User talk:Arcayne/Arc 2 07.01.07-12.31.07

Kamil Idris

I have seen that you were member of the WikiProject Biography. Would you have time to review the article on Kamil Idris, who is the current head of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a UN organization? A recent edit by an IP address in Switzerland (the WIPO is in Switzerland, thus this may indicate a conflict of interest) deleted a complete section without comment. I have expanded the article to add more references. Thanks in advance for any help. --Edcolins 16:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind and prompt response on my talk page. Regarding the IP address, from http://www.arin.net/whois/, I gathered that the IP address 83.77.241.210 was attributed to the RIPE Network Coordination Centre, and then from http://www.ripe.net/whois I got that the IP address was attributed to Swisscom Fixnet AG, the leading IP provider in Switzerland. I then deduced that the targeted deletion of the particular section may possibly be the work of somebody linked with the topic... (given the context, see the tone of the comment on this blog entry [1]) But of course, you are right, this is just an assumption, and the edit may well be the work of a random vandal. I'll keep you tuned. --Edcolins 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The June 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Nehrams2020 07:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Citizen Kane, guns ablaze

Hahaha, nice follow-up. When I first read his comment, I was thinking, he's trying to impress me. :-P I've responded to him accordingly. And the fist fight in They Live was awesome! It went on awesomely forever! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Taglines

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Tagline. For the large part, it would be difficult to attribute a famous tagline, especially for a recent film. I usually remove them when I see them, especially when they're in clusters. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

countdown

Those three supermen ARE the three that are named. If you feel they should be named different please feel free to discuss it on the talk page. Otherwise leave it alone.BlueShrek 17:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I put the sources.BlueShrek 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed (as did others), However, you can't cite Wikipedia in an article as a reference. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

300

Thanks for the categorised talk page archive, it really is a wonderful idea. If only someone wrote a bot that did that, at least with headings... A small caveat though; I had raised an objection to the removal of Danikas and I don't think, strictly speaking, that that was resolved. Hornplease 02:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

IMDb

I don't know if you're interested, but there's a discussion going on about using IMDb in articles at the proposal Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Beware, though, Viriditas has commented there. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up and warning. I will stay polite. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter stuff

Hi, I couldn't help notice you're under the impression the latest Harry Potter book hasn't been released. It was, in fact, released at 00:00 BST today (that's 17 and a bit hours ago). It's likely some people have read it already. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that was a mistake on my part, but I think the edits removing the stuff seem fairly safe, as there is no sort of citation for the inclusion of the new stuff until we have some sort of citation for its inclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:PSTS allows careful use of primary sources (emphasis on "careful"), in line with WP:WAF and etc. The tricky part at present is that we're not all up to speed on the book, so there's bound to be edit conflicts. Television's so much easier in this respect. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply

A history documentary by well known television channel stating so is a good enough source. Channel 4 is not a "Yorkshire Group" its an UK channel with no vested interested or bias one way or another. Nottinghamshire is mentioned in the lead, Yorkshire is not when there are many sourced pointing out the concetion. You're clearly just "covering it up" because you don't like what you hear. WP:V has been followed and so it belongs, unless you want any mention of Notthinghamshire removed from the lead too make it neutral. Good day.-SalvoCalcio 16:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

In All Fairness

'Like...Duh' is a lot more civil than some of the other stuff hat gets tossed around the Wiki all day. I just thought it was a wee bit obvious, when the Sword bears the letters 'WW', is next to Superman & Batman's Symbols (Supes, ats and Wonder are DC's "Big Three"), and the image is basically the same as the cover to 52 #1, which featured all of those objects. It's just something tha anyone remotely interested in DC comics would be able to pick up in a heartbeat. 'It's a sword, with Wonder Woman's initals on it so, therefore...' (Please don't think I'm being patronising, I'm just trying to present my case). SaliereTheFish 18:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your pov about the nonsense that goes on, but that's sorta like asking, 'since the world is nothing but shit, why bother wiping your ass?' It doesn't matter if others are rude w/out cause; it shouldn't be a guide for you.

As far as the Wonder Woman thing goes: we aren't writing WP for folks familiar to DC comics (it isn't a fan forum). Until someone citable says it's Wonder Woman's sword, and not Walt Whitman's, it doesn't get said. That's the way it works. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Small observation about the Checkmate/J'Onzz thing...

While I agree that it shouldn't be there at all, the solicitation, with promotional cover has been released from DC, hence the half step I used. The same problem has been cropping up on the Multiverse article (Earth-8/Lord Havok/"Kill-the-sale-mini"), JSA, Kingdom Come (Supes from Earth-22 to join JSA), and Teen Titans (Blue Beetle, in or out). - J Greb 04:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Googoosh.2000.tour.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Googoosh.2000.tour.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 14:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dccountdown image

Not having provided a ratiuonale before, I guess I am not understanding what you are looking for. Let me know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is suggested you read WP:NFCC and WP:FURG which give advice in this area Sfan00 IMG 16:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ive tried

To not edit war but he keeps removing information from the article.Lord Sinestro 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tried explaining to Lord Sinestro that the other version is unsupportable. You can't expect an extensively detailed summary of a 52-issue series - which on any count would constitute copyright a serious copyright infringement. The article has to work towards summarising the series under the plot section, not paraprashing every line of conversation and every action in every issue. No valuable information is removed, it's all just shorter and more contracted.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggested that you both discuss this matter in the article Discussion page and find some common ground without resporting to reverting each others' work. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just got a bit annoyed that it's a fairly harmless edit that I was compiling appropriate citations for and it goes and gets reverted to an inferior version of the page - also uncited, might I add, which is just an ugly section with three bullet points.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I read that on the talk page! :)~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

TDK

http://www.whysoserious.com/

First clue: "inside joke" Second clue: "jack the ripper"

This viral marketing campaign is kicking ass. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

Wow. It's sensationally entertaining. Really. Great stuff lol.

"When the fit hits the shan"

Wonderful! And the Stephen Hawking thing was pretty good too. Yes, that all (me randomly talking about your page) was random as hell, but I noticed it after checking out the FAC on 300. And keep up the good work there! Cliff smith 03:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

300 (film)

I've added a comment to the admin's noticeboard, so I can get extra feedback as to whether I have actually been racist like you say I have. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Have I done something wrong?--Nydas^(Talk) 20:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The July 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Googoosh.2000.tour.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Googoosh.2000.tour.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men

Hi, Thanks for your message about the Film Template. I haven't seen the film template, and I will go look at it. I imagine the rule is to prevent the plot summary from becoming a lengthy series of quotes, or to prevent editors from interpolating variant interpretations of the plot (Ebert argues that "the scene with the Fishes is an allegory for......" while Smith disagrees, stating that "the Fishes are a reference to...".) Nazamo 14:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Countdown Edits

Several users, including Bmg916 and myself, didn't agree to this unblock but Yamla and other sysops agreed with Chrislk02 that he should be given a final chance. It appears, however, that Chrislk02 is planning something. Lord Sesshomaru

No he is not he is giving me a second chance which i am using to the best of my ability. Please dont erase factual information/ dont comment on users on article talk pages.Wrestlinglover420 18:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You get the second chance, W. Do not squander it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, have a little faith. We all do stupid things from time to time. We all however do not wear a scarlet letter. I again ask that you hold off the pitchforks and torches. I am carefully watching this situation and attemptint to mentor this editor. There is some positive potential. The web page linked above is a record of the happenings for my person record. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that seems fair. Sorry for all the harsh and mean. He will get that second chance from me, too.

I would suggest revising your comment on the comic book article's talk page beyond the first sentence to be more civil and objective. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I was just pissed a tthe idea of a socker flaunting policy. I guess it's fair to give him another chance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

assuming good faith and No personal attacks

I kindly ask that you refrain from such comments as you made here. Please do not personally attack any editor, even if you may disagree with them. COntinued incivility may cause you to receive a short term block to review wikipedias poloicies on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If WL420 gets excessivly out of hand, a block is a short click away I do not see your problem here. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with people who flagrantly violate the rules and complain about how they are being singled out for punishment (including characterizing complaints on his user talk page as trolling). While I disagree with the unblocking, I will follow the lead and give him another chance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I. Chrislk02, award you this resilient barnstar for your valiant actions. Being willing to refactor a comment or change what was said to put it in a better tone is an ability we could all use a little more of. Thank you again. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Its cool man at least you apologized most editors refuse to give me the 2nd chance. Ill quit archiving so much lol. Thanks for the scond chance.Wrestlinglover420 18:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: DAB assistance

Done, though its not perfect. The trick is to not have overlinked words in the sentences, if the article doesn't exist then wiki-link one notable word of the sentence where there is no article for it. Ok? Lord Sesshomaru

Reagan wedding cake?

