![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
BermudaBreeze, or 75.62.218.43? -- andreasegde ( talk) 18:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
I just stumbled on your Things that make me laugh section. I had a good laugh. Thanks. LordHarris 19:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
moved to Talk:Ronald Reagan#Reagan's role in the Cold War Happyme22 ( talk) 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
(January 2008)
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. -- El on ka 03:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
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
"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, 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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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)
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:
- Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:00, 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
I had indeed missed that one. Thanks for being so understanding. Hiding T 10:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah I see, thanks for explaining! :) Ekantik talk 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
Please see this post. Thank you. 207.237.228.83 ( talk) 01:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Just curious! And btw, I think the Googoosh page is excellent. ЩіκіRocкs talκ 04:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
Definitely. Sorry for the inconvenience, I'm pretty new at this. xD (ApJ (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
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)
Link is here. Benji boi 10:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
No problem. -- Happyme22 ( talk) 22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
why did you say a swear word on egdars talk page? Alexoxo ( talk) 14:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
|
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)
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)
should I care what you have to say. Parable1991 ( talk) 03:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Quite right, and not before time. Jack1956 ( talk) 23:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
comment. :) -Hap Happyme22 ( talk) 07:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
everything is fine i just havent been on much, thanks! SJMNY ( talk) 04:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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 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 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)
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)
Back to you, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipbip ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
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. Khoi khoi 03:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. BlackPearl14 Pirate Lord-ess 04:35, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(undent) Arcayne, replying to your question on my talk page. Nobody of Consequence ( talk) 04:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I was less than civil earlier. Ostap 20:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. -- El on ka 03:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I suspected that was the case. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 03:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
- "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
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)
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)
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)
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)
A Wikiquette_Alerts section has been opened regarding User:Arcayne. Interested Wiki Editors may add comments here: [11]05:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have reported the Flag discussion to WP:WQA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapowow ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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
Sorry, I can't help it. Cheerio Tvoz | talk 08:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
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. Pyrop e 15:16, 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. Pyrop e 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Pyrope seems rather pally with Arcayne. Kapowow ( talk) 00:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
You are mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Arcayne. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I don't have a problem with it. Yahel Guhan 03:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Are you really not an admin? Do you really not even have rollback? Why?-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 05:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I suggest a new strategy, R2: let the Wookiee win. Randall Bart Talk 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Dusti talk to me 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
You're welcome. Keep up the good work! Regards, Hús ö nd 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thought you'd appreciate the link : ) - jc37 02:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I get why it has spread to other boards. Please, do not spread it on to my talk page. Ani Mate 08:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Letting you know here as well. The MOS for films. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. Khoi khoi 03:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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: 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 |
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)
- 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've replied on my correct talk page. -- EivindJ ( talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
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, Hús ö nd 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If you have the time, I would appeciate you looking at this. Abtract ( talk) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Replied on Talk:Silence in the Library. — Trust not the Penguin ( T | C) 22:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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'.
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)
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)
Is it OK if I close the thread on ANI with {{ archive top}}? ╟─ TreasuryTag ( talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. ╟─ TreasuryTag ( talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey this is Broncofreak i lost my pass. but this is my new account. seya User:dursely
I would need third opinion here, would you be so kind and take a look. Thanks -- Makedonij ( talk) 22:50, 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)
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)
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)
spartans are in halo, don't remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halolove ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR/Administrator instructions Enigma message 00:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice, upbeat reply. Always welcome! ( 20040302 ( talk) 12:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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.~ Zythe Talk to me! 13:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
There is another thread about you on a noticeboard, this time from U-Mos, on WP:AN/I. Avruch T * ER 21:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, Hús ö nd 00:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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. :-) Hús ö nd 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
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)
Check out Lightsaber combat - oh my lord! -- Killerofcruft ( talk) 17:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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, Hús ö nd 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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. |
"...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)
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)
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)
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)
FYI, bearing in mind you seem to be fairly involved in all this now. Talk Islander 17:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 cornix talk 07:08, 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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
It's true! Bstone ( talk) 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
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)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)
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)
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)
What edits are you referring to? Ophois ( talk) 20:51, 1 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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
I made this as my birthday present to America. Thought you might enjoy it. Jeffpw ( talk) 12:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...... Densock .. Talk( Dendodge on a public network) 11:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
AAAARRRRGGGHHH!!! (huff) (huff) (huff)... thanks, I needed that. padillaH ( review me)( help me) 12:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
- 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".
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.
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.
