User talk:Arcayne

This user will be away for a bit, looking for the critter that escaped from this box. It answers to the name "Fluffy"→

This user values third opinions and occasionally provides one.

Friday

12

July

22:54 UTC

♦My Spellbook♦ (Or, "How I Learned to Stop Hatin' & Love All the Crazy") Arc 001 Arc 002 Arc 003 What was archived * What has gone before... Het Arcayne Hey this is Broncofreak i lost my pass. but this is my new account. seya User:dursely Hi I would need third opinion here, would you be so kind and take a look. Thanks --Makedonij (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC) It is about refernces are they good enaf to beet Slovenian point of wiev, i mean is that book Zbornik more neutral then national census? --Makedonij (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Since you asked for me to render a third opinion in the article, its best if you address me in the article discussion for the duration. That way, no one can claim that I am offering preferential treatment (since I won't be). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Sory my mistake.:)--Makedonij (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I surely have no objections to you giving third opinion. --Eleassar my talk 14:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Negal/Nergal I did provide a citation: that the spelling was given as "Nergal" in the reprint in Weird Secret Origins, which you can see on Nergal if you haven't reverted it.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I understand what you're saying, but I'm unclear about how to cite something like this that is essentially internal. Do I need to change it to something like "Negal (sometimes spelled "Nergal")". --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC) It would be easier to cite if I had a copy. Info is from Rich Handley, who runs the Roots of the Swamp Thing web page. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) The bset site I know of is DCUGuide.com, which lists them as "Nergal I" and "Nergal II". the spelling "Negal" that appears in The Golden Age Doctor Fate Archives and Countdown to Mystery does not appear, and unlike Handley, this site seems to think that the character in Hellblazer is a different character. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Doctor Who Trivia issues I'm somewhat busy this week and so am not monitoring some pages as I might otherwise. If you decide to pursue the issue of trivia further in regards to the Doctor Who pages and need a voice of support, could you drop me a line on my talk page? I tend to agree that the material in question could easily be integrated elsewhere. At the most, it seems that the trivia in question might be limited to continuity between the two different series. That might make a bit of sense. Anyway, hope you don't mind the comment.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Right, it's hard to remember the slight differences in language sometimes. What I mean the program in it's original form (1963 to 1989?) and the relaunch starting a few years back. I'm not necessarily saying that the trivia should be accepted under those circumstances (it's easier in mind to just dismiss the continuity section altogether), but there is certainly a stronger case there then when pointing to a small unimportant facet of an episode and saying "look! It was in the show last year too!". Basically, I'll follow your lead on this one.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC) spartans in halo spartans are in halo, don't remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halolove (talk • contribs) 23:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC) have you played halo? it's in the game —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halolove (talk • contribs) 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC) check the game please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halolove (talk • contribs) what is 3r? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halolove (talk • contribs) Check it out: WP:3RR - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 3RR guide now in WP space Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR/Administrator instructions Enigma message 00:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (notice of orphaned uploaded images [forest of the dead candidate images]. Seven days to decide on which to use, me boyos.) thanks Nice, upbeat reply. Always welcome! (20040302 (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)) Forest of the Dead Your constant removal of continuity points, despite there being a discussion underway to whether the section should remain (which you started), is nothing short of vandalism. You want something changed, you wait for a discussion to be completed and then it will happen if it goes your way. You don't do what you believe to be right first, as that leaves an highly controversial edit on the page while s discussion is ongoing, which could possibly be days. You surely must understand that! As for seeing the discussion page, I'd love to know exactly what you'd like me to see. As of yet I haven't seen any support for any of your edits or proposals. U-Mos (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Replied on your talk page. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC) As many times as I say the same thing, it seems you're always going to ignore it. So I'm not going to bother. The only reason I'm writing here is I feel it's only courteous to inform you that I have sought editor assistance to resolve this matter once and for all. Furthermore, you should be aware that I was very offended by your last post on my talk page, finding it not only insulting and patronising, but hypocritc to a point where it was almost laughable. U-Mos (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Replied on your talk page. Again. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Re: Could I get your eyes on this? I took a look at the edit. Abba Chag Molad is Hebrew and means Father of the Holiday (I guess a parallel to the European "Father Christmas"), Nikolas HaTsadik means Nikolas the Righteous (Saint is a poor translation of the word) and Tatty Nittl means Father Nittl. I have no idea what Kloyz Der Heiliger means as it's certainly not Hebrew. It looks more German or Yiddish to me, both of which are languages I don't know. All in all I think it's not translated correctly to be in an encyclopedia, but I don't think it has anti-semitic roots. Bstone (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC) MarnetteD Having just cleaned up an article and felt "bullied" by User:MarnetteD, I was not surprised to find your debate on style with them. I have added a note in support of your observations of his style, but hope that this editor will recognise this "opportunity" to change and that the project will not lose a valuable contributor. Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Serenity edits Thanks for your message, but I've only made a single edit to that page recently, and so don't consider myself to be involved in an edit war. Any back-and-forth seems to be mostly between User:Fnlayson and User:71.160.105.83, and has already been taken to the talk page by others. --Nalvage (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Vertigo315 Posted response in the that page. Thanks.(Planecrash111 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)) I posted my response in the page that Vertigo posted on. Thanks.(Planecrash111 (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)) Fact File The fact file is a BBC editor's blog. It is a source which notes the same conclusions the fans make in their heads, and provides a source to cite. It's not livejournal, it's not blogspot, it's bbc.co.uk.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Yet another noticeboard thread There is another thread about you on a noticeboard, this time from U-Mos, on WP:AN/I. AvruchT * ER 21:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC) WP:ANI In your signature, maybe you could include a link to the noticeboard, to save the complainers some time. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Or you could try being nice to people - or, would that be too radical. As I keep telling you, regardless of the rights and wrongs, people don't like WP:DRAMA - and if enough people throw enough of the brown steamy stuff, some will eventually connect with the rotorary distribution device ... Kbthompson (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Dude, I am not being mean to the guy, who seems to have skin so thin its practically translucent. Check my edits. I am being civil, whereas this dude keeps pushing and pushing. I repeat, I am not being uncivil to the user. And of course you are right; sometimes where there is smoke, there is fire...or, in this case, someone creating a lot of smoke to obscure the source issue of content policy dispute. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC) You've been a lot better recently; but the complaints keep coming and Baseball Bugs is quite wrong, we'll just create a redirect from your talk page to WP:ANI to simplify things. Have a nice hot Brownian motion generator and get the party of the second part to cool down. It's not just about being civil, it's about not pushing the wrong buttons on these people. What's that word - I can't quite see, it seems to have been struck out of this dictionary you lent me - ah, there it is diplomacy ...! Kbthompson (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Re: recent comment I'm typing it right now; I'm placing it there because the request at WP:3O names multiple articles and, as someone pointed out at AN/I, generally covers this television series (as well as changing what is on a wikiproject page). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Just that the continuity section on that particular article, as well as continuity sections as a general rule, are okay. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Just because articles outside of this series do not use them isn't a reason to exclude them. It simply goes with what is said by the relevant guidelines, and I believe I addressed those guidelines in my third opinion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC) RE: Forest of the Dead edit I meant that there have been academic papers and books written about, for lack of a better word, "continuity" in such literary works as Sherlock Holmes and King Arthur. Admittedly, Doctor Who's own Discontinuity Guide (or even the Television Companion) isn't as academic, but that doesn't mean that it's all fancruft. DonQuixote (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Yeah, like I said, it isn't necessarily bad, but that doesn't mean that some of it can't be bad. About the wedding dress...could go under production, but then again TV shows like to recylce props so it might be too trivial. DonQuixote (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Miami Vice Do you think you can give your opinion to Miami Vice? Johnnyfog (talk · contribs) appears to be vastly reorganizing the page to something that doesn't conform to WP:TV guidelines. Here's what I mean: his and pre his edits. El Greco(talk) 13:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Re. What an unhappy guy I think I can guess who are you talking about. Quite true, just a little bit of anger is enough to thwart a newbie. Compulsive anger, in this case. I'll keep an eye. Best regards, Húsönd 00:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Could you... Hey Arcayne. I have a big favor to ask you: when the time comes, would you be willing to co-nominate me for adminship? I brought the idea to User:SandyGeorgia, who directed me to User:Balloonman, an admin who has assisted in coaching me. They have already indicated their willingness to co-nom. Please check out my coaching page for additional credentials before making your decision. I ask you because I am a Republican, and according to Sandy and Balloonman, I may get some "drive-by opposes" simply for that. But I also ask you as a friend, whom I believe I have cooperated diligently with (and vise-versa) and as a student, as you helped to educate me and teach me the "know how" of Wikipedia.There is no pressure; if you feel I am not ready to be an admin, that's okay. Happyme22 (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Re: Let's try this again I accept your apology, and offer mine in return. I'm happy to forget any and all bad blood between us in the name of Wikipedia (that sounds awful, but you get my drift). I will say that I don't believe either of us are guilty of personal attacks, which in my mind constitue out-of-wikipedia insults. But, as its page says, there's no solid definition for that, so I apologise if my posts were seen in that way. The reason I mentioned that is because it was your saying "personal attacks" in the first place that led to you rather falling in my estimation, hence the further incivility that arose. What I'm getting at is it's rather a catalyst for arguments to use a term that can be very serious in Wikipedia. I am guilty of this myself by calling your edits "vandalism", and I'm sure that had a similar effect. So that's something we can both improve on. I will certainly make an effort to be more civil when opposed, and I hope you will do the same. The main aspect that is tending to flare up these debates and arguments is where you have edited articles at the same time as opening discussion, or editing despite the current flow of discussion. This gives off an impression of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong", something I'm sure you don't feel and even more sure you don't want others to believe of you. I never for a second believed your ultimate aim is anything but to improve Wikipedia, but the way you sometimes go about it can cause disruption and arguments. I hope you can see this as constructive criticism, and use it to help us both improve and move forward. Of course, please feel free to inform me of any ways you feel that I could likewise improve my manner here. U-Mos (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Tea A nice cup of tea and a sit down Dear Arcayne and Viriditas: You are hereby invited for a cup of tea! Disagreements on Wikipedia sometimes turn ugly and foster distrust among editors. Soon, two users won't stand each other and will be unable to solve their differences in a peaceful, constructive way. That is a lose-lose situation. Please consider opening a truce, put aside all your past grudges and start anew. If you do, you will realize that WP:AGF is once again within the reach of a handshake. No grudge is irreversible so please sit town, and sip your tea before it gets cold. I'm sure you'll go through this. :-) Húsönd 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC) An invitation to a challenge Arcayne, would you possibly be interested in helping me get a BLP of a controversial figure to FA? I could use the help of someone with your experience in the process, and your fastidiousness will undoubtedly be an asset in the process. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Thank you for the invitation. I will let you know what time I can afford for a new article on Monday, as I am away this weekend. Until then. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC) A call goes out to fight the fancruft Can I et a witness?!?! Then, can I get some help? Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series)is killing me. From the strange "U.S." designation in their title, to the LOADS of cruftian statistics, this is a crfteaters smorgasboard! Any help you can give would be appreciated. Padillah (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC) forget the lightsaber article Check out Lightsaber combat - oh my lord! --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC) First rule for starting an AfD: create the AfD page first, don't tag the article first. You'll confuse a lot of editors if you place the tag first, before you even know what name to use. Then, second rule: find out what AfDs exist for the article previously. The article in question, at first glance, has had two previous AfDs, so the proper name would have (3rd nomination) after it. GreenJoe -- Killerofcruft knows who I'm talking about, created a huge mess by not getting the AfD names right. I'd suggest reading the prior AfDs carefully. While it's possible that consensus can change, if you simply give the same arguments as given before, the results aren't terribly likely to differ, wasting a lot of editor time. By the way, prior solicitation of attention regarding an AfD should probably be disclosed, if you are both going to comment. My opinion.