Dude, that's a pic of Gerald Ford and his brood. What's the dealio, partmer? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Gerry Ford pic was an error, but I thought I had fixed it. The current picture of Ron and Nancy being used right now is the same picture of the two that is on the Ronald Reagan website. I think it's kinda dull to see the same pictures on different websites. I took the time and trouble to search the National Archives website to find some different pictures, and I did find some great pics. I think that a newlywed photo of Ron and Nancy is probably more appropriate to the section on "Marriage and Family" than just a photo of the two of them on a boat. I'd like to upload these new photos to the Nancy Reagan article, and I think they're more appropriate and improve the article. Try to give it a chance.--Mcattell 22:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't so much of not giving it a chance, as it is a matter of not fixing something that isn't really broken. A color picture beats the pants off a black and white photo every time and twice on Sunday. Considering the prevalence of b&w photos in the article, it's entirely approrpiate to keep it the same. However, you might post the pics in the Discussion section, and let others weigh in before replacing photos. Sound like a good alternative? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a color pic always beats a black and white photograph, any more than a color movie will always beat a black and white movie. I think that a wedding photo is perfect for the section entitled "Marriage and Family." The color photo doesn't particularly illustrate "marriage" just by looking at it, where the wedding picture obviously does. The color picture doesn't illustrate "family" either, whereas a family photo does. Not only that, but as I pointed out earlier, the color photo is in both the Nancy Reagan and Ronald Reagan article. Still, there's no reason to they can't both be there. I'll transclude this talk to the discussion page and see what others think.--Mcattell 23:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter characters edits

You went and changed infobox colors on a bunch of Harry Potter pages, stating they were "subjective" colors. That is not the case, the colors were from the House the character belonged to. V-train 23:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with V-train. True we don't know what house every character was in, but that's no reason to not include the colors of the ones we do know. Faithlessthewonderboy 06:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Harry Potter

(RE the Anti-semitism argument) - I actually happen to agree with you. I think the argument as presented was pretty ridiculous. I just felt like, as the user was editing on an IP (and thus a newbie), we should be extra careful about not offending them. Your comment made me laugh, though - especially since I think you're right. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 15:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegiances cont.

I see where you're coming from entirely - I admit I should have given more justification. However I did mention it earlier on Harry Potter. asyndeton 23:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry Amazon Links

Check out the 27,000+ amazon links. It's a wink, wink between wikimedia contributor Jeff Bezos and Jimbo. All are allowed.--BaileyIC 23:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikia&action=edit&section=11}
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5] --BaileyIC 12:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

Sorry about that, I had the source and forgot to place it. I changed it back, but it is sourced now.

IamMarkBlake 23:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Countdown

Perhaps you need to read what you're reverting. Duggy 1138 01:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not being clear.

I am not saying that it is the Cyborg Superman. If I was then fan speculation would not be reliable. I was noting speculation, and citing that. Also, Dan is a very unreliable source, anyway.

Duggy 1138 05:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're not reverting "just because" why have you reverted back to a flawed paragraph over and over? The line between facts and speculation is not as clear cut as you pretend.

"The second is the Cyborg Superman" is speculation.

"The second looks like the Cyborg Superman" is a fact, but worded to imply something that is speculation.

I'm not the one who has been mindlessly reverting. I have been editting, rewording, finding citations for the facts in question to find a way to word this so that it isn't implying speculation. I know I'm failing, but a good editor is one that works with others and helps, rather than repeatedly reverting.

Do you deny that the character in question *looks* like the Cyborg (in Sinestro garb)?

Duggy 1138 06:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, you're admitting that, yes, he does look like Hank. Good. And yes, your opinion is not citable. However, there is a difference between a fact and an opinion. Now there is always disagreement on these things. One person's fact is another's opinion.

You've admitted that you, I and almost everyone can see that the character looks like Hank. In fact you went as far as to say that the reason is that we aren't morons.

In my opinion, in your opinion and in almost everyone's opinion the character looks like Hank. The only way your opinion could be otherwise to have a mental problem.

This, to me, is not opinion, but fact.

I claimed that the character looks like Hank and I cited a visual reference. The visual reference was from a reliable source - DC's own webpage on the cover of a title about the character. It is a citation to support the fact. Someone can see the character, follow the like and say "yes, that looks like the same character", just like they can click on another link and see a DC Nation page in which Danny boy says "People standing on the dead ground are in trouble." One is a visual reference, one is a textual one.

Now, you claim that Catwoman is a common DC image and the fact that another character looks like Catwoman is not an opinion, but a fact. Why? I look at her and she looks exactly like that common image. In my *opinion*. In your *opinion*. In the opinion of everyone who isn't a moron. But, if my claim isn't a fact, then that isn't. The commonality of the image doesn't make it more or less of an opinion or fact, but rather makes it less necessary for most people looking at it to need a visual reference - however, the fact that most readers don't need one doesn't mean that it really shouldn't have one.

The "versions of Superman" thing. That's not only opinion, but it is vague and unsupportable unless it is referenced. What does versions of Superman mean anyway? Let's assume for a second that Superman-1 is the Earth-22/Kingdom Come Superman, that makes him an alternate universe Superman. A different reality's version of the same person. Let's assume that Superman-2 is Hank. Someone who isn't Superman dressing as him. The term is used for 2 completely different things. It is the spit curl and the costume bottom that make the Superman reference viable. In my opinion. In your opinion. In non-morons opinions. How is it more a fact than he looks like Hank?

In fact, I feel that "He looks like Hank" is more supportable than "He is a version of Superman."

This is why I feel, that although flawed, my changes are not unsourced, are not merely opinions, but attempts to cite a fact that the reader should know and is expected to know. Now I accept that that can be disagreed with, but it falls way, way on the fact side of a line that you are supporting otherwise.

I feel I have acted in good faith with my edits, but also understand your feeling otherwise and your need to report me for 3RRR violations. As I've acted in good faith, I think my actions will be allowed, but I freely admit that the outside arbitrator may say that I am wrong about the opinion thing.

06:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep talking about naming and not naming the Supermen. We aren't doing that we are describing what they look like. Yet you're willing to describe these men as Supermen because they look like Superman. That still makes no sense to me. Duggy 1138 12:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The li'l joke

Saw it in the history. L-M-A-O. Cliff smith 16:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

300

I cited a source for the first statement (the comic book)

The second statement refers to the film itself.

You say an editorial aside is not permitted yet criticising Spartans for being 'democracy lovers' when they demonstrate contempt for Athenians and democracy is permitted? What editorial policy is this? I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, true, butthis is hard to understand. --Leocomix 17:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Gray wolf and Grammar fix

I took exception to this edit: [6]

• "Due to" is a bad prepositional phrase where it is generally used (see Misused Expressions)
• "Compared with" is used for comparing differences; "compared to" for comparing similarities.
• I can't see any reason for the semi-colon being where it is. Why is that clause set off by a semi-colon but the one after it by a full-stop? This absurdly suggests the former is in special relation to the previous clause but the latter is more distant, even though they are equally distant.

RedRabbit 06:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Potter edit

Looking at Rowling's page, it seems the development of the Harry Potter series is talked about as a whole on her page. Anyway I'm not really sure so maybe I'll just add the citation in the talk page there as well. Berserkerz Crit 18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Severus Snape

Do you own this page? It seems to me that no one is allowed to edit anything at all here without your individual approval.

