User talk:Arcayne/Arch004: 01.09-06.09

WikiProject Films December 2008 Newsletter

The December 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) 03:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Tom and Jerry

(Odd section heading) Very well. A draw it is. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

---

User talk:ThuranX

Hey, its probably best if for now you back off on User talk:ThuranX page. I am trying to sort it out and continued posting is just adding fuel to the fire (which needs put out, not fueled!). I have looked over what you have had to say from all different sides. Thuran is obviousley enraged and continued posting may make things worse. While you are welcome to post there in the future, I might recommend that you express concerns you ahve on my talk page and let me mediate (hopefully a solution that will prevent future drama). You are however welcome to take this offer or leave it. Please work with me as I try to find the best solution for the entire wiki. Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Completely done with the matter, Chris. I just posted at his usertalk, as my motivations were addressed. I've no interest in poking ThuranX, and if he's of the mind to be more civil, I wouldn't oppose an unblock. I think your suggestion to him was a good one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I guess the case is over then. I'll be looking to take up another now so please put in a good word and let me know if you hear of anything that might need addressing over at AN/I.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a break from cases, and work an article or three in the interim. Just my two coppers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I not do well?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you seeking my approval of your actions and behavior? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not approve. You are under the misapprehension that fancy talk and clever witticisms are a fair substitute for rational, reasonable and personable interaction. I take no joy whatsoever in reporting someone's behavior for action, yet you seem to revel in it. It is a confrontational way to approach Wikipedia, and if will bite you on the ass if you are unable to step away from the honeyed words.

You've a little more than 3k edits to your credit since coming here in June, and they look to be productive. That's on the positive side. Good luck to you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's mean.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware you wanted me to sugar-coat things for you, MS. Okay then: your editing skills seem solid, but you could use some work on the one-to-one interaction, but then, we all could use more of that. Sorry if you were put off by the raw commentary. Use my observations, don't use them; your mileage may vary, offer void in Arkansas. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I know everything hasn't been quite right with me, but I can assure you now, very confidently, that it's going to be alright again. I feel much better now, I really do. I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I hope you will include me in any future cases that may crop up over at AN/I. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You aren't disincluded from most parts of Wikipedia, MS. I don't post to AN/I looking to gang up on anyone; when I post there, I am drawing attention to something I think is unsat, and hoping to get some input from others as to how to proceed. You are free to comment anywhere, so long as the commentary is constructive. Act as you will. I certainly cannot stop you. Good editing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have found our conversations to be very stimulating and I look forward to working with you again in the future.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, you wrote this: "You are under the misapprehension that fancy talk and clever witticisms are a fair substitute for rational, reasonable and personable interaction"? Really? :P Hehehe. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the irony was not lost on me, Erik. I trust that you have since seen that I am no longer a pot calling the kettle black, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Aw, just having a fun poke. From what I've seen, you're definitely making progress. :) Just reminiscing of the Children of Men days, 'tis all... —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt our good friend V would concur but then, why bother asking? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your message made me think of V for Vendetta: "Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." I hope that you will succeed in creating a new future for yourself! —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not very much mistaken ...

The term "Whig" refers to a supporter of Liberalism. I think I went too easy on you. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why, JOM, I consider you a liberal of the highest water. How else could I tolerate you? :P - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I warn you: when I am elevated to my rightful status as Ruler of the Earth you will the first on my list. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, you might have to take a number. Conversely, I promise when the Bavarian Illuminati are finished, I will be merciful with you. FNORD. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A great number indeed. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Great as in 'many' or great as in 'fantastically wonderful'? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Great as in many, which I would have thought obvious given the fact that you're on it. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am learning not to assume anything with you, JOM. Barbs and quips - one can never tell which until somewhat later. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm a complicated man. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You once remarked that one day I would "get my arse editorially handed to me by someone much, much better at tossing the taunts than me." I hope I've made you realise that absolutely no-one is better at "tossing the taunts" than me. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'm advising you that you really haven't. I was toying with you, JOM, all in the spirit of good fun.

Were this a real Taunting Emergency, you would have been advised to seek immediate shelter from the harsh rain of derision and downpour of upbraiding. As well, you would have been advised as to where to link to seek reassurance and comfort, as your ego would have been whittled away to nothing - or more precisely, to that of a veteran Republican on November 5th.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled drama. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Arcy, I think you're a tad confused as to who's toying with whom. As to my ego being whittled away to that of a veteran Republican on November 5th, I think you'll find that that would take some pretty serious whittling given the ecologically unsound (as you yourself have stated) fury of my ego next to which your own is that of a Labourite on the 4th May 1979. After all have you not described yourself as "a tiny mote in the grand scheme of things" (opening paragraph of your userpage)? As a skilled psychologist I think I can safely remark that there are some pretty serious self-esteem issues there. Do you want to talk about it? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see any (self-awareness is the first step to wisdom, and wisdom is the first step to enlightenment), but hey, you are the apparently licensed professional. Does your hourly charge involve the blood of my first-born son. or just my soul? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And let's be fair: the Labor must have seen the writing on the wall, what with Thorpe in the Old Bailey for trying to kill a gay lover. That tender metaphor, coupled with the rest of the nonsense pushed after the 60's tolled the death knell (or maybe just impending deep, deep slumber) of Labour. Not necessarily a good thing, but a thing nonetheless.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What, Labour being put into a deep, deep slumber? Definitely a good thing. They're in power now and they've almost completely succeeded in turning Britain into a Communist state. Fortunately Cameron will be in power soon, then the country will swing back to the right. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What, you think I need a link to Right Wing? Coming from a family of conservatives, I think I've a passing familiarity with the term; the opposite of it is not communism, though the John Birchers might disagree. As for Cameron, I think Vernon nailed it by noting Cam's essential confusion. Good luck with that wish, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I just wanted you to know what type of right I was talking about. Normally people just give me blank looks when I mention the country "swinging back to the right once Cameron is in power." And yes, I know communism isn't the direct opposite of right-wing but it is essentially, the most extreme form of left wingedness and most of the Labour party are reformed Trotskyites. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And fascism is the ultimate expression of right-wing. Yes, both sides have their extremes, JOM. As I said, I wish you (and your candidate luck). Who's representing Oxford at Parliament these days? I think Harris is still in, but I cannot remember the other person. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think there's a lot to be said for fascism. Yes, I imagine Cameron will succeed. I'm seventeen so I can't actually vote yet but I doubt he'll need my help. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I, Chrislk02, awared you this Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for your hard work on this project and always standing up for youe beliefs! Don't let anybody get you down on this project and know that your work is appreciated! Thanks. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Yay me! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Questionnaire

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

You've done excellent work on this article, and you should really be proud of yourself for it. Thanks for it. --David Shankbone 07:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, David. It means a lot, coming from you. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

300

I made this change because, in the previous edit, the sentence ended with a preposition. I'll try to come up with a better alternative as a compromise. -WikiFew (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

*grumble grumble*

I'm sorry for my dick-ish comment earlier -- I was just really miffed that a complete reversion of the article had edit summaries that I thought applied only to a content dispute about the lead; it kind of snowballed from there. Obviously, we both have the capacity to be asses, which doesn't really help anything. I think we're going to continue to disagree about how to present Cawley -- one of the reasons I asked the WikiProject folks to take a look -- but I'm glad we can at least be more civil about the other aspects of the article.

I am heading out for most of the rest of the evening. When I return, I'll poke around more for information about Cawley -- I wouldn't be surprised if SciFi.com or some other third-tier but probably still-reliable source throws in a non-npov superlative statement about Cawley; I'll try to find it. I don't object to the assertion; I object to the inference that coverage=notability, but perhaps I can address it removing the need for the inference. In the interim, though: I think my edits to the rest of the article progress it further; I'd appreciate not waking up tomorrow to find them all "wasted", if you take my meaning. If there's some nugget of information I excised that you think belongs, let's hash out phrasing on the talk page and then drop it in. --EEMIV (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll wait to hear back from you regarding your web search. I am pretty sure it exists.

And for my own half, I was thinking that someone (you) had wanted to purge the reference to Cawley bc it didn't fit your memory of Kirk. I was as resistant to it as well, but its a faithful interpretation, if not Shatner's mannerisms - a lot better than Belushi's, that's for sure. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Template Joss Whedon

Hi, I saw that you reverted the changes I made to the Template:Joss Whedon. You say that "it needs to be discussed at WikiProject level first". I just want to know what needs to be discussed. The links I fixed and added? Or the addition Template:Nowrap begin, what is a commonly used template to prevents word wraps (line breaks) in text and links with spaces? Just want to know why, thanks! Cyzor (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

I use this on my Talk page, but only as a few days ago - I had the exact same issue. I thought "watching" the RfA main page would work, but it doesn't. This, I believe, is the best that is available for keeping an eye on who is running. --David Shankbone 06:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

PS - you have to edit whatever page you put it on to update it. If you look at the one on my Talk page, it doesn't have Geni's RfA listed, since I haven't edit/saved the page recently. --David Shankbone 06:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the template itself is only updated once an hour. Also, you can purge the page's cache to make sure you're viewing the most recent version; adding "&action=purge" to the end of the page's URL and hitting return works well, as does enabling the UTC clock gadget (fourth item under "User interface gadgets"). EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re. Open to recall no more

Hello Arcayne. I have just responded to your query on David Shankbone's talk page. That should provide all the reasons you may need. Regards, Húsönd 19:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Husond; I will check it out shortly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Howdy

Because you said it was a shame that the discussion about personal attacks in RFAs wouldn't come to anything, I'm wondering -- did you see DDStretch's excellent analysis on the subject? I think I'm persuaded that it would be good to update WP:NPA or another policy/guideline to reflect this point. Your thoughts? -Pete (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

my block

Well, no I don't think i am smart at all. I re-evaluated what I want and I have decided I want to vanish. What do I need to do to vanish and can you delete all edits permanently?. All I wanted to do on Wikipedia was to edit the List of documentary films which I have been doing ever since this revision I have pretty much got it to where it is now and have even been editing it as a table in my user space (to try and get it to FL status) as I said I would like to vanish and I would like all pages in my user space permanently deleted if possible. Can you help me out with this? cause I do need someone to do it for me.intraining ^{Jack In}

I am not an admin, but I think that if you are sure of your desire to leave the wiki and never return, head over to WP:VANISH, which outlines the steps to retire. Good luck in your off-wiki endeavours- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As per LessHeadVanU's comments on your talk page, I guess RTV doesn't apply to your situation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco and RFA

There will always be people smart enough to defeat any pre-sysopping system. A combination of reasonable pre-sysopping screening to weed out those who aren't trying to hide something plus a system to desysop those who later show themselves to be harmful is necessary. You can argue that we already have such a thing with the combination of emergency-desysopping, emergency blocks, and a hearing at ARBCOM. Count the number of times in the last 2-3 years where a sysop has gone rogue and look at the total aggregate damage, not counting wasted time by people engaged in discussions. The total number and amount of damage probably doesn't exceed the capacity of the existing systems to handle.

About the only thing I can think of that would help is to make sure there were enough stewards so that one of them was "on call" monitoring some real-time "desysop request" system 24/7. I would expect such a system to be activated less than a few times a year. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I frankly think that the number of admins going off the rails is pretty limited, and that other admins are there to give the rogue a nudge (off-list) to help them wake up. If that doesn't work, a temp block so as to address the situation in the appropriate forum keeps the damage from piling up. At first blush, using ArbCom for emergency de-sysoping seems a bit like overkill. They are overworked as it is; we scream at them for making bone-headed decisions or no decisions - I'd prefer to not clutter up their feet, which I think helps them to focus on the real issues. The temp block stops the behavior from affecting the encyclopedia while the matter is addressed in AN. If ArbCom becomes necessary, then they can pick up from AN. If the block was preemptively applied, the unblock edit summary can reflect that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Reverting users in their own user/talk space

Is generally discouraged, no? Hobartimus (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it is, unless you are suggesting that archiving - as per the reasoning (WP:BLANK) applied by the blanking user - is a better course of action for future reference. Blanking suggests an utter disdain for the comments, and I think that works to E's disadvantage. However, you will note that I did not gainsay her decision a second time. It's her call, and she can live with the consequences. I did my good deed in making the suggestion; she doesn't need to heed it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note to let you know I replied on my talk page, in case you didn't see it - if you did and don't have an interest in replying, simply revert this post and I'll know. Thanks much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had missed it, as I avoided the subsequent conversation there. I've replied on your Talk Page, explaining the rest. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

doppelgangers

Are you aware that these three doppelgangers of yours, Arcane. (talk · contribs) , Arcayna (talk · contribs) and Arcayne. (talk · contribs) are not actually registered accounts?Jac16888 (talk · contribs) 20:15, January 23, 2009

DYK for Harlington Wood Jr.

On January 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harlington Wood Jr., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wood was an awesome guy. He deserves no less, and a great deal more. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We come full circle!

I remove some stuff as cruft, and get reverted by you, then I fill in some empty fields I see hanging about and get reverted for cruft. Make up your mind my friend! I suppose I agree that the dates aren't necessary, I just filled them in because they were sitting there empty. It might be worth removing them from the template itself. As for gender, if the only FA class character article within the whole Star Trek scope has it listed, one might consider it valid, even if it is blatantly obvious. Rule two of writing on these things, after rule one of write for the general reader: assume the reader is an idiot. -- Sabre (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't assume the reader is an idiot; I just presume that they may not be as into the subject as the rest of us who edit are. For the lovelorn fanboi/fangrrl, the external links do the trick. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd hardly describe stating the gender as lovelorn fanboi stuff. -- Sabre (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's vestigial and unnecessary, esp. when the matter is obvious. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Case closed as far as I'm concerned. I'll be trotting back to the peripheral areas of the franchise now, though I'll keep an eye on the removal of the postings discussion in the event that Globular Cluster1 turns up. Doesn't look like he's going to at the moment though, he's probably disheartened over the rejection of his more in-universe approach. -- Sabre (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's kinda why I directed an invitation at him/her. I didn't want them to feel isolated - I just want the user to learn and follwo the rules and guidelines that the rest of us have to. GC1 has something to offer, and I don't want them to run away. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

FYI, you removed the gender and death fields from the Star Trek character infobox's documentation/usage page, but not the template itself. I left a heads-up on the talk page asking if anyone particularly objected; if you don't beat me to it, you can probably go ahead and axe those in-universe fields from the actual template. --EEMIV (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Kirk

The article looks pretty good now, I'm trying to follow your lead with the McCoy article, but I only have "Inside Star Trek" to work on. If you pop by, please lend a hand (and leave a cite!) Alastairward (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Page moves and the GFDL

Please don't try to effect page moves by pasting text from one article to another. The preferred method is to preserve the article history. See Wikipedia:Move#Page_histories for more detail on this. Thank you. – The Parting Glass 20:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, guy, if you want to move a page, then go to WP:Requested moves. AFD isn't necessary for that. – The Parting Glass 20:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit short, btw. I was just a bit slow at realising what was happening, and when I caught up, I panicked. – The Parting Glass 20:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Panicking is always the worst possible choice in Wikipedia. Very, very infrequently are you going to encounter an issue that calls for desperate action. A simple message, suggesting page move instead might have done the trick. Always - I repeat, always - seek out input from the editor performing an action you have issue with. If they don't respond, head to the relevant articvle discussion page. After that, seek help from an admin. Reverting AfD notices gums up the works and creates a lot more hassle than it resolves. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I reinstated the comment you withdrew, as it represents the appropriate response from you.

