough that I did what he was demanding, started using that evidence page I'd created -- and which was under MfD -- and looked at his early edits, and I noticed something that I hadn't seen before. His registration and appearance at the AfD for Donna Upson appeared to be timed with respect to my voting in that AfD, and that would be a characteristic of User:Fredrick day, who definitely has stalked me. You may recall that I had mentioned Fredrick day as a possibility when some admins were screaming for Killerofcrufts head on AN/I, but I did not think there was sufficient evidence. His later behavior, though, matched the pattern, the particular combination of deletionist activism with incivility, edit warring, and disruption, that can be so toxic, plus the very strong outrage at any suggestion that his edits might bear watching. So I filed an SSP report, and then RFCU. There was a lot of flap, with various people accusing me of harassing him, but checkuser came back "likely." Knowing what I know about Fredrick day, this means that they colocated him to the same ISP dynamic range as Fredrick day, though there could have been something else in addition. It wasn't "definite," because they didn't have anything to compare it with, such as two edits from a master and puppet from the same IP and port. That is, it is not impossible that Allemandtando might be so unfortunate as to be using the same ISP and range as Fredrick day, but the likelihood of this is probably somewhere in the range of 1 in 100,000. Combine that with the behavioral evidence, which I'd put at 90% confidence that it was Fredrick day, we'd have one in a million that this wasn't Fd. Sorry. I know you tried to help him, and, in fact, I did as well, though I considered it my responsibility to also confront his disruption.

Deleting content is a tricky thing. It may be necessary to improve a *page*, but there is also the problem that it alienates people, so how it is done is crucial. When it's done uncivilly, insulting editors and what they think is important, well, it might be better to have a defective page....

The seal on Alle being Fredrick day was the retirement, as checkuser approached. The first time Fd was blocked, he had been pinned because he'd made a blatant error revealing, without any question at all, that he was the IP editor who had been vandalizing User:Kmweber's pages, plus other fairly nasty stuff. He immediately commented, "Oh, well, I don't need this account anyway, I can do better without it." He elsewhere said that he had other accounts, which he used for ordinary editing, noncontroversial stuff. I suspect, in fact, that he has an administrative account, but that's another story. When Fd was pinned, he immediately wrote "guilty" in the SSP report and "retired," and then only edited, abusively, from IP. Why? I think I know. He wanted to avoid checkuser, which sometimes will pick up other sock accounts that weren't included in the checkuser request. He didn't want to risk his more important accounts. So when it got hot at AN/I, within two days of registration, he "retired." In "tears." And then, when it cooled down, and it became clear he wasn't going to be checkusered, he came back. And changed his name, and mostly stayed away from me. But apparently he could not resist goading me, or he wanted to find out what would happen. When checkuser was pending, he retired, I think he may have been hoping that checkuser wouldn't be done. Again, he left a plaintive message, which I take as calculated to inspire sympathy among those inclined to think he was hounded off the project. But he wasn't. He wasn't hounded, there was no ongoing tracking of his behavior, an empty file existed in my user space, and nothing, really, was going on until Ryan Postlethwaite MfD'd that evidence file. Which, of course, I defended, though I really didn't, uh, WP:DGAF whether it was deleted or not, I had the content off-wiki and could replace it in a minute if needed. Alle insisted, not to put too fine a point on it, that I "put up or shut up," at length, in the manner of "You wimp, you're not going to do anything, you just like to bully people." I'm not sure why he did that. I could imagine that he's simply stupid, but, I suspect not. I think he may have been assessing me, for long-term purposes. I had previously said I'd do stuff, like follow up on certain sock puppet evidence -- different suspects -- which I hadn't done (yet). What's fairly clear to me is that he didn't really care about the account. He doesn't need it. He can register another one any time he wants, and, provided he doesn't make it as obvious as he did this time -- obvious to me, not obvious to most others -- he can sail on, happily deleting reams of cruft, if that is what he really cares about (it may not be). Unless and until we develop better systems for finding community consensus and using our collective intelligence to maintain it.

Anyway, I thought you might like the heads up. He lied to a lot of people, some of whom are still attempting to defend him and to claim that I did something wrong by watching the behavior of another editor. We need more of that, not less. In particular, we need to watch all administrators, not to blame them or attack them, but just to make sure that bad stuff doesn't pass unnoticed. A good admin will quickly admit it when they make a mistake and it is pointed out, it doesn't need to be some big battle every time an admin blocks someone.... and when policy is unclear, an admin should never be punished for following a reasonable interpretation, even if this is later rejected. Admins shouldn't punish users and users should not punish admins. But we do need to make sure that, when we go off course, there is correction. We all need that.

Sorry about Alle, I think you tried. From a simple perspective, we might regret that he didn't simply keep his nose clean, he was doing good work. From another, though, I suspect he's far more sophisticated then we might think, he knew exactly what he was doing, and he was cynically manipulating users, including those who were trying to help him. I don't like to hold thoughts like those, and I don't hold them and won't hold them, and if Alle reincarnates, I've got no jihad going to ferret him out and get him booted. As long as he isn't disruptive and uncivil, and he knows how to avoid that. --Abd (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your enquiry

I sent it again... I'm guessing you still haven't got it? I'll try sending it direct to your email - but you should know that the 'Email this user' feature isn't sending the emails to you. TheMoridian 09:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, just sent. Third time lucky, eh? :) TheMoridian 10:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter articles and Notability

Hey there!! I come to invite you to join a discussion still regarding HP articles and notability, as you were one of the most active editors when the big mergers took place (for example all the Hogwarts teachers or the Weasley family members). I came with this proposal to merge Neville and Luna into the Dumbledore's Army article because, like some other important characters we merged in the past (McGonagall, the Weasley twins, Lupin, Moody, Umbridge), these two have not met notability, or at least their articles are way too poor, especially if compared to other important (and indeed notable) characters like the trio, Snape or Voldemort. These pages remain as short, plot appearances only articles, with lots of in-universe and overdetailed scenes and dialogues.

I made This draft to give you an idea of how this article would look like with the changes. Cheers! --LøЯd ۞pεth 22:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just come here to say that it was a good idea from you to post the discussions in the WP. I originally posted started them in the talk pages to let the users know to avoid what happened when the big mergers took place (Hogwarts staff, Death Eaters, Weasleys, etc.) --LøЯd ۞pεth 19:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ibiza languages

Dear Arcayne,

I think there has been a misunderstanding between us. Of course, English, Catalan and Spanish are widely spoken in the island (and a number of other languages as well). But notice that they appear in the infobox as "official languages". This has a clear legal meaning and, as far as we know, only Catalan and Spanish are official according to Balearic and Spanish laws. That's why I removed English from there. So, I think you will have no problem in me undoing your last undo :)

Best, --Carles Noguera (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who discussion page

Actually, Fasach moved the anon's comment. I undid hat, as we don't get to refactor others' posts. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it only looked like he moved the anon's comment, but that is only how the diff engine see it. Fasach moved his comment UP right after he posted it. — Edokter • Talk • 22:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:62.158.79.144

This comment was directed at the anon user, not me, right :-) Gwernol 16:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely towards the anon. You and I are aces, mate. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your deceptive post on my talk page...

...has been removed. You had been told in the past by myself and admins to knock this kind of behavior off, yet you continue to do so. This most recent harassment is now so clear cut that I think I have no choice but to look into getting admins to seriously look into your wikilawyering and bad faith edits. Do not post to my talk page again, as it's clear by repeating the same warnings you know to be false that you have in the past used that you are not posting there to improve the encyclopedia but either merely as a ruse to try to trick others into thinking you are just concerned about the rules or as a way of harassing me. Either way my tolerance is over. DreamGuy (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

At the enforcement noticeboard I said "I'd ask Arcayne to give you (DG) the benefit of the doubt and move forward in the spirit of enterprise and intense article work that seems to be breaking out at that page {JtR) - but I'd also ask you (DG) to do the same. It's not necessary for either party to like the other, but a little generosity doesn't go amiss." Kbthompson (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You may want to take a look at DG's talk page warning now. Heads up. padillaH (review me)(help me) 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Yup, it was changed from a blanket statement that harassers could not post to a more specific one about specific, documented harassers so there'd be no confusion. It assumes good faith because the warning is now limited to those who have been identified by others as harassers, so only those who have already proven bad faith in the past. Furthermore it stresses that discussion about articles can still take place on article pages and shows that there's no reason for people with history of personal conflict to post to the page -- anything of any encyclopedic value can be targeted to the correct location. DreamGuy (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In other words you have turned it from a suspicious warning to a blatant attack page. In point of fact this is worse than an attack pag since, ostensibly, the people you are attacking cannot respond. This is the lowest form of character assassination. padillaH (review me)(help me) 18:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
DG, may I ask why you think that you can post on my user talk page but ban me from yours? I am sorry, but at the end of the week, I will be archiving your petty remarks, and I would advise you to not post on my usertalk page again. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
In violation of his parole DG has just written a new version of his attack page which includes two other editors to his list of 'enemy editors'!:
Ah. Well, then that's even more bizarre. The rewrite was in response to a couple of admins complaining that the one that is there now was too vague and showed bad faith against editors in general. I changed it to make it more clear, and everything in it was factual -- Elonka and Arcayne have both been described by admins as having harassed me. Elonka additionally has been blocked for said harassment in the past. I don't see how it at all violates my arbitration parole, and certainly if someone objected to it a more reasonable response would be to explain the problem and ask that it be changed, not just take it upon themselves to delete it permanently from the history and block me. The two admins in question probably should have left it to more impartial people. Kbthompson is directly involved in the conflict in question, and this is not the first time Jayig has blocked me for a reason that had no policy basis. But hey, it's a longstanding tradition here that certain admins seem to treat policies as things they are freely allowed to ignore in order to strike out at people they don't like.
To summarise, the 'enemy admins' are now: Arcayne, Elonka, Kb Thompson and Jayig. Their crime was making judgements which didn't support Dreamguy 100%. Therefore they will now be dragged through the mud on every available occasion and the other admins rather than supporting them will take the side of Dreamguy. If they don't their name will be added to his attack page as an awful warning that Dreamguy can defy wikipedia admins with impunity. Colin4C (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
My advice is to simply ignore the tantrum. Unless he disrupts articles, he's pretty much harmless. He certainly isn't worth your concern, Colin. As for the comments on his usertalk, he was blocked for targeting Elonka and myself. His subsequent comments suggest that he is seeing the block as punitive. I imagine it won't be the last time he is in a time out. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have said my piece. It is up to the admins to judge what they think is tolerable on the wikipedia and what way they wish to interpret the wikipedia guidelines depending on how they are feeling at any particular minute of the day... Colin4C (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Collapsing discussions

Not really. Erik might know how to do that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any official guide, but I noticed that closed discussions at FAC processes were hidden to reduce the amount of visible text. I took the coding from one of these processes and used it to hide my review of The Dark Knight. Just look at the code I put in and re-label... let me know if there are any difficulties. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Got it to work just fine. Thanks for the assist. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: please be considerate

In response to:

I made the subject boxs collapsible, not to hide them, but instead to allow otehrs to read the past discussions if they aren't familiar with the back and forth, and then close them to continue discussion. I would appreciate it if you would respect that intent, and leave them be.
As well, your edit to Dumbledore's Army, Luna Lovegood and Neville Longbottom, attempting to undo the merge using the very same methods which you are crying foul about is exceedingly poor form. If you feel the merger was done inappropriately, you should express your opinion in the same discussion you have already contributed to in the wikiproject. Reverting them, after the merge has already been performed is disruptive, and could be seen as edit-warring. I don't want to believe you are doing that, considering the quality of many of your other edits, but it is beginning to sound like sour grapes. Please use the discussion forum of the wikiproject to voice your concerns and argue to an undoing of the merge. This other way will only serve to reflect negatively upon you, and I don't want that to happen. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Performing major merges when there is No Consensus to do so is what is poor form. Accusing someone of having "sour grapes" on their talk page is also poor form. I won't preform 3RR as I hope you won't. --Oakshade (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I would also note that falsely accusing me of WP:FORUMSHOP in the DRV talk page is also bad form and borderline WP:STALKING. --Oakshade (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
To begin with, I happen to watchlist that page (the recent deletions of certain images have made that necessary), so maybe you might want to take a deep breath, a step back and do some serious rethinking before you reply. I am being polite, and if you wish to recevie a response from me in the future, you might wish to follow that example.
I submit that you are taking this all a little too personally. The very fact that you are considering 3RR an electric fence to avoid suggests to me that you are missing the point of 3RR; its to keep people talking in discussion, not trying to force a view that clearly isn't being accepted via edit summary. I am not going to violate 3RR,a nd I hope you don;t, either, as I would report you for it. You are coming dangerously close to it, and I would caution you to rethink your strategy there.
If you feel the consensus was not in favor of merging, you have a venue for expressing that: the HP wikiproject. Expressing it via revert or asking the other parent (ie forum-shopping at a place where you are experienced enough to know is the wrong venue for redress) is only going to foster some fairly negative opinions about you (trust me, I've been where you are at many times in my past), and build up some ill will in the ol' karmic bank. Stick to discussing hte matter in the HP wikiproject, and you might find that your statements might find some purchase there; playing the entire field is going to turn all opinions stony towards you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cookie

David Shankbone has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter

The July 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) 01:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Perhaps some more discussion is called for

I'm rather confused about what you're saying. I don't think I needed consensus to revert non-consensual changes. Anyway, I just got WT:WPHP back on my watchlist today so I'll certainly continue to get involved in the discussion as I see fit. Best, --PeaceNT (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As will I. We'll find a solution, PeaceNT. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Meetup

Arcayne -- you've expressed interest in attending another Chicago meetup this summer. I've set up the skeleton of a page for organizing something this month. Take a look at Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 -- let me know what dates you'd be available, how far you'd be willing to travel, etc., and maybe we can organize an event. best — Dan | talk 18:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Grint.weaseley.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Grint.weaseley.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the notice. I reworked the text to provide notability, which I suspect wasn't necessary, but added it anyway.

Possible path forward on JtR

I have posted a very rough idea of a possible path forward on stopping the fighting and personal arguing on the JtR page and JtR talk page. If you see possibility to the idea, please let me know either here or on my talk page. Please do not clutter up KB's talk page with discussion of this. If all the major players see potential, I will start up a page and talk page in my user area to flesh out the idea with all involved. If anyone wants to reject any possibility of the idea, please say so also, so that time is not wasted on something that will not work. This is an idea that can only work with the acceptance of all the major players at the JtR talk page, so if anyone rejects it, the idea is pretty much DOA. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read the proposal and I would agree to it in spirit. You are probably going to have to tie down the language a lot more. When DG gets winded up, he never seems to stop ranting about how it is all a big conspiracy to get him. However, the reasoning of your proposal is a good one. I would agree to it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The initial, rough draft of the agreement is up at User:TexasAndroid/JtR Battleground. It is availible for editing, and the linked talk page, while not currently in existance, can be created and used for discussions on the agreement. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attack

Please don't repeatedly falsely accuse me of having "sour grapes," which is an offensive attack, and then put a civility official warning on my talk page. As you are capable of civil editing, pleas refrain from this kind of behavior.--Oakshade (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

the The

Yes folks, it’s the The time again. You might like to add your opinion (whatever it may be) on this page.--andreasegde (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

You have been not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO, but you have participated in discussion at either Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3 or Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as an active member. Also, if you are a member, be advised that the project is now atrying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring in Jack the Ripper. Knock it off on removing (possibly duplicate) sources in Jack the Ripper. Unless the duplicate sources are not reliable, they should not be removed without discussion.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a fairly civil removal, and an equally civil revert of its reinsertion. Where is the baiting you referenced in the block notice, and why does this merit blocking for 2RR? Avruch T 16:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Being blocked for removing multiple source - when they have been repeatedly added against consensus and against our own MOS is appropriate. Even so, I did not violate 3RR. I am not sure where the baiting charge comes from, as I haven't mind-controlled anyone to break 3RR. If folk are wrong, we trust others to undo the mistake. It isn't up to any individual to violate 3RR, and we are all grown-up enough here to avoid the claim of "he made me do it". Instead of again reverting the edit-warring by another user (and risking edit-warring myself), I followed the rules by properly filing a 3RR complaint against the person violating the rule and opened a discussion on the topic in the article discussion page. I wasn't edit-warring, violating 3RR or "baiting". I did nothing that deserves a block. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

accepted his/her parole not to edit Jack the Ripper until the matter is resolved.

Request handled by: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You've removed the sources 3 times today, although one of them was only a partial revert. If there was so much consensus, you could wait for someone else to delete it. I've reported the block at ANI, as I've been in disputes with both of you recently. Fairness suggests that both parties should be blocked for edit warring. I've been blocked for edit warring with only 2 reverts, so I don't see why other editors should be immune. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I cannot address the circumstances under which you were blocked, Arthur. I can only address mine: I did not violate 3RR (ie, perform more than three reverts within a day), I was not edit-warring, and subsequent comments in the article discussion clearly indicates that a consensus exists for using a single reference (as well as our MOS). DG initially began the editing by adding five sources, which have since been pared down to one (just like the rest of the article, and most of the articles in Wikipedia). That DG has repeatedly chosen not to seek a consensus for his edits is pretty clear. I don't really care what DG does; my interest is in the article, and multiple citations in a WP:POINT debate are not improvements to the article. Furthermore, if a mistake occurs, I am most likely going to fix it, and not sit on my hands until someone else fixes it. That I haven't been blocked for over a year for 3RR is a pretty clear indicator that I am aware of the both the letter and spirit of the rule. DG has been asked many, many times to discuss his edits and seek a consensus for them. He chooses not to. Again, I broke no rule, and ask to be unblocked. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I only see 2 edits today, myself. I do see that he removed the same information yesterday. Not ideal conduct, but I don't think it warrants a 48 hour block. Avruch T 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
And the ANI discussion gets to happen without my input? Gee, doesn't really seem fair, considering that you yourself have been unblocked in the past expressly for the opportunity to respond to discussions regarding you at ANI.
As well, I am unclear as to when we have had "run-ins", as I can only see us conversing once in October and once in November of last year; neither seemed particularly combative - of course, you might have had a different impression of it that you chose not to voice at the time. Of course, those discussions were regarding DG, so perhaps you might have been a little less than neutral in blocking. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else you have argued with?
Lastly, I am a little confused as to how I was edit-warring at all? I actively engaged in discussion and encouraged others to participate. No incivility was used on my part - no baiting. When the other editor violated 3RR, I reported it at the appropriate noticeboard. No bad faith reporting, as the user actually did violate 3RR. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Following the discussion at ANI, I think some fairly significant points have been missed, namely that I haven't violated any rule or guideline.

I'm willing to manually transclude a comment section to the ANI page, if you want to say anything there. Alternatively, I'd accept a temporary parole of no edits to JtR, until the matter is resolved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in meetings, and missed the opportunity to respond expediently. Yes, I agree to not edit within the JTR article until the matter is resolved. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
And again, I will point out that I never even suggested that you are biased against me, Arthur. I simply said your block was wrong, not biased. As well, this has never been about me and DG. I never have accused any voice of dissent as being part of a grand conspiracy to "get" him, as DG has on so many occasions that it would be silly to argue against it. Were DG to actually follow those rules that all of us have to follow, I would be happy as a clam. Unfortunately, he thinks discussion isn't important. We both know it is vital to the project working effectively. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Unblocked, per above. (And I cleared the autoblock, too.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, your way to slippery. You just said this to Arthur: "I will point out that I never even suggested that you are biased against me" and in the same discussion earlier you suggested exactly that to Arthur: "perhaps you might have been a little less than neutral in blocking". Can I hire you as my WikiLawyer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.128.238 (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
My apologies if I was unclear. I don't recall any problem I have had with Arthur, but I was noting that he has had significant issues with DG in the past, so much so that perhaps he shouldn't have weighed in on a blocking issue concerning him. Sorry if you saw that as wiki-lawyering; it was simply a failure of mine to be more clear in my description; I was trying to avoid long-windedness. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned on the admin noticeboard

Just a heads up, you've been mentioned in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Arcayne RE: Civility & Good Faith. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Stolen Earth

Hey. I've been meaning to message you for ages but I kept forgetting: The Stolen Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is on FAC again. As you opposed the FAC a month ago, could you have a look over the article and see if your objections have been adressed? Sceptre (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for the opportunity to do so. I am going offline for the evening, but will take a look tomorrow. Thank you for thinking of inviting me to look again. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

the The

Yes folks, it’s "the beatles" or "The Beatles" time again. You might like to add your opinion (whatever it may be) on this page.--andreasegde (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR

Just this once. This is the most notable time I have seen this policy come into effect. This is in regard to Jeff's memorial. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are speaking to the listing in Deceased Wikipeidians, I agree that IAR applies, but I've asked for input at the Admin Noticeboard.
If you are, however, speaking to allowing the banned user to post his "grief" ont he page, my answer is a resounding "nope". Not applicable. The banned user is using Jeff's memorial as a platform for showing how they have reformed, and I am guessing that Jeff would be so strongly opposed that the heat of that opposition could heat a small city for a week. I am not going to allow Jeff's memorial page to be used that way. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The second one. Look, he is not asking for a block, he is not trying to say he has been changed in hopes for an unblock. He is sending his condolences to Jeff, Jeff's Family, and the family Jeff had on Wikipedia. Just let him go. He is not acting maliciously at all. WP:Ignore All Rules and Don't Be A Dick. Sorry but that is what I am getting from this. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Tinleheimer here, and everyone else. Stop Arcayne. Just for the love, stop. Keeper ǀ 76 17:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Respectfully Tinkleheimer, if you call me a dick one more time, you and I are done talking. Capisce?
Secondly, a banned editor doesn't get to post. They had their chance, and they blew it, for whatever reason. Until they are allowed entry back into Wikipedia, they do not get to post. This is a no-brainer. The community is an encyclopedia, not an Irish wake, where the right bastard Uncle Tommy, who stole the decedent's life savings is able to come back, sobbing, and all is forgiven. The user is banned. They have no voice. At all. Not my rules. Ask an admin, if there is any shade of gray to this. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Stop with the "ask an admin" shit too. I'm an admin. TravellingCari, who posted agreement with DuncanHill is an admin. These pithy "appeals to authority" are ridiculous. You are being far more insulting and disrespectful than "ben", and now you are trying to Wikilawyer your way around the rules. IAR IS A FUCKING RULE TOO, and ironically, the only one that wikilawyer's seem to have trouble defending. Keeper ǀ 76 17:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, calm the hell down. Secondly, ask yourself: were this any other article, would you allow a banned user to post? Of course not, and chances are, you'd be toting the guillotine with the rest of the mob. This is not wikilawyering - and shame on you for even using that term. IAR is not a coverlet allowing banned users to post. They had their chance, and failed to follow our rules. Again, this isn't an Irish wake, its an encyclopedia. The rest of us followed the rules, and are allowed to post within our community our grief. The banned user is not, and consequently, does not.
As for the ask an admin comment, it was an encouragement for you to find some emotional distance from this issue. As evidenced by your relative flip-out here, you need to take a step back.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You are reading tone where there is none. I'm not upset or emotional. I'm a bit dumbfounded is all. If it was any other article, hell, if it was an article, you are absolutely right that I would revert and block. Absolutely. It's a memorial user subpage. You are defining Wikilawyering by enforcing every rule you think you need to throw at this, other than IAR, the only one that actually applies. Keeper ǀ 76 17:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:Ignore all rules is simply WP:Consensus spelled differently. Avb 18:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec x2) So, the consensus is to allow banned users to post? I am sure Thatcher and Grawp will be delighted to hear that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not know what the consensus is in this case. But I do know it trumps the opinion of Thatcher and Grawp, in the unlikely case that they would try and have their opinion trump editor consensus. If you want your opinion to prevail, you need to build a consensus in its favor. Avb 18:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Look, I am not trying to call you a dick. I tried to explain myself in the last post. Let me try and explain myself deeper. A banned user who has had interaction with a deceased user is trying to send his condolonces. The user is doing nothing that is bad at all except stating that he was a banned user. You just note that he is a banned user and remove the comment, not giving any sympathy to him. The way I am seeing it is "Hey, you're banned, it's your fault." To me, that is dickish.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec x2) Okay, thanks for explaining. You might wish to consider your choice of words, T. As I see it, WP is a community. Those who follow the rules get to remain, and interact with one another. When one chooses not to follow those rules, they are expelled and banished. They have no more say in the community. Not contributions to articles (and when we catch them, we purge all their changes), not via socks, and not for condolences. I believe Jeff's email link is still working, so the banned user had the capability to send email instead of posting. A death in our wiki family isn't an opportunity for an outsider to weigh in. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I did not see anywhere on the Memorial Page that said No Outsiders. This is just getting really stupid. Consensus seems to be against you right now. I am going to let it go for now. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you were looking in the wrong place, T. Our blocking policy states that banned users aren't allowed to post. We aren't talking about outsider; we are talking about outsiders we have specifically chosen to expel from our group. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is un-fucking-believable. Arcayne, just lighten up, listen to reason, and rise above your love of the rules. This is an exceptional circumstance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Your userbox says you appreciate third opinions, so I thought I'd pitch in here. You're acting alot like my little brother. :-) When my little brother screws up, he has a hard time admitting it. He gets really defensive, and puts on the whole "in your face" attitude. Mostly it's just because he doesn't want people to think badly of him for making a mistake. :-( So I'll tell you what I always tell him: the quality that impresses people more than anything else, is being able to say "My bad, sorry dude. Shibby!" and walk away. When you dwell on small mistakes, stand your ground when you really shouldn't, and say you're right when overwhelming evidence says you aren't, it really makes people take a negative look on your reputation and character, and could get you in trouble. All it takes is a few seconds to look the situation over from a third-person kind of view, with a bit of apathy, and you'll see it isn't as huge a deal as it seems to you. WP:IAR is a fundamental rule, after all, just as much so as the blocking policy.--KojiDude (C) 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

With respect to your brother, Kojidude, no one has bother ed to explain precisely why IAR applies here. The banned anon is clearly trying to get reinstated, and it isn't too far to consider that the comment is a cynical attempt to show a rehabilitation. I think its important to show the dead respect, and using them as a stepping stone to reinstatement is in the worst possible taste.
When I am wrong, I admit it. No one yet has explained why I am wrong. Everyone is up in arms that I am removing a banned user's comments, but no one is telling me why we are allowing someone we removed from our community to contribute to our grief. No one is saying they cannot grieve. They just cannot do it here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong, in this instance, to not take IAR into account. The banned user, in this instance, is harmless. In this instance, nothing that the user is doing, is causing fundamental harm to the project. That, I believe, is the entirety of the issue with regards to IAR. Qb | your 2 cents 18:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I pointed out that the user is attempting (admitted here to be reinstated, and allowing him to use Jeff's memorial page as an example of his rehabilitation is not appropriate. How does IAR allow for that? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Please read my comment for content. In this instance the banned user is doing no harm to the overall runnings of Wikipedia... do you understand now why people are having an aneurism over this? Qb | your 2 cents 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I do. There is far too much emotion flying through that page, and they are seeing any deletion of comments as a proxy attack on Jeff. Unequivocally, it is not. It is an attempt to protect the page from being used as a platform for a banned user. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Is it tomorrow yet? Quick question, from your diff linked above. What part of ben's comment, quote You do also realize that I posted on his page and identified myself at my own peril, since doing this extends my ban by another 6 months. I could have easily just concealed my identity, but I was prepared to have my ban extended out of sheer respect for Jeff. do you read as someone "attemtping to be reinstated"? What a load of bad faith. Keeper ǀ 76 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Okay. I thought we were doing this tomorrow, as per your user talk page. Perhaps the assumption of good faith isn't supposed to overlook bad acts. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
(re to arcayne, purposefully put above QB's comment below which I have not read). I think that's the fundamental difference then. You are the only one (so far anyway) to see the IP post as a "bad act". Jeff posted Ben's stuff to his talkpage, himself. The "memorial" that Ben put there was heartfelt, sincere, risked extending the ban of his account (not "lifting it, as you seem to think it threatens to do). He gave jeff credit for saving his life through talkpages and email correspondence. He (assumedly) just found out that Jeff died. He came here to post his grief, like dozens if not hundreds of other human beings have done, including new users, admins, friends and adversaries. A tragedy happened that has nothing to do with fucking wikipedia and it's arbitrary ban policy. You don't get it though, at least not yet, but I think you are smart enough to come around and see past your own nose. That post had nothing to do with Wikipedia, bans, blocks, or rules. It was the essence of Ignore the Rules", and in fact, stood up right in the face of a "rule" handed down by our "highest authorities" (arbcom) at the risk of being even further outcast from our group. You don't get it yet, but I think you will. If that IP, self-identifying as iamandrewrice, showed up on an article talk, an article, or even a wiki-noticeboard, I would be the first to block. I enforce the rules, by obligation to the community and the admin bit they entrusted me to. I enforce all the rules though, Arcayne, including Ignore All the Rules. I apologize sincerely for being so dumbstruck by what I saw was an obvious guffaw on your part that I edited too quickly and with too much language and assumptions. I wasn't upset, I can see now that I was being emotional. The allcaps that I used, looking back, did not help alleviate that perception, but instead obviously endorsed the opposite, I can see. You need to see the overwhelming evidence of good sense that surrounds you in regards to this issue Arcayne, and choose to let it go, and let the post stand. Keeper ǀ 76 19:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - In the end, it really doesnt matter what anyone says to do to make you understand that IAR is envoked for specific reasons... usually in instances where doing so would cause absolutely no harm to the overall everyday maintenence of Wikipedia. Ask yourself, does complaining about this cause more harm to the project, or less? How much time has been spent by good people trying to get you to understand that you are being disruptive? It doesnt matter what any of us say today, tomorrow, next week. You have your ideas, as short sighted and authoritarian as they are. In the end, the larger number of folks always wins... and in this case, you are not of the majority. I'm going home. Qb | your 2 cents 19:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the bad faith and faintly uncivil comment. It wasn't as if I called your mama a whore or something. Maybe you can be nicer next time you post to my page. Or, perhaps you were expecting that calling me "disruptive", "short-sighted" and "authoritarian" was supposed to elicit a more conciliatory tone. If a consensus of folk feel that allowing banned users to post is beneficial to the project, I won't fight it. I was simply noting the policy and the likely reasoning for the banned anon's post. Maybe you could stop attacking me for trying to do so. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I would be more inclined to take your comments seriously if you could convince me of your qualifications in mind-reading. Why not let a banned user express his condolence, even if it is against a strict interpretation of the rules, and move on? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Pithy remarks aside, Malleus, one doesn't need telepathy when the person actively declares their intent to seek reinstatement (I do believe I've said this, like, three different times before). Banned users surrender good faith considerations while banned. This is why we revert the additions of banned users who contribute anonymously; as banned users, they get no rhythm from us. This is why we set up a specific protocol by which they can seek reinstatement, and allow no other method of reinstatement. Again, I point out that these aren't my rules or interpretations, they are Wikipedia's. If I choose to prevent a banned user from using the memorial as a springboard to getting in good with ArbCom. Maybe that is an unfair characterization, but given that they are banned and not subject to good faith considerations, it is not inconceivable that they were posting towards that end. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
In answer to your first question, I archived it because the thread was digressing, and you had got an answer: It is appropriate, in this instance, to let a banned user post to such pages. As for the issues that were discussed further on, it's really not appropriate for discussion on the same thread as one used for discussing a deceased Wikipedian. Hence my archive. Also, I was not the only one to view it as such. Really, it's best to let it rest. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, if you are so worried about a banned user posting anything, anywhere, why have you only decided to revert this one high profile post, repeatedly? You haven't touched his other posts regarding this issue, including before and after his posts to jeff's subpage. I'm really having a hard time seeing past the "attention-getting" appearance of this. Have you read my post above QB's or should I repeat it? You've responded to the other, perhaps more convenient posts (meaning, they were more snide than my last, so easier to deflect). Keeper ǀ 76 19:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Er, yeah. Perhaps you might want to take the rest of that day to cool down, Keeper. This post wasn't much better than the emotional ones presented before. Accusing me of seeking high-profile attention is pretty low, and far, far beneath you. You do neither of us a service by claiming it.
In answer to your question, I didn't care about the user's other posts, as they weren't in such a "high profile" area. Speaking to that, if you were a banned user, and wanted to seek reinstatement, where other but a "high profile" area to parade your supposed rehabilitation for ArbCom deliberators considering your application for readmission to recall having seen? I guess I could be wrong. Time will tell. Perhaps we should watch the relevant ArbCom page see if I was exercising foresight, or if I was being unduly cautious.
Actually, in all the edit conflicts and massed, outraged posts to me, indicating my familial heritage to Satan Hisself, I missed your post. I appreciate you pulling back somewhat, but you seem to still (or, if you had this bad impression before, continuing) be assuming bad faith on my part for following our policies. Remember, it is not enough to simply declare "IAR!" One must explain why it applies in the case. As for Qb's post, I missed that as well (remember, this particular conversation was occurring on at least three different pages, if not more that I am unaware of). What Jeff allowed while alive is one thing. What one assumes they can do after his death is another altogether.
As everyone is so flushed with emotion regarding this, I had already let the matter go - I did not revert after your fairly unpleasant bad faith post, and wouldn't have, as I decided that posting to AN for guidance seemed a good idea. While Peter closed the matter a little too quickly, it is clear that folk decided that the post was okay. I was waiting for a little less impassioned responses to appear, to provide me with good reason that IAR was okay to apply in this case. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, please don't do this - please don't. Not now, please. This is one of those times to ignore the rules, to let it go. Both Jeffpw and myself were deeply involved in the iamandrewrice sock fiasco of last year - it's a somewhat personal matter and I happen to know that Jeff and the banned editor corresponded quite a bit afterwards and that Jeff genuinely liked the guy. Arcayne - Jeff told me this himself during a phone conversation. Honestly, this is one of the cases where I know Jeff would be cool with it. Please let this go ... - Alison ❤ 19:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Alison. I wasn't trying to be harsh. I was acting to protect Jeff's page from being used. If you say it wasn't, then I guess he wasn't. I must say that I was entirely unprepared with the level of recrimination - you'd think that I was the banned user, and that I was crapping all over the page. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, hey :) I know you well enough to know better. Your heart was in the right place on this whole thing, and you meant well. I know this - Alison ❤ 20:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Alison. I appreciate that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Dammit, Arcayne, you are right. I'm still posting "emotionally". Please understand though, that it's not "wiki-emotion", it's real emotion. I'm not sure where I went overboard, my reactions to you are emotional yes, but honest. I shoulda listened to my brain telling me to stop posting. All that said, I'm still right, as is the unanimosity of the community's response to you. I'm glad you're able to move past this, I will too. When I reverted you for the third time (DuncanHill had already reverted you twice), my edit summary was "arcayne you need to stop". I actually meant that as a non-templated 3RR warning, because I didn't want to see you blocked, having so recently come off a borderline block, for a usersubpage. I wasn't expecting this battle today either, I really wasn't. Actually, I had seen the IPs post a couple of hours before it was reverted. I saw who the IP self-identified as, and I almost reverted it myself, assuming it would be either ill-conceived, poorly motived, or an attack. But I read what ben wrote, and left it there, as it brought tears to my eyes. Once reverted (and then an edit war brewing), I flew off the handle. I will (promise) leave it alone this time. I actually respect you and your opinions (heck you're even in my "funnies" page, no small feat). I saw what you were doing as "blanket, blind reversion" when I was seeing "yes, blanket blind reversion, except...". I'm moving past this myself, I really don't need the grief, and it is a disservice to jeff's memory that I am not proud to be a part of. I'm going back into my little world of clearly out CAT:CSD and closing WP:AFD's, and chatty about idly on my talkpage. I hope you can see the "other side" of your (perceived anyway) legalistic approach to an uncommon page, and an uncommon post. Olive branches, a cold beer, and everything else, all around. To jeff, Keeper ǀ 76 20:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Reasoning understood, apology accepted and olive branch received. It was a failure of War By Other Means. ;)
You have a funnies page? I am on it? Where? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Keeper76/funnies. Creative title, I know! Something about santa claus, ironically. Keeper ǀ 76 20:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I may as well add, even though I didn't approach this with the right words, and the right attitude, you are still wrong in regards to your reversion, and I'm still right, as supported by numerous other editors (I haven't seen one yet support your removal of IP's comments). But still, that said, I mean no harm, I made my case, I made it worse in many senses, and my apology is sincere. But I'm still right, and you're still wrong, in the singular. Keeper ǀ 76 21:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I understood that you felt you were correct, Keeper. I would hate to think that all of that was over something you weren't sure about (grn). Honestly, I do hope I am wrong, and that the post was made by the banned anon with the best of intentions. I would have been remiss had I not at least followed Sandy Georgia's lead by blocking the anon again. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