You are being unreasonable. Your edits are highly biased and suppressive of information. See my posts on the discussion page. Revert me back if you wish, but I have contacted the administrators. If it turns out that you don't own this page, I will report YOU for failing to maintain neutral POV. Brensgrrl 06:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore/Dumbledors

Hey user Arcayne,

When I see your reasoning, I think you were right to remove my link to the Tolkien use of Dumbldors on the Albus Dumbledore page, but by the same reasoning shouldn't the line, "Like "Hagrid", this word of West Country dialect appears in the works of Thomas Hardy." be removed as well? AJseagull1 07:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Temper

Very well, I do realise when I go too far and regret it as soon as I press "Save". However, from some of the above discussions, you seem to be a little hypocritical, perhaps not in temper, but you should check yourself as well. Therequiembellishere 14:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then, hope that together, we can help terminate the idiocy from the Harry Potter WikiProject. Therequiembellishere 18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And I never said you weren't polite, (I said, "perhaps not in temper"), but we did seem to have fairly similar problems. Therequiembellishere 18:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious

Does this edit seem wonky to you? It looks as though an editor is trying to conceal his ID. Maybe I am wrong, but you have more experience with this, and I didn't want to waste the time of the people who do checkuser. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem strange to me. What seems more strange is the previous edit where the person signs with a username even though it's an IP. But I believe the issue might be that the user is not familiar with how to sign up for a username and get his or her signature added automatically. -- tariqabjotu 17:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe

Great comment on this edit. (chortles) Smokizzy (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I laffed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars

Hello there. I preferably like the Nuvola icons as they are professionally made and stand out the best. As for size, etc., you have to use the base barnstar table code:

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | [[Image:YOURIMAGEHERE.FILETYPE|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The <TYPE OF BARNSTAR> Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | {{{1}}}
|}

All you do then is choose an image and replace it where it says YOURIMAGEHERE.FILETYPE and your type of barnstar to replace <TYPE OF BARNSTAR>. Hope that helps. Happy editing! — E ^talk_bots 21:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sorcerer's Stone/Philosopher's Stone

I'm sorry but I honestly can't remember which page I removed it from! (was it Dumbledore's?) My logic would probably have been that the title of HP1 is mentioned all over the place and if we're going to mention both versions everytime it comes up, then the place is quickly going to become a mess. On a similar note, taking a quick browse through HP related pages, you quickly see that only the British title is mentioned, except of course on the HP1 page itself - where I feel it is entirely justified. For consitency's sake, I feel we should just keep to the British version - and lets remember all seven books have been released in many different languages, some of which it has not been possible to perfectly translate the titles into; should we mention those as well? asyndeton 11:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Harry Potter

Okay, I know I blasted you a while back for not AGFing, but...Wow. That lightning bolt thing was absolutely hilarious. You're smart and funny, and your humor is nuanced enough to not be bothersome. I mean, really...sarcastic humor. A great way to make a point. I was rolling. I still caution against going too far, but I'm still going to give you....

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		'Cause you're funny. =David(talk)(contribs) 22:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Severus Snape

Hi. I've begun a discussion on the Talk Page, as you suggested, and presented my rationale, including a concession and apology to you on one of the two points. Thanks. Nightscream 06:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: My Talk Page

Ha! Thanks so much...I was going to be fine until that last post...I mean, if you're going to lie, do it well. Am I right? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 08:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thor changes....

Uh...thank you for your "message" concerning the Thor changes. I'm curious as to what was the big fuss as your tone suggeted anger or disgust.... Mwmalone

Waiting for a reply

I replied to your message on my talk page and am now waiting for your reply. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thor changes continued...

Thank you for your prompt reply. The reason I may have edited the Thor passage two times from different addresses is that I didn't log in both times -- not because I have two identities (which WOULD be dishonest). As far as Thor being an "Elemental Super Hero" -- I classified him as such because he is the God of Thunder and (via his magic hammer Mjolnir), he can control the powers of the storm. I should've cited this more properly, yes, but I thought the description under his powers made that self-explanatory. Also, I'm still relatively NEW to Wiki editing, so I'm still learning. No big deal. Thanks for for the advice, though. [[Mwmalone 03:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]]

Highlander poster

Hopefully it's fixed now. All you needed to do was specify a width after the file name. Check the edit history to see the formatting. :-) Chris 42 11:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you're using a foreign-language poster for the film article (judging from the "l'ultimo immortale" subtitle)? What was wrong with using an English-language poster? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find an English language one. There is a B&W one that I am pretty sure wasn't used in the original release (and is a subsequent release).

The artwork is the same, but the lettering was in English. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

...As evidenced by the posters here. I've looked all over the web for one in english, and a 21-yo poster is a bit difficult to find. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How about this? I assume the B&W poster there was what was attempted to be replaced? If the English-language poster is that old, you could use the DVD cover instead, as it may be more recognizable by most people. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that one, too. It's the cove for the VHS release (remember, this was released before DVD's were all over the market). Yeah, the B&W image is, I think a post-release production for release as a postcard (the Highlander store used to sell stills and alternate posters - including ones that weren't used. The image was decided against, as the movie's info would have been lost in the monotone).

I wouldn't mind the DVD release, but I thought the original release image would be more compelling, illustrating the kineticism of the film with the usage of bright colors. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Try to see if the DVD cover is an acceptable option. I've shared my $0.02 on the matter on the film article's talk page, so hopefully discussion can take place with ease. I need to crash now, though... hope you can work this out with the other editor, and maybe Bignole or Alientraveller can help you out further. Night! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No Barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your good humor on your talk page, in your edits, and your edit summaries (mmm... CruftEaters ;), I hereby give Arcayne this barnstar of due appreciation. 'Tis the best fit. Happy editin', David Fuchs (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Highlander WikiProject?

I'm thinking about starting a WikiProject dedicated to everything Highlander, I was wondering if you were interested... If so please see here Stormin' Foreman 13:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What kind of userbox or barnstar do you have in mind? Stormin' Foreman 13:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what you had in mind?

		The Cruft-Eater's Barnstar
		= = = = = = CRUFT TASTES YUMMY! = = = = = =

UPDATE: I'm about to start the project in the next couple of days; What do you think about this being our userbox?

This user is a member of WikiProject Highlander

Snape edits

Right back at you; though you removed a lot of my edits, at least a few make them through, and we do seem to be improving the article. Magidin 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, given the volume of my recent edits to the page, you could hardly help but end up removing a lot of my edits. As for taking it personally, I may be comparatively new to Wikipedia, but I am an old Usenet hand. My liver would be gone if I took things too personally. (-: Magidin 02:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dude

Thanks for giving that vandal a good stern warning for me. Eh, stern? Maybe. Funny? Definitely. "Bounce you out..", that was the funniest part. It was like you were a bouncer at club Nole. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL, that was good. I appreciate it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Club Nole would be pretty sweet. We can have the Matrix Reloaded dance floor in that corner, Internet access in that Operation Swordfish multi-screen computer lab, and some of these Coyote Ugly ladies mixing a few "Dirty Nole" cocktails. Hell, Arc, if someone gets past you the bouncer, we can unleash an animatronic Jason Voorhees on them... the noise of the chainsaw would get the club denizens to back the hell away and let him do his bloody bouncing business. Anyway, yeah, BOF got riled up for not getting some recognition, and days like these make me thankful that nobody really knows any specifics about my background. Probably would get my account hijacked with some really geeky "HAHAHAHA" message. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

LMAO, that's great stuff. My day is just becoming so much brighter thanks to you two.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Minor character infobox info

Hey Arcayne, I thought I'd get a fellow (and more experienced) HP editor's opinion on this before taking any action, so that's why I come to you. I've noticed that on the pages for minor Ravenclaw/Slytherin/etc. characters, the infoxes contain which house the individual characters belong to. This seems terribly redundant to me, but I always like to get a second opinion before making any large scale changes. Also, I've noticed that Hepzibah Smith is listed as a minor Hufflepuff. While this may be a reasonable assertion, it certainly isn't canon. But I have very little experience with merging articles or creating new articles, so I thought I'd ask someone who know what they're doing for some advice. :] Faithlessthewonderboy 18:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I have been kicking around for some time, but rarely did anything more than fix an occasional typo or misspelling until recently, when I decided to get more involved. But you've been fighting the good fight for a while, and since I almost always agree with your edits, you seem as good a person as any to ask. You do bring up a good point, namely is it worth starting the inevitable edit war over something which 1. isn't incorrect and 2. doesn't hurt the article in any way? As much as I hate it when articles repeat themselves, there are bound to be people who would add the info back. I'll consider whether this is worth the effort before acting on it. Meanwhile I'm going to move Hepzibah from Minor Hufflepuffs to Minor Harry Potter characters. By the way, I've never been a huge fan of WP:BOLD myself. Maybe if people weren't quite so bold we wouldn't have to fix so many ridiculous edits. Thanks for your input! Faithlessthewonderboy 00:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Pilot (Smallville)