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:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
As I sent you an enquiry. - TheMoridian 07:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This comment was directed at the anon user, not me, right :-) Gwernol 16:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
...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)
:::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)
Not really. Erik might know how to do that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
In response to:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 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)}}
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)
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)
Hey. I've been meaning to message you for ages but I kept forgetting: The Stolen Earth ( | 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)
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)
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)
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.-- Koji Dude (C) 18:35, 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)
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)
[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)
"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)
re your comment, could you add a diff there please. John Vandenberg ( chat) 03:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Why do you say it was "previously identified as being in his IP range"? Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 20:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is chronological order really more important than showing which comment I was actually responding to? - Josh ( talk | contribs) 18:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Please take care not to delete project banners. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 17:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
– RyanCross ( talk) 23:36, 5 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)
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)
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,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk
19:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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, Hús ö nd 17:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Bruce1ee talk 08:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to add your comments here. Thanks. Ward3001 ( talk) 02:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
Gatoclass ( talk) 03:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Your latest 3RR violation has been reported. 75.49.223.52 ( talk) 19:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I see that RyanCross has already verified it. -- Bruce1ee talk 09:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Bruce1ee talk 07:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Cirt ( talk) 06:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That's okay Arcayne, thanks for contacting me. -- Jupiter Optimus Maximus ( talk) 20:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thanks for your interest. I have replied here. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 17:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
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]
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
WAS 4.250 ( talk) 10:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
htom ( talk) 17:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)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.
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)
I fear that the Cookie Monster ate my supply, but ... -- John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
Hello there, Arcayne! Today's your lucky day, because you have
new messages at
DepartedUser's talk page.![]()
|
DepartedUser ( talk) 22:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
Well, I'm stumped. Surely you don't mean the aviary enclosure at the London Zoo? DP76764 ( Talk) 04:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Just finished reading it. Very amusing. Hamlet would have been proud. -- Jupiter Optimus Maximus ( talk) 18:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
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, -- El on ka 23:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
"Ugh" is a good term. But I think it'll pass quickly if folks let it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
To be fair I stole this from User:Fvasconcellos.
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!
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)
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)
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)
Did you notice the rollback? NonvocalScream ( talk) 22:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
κaτaʟaveno
T
C 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}}!
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
BermudaBreeze, or 75.62.218.43? -- andreasegde ( talk) 18:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
I just stumbled on your Things that make me laugh section. I had a good laugh. Thanks. LordHarris 19:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
moved to Talk:Ronald Reagan#Reagan's role in the Cold War Happyme22 ( talk) 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
(January 2008)
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. -- El on ka 03:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
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
"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, 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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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)
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:
- Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:00, 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
I had indeed missed that one. Thanks for being so understanding. Hiding T 10:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah I see, thanks for explaining! :) Ekantik talk 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
Please see this post. Thank you. 207.237.228.83 ( talk) 01:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Just curious! And btw, I think the Googoosh page is excellent. ЩіκіRocкs talκ 04:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
Definitely. Sorry for the inconvenience, I'm pretty new at this. xD (ApJ (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
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)
Link is here. Benji boi 10:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
No problem. -- Happyme22 ( talk) 22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
why did you say a swear word on egdars talk page? Alexoxo ( talk) 14:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
|
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)
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)
should I care what you have to say. Parable1991 ( talk) 03:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Quite right, and not before time. Jack1956 ( talk) 23:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
comment. :) -Hap Happyme22 ( talk) 07:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
everything is fine i just havent been on much, thanks! SJMNY ( talk) 04:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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 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 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)
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)
Back to you, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipbip ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
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. Khoi khoi 03:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. BlackPearl14 Pirate Lord-ess 04:35, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(undent) Arcayne, replying to your question on my talk page. Nobody of Consequence ( talk) 04:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I was less than civil earlier. Ostap 20:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. -- El on ka 03:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I suspected that was the case. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 03:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
- "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
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)
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)
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)
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)
A Wikiquette_Alerts section has been opened regarding User:Arcayne. Interested Wiki Editors may add comments here: [11]05:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have reported the Flag discussion to WP:WQA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapowow ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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
Sorry, I can't help it. Cheerio Tvoz | talk 08:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
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. Pyrop e 15:16, 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. Pyrop e 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Pyrope seems rather pally with Arcayne. Kapowow ( talk) 00:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
You are mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Arcayne. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I don't have a problem with it. Yahel Guhan 03:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Are you really not an admin? Do you really not even have rollback? Why?-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 05:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I suggest a new strategy, R2: let the Wookiee win. Randall Bart Talk 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Dusti talk to me 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
You're welcome. Keep up the good work! Regards, Hús ö nd 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thought you'd appreciate the link : ) - jc37 02:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I get why it has spread to other boards. Please, do not spread it on to my talk page. Ani Mate 08:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Letting you know here as well. The MOS for films. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. Khoi khoi 03:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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: 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 |
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)
- 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've replied on my correct talk page. -- EivindJ ( talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
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, Hús ö nd 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If you have the time, I would appeciate you looking at this. Abtract ( talk) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Replied on Talk:Silence in the Library. — Trust not the Penguin ( T | C) 22:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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'.