[out] I just saw this thread - I was also a bit involved in the iamandrewrice brouhaha - in fact that's in part where I got to know Jeff - and while I'm willing to believe that Ben's post may have been sincere, and I also know from Jeff that they had been in email contact, I share Arcayne's unease about Ben's motivation in posting. It wouldn't be the first time that this kid played Jeff, and was disingenuous, to be kind. But maybe he learned his lesson, thanks to Jeff's incredible patience and caring - it's certainly possible that his sadness at this loss is genuine. I agree with the overall sense here that this is a time for giving the benefit of the doubt, and I know with certainty that Jeff did so and would have again and again. So I'd say the right thing to do is to leave the post on the memorial page, even though it is in direct violation of a well-deserved ban (of a far-from-harmless user) - but be aware of the potential for abuse. Arcayne's gut reaction was, I think, not some kind of slavish adherence to rules (that certainly does not sound like the iconoclastic Arcy I know) but rather a recollection of the rings that this kid made a lot of people including Jeff run through, and a concern that it could be starting again. I am hopeful that we won't have to discuss this again - but I'm not holding my breath. Tvoz/talk 07:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

completely random observation

"Bad Choice (1989) - bad fiction (I will pay you to destroy any copies you find)" That really made me laugh- I know what its like to write something you think is perfect at the moment and then look back on it with nothing but regret. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The offer stands; I am truly regretful that I published such an albatross at so young an age. On the other hand, I had nowhere else to go but up from there. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

diff please

re your comment, could you add a diff there please. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

IP editor

Why do you say it was "previously identified as being in his IP range"? Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could find the relevant discussion, and the relevant edits. So far I see no connection. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I cannot find the AE, RfC and AN/I listings, so I went ahead and filed at both RfCU (1) and SSP (2). When they get back to me, I will let you know asap. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: other channels

I just don't see discussion at AE particularly moving anywhere, so my suggestion is to talk with DreamGuy, see what his opinion would be for mentoring and the like. If we have more "incidents", I think a more central discussion at ANI is better for gathering broader input (and maybe will help keep the cross-talk and sniping to a minimum...) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; the AE discussion seems to have been made of general uncivil behavior, and nothing arising out of a spike in DG's misbehavior. Clearly, other problems are impressing themselves into the discussion (like Bishonen and Elonka). There's no need to feed that particular problem, and chances are, DG will forget or ignore his restrictions. Maybe then, things will sort themselves out. Thanks for the word, though; it dovetails with what I had already concluded. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lori Ciana

Read the discussion page - and please don't warn me about reverting when your message made it clear you though I was on about Sonak!! 8o)Catiline63 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: September 2008

Thanks for your advice. I'm aware consensus could change, and that's why I wanted the topic in view still; if one person supported my view, there would no longer be a consensus. So hopefully that day will one day arrive. U-Mos (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reconsider

It wouldn't do the slightest bit of good, even if we did block IP's indefinitely. He hops IP addresses so fast it's hard for us to keep up with him at some times. Within a couple hours, someone else will be on that IP address wondering why they can't edit. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you here anyway, since I don't really know or care to for just that reason. But yes, an ass-clown he is, and since we're making next to no headway with whoever gives him internet access, we've got no immediate way of getting him to stop. However, there are some new tools on the way that should get the software to stop him before he can do any nastiness. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing problem

I've created a list of Star Wars articles that have no sources or merely low sourcing, and since you seem to be involved in improving WP:SW's activity, I thought you might like to be involved. The list isn't of what to merge, what to delete, or would I say that all of the articles have bad sourcing. If you need clarification on why a certain article is listed or where sourcing is needed, feel free to ask. Feel free to also add to the list, but discuss removal first. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections - voting now open!

Roll call and Coordinator nominations

The September 2008 WikiProject Films coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of candidates. Additionally, we are keeping nominations open during the voting period, in case any additional editors wish to nominate themselves. Please vote here by September 28!

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

T-1001

Sorry, I haven't logged in for a few days. I've been really busy. It can be found at the end of the recap for the first episode on this [19]. I can't direct link to the recap, but it is on that page. The third page of the recap for Episode 1. I don't have time to change it back, so I would appreciate it if you would add it back with the source. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Good catch. While looking around for a direct link, I found this bit about who James Cameron wanted for the Terminator roles. Billy Idol??? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Bte, the link above also serves as a direct link for the model, FYI. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply from Ian13

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I have replied to your message and would be grateful if you'd continue the discussion on my talk page. Ian¹³/t 16:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A further reply as been made. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 10:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Once more the bell rings, but this time should be the last. Ian¹³/t 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect...

In regards to the comment "I would have stripped them of their admin tools and restricted them from ever interacting with the other user again", I have to say I'm glad you aren't on ArbCom and that you aren't a bureaucrat! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. can you provide me with evidence that they "were involved" with disputes with the user they blocked? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As am I. It's far too much of a headache to even deal with those sorts of people. Some of them are good folk, but there are a few that act as if they are handing down Commandments from Mt. Olympus, and impervious to the wailing and gnashing of teeth of us mere mortal editors.
I didn't say involved in disputes with users - I noted it as an 'or' example, so as to apply to a larger group of admins - if an admin is involved in the article, they should obviously know better than to block within the article. That's just common sense, Tbsdy. The lack of which should be grounds for removal. The mop is a privilege and great power, and you don't need to be Peter Parker to know that it comes with equally great responsibility. If you cannot be responsible, then you cannot have the power. It's that simple, I reckon. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't have blocked, but I understand the reasoning behind it. Come on, Kelly was pretty uncivil there! I hardly think we need that on Wikipedia. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying that folk shouldn't be blocked; I am saying that the involved admin should have asked another, uninvolved admin (via open channel, and not that bullshit unseen channel) to weigh in independently. He was not the one to do it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Er, didn't you just say they weren't involved? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
No.
I was referring to a generic admin. That admin, involved in editing an article, or one negatively involved with another editor, should not block another editor in that article (unless it is for obvious vandalism), but instead seek an uninvolved admin to make that call. The biggest threat to administrator authority is the suspicion of abuse of the mop. If they act transparently and neutrally, they stay out of trouble. When they allow their personal editors concerns to bleed over into their admin tool usage, that is when they should get smacked. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I am saying that the admin you mention was not involved.
Incidently, you wrote "If, by "damned" you mean blocked" - firstly, never said "damned", I said "darned". Secondly, are you implying that I should be blocked? If so, oh the irony! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm... just reread your comment. I see what you are saying, sorry, I thought that you were talking about Tznkai. You sort of popped in there unanounced, took me a few dozen reads to see where you were going. Oddly enough, agree with your comments, but the admin I was talking about wasn't actually involved so don't really see how your comments were relevant to what I was saying! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Uh... why don't you leave it alone? Do you have a problem with allowing Kelly to respond to me directly? Why are you implying I might be blocked? Goodness! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdenting after edit conflict x2, for Great Justice) darned, damned - no real difference there, as they mean the same thing. As for being blocked, I would suggest that you have made Kelly aware of your "contempt" for her on - if not this instance, then on prior occasions - her page. Maybe you don't have to try to ride the skeletal hose at this point. Two seriously experienced editors (and myself) have suggested that you go use your excellent editing skills in an actual article. Kelly might be just as sick of you as you are of her. If she chooses to not respond to you, take it as a sign to walk away, not to think you have a forum to demand that she display the trio of sixes tattooed on the back of her neck.
And, while i think I understand your reference to irony why not spell it out for me? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: irony, unless I seriously misunderstood you (I don't feel you were very clear), if you were referring to blocking me over my comments on the talk page, the irony is that it would be a block for perceived incivility. Which everyone is clearly very upset about.
I'm not quite sure if you realise this, but the massive thread on Kelly's page doesn't actually involve Kelly, it involves me standing by my one statement that I was actually going to leave where it was until/if Kelly decided to respond. You are aware that if others hadn't jumped in for no particularly good reason there wouldn't be so much on her talk page now? Like I say, how about you let Kelly respond to a direct comment. She decided to be inflammatory, I made a small comment, others have decided to try to "put out the fire" but made things worse. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Where do you want me to reply to you, on Kelly's page or your own? Seriously, I actually said what I wanted to say in that one comment. I'm actually sort of waiting for Kelly to respond, for some reason you think that it's a good idea to continue the conversation on her page? Like, do you want the conversation to end there or not? I'm actually quite fine if Kelly ignores me (like I say, would be a pity), I have no intention of "forcing" her to respond — how you think I would accomplish this is beyond me I'm afraid. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sylar

I think there is a bit of miscommunication. I was asking why someone changed Bob Bishop's power from "Transmutation" to "Alchemy". I have no problem with the removal of those lists. People can find that information on heroeswiki.org if they really want it. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 15:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and sorry if I made you feel I was lumping you with the rest of the crufty crowd. :) I think Heroeswiki is an external link, so that should be enough. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I was more confused than anything, especially when I saw in one of your edits that you reverted someone who changed transmutation to alchemy, as well. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving comments

Is chronological order really more important than showing which comment I was actually responding to? - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If/when the newcomer or participant reads the responses to QuasiAbstract's comment, he doesn't want to see a reply to what demmeister initially said. He wants to see that when he's reading the replies to what demmeister initially said. Quasi's comment didn't go into any part of my reply. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
While it is true that I would not have made my comment if QuasiAbstract's comment had addressed what I wanted to say, that does not make my comment a response to QuasiAbstract's.
There are arguments for both sides. You have to tolerate my way of commenting, and I have to tolerate yours. We cannot change eachother's comments to match our own preference. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of tolerance, Josh. It's part of our guidelines for discussion pages. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything relevant on that page. Meanwhile Wikipedia:Talk page says "Add comments concerning current discussions below the latest entry in the section where they are relevant, or below the specific comment to which they apply, paying attention to indentation." (my emphasis) - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ever After talk page