I've got a new FAC going on. I'd appreciate lots of criticism and tons of "fix its" from you guys. :) Here is a link to the FAC. Sorry for the generic message.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I generally just argue till one of us leaves, which is usually him (not saying that I'm arguing so well that he leaves, just that he typically leaves regardless). He'll start something then leave it. I've addresses his "oppose", but you can almost guarantee that he won't return to change or at least express why it still needs to be changed. This is a gentleman that believes that episode articles are notable simply because they aired on television, and that no secondary sources are necessary to verify the notability. Yet, he complains if someone uses too many primary sources for production information. Matthew will do what Matthew does, you either agree with him or you don't. Not much really to do about it. It isn't that he's a bad editor, because he isn't, he's just very opinionated, like most of us I guess. The only thing you can hope is that if you're in the right, then more people will see it that way and agree with you. If not, then it may be best to let it go.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Orig.highlander.poster.ital.JPG.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Orig.highlander.poster.ital.JPG.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. BetacommandBot 08:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Severus Snape

I have looked again at WP:WAF as you suggested, and can find nothing that implies present tense should be used. What WP:WAF does say is essentially that fictional character biographies and histories are in-universe and hence evil. It is therefore necessary to completely rewrite the "character biography" section into an "appearance in the books/films" section, as has been done for WP:HPP's three GA character articles: Hermione Granger, Lord Voldemort and Harry Potter (character). This will have the side-effect of making the use of present tense appropriate. Incidentally, when you revert an article (as your edit of 2:39-18/8/07 did, to the version at 20:14-17/8/07) please state that that is what you did in the edit summary. While I know you disagreed with my edits, you also removed a lot of work by Magidin, who might be justifiably upset by your edit summary which marked his edits (and mine, although I understand your perspective) as cruft. Happy-melon 12:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the policy is this: Past tense is, of course, necessary for describing events which take place in the past, be they real or fictional. Vide any featured article about a real person, eg Gerald Ford. However, WP:WAF declares that in-universe descriptions of characters are not allowed, which rules out an event summary structured as a biography. The events must therefore be presented as they appear in canon. For excellent examples of how this has been achieved with other Harry Potter characters, vide the GA-class Hermione Granger and Lord Voldemort articles. As you can see the events are broken up by book. When written this way, as the books are current literature, present tense is used. So my understanding is that the events of Snape's life should be written in present tense, but in the style of those two GAs.

Vis edit summary (the edit I was refering to is this one), I was not questioning the justification of your revert. I merely point out that it would have made more sense to mark it as a revert in the edit summary. The summary you gave seems to imply that you were doing something new to the article rather than reverting an (admittedly imperfect) revision. Happy-melon 14:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Snape's Worst Memory

I reread the relevant chapters. Snape extracts the memory in question into Dumbledore's Pensieve during both of the Occlumency lessons he has with Harry. This occurs in Chapter 24 of Order of the Phoenix, "Occlumency", but Harry doesn't see the memory until Chapter 28, "Snape's Worst Memory". Malfoy shows up to tell Snape that Montague is jammed inside a fourth floor toilet. Snape tells Harry they'll resume the following evening and leaves with Malfoy. As Harry begins to leave, he notices the Pensieve on Snape's desk, and then views it. When Snapes pulls him out of it, that ends their lessons. Those are the only two chapters with Occlumency lessons in them. Nowhere does Harry read Snape's mind merely by "pushing back", except in the film version of Phoenix, so maybe you confused that scene with one in the book. Nightscream 16:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I found it! I was positive that I remembered something of what you described, but when I couldn't find it initially, I chalked it up to a memory fart on both our parts. But I was going through Phoenix to reference something I added to the article about Snape's feelings about emotions, and accidentally came across what you remember! In Chapter 26, they have an Occlumency lesson (so it wasn't just the two), and that's when Harry sees into Snape's mind. But it doesn't concern the "worst memory" he viewed in the Pensieve. So in a sense, we were both right. :-) Nightscream 04:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Head honcho himself

Someone apparently accused me of editing in favor of film studios, so he was contacting me to check this claim, though he noted from my various contributions that this seemed unlikely. He actually commended my contributions, haha, though he did have me wondering all day what he wanted to discuss with me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: IMDb

Per WP:EL#Important points to remember, "External links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include them in an 'External links' section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox." So IMDb should not be linked like what you've pointed out; the links should exist in that actor's article. If there isn't an article, then the only way to include the IMDb link is to get an article, even if it's a stub, created. Hope this helps. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Take

It somewhere else pal im not edit warring.Wrestlinglover420 18:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Clown Down

I've been going behind him reverting his vandalism for a while now... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stormin' Foreman (talk • contribs) 18:34:25, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Snape article

The article itself is about him in both books and film, but the section in question was about Snape in the third and fourth books. The section on the fifth book, for example, describes how Harry viewed Snape's memory as per the book, not as per the movie. Still, having the parenthetical comment that Dobby stole the gillyweed "(in the book)" seemed out of place. Magidin 02:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :)

Yeah, I figure it's the best way to avoid a revert war. It could be an honest mistake (though personally, I find it pretty hard to assume good faith in most cases).

While I've got your attention, I'd like to discuss the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone controversy. While I think that the alternate title should definitely be noted on a few pages (such as the book, film and overall series) I think it's a bit unnecessary to mention it on the page of every individual character in the book. Unfortunately this is a pretty unique situation, and it's not as easy as a spelling difference. The most relevant guideline I can find is WP:NC-BK.The most widely read and, more importantly, the most authoritative original is Philosopher's Stone. It was only changed to Sorcerer's Stone for the benefit of one country (all others using the original), and they weren't even released at the same time, SS coming well after PS. So, as PS is the original and most widely recognized version, I don't think the difference needs to be mentioned beyond a few directly relevant articles, i.e. the book, film, video games, soundtracks etc.

I don't mean to insult your intelligence, as you probably know all of this. I just didn't see the original conversation until you started implementing it, and wanted to get my two cents in. :) Faithlessthewonderboy 06:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thew

I really don't know how to deal with annoying people: you ignore them in the real world, here I guess you could file a complaint. I mean the guy is full of bad faith: you don't delete messages, you archive them!

By the way, the subject title is a reference to an SNL episode Topher Grace presented. Alientraveller 09:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WL420

Viewing the history of the page, he most clearly was not engaging in edit warring. Perhaps you do not understand the defintion of edit warring? He edited the page 3 times in a row in a day with no other intermediate edits. Thank you for expressing your concner, however please be more careful in the future when making accusation. See here for the articles edit history. Thanks! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

---

ThuranX

Dude... did you happen to notice how old the personal attacks were? Let's not stir something up that's two months old... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I actually just noticed it while looking at the edit hostory after some recent Catwoman edits. It was a pretty scummy thing to do, no matter when it occurred. The guy has experience, and I used to respect the crap out of him, and his behavior is completely unwarranted. However, I did address on his Talk page in a recent updating of my post that the posts might have been blowback from the prior argument. I have his page on watchlist now. I'll know better. And no, I am not really interested in wasting my time and energy in debating the finer points of rudeness degres with him - he clearly doesn't value my viewpoint. That he doesn't means that he is just one of those essentially self-destructive folk that don't need me to add any more fuses to. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but there hasn't been a situation between you two since the so-called showdown sometime back. I'm not saying to forget what he said entirely, but both of you are editing different articles these days. I don't really think it does any good to "warn" him that you're going to keep an eye on him. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the discussion as a favor because I really don't want to see any hostility. If his remarks are that much of an issue to you, archive them somewhere if a future conflict occurs. In the meantime, the issue, being two months old, has no bearing on the present. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll do him that favor as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thorfinn Rowle

no problems, thanks for clarifying about citations
reference to the already published HP books in Hungarian could be added by now already, which backup the translation of Voldemort's original name as Tom Rowle Denem, but since Thorfinn Rowle is named for the first time in the last book only, and that is not yet translated, it can't be referenced right now either
if this causes confusion, the text i added could be removed now, and we might return to the subject next february when the Hungarian translation is expected to be ready - br (unidentified editor: 89.189.100.194)

More HP talk

I certainly understand your reasoning behind including SS, and though we sometimes disagree on what should be included, I know you're acting in good faith a genuinely trying to improve articles. I won't fight over this particular issue, primarily because although I disagree with its inclusion, there is nothing factually incorrect about it. I just don't like it on aesthetic grounds (and hey, that's just one man's opinion). Besides, I see you've already got into a bit of an edit war over it, so the last thing you need at the moment is more opposition. :P A second reason I oppose it is one I've discussed before, namely that their are many American editors out there who are trying to "hijack" HP articles and Americanize them, thinking that the American editions are somehow more definitive than the original British. Though again, I'm not accusing you of this, I know better. :) Well good luck with all the anons out there who revert your edits!