Removing the AfD template created no problems beyond a bit of wounded pride on your part. And it saved having to close an AfD that shouldn't have started in the first place. My panick > your supposed experience. And the apology remains withdrawn as you don't deserve it. 'Nuff said. – The Parting Glass 20:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I think you and I are getting off on the wrong foot, and I'd like to nip that in the bud right now. Reverting out AfD templates does create a cock-up, as the AfD page was being created, and would have been orphaned by the removal. The process I described to you on your usertalk page - learning more about what is going on before reverting - remains valid advice. Basing your revert on your speculation as to the merits of the AfD doesn't serve the cause of professional and friendly interaction.

Now, if you still feel your apology is unwarranted, I urge you to reconsider. If you don't want to, that's entirely your prerogative but it isn't going to interfere with me pursuing the appropriate course of action. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, in what way was a GFDL violation created? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've started a thread about this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Apparent_GFDL_violation. Informing you as a courtesy, logging out now, will probably feel regret over harsh words in the morning. – The Parting Glass 21:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arcayne,

The Parting Glass is right, at least in the sense that Firefly (franchise) needs to be a redirect until the discussion at WP:RM is done. The was a WP:Cut and paste move, which does, indeed, violate the GFDL. --barneca (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, after reading a bit more past PG's panicky edits. Yep, I cocked that up, and was going to revert. You beat me to it. I think having the AfD incorrectly reverted without discussion made listening to the fellow a bit more difficult. Mea culpa on the cut-n-paste, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing AfD templates

I seem to remember you saying that removing the AfD template does something bad (because it is attached to the open AfD or something). Could you take a look at [[1]] template removal and let me know what is the best course of action? Thanks. Padillah (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that (if you haven't already done so) discuss the matter with the deleting editor. If they are being arbitrary or simply unclear on the rules, take it to an admin for advice. They they are reasonable, you might be able to explain your view. Deleting AfD tags is not an acceptable form of dissent, any more than removing block notices is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Is this an RfCU or an SSP filing in the making?

Could be. If you think so, I'd suggest filing a report at WP:SPI. For more eyes on the issue, you could post a request at WP:ANI. Cirt (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films 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 and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Spock-B Stacey.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Spock-B Stacey.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) 05:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Joker dispute

Frankly, I don't really know what to do, since you seem convinced I am the instigator here.

How about just walking away? Numerous editors have expressed the view that the Dendermonde material does not belong in the Joker articles, but you have persisted in reverting and prevaricating arguing the point on talk pages. You are entitled to your own opinion of course, but at a certain point, doggedly insisting that you are right in the face of strong consensus to the contrary is inevitably going to be perceived by other editors as disruptive.

Apart from which, how important is it really, in the grand scheme of things, whether or not the Dendermonde affair is referenced in the Joker articles? This is not in my opinion the sort of issue that warrants getting into a flap about. Some issues are worth fighting for, and some aren't. One has to know when to let go. With all due respect, I suggest to you that you are making too big a deal of this. Gatoclass (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

when you suggested I was "reverting and prevaricating on talk pages", were you actually suggesting that I was lying in my posts? Because, my understanding of "prevaricate" is "to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression

Well, that's a bit of a shock. I guess I've never got around to opening a dictionary to check what "prevaricate" actually means. No, I can assure you I had absolutely no intention of accusing you of lying, I merely intended to suggest that you seemed a little - contentious, for want of a better word.

Do we get to use our personal preference to cherry-pick our sources?

Of course not. However, it seems clear to me that the initial reports linking this crime with the Joker have been withdrawn. This link says that State prosecutors have ruled out as a "false lead" suggestions that Mr De Gelder's attack was linked to the first anniversary of the death of Heath Ledger. This one states that The media have reported that he was wearing make-up at the time of the attack, that made him look like the Joker character from the Batman films, but police say that is not confirmed. In effect, everything linking this crime to the Joker in the early stories has now been discounted by the authorities. In which case there is no remaining reason to link the Dendermonde article to the Joker articles, at least at this point. Gatoclass (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I find your argument the most convincing thus far. I will withhold comment on the subject for now.

Thanks. I'm assuming from the above statement that you have agreed to drop the matter for the time being. I think that would be the best course of action.

Lastly, what about the gross incivility on the part of the other editor - that which originally prompted my post to you?

I think it's a little late to warn him about it now. I don't want to create unnecessary wikidrama, especially now that you have acknowledged that there are legitimate reasons not to include the material for the moment. If this dispute should arise again in future, and you have a concern about ThuranX's behaviour, drop me a note and I'll take a look. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of swatting a deceased equine, it would not have been too late had you addressed the situation when I first brought it to your attention two days ago

That is undeniably true. In my defence, I didn't much feel like dealing with two upset editors at the same time, and I thought it might be better if I tried to quietly resolve the problem one user at a time. It didn't occur to me then that if I didn't give ThuranX a warning the opportunity would pass. However, I do think that in an overall sense we have had a good outcome, thanks in part to your reasonableness over this issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, your threats and obscenities do not impress me. I call an egg an egg, and I call an idiot an idiot. Should you wish to graduate up in my estimation, try reading what I write and responding to it intelligently, that way we will both be better off. Fbunny (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no no - you are actually mistaken, Fbunny; I will attribute it to you being somewhat new here. I did not threaten you; a threat would be a promise to hit you with a cricket bat the next time you insult me, or some other nonsense - something I have not done (and would never even consider). My warning to you wars just that - a warning that your behavior of attacking an editor within the article discussion is unacceptable. Ask around: that sort of behavior will get you blocked rather quickly. Pay attention to the fact that you aren't the smartest chap in the room, and you might just learn something.

And if you feel the word 'shit' is an obscenity, I compliment you on your upbringing, sequestered from the real world, as it apparently was. Call it a little slip in having taken offense at being called on a policy that you are - and I will be kind - 'unfamiliar' with. Please learn to swim before venturing into the deep end of the pool. You may go away now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Again incorrect. Your "warning" is in the first person and can be unambiguously deconstructed for what it is, a threat. The word "shit", in the context you used it, is certainly, in my native variety (British English), an obscenity. I grant that it may not be so in your usage, however it is at least a term that is better avoided due to its ambiguity, regardless of its obscenity. I will certainly go away now and I am not monitoring this page.

Antikythera mechanism

Hi, could you look at [2]? Cheers, EdwardLockhart (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I did, and responded there. Thanks for the heads-up. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Article Rescue Squadron

I noticed that you are part of Category:Wikipedians against notability.

I would like to invite you to join the Article Rescue Squadron. Although Rescue Squadron members do not share any official position on notability, and are simply focused on rescuing articles for deletion, you may find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Caveat: I am writing this as a wikipedian, not as a representative of Article Rescue Squadron. Ikip (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the invitation, but I am afraid that an old subpage of mine (last edited by me in Feb2007) used to experiment with userboxes was sending a signal of intent from a dusty, old, forgotten storage room. I have a lot of oars in the water at this time, not the least of which is working a job and paying a new mortgage. I wish you luck, though. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

When you put "<ref>" on the template, use "<ref name="MikeSmallville">" instead. Then, instead of putting the entire reference for every instance after that, use "<ref name="MikeSmallville"/>" for each succeeding source. Remember, the name must be exactly the same for each one (I believe it is case sensitive), and you have to put the forward slash at the end of it on the ones that don't have the full reference.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, do you mean that field within the ref template is where I would put the "codename" for the ref, so I can use it in place of the full reference? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't even bother with that stuff. As a matter of fact, I've removed all of the unnecessary fields from the citation that I performed the example with for you. Hope that helped. Let me know if it didn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it looks pretty clear now. When I get back from the dojo, I will take a look and implement it. Thanks for taking the time, Big. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I cleaned up another source (the first one), but I figure I'll leave the others for you to practice on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Image copyright problem with File:Lucas.Barkley.Wood Stevenson.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:HWood 1973.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:HWood 1973.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 12:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Lucas.Barkley.Wood Stevenson.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lucas.Barkley.Wood Stevenson.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Added Refs to Trek section you recently tagged.

Hi. I've added some references to the section in the main Star Trek article you recently tagged on "Frequently discussed continuity problems". Let me know here how you think it's progressing. --WickerGuy (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick Thoughts

I hadn't realized that the official Star Trek Paramount site would have been an issue, though you make a good point about it. (Autobiographies by future and past US Presidents are usually terrible with the notable exceptions of Carter [post-president only] and Obama.) Presumably, Paramount gets all the fan feedback, and more or less filter in into a synthesis. As a measure of fan opinion, actual fan sites are not acceptable. Although many sub-articles on Trek in WP (such as WP articles on Picard, Klingons, etc.) cite the web-site "www.ex-astris-scientia.org"- however the guardians of the encyclopedia on the edge of forever (i.e. WP) don't want that site used in the main article. Earlier versions of that paragraph submitted by me cited it, and got reverted, thus altering the time-line postponing first contact with Zenu by 7 more decades. The money biz i put in was a throwaway just to point out that other issues besides the two I'm mentioning exist. Just thinking out loud here. --WickerGuy (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Thoughts

On the first of the two continuity issues mentioned, I think that the usage of StarTrek.com is very useful for establishing WP:NOTABILITY even if it is preferable to get the details from other sources, although most can be verified by watching the episodes though as you say one wants to avoid improper WP:SYNTHESIS. Because the Chekov issue is older, it is easier to establish WP:NOTABILITY from books, especially from books that are not about minutiae of Trek but on media in general, which is preferable from establishing WP:NOTABILITY. --WickerGuy (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Behind the Eclipse

Here is last week's. It's too late to submit one for this week's, so we have to wait until Tuesday. Thanks Ophois (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tookluck. — neuro^(talk) 00:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you thought my personal attack was, but it isn't a personal attack if you are speaking the truth. the guy was a vandal. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't get to call anyone, even a vandal, an 'ass-clown'. Please read WP:NPA again. — neuro^(talk) 06:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will remind you of that the next time that folk like ThuranX get a pass on their over-the-top language. In comparison, I think I was pretty mild. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Warning

Your behavior recently has been of concern. Based on your contributions, one can notice repeated instances of edit warring, stalking, tempering with other users' comments, and general incivility. You have a long history of being blocked for edit warring, you're a veteran user and you definitely know better than to engage in something like this. I count at least five other users reverting you, which shows that you appear to be edit warring against consensus. Telling others to "use the talk page" while you continue to revert them is not only unhelpful, it is also disruptive. The point of discussing disputes on the talk page is in order to prevent edit wars from occurring, discussions such as these require that all parties cease reverting, and this includes you. Your stalking of other editors is also equally troublesome. The entire history of Iranian peoples shows that you have never edited the article until Wayiran did. Following people around based on their contributions and reverting their edits in an almost-sterile method does not only bother users, it constitutes Wikihounding. When it comes to censoring people's comments, there is no basis in Wikipedia policy for what you did here. In fact, WP:RPA clearly states, "There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed." Even if there were, it is inappropriate to delete an entire user's comment simply because part of it may have been uncivil. Lastly, you have violated Wikipedia's civility policy yourself with this comment. All of this combined leads me to conclude that there is a definite pattern in your behavior that is both disruptive and violates Wikipedia policy. If you continue down this path, I will have to block you. Please consider your approach to editing and review some of the following pages: Revert only when necessary, Etiquette, and Assume good faith. I don't like having to block users but often it is necessary if a user is unable to change their behavior. Thank you. Khoikhoi 07:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are dead wrong, K. Clearly, a user decided to contact you via private email (what a shocker) to tell you what a bad person I am for attempting to keep our policies in place in the face of POV editing. Please tell me that you didn't just accidentally stumble across my edits. I have noticed this utter bs occurring before in other articles that touch upon subject concerning Iran: 300, Googoosh, and of course the Persian Gulf naming dispute and the Persian Gulf article. One editor makes an edit, and tons of extra edits swarm the scene from anons and very new contributors (often, it is their very first edit) to support the pro-Iranian edit. After two years, I tend to have a gimlet eye for the pattern. Do I call a spade a spade in the article discussion? Nope, I just keep discussing matters, hoping that someone reasonable shows up. I do NOT edit-war, and have been pursuing discussion consistently and constantly. Maybe you missed that.

As for my "uncivil" comment, I was responding to a user who I have specifically asked to not contact me in the past, and who made an incorrect assessment. I find it less than odd that you seem to have failed to miss the incivility of the others in the discussion considering your past defense of these sorts of actions by this group of editors. Pointing to my block log - the last block of which was over 6 months ago seems like a cheap shot; conversely, I could call you a pagemove vandal and revert warrior, based solely upon your own block log. The edits I removed were personal attacks, and there isn't a reasonable person on the planet that wouldn't agree with that assessment; another editor already called them personal attacks as well. Maybe you missed that, too.

So far, you have accused me of wikihounding, violating wiki policy and being disruptive. You are wrong on all three counts. Rather than ask you to present examples which would almost certainly be taken out of context, I am going to ask that you actually examine the claims which you are making, and maybe take a gander at the behavior on the folk privately emailing you. I am hoping that if you are able to be a bit more neutral, you might notice that I am maintaining wiki policy alongside folk who use wiki as a battleground, or an ethnic soapbox. Rather than complain about it, I am trying to fix the problem. Maybe you keep missing this, and I don't want to hazard a guess as to why. I do expect you to at least try, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the warning stands. Simply because you believe what you're doing is right does not make it so, nor does it give you a free pass to go around violating Wikipedia policy. These articles were on my watchlist, and I received no email about you or your behavior that lead to this warning. Your claims that you do not edit war are directly contradicted by this. There is no Wikipedia policy that states as long as you use the talk page, you're allowed to continue to revert indefinitely. WP:3RR is very clear about this: "The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may do it, which will demonstrate a consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting." Only a quick glance at the history of the Anti-Iranian sentiment article shows that the problem is more you than the other editors. It shows a history of relative calm, followed by your first edit to the page in about a month. Although nearly half a dozen users repeatedly request that you seek a consensus before removing an entire section, you continue to revert them over and over again. This is not how you build an encyclopedia, and it is not appropriate behavior for a Wikipedia user. This in addition to your stalking of other editors constitutes an inexcusable and blatant disregard for the rules. When it comes to personal attacks, simply because you requested that a user not contact you does not give you an excuse to violate Wikipedia:Civility either. The same goes for saying that he "made an incorrect assessment." These are not actual policies or guidelines, but rather ones that you appear to have made up yourself. If a user pisses you off, there is no "right" that comes with that to lash out with personal attacks of your own. It is harmful for the community and will only end up getting yourself blocked.

