User talk:Arcayne

This user values third opinions and occasionally provides one.

Monday

16

September

04:24 UTC

♦My Spellbook♦ (Or, "How I Learned to Stop Hatin' & Love All the Crazy") Arc 001 Arc 002 Arc 003 Arc 004 In meetings all morning (in and out) Weekly RfA Dramaz Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Significa liberdade 82 0 0 100 Open 22:18, 21 September 2024 5 days, 17 hours no report What was archived * What has gone before... 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)