Oh yeah, Penubag! I'll say this: the secret page is actually pretty easy to find, if you look for it. You might find his guest book a good place to start. Faithlessthewonderboy 23:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives

Alright, now I am getting pissed. Not at you, mind you, you are just following procedure. I am getting pissed at Wikipedia for being so counter-productive. I have posted on three forums, including the Village Dump requesting action on this problem. I have also discussed with multiple members what actions I can take. With every action I take, another member contradicts them and reverts my actions. I know that the policy states that succession boxes are not allowed for in-universe references. It is quite clear to me at this point in time. However, I am also aware that the official policy page states that the best way to change a policy is to try something. I have tried something. I have added a header that states the universe the titles appear in and I have added citations that make that redundant by stating that the dates too are in-universe. I have posted on the policy page only to receive no replies. I have posted for help from admin at the Village dump but no one responds. I have requested multiple groups including Succession box standardization, Harry Potter, and Star Wars all with no help at all except the same WAF people telling me they are reverting without any real alternatives except to do the same thing again. The only success I have had has been in keeping the Template:s-fic from being deleted outright and the few discussions that resulted from that. Tell me, what can I do because I am not giving up on this project because I believe that succession boxes belong in anything that possesses a logical succession of titles regardless of if they are real or fictional. Please help me find a forum and I will leave you alone. Thank you!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Article Mistake on WikiProject Page

Recently you changed the list with one of GA Articles reading Religious debates over the Harry Potter series to Controversy over Harry Potter. If you go to both links you'll notice that not only are they different articles but that the former article is a GA while the latter is a B-Class article. You changed the first link to direct to the B-Class article. That change has been reverted but I just wanted you know as to why it was reverted and to pre-empt an edit war. Cheers Dabomb87 19:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox change - reply

Thanks - turns out there are *alot* of infoboxes out there with genders and all help is appreciated; should have it over and done with in a few minutes. asyndeton 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like between us we got all the genders; I'll start hacking away at the vestigials now. asyndeton 22:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the date, mate? (continuation of discussion from HP wikiproject talk page)

Hi Arcayne, I'd like to get your opinion on something (and coincidentally I noticed that you recently started a discussion related to what I want to talk to you about). If it's decided that dates should be included in HP articles, do you think it would be a good idea to link to Chronology of the Harry Potter stories instead of, say, October 31, 1980, which is what's usually done? I tried this out last night over at Neville Longbottom, but don't want to put in all the work of doing it to all HP articles if it's not appropriate or going to be reverted. Faithlessthewonderboy 05:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I just saw it over at the Project, and I think it is a fabulous idea! I recently did an edit in Avengers: The Initiative wherein something very similar had happened. The states for the various Initiative teams stationed there had links to the actual states. The comparison is the same. Feel free to use it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Great! It's always nice to have others behind you when trying to institute sweeping changes. :) Faithlessthewonderboy 06:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Batman: TDKSA cats

The short version? Category:Comic book alternate futures is a grandparent of Category:Elseworlds Titles through Category:Elseworlds.

(slightly longer version) In looking at the confusion that the alt future and Comic book alternate universes had created with articles being double and triple catted, I tried to clean up the Elseworlds titles by spelling out aspects of the article it collects. The Elseworld stories fall into 3 broad groups: alternate histories, alt present, and possible futures. In that vein, the Alt futures cat should link to the Elsworlds one, not the individual articles.

That does leave a question though if the Elseworlds cat should drop, or the articles from Elseworlds titles should upmerge into it. - J Greb 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bells and Whistles

{{user shortcuts}} Just try that.

No problem. Check my talk history, you'll see the most recent ones are just a barrel full of interestingness.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be superceding the discussiong, but to create a direct, it's the same as a redirection. Just go to WP:NOTGAY and in the edit screen just redirect it to where you want. Then, I'd go copy the little box you see appear on the right, that lists all the redirection codes, but replace it with "WP:NOTGAY".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why it isn't redirecting without stopping on the redirection page now. Why is this in Meta instead of on here?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan third opinion

Hey buddy it's me again. Listen I have this fierce debate with this user and we really need a third opinion here. He wants the following sentence to go in the lead of the Ronald Reagan article: "He was able to institute some of his vision by introducing fiscally-expansive economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics" which, among other things, included the lowering of the top personal tax bracket from 70% to 28%."

I told him to put it in the "Beliefs and philosophy" section but he wants it in the lead. I told him it was POV to put only the good in the lead (like I said) but he won't budge. Look at my responses and go to my talk page to see his response. He also extened the lead and took it out of order and I'm not sure why. Please take a look at this and talk to him and explain what's wrong with this. Best, Happyme22 23:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I think we got it figured out. It seems every time I ask you for help it gets resolved... Best, Happyme22 23:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

North Hollywood shootout

What's crackin? Anyway, I've been working on this one on and off for a few months in preparation for GAC. I was intending to open up a peer review on September 1, but something happened. User:Asams10 added two factoids to the page. I removed them at first since they were completely unreferenced, but he reverted and later dumped a couple hyperlinks to his sources. I contacted User:ColdFusion650 for his opinion, and he agreed that even what Asams added with sources is a non-notable factoid. Yesterday, Asams broke the 3RR and attacked ColdFusion in an edit summary. And he added the factoid back.

What's the factoid? The name of a gun shop, and its owner, that LAPD officers borrowed some rifles from when they were outgunned by two armed and armored bank robbers. The other thing that was already removed was something about the weapons not being used in the shootout and that the LAPD didn't return them. I don't think that either of these statements are notable—especially the name of the store and its owner—and they appear to fall under WP:IINFO. I come to you for a new opinion. Cliff smith 22:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Since we're going to admins trying to make points, going to friends to avoid violating the 3RR, why don't we try to avoid taking ownership of articles, Cliff.--Asams10 09:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Reagan fac candidate page

From User talk:SandyGeorgia

You might want to dial back the lack of AGF, Sandy. When you imply motives that others may not have, you make it more difficult for people to set any faith by your own edits. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, accepted, but the same applies to the others making statements there questioning the motives of others and making outrageous statements about a "cadre" protecting the article. Happyme22 has pretty much developed that article on his own, and the POV pushing has come out of the woodwork only since he's gotten the article up to standard. Methinks if there had been a cadre of editors protecting the article, it wouldn't have taken him six FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, if you're non-templating the regulars at FAC, how about applying the same standard to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event ? Or have a look at the stunning personal attacks the went down on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Intelligent design. The double standard on Wiki can wear down even the most experienced and committed editors. Yea, I know, too late to do anything about ID, but the same editors are making the same kind of personal commentary on K-T extinction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing Minor Slytherin characters

I erroneously called you out when you undid a revision, unaware that it was someone else's edit until, of course, after I hit the "undo" link. My apologies. Beemer69 00:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort image

Sorry there. I did post it on the discussion page of the HP Wikiproject images page and got the response that though the image was liked it was a bit outside the realm of fair use. I shall wait for greater consensus next time, and I'm about to post an entry on the Voldemort discussion page. -Phi*n!x 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: current