Please take care not to delete project banners. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

76.248.146.114

Yes, I assumed that was just him retaliating for having a vandalism template slapped on his page for something that wasn't vandalism, and the edits after that did appear to be good faith. Even so, I'll keep an eye on the IPs contribs. Black Kite 14:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Arcayne. Unfortunately T:TDYK is horrendously under-staffed, so not all articles will be approved with {{DYKtick}}. Sometimes the article will be promoted without any comment/approval. Because it is under-staffed, a lot of DYK reviewers centre on the issues that prevent the article from appearing on the Main Page, rather than the one's that are "good to go" as it were. But I've approved it, and left a comment regarding the referencing. :) All the best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) It's certainly difficult, and ideally all eligible hooks should be used up. Basically most of our hooks are American, given the majority of users are American, so we try and fill the template with about 50% of American-related hooks. That leaves 50% free for "everything else" as it were. Generally the template suggestions run at quite a steady pace, allowing the vast majority of hooks to be used eventually. If I was judging which should go in, and I stumbled across an eligible hook that had been missed, I'd either put it in the next update instantly or move it up the list. I've not had any complaints of perfectly good nominations not being used at all as of yet...Hopefully it stays that way! If I was reviewing I'd always leave a note with information about why a certain article couldn't be used (hooks can be adapted and changed). The other difficulty is our regulars of course; though we love them dearly, if there's been a slow week at T:DYK, there are sometimes (rarely) too many hooks about similar subjects! But that often can be avoided. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2008 Newsletter

The September 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. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

So my message was worse than yours... how?

I used the same term as you. You are the one attempting cheap blows by picking at my words (poorly, since I was right) and I think I have the right to defend my statement. You are a bully and use your seniority in editing to control things and make all of the wrong moves you ask others not to. So I dont understand how my comment is any worse than the many snide remarks you make. Im sure this will end up on the History floor too... 172.134.194.254 (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell the truth...

Yeah, tell the truth...you really are cutting out to watch Survivor...8^D, the VP debate isn't until they vote someone off. Goes off at 9 eastern right?. Time to go make dinner and then watch these folks starve. At least on Survivor, you get to hear the conniving thoughts from the individuals in confession! Have a good evening Arcayne, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

gah, reality tv? penny-pinching producers decide to cut out writers and use cameramen and props to create drama? No thanks. Crap, did I just also describe combat ops?
I am back, but dead tired, so i am turning in. I will probably dream of a two headed monster from Fargo, ND.
Goodnight, User-talk page. Goodnight moon-like image of puzzle globe. Goodnight vandals seeking to evade blocks. Goodnight light humor and yellow journalism. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Who is from Fargo? I think you may have described most of the evening news and not just combat ops. The debate wasn't very eventful, imho, but I do wish she would cut those bangs before she gets stabbed in the eyes. ;) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Heyo

Heyo, I've made another small edit which I hope is uncontested based on the previous comments. See my reply on the talk page and let's address the points we're concerned about. Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 17:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for I'm a PC

Updated DYK query On 5 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article I'm a PC, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

– RyanCross (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

groovy. :D - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was the other commentators over at the talk page who were imputing bad faith, not me ... I hadn't been aware of the long disagreements over this, and had I not jumped to the bottom of the page I might have ignored it. Although, I did feel too many "how ironic!" quotes were included, when MS's response makes the same point that the Economist made when it reported on MS's signing of Crispin ... that of course the ad agency was going to put the ads together on Macs; that's all most of them have. I have no objections to the article including stuff about the data being erased; that's notable and not the first time MS created bad publicity for itself by trying to conceal things like that.

(If Microsoft really wants to stick it in Apple's ear, they should have done it in the portable-MP3-player segment, where they could easily take advantage of the Zune's underappreciated advantages over the iPod: They could have the same white backdrop, two guys come out, one in a black turtleneck and pants, the other in a T-shirt and jeans: "Hi, I'm an iPod" "And I'm a Zune", then a bunch of short sketches highlighting the Zune's advantages (FM radio; wireless syncing) and the iPod's disadvantages (iTunes' increasing tendency to bloatware, the lack of long-term physical durability of an iPod). They've got a brand idenitity all waiting there for them that's the reverse of the dynamic in the personal-computing market; using Apple's trope would not only take advantage of this but show Apple that they're not always the cool alternative they're pitching themselves as. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Danie; you are right. others seemed to be acting the tool. You were blameless. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • props for this hook...it might be the best on DYK? this year -- CB (ö) 05:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that is one of the nicest things anyone has ever said about my input. Thanks very much. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a PC

Hello Arcayne. You seem to have a few ownership issues with the above page. I made one revert to remove the information about scrubbing which was well supported by the talk page in the lead, yet you reverted (I'm going to revert that again because what you've done is completely against consensus). I also note you've done this for basically anything you don't agree with. As it happens, you've hit three reverts in the last 24 hours so please don't revert again or you'll be blocked. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 08:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but did the definition of WP:LEAD alter drastically within the last week or so? While the Lead is an introduction to the subject matter, it is also an overview/summary of the article itself. The bit you keep removing is well-documented, been rewritten (not reverted, as the successive edits address the concerns brought up in talk - you might want to look at the edits again) and in a summary of the criticism section. I suspect that, were this to occur in any other article, there wouldn't be a lick of conflict.
The "consensus" you speak of is largely in favor of utterly ignoring any mention of the cited criticism, and one of the editors even suggested other ways that Microsoft could improve their ad campaign. If that doesn't represent a pov in favor of MS (and a protection of the article subject from criticism), I guess I am going to need you to redefine it for me.
Since you were kind enough to post the warning in my discussion, let me know if you would prefer to reply there or here. I tend to like keeping conversations in one place - my page will be fine. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem is the undue weight given to it. I'm nore than happy for it to be in the critisism section, but the second mention in the lead pushes it over the line into unacceptable undue weight in my opinion. The WP:lead guideline would suggest it might be ok to add it in, however the consensus on the talk page is that this would go against WP:UNDUE. As you're aware, WP:UNDUE comes from WP:NPOV which is one of Wikipedia's core policies. In this case, the undue (and therefore NPOV) concerns fair outweigh that of inclusion based on WP:LEAD. That's my opinion and take on it anyway and I hope it helps explain my position. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Heyo

Heyo Arcayne,
I was hoping we can put down the "PC lovers" argument and from now on address raised points without the added "some user did this and that". I think you've noticed that I have a bit of understanding on Wikipedia workings and that my concern was eventually picked up my multiple editors. Still, I just recently learned that major copy-edits (about 70) to a recently created article does not merit a DYK honors -- I respect this, and also congratulate you for the interesting choice and valuable efforts. Anyways, I hope we'll be able to work on a more collaborative spirit in the future.
(offtopic:) I like your new tweaks to the user-page. I never expected to see anyone use my "break icon" concept but I must say that it's fun to see.
Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 19:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming to my page to apologize, Jaak; I must admit that it was literally the second-last thing I expected today. I am glad that I was able to expand your knowledge on WP:DYK, though you might have saved yourself some embarrassment by just asking, once I posted on your page about it, instead of simply removing the comment.
That said, I've been given chances, so I don't see why I cannot tender you the same. Just do everyone a huge favor and seek input before making large edits again - it tends to keep the "collaborative spirit" alive and well. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
ps - thanks for the break icon concept. I was planning on installing a banner - lots of folk have them, but was seeking a way to distinguish between different types of info. Thanks. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a PC

You're now at three reverts as well, so please don't revert again. I'm still looking over the edits and I'll try and come up with a way forward in the next few hours. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and are you ok handling the 3RR report for the IP? I'll do it if you haven't got time but I'm really busy in RL at the minute. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Anon at I'm a PC

What other articles? Send me the users/IP's, and I'll have a look. The best might just be for both to calm down for a little bit, and work on some other articles for a day or two. I'm not quite sure what the RfCU would accomplish, and doubt that it would be approved, as the IP's on Talk:I'm a PC generally make good edits (at least after having looked at random through their contribs). If you feel that he is stalking you, please let me know under what accounts and/or IP's, so I can check, and if necessary take administrative actions towards the user. Bjelleklang - talk 16:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Mail is fine. I'll have a look during the weekend. Bjelleklang - talk 06:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review invitation for Veronica Mars

Arcayne,

Cornucopia and I are going to try to get Veronica Mars to featured article status. Given your experience at FAC, I'd love to have you look over what we have now, and help aggressively copyedit what we've got so far (which just passed GA) in order to get to FA. Interested? Jclemens (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Re. IP of the Baskervilles

Hello Arcayne. Sorry for the delay, I have been away but forgot to put my status as offline. Could you please report if you still need my assistance with this issue? Thanks. Regards, Húsönd 17:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, if it involves a sockpuppetry suspicion, WP:RCU might be a better place for you to report, as I'm not a checkuser. :-/ Regards, Húsönd 15:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

On Tonight...

Happy Birthday! Drink two for me! You're in the U.S. right? This JTR documentary is on History Channel at 10 eastern. Supposed to be new..we'll have to see if it's any good. If you miss my message there are other show dates/times. Got popcorn? ;) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

...hmmm, possible chance the article will get hit with vandalism more than average tonight. We'll see.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Did you get a chance to catch it? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Flight was late getting in, so I missed it. Was it worth watching? Sorry, replies will be spotty today, as I will be using cramping irons to get through the mountain of paperwork to do today. Why the government doesn't supply oxygen tanks for us poor worker ants, I will never know... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I need to catch it again because I nodded off with 15 mins left. Yes, it was good. Rumbelow is key and they seem to address/cover issues not dealt with before in documentaries. Unlike many documentaries that show up on History channel, this one does not appear to be a re-run from Britain but entirely new. I don't recall any quackery but a straightforward approach. They had one "Ripperologist" that I didn't know but she wasn't over the top. A good meal got the better of me and I lulled to sleep waking up at about 3 am. Next chance to catch it is tomorrow night at 11 pm eastern..I may have to drink coffee to make it through. ;) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
If you emerge from the landslide of paperwork and can stay awake, 11 tonight. Cheers,⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: IRC

In a bunch of different channels, all on freenode. WP:IRC has a list of all of them. Before you join, be aware that IRC discussions do not constitute a consensus - discussions relating to content issues should generally take place on-wiki. Also, with a few channel-specific exceptions, there is no public logging of conversations, however you are welcome to keep records for your on personal reference. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth

Hi Arcayne, earlier this year we discussed the mention of the "Booth escaped" theories in this article. I think you will be interested to know that another editor has removed the entire section, with the discussion here.  JGHowes  talk 17:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This you gotta see.