There is a large difference between users with a history of edit warring who still continue to repeat these mistakes and those who have learned from them. Virtually every single block from your log has been for some variation of edit warring or a 3RR violation. The main issue is not your history, but that you continue to commit blockable offenses to this day. If you look at some of the logs of your "opponents", you will notice that at least three of them have been blocked by myself for the same thing. Regarding removing personal attacks, I will repeat what I have said in my warning to you. There is no official policy regarding if and when personal attacks should be removed, and even if there were, this does not justify deleting an entire user's comment. You have a right to believe that you are correct in this situation, and that everything you have done (i.e. how you handled it) was justified. However, this does not make you immune to Wikipedia policy nor does it justify your violations of it. If you continue to behave in the same manner it will simply be at your own risk. Maintaining policy also requires respecting it, and as an editor it is your duty to do so. Khoikhoi 19:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are incorrect. Let's look at your arguments:

• "Simply because you believe what you're doing is right does not make it so, nor does it give you a free pass to go around violating Wikipedia policy" - Exactly what policy do you think I am violating? Certainly not 3RR, or edit-warring (despite the link the history which shows something utterly different than what you are contending). Perhaps you missed the fact that virtually every single disc ussion page section was initiated by myself. When material is in dispute, you don't keep reverting; you head to the discussion page. And please, do not piss on my head and tell me its raining; how mnany other folk have you "warned"? From your own contributions, we both know the answer is no one else. This, despite the fact that they are the contributors adding unsourced (or poorly sourced info).
• "Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting" - Yeah, I know this, which is why I requested it here.
• "Only a quick glance at the history of the Anti-Iranian sentiment article shows that the problem is more you than the other editors. It shows a history of relative calm, followed by your first edit to the page in about a month. Although nearly half a dozen users repeatedly request that you seek a consensus before removing an entire section, you continue to revert them over and over again" - Perhaps you need to take a closer look before offering that evaluation, Khoikoi; The half-dozen editors you speak of are all pushing to add either uncited, poorly-sourced or completely unrelated material. That they all tend to be pro-Iranian editors is a given. Maybe do yourself a favor and actually look at the info I am reverting out. There is no way you would allow some of these edits yourself.
• "This in addition to your stalking of other editors constitutes an inexcusable and blatant disregard for the rules" - Bullshit. No one is stalking anyone else, and I resent the characterization, Khoikoi. If I see a POV edit being made, I am going to look at the other edits that the contributor made, to see if it s a pattern, and pardon me, but stopping POV editing is what assists in building an encyclopedia. Now, if I went through and undid a particular editor's edits in every article they worked in, or challenging every edit they made, that would be wiki-hounding. Reverting one bad edit found elsewhere doesn't constitute stalking. If you feel it does, you might wish to review the actual term.
• "When it comes to personal attacks, simply because you requested that a user not contact you does not give you an excuse to violate Wikipedia:Civility either" - I did not violate our civility policy, especially when seen in contrast to teh other user's conduct. If I ask you to not visit my pafe, I expect you to stay away, understanding that doing so is in itself uncivil - you are ignoring the other person's request because you don't feel that their request doesn't override your need to post there. Excuse me for telling the person to get lost; if you actually consider my response uncivil, you might want to read up on some of the comments I was subjected to by this particular user - comments which precipitated the request to not post to me in the first place.
• "The same goes for saying that he "made an incorrect assessment." These are not actual policies or guidelines, but rather ones that you appear to have made up yourself." - Wrong. When someone makes a mistake as to what policy/guidelines actually are - you know, not templating the regulars or calling civil behavior something else, I am going to call them on it, unless they know it, I know it and everyone else knows it, which makes it a pointless argument. You are totally wrong here.
• " If a user pisses you off, there is no "right" that comes with that to lash out with personal attacks of your own." - This is the only accurate thing you have expressed thus far, Khoikoi. However, I would point out that I have been exceedingly polite in article discussion, despite having been personally attacked there repeatedly, and called a racist by some of the users participating. When someone posts on a usertalk page who has been specifically asked not to do so, I think that I am allowed to ask them to go away. My edit summary is a great deal more civil than anything they have ever offered me, and is tame by any measure. You yourself have flown off the handle far more often in your edit summaries, making your observation something olf a 'hello pot, meet kettle' argument.
• "There is a large difference between users with a history of edit warring who still continue to repeat these mistakes and those who have learned from them. Virtually every single block from your log has been for some variation of edit warring or a 3RR violation. The main issue is not your history, but that you continue to commit blockable offenses to this day" - See, you seem to think that you are completely neutral here, and we both know you aren't. I've learned from my mistakes, which is why I haven't been blocked in over six months. This would tend to indicate that a user has learned their lessons; I have no intent on returning to that sort of behavior, and I find it chilling that you think - bizarrely - that I am committing blockable offenses to this day. I have heard the same said of you, fellow. I guess everyone's got an opinion.
• "If you look at some of the logs of your "opponents", you will notice that at least three of them have been blocked by myself for the same thing" - Yeah, about that: I note that you haven't warned any of them about their uncivil behavior in the article discussion? Nope, just me. And you incorrectly label them "opponents"; that you term them such is rather telling of your own approach to these sorts of disagreements. Depressing, I think.
• "There is no official policy regarding if and when personal attacks should be removed, and even if there were, this does not justify deleting an entire user's comment." - You are correct, there isn't. However, if the post is naught but personal attack, it isn't really about the article, now is it? Article discussion is solely to discuss the article content, and how to improve it. When a user is socking, we tend to remove their entire posting history from article discussions (as well as their contributions). In numerous administrative discussions, when someone steps out of line, one or more admins ask for the comment to be refactored, struck through, or they simply remove the comment to prevent fuel from feeding a fire. There is precedent for keeping the article discussion on topic. Were there any part of the discussion staying on topic that isn't either calling me a moron or a racist, the comment would remain. I haven't removed posts of value to the article discussion, only those that were en toto personal attacks.

I would submit that our own prior interactions have rendered you somewhat unable to evaluate my behavior neutrally. This is best exemplified by the fact that you point out what you feel I did wrong, and completely ignore those far more inappropriate behaviors from users that you claim to have blocked before. You want to be perceived as neutral, start acting that way. At the very least, since these pages are "on your watchlist", maybe step in when things are getting to heated, instead of sitting on your hands and allowing users to toss in personal attacks to article discussion. Do that, and you've earned the right to advise me on how to act. Until then, you will understand if I find your suggestions and observations to be biased and incorrect. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to argue with you. Others' behavior is not an excuse for your own disregard for Wikipedia policy. This is further exemplified by your above response full of incivility and accusations. I will not tolerate any more disruption from you, and I've clearly outlined which specific areas have been of concern. Despite your attempts to refute it, the warning stands and will remain a serious one. You can follow it, or not. That part is up to you. Khoikhoi 06:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, you seem to have conveniently ignored my observation that out of all the incivility, you singled me alone out for warning - despite you having blocked many of the others before. If you feel my observations regarding your post to be uncivil, you might want want to revisit the article, Khoikoi; I am fairly certain, you are misinterpreting the difference between pointing out where someone has cocked matters up and being uncicl about it. Please point out even once where I have been uncivil to you. I can be less than perfect when it comes to civility, but my behavior is far, far, far more polite than that which I was subjected to. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at help

If this is unwelcome I apologize before-hand. When I see exchanges like this I am reminded of a piece of advice I was given in Dale Carnegy class, asking questions is always better than accusing. Khoikhoi, maybe if you were to ask Arcayne what his intentions were regarding an action you found questionable you may find a reasonable response. Arcayne, maybe asking Khoikhoi to elaborate on the history page he finds offensive will shed some light (a history page is pretty vague to be thrown around as an accusation unto itself). There may be a way to explain your points of view without coming down to a face-off between the two of you. Or I could shut up and butt out :) Padillah (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, a neutral party might be helpful, Padillah; thanks for stepping in. I don't respond well to threats, and Khoikoi seemed to be issuing one that seemed incredibly lopsided. Khoikoi, please consider Padillah's questions my own. I would welcome the opportunity to address your concerns, so long as they are fair. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 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) 23:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dendermonde stuff

Hi, yeah, obviously I didnt know what I was doing when I edited the article, it seemed to be stating an opinion (of the journalist) as a fact of the case and I meant to just fix that. But then I engaged in speculation myself as to the original journaslists reasonings, which was may be just as inaccurate (although at least it was clearly speculation, and any reader would recognise it as such. But you're right, not place in the article). It is clear that merely stating that painting your face white and dieing your hair red makes you similar looking to the Joker is an inaccurate statement. Broadly you'd look like any clown, of which the Joker character is one. But, specifically, you'd look more like Ronald McDonald, but I don't see any mention of him in the article! Its just as likely, I now suppose, that the journalist merely didn't actually know what the Joker looks like and genuinely saw the simialrites. (to speculate again, however, if De Gerber really is the Joker fan mediacommentators have painted him as, it would be reasonable to suppose he'd have made a more accurate attempt at creating the visual similarity?) Anyways, I'm also sorry for reediting before discussing. I didn't realise that that's the excepted ethical way of doing things around here. Seems obvious now, in hindsite. And I hope that my further revision is more in keeping with the spirit of impartiality. E. 121.223.233.150 (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think you may be missing my point. We do know the wiki article as it stands is inaccurate. We don't have "one witness who says so and one attorney, who is paid to deny such" as you say; awaiting court documents we don't have the facts of the actual assault, only of the reorting of that assault.

The reference (4) currently cited on the article page

http://www.standaard.be/Krant/Tekst/Artikel.aspx?artikelId=4G25ITTG

doesn't cite an eye witness, it cites an editorial and clearly states that the comparison to the Joker has been made by the writer/editor and not directly from eye witnesses. That disparity is all I wish to clarify (call it journalistic integrity). If we could find a citation whereas an actual witness directly makes the comparison to The Joker then it would be a far better source than those currently cited. I couldn't, and doubt you can, find such an article however, so until then we'll have to wait and credit the information as given).

So it doesn't matter whether it turns out the guy actually was dressed like the joker or not, the wiki article states that "The man was reported to be wearing black and white makeup with his hair vividly coloured in red, similar to that of The Joker.[4]" And its indisputable that wearing black and white makeup with hair coloured vividly RED is not any more similar to the Joker in particular as to any other clown (or indeed modern gothic character), so its a fact completely independant on the outcome of the investigation that the reporting as cited was speculation. That the lawer denies a Joker connection is niether hear nor there, its the reporting not the witnesses statement or lawyer's opinion I'm trying to address.

I believe any encylopedic references should be above representing heresay as fact. (and again appologise for the hypocracy of my initial edit, which clearly engaged in my own speculation as to journalistic motive).

However, if you can think of a better way to phrase this in editing the article, I'd appreciate it. Perhaps, if "reported, inaccurately, as being remininscent of the Joker"? (note, `inaccurate' does not mean `incorrect') still seems to strong for you how about something like: "early reports described De Gerber's alledged appearance of white painted face, black makeup and vivid red hair as similar to that of the character The Joker. However as the Joker wears red make up and green hair, the comparitive similarity is a subjective one."

E.121.223.233.150 (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok, that subtlety of policy had alluded me (this is only my second go at editing, the first was to remove some uncited opinion on the quality of some bands album). I appreciate the explanation. So, can I ask a clarifying question then? If a cited article includes both an eye witness quote and editorial comment can we point out the difference between the two? For instance, in this piece from the daily record (not presently cited in the article, I just did another quick search):

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2009/01/24/nursery-attacker-had-face-painted-like-the-joker-witnesses-say-86908-21066013/

there is a line `Witnesses said he looked "like A joker"' (my emphasis) where as the headline says "Nursery attacker had face painted like THE Joker, witnesses say". Clearly there is a difference between `a' joker (the centuries old representative of a clown/trickster in all standard card decks and a more common word than `clown' in some parts of Europe) and `The' Joker (the character from the Batman films/comics). While I understand we aren't allowed to comment on what a witness may have meant or on what a journalists motivation is, would it be fair to draw attention to the apparent disparity so as to let readers of the wiki article recognise the possibilty of a misquote or misunderstanding between witnesses and original journalists? As it stands the wiki article implies a diffinitive `The Joker' comparison from all involved. I just want it clear that it is journalists who've chosen to interpret the witness statement in so definitive a way.

I know it may seem like I'm making a big deal out of a side issue- obviously the most important thing is the horror of child killings (I have a 1 year old son myself) and the outrage at such lax security at a child care centre (at the place where we, very occasionally, leave our son. all visitors, tradesmen included, must entre through the main- security- doors and provide adequate ID. And when someone drops a child at the centre they must be the person who picks the child up unless both adults involved- spouses and other family included- have previously visited the centre together and listed their details). But, I find it hard to ignore, on this an many other issues, that so many news agencies engage in speculation rather than concentrating on reporting the facts and editorial about those facts. If newspapers/TV had the same rigid citation policy, so diligently enforced by editors such as yourself, as wikipedia does we wouldn't be having this conversation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.233.150 (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're around...

...an IP editor takes exception to including the Cawley info. at the Kirk article. I've restored it and tried to address his issues on the talk page, but thought I'd drop you a line and ask you to weigh in to help firm up the "local consensus". Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, been super-busy at work and on the home front. I will check in on the discussion. Thanks for letting me know, EEMIV. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

New discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Highlander

Hello, there. I've started a new discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Highlander#Highlander character infobox regarding the changes I would like to make to the Highlander character infobox. Your input is welcomed. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on James T. Kirk. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. THF (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Hello pot, meet kettle. Try your little games with someone who does not see through them, please. No need to respond. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you realize that you don't actually own Wikipedia.... Erikeltic (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that. Do you? I appreciate your passion, but you have less than 200 edits over the past three years; passion is simply not enough when you don't understand the policies that are supposed to guide us. Maybe you would be better off if you spent more time asking questions about policy and guidelines and less time on creating sockpuppets and making personal attacks. You would certainly build more good faith with me if you would try to do it the right way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Amazing! Not only do you edit your attacks back into this talk page, but now you are actually maliciously editing the Wiki I put together to help end the debate in Captain Kirk? Please review this before you continue WP:Hounding stalking me. Despite my 200 edits, consider this a warning to stop. Erikeltic (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please actually read the guidelines you are name-dropping, please. You added the "olive branch" as a link, and invited folk to view and contribute to it. Did you not want people to actually edit it as an article? Or did you create the article just to make a point. If so, consder that others are going to see it as disingenuous, and rightfully so. Also, read the edit window: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." I feel the article is flawed and non-neutral; I am going to fix it. Every time.