Common sense-- it's been over a month. I'm pretty sure there is some documentation at Template:Current that is relevant too. -- John Reaves 10:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume that anyone who hasn't had a release in their language/country is 1.) aware of the original publication date and wouldn't expect it to be considered current and/or 2.) isn't reading the English Wikipedia. -- John Reaves 22:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but I dislike Template:Current fiction because of the lack of standards in how "current" a work of fiction is. I don't believe that it's comparable to Template:Current because many articles on works of fiction can be developed before its release, as opposed to coverage about a terrorist attack. "It may contain detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the work of fiction it describes." This is a pseudo-circumvention of WP:SPOILER -- of course a Wikipedia article will should have detailed information about the work of fiction in question. I believe that the template should be proposed for deletion. Want to put it up? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that the template circumvents WP:SPOILER because instead of {{spoiler}} tags in specific sections, there's one big tag on top of the article. It basically says, "Look out, the Plot section has plot details that may spoil you; same goes for Characters." It seems like the reader's treated like an idiot (though there are plenty of those that call foul and try to re-add traditional spoiler tags) in not being able to decipher section headings, especially if the Plot section is longer than a paragraph. Seeing your discussion with the other editor, there don't seem to be standards for current fiction. In my case, new films come out every week, so it seems like an unnecessarily brief template to apply in most cases. What's the Latin phrase for "caveat emptor" for readers? Honestly, an article on a work of fiction and its in-universe details doesn't compare to "true" current events like the VT shooting, where information could easily change on the spot. Works of fiction don't suddenly change, warranting an update in details other than copy-editing and fine-tuning. That's my beef, basically, and I will probably argue against the use of the template in upcoming film articles on my watchlist. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

172.159.130.18

I got a message saying that I got a warning for vandalism. Please tell me how I vandalised and on what page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjonny1992 (talk • contribs) 10:03, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, doesn't matter. I'm using my username, but my I got a message (to my IP address) about something I didn't edit. Someone else did it before I was allocated it to my computer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjonny1992 (talk • contribs) 10:05, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Category:Hogwarts employees

Just a reminder, when you want to start a CfD discussion don't forget to add the appropriate tag to the category page. You forgot to in this case. the wub "?!" 12:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Lennon

Hey Arcayne, I agree with tossing out the May Pang stuff unless someone provides a source, but is WP:BLP relevant to John Lennon? BTW, no luck so far with all the MBE stuff. :/Cheers, faithless (^speak) 04:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. That guy has a real attitude problem (I saw his reaction to your post on his talk page). Disregarding the fact that he's just plain wrong, he's also suggesting that it's impossible to have knowledge on more than one subject? What a joke. faithless (^speak) 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Snape edits

I confess I am not sure what you mean by "novel numbering and chapter formats"... I just looked over the Lord Voldemort article, which had the references as footnotes rather than in-line; but I kept the references the same as before... If I erred, then it is a simple matter to revert, since the only changes I made in that sequence was to move the references. Magidin 13:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reagan article

Just wanted to say keep up the good work at the Reagan article. It's exhausting dealing with the legacy polishers over there, who seem breathless at the very sound of his name. In fact, the whole "full name" vs. "commonly used name" is a good (though less significant) example of their POV; you can just see them standing to attention, getting a little misty-eyed, and saying "Ronald....WILSON...REAGAN." After many many months of his hijinks, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Happy is disingenuous in his "sorry's" and "my mistakes" and "this sounds better this way" edits. His edits have been by far the most POV-filled, as well as the most frustrating at times, due not only to his POV but his lack of understanding of the events, issues and concepts involved. If there ever were an "owned" article, it's this one. I applaud your commitment, and wish you luck. The funny thing is, I'm pretty sure that the two or three most active fans - the ones who do the most POV pushing - weren't around while Reagan was president, or were (at best) toddlers. Info999 14:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if isn't good ol' Info999, my old friend. POV pusher? me? I like Reagan-so what? I really helped get his article to Featured status. And actually I was around when Reagan was president; I was in my late 20s. Anyway, Arcayne, hi. I really like the lead! I think it presents an better picture of Reagan then before without his "philosophy" in it. However I think the infobox should read "Ronald Wilson Reagan" per Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., another FA; Jimmy Carter, another president of the United States known not as James Earl Carter, Jr.; George Herbert Walker Bush - the same thing. William Jefferson Clinton - most people knew him (or know him) as Bill, but it's there; George Walker Bush is in the infobox on his article too; Dwight David Eisenhower; John Fitzgerald Kennedy; Lyndon Baines Johnson; Richard Milhous Nixon - all the articles on recent presidents have his middle name in the infobox, so why should Reagan be any different? To make Reagan's like all the other recent presidents, especially since this one is at a higher standard (being a FA), we should use his middle name. Even people who aren't presidents use their middle names on Wiki; look at Merv Griffin, Alberto Gonzales, and even Nancy Reagan to name the first three that came to me! Although people know him better as "Ronald Reagan" this is an encyclopedia and in my opinion his middle name should be in the infobox. If you disagree please get back to me. Again, the lead looks great! Best, Happyme22 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks Arcayne. That really means a lot because I've been putting a lot of time and effort into Wiki and the Reagan article, and it's nice to be appreciated. After all, you were my mentor in many ways! Happyme22 23:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Operation Spooner's at it again - adding his "philosophy" in the lead. I've already tried to deal with him, and you've taken charge of the lead, so I'm going to let you deal with this one! Happyme22 00:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lennon page

"I wanted you to know that I reformatted your post, changing the bold text into a boxed-text version, while not changing any of the text. Bold text is a pain in the arse to read. I hope you aren;t offended by the change, and please believe that none is intended. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)"

Not a problem, Lucy. :) (identified as user:63.115.59.2)

Lennon refs

You're welcome - more cites never hurt. How do you feel about a Youtube link of Lennon singing Imagine at the Lew Grade event, with "immigration" added and the masked band members? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xjw-l673UI&mode=related&search=&v3 Tvoz |talk 05:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda thought so. OK, maybe tomorrow I'll find something more reliable. Sent you email on a related matter. Cheers Tvoz |talk 05:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Larry Kane is not Albert Goldman or May Pang - I wouldn't want him to be the sole source, but I'm not sure I agree with your dismissing his book out of hand as one source. Tvoz |talk 05:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What I see as the best solution here is to attribute properly. Remember, statements (especially ones which are questionable or in dispute) need not be presented as a simple fact with a citation to a disputed source. Instead, it can be presented as "Larry Kane, in his book Some Title, states that...However, XYZ has disputed this statement, stating in a Somewhere Times interview that the statements "could not possibly be true."" When there's a dispute, we just present it as such, it's not our job or place to take a side. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, The parts that are cited are from a "trashy tell-all" (as per the London Times review when it came out) and a collection of reminiscing by a revisionist journalist pal of Lennon's. Maybe someone could roll up their sleeves and start finding citations for the statements made that don't draw from either of these books like - oh, I don't know - actual reliable sources? sounds to me like you are dismissing Kane. If not, fine. I agree that he should not be the sole source,and think Seraphimblade makes a good point. Of course I agree about Goldman, which is why I mentioned him here in the first place, to contrast with Kane and of course Pang herself.Tvoz |talk 06:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your comment about my edits in the article "Severus Snape" and I admit your point is correct. The main thing I tried to correct in the article was the fact that links to James Potter were directed to James Potter the politician and not to James Potter the wizard. Unfortunately, your revertion had caused some other such links to appear in the article. I correct these links and removed the redundant links, too. So I think everything's okay now. I'd be glad to hear more comments from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hom sepanta (talk • contribs) 19:04, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Severus Snape

Why was the previous caption better? I thought it was short and sketchy. Lradrama 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply, no worries at all. Yes, as I made the edit, I was thinking about the same issue as yourself, but I couldn't find another 'suitable' word other than 'protecting'. Shielding might have been better looking back now, but as you said, that indicates a revelation we discover near the end. Happy editing! Lradrama 20:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

re John Lennon

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Do not revert. Do discuss. The May Pang/John Lennon discussion is thataway in just under a quarter of an hour. LessHeard vanU 14:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I recognise that an entry in the block log is not something a good editor would want, and I want to advise you that I considered it very carefully. A block is a preventative measure, not punitive, thus I will explain the preventative nature of a very short time block created and elapsed while you were off-line. No matter who is wrong and who is right, revert wars disrupt Wikipedia. The appropriate way to settle disputes is to reach consensus, and if that is not possible through dispute resolution - but not by edit warring. By enforcing a very short block (the least in the default settings) for both parties I hope I have halted an escalating series of edits which will only harm the article by driving other editors away. I would recommend that you, and Sixstring1965, use the good offices of User:Tvoz to sort out the appropriate context for the May Pang material. Like I said, an entry in the block log is something a good editor does not want - you don't want it, so that means you are a good editor. I hope you will continue to act like one and use the correct procedures and venues to help resolve this matter. LessHeard vanU 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If it were BLP violations then it should have been taken to the WP:BLP noticeboard (in fact, I recommend you do so next time). Moral High Ground is not policy, a guideline, or even - AFAIK - an essay. Edit warring, however, violates WP:Consensus. LessHeard vanU 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Reagan and Spooner