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)
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)
Is it OK if I close the thread on ANI with {{ archive top}}? ╟─ TreasuryTag ( talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. ╟─ TreasuryTag ( talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey this is Broncofreak i lost my pass. but this is my new account. seya User:dursely
I would need third opinion here, would you be so kind and take a look. Thanks -- Makedonij ( talk) 22:50, 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)
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)
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)
spartans are in halo, don't remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halolove ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR/Administrator instructions Enigma message 00:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice, upbeat reply. Always welcome! ( 20040302 ( talk) 12:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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.~ Zythe Talk to me! 13:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
There is another thread about you on a noticeboard, this time from U-Mos, on WP:AN/I. Avruch T * ER 21:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, Hús ö nd 00:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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. :-) Hús ö nd 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
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)
Check out Lightsaber combat - oh my lord! -- Killerofcruft ( talk) 17:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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, Hús ö nd 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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. |
"...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)
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)
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)
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)
FYI, bearing in mind you seem to be fairly involved in all this now. Talk Islander 17:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 cornix talk 07:08, 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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
It's true! Bstone ( talk) 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
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)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)
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)
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)
What edits are you referring to? Ophois ( talk) 20:51, 1 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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
I made this as my birthday present to America. Thought you might enjoy it. Jeffpw ( talk) 12:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...... Densock .. Talk( Dendodge on a public network) 11:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
AAAARRRRGGGHHH!!! (huff) (huff) (huff)... thanks, I needed that. padillaH ( review me)( help me) 12:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
- 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".
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.
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.
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:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
As I sent you an enquiry. - TheMoridian 07:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This comment was directed at the anon user, not me, right :-) Gwernol 16:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
...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)
:::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)
Not really. Erik might know how to do that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
In response to:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 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)}}
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)
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)
Hey. I've been meaning to message you for ages but I kept forgetting: The Stolen Earth ( | 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)
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)
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)
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.-- Koji Dude (C) 18:35, 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)
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)
[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)
"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)
re your comment, could you add a diff there please. John Vandenberg ( chat) 03:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Why do you say it was "previously identified as being in his IP range"? Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 20:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is chronological order really more important than showing which comment I was actually responding to? - Josh ( talk | contribs) 18:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Please take care not to delete project banners. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 17:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
– RyanCross ( talk) 23:36, 5 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)
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)
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,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk
19:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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, Hús ö nd 17:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Bruce1ee talk 08:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to add your comments here. Thanks. Ward3001 ( talk) 02:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
Gatoclass ( talk) 03:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Your latest 3RR violation has been reported. 75.49.223.52 ( talk) 19:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I see that RyanCross has already verified it. -- Bruce1ee talk 09:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Bruce1ee talk 07:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Cirt ( talk) 06:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That's okay Arcayne, thanks for contacting me. -- Jupiter Optimus Maximus ( talk) 20:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thanks for your interest. I have replied here. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 17:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
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]
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
WAS 4.250 ( talk) 10:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
htom ( talk) 17:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)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.
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)
I fear that the Cookie Monster ate my supply, but ... -- John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
Hello there, Arcayne! Today's your lucky day, because you have
new messages at
DepartedUser's talk page.![]()
|
DepartedUser ( talk) 22:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
Well, I'm stumped. Surely you don't mean the aviary enclosure at the London Zoo? DP76764 ( Talk) 04:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Just finished reading it. Very amusing. Hamlet would have been proud. -- Jupiter Optimus Maximus ( talk) 18:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
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, -- El on ka 23:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
"Ugh" is a good term. But I think it'll pass quickly if folks let it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
To be fair I stole this from User:Fvasconcellos.
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!
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)
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)
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)
Did you notice the rollback? NonvocalScream ( talk) 22:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
κaτaʟaveno
T
C 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}}!