Not to canvas but I thought you'd get a kick out of the Gadsby talk page. There are editors arguing to maintain the article as a "e"-centric lipogram, including not having REF tags (and, at one point EDIT tags). You'll love this.Padillah (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Export Control Act DYK nom

Hi Arcayne, I found this a very interesting article. I did a little copyediting, but please have a look at the first sentence in the "End of commercial treaties" section, there's something not right there and I can't work out what it should be. But everything else looks good and I've verified your DYK nom. --Bruce1eetalk 08:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I will work on it more, as I have time tomorrow. Thanks for verifying the DYK, Bruce. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Arcayne, I don't know if you'll see it, but it is listed right now. Congratulations! --Bruce1eetalk 05:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Portman videos

Please feel free to add your comments here. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2008 Newsletter

The October 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 suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Export Control Act

Updated DYK query On 5 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Export Control Act, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Your latest 3RR violation has been reported. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Since you are pretty familiar with reporting me for offending your sensibilities, cold you be imposed upon to include a link to the posted gripe? I've already found it, but my day is busy enough without having to track down your various edits through whatever IP you happen to be using at the moment.
Even better, unless you are notifying me of such a complaint, stay off my page. I have better things to do with my time. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

AN board

Hiya Arcayne. I'm stepping away from the board, as I'm in favour of mandatory registration on Wikipedia. It's best somebody more unbiased towards IP accounts, help out. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:300- Leonidas and Xerxes discuss surrender.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:300- Leonidas and Xerxes discuss surrender.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-added it to the parent article in the appropriate section. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:300- Leonidas fighting Persian soldiers.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:300- Leonidas fighting Persian soldiers.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-added it to the parent article in the appropriate section. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

BOHICA DYK nom

I see that RyanCross has already verified it. --Bruce1eetalk 09:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Reporting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello, Arcayne. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs)

Yay. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Section title

Hey, Arcayne, I've changed again the section title over there; I think I get why you changed it, but I was concerned that without clarification, it would be impossible for anyone to know to whom I was addressing my comments. Feel free to change it again, if you wish, just take that concern of mine into consideration, if you would.

Hey, I've got to sign off for a while--maybe several days or a week, even. So you can take your time to reply, if you need to, and understand why I may not get back to you right away. Have a good week! Unschool (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your comments is at my talk page. Unschool (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


Me Again

Look, don't worry about it. My feelings weren't hurt, I just think that name-calling should be refrained from. And I'm sorry for posting it on your page, I wasn't sure how to find your talk page, but now I get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.203 (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for BOHICA

Updated DYK query On 11 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article BOHICA, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that this article received 13,000 hits when it was on the main page. --Bruce1eetalk 07:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at this link. --Bruce1eetalk 14:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Re; De Haven

Thanks for the assist, Alansohn. I think I was just plumb worn out after writing the article in a flurry of fury. :D - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I get in the same trap where I know what I meant to write so it makes no difference how many times I read it, I read what it's supposed to say. New Jersey is my broad topic of interest and it was my pleasure to make the tweaks. By the way, do you know what school he attended? Alansohn (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Not sure, but it was a Catholic school for both grammar and high school in Bayonne, and he did attend with George RR Martin. Get it fro George,a nd you presumably get it for Tom. I guess I could also email De Haven myself. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Horrors! That sounds much like original research to me. I would be curious to here the answer and then try to find a source to support it. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Arcayne. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:ANI#Imperious use of Admin powers by User:William M. Connolley. Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne: Just wanted you to know that you put a response to this on my talk page, when it should have gone on EdJohnston's. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I was posting to you. William had said it was on-going, but failed to provide any diffs. You made a similar statement but only provided one from 4 months ago. As I said I'm not really taking sides at this point, but the evidence provided in favor of the block (I haven't read your reply on AN/I yet, so maybe you've provided it now) wasn't really that compelling.--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to dig through who knows how many contribs to find the evidence for you. Someone has been asked to provide it that means direct diffs to the problem edits themselves. The first random IP I grabbed off that list had 2 contribs and neither one of them looked remotely controversial. They had benign edit summaries describing the edits and appeared to come with citation. The next one I grabbed had a whole whack of contribs. I'm not interested in the blocks themselves, I'm interested in the alleged behaviour. Yes I was talking about Essjay in the AN/I post, but the fact remains you did state you had 2 degrees and have described more than 2 separate fields. Its easy to see why someone might take issue with that. At least in the short term. Long term is another issue, which is what I'm looking for here.--Crossmr (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I do in fact have a PPE from Oxford, a degree name which is largely unknown inside the US, where I was born and currently live. It is a big mixy degree that includes Politics (a part of which is Int'l Relations), Philosophy (part of that is History)I have an Associate's degree in History from an American university. I am currently slowly progressing through graduate school, but that's part-time, while I work (which, I am happy to communicate, is being paid for by work and partial fellowship). Of course, none of that should matter here, and that the anon is still taking exception to the notation of it in discussion four months after the discussion tells me that the anon is like a dog chasing a car. If I proved him/her wrong, i give up some of my security (I am not prepared to do that), and furthermore, it wouldn't resolve the underlying problem with the anon.
I will dig through the diffs again and give you precisely what you are asking for. Are you having difficulty finding the allged behaviro more recent than two months ago? I am presuming that stalking my edits doesn't count with you. Am I correct in assessing your request here? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Tom De Haven

Updated DYK query On 16 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tom De Haven, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No harm, no foul

Its usually the rule rather the exception, to have editors argue over one detail after another. Just because we disagree on the Booth article, doesn't mean that I don't agree with a lot of what you do. Don't worry and just remember that everyone is not out to get you. If the anon is bugging you, just ignore him. I had no idea that it was as bad as it is, but I still don't think that the anon is 100% wrong. So have a good day and enjoy wikipedia.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Honestly, I can count on the fingers of one hand those folk I hate editing with, and I don't count you among them. Those who know I don't are likely aware of who they are, and probably have the same dread over the idea of interacting with me. I am not perfect; I can be arrogantly self-confident, and am highly intolerant of fan-like and partisan behavior - while I suspect most are, I take special exception to it, as it counters what I think a group encyclopedia should be - editing amongst equals who treat each other as equals, or at least polite enough to not point out that they aren't up to snuff. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Heya

I don't think that it is a discussion that will get anywhere. It's just a little bit of saber-rattling with some unnecessary gnashing of teeth. All this started because there was a movement to remove external links from the film infobox since they were redundant to what can be found in the "External links" section. As you might have seen from discussions (don't know how much you bothered to get involved), Termer thinks that the only reason that IMDb was removed was because of its reliability. I don't think that was the only argument (reliability is mostly irrelevant here, in my opinion); more relevant arguments included that of redundancy and unnecessary prompting-up of an external link above others.
On the home front, graduate school is going well. Certainly keeps me busy. I have a couple of job offers on the table and pulling for one strong possibility. By this Friday, I should know my future. Thrills and chills! :P How about yourself? Drifted away from films, have we? Are you behaving or misbehaving these days? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome to hear that things are going well there. I returned to grad school (the financial situation pretty much fixed itself when work chipped in to help defray costs). Will the new jobs require major relocation?
As for drifting away from films, not so much. I've just found that there aren't that many films I really yearn to contribute to that aren't going to be gang-banged by a True Believer or whatnot. I think that might be part of why I've been able to take a longer view of things here now and enjoy the wiki. Like you've said, why do it if you aren't getting paid and it isn't fun? I've recently had some AN contact, but not so much about my behavior as it is to remove an anon who's been harping at me through a dozen or so IPs since April. Get this, he's apparently geographically located in my area. Creepy, right?
Anyway, I've been using time to sharpen my article creations skills, adding DYK as they spring into being. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Smallville

The new execs have hinted that they might just be breaking that flight rule this season. My only hope is that they do a better job with the flying then they did with Lex/Zod and with Kara. I think what they did in season four with Clark was great, but what they've done since then hasn't looked that good. I like how Welling (and I hope that was something he chose to do, and not something Gough and Millar had him do since they are gone) didn't do the single fist pump in the air while flying - something Rosenbaum and Vandervoort did that I didn't like. It's better looking for comic characters, it just looks ridiculous on living people.

My next hope is that Doomsday doesn't look like Sam Witwer in a costume. It vaguely looked like the character wasn't that beefed in the muscle region (unlike his comic book counterpart), and that could throw off the whole thing. I mean, if you're going to make him look like his comic book version, then go the whole 9 yards.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but since when have they closely followed the comic-book version? Case in point: Green Arrow and Black Canary. For them to go cmic-book canon now would be a bit too jarring.
And dude, if I ever learn to fly, I will be doing the fist-pump thing, As Zaphod Beeblebrox said, "the trick to flying is to simply throw yourself at the ground and miss." Practicing can look hard, as Gravity is a Cruel Mistress. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

75

That's fine. I'm not taking anything he wrote at face value (as I stated in AN/I). I was more looking at it to find time stamps of various pages where I could read full exchanges from both parties and anyone else involved. --Crossmr (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear as FP seemed to not quite understand what I was saying on 75s talk page, my comments there were a pure request to keep the peace. You're free to listen to/ignore/print out and burn/launch in to space as you see fit. Its not a condition of his interaction ban that you avoid articles he edits. And you can carry on as you were, I just wanted something from you as a sign of "okay, lets move on and put it behind us kind of a thing", thanks. Should the IP violate his interaction ban, I'll be the first in line to call for his head.--Crossmr (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, after I posted my subpage comments, I pretty much forgot about the anon. I will go check it out as opportunity presents itself. I am presuming that you have lifted the temporary prohibition regarding commenting. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Just one follow-up question: Part of the interaction ban is that he shouldn't edit any articles you've edited. Are you okay with an exception of posts to wikipedia noticeboards so long as he's not posting in any section you've commented on? I don't think we want to shut him out of discussions for example on Reliable sources noticeboards. I'm going to tell him to stay off AN and AN/I for at least 3 months unless something there is directly about him, but would you have a problem with him posting to: Biographies, Conflict of interest, Ethnic and Cultural conflicts, Fiction, Fringe Theories, Neutral Point of View, Original Research and Reliable sources. (I ask this without knowing if you yourself have ever participated in those noticeboards) I just think there may be occasion for one of those to come up in an article he's writing and I wanted to be proactive and get your view on that.--Crossmr (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you saw this or not before you posted to AN/I [20], but I didn't realize the first time I read it that it was posted after his acceptance not to talk about you anymore.--Crossmr (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Saw it upon logging on this morning. Sad. I've replied to your comments on your page. As the anon is done for a month (at least under that IP - I'd be terribly surprised if it didn't go silent now). This latest 'Bag O' Tantrum™' kinda says the anon shouldn't be let anywhere near the working parts of the wiki. I haven't been to Biographies or Fiction, but I'm working on articles that encompass both (Tom De Haven as well as some of his books). His/her earlier presence in RSN and ORN as well as WikiProject: FLAGS gummed up the works for a bit. It seems wiser to let the user learn how to follow the rules for a while before advocating different interpretations of them. It's how I learned, and I am often a slow learner. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

you are dead to me...

Regarding this comment: [21] Thanks for making me look like a complete idiot for defending you. Don't worry, I won't make that mistake twice... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the bigger issue is that it is inconsequential information. The whole point was that the debate over your credentials was to end. You can have any damned degrees you want to have, I don't care. The deal is, your entire defense at being the innocent victim of harrassment was that you had let the matter drop months ago, and that 75.X.X.X kept bringing the info up, apropros of nothing. Now it makes it look like, knowing that he is unable to respond to you, you are merely prodding him. Rather than let the matter drop, and go about editing, you bring it back to the forefront by insisting on public recognition of your degrees. Fine, you can have them. But don't expect me to defend you again when you claim innocence on this issue... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Fine. Lets agree to let the whole matter drop then, and go back to working on our own little spheres of Wikipedia... I am emotionally worn over the whole issue, and would rather let it all go myself. Sorry I blew up at you above there, but I was feeling a bit slighted over what I perceived as an attempt to continue the dispute beyond its resolution. Thank you for your calm explanation that you had not intended that. I apologize for myself for misreading the situation. Still, take my counsel and let the whole matter drop. If Crossmr doesn't retract himself, let it go anyways. Its ultimately inconsequential, and we'd all be better off if this all just went away. Again, sorry for my outburst, good luck, and happy editing. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Villain edits

That's okay Arcayne, thanks for contacting me. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I think we're both on the same page here with regard to JOM's attitude & ego-driven editing patterns. Of course, if we keep feeding a stray, it'll never leave. So let's give this one as little reason to stroke his own ego as we can. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


WikiProject Films November 2008 Newsletter

The November 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. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

RSN post

Heya, just a quick suggestion on your post on RSN: it seems a little vague in terms of what source you want the reliability of discussed. Perhaps you could retitle the section to be clear that it's for News of the World? Or at least not abbreviate NotW ;) That way people will at least be clear on the source you are asking about? DP76764 (Talk) 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As you had posted a few links from there where the acronym had been used, I didn't think the wikification would be necessary; that said, I've now done just that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the acronym use was mostly on my part, for ease of writing. Thanks for updating that though; I hope it's clear enough to other readers (who haven't been in on our discussion). DP76764 (Talk) 22:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

reply

Thanks for your interest. I have replied here. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Influenzavirus A facts - note H5N1 and why I reverted you

The Influenza A virus subtypes that have been confirmed in humans, ordered by the number of known human pandemic deaths, are:

WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have accepted a compromise offered by a third party; but I thought you might like a reply to your message: What sources do you offer to support your claim that it was pov and not objectively neutral and experts do not believe H5N1 presents an urgennt situation?