I think you did great a job of working it in, and I only minorly tweaked it. Thanks for takin care of that, but I'm sure Spooner will be back! Best, Happyme22 15:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Highlander Image

I replaced the image because it was Region 2 cover (Not well known in U.S.) & because the Immortal Edition of the DVD is the definitive edition. Agree the tin slipcase is not indicative of characters. I was really looking for the IE cover proper; but I'll have to scan when time permits. FrankWilliams 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor Dark Wizard edit

The character template I used for adding Scabior was a just a copy from another Minor Dark Wizard's template, I only changed the "name" and "appearance" sections. Lord Opeth 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I'm afraid I don't know what a no-wiki reference is, though I do agree that they crowd the infobox and would be more aesthetically pleasing elsewhere. faithless (^speak) 22:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, in that case I do know what it is; I guess I just didn't know what it was called. Anyways, sure, if you want to do that, it's fine by me. faithless (^speak) 02:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies vote

Dude, you don't vote on changing wikipedia policy at the article level, because the core principles are not changed by vote within an article. I've pointed the way to three areas you can posit your interpretations on real-world synthesis, and you can get real-time feedback from your fellow editors and maybe a few admins will check in, as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You really don't get it do you? I'm not talking about changing policy, I'm talking about you misinterpreting the policy. I've read it over and you are applying it WRONG. CJ DUB 03:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The August 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Severus Snape

Thank you for commenting on my talk page. But I think you might be over-doing it. Be bold. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Reagan and the Holocaust

I still don't even know what the point of the paragraph is, and it seems really meaningless to me, but ok. Happyme22 00:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree with you completley. I am more on the side of the Reagans than you, but I know that he was just a man and did make mistakes (I think even Nancy knows that!). So, I want the real story of the man to be heard, mistakes and all, but I don't want a largely what I would consider to be trivial paragraph in there. I'll look some stuff up about it and give you some links to follow; you can do the same, then we'll write a paragraph that will work! Give me a some time though, because I've been kind of busy lately (in the real world). Happyme22 00:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Great! Happyme22 00:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Talk page - Happy's latest

Arcayne, Please see the Reagan talk page for Happy's latest - and documented - lie. You can pass off my attitude as "anger/etc" as you did on a talk page, but you haven't tried to work with this user for the past seven or eight months, and you haven't experienced the level of BS that I have with him. I hope you will be able to see what he is doing clearly, especially after this - what is actually a lie about something very small, and about which he didn't have to lie, but is indicative of the way in which he operates. Info999 00:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well your full of crap, and your personal attacks don't solve anything (Info, that is). And Arcayne and I have worked together longer than you and I have (see Nancy Reagan). Happyme22 02:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So you think I should add back Info's comments on my talk page? I'm just wondering why, because I don't know what RfC is lol. Happyme22 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne - "AGF" does not apply when you can absolutely no longer assume good faith - when someone clearly lies. Happy has done two things that are against policy: sockpuppeting when it helps his case to pretend to be someone else, and then lying about it. He said that he wasn't the one who reverted your edit, and it was clearly him, using a sockpuppet. If he apologized for it, or even came clean and admitted it, and I kept mentioning it, I could see someone telling me to "move on." I wrote one - one - edit about Happy's lie. You can choose to ignore it, but it would be hypocritical of you to then hold anyone else to wiki's standards - like your threats to block Spooner for doing something far less serious than Happy did. Happy lied - like he has before, only this time he's been caught red-handed. Info999 05:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Weel Arcayne, looking back, it appears I did lie, but by accident and freaked out when Info accused me because I had no idea what he was talking about. Here's what I wrote on his talk page that will hopefully clear things up:

"Ok I want to end this little endless feud we've been having for months now. You want me to say I lied; ok I'll say it. I did lie. You want to know why? I used my IP address at first because I forgot to log in, and I removed the uncited work because this is a featued article. I suppose I could have added a cn tag or a vc tag, but those don't look good in FAs, so until a citation could be found to cite the new uncited content, I removed it under my IP address. Later I found a comment on the talk page about it when I was signed in as Happyme22. I saw it and I only had a minute, so I quickly responded saying an IP did it, and that there was no POV. Looking back, I now see that I was the one who removed it, so being a good person I'll admit that I was being hypocritical. This is not an excuse: I've been tired latley, and actually forgot. This is Wikipedia, but it seems like I've just commited an act that's going to send me straight to hell. Again, looking back, yes, I lied. I didn't know what you were talking about at first, so I removed your personal attack from my talk page." Happyme22 05:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently he's reported me and this whole thing is now going through the "wiki process" because he is so vindictive. Happyme22 05:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy: please read your talk page. I think you'll understand, and hopefully we can move on from this. Info999 06:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Operation Spooner

Ok if I revert him one more time on Ronald Reagan, I'm going to violate the three-revert rule. He refuses to start a discussion for some reason, and says that there is concensus to keep his econ. philosophy in the lead....pls help, and I think it might be time to get an admin. involved. Happyme22 02:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have some time please comment here so we can end this war with Operation Spooner. Happyme22 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And I agree - I'm done with Spooner. The only thing he's causing is the FA to become more and more less stable. I hope he's been reported. Happyme22 23:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Severus Snape

Sorry about my comment...I think I was a bit too abrupt. I did appreciate you 'warning' me before you 'edited me'. My two pet peeves of WP are a) the vandals, and b) the timid editors who endlessly 'discuss' on the talk pages but add no constructive edits. I have a thick skin. I don't mind being edited if an article is actually progressing and improving! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore

Why do you think that we need an image of Richard Harris on Albus Dumbledore's page? He is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan Stancu (talk • contribs) 16:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Creative Commons

I dislike the phrase "meat puppet" - sounds kind of gross. I picture a tube sock filled with hamburger; decaying hamburger. What do you want to know about CC? I'll try to answer. --David Shankbone 00:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work!

Hey, good work on the Lennon page. You kept a cool head. I appreciate collaborating with people who can do that. Thanks! R. Baley 05:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, the troll thing was over the top, but frankly, I've seen so many people lose it at that point, I was amazed at the zen. He's pretty new though, so I have hope. . . as to the other questions, I'm American, and I'd be happy to help out with picture/image stuff. I don't claim a whole lot of experience though. . .most of it comes from trying to be really careful once, with an upload that wasn't mine. As to your final question, I am curious . . .to what specific end? R. Baley 06:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 2 ?!

We do not create articles with titles like Archive 2. In any case we do not need archive pages of this sort since the entire history is available here. -- RHaworth 23:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Perhaps you might set about un-clusterf**king the page, since thigns are royally screwed with all your redirecting and all... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

Arcayne, can I suggest seeking a clean slate with Hotcop2? I think that if your additions of {{cn}} tags are disputed, you should initiate discussion with the other editor(s) about WP:V, WP:CITE, and so forth. Is there no chance that both you and Hotcop2 can start over? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you don't realize it, but your comment after mine seems to have a condescending tone. I'm not sure if your response, the way it's written, is going to help matters. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude... this wasn't necessary. Seeing that is his/her sole edit, please use a template or leave a message encouraging him/her to understand that Wikipedia can be a place of positive contributions. I've read a few backgrounds of some editors who initially started out with vandalism, but then realized the prospect of this place and started being actual contributors. Try to be welcoming as much as possible until the vandalism turns severe. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, Arcy - the kid is probably like 10. Tvoz |talk 18:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh - hahahaha - neither one - I was talking about the Hufflepuff kid with the "penni" - that one is probably 10. (But I see you fixed that already.) The Lennon-Pang warriors are not 10. I think we need to strike a balance here, if I may be serious for a moment - yes, we need citations, I agree totally. But I think you got carried away with the tags, and all that does is piss people off and then they retaliate. Junior high comes to mind. My view is that an overall tag or two and specific tags on a few egregious problems (although if they're really egregious they might need to be removed for BLP concerns) especially tags at specific direct quotes - and then chill a bit and let people try to find some references. But I think I've said that already. Tvoz |talk 18:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagan article

Let's get it settled, one way or another. Please see the Reagan talk page for my suggestion, and please comment appropriately. Thanks. Info999 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ya all the stuff that nut wanted cited in Reagan is pretty-much common sense, or has cites in the article. Adding cn tags to the lead, though, is really a no-no. I think they're all taken care of. Happyme22 00:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne - I won't be able to be on wiki much, if at all, in the next week or so; could you please handle reporting spooner for violations? Thanks in advance, if you have the time. Info999 22:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Lead

I've added a few things to discussion thread 10 on the popularity issue. Feel free to comment on it or move it to a new thread for more visibility.Gmb92 05:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

DBZ

Apparently you've worked with Folken de Fanel in the past. Any suggestions on how to get through to him? He's been blanking information from The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and the Montreal Gazette about the history of the Dragon Ball Z film project. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Already tried. He's past the 3RR limit for Dragon Ball Z -- if he removes the content now that I've warned him, a report will need to be filed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And you're forgetting to mention, Erik, that you're actually trying to force disputed content into the article. In fact, that you are taking content from an article that is apparently going to be deleted soon (if the Afd discussion doesn't change much from now) because of its unreliablility.