I think now would be a very good time to find an administrator and get their input on how to interact with others. You aren't doing a good job of it with me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I invited everyone (including you) to contribute to the wiki by adding the actors that have played Kirk. But instead of sticking with the format, you used it as a means to further your agenda. Weren't you the person who wrote, "Don't get into a pissing contest with me, you'll get a torrent?" Your motives and intentions are pretty clear, despite your arguments being logically flawed and without substance. Erikeltic (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You not only got my quote wrong, but you took it out of context as well. If you feel my arguments are "logically flawed and without substance", take the time to enumerate why on the article discussion page. Simply reverting isn't the answer because clearly, that doesn't work. Since you created the article - what was the way you put it? oh yes: 'as a means to further your agenda' - you must know that it is going to be challenged. Again, if you are not prepared to have your additions mercilessly edited, youy might want to reconsider your involvement in Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please note an ANI thread that appears to be related to this topic has begun here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Arcayne. –xeno (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Apparently, the filer is unfamiliar with protocol. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Characters

I'm sorry, but I just don't see that in either discussion. On both pages, I see only you arguing for its inclusion in the infobox. Everyone else seems to be of the mind that if it's not an officially licensed portrayal, not matter how notable, it isn't appropriate to place it in the infobox. It sends a false message to readers who think that this person portrayed Kirk in some film or TV show, when in fact it's a self published mini-series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I went over to the Kirk page, and it appears to be the same thing. Crawly is fine for the CI section, because he's been covered by third-party sources independent of the subject, but just not for the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See, I don' get that, Big. I am not sure where you are deriving that only licensed portrayals are appropriate for infoboxes. Clearly, when only three persons have portrayed the role seriously, expanding on it, inclusion is appropriate. Dismissing it as self-published seems wrong, as we cover info about different self-published material, like Prince's self-released musci while going under the monkiker "The Artist (formerly known as)". Indeed, i am not sure that "self-published" or even "mini-series" are even appropriate descriptors; while the initial project was not funded by Paramount, Cawley wasn't the only one to toss in his own money (it wasn't a vanity project, in other words). Additionally, it doesn't really fit the definition of a mini-series. That it has tacit approval by Paramount to proceed cannot be ignored; there has to be a middle ground between licensed and unlicensed; Paramount's practice of allowing fan-films to be made so long as profit is not derived seems the middle ground. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Spock-B Stacey.jpg

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

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/James_T_Kirk, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Marfoir (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the mediation section like you asked, so you can feel free to sign the mediation agreement. Thanks. Marfoir (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I will sign in a little bit. I am waiting for a few things to happen first. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Marfoir/Erikeltic

You might be interested in this post I made on the Incidents page. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/James T Kirk. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 06:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

You seem to have a problem with this topic

You continually revert war and accuse everyone else of bad faith. I've warned you about this before, yet you persist. I've posted a notice about the poll on the Star Trek wikiproject. If you don't abide with the results, I will go to ANI for a James T. Kirk and Star Trek infobox topic ban. Cool Hand Luke 15:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing others of bad faith, though you should feel free to point out where I have done so (unless you are referring to the DG, where the fellow actually is wikihounding, so I call them as I sees them). IF I point out where someone else has demonstrated bad faith, how exactly is that incorrect? I am not opposed to the poll; I am opposed to a skewed one that imposes a logical fallacy (ie, a point argument) instead of addressing a point of dissent fairly. I look forward to your response. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You've repeatedly claimed that several people a prejudice against fan films. Your "Elvis impersonator" exchange with THF was particularly striking. You've attacked votes at AFD and comments on the talk page with your assumptions. Stop making attacks, and stop edit warring. Cool Hand Luke 16:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. You think I am making these observations without being able to support them. I've been able to support them eacbh and every time - including the exchange with THF. Frankly, I'm amazed you aren't seeing it, and wonder why. When someone says on one hand that they don't have a problem with fan films, and in the same post call them pigs with lipstick, that fairly screams a bias. Addressing and pointing out someone's bias is not an attack. Were I to call you a raging feltch monkey and a moron for supporting a position contrary to mine, well that would be an attack. I don't think I've done anything like that. And, as I seem to recall, the edit-warring stopped some time ago. Or are you addressing the back and forth between myself and Erikeltic's socks and meatpuppets a few days ago? Without thoughtful examples, its kind of hard to know what you are talking about CHL. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take a step back from this and look at your comments anew. Quite frankly, they come off very poorly. Tell me where THF confessed his burning hatred for fan films. Quit making attacks now. Cool Hand Luke 17:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, back off the tone, pronto. You are knee-deep involved in this, so threatening me isn't making me look bad. As well, I am not making personal attacks. What are you seeing as a personal attack since your last post, CHL??- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not threatening you with anything but review by impartial admins at ANI. As for incivility and assumptions of bad faith, you've made this and this. I'm again telling you to stop. Cool Hand Luke 17:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you are only threatening me with asking someone else to block me; the threat is clear. Now, let's look at those comments. The first, curious how you seem to have missed the rudeness of Erikeltic's response, but chose to poin t out mine. What part of "Yeah, I think I know that particular policy, having over 20,000 edits. Thanks for your opinion, though" was uncivil or an assumption of bad faith? I do possess over 20,000 edits, and I do know SNOW pretty well. I even thanked the new user for their opinion. I don't agree with it, and feel their wiki-knowledge is woefully inadequate, but I did not comment on that. The person is a sock and - by their own admission - a party to meat-puppetry. Their well of good faith needs a lot of replenishment. AGF doesn't mean overlooking bad acts.

The second example you provided was after you decided to split up the questions - it was my intention to invalidate what I felt was a rigged question by addressing the actual subject material. After someone went ahead and reformatted it yet again, I decided that it wasn't worth my trouble to trade punches over it. Are you taking exception to my usage of cusses? As they weren't actually directed at anyone, I am unsure how you feel they are either uncivil or a lack of AGF

Edit summary? "I can guess who cocked up?" I don't ask admins to do anything for me; just whoever is on ANI. If we couldn't ask uninvolved people to look at situations, how would they even get resolved. I try to post neutral requests, just as I did at the Start Trek Wikiproject. That's not a threat—I'm giving you fair warning that you need to get some perspective about this. Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not allowed to be upset when someone alters my post's intent? My cusses were directed at the change, not the person making the change - much like this comment, expressing frustration as well. If you felt singled out (having made that change), then I am sorry. Your actions weren't copacetic, and I expressed my distress at them. You of course see how the other example wasn't non-AGF or uncivil, right? Maybe you were meaning that Erikeltic's post was both?

I think my perspective is pretty on target here. I dislike pov editing, and I think that if you asked a neutral fellow to take a look at the discussion, they would see a marked discrimination at fan-films. I am not saying I don't understand it - a lot of fan-films are rubbish. However, lumping them together is foolish and exclusing them en toto is unencyclopedic - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We have asked neutral people, actually. There were the folks at the Wikiprojects. I'm still pretty new to this debate. I don't think Erik has previously weighed in either. In good faith we think that it ought to be excluded. At some point you must accept that these opinions are not born of any sort of discrimination except editorial discrimination. Cool Hand Luke 17:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean when you refer to 'editorial discrimination'. Could you elaborate a bit more? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors by definition choose what should be in an article and how. On Wikipedia we consider things like our policies, our widespread practices, and notions about what readers would expect to find in an article. Some things are necessarily left out. I think one could be a fan of Phase II, but still oppose the article listing, and I don't think most of us have an opinion one way or another. Cool Hand Luke 18:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree on those methods by which an article is put together, CHL. And while it is possible that a fan could oppose the article listing, we aren't really seeing that, now are we? Everyone who has spoken out against listing the infobox listing has made a point of denigrating the fan-series; that displays a disturbing lack of neutrality, and bad articles are made from non-neutral editors. I don't particularly like any of the fan films, and don't think Cawley is any better of an actor than Shatner (God love the chunky bastard ;) ) but that doesn't affect my opinion that noting one of only three actors who have portrayed the character is encyclopedic, and failing to do so is both biased and non-encyclopedic. I support that statement by the tendency of the other opposing editors who believe we are creating a wiki-wide policy out of allowing this fairly unique instance of inclusion. There isn't really a comparable answer, except maybe for the James Bond actors thing...and it shold be pointed out that Connery reappeared in a non-licensed Bond film. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, was this proposal intended for me? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't denigrated the fan series. I don't think most of us have. And the proposal is clearly directed toward you, as it says in the first comment in this thread.[3] Cool Hand Luke 18:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Have you actually read any of my posts there or here? I've illustrated at least 6 different instances where exactly that has occurred. And as for the topic ban, you should know that I respond extremely poorly to threats, sport. I disagree with your viewpoint, and you haven't provided a single shred of policy that would defend your position, though I have, over and over. The only reason - the ONLY reason - that 3/4s of the folk don't want it in is because of their distaste of fan-films. I would have participated int he mediation were it not for the sock and meat-puppetry going on with Erikeltic and Marfoir. As I expected them to be blocked for meatsocking, I expected the mediation (created by Marfoir) to be purged as product of a sock, as is the usual action. I wasn;t going to waste my time and energy in something that was going to simply be deleted. Had anyone else initiated it, I would have jumped right in. If you feel mediation is the right step, initiate it; I will participate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think mediation is the right step. Please remember that not all of the people you disagree with have anti-fan film bias. Cool Hand Luke 19:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As per your comment elsewhere, you promised to seek a topic ban on me for my failure to participate in the mediation. Now you acknowledge that it isn't the right step. While it is true that not everyone who opposes the inclusion is anti-fan film, more than enough who do are anti-fan film. and the crush of their non-encyclopedic opinions is alarming. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? [4] This was about the poll, just like it says in the first comment here. You seem to read things into people's remarks that they didn't actually say. Cool Hand Luke 19:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. You didn't threaten to have me topic-banned for failing to participate in mediation, just for failing to concede in poll. You do know that polling is only meant to facilitate discussion, not conclude it, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I do. But I hope and expect that you would stop edit warring once you saw the apparent WP:CONSENSUS for it (or lack thereof). If you continue warring (which has been a problem for you with this article), then you should be topic banned from it to prevent further disruption. Cool Hand Luke 19:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I would correct you to point out that I am not warring, as Wikipedia is not a battleground. I have not forum-shopped the topic elsewhere, filed inaccurate AN/I complaints socked, meated or otherwise dealt with the topic in any way but directly. Why is it anyone who disagrees with another point of view is labeled 'disruptive' by the person being disagreed with? I am allowed to disagree, and stress how the criteria being used in a discussion isn't even remotely encyclopedic. There is no guiding policy or guideline specific to this issue, and no one seems capable of addressing it when I apply some. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That was a good reframe. I wasn't presuming anything, but it's a different poll, and it shouldn't run together. And no, people do not get blocked for adding headings. If they do, tell me about it and I'll unblock them. Cool Hand Luke 16:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? Framing my question as somethng based on my ego (Arcayne's Question) while framing the other question more generically makes it seem like my opinion is wrong. It might be, but you don't get to frame my comments according to your belief. It's kinda what we call 'uncivil'. Does that help you understand my point better? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I was saying that yours was a good reframe. I wish you had done that to begin with—a separate heading was the only thing that I was trying to achieve, and I'm sorry if you felt slighted. Strictly speaking, you were editing my words, but this is a wiki, and it was an improvement. Thanks! Cool Hand Luke 17:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay, then. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A little peace?

Hi, guys. I've been watching this controversy unfolding all over my watchlist. I've not been following it, or looking into the issues - I've just been concerned at the attitude and huge numbers of rude words displayed/used by everyone on all sides. Arcayne, feel free to copy this to any other party's talkpage if you wish, but I think they'll probably see it here.

Please just calm down, everyone. Go and have a cup of tea, or just turn off the computer, or simply have a polite conversation to deal with the issue. Tossing around accusations etc. - which you've all been doing - is destructive and very saddening to see, on my part. Please try. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Arcayne. I've received a complaint from Erik that you edited his talkpage to leave him a message, after being asked/promising/agreeing not to. He's obviously quite upset about this, and seems to be abiding by his side of the bargain, not to edit yours... could you perhaps just leave his page alone, in the interests of avoiding friction? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

NB:- I'm still not taking sides, either in the content dispute or in the civility issue. I've also made it clear to him on his talkpage that he shouldn't message you outside of when he's required, either. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I said that I would not contact him, unless to inform him of administrative action. If its still up, then there will likely be exactly that. I wasn't chatting up the fellow, and my notice wasn't in the least uncivil. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he was unhappy, and it's best not to make others unhappy. You weren't informing him of upcoming admins' action, anyway, you were making a sligtly?slightly unpleasant threat. I'd reccomend (and of course, it's not really any of my business) that you only communicate with him to inform him that you have posted a thread on hjim at WP:ANI. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

You have violated the three-revert rule on Spock. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Chill dude - saying "take it to the talk page" means just that - you both have belatedly begun discussions - but if you find this situation developing, just take a rest. Walk away, don't make others enforce a break - recognise it's not a good idea, and decide for yourself. Kbthompson (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. However, I did not violate 3RR. Look at the times a lot more carefully, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR is not a hard and fast rule. If you were vandal fighting - for example - it would be better to seek help, but it's permitted to break the rule to prevent damage. However, edit warring is clearly disruptive - taking the temperature on the talk page is the best practice as soon as the reverting starts. People walking the tightrope of the 'rules' do get blocked way before it gets to technical 3RR - although they're more likely to talk themselves out of a block. ... and 'taking it to the talk page' means listening; it's a misnomer - it really should be called the listening page .. Kbthompson (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, that's true, but I'm pretty much tired of that particular editor. He doesn't understand our polices, trumpets like a wounded moose when his lack of understanding makes him look the fool, and forum-shops more than a black marketeer. If the dude doesn't want to use discussion, instead cock-sure that they are right, what to do? This is more of the same type of editor that Wikipedia doesn't need: someone who doesn't know they are wrong, and turns being corrected into a nuclear-fucking exchange. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

---

TOC Limit

When articles become overly segmented and have an extremely complex table of contents that tends to dominate the introduction or lede, the individual sub-sets can be folded in, by using the tag {{TOClimit|limit=2}}. This is especially useful in lengthy, major articles but I would not recommend its use in minor articles. FWiW, see Amelia Earhart, Anna May Wong and F-117 Nighthawk Bzuk (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

Its ability to create a shortened form of table of contents is the tag's special secret, not to be revealed as it is "black magic" (LOL). (Seriously, try it out, another editor began to exploit its use and I have been experimenting with it; it works well only on a massive list, but it does have some value.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

Wow, does Ronald Reagan need a pruning, the article not the man, of course. See the difference in versions: then and now. Seriously, the article really needs a cleanup as it has a gazillion (a real word) inconsistencies in spelling, grammar and especially referencing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

Googoosh

Call me crazy but 2008 dates are all in the past so are not "WP:CRYSTAL;", eh? Smkolins (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol! You are completely right. I've self-reverted. Thanks, Smkolins. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

:-) I've managed some of my own bonehead things over the years myself.... Smkolins (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Children of Men

Hey! It was nice seeing a message from you again (although you probably have no idea about what I'm talking about). Anyways, regarding my edits, I understand completely where you are coming from and I'm quite indifferent about the issue. It would probably be best if you left the atress' name in the plot section, as she does deserve a mention at least. The main reason I added the character to the cast section was because I found the character so hilarious that I felt she must have a mention (the Bad! Bad! Bad! scene almost had me on the floor!), so my intentions probably weren't too great to start with. I guess the character is covered quite well in the plot section, and as there is (unfortunately) no real-world info on casting etc., removing her from the cast section is fine. Hope my reply wasn't too long, :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

re: biting

Would you believe: unsourced, OR? DP76764 (Talk) 03:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

JTA

I was just talking about the earlier misunderstanding, when you thought that I had added an irrelevant reference to this JTA article. You wrote, "We do not have citations for any of the others, and attributing them to a citation that doesn't make those claims (like the citing of Michelle Benjamin, etc when the citation does not say that) sets the wrong precedent." That was because you had missed the relevant sentence in the article which did make that identification. I thought you were saying I had misattributed the sourcing. It was just a misunderstanding, but it got my back up a bit and got us off on the wrong foot (he said, mixing his bodily metaphors).

No biggie. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that; I was largely unaware that you were still carrying the weight of the misunderstanding around. :) We are okay now, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah — we're good. Sorry I was so grumpy. (I was also having a bad day in real life, and I let it carry over onto the wiki. Bad Wikipedian!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Been there, done that, got the commemorative coffee mug. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick note

Sorry to keep coming back like a bad penny, but I'm a little concerned at this edit-summary. Calling someone a "noob" in a dismissive manner is really impolite, not civil at all. Whatever you say, that it's just a common term, or that you didn't mean it like that etc., won't change the fact that it's offensive... could you possibly hold back from pejoratively referring to other users in themselves? Thanks!