HPAI A(H5N1) is an avian disease. There is some evidence of limited human-to-human transmission of the virus.[1] A risk factor for contracting the virus is handling of infected poultry, but transmission of the virus from infected birds to humans is inefficient.[2] Still, around 60% of humans known to have been infected with the current Asian strain of HPAI A(H5N1) have died from it, and H5N1 may mutate or reassort into a strain capable of efficient human-to-human transmission. In 2003, world-renowned virologist Robert Webster published an article titled "The world is teetering on the edge of a pandemic that could kill a large fraction of the human population" in American Scientist. He called for adequate resources to fight what he sees as a major world threat to possibly billions of lives.[3] On September 29, 2005, David Nabarro, the newly-appointed Senior United Nations System Coordinator for Avian and Human Influenza, warned the world that an outbreak of avian influenza could kill anywhere between 5 million and 150 million people.[4] Experts have identified key events (creating new clades, infecting new species, spreading to new areas) marking the progression of an avian flu virus towards becoming pandemic, and many of those key events have occurred more rapidly than expected.

Due to the high lethality and virulence of HPAI A(H5N1), its endemic presence, its increasingly large host reservoir, and its significant ongoing mutations, the H5N1 virus is the world's largest current pandemic threat, and billions of dollars are being spent researching H5N1 and preparing for a potential influenza pandemic.[5] At least 12 companies and 17 governments are developing pre-pandemic influenza vaccines in 28 different clinical trials that, if successful, could turn a deadly pandemic infection into a nondeadly one. Full-scale production of a vaccine that could prevent any illness at all from the strain would require at least three months after the virus's emergence to begin, but it is hoped that vaccine production could increase until one billion doses were produced by one year after the initial identification of the virus.[6]

H5N1 may cause more than one influenza pandemic as it is expected to continue mutating in birds regardless of whether humans develop herd immunity to a future pandemic strain.[7] Influenza pandemics from its genetic offspring may include influenza A virus subtypes other than H5N1.[8] While genetic analysis of the H5N1 virus shows that influenza pandemics from its genetic offspring can easily be far more lethal than the Spanish Flu pandemic,[9] planning for a future influenza pandemic is based on what can be done and there is no higher Pandemic Severity Index level than a Category 5 pandemic which, roughly speaking, is any pandemic as bad as the Spanish flu or worse; and for which all intervention measures are to be used.[10]

  1. ^ Ungchusak K, Auewarakul P, Dowell SF; et al. (2005). "Probable person-to-person transmission of avian influenza A (H5N1)". N Engl J Med. 352 (4): 333–40. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa044021. PMID 15668219. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Ortiz JR, Katz MA, Mahmoud MN; et al. (2007). "Lack of evidence of avian-to-human transmission of avian influenza A (H5N1) virus among poultry workers, Kano, Nigeria, 2006". J Infect Dis. 196 (11): 1685–91. doi:10.1086/522158. PMID 18008254. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ Webster, R. G. and Walker, E. J. (2003). "The world is teetering on the edge of a pandemic that could kill a large fraction of the human population". American Scientist. 91 (2): 122. doi:10.1511/2003.2.122.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ United Nations (2005-09-29). "Press Conference by UN System Senior Coordinator for Avian, Human Influenza". UN News and Media Division, Department of Public Information, New York. Retrieved 2006-04-17.
  5. ^ Rosenthal, E. and Bradsher, K. (2006-03-16). "Is Business Ready for a Flu Pandemic?". The New York Times. Retrieved 2006-04-17.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ Science and Development Network article Pandemic flu: fighting an enemy that is yet to exist published May 3, 2006.
  7. ^ Robert G. Webster, Ph.D., and Elena A. Govorkova, M.D., Ph.D. (November 23, 2006). "H5N1 Influenza — Continuing Evolution and Spread". NEJM. 355 (21): 2174–2177. doi:10.1056/NEJMp068205. PMID 17124014.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ CDC ARTICLE 1918 Influenza: the Mother of All Pandemics by Jeffery K. Taubenberger published January 2006
  9. ^ Informaworld article Why is the world so poorly prepared for a pandemic of hypervirulent avian influenza? published December 2006
  10. ^ Roos, Robert (February 1, 2007). "HHS ties pandemic mitigation advice to severity". University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP). Retrieved 2007-02-03. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Sorry for not getting it the first time around. I would've replied but you didn't sign so I just blew it off. Anyways, my question is what do I keep reverting? I don't remember reverting anything in the past couple of days. I was wondering if you could break it down for me because I'm still not getting it and I'm getting pretty annoyed myself. Elemental5293 (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. I almost forgot about that for a moment. Yeah, I get it now. And what's the matter with my image issue. Elemental5293 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Elemental5293 (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

some times i wanna to join you in that discuss put my language dose not support me to i can understant english 100% but the talk is my problem --Bayrak (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring

You said

Please do not refactor my comments

As seen here, adding bold to another user's comment is considered inappropriate. In doing so, you are adding an emphasis that I did not intend, and I have stated on numerous occasions that I find the bolding of text s emphasis to be equivalent to shouting during a panel discussion, not unlike banging one's shoe on the lectern. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not insult other editors in this fashion:

If some folk in certain the British Isles think they are separate, then by all means, let's go with what that oddwater, small group wants to think.

htom (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I am utterly baffled as to why you would think I was talking about you. I almost certainly wasn't addressing you, though I was addressing the group you discussed. Maybe take a step back and a deep breath, please. No one is insulting you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You seemed, to me, to be addressing all of us who were opposed to your merger. Do you know a different meaning for "oddwater" other than "urine"? htom (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
HAHAHAHAHA! I was completely unaware of that definition of such. Could I trouble you to cite that? I was using the term as a loose synonym for a 'backwater'(1) type area where people still complain about Maggie's involvment with the Colonials. Allow me to reiterate: stop being so defensive; we are disagreeing in a discussion, I am not suggesting you are some form of feltch monkey or whatnot. Please, please, please take a very deep breath and relax. Assume more than an appearance of good faith, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Fall of 1966, men's dorms at Michigan State University; some medical experiment needed thousands of gallons of male human urine, which was collected in 25 gallon carboys placed in the men's restrooms. "Oddwater" was one of the terms used by the residents for the contents of the "piss pots" and "urine urns". Not greywater, blackwater, or whitewater, but #1 water, hence oddwater (perhaps with a flavor of "Odd Job", the Goldfinger henchman.)
It is not usually conducive to a discussion to tell people to stop being defensive.
You were talking about us, from all appearances, as we were the ones in the conversation. If you go about handing out random insults, don't be surprised if some object to being hit.
I've assumed a lot of good faith. You used a term offensive to me, and I called you on it. You corrected other errors, but not that. You may well not have known the usage I objected to, but couldn't be bothered to elaborate on your invention until you were called on it. Sorry, there's prior art. htom (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
So, you take offense using as your defense a 47 year-old reference to an obscure Land-of-the-Hand study? Really? Come on, that's a stretch even for Dennis Miller. If you are unable to recognize the obscurity of your reference (and source of your defensiveness), then I am not sure what I can say to alleviate what could politely be called a 'wild misinterpretation' and less-politely called paranoiac.
You and I apparently differ on what's conducive to a conversation. I tend to think it partly consists of not making a fairly unique assumption based upon a presentiment of conflict. Your mileage may vary. I do find it odd that you got offended at a blended word but took no issue with 'feltch monkey'. Oh well.
Again - and I am not sure why I have to repeat myself to someone who is, by all appearances - a rational human being with more than three brain cells firing: I was not talking about you. You may choose to believe this or not; I refuse to waste time arguing about it in an article/ Maybe focus your attention on the actual subject matter there, okey-doke? No one is out to get you. Clearly, applying an abscure reference and making all an attack on you is something of a bad faith assumption of my intent, my friend.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Braveheart edit

Hi,

Looks like you accidentally reverted a productive edit which removed an unneeded header from above the lede. I've fixed this now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Sorry I missed it, Thumperwad. I appreciate the fix. Thanks. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

you have mail

I fear that the Cookie Monster ate my supply, but ... --John Vandenberg (chat) 11:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Re: Santa edits

Sorry it took me a while to respond to your contribution to my user talk page (talk) but i am quite busy right now. I do not even have enough time right now for "slo-mo edit-warring" (just kidding).

First i must say that your very rude tone right from the start, in my view, wasn´t warranted nor was it appropriate. In response to my contribution to the Santa Clause topic you stated: "thank the gods western culture relies neither on Germany or France". Again i find this out of place and in my understanding Germany and France are in fact part of a group of very influential members (along, of course with the U.S., the UK, Italy, Canada and others) that very much constitute the western culture. Your contribution on my talk page, following my next edit of the Santa topic, was , in my view, even more out of hand. I dont think its ok to threaten me, because i disapprove with your arguments, with me ending "in a pot of slowly-boiling trouble". From the fact that this comment on my user page was riddled with typos (some of which you corrected the next day) leads me to the conclusion that you perhaps wrote this in a condition (perhaps anger) in which it would have been best to sleep it over and respond the next day (no offense meant).

Coming back to my argument, i still think that its ok to change a notion like the one taken in the article, that the believe in Santa Clause is dominant in "all" or "most" western cultures. First of all it contradicts my own personal experience greatly as a European citizen and it was not at all backed up by the citation given, which only contained a poll about the significance of Santa Clause in the U.S.. Second, the dominant Christian church in Europe is the Catholic church, which does not practice a believe in Santa Clause as the bringer of gifts on Christmas. In fact Santa Clause is a variation of the catholic Saint Nikolaus (or Saint Nicholas) who brings some presents in the night between 6th and 7th of December. So, in my view, one can not argue that the believe in Santa Clause is dominant in western cultures (whereas i would agree that it is dominant in the U.S.).