--Abd (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Hey, thanks for the advice. I did read through he prior AfDs. Most of them were submitted due to a lack of sources. The article currently seems to rely all too heavily upon one source and a ton of extrapolation from it, resulting in an in-universe bag of cruft. I would welcome any assistance you could provide in properly arranging/setting up the new AfD, Abd. As for soliciting help in an AfD, I should point out that the solicitation was for assistance in creating it correctly, and not in support for it. I personally despise meat-puppetry and canvassing. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Sure. My comment wasn't a criticism, just a suggestion as to how to avoid the appearance of canvassing, particularly with a user with a name like Killerofcruft. I'm a radical inclusionist, myself, I think that we are asking the wrong question: aside from copyvio, libel, and nonsense and hoaxes, we should be asking how to *classify* articles, and there would be a bottom classification which is like a junkyard, searchable with our tools but not necessarily by google, raw material that might someday become more notable (higher in the hierarchy) articles if RS comes to be sufficient. AfD inherently sets editors against editors, where one group of editors argues that the work of another group of editors should be deleted, not merely replaced with minimal RS text (stubbing) but with practically nothing. That's why I'm calling AfD an "editor-killer," I see lots of editors immolate themselves on the process, from incivility and stubborness. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Heads-up FYI, bearing in mind you seem to be fairly involved in all this now. TalkIslander 17:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Afd Hi, no worries, it's complicated, but I think you used the wrong template: {{subst:afd1}} instead of {{subst:afdx}} which led to the wrong page being linked in the template on the article page(Hence old discussion page). The second template (afdx) should be used if it's been at AFD before. Also, it didn't help that it has also been at AFD under a different name before (it appears the article has survived 5 AFD's), which confused me too, hence my delay in the botched fix (and responding). Hope that helps? I'm sure there are people with more expertise than me out there who could answer the question much more intelligibly if required! regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 19:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Reagan scandal article Hey, sorry if I've caused some stress. Please see my talk page and Talk:Presidency of Ronald Reagan#Merger proposal. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Lightsabre combat Great job, I've have a read and a go at some of the cite stuff later. Check out Lightsabre where I've been following your example and trying to turn it into a real article. --Killerofcruft (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Star Trek If you have a moment, please check out those additions. My argument (and that of others) is that being a fan production it should not have such a large section - representing undue weight. Also the idea of inserting it into the list of Star Trek Films is just silly. --Killerofcruft (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC) I've been in exactly your position before, K. I have learned through hard experience (some rougher than others) that opening a discussion in the pattern of WP:BRD often tends to work wonders. The goal is to prevent edit-warring and have smooth transitions between edits, especially contentious ones. After you were reverted, you should have created a section in article discussion to state your case. While the other dude is off his nut in calling it vandalism, my advice to you is to just let the comment go (he's a fan, after all, and you are "attacking" his/her baby), and move on. If it gets more out of hand, go to an admin and ask for help reining in the behavior. Only by staying above the fray does the other person more exceptionally note themselves as the trouble-maker. I'm opening a section in discussion to foster some conversation on the topic. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Re. Rollback Hello Arcayne. I have now changed your user rights to rollbacker. I usually do not do it because I opposed the process of granting rollback to non-admins, but I've decided to open an exception for you as my previous interaction with you has fully convinced me that you're experienced and trustworthy enough to have it. Have fun. :-) Regards, Húsönd 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC) about User:Killerofcruft Since you seem to have befriended this user and are working with him, you might warn him about his behavior, it looks like he's trying to get himself sanctioned. You are welcome to look at my contributions and his, of course. I hadn't looked at his contributions for days, though he seems to think I'm wikistalking him, but I did just look, and it seems he is preparing evidence for an RfC or AN/I report over me.[1] He narrowly escaped blocking yesterday, and, as I pointed out in today's AN/I report over his behavior, the AN/I report yesterday closed with a mention that it was adequate as a warning; yet he, as I point out today, dismissed it as a "lot of crap." If he keeps this up, he's not long for editing here. (I could document, solidly, every "accusation" I've made regarding him, but haven't considered it necessary, since I was *not* arguing that he should be blocked, quite the contrary, in the first AN/I report. That might change if he continues on this suicidal course.) So.... a word to the wise? A stitch in time?--Abd (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)