As usual, I am not commenting on the actual content dispute at hand. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Noob is four letters. New contributor is fifteen. I don't have characters to waste on what was a wikistalking distraction. Noob wasn't meant as a pejorative; using as a descriptive the terms 'feltch monkey' or 'ass rabbit' would have been. Note that I didn't apply those to the user. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, while you may not have meant it offensively, it is a pejorative term (see the article on "newbie," for example. You didn't need to refer to the fact that they were a new contributor at all, or to them at all, in that case. A summary such as subcat to refocus would have been perfectly sufficient. Please try, in future, even if you personally don't think it's necessary. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice

I have removed the edit notice, and by the way, I'm not an admin, but if he does continue, I will take it up on ANI and push for a block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page, I'm getting tired, and doing that diff thing is tiring.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

edit warning

The rules state you may not erase the same information four times or more in a row, as you have done at Daybreak_(Battlestar_Galactica). Dream Focus 17:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you take a closer look at the 'rules' you are using to evaluate? The 3RR rules refer to, for the greater part, those edits by a single user within a 24-hour period. As my edits do not consist of such, I am unsure precisely what rule you are referring to.

Additionally, I would direct you to take a closer look at WP:RS and WP:NOR - two of our more important polices. I'll summarize: 'don't add uncited information to articles.' I am not trying to sound flippant, DF, but perhaps you might want to examine the footing of your arguments before proceeding. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's true that your edits weren't actually within a 24hr period, and don't technically violate the 3RR (although while pointing out policies, it might be worth re-reading this section again...). However, for future reference - and I don't know if this is what you meant, but just in case - while NOR and RS etc. are policies, they are not exceptions to the 3RR, only removal of blatant vandalism is, basically. Sorry to butt in! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is treating it like an entitlement, TT except perhaps. for the other party in this matter, who has walked right up to the electric fence on at least two occasions in the same article. Considering our prior (and deeply unpleasant) interactions in the past, as well as your recent commentary at AN/I, I am somewhat unconvinced that you have my best interests at heart. I have not violated neither the letter nor the spirit of 3RR;I am discussing whilst the other user is gaming the system (AfD, RfPP) to preserve uncited info in the article. I would think that an admin, sysopped to help enforce the rules, would actually make an effort to follow them, and not abuse them. At each and every step, I have sought out discussion on the subject, whereas Edokter has chosen to simply post what he was going to do and then disregard opposition. As you are in the middle of your second RfA, it makes me wonder that you would endorse this sort of behavior. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right, I don't have your best interests at heart. I actually have nobody's interests at heart (why would I - I've never met you guys!) - only Wikipedia's. I only came along to comment that it looked like you were using NOR to justify potential breaches of the 3RR (I also clearly stated that I may have misunderstood).

Also, I'm not endorsing or criticising anyone's behaviour, just throwing up points that both sides need to consider. Thus, I hope that my RfA will not be affected by my encouragement of civility and non-revert-warring (and incidentally, I've never socked, check my logs...) Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your claim of neutrality here rings rather hollow when read in context to this AN/I comment. To sum up the comment, Edokter is a prince of a fellow, while I must be watched carefully and diligently. "Uninvolved view" indeed. Please don't piss on my shoes and tell me its raining, TT. In fact, do not tell me anything anymore. I believe, after our last interaction in Doctor Who I invited you to not post on my usertalk page. As I am of the rather firm opinion that your recent posts here have been calculated to make you look better at your RfA, I would appreciate if you would respect our prior agreement, and kindly stay away. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(last comment) Sorry, you're right, I had misremembered our agreement as allowing me to edit your talkpage for non-Who-related issues, for which I apologise. However, by the same agreement, we don't use snarky edit-summaries :P Just for the record, I was actually acting in good faith, RfA notwithstanding (I'm allowed to be a decent Wikipedian, and needn't feel ashamed of it just because I'm running for adminship) - but I will now leave you be on this page. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps I am being overly cynical as to my read of your motivations; only time will tell. However, comparing what you say in the relatively limited audience presented here with what you say to a larger one at AN/I leaves me with substantially disturbing discrepancies as to your intent. I am not comfortable discussing this matter with you while you play at the "uninvolved view". Good fortune to you, and I do hope that your behavior has indeed changed for the better. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please note: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Result_22. Black Kite 22:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I am happy in the extreme that other folk will be at the page from now on. Considering that Edokter is a bit too trigger-happy with the rules, and possessed of a clear animosity towards me, I was very uncomfortable editing there. As I said before, it's why I looked for advice in AN in the first place. Again, my thanks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2009 Newsletter

The March 2009 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OR (or not) at Kings

I was writing an explanation on the talk page while you were reverting and commenting on my talk page. We seem to be at an impasse, and nobody seems to be responding at NORN. Do you think we'd have better luck at WP:3? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am up for that, or for mediation, even though we aren't at a contentious impasse or anything. Do you want to file, or should I? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schlund

The decision to delete the article Dan Schlund is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3. Thank you. Esasus (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

I've dealt with the supposed "OR" situation by inserting many citations + removing a few sentences. Most of the "OR" reported by user:Flamrande(who was against the article anyways) was mainly his misunderstanding of the sources. As shown on the talk page. Thank you for your participation.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but its probably best to keep the discussions on the relevant noticeboard (1) and article discussion (2) pages, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hy there, I want to thank you for your patience in handling this particular case. Several of the more blatant mistakes of the article have been corrected already. However I honestly believe that this particular article warrants a serious review by someone with more knowledge than Teenivestor (who quite frankly knows precious little about the Roman empire at all) or myself (I know precious little about ancient China - but unlike my "counterpart" do not make unreasonable claims about a subject that I'm largely ignorant).

I'm also not surprised in the slightest by his accusations and slander ("who was against the article anyways" ... "was mainly his misunderstanding of the sources", etc). A careful reading of the article's talkpage clearly reveals the truth.

Is there any way to request a thorough review of an article? Flamarande (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you are watchlisting my page for a response, so I'll prolly drop you a line after I post this. One way to get the article looked at is to list it within a number of relevant wiki-Projects, like those for China, Rome, or more general ones like Chinese history, History, Politics and Military History. All of those projects likely have more than dilettantes working in the project trenchs who lnow a lot about the subject. I would advise posting requests for input, specifically crafted to engage their areas of expertise. Wikipedia may not give individual expertise more credit than the average Joe, but enough experts wander around here that know where all the good (and pertinent) citations are.

As for overall quality of the article, you might want to consider listing it for a Peer Review; it always the first step to FA-quality articles. If you need help with structure and whatnot, let me know. As I said before, I tend to avoid those articles where I am professionally or specifically qualified to speak out; I come to Wikipedia to learn something new. If I wanted to talk shop, I'd go to a conference or convention and eat a rubber chicken dinner. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I do not think you are a moron or a fool, and that is why I am taking the time to come here and ask you to use the discussion page prior to revert-warring a preferred version in. A discussion has already been started. Now, this might certainly sound abrupt, but as I see it, you have two choices. You can either participate in discussion to demonstrate why your edits are better, or you can simply accept the cited version in place. Actually, there is a third choice; you can continue to edit-war and be blocked. I don't want that - really, I don't. I am asking you to take the time to discuss your edits, as per WP:BRD. If you refuse to discuss and reach a meeting of the minds, you aren't going to leave me a lot of choice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I wrote in talk page of Persian gulf. Continue there. --Wayiran (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. I will see you there.:) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Your support is appreciated Esasus (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

Hi, just saw your post about image uploading. You don't need OTRS; you can do this yourself. Simply fill out the form here, under "Summary" and upload per directions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding, if you have an email with rights, you will need to send to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. This is, actually, the OTRS permissions que, but you don't need OTRS to upload. Sorry if my first post was unclear. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'll chime in here. Remember, if you know the source (or the owner, in case the source and the owner aren't the same thing) and they have verifiably released the image under a free license, you can show that on the image page and there won't be a problem. If they haven't done so, then the image is non-free and there are other hurdles to deal with. I say this because the words you used "given to me for use on wikipedia" aren't comforting. Images which are allowed on wikipedia only are non-free and have to meet the WP:NFCC. IF you think it will basically meet those requirements, let me know the file name and I'll help write a fair use rationale if possible. Let me know if you have any more troubles and I'll help where I can. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am going to take the time to read up on the relevant topics this evening and then upload the image. I'll supply the link, so folk can offer some input as to how to proceed. Thank you very much, everyone. :)- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the recent Esasus/DreamGuy situation

You initially called DreamGuy's allegations of Esasus' canvassing "full of crap"[5] and "bogus"[6] - you even stated I had been able to "easily verify" this, although I had not completed my investigation. Once I had, it became clear that DreamGuy's accusations were spot-on, rock solid, and you knew it at the time, as once you saw DreamGuy's original notice[7] you'd told Esasus to clean up his act and notify the other side[8] - which he did, over seven hours after notifiying those on the "keep" side, even those from previous Afds! This is blatant canvassing and you were clearly aware of it. You, sir, were not honest and even maligned the whistle blower. I'm not impressed by your actions; I'm not impressed that now you're posting on DreamGuy's page[9] and Esasus'[10] civilly and reasonably conceding that the charges you'd previously called "crap" and "bogus" are, in fact, clearly true, while ignoring that you'd previously (and rather stridently) held precisely the opposing view. You could have come clean at the beginning and said, Yes, Esasus canvassed, but when I warned him and informed him, he corrected himself and notified the other parties - DreamGuy was 100% accurate when he first posted his concern about canvassing. No, you "sided" with Esasus and actually said DreamGuy was full of crap and making bogus claims. This, I am sorry to say, appears to be deception on your part. I am very sorry if you felt that you'd behaved less than admirably in your initial handling of things and were trying to cover your tracks, as it were, by claiming the charge was bogus crap and discouraging any in-depth examination of the charges. You owe DreamGuy an apology; my respect for you is in the gutter; I sincerely hope you also self correct and do not make this error again. I remain available at all times if I can ever be of assistance to you; but at this time I have limited faith in your veracity or your character. I write this in the hopes you see how badly you have damaged yourself by your actions, and that you learn and do not behave so in the future. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but don't come to my page and accuse me of things I am most certainly not guilty of. To begin with, I see DG make accusations all day long - someone's "blind-reverting" this, or "own"ing that; its part of his pattern of behavior. He has engendered that level of bad faith with me (and others) that he does not automatically get the benefit of the doubt. He has to prove his accusations for them to be taken as anything more than name-calling, such has been the level of his past bad behavior. If you choose to take issue with that, feel free to do so; in my estimation, DG has a very, very long way to go before he is granted auto-good faith from me. At the very least, he has to learn a boatload of civility to get even an iota of good faith from me when it comes to his claims.

Secondly, I believe my actions in this matter were 100% appropriate. When Esasus became belligerent, I called him on it - you even used in in your advocacy of Esasus' block. When it appeared that Esasus had initially canvassed - and again, it was I (and not you, just to be crystal clear) who pointed out that he was fucking up by doing so - I did not defend his actions, and in fact condemned them. At all. When he continued to make personal attacks against DG, I told him to stop and step back. Tht he did not is not my fault. That you egged him on by characterizing his actions in the worst possible light is a reflection of you, my friend, not me. As well, i most certainly did not discourage any examination of Esasus' behavior. Indeed, i called him on it when he attempted to defend himself. He was wrong; I am not sure how much clearer I can put it.

In regards to your lack of faith in my "veracity or my character", I am quite sure that I will get over it; knowing that our past interactions have not always been of the most agreeable sort. I am not sure where or how my character or veracity was called into question - you should feel free to provide examples from this situation where they were cast into doubt by this situation; I am interested in hearing about them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have offered you kindly meant, helpful advice. You have responded defensively, and mostly ranting about DreamGuy. This is not about DreamGuy. You complaining about his actions have nothing to do with yours. This is bizarre and pointless. I don't know why you think complaining about DreamGuy will do anything but make me think you're obsessed with him to the point of not being able to clearly and accurately assess or discuss your own behavior. You cannot excuse your actions with complaints of anothers. If you don't see whats wrong with how you handled this, ask. I will try to make it clear to you. Regarding past interactions: I do not recollect ever interacting with you in the past. I am sure we have done so as you do recall it, but you made no strong impression and whatever interactions we had has nothing to do with this, either. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, your statement "I have offered you kindly meant, helpful advice" was offered neither kindly nor helpfully. Maybe you might wish to re-read your post (and really, I don't need to really point out were your good faith fell down the stairs, rolled into the street and was run over by a truck, now do I?). It came across as, well, kind of a bitchy rant. I do not care if you think I am obsessed with DreamGuy; I am not, but that you would toss that little hand-grenade in there doesn't lend your statements the coating of AGF you stress as your position. That I think DG is a net negative to the Project is secondary to my feelings of abusive behavior occurring within WP. I don't like it in anyone, even if DG is the subject of it.

Secondly, I specifically asked you to point out where you thought my behavior inexcusable/pointless/whatever, so feel free. I've already explained that my behavior was predicated on DG's past of making over-inflated if not outright inaccurate accusations. As these accusations were made without proof, I thought it was more of the same. When the person was proven to be canvassing, I did not defend their behavior, and you in fact used my posts as mortar to support a block. When the user made rpeated personal attacks against DG, I - again - told them to stop. I did not defend - and have never defended - any wrongdoing or lapse in good behavior and judgment. Now, before you point to my usage of 'bogus' again, you should note that that term was used prior to your investigation of DG's claim of canvassing. Again, I encourage you to actually re-read your initial post to me, and check the ground around you, just to make sure you are on the high ground here. Then, go ahead and explain to me how I was so terribly in the wrong here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You admit you didn't check DG's allegations because you didn't trust him, fine. "I didn't check" is lightyears away from "bogus" "crap" and so on. My "good faith" in you "fell down the stairs" about the same time I realized you'd been dishonest. AGF does not mean "Act like everyone is always innocent of any wrongdoing whatsover". You cannot take constructive criticism, I have now learned something else about you. I'm done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure I can take constructive criticism. when it's A) constructive and, B) correct. DG's allegations were just another in a long line of bogus accusations; because of this behavior, most accusations are lumped as bogus for simple WP:DUCK reasons; at what point did my dismissal of his initial claims amount to dishonesty? KC, tossing around the descriptive is a pretty hefty charge, and my initial actions do not - in any way - constitute any form of dishonesty. A lack of good faith, maybe, but a lack borne out of repeated inflated charges by an editor which have been repeatedly shown to be semantical personal attacks. Please point out where I was dishonest, as my initially calling the charges bogus doesn;t amount to such. Please tell me you have more than just that to defend your lengthy post.

In point of fact, you were wrong. You pointed to a lack of good faith and called it dishonest. I know you are an admin, so perhaps it should be pointed out to you that AGF is not and should not act as a set of blinders for bad behavior. I will simply chalk up your error to it being the weekend and you being far too busy to pay attention to what you should have been reading.

Now we're done. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Baby, we were born to ruuuuun

Yes, I'd love to help. Sorry if it appears I just came along and shat over everyone with my bold edit summaries. Which FA episode articles are we patterning this from? It will give me an idea of how you want it to look and I'll work with you to that end.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Email failure

Hi, am getting an account disabled failure trying to reply to you. Durova^Charge! 02:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The issue has since been resolved, and should be working just fine now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Still bounced back. Durova^Charge! 03:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute

Hello Arcayne, sorry to bother you again, but I need some advice. Today as no one challenged the proposed change as I described in the talk page, I went ahead and made it. Seconds after Xashaiar reverted my changes providing a useless argument, and if I change it again, it will again lead to a edit war. How can I proceed? He does not seem to want to discuss it. Tahnk you. Uirauna (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me take a look at the situation, and offer my comments in article discussion there. Thank you for letting me know you were encountering some resistance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for '76

On April 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article '76, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie^☆S93 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Born to Run (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles)

On April 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Born to Run (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

---

License tagging for File:Watchmensch cvr.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Watchmensch cvr.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, non-responsive robot. I've addressed the issue, fixing the licensing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter

The April 2009 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI and the Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) article

I think it best if another mediator is contacted, and resolution of the content issues pursued. I do not believe that the ANI discussion is going to advance any further and it may be best to step back from the article until some resolution is achieved. I am copying this message to the other two article contributors who posted to ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Nope.  Frank  |  talk  19:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

K. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope as well. Cirt (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Task force

Task forces are like basically "sub-wikiprojects" that usually adopt most of the procedures of the "parent" project. So at WP:VG we have task forces like WP:VG/GTA for Grand Theft Auto, for example. For a TV example, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/The X-Files task force. Since most WikiProjects use the WPBannerMeta for their tags it's fairly easy to hang off the coattails by adding a task force paramater like {{WikiProject Television|terminator=yes}}. I think it's probably best to start as a task force and then evolve into a WikiProject iff there is a lot of interest, rather than start as a WikiProject and get merged into a task force if there isn't. Feel free to add me as a member if you create a Terminator task force. –xeno ^talk 21:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You know how you "unashamedly stole" CanadianCaesar's page format?