In conclusion i want to state that my edits where in no way intended to wage "edit-warring" of any kind nor was my intention to offend anyone. I did and will do edits only to enhance and advance wikipedia in a spirit of good faith. I hope the next time we are ad odds with our arguments, the discussion will be conducted in a more soberly manner. - Basilicum (cast a spell) 01:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Basilicum. Allow me to suggest that you appear to have taken great offense where perhaps more consideration as to why you received the faintly negative post you did.
It initially began with this edit, and after being reverted, you - instead of seeking a solution in the discussion page - essentially added in the same edit again. This reverting happens yet again, until you decide - again, instead of addressing your concerns on the discussion page - decide to drop a fact tag into the statement that you clearly find so objectionable.
To date, you haven't posted in the discussion page; can you not see how your edits might be more durable were they actually supported by other editors as well? Forget the fact that my typing skills are not on par with Mavis Beacon (and I will forget that Clause is the surname from a Hollywood movie, and not the correct spelling); instead, focus on the fact that, over the course of three days, you made approximately the same edit and ignored WP:BRD and requests for you to discuss matters. That sort of behavior tends to get folk blocked. What I offered you was not a threat but rather a warning (though I will admit to shiny-ing it up a bit with language).
Also a fair criticism was my noting of Germany and France, though technically, western culture doesn't rely upon them. They are a part of it without being the pivot point of it. The comment was - again - designed to get you to come to the discussion page. Few things make me crankier than someone who insists that they needn't discuss a community project with others. I am sure you aren't like that in other wiki pursuits; however, you gave no evidence of that during the period you edited in Santa Claus.
See, a lot of the stuff you have posted here in defense of your edit would have been far better off in the article discussion. In fact, I would dare say that you should probably write the article for Weihnachtsmann; clearly, you have some knowledge that would be useful in such a task.
I am sorry you took the wrong message from my posts via edit summary, or my post here. It was meant to urge you to partake of the nectar of discussion, not to complain about the size of the goblet. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

New Message

Hello there, Arcayne! Today's your lucky day, because you have new messages at DepartedUser's talk page.
Creepy grinning smilie
Creepy grinning smilie

You can remove this notice at any time by removing this template.

DepartedUser (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

300

I thought you might find this interesting [22]. On a tangent, there was a very long discussion, a very long time ago, on the 300 talk page about the wording of the sentence "The film's portrayal of ancient Persians caused a particularly strong reaction in Iran". I sense that since the article has calmed down in general it is a good time to revisit the case. There is considerable evidence that a) the controversy over people represented in the film were Iranian in addition to Persian b) that Iranians viewed those represented in the film as Iranian. Obviously there is a bit of disagreement, to say the least, about the usage of the terms Iranian and Persian outside of this context; there is no good reason to favor the term Persian in this article. I would like to see the article present the information in a and b in a manner that is acceptable to all. I had proposed the wording "Since its opening, 300 also attracted controversy over its portrayal of Persians (Iranians)." Another solution is to just add the sentence "IRIB claimed that the film portrays 'Iranians as monsters rising from the heart of darkness to destroy the Greek civilization.'" These changes are far from perfect so I wish to hear your proposals on the subject.--Agha Nader (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me think on this a bit, Agha. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, and will respond in article discussion in due course. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I was also reviewing the Persian Gulf discussion and found user Dweller's point valid. Take a look at [23]. Don't you think "although neither of the latter two terms are recognized internationally" should be changed to "although neither of the latter two terms is recognized internationally"? I don't think any one would object to the change, but given the history of that article, I would not be surprised.--Agha Nader (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Lord Snowden?

Well, I'm stumped. Surely you don't mean the aviary enclosure at the London Zoo? DP76764 (Talk) 04:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an old Monty Python sketch, which is paraphrasing a plan by Hitler. A link addressing the quote in a roundabout manner can be found here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Shakespearean soliloquy on the William Shatner discussion page

Just finished reading it. Very amusing. Hamlet would have been proud. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think yiou are the only person in Wikipedia who has even seen it. Again, thanks. (yay me!) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh I saw the link to it on your userpage which I was browsing. It gives me a laugh. By the way, you wouldn't happen to have an account on Uncyclopedia would you Arcayne? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't, so I just started one. I likely won't edit there - being silly is less fun when everyone else is just as bonkers. I created the account more to protect this one. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
True. I have an account there but I've been blocked until next year. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
You were blocked...at Uncyclopedia? How does that happen, exactly? They seem a bit more tolerant than the Wiki-En. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
To make a long story short, incivility. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Arcayne, I understand if you're getting frustrated, but these kinds of edit summaries are not acceptable.[24][25][26][27] Please try to use a more civil tone? Thanks, --Elonka 23:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I should have walked away rather than allow someone else's bad day become my own. Thanks for the heads-up, Elonka. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne was right for sticking up for the principles of the wikipedia unlike most gutless admins who are too cowardly to get involved when good faith editors are being bullied or are subject to a continual campaign of black propaganda by trolls. "Oh look some editor is being bullied and traduced on a Talk Page...I'll just walk by on the other side of the street and pretend it didn't happen". Makes me sick. Colin4C (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think procedures tie their hands too often but on occasion good things happen...eh? ;)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I had pulled back from thinking we were better off without his involvement, and tried to give him a renewed benefit of the doubt. It would appear clear that it only came across to him as either appeasement or weakness. Frankly, I am more disappointed than upset that he doesn't see his behavior as isolating and combative; I only know to other editors like that, thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Eventually, he will annoy enough editors that AE will get tired and show him the door. Until then, we need to stay as pure as the driven snow in our dealings with him, if for no other reason than to look starkly better by comparison. In other words, cross the street, but call the authorities and report the problem. Don't get yourself muddy and bloody. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a sense in which seasoned editors are supposed to take it on the chin; as you well know, indulging the trolls and pouring additional combustible material just ends up with getting your own fingers burnt. It's the 'wiki-way'. Can I say, Arcayne, that you have exceeded my expectations in your recent communications. Keep it up and Colin will be complaining about you.
Can I also take this opportunity to wish the three of you the very best of the seasons' greetings and untroubled editing in the New Year. Kbthompson (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh

"Ugh" is a good term. But I think it'll pass quickly if folks let it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: I sent a note to the user via his email link, mentioning some of the same points as you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I just get fed up of the so many power freaks on Wikipedia which need to get a life instead of putting the "Unreliable"/"Inaccurate" stamp on everything. --Kurtle (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009!
Padillah (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

To be fair I stole this from User:Fvasconcellos.

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Bstone

Hi. I'm fine with the semi-retiree getting the last word, but do we need to keep accusations that have been found to be false on the page? -- Avi (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Bstone did have a lot of his own info out there, but so have other users - we don't tend to out them, even a little bit. I don't think your actions classify you as an asshat, but when he took umbrage, your immediate action - and no other action - would have been to immediately apologize, redact the comment and lead the charge to have the info removed from the record. Bstone is excitable, but is very productive, and losing him over this was something that could have been incredibly easy to avoid. He felt he had been outed - one of the very real fears we as editors have to be concerned with - and rather than getting defensive, we should have knocked over the furniture to address the concern, not pooh-pooh his concerns. You'd want the same treatment.
Forget the desysopping ANI dramaz from before - Bstone always calls for any admin who makes a mistake with a mop to step down - he holds them to a higher standard than just about anyone (including me, and that says quite a lot). If you cock up as an admin and do not immediately apologize, you are submitting that your judgment is infallible; the last thing I want in an admin is a preening ego. The fact it took the admin in question far too long to admit their mistake makes me think that Bstone was right to immediately call for him to step down.
My reading of the dramaz there makes me ask (and answer) a few questions. Did an overwhelming number of admins there collectively put on a dunce cap? Abso-friggin-lutely. Did Tan act like an utter jackass? That much is clear, and were no0t Stone a friend (rendering me an involved editor), I would have walloped Tan with a trout about the size of Mount Shasta. I expected a helluva lot better from him/her, and was disappointed by his/her posts. (S)He lost a lot of AGF from me because of that dickish behavior in two differnet ANI's. He/she can probably get it back, but its going to take some time.
Should have everyone taken a chill pill, stepped back and calmed the hell down? Of course. Isn't that precisely what ANI admins say to editors all the time? Practice what you preach, or get the hell out of the way, I say.
That all said, I appreciate you taking the time to come to my user page and ask me about your concerns. For what its worth, the mistake was mostly reparable, and it didn't require the drastic step of confiscating your mop. The entire situation was just handled piss-poor, on both sides of the discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response. If you check my contribution history, you will see that most of the drama happened before I logged back into wiki, but I understand, and appreciate, your point. Happy Holidays. -- Avi (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Even were I so inclined as to check your honesty, Avi - and I most certainly am not inclined thusly - I again emphasize that it was just a mistake on your part. I think I had read you were offline, so I don't hold you largely to blame for the foolishness that followed. I think we've worked/discussed some things before elsewhere, and I find you to be almost always possessed of an open mind. I don't blame you for Bstone's leaving; I blame some of the clever little fellows at ANI who decided to throw tomatoes. I hope they are wise enough to realize that they screwed up, big time. That sort of arrogance is going to get them hoisted by their own petard, should they ever voice a personal concern of their own. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Bstone [2]

Regarding this edit... Now, I understand that you were probably in a hurry, not paying much attention maybe, and perhaps it annoys you to see people edit other's retired message (annoys me too), but if you had looked closer you would have seen that the page had been blanked, I was restoring it (with some minor edits because I knew it probably wouldn't be allowed to stand as is). Now, I'm not going to revert you- it's pointless and I'm 0RR (by choice) but realise that some of that will probably be removed, in the end. Next time, please try to keep your edit summaries less inflammatory, as it's needlessly hurtful... especially when aimed at the wrong person. l'aquatique |✡| talk 07:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as would I. Unfortunately, it seems to be a relatively recent trend to- for lack of a better word, censor- retirement notices. In fact, there's an RfC/U going on right now that I've been involved in regarding a fairly similar situation. I think we need to sit down and really draw a line between retiree's candidly discussing why they're leaving and retiree's blasting people they've had past problems with. There's a difference, and I think Bstone's message is fairly firmly in the candid side... and yet with my special dramaz-meter that comes built into the mop I can see a lot of pointless drama coming out of this if it's not handled delicately... ya know? l'aquatique |✡| talk 08:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Bstone [3]

Did you notice the rollback? NonvocalScream (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied NonvocalScream (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Hey there. Since you were active in the notability discussions in the WP HP and in the past merge proposal of Luna Lovegood, I come here to let you know that another merge proposal is taking place at Talk:Dumbledore's Army#Merge proposal regarding Luna. Greetings! --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit changes to "The Patriot"

Hi. I notice that you have removed some fairly minor additions that I made to the article dealing with the 2000 film "The Patriot" - describing them as a "bloat". I have no wish to get into an edit war over this but I did have a reason for making these changes. The film itself was criticised on release for the liberties taken with historical fact - notably the portrayal of atrocities by the British and American Loyalists that never occured. This was debated at length on the discussion page and a controversies section created. This section was completely deleted by another editor without coherent reasons about 13 December. My own feeling is that (i) the controversies section had become so detailed that it threatened to overshadow the main purpose of the article but that (ii) there should still be brief references to the inaccuracy of some of the incidents portrayed - otherwise irresponsible fiction will be taken as fact by many readers. Is this really bloat? 210.246.12.147 (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, It was the consensus of article discussion that a great deal of the criticism being introduced (and subsequently removed) noted the historical record and editors compared that to the film and defined the inaccuracies between the two. At Wikipedia, our opinions and interpretations fo a film's accuracy or inaccuracy are not notable - any more than our opinions of the film's quality. We use secondary, notable sources for that; ie. we cite everything. That way, WP is protected from some movie company claiming that we destroyed the sales of the film/DVD/soundtrack by espousing our own personal views; by noting other notable folk from reliable sources, we can simply point to the sources cited and have them address those sources, and not us.
As well, you noted that the "controversies" section had become overlong, and I do not disagree that it overshadowed the rest of the article. Indeed, the hugh and cry from the single cited source that noted the inaccuracies of the film was being given disproportional weight. One source - even a good source (which the aforementioned was) - shouldn't hijack the article.
Perhaps bloat was an unfair word to apply. I think the article's plot section is itself overlong, and needs trimming. Perhaps you and I should undertake a copyedit of the article and try to make it nice, neat and to the point. Would you be interested in that? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie ;-)

κaτaʟavenoTC has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

κaτaʟavenoTC 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcayne/Arc_3_01.08-06.08&oldid=1162966423"