User talk:Crossmr/Archive/Archive 01

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

==Welcome and The Sims 2==

Welcome!

Hello, Crossmr/Archive/Archive 01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also replied to your post at Talk:The Sims 2. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your question

Just a courtesy call in case it's not on your watchlist: I have replied to your question at Help_talk:Talk_page, thus constituting my first two edits in the Help talk namespace. :-P —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ninja

Thanks, hope I helped. Dlohcierekim 06:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ballydougan

I have rewritten this article based on What Links Here and a reference in the Northern Island Yearbook. Capitalistroadster 22:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sait logo.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Sait logo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Rory096 18:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Sorry, in case you haven't read it on Articles_for_deletion/ImageShack, I made a mistake googling and got 262 hits. Nom withdrawn as soon as I realised. No other issue involved, I assure you. Tyrenius 17:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages were slow downloading so I was doing several things at the same time. I thought I'd checked it out, but I'd confused it with a similar article. I've read it now though! Tyrenius 18:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of talk page material

While refactoring the posts is something you are free to do at will, it generally frowned upon to just removed posts from a user talk page. It is sometimes necessary to go back and see what people said without searching the page history, and makes you look bad. If you want to reduce clutter, archive the material. — ßott e siηi ^(talk) 19:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims 2: Pets

I think Amazon.com is a credible source. Click here [1]. If you need any other information, or feel like accusing me of lying again, leave me a message. Theonlyedge 20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This site is, for me, enough to be a credible source. Sorry if I was brisk, but the idea has clearly been floated by EA Games. Check the Google results here [2]. In my opinion, and those of 64,000 other websites, The Sims 2: Pets really is in development. Of course, its fair to disagree, and of course Amazon isn't 100% reliable, but what is? Cheers, Theonlyedge 22:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This is the UK Sims 2 Official Website. [3] It has a 'coming soon' page for 'Pets'. Theonlyedge 22:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletion Comment

Something weird happened while I was adding FileHive for deletion. I just wanted to make sure the comment you left belonged to that and not the topic above it. --Crossmr 04:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I voted to delete it. DVD+ R/W 04:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial"??

The image shown for the USS Wisconsin was "tubgirl". This is infamous picture shows a woman contorted with her arse in the air, lying on her back in a tub, showering her own face with large geyser of feces. Maybe you think my removal of the image was controversial...and you have a right to your opinion...perhaps I will make a note of it, in the "talk" section of the article as you suggested. Ass.
sselfless —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sselfless (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 June 2006.

From the edits it looked like you'd removed the reference to any image, not just the tubgirl one. Proper handling of vandalism is a simple revert and if the page is a target for repeated vandalism there is an admin group to post to so the page can be protected. As shown by the edit you made it was not the appropriate way to handle vandalism [4]. --Crossmr 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I'll be more careful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sselfless (talk • contribs) 02:08, 23 June 2006

Revert

On 2020 you said revert, but how do u do it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zyrad (talk • contribs) 13:14, 14 June 2006.

Liberty University

What experimentation did I do on Liberty University? My edits were legitimate. 72.144.130.152 23:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Trek

I hope you'll be okay being labelled anti-trek, puppy-eater extraordinairre and all that comes with for agreeing with me ;) --Crossmr 17:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not usually Anti-Trek--I usually end up taking care of Star Trek-related stuff for my school's quizbowl team. It's just that the list was just a bit too detailed to stay here. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're anti-trek, but I've gotten nothing but flack for not agreeing that everything that bears or is related to trek is 100% gold ;) --Crossmr 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk - Concentration

For what it's worth, I didn't think that you were biting a newcomer at all. I've had my hand slapped before when I tried to help someone. I don't know where they get it but some users seem to be hyper-sensitive to matter of fact responses. Dismas|^(talk) 07:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Death

Hi there. I notice that you've marked a hijacked page (Sonic_Death) for deletion. It appears that a user deleted all the content on the original page and replaced it with some non-notable band detail. Sonic Death is a live album by Sonic Youth. If the hijacker's band does turn out to be notable, can we move his content to Sonic_Death_(band)? For now, I've reverted the page back to the original content as it is part of Sonic_Youth's timeline and is heavily linked to. Cheers. 194.73.16.246 09:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Resilient Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I hereby award you a Resilient Barnstar for commendably keeping your cool while dealing with some rather unpleasant personal attacks by some ... ahem ... enterprising ... editors. — Mike • 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I humbly accept this award and would like to thank all the little pixels who make this job worth it. --Crossmr 18:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia should have a page this page

I mean that by, well, when I was gonna go check on viewmgr it didn't come up. And i have no idea what it is so i cant edit it. I wish people knew about it for I think it is an illegal thing. Please tell me why people dont know a thing about it. Call of duty 05:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

those didnt really help me

Call of duty 06:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the {{helpme}}, it's to be used on your own talk page, for questions regarding building the encyclopedia.--Commander Keane 07:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_Sims_2:_Pets

This page is now protected from editing by unregistered users, as requested on WP:AIV. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise continuity

Sadly I didn't save the article - but maybe Ritchy has a copy. I could work on an article - I think I demonstrated it could be done without OR- but the nature of the article itself does invite debate. Take my no OR description of Weapons Tech - no doubt someone would just add 'but the exact date of the Earth romulan wars is never stated' or 'how do we know they didn't use atomic weapons as well as energy weapons' - I could delete anything like that - but it would be a full time job. I guess it's down to me to rework the entire article then shop it around for approval - as I am very lazy this is unlikely to happen. Shame. I can't say I'm that pleased the article has gone, but essentially it's not worth getting worked up about I suppose. Magic Pickle 10:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:AFD Counters

First off, sorry for the delay in replying.