Would you mind if I did the same to yours? --Dominus Noster (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really my permission to give, but if you did so, I wouldn't mind. Note that I changed things around a bit. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you. --Dominus Noster (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Santa Claus

Apologies it was late, but I finally posted a potential revision for the lede. David T Tokyo (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

'Bold'

Respectfully as always, I disagree with your assertion in your edit summary a few minutes ago. Obama's policies nowadays of spending money through the stimulous packages are no doubt bold. Though tried during the Great Depression, the amounts of money that FDR spent versus those which Obama is spending are very different, which is no doubt also very bold. Supply side had never before been implemented on the scale that Reagan implemented it; of course the policies were bold. They were new. They hadn't been done. People (let alone professional economists) didn't know if they were going to work. That is the essence of bold -- taking very big risks.

Respectfully, I am asking that you revert yourself until we discuss the issue on the talk page. As I said in my edit summary, the burden is on the editor (or editors) who want to make a change to a long-standing statement to do so on the talk page and establish a consensus to change it. If that happens, it can then be changed. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's take this to the talk page. Happyme22 (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit war note

I shouldn't have to tell you this as you're an experienced editor, but please do not continue edit warring at Persian Gulf naming dispute. You should by using the article's talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus, rather than pointless revert wars. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page about this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I also warned the other user on their talk page and indicated to them that persisting in an edit war will result in them being blocked. If they do not engage on the talk pages and start up reverting again then let me know, or report to WP:AN3. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 17:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, in response to this: please remember to AGF. Don't assume things which aren't true. I've considered the content dispute and I believe the issue will be best handled by telling the offending user directly on their talk page that they must use talk pages to work out a consensus. Then if they don't; block. Page protection is far from the less disruptive way to go about this. You may disagree, but that's no reason to not assume good faith towards me. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 17:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) mediation.

Hi Arcayne,—

I've offered to mediate Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-14/Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica), a dispute to which you are a party. I'd like to offer you the opportunity to object to my involvement in the dispute before I proceed, and would thus request that you assent or dissent on the case page.

Looking forward to working with you,

AGK 13:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank!

Hey Arcayne, thanks for the help and the few lessons! Uirauna (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack

I have removed your personal attack from Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. If you cannot discuss the matter without implying that I will abuse the admin tools, you shoudn't post at all. I am personally sick of having to go past this kind of crap when trying to discuss content, without other editors throwing mud around about regarding an unrelated issue that happened months ago. — Edokter • Talk • 10:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not ever in your life touch one of my discussion page posts again. I've reinstated it. If you have issue with it, head on over to WQA or AN/I. And please stay off my talk page. Any post from you that doesn't begin in apology isn't going to be allowed here. You may go away now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Edokter

Saying "do not ever in your life touch one of my discussion posts again" was a little over the top. Tone it down a bit ok? BTW it's not your talkpage, it belongs to wikipedia just like everything else on here. WP:OWN. I'm on your side on this, lets work together, ok?Drew Smith What I've done 12:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Note the time of the post; it was immediately after he refactored out my post - an action that he knows is not allowed except in the most uncivil of matters. My removed post was not such, and I was upset at the time. I have since cooled down. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortuantely I sense a nonconsensus emerging from this ANI, or worse another case of an admin being protected by a double standard.Drew Smith What I've done 12:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's early morning here in the States. So long as we keep the noise to sound ratio down, and not allow Edokter to reframe the actual problem (part of why I was re-titling the section), little more than a clear re-statement of the actual problem should be necessary. As Edokter's likely monitoring both of our discussion pages, I am saving a more complete history of his problems for a larger audience. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Reason for editting

In T-1000 article, you removed the long hidden comment explaining some content I edit. As this is an encyclopedia, I'm not surprised if something I put in get removed. I too assume good faith, but as far as I recall reading it somewhere, Wikipedia discourages judgemental tone in edit summaries. While I really agree with why you remove it to keep the article clean, and I'm aware that the note was excessively long, your reason for editting was 'removing some instruction creep', and that was rather judgemental. Though I don't think that this even require any talk here, I think it's better to mention it to get it out of the way. Anthonydraco (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_DreamGuy_2 - See this request for clarification regarding DreamGuy   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arcayne. You have new messages at Promethean's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek 2009

Arcayne, I just posted a couple of things in WP:Star Trek. You'll probably be interested to read them. What were your thoughts about the new film? Erikeltic (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter

The May 2009 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Trek Test

Arcayne, do you want to weigh in on WP:Star Trek? The test page I put together is being discussed. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Erikeltic/sandbox Erikeltic (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted, reposted, posted again, and then posted with a deadline. I waited 2 days past the deadline and nobody objected to the changes. Check out James T. Kirk and let me know what you think. Erikeltic (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one day I will learn to read.

Thanks for that! Geoff B (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Grief porn

I left a cmt on the nom page. Given the time constraint, if you can't meet my request, no problem; I'm only asking. You have a fine page on a sorry manifestation. Nice work. Ceoil (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Grief porn

On June 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grief porn, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 03:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

W00t! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cameron (Terminator)

Hello,

I'd like to point some things out about my edits to Cameron (Terminator) to explain why I made them. Firstly, about the second paragraph in the lead, I've noticed that the first sentence is grammatically awkward, as the dependent clause seems to suggest that the sentence's subject is the character, rather than the last name, which, in the independent clause, the last name is revealed to be. Secondly, I placed the paragraph third because it makes mention of John Connor, but, with the current organization, an explanation of who he is does not come until later. Third, because there is no citation to confirm that the last name Baum is an intentional allusion, it may be better to simply point out that the names are the same.

I'll leave the lead the way it is now, but, if, after reading this, your mind has changed at all, please let me know so that I can change it back.

Thank you, The no erz (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Fate article

Hi! I'm not sure the toys tag works in the Collectibles section of the Doctor Fate article; the helmet replica is not a toy? That also doesn't account for any potential statue in the future (which is very possible). I think we're trying to make the subsection title too specific and thus needlessly confining ourselves. People can read the listings and debate with themselves what is a toy and what isn't in their mind; but if the title says "toys", then some will just assume it's all toys and may skip by the entire subsection because they aren't interested in toys whereas they may be interested in other collectible items listed.

It's also worth noting that the Super Powers figures are solely collectibles at this point due to their 25 year old age; the DC Direct release in 2000 was only to comics shops (thus targeting older collectors); the detail of the DC Universe Classics line is designed for older collectors (and is even named "Classics" in order to attract older collectors - would kids care what's "classic"?); and the JLU line was recently renamed the fan collection because Mattel realized that adults were now their market for JLU instead of kids. The only thing left that's clearly defined as a toy is the current DC Infinite Heroes Hector Hall Doctor Fate action figure, and it's currently omitted from the list.

It just seems to me that we're sacrificing the category for the sake of one thing that's not even listed yet, and I'm not sure the restriction on the category title furthers encyclopedic research use. DBHughes (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you make several good points. Provided you have citations for your statements (particularly how the DC Direct release on '00 was only made to comic shops, etc.), I wouldn't object to a rephrasing. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Looked around a bit and found a few things; I can probably find more if needed. Here's the mission statement from the official DC Direct website:

---------------------------------

"What is DC Direct?

DC Direct is the exclusive collectibles division of DC Comics which manufactures and markets over 100 products each year. These products, ranging from action figures to cold-cast porcelain statues, are based on the world famous DC Comics Super Heroes, the edgy stars of Veritgo and the timeless icons of MAD Magazine. The DC Direct line is highly regarded and sought after by fans and collectors for their superior quality and limited availability of each product is designed with the greatest attention to detail and authenticity. DC Direct has been named Diamond Comic Distributor's #1 Toy Manufacturer five years in a row!

Where Can I Find a DC Direct Product?

If you are looking for a specific product from DC Direct, the best way to find it is to use the Comics Shop Locator Number or the online Comic Shop Locator Service! For your convenience, the number is: 1-888-COMIC BOOK. This excellent tool will allow you to find comics shops in your area and will provide the shop's contact information, so you can inquire about the availability of the product you want to own."

---------------------------------

Most of what is listed in the Doctor Fate section is DC Direct product (including the MiniMates), so they would fall under this umbrella.

With regard to the JLU line, here is a February 21, 2008 article from Action Figure Insider that echoed Toy Fare reports of the rebranding:

---------------------------------

"I’m excited to share some great news about Mattel’s Justice League Unlimited line. Due to overwhelming support from the fans, Mattel and Target are teaming up to bring an all new Collector’s Line to store shelves starting this August!"

---------------------------------

Of course, all JLU toys since the rebrand clearly feature the words "Fan Collection" on the bottom of each package.

It's also worth noting that special editions of the JLU and DC Universe lines are available for sale at Mattel's official website MattyCollector.com. As you will notice, the DC Infinite Heroes toy line I mentioned has no product available on MattyCollector.com; it's the only thing relevant to Doctor Fate collectibles that the company markets as a toy.

Anyway, let me know what you think! :) DBHughes (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Kirk

Despite our differences in the past, can we both agree that the picture of Pine in the Kirk page should stay? If anyone can argue it, using Wiki policy, that is you. You interested? Erikeltic (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am in. I think the Pine picture needs to stay as well. You might want to take a look at the Kirk image; the summary is actually meant for Pine and not Kirk. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arcayne, all ok now. You added the missing rationale (which I've just glanced at) and so the deletion reason is gone an the tag removed.....all fixed ~ - Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

---

WQA report

Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Arcayne, where I've reported your most recent incident of blind reverting my edits and incivility. DreamGuy (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, hi. I've got to support DreamGuy, and agree that your edit summary was inappropriate. Remember that this is a collaborative project, and working together, ensuring that all reasonable concerns are addressed, is part of the point. I'm glad you've posted to the talk page, but these discussions don't go well if we don't respect each other. Thanks for understanding that, and for understanding that maintaining a collegial atmosphere is something we take seriously.

I'm interested now to see the reply regarding your source question at Talk:Grief porn. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, one can't really say that they've met DreamGuy until he's accused you of the old saw "blind-reverting." News flash, when folk revert you, DG, it isn't done blindly. I appreciate the notice, and I've commented at the WQA. AGF doesn't overlook bad behavior, and you've a boatload of it to overcome before you do anything that gets anything but a gimlet eye from me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen someone resolve a content dispute (or get anything but grief) out of accusing others of bad faith. The best strategy is to focus on the content, and if that doesn't work, then there is recourse, for example, the WQA board. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that does work, in theory. I will tell you what: the very next time DG doesn't focus on content, or exhibits bad faith, or is uncivil, I will come to you. I won't be filing a WQA, as he has about about a half dozen of those (all without effect, and which eventually led to ArbCom sanctions). I;ll count on you to take appropriate action. Maybe advise the charming fellow to maybe avoid me, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine. To the extent that you can avoid each other, that's probably for the best, but do feel free to tug on my sleeve about any problem you run into. I'm not always online, but I often am. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I pretty much avoid the dude as I would an ebola-infected leper. So long as he stays away, all will be copacetic. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking about this. What exactly does he do that makes you not want him to edit an article you're working on. I mean, advising you both to avoid each other is well and good, but ultimately if you have overlapping interests, we can't just have you acting as effective topic-bans on each other. That's no solution.

I'd like to see one of these disputes in action. I'll bet there's a better solution than drawing lines and demanding that people stay on certain sides of them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could ask just about any editor who's ever disagreed with him and get almost exactly the same response. The Jack the Ripper article is littered with these disputes of his, and his lengthy block log probably contains links to the ArbCom case addressing it. He calls any dissent to his edits "blind reverts", as if anyone who wold revert them must be blind, which is inherently uncivil and dismissive. Granted, most of us don't like being reverted, but his reverts are made without discussion, and he would edit-war so much that he finally had to agree to 1RR to avoid an AE beat-down. And when he does contribute to discussion, the results aren't much better, as he almost always makes it about the editor and not the edits (a pet peeve of mine). Almost every incident of dissent with him ends up at AN/I.

All I want is the guy to practice a little restraint in editing those places where we must interact. Wikipedia is suposed to be fun and, not to put too fine a point on it, DG is a crashing boor. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your position. As I've commented at WQA, I think we can address this problem best in the context of a content dispute. That way, whatever behavior is going on can be caught in real-time, which I think is the most effective way. Definitely let me know when an instance of this conflict pops up again. I'm online a lot these days, so I shouldn't be too hard to find. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't mind if I hope that there isn't such an instance, but I was born a little west of Oz, so I am sure I will be able to provide you with many such instances as they occur. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Naturally. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As a side note...

...the material you're moving back to the depiction section

James T. Kirk has also been portrayed on the internet through the fan film production, Star Trek: Phase II, James Cawley, who portrays Kirk in episodes since 2004.

Is grammatical genocide. Please slow your fervor long enough to copyedit. --EEMIV (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to butt-in, but the term grammatical genocide is hysterical. Erikeltic (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to kinda agree - it is funny, and the suspect sentence was pretty awful. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Spamming ANI

You cannot seriously be claiming that a) this edit is "calling people assholes" and b) that admins need to do something about this. What are you trying to accomplish? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why on earth are you pretending to be neutral in this? At least I am honest enough to admit when I dispense with AN/I. Considering your past behavior towards me, you would seem a rather less than intuitive choice to render any neutral ruling where it concerns me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to answer my questions, or shall I take it that your accusation that I'm somehow "pretending" means that you have no interest in explaining your bizarre accusations against Erikeltic? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that I don't hang on Wikipedia awaiting responses. Recall that I waited days and days to get a straight response from you that never came. It's a nice day here and I went for a bike ride to cool off. I will respond in the venue forthwith. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And as you removed my comments from your user talk page with the unpleasant little edit summary: "What part of "Reply on your user page" is hard to understand?", I must presume you aren't really interested in discourse. Usually, when you want people to have conversations on their talk page and not yours, you leave a infobox on your page to that effect. Itis my usual practice to reply to others' comments or inquiries on their page, not mine.

But just for you, i will answer your questions. a) Yes, i am seriously claiming that, and I wasn't the only one know noticed the imagery witticism. b) Yeah, when people engage in pointy edits and general incivility, who also don't respond to inquiries to stop, I am going to widen the loop when seeking help. c) I was trying to get the behavior to stop quickly. As the edit was reverted, and the appropriate level of attention addressed the user's behavior (despite the premature closing by yourself), I would consider the complaint resolved, or at least illuminated if the problem reemerges. You might want to consider the possibility that your previous assessment of me as a "liar", etc. was as premature as your closing of the incident complaint. I really don't want bad blood between us, but if you expect me to roll over when you say so, you and I are going to have a very bumpy ride. I really hope it's the former, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a notice at the top of my page, in bold, which has been there for over two years - "If you message me on this page, I will probably reply on this page. If I messaged you on your page, please reply there." followed by, not only in bold but also in bright red text "Comments which fail to follow the rules above may be immediately deleted.". I cannot help that you did not read it.

Regarding the closure, I do not consider it premature and so far as I can see the only thing accomplished since the unclosure is discussion by you, Durova, and E regarding events, none of which involved a need for Admin intervention. ANI is for situations requiring Admin intervention. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, what do you know? There is a little thingie about that, mixed in with the rest of your talk page caveats. Sorry; most people make a bit clearer. Fair enough.

Well, as you and I don't really have anything approaching a cuddly relationship, do you think it the tiniest bit inappropriate for you to decide on closure? I mean, you even told Erikeltic to turn to you for support at any point in the future (1); that can't really be interpreted in a lot of ways. If it were a simple offer from admin to editor to assist, how come you've never offered it to me? See my point? You aren't neutral when it comes to me, so maybe you should leave it to someone else to decide when a complaint is submitted by me, and not try to evaluate it by yourself. You cannot claim neutrality here.

And lastly, admin action was needed. It was only after the complaint was filed that the image was reverted. Had Erikeltic intended to remove it, he would have done so immediately after my post, and not wasted time replying about how funny it was. As before, it took the widening of the circle to compel him to stop the disruptive behavior. Even you weighed in, to ensure that such nonsense wouldn't repeat. Additionally, you said that Edikeltic hadn't done anything wrong, which was resoundingly dismissed by Durova's evaluation. He was neutral; you were not. And all of that happened after the complaint was submitted. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You may certainly also feel free to contact me should you ever require assistance or advice, I thought you knew that!!!

Admin attention was indeed indicated when you originally opened the thread. When I closed it, however, the image had been dealt with. E stated he was all done with that nonsense, and then you re-opened it. What admin action was needed then, pray tell? Also, where the heck did I ever day E had done nothing wrong??? I certainly did not intend such a comment, and if something I said implied it, then my phrasing was poor. Durova is female, btw. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, i didn't know you could be turned to for help, KC. Statements like: "at this time I have limited faith in your veracity or your character"

or "you cannot take constructive criticism, I have now learned something else about you. I'm done," doesn't place you among the folk I would want to call on for assistance or advice. Additionally, my repeated questions to try and resolve your misjudging of this prior situation went largely unanswered. Clearly, I felt quite less than free to contact you about anything.

This assessment was reinforced when you closed the discussion, you dismissed it as a "content dispute", which it was most certainly not; it was a pattern of bad behavior. Then, you came to my page and called it spamming - before I re-opened it. This clearly says that you didn't consider it a matter worth admin attention; indeed, the implication that I was at fault for wasting everyone's time even by filing the complaint. Earlier, when the user had placed provocative image puns on his user page, requests for it to be removed were ignored until it went to AN/I. This occurrence was not onkly that but something that disrupted the article as well. My request for it to be reverted was simply commented on. The image was not removed until R. Baley did it himself - again after I filed the complaint. With Durova's comment, that makes two different administrator's who agreed that it was disruptive. In each case, Erikeltic required admin intervention to resolve a problem, and to point out where they were in error.

And if I referred to Durova a male, that must be a typo; I know Durova is female. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. You could have removed it yourself or just said point blank, "remove it" and I would have. Erikeltic (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

E, I thought my response was crystal clear on that point. If you knew it to be pointy while simultaneously knowing my defense of the fan production stuff, its pretty clear that removal needed no explicit request. And had I tried to remove it, it might have incited yet another edit-war. It was a pretty valid concern. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-read the first post -

“ You cannot seriously be claiming that a) this edit is "calling people assholes" and b) that admins need to do something about this. What are you trying to accomplish? ”

that, specifically, is what I called spamming. Not everything else on the planet, which you've now dragged into the discussion and accused me of referring to as "spam". Further, you continue to falsely accuse me of claiming Erikeltic's actions were not disruptive. Either post a dif to support this charge or withdraw your false accusation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, KC, I saw it the first time. The image upload of both a picture of a mule (also known as an ass), and a black hole curing the time when the user had just been on the losing end of an AfD. That, coupled with the second upload, that of an anatomical illustration of such, coupled with the explanation "they are everywhere" pretty much nails it home. To paraphrase you, you cannot seriously be claiming that they weren't just thinly-disguided insults. As well, the last time I checked, calling folk assholes in Wikipedia was pretty much frowned upon, unless of course you have heard of a new development in policy regarding civility and no personal attacks that I am not aware of. Also, I believe I've provided ample examples of where these images were not removed until the matter was escalated to AN/I. Therefore, a pattern of non-result outside of administrative emphasis was already established before I even filed. In short, because I knew from prior examples that this behavior wasn't going to end because I asked it to, I had more than enough reason to escalate the problem.

Therefore, my complaint was not indeed "spamming". As two other admins agree that it was in fact disruptive and not spamming, perhaps you need to reevaluate both your definition of the term and your AGF regarding me. As well, by calling my complaint 'spam' or a 'simple content dispute' as well as prematurely closing the complaint, you were implicitly claiming that Erikeltic's actions were not at all disruptive. There is no single diff that says that; your every action in the matter, from the closing of the complaint, the subsequent attack-y post to me and your sweet offer of assistance to Erikeltic make it crystal clear that you felt he did nothing wrong. For fuck's sake, man, you used a single sentence to admonish him for his wrongdoing, and have spent hundreds of sentences to tell me how I am wrong for even pointing it out. If yiu aren't willing to be honest with me, at least be honest with yourself. You closed the AfD not because you felt there was no wrongdoing, but because it came from me. The sooner you can do this, the sooner you and I can work to improve this clusterfuck. and believe me, i would like to.

I am not sure I understand your statement: "Not everything else on the planet, which you've now dragged into the discussion and accused me of referring to as 'spam'". Could you maybe say that in another way? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

Are you certain the other two admins were speaking of the post on the userpage, and not of the replacement of the Vulcan salute image? Please paste difs here, I believe you are in error. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Err, diffs of what? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Difs supporting your claim that the admins were referring to the image on E's userpage, not the image on the Trek page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry you misunderstood; they were using the prior acts of incivility and personal attacks to properly frame the current one. This is indicated by the response by Durova in the now-archived AN section, wherein she said:

• " In the context of recent disruption, a pattern of previous disruptive behavior may be discussed. Although Arcayne does not present the matter clearly or well...(his) underlying message appears to be meritorious"
• "It would be more productive to raise one's standards than to engage in what gives the impression of a creative endeavor to snark at the margins of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL."

As well, when R. Baley reverted the image substitution, his edit summary was unequivocal: "New version is not useful and inflammatory". It could not have been seen as inflammatory without taking the prior behavior of Erikeltic into account.

After only having received commentary from Erikeltic, who swore up and down that he was totally innocent (which we both know was an utter lie), and DreamGuy (who had little standing in the discussion save for an ax to grind), you closed it, calling it a content dispute and spamming. It has since been clearly shown to not be such.

Part of being a good admin (and good editor) is to recognize the truth when it is in front of you, no matter who is presenting it. You have indicated that you are unable or unwilling to demonstrate some good faith in my edits whether or not the argument is with merit, (here being one of a few examples). As you cannot at this time do act thusly, is it advisable for you to be commenting on them? Just as you have counseled me to avoid those folk with whom I cannot extend the courtesy of good faith, you should feel obliged to follow that same principle. I would like to improve our editing relationship, but you aren't in the right place in your head yet to even consider it. While I am optimistic that it can change, I am unable to ascertain when or how that is likely to change as you seem unwilling to admit when you are wrong. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok gotcha. Well, not to pile on, I strongly agree with Durova's "does not present the matter clearly or well.". R. Baley is talking of the substitution of the Trek image; he doesn't mention the prior behavior. That's your interpretation, although we could certainly ask. IMO its part of the edit war not part of his silly upage bit. Similarly, my views on your past behavior do not preclude my being able to examine other incidents without undue bias; your protestations notwithstanding. Please note I have not blocked you or banned you from any article. Your continued insistance that I have some kind of personal dislike for you is an error. You state your desire I "admit (I) am wrong" but so far as I know the only specific request regards your dishonesty in the canvassing incident where you claimed the perpetrator (now banned as an abusive sockpuppet) was not canvassing, several hours after you, yourself, had told him how to "fix" it so he would not be guilty of canvassing. You had to be aware to give him such instructions. Had you said "he was, but I think he was innocent of intentional wrongdoing and has since corrected it" I would have no quarrel with your view. However, you instead viciously attacked DreamGuy, an editor with whom you have, to say the least, an unfriendly relationship, of lying. You not only were dishonest yourself but used the incident to attempt to smear another editor with whom you were in contention. I am not wrong about these facts, for which I have already provided you the links. You have never admitted your error, nor made any indication you will attempt to be more straightforward in the future, nor accepted responsibility for your false accusations against DG. My position on that incident remains unchanged; you have not even attempted to change my view but rather have repeatedly insisted I have not explained why I have this view, and now you've escalated that to insisting I admit I was "wrong". Your methods, sir, are transparent and unlikely to net any positive result. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally explaining your point of view. Had you done so prior to now, I would not have had to ask repeatedly for them. Before I address that, let me conclude the matter with Erikeltic's colorful image usage. I agree with you that Erikeltic's behavior was part of an ongoing edit-war, but it was his endeavor in doing so, and part of a pattern established wherein the 'asshole' image puns were part of yet another edit-war. As I was party to that display, I recognized it when it reoccurred.

No, you haven't blocked or banned me from any article, but your comments both in article discussion and usertalk space have been unfriendly enough to make an overt act like that implicit in their intent. Considering me a liar devoid of honesty is enough to assume the worst in any given conversation - ie. I am not disagreeing, I am "edit-warring", or I am not seeking adivce, I am "forum-shopping", etc. - which you have done on at least three different occasions.

Now, on to the initial altercation. As I recall, I didn't have any evidence of Esasus being a sock, and I saw his notifications as being unbalanced, and told him so. He responded by thanking me and following up by (seeming) to make an effort to contact the other parties. That you seeing me pointing out that he needed to contact the other parties to avoid being seen as canvassing, as teaching him how to avoid detection is obnoxiously absurd. If you tell someone that they need to be more civil doesn't mean you are teaching them how to be uncivil within boundaries. This is what I am talking about, KC: you utterly misread my input into the situation from the start. You assumed zero good faith, seeing only one thing, and were then unable to see anything but your presumption of the situation. You then misread my offering good faith to someone who had committed what appeared to be a lapse of civility, and failing to provide the same to someone who had repeatedly been punished for failing to be civil. DG, as you will may or may not know was under AE probation for socking by anon as well as civility issues. He had been proven as a liar in the past, so I was well within my rights to consider him such as well. I specifically suggested that he avoid poking DG, who was serving out the remainder of a one-week block for an AE violation. You commented that he was being incivil without addressing DG's incivility immediately prior to that comment, and while I don't think its useful to pull up everything you've done wrong here, you did indeed fail to mention to DG that his behavior was proving problematic as well. Again, I was not defending Esasus' comments, but I did think that you were overlooking the context.

I was duped along with everyone else when Esasus was proven to be a sock; I cannot see how you could blame me for not knowing he was a sock. I did nothing wrong, looking over my comments on Esasus' usertalk space, and the only basis I can see for your subsequent opinion of my character is that I told you that your behavior was inappropriate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've explained at least twice before; I cannot help if you didn't read my posts carefully, just as I can't help that you didn't bother to read the notice at the top of my talk page. My subsequent comments regarding forum shopping, etc, have all be specific to the instances and I stand by them. No bias was involved. If you don't forum shop, I won't call you on it, etc. You err again and I see it, I'll let you know. Its that simple. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not an equivalent to an apology or acknowledgment of your initial screw-up, KC. You asked me to point out where your error originated, and I have done so. I am not going to go back and forth with you, pointing out that, once again, you were wrong, and that it arose from your lack of good faith. If you fail to see how you fucked up, I am unsure how communicating with you is at all effective. You were wrong; until you are grown-up enough to admit your errors, conversing with you is like chatting with a child. Its just circular reasoning where you point out where you assume I did something wrong without considering the possibility - indeed, proven via evidence - that you that you were mistaken. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That is because I'm not apologizing, because I didn't "fuck up" (to use your vulgar terminology). We will have to agree to disagree, it seems. Suggestion: Try to avoid language like "fucked up", some take it personally and respond poorly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean, like people taking it poorly when being called a liar and dishonest? I call it like I see it, and you fucked up, KC - no two ways about it. I cannot make you see the mistake of your actions if you are incapable of seeing the possibility of you making them. You are wrong, and you think I am wrong for thinking so, so you are right in one aspect only - we are going to have to agree to disagree. Seeing that status, you are not going to be neutral in our interactions, so be aware that when you weigh in on a matter I am involved in, your neutrality is always going to be called into question - at least until your ability to recognize your fallibility evolves. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

• Just FYI I've asked someone else to try and head on over to Talk:Grief porn to act as mediator. –xeno^talk 13:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, some assistance would really be appreciated. It seems the user isn't so much interested in proving their point as in proving me wrong. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

Hi. I saw your message on NYScholar's talk page. Have you seen his referencing system used, e.g., at Harold Pinter? It is not Wikipedia's referencing system that is broken, it is Scholar's. I am certain that, if you look at the references in the Pinter article, you will see the severity of the problem. No normal person could possibly follow the references, which combine parenthetical refs and ref tags, but then one must cross-reference a different complex list to figure out which reference is meant. Either it is a super-academic kind of referencing that is all wrong for an encyclopedia, or it is gobbledegook. It is not that Scholar needs to show us all the light, it is that he needs to stop destroying good articles with this Byzantine referencing system that he insists on. Indeed, you have zoomed in on his most serious problem (well, his other most serious problem is that he won't let anyone else change it). All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it all replies on NYS; he'll either take advice (and not necessarily mine), or he'll be bounced out. Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but the caveat is that anyone doesn't include people who cannot play well with others. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I predict NYScholar will not be bounced anytime soon. She will get a mentor, then complain about how everyone is out to get her, then the mentor will give her advice on how to proceed which she will be "too busy" to take right now because she's about to go on an extended break, and then will go on editing as if she never said she was leaving, then lather, rinse, repeat. This is the third manifestation that I've seen of this problem with this editor. For the record: I had never been involved in any editing situation with NYScholar nor ever edited Heath Ledger or Harold Pinter that I recall; I came and commented as an uninvolved editor by lurking on AN/I on go-round number two. Auntie E (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are other ways to look at this, Aunt Entropy. Either NYS is a very slow learner or dumb as a sack of wet rocks. If not blocked, I think one of three things will happen. Either the lesson will be learned and NYS will learn to play well with others, or will see the road ahead and simply withdraw from Wikipedia on their own. If neither happen, this sort of antisocial behavior will be reported again, and it will be at AN/I for a very short time before an official complaint is delivered to ArbCom, I cannot foresee any other possibility. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Question

Are you going to attend the Wik-conference in New York on July 25 - 26? Erikeltic (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made up my mind. Why do you ask? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of going. Erikeltic (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And nothing. I was just thinking of going and I was curious if you were going to be there. 00:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Make your decision based upon the idea of me attending. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I will make my opinion on whether or not I can go based on timing. I was just curious if you'd be there because you seem to be the editor I deal with the most. Erikeltic (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that if I attend or not, you will have a fine time; there are a lot of editors out there. As I live in the midwest, it might be a moot point. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Grief porn

I have nominated Grief porn, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grief porn. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is deleted I'd be happy to provide a userspace copy for you. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Same guy?