Looking at the example you provided I think you have a different understanding of what relisting is compared with what I've always assumed it to be (I'm not an AFD expert, so I don't claim to be an authority of the subject). Normally relisting is only done at the end of the 5 day period, and then the AFD subpage is moved back to the current day's log page. Am I right in thinking you are moving the subpage of an article back to the current days deletion log before the end of the 5 day period? As the page admins use when looking for AFDs ready to close is based on what days log page the article is listed on, not when the nomination was created, relisting by almost by definition resets the 5 day counter. The exception to this is if an admin has re-listed and is watching the discussion, and decides that consensus has now been reached and closes it before the extra 5 days is over (or another admin coming across it thinking the same thing). Petros471 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archiving

On another note, I agree with Bottesini above about removing talk page comments. Please archive messages that are no longer active rather than removing them, as it makes life easier when past conversations need to be referred back to, prevents appearance of having something to hide, and is generally good practice. Keeping this page clean and tidy is fine, but leave the old things easily accessible in the back room :) Petros471 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

all right just to keep every happy I put back the messages ;) --Crossmr 01:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ent Continuity AFD

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For dilligently attempting to explain your position to those who would not listen in a calm and professional manner, despite the lack of a mirror to this in those who disagreed most vehemently with you. It was a display of patience I wouldn't have bothered with, and I found it impressive. Hayter 15:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet claims

And don't say accusations of sock puppetry are personal attacks either. Accusations of sock puppetry, as harsh as they may sound, are NOT personal attacks. I am doing the right thing here. CoolKatt number 99999 15:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, the only personal attack was the whole AFD, as a personal attack on me. You need to think about that, and the fact that Apostrophe probably forced you and most others to vote delete. CoolKatt number 99999 19:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hi Crossmr, I reviewed the WP:AN statements and relevant diffs. My suggestion would be to let the RfC process continue, and, if there is an inadequate response from the party in question, to bring this to WP:RfAr (as I think the behaviour will only stop with an ArbCom decision). In the interim, I've got my eyes open for actions made by this user that require administrative attention. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 23:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2020

Please see Talk:Heisei#Future Japanese dates. `'mikka (t) 16:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi order clan article

please do not vandalise jedi order clan it was reqwested to be set up by over 30 people to be set up so it must be valuable information—Preceding unsigned comment added by JediMasterHunter (talk • contribs) 16:49, 29 June 2006

Sorry.

Fine, I am sorry I ever called you a sock puppet. I won't do it again. I was -- and still am mad though, so one thing is for sure: I will always disagree with the AFD. CoolKatt number 99999 04:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't trust CoolKatt; he'll say he's sorry because he can't stand the heat in the kitchen he's created. He'll just find another way to get on your nerves. Trust me on this. Rollosmokes 06:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He won't be getting any special treatment from me. I spelled out very clearly what he needed to do on his talk page. As far as I'm concerned he should still be banned for a week to drive the point home and when he comes back clean up his act as I've indicated. Any failure on that in even the slightest and I'll continue to support a permanent ban.--Crossmr 15:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't trust Rollosmokes, either. He has been uncivil to more users than you can think of, just ask David Levy, they were in a dispute on what to call UPN. CoolKatt number 99999 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Says the person who just slapped an AFD template on their RFC. I expressed a certain course of action that would be appropriate to you in this circumstance and you've done basically the opposite. This is further proof you have no interest in working with the community and a permanent ban should be sought all the sooner. --Crossmr 22:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being uncivil please. Saying I should get a permablock is uncivil. CoolKatt number 99999 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, its an appropriate response to your continued and unending uncivil behaviour. --Crossmr 22:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL CoolKatt number 99999 22:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it, you should consider reading it again before you edit another page, actually you should read it several times. --Crossmr 22:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, Im aware that it says don't call for bans, however the scope of the attacks you've made, coupled with the amount of people you've been uncivil to warrants that. Attempts have been made to reach out to you, you're not responding to it and there is only one solution. --Crossmr 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. You should not call for blocks no matter what, you could get blocked yourself if you continue to do so. CoolKatt number 99999 21:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. When discussing a problem, I'm more than welcome to put forth a viable solution. If you'd made a single mistake, and I began calling block at every corner, that would be uncivil. Numerous personal attacks, edit wars, and a legal threats makes that a viable and reasonable solution, your continued abrasiveness supports that. You are in a very precarious position right now. AMIB has already stated that if you don't clean up your behaviour that he's likely going to block you for it. I've put forth a good faith recommendation on what you can do to turn things around, you have to make the choice which road you're going to go down. I can tell you that the one you're headed down now will lead to your removal from the community. Take it or leave it, but I offer no more aid unless I see a major turn around. --Crossmr 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are not letting me be civil, you are just making me more mad. And saying I should get a block is also a personal attack. If you be more civil, I will too. CoolKatt number 99999 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not control your actions. You choose how you react to what people around you say. I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer: My saying you should be blocked is not a personal attack. It is an appropriate response to an on-going behaviour problem you have and the fact that you will not change it, and obviously seek to blame others to justify your behaviour. Calling for a block is a personal attack, if say it was done in response to your agreeing with someone opposite me in a discussion. It is not a personal attack when put forth as a solution to an on-going and well documented behaviour issue. Otherwise using the "bv" template on an individuals page, or any other template that indicates that they will be blocked for continuing certain inappropriate behaviour would be a personal attack. --Crossmr 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind, next time. CoolKatt number 99999 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoolKatt's's archived talk pages

You were looking for them?
First Archive
Second Archive
Third Archive
Fourth Archive

--WarChild 02:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]