Check out my talk page, the Anna Anderson talk page from last week back, and the talk pages of just about anyone involved with the AA page, and the Noahidism page and the page of the editor 'Lisa' who is active on that page. This guy is crazy, prone to long winded outrageous rants, is overbearing, ridiculous, trolling, rude, makes over the top wrong accusations, and often brags he can 'never be stopped.' He was the poster named Rev. Antonio but 'vanished', then came back admitting to being the same poster yet getting mad when we mentioned it. He has been banned and range blocked but always finds a way to come back. His IPs were mostly 75's and few 76's and traced to Rockville or Schaumberg, IL. If this is your guy, please say something to the admins, he does nothing but cause enormous disruption and needs to be stopped for good. Just some of his many IPs: 75.21.149.82, 76.195.82.162,75.21.155.47,75.21.124.148, 75.21.109.14 Aggiebean (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend that you file a WP:RfCU using the prior RfCU I listed on the notice to Nishkid. You need a good reason for filing the checkuser, as it isn't a fishing expedition, so point out that the previous 75 anon was indef banned - any subsequent editing is block evasion. Let someone else do the heavy listing, and don;t make the accusation anywhere else. If you do so before you have results, you are being tendentious. As well, until the person is blocked, don't note the accusation in any article discussion.

If you follow these steps, things will likely work out. If you don't, you will cloud the issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, this is the creepy and falsely accused phantom speaking. I am not on a vendetta, I'm not a vandal and I'm certainly not a nazi, like some people here. Aggiebean, if you will dutifully research her a bit, doesn't have a spotless record and she is well known as a liar, accuser and generally hatred-filled fool.

Do you know how I evaded the block just to talk to you? Some idiot here posted something about rebooting the modem--I did this by guessing--but I want to tell you a few things. 1)AT&T as a proxy server supplying high speed net also provides a fluctuating IP address to all users. Many folk out there are going to be watching what you guys do next if you try to smart-bomb this IP range, because it covers a lot more ground than Chicago. 2)It's a fat mistake my being here posting, but I want to call your attention to the gross abuses by Nishkid64, who may very well be you, for all I know.

You see, he range-blocked me simply because user aggiebean the hateful asked him to do it. She's admin-hopping, or fishing, trying to get her way.

Most importantly of all is this Grog-porn page or whatever it is aggrieving you. I'm not involved in that, so check away and see for yourself. But may I remind you, outside a 100-mile radius of Chicago, there are AT&T users with IP addresses like mine. Don't be stupid, don't be fooled by these paranoid trouble-makers!

And don't think for a second that I'm EVER wasting my time coming back to this hell-hole.75.21.116.225 (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is for the both of you: I can appreciate you have problems with one another - I get it. Been there, done that, got the commemorative mug. I also know how easy it is to fall into the mindset of 'I need to correct this interpretation of my actions', as I've been there before. Indeed, I've just been through that with editors who's opinion are likely never to change where it concerns me. Twice.

I've told Aggie to file an RfCU and check you out, anon75, and to settle down and await the results. If you haven't any prior issues, you are going to come through this with flying colors, and Aggie is going to look vindictive if he doesn't back down at that point. If you have dirty laundry, it would be a mistake on your part to assume that some of the more dedicated admins and users cannot keep you out. Anonymity is an imperfect shield, as several former users have learned to their detriment.

I would counsel you both to step off this idea that this is a boxing match. Wikipedia is not a battleground. You can make your point, correct the other fellow, etc. But you are going to have to remain polite while doing so, and assume good faith. Treat the other person the way you would want to be treated. If the other person is an utter ass-clown, the wiki is big enough that someone else is going to point that out. And its going to carry more weight, since they are uninvolved with either of you.

So, I am not taking sides. Aggie, when you file the RfCU, please give me the link. Anon75, if you are innocent, the truth will out. In the meantime, try to be nicer to each other.

My deep thanks--you are fair, and I should not be here. Nishkid64 made that clear. But I must thank you for the reassuring message. No doubt this IP will be range-blocked when Nishkid gets wind of it, so again, thank you Arcayne, and abientot.75.21.100.46 (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, I'm not going to take Nishkid64's dumb-ass insults any longer. Nishy is range-block happy, yet like a poor marksman he blows it every time. And you know why--he's wrong and he knows it. But like his pupeteering editor aggiebean, he doesn't care how wrong he is. He range-blocked me until the 4th of July, just because someone told him to do it. So pay no heed. However, I have to go and do battle. Show this post to him, since Mr. Smarty-pants won't let "conspiracy nuts" post on his precious little page, due to his fear of being caught for his abuses.76.195.93.15 (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Goodbye. I hate it when I don't follow the lesser dramatic advice of WP:DFT. I offered advice, and you chose not to take it. I am not sure what you are seeking at this point, but I largely do not care. I am archiving this at the end of the day. Any subsequent updates on my user talk page as to the outrages you have suffered at the hands of Wikipedia or its evil minions will simply be deleted as soon as I detect them. Bye. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It WAS the same guy, he came back and made remarks to me on my talk page. (BTW he's wrong, I never had anything deleted everything I've ever done is in the history) I don't know why he has to always find someone to bother, but it appears he does.

I was thinking Nishkid and another admin had already taken care of him, before I saw he found a way to sneak back in and was back and bothering someone else. He has been a huge problem and has been reported by many people. He has also been blocked by trusilver and AlexiusHoratius and maybe more. I hope he can be stopped forever somehow. Mods have expressed concern that a wide rangeblock would be unfair to others in his region with his ISP, but I say that's all hypothetical because we don't know if any of them will try to edit, and if they had problems they could contact the staff for help. This guy is so bad I'd vote for just blocking his whole range. He is a terrorist.

Aggiebean (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you have chosen to make it a war of words with the other guy instead of taking the less dramatic route, I'm deciding that this has been a waste of my time - trying to find the middle ground here.

I'm not saying you two have to stop your bitch-fest, I am simply saying you can't continue it here. Aggie, I told you to file an RfCU, and you completely ignored me. I told you to sit quietly and await the conclusion of that checkuser, and you ignored that, too. Anon, you simply needed to back the hell off and ither be vindicated or lambasted byt the results of the RfCU. That you chose not to implies a lack of faith in the system which is incompatible with being a productive Wikipedian.

Wasting my time comes with a cost. In the real world. In the RW, it would likely be something far more unpleasant; here. it is simply to be ignored as a troll. Good day to both of you.

(Psst - that all means, 'Go peddle your drama elsewhere. I've had my full here.') - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As a regular...

As a regular, you will surely know to assume good faith and will strike the accusation of dishonesty you made here. You might find re-reading the civility guideline helpful. .. dave souza, talk 07:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like this or this? KillerChihuahua has repeatedly come to my page to make generally antagonistic accusations, called me dishonest, a liar, a spammer, a hypocrite, a troll and a few other choice, unpleasant descriptives.

In discussions (that she has chosen to abandon each time I've worked my tail off to get her to understand where her understanding of a given situation went wrong) she's taken the worst possible view of my actions - even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A recent example would be where she closed an AN/I complaint before it received any real community input, calling it a "content issue" and "spam", later admitting in conversations elsewhere that it was indeed disruptive behavior. She approached the complaint of mine, presumed it was without merit, and closed it after the subject of the complaint and a known uncivil editor responded. Even when other admins proved her wrong, she could not change her mind, as had been made up before she even came to the incident complaint. To me, that's a bucket of dishonesty floating in a sea of bad faith.

As a regular, I know it is a given that we do not template the regulars, because it is seen as rude. KC himself has said this in the past. The reasoning follows that when one is unpleasantly disposed towards a person, and then specifically templates them for an unobtrusive comment, it is seen as an overtly provocative move. Given KC's aforementioned behavior both with me and others, I think I was remarkably restrained. I gave far, far less than I have received from this user, simply pointing out that since they are neither neutral nor honest in their dealings concerning me, to please stay away.

I am not sure how I was off the mark here, Dave. Please feel free to look into the matter, but I don't think i was out of line here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the examples you give do show a tendency on your part to make vague and unsubstantiated accusations of lying. Not a good habit. KC raised issues on your talk page where she considered you had not being honest as shown by a specific set of actions, with diffs. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith#About good faith: "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." Her accusations were specific, it's understandable that you differed but that's not any reason to assume dishonesty on her part, or to treat it as a blanket accusation to be spread about. While I'm sure you mean well, you'll find that care to not go beyond the evidence in presenting your case and a general presumption of good faith will help you considerably and avoid damage to your reputation. . `dave souza, talk

Respectfully, I did not go beyond my evidence, and would posit that it was KC (who I did not up until now was a she) who did precisely that. And in every instance when I've suggested - and not accused, mind you - that someone wasn't being forthcoming, that suggestion turned out to be accurate. When I have been wrong, I have admitted. Every single time. KC was wrong, and perpetuated that by dishonestly portraying me as someone no one in a neutral frame of mind would consider. AGF doesn't prohibit discussion, but if I call you a dishonest spammer and a troll, you are likely going to take exception to that characterization, and its going to color your interactions with me; that's just human nature. However, if you explained why my perception of you was wrong, the good faith thing for me to do is to accept that explanation and move on. Indeed, it is fact bad faith to carry those perceptions beyond the discussion, unless proven over and over. Returning from the example to the situation between KC and myself, KC has certainly displayed improper, non-neutral and deceptive behavior. Again, I say deceptive as she was caught closing an AN/I complaint solely because it originated from me, and not a preponderance of the complaint.

Now, are you suggesting that it's bad for my rep to call KC on their bad and disingenuous behavior, and in a manner far less severe than her behavior towards me? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the diffs you pointed out, and they didn't appear to support your assertions. You've been asked to take care to avoid harassing other users, and I hope you'll take great care to be civil in future. Now, a question. With the edit summary (undoing KillerChihuahua's input: What part of "please stay away" is hard to understand?) you deleted her post from this page, but there seems to be no record of you saying "please stay away" anywhere. You did include "And just so we're clear - I don't need to receive a response from you on my talk page" in your rather abrasive post on her talk page, but that's not terribly clear. Did you mean to write "please stay away from my talk page"? Feel free to respond on my talk page, dave souza, talk 14:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, edit conflict, I see you've responded to each other. Do feel free to carry on, but don't expect detailed responses to allegations you put on your talk page when you won't allow replies there. . dave souza, talk 14:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your behaviour

Arcayne, at the last count you still seem to be accusing KC of bad faith and favouritism in an attempt to justify your misbehaviour, so some explanation appears to be needed. You've claimed above that "she's taken the worst possible view of my actions - even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary" and accused her of dishonesty. It doesn't work. Looking at the first archive you linked to, KC's original issue with you was that at 16:10, 5 April 2009, DreamGuy posted "An editor attempting to stack votes" on his user page, and at 22:47 on the same day your advice to Esasus "to avoid any allegations of canvassing, by only notifying one side of the discussion to the DRV, as DreamGuy appears to have done here" gave a link to Dreamguy's post,[11] yet when challenged on this you not only called DreamGuy's accusations "full of crap" and "bogus", you claimed that you "had done the comparison" of Esasus' contributions to the folk involved in the discussion,[12] without stating that you'd told Esasus to clean up his act after DG's accusation. Despite that claim and your foreknowledge, it seems that you hadn't made the comparisons, or perhaps had just not done them competently. When challenged on it, instead of admitting the sequence of events was correct you complained about the actions of others, and as far as I've seen failed to acknowledge your own errors. When the matter came up again your post of 14:54, 28 June 2009, claimed that "As I recall, I didn't have any evidence of Esasus being a sock, and I saw his notifications as being unbalanced, and told him so. He responded by thanking me and following up by (seeming) to make an effort to contact the other parties. That you seeing me pointing out that he needed to contact the other parties to avoid being seen as canvassing, as teaching him how to avoid detection is obnoxiously absurd. If you tell someone that they need to be more civil doesn't mean you are teaching them how to be uncivil within boundaries. This is what I am talking about, KC: you utterly misread my input into the situation from the start."[13] KC didn't accuse you of "teaching him how to avoid detection", she pointed out that Esasus had only cleaned up his act "over seven hours after notifiying those on the "keep" side, even those from previous Afds! This is blatant canvassing and you were clearly aware of it". That statement stands, and your subsequent accusations against DreamGuy and against KC look very dishonest. Perhaps, doing my utmost to assume good faith, you're simply unreliable. Either way, KC is fully justified in treating your claims with great caution, and is equally justified in reminding you to stop harassing DreamGuy after you posted irritating assertions on his talk page, when earlier you'd been making a big deal out of being asked not to post on that page. Whether your claims arise from dishonesty or error, I sincerely hope you'll now improve your behaviour and stop making baseless accusations of unfairness. . dave souza, talk 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I was wrong for presuming DG's guilt, based as it was on prior occurrences of invalid claims of wrongdoing. I should have examined the evidence more closely before presuming that DG was wrong. As for the rest of it, I pretty much think you're wrong, Dave. The next time I make an accusation of impropriety against DG or KC, it will be part of the chorus, and not as a soloist. Being called a liar and dishonest when i made a mistake based out of dislike set my teeh on edge. Having the same user compound it by calling me worse when I tried to repair the situation made it worse. AS I've advised others, I don't need to report KC or DG - the wiki is big enough that karma will out eventually. Thanks for your response - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that you pretty much think I'm wrong "for the rest of it", in my opinion you should try to examine the evidence more openly. Glad to have your note indicating that you're done with it and suggesting you'll stop the snarky remarks about KC. Hopefully it won't be necessary to raise concerns about your behaviour again. Thanks, dave souza, talk 21:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What I thought you were wrong about was the idea that I was being unfair to KC; KC took a single event and blew it so far out of proportion that it was no longer about me making a mistake in judgment, but accusations and insinuations well in excess of the initial error - pretty much KC's recriminations about my treatment of DreamGuy. Each time I pointed these exaggerations out (the AN/I complaint regarding Erikeltic is pretty much the locus of his poor judgment described here), KC spun it as something else.

What I specifically too exception to was the idea thathe felt his behavior was open to interpretational favor, but mine was not; ie, everything I did was wrong and everything KC did was right, which is clearly an infantile approach to DR.

Either way, I was initially wrong for not investigating Esasus' claims more deeply. Be assured that any complaint henceforth will likely be offered as a baritone to the chorus - Ie. I won't be the only one saying it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter

The June 2009 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

---

OI?

I was wondering about your vote of delete in the Cawley image as per OI. Could you elaborate, please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please point out the exact image/link to the discussion? I have contributed to many FFDs lately. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Yours was the last vote in the IfD discussion for CawleyAsKirk. In your vote to delete, you cited OI.I've read the relevant facet of policy, and I was hoping you could explain your application thereof. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I considered it to be OI as it is allegedly from a fan film rather than an actual official source. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Fate is dead

*laughs* No no, I meant Grundy. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed he was. More dead, then, or whatever you would call a permanently dead zombie. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

More meat for the meat eaters? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sock

FYI, VitasV and Trioculus weighed in on another XfD together, and it looks like he's created a third ID, User:Gaff1. I'm putting together the SSP stuff now. --EEMIV (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VitasV#Report_date_July_9_2009.2C_14:06_.28UTC.29. --EEMIV (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)