You're forgetting to mention that what you're trying to add cannot be substanciated by other sources, which anyway tend to prove that those statements from the Montreal Gazette are not to be taken seriously...Folken de Fanel 22:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't argue with his circuitous logic. He's disputing Variety when it says, "Screenwriter Ben Ramsey has inked a half-million-dollar deal to adapt "Dragonball Z" for 20th Century Fox... Project's development is being supervised by 20th Century Fox production executive Peter Kang." He thinks that information has to come directly from the studio, and doesn't believe it to be the case here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Folken, the news report is reliable and noteworthy on its face. In fact, the citation is perhaps more noteworhty in that it was prepared by a neutral party as opposed to the studio marketing wonks. Folken, you should probably allow it. I know Erik, and he is not haphazard about these things, and if (and when) something more solid comes up to either complement or replace it, he will. That's who he is. As I've told you before, you need to work with people, and not in spite of them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, but there's nothing about "studio marketing wonks" in the policies or guidelines. The fact is, none of this is reliable, since Fox said they didn't confirm it.

Now, you see, it's not about me only, it's also about the contributor who's not even waiting the AfD closure to impose his choices...Talk about "working in spite of people"...Folken de Fanel 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Folken says that the Variety article needs to be proven correct by the studio -- something like a studio executive saying, "Yes, we hired Ben Ramsey for $500,000 to write a script, and we have Peter Kang, our production executive, producing it." Basically, a primary source to prove the information of a secondary source. I've tried to explain that verifiability doesn't work like that, but I haven't succeeded. I've done a bad job conveying a cooperative tone, it seems... by the way, here is the AfD if you didn't see it yet. Seems likely that the content will be merged, anyway. I asked a couple of editors to re-evaluate their recommendations in the light of my clean rewrite to use the trade papers instead of IGN and the like. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I know you

Do I know you from Talk:Severus Snape?--Rory666 04:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You do? I only think I know you from an edit on the Snape page, when you asked if someone was talking about you... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

AFD complications

I made a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#You_almost_need_a_degree for you to open up two windows, so you can toggle back and forth. Bearian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 18:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Kane

hi again... see this - it's a good faith request. We can discuss over there. thx Tvoz |talk 22:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement on Ronald Reagan

I have listed the disagreement on the Admin's notice board. You can comment here if you so wish.--Rise Above The Vile 02:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The admin who summarily protected the page appears to have waded in without spending any time understanding the problem (the earlier admin seemed to be trying to do that). unfortunate. many admins often take on so much that they believe they can swoop in and "fix" everything in 2 seconds. Info999 16:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left a long statement on the admin noticeboard. If you get some time you might want to comment on it so we can pursuade the admins to actually do something to solve the dispute instead of just protecting the page. Yeah, the page protection might do something, but if we can stop Spooner the problem is gone...and he doesn't plan on stopping! Happyme22 18:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my bad..."push" was not the right word. I sure hope the admins do something, though... Happyme22 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Durmstrang

Thanks for the assist. I've been flabbergasted over this! :) faithless (^speak) 14:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

By the time you're done, I'm afraid there won't be any article left! :P faithless (^speak) 14:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps two, and we could place it beside the first, only slightly higher, so we get the two-level effect with a little path running down the middle? :)faithless (^speak) 14:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne why are you always so insulting towards me. I deleted it not because it would make me a better editor ((which I do admit i need to become)Idon't know how to add sources to that thing at the bottom) but because of the insults from nowhere. --Demyx9 14:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok if you say you were attacking the statements i shall AGF ((assume good faith)hope i got that right)and believe you,although altogeter you did call me a non native english speaking cruft adding ass clown even though i am from England and all of my family from england and scotland except by uncle who's from italy but that's by marriage.

One final thing as for I am a good editor I am not, I can't even add sources to that list of sources at the bottom of the page.

I suppose you are right and I won't add in Northern Russia anymore even though I personally believe the facts are there.

Your friend --Demyx9 15:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

14:54 comes before 14:53 now, does it? faithless (^speak) 15:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you can't back-track now! haha faithless (^speak) 15:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I done fix-ed my watch my granpappy done give me, and noted the discrep-, the deskrepans - the difference. Grr. LOL - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I can understand the comment about the native speaking. I am really new to wikipedia so i don't know all these terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demyx9 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Someone gave you a barnstar for improving vandals?! faithless (^speak) 07:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha no, I think you misunderstand me. I was referring to the first of your barnstar, the "Original Barnstar" that you were given "For improving and fighting vandals on 300." Just the way it's phrased, it makes it sound like you improved the vandals, then you fought them. :P faithless (^speak) 19:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Narcissa-Yeah, I noticed that after making the edit, but figured someone else would fix it for me. And so you have! faithless (^speak) 21:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Operation Spooner

I've come to the conclusion that he's not going to give up, the admins aren't going to block him, and I have to say he makes a good point when he says being against communism was only half of it. So, we've compromised. Check out the talk page now, and if you hate it please say so, but I don't think we're going to get any better. Happyme22 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert Downey, Jr.

Yesterday, I expanded a link to an outside source for a quote in this article. I didn't add a source to it, I changed it from an in-article outlink to a reference. You came in and reverted it with this comment: "rm unsourced - also, don't mark an edit as minor unless it is TRULY minior, like a spelling error or whatnot." I'd like to know a) what was unsourced about it, since it was an expansion of a source already there, and b) what the minor edit comment was about. Wildhartlivie 04:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Highlander (film)

Well after a couple of weeks of keeping the stopgap image on the highlander page I am going to change the image back to the poster that we were discussing. Since I've submitted what I believe to be undeniable proof that it is the original poster. But I am not going to change it immediately since I would like for you to show me evidence that this is not the original poster. So please get back to me about this, as I know that it is of interest to you. I hope you don't mind that I'm being direct with you on this matter, but I thought that you'd appreciate a heads-up before I changed the poster... Talk to you later :-) -- UKPhoenix79 09:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert Downey, Jr.

Thanks for clarifying that!! Wildhartlivie 17:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of act of kindness

As a thankyou for helping out the other day with that help kit.

--Demyx9 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Those help things.

Is it alright if I give those help things to my twin. (Axel8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demyx9 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Tax cuts

Well it could be slightly reworded for potential POV issues. Although some websites have it named as a 25% or 26% tax cut, others have it listed as the largest in American history; see [7], [8], [9], and [10]. It should be probably be reworded because of potential POV. Happyme22 00:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea, especially when some of those links:

1. there is no prevenance of the statements made in InfoPlease.

2. In the conclusion, Orszag puts the Bush tax cuts ahead of Reagan's by a whisker, but only by such - which invalidates the claim 'the largest'

3 & 4. These are both conservative websites, and facts from here about Reagan are likely exaggerated (ie, the term, 'across the board' means that the tax break was an average figure. Those in higher tax brackets received a higher percentage of the tax break than those in lower ones). Look at it another way: how eager would you be to trust a liberal website that made negative claims about Reagan? My point exactly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I like your version, but see my comments on the talk page. I hope this can be over soon! Happyme22 00:37, 12 September 2007 (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/300 (film), 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.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagan

Hi. I was intrigued by this edit, with the summary 'fix', as you reversed simplifications I had made to the infobox. These are not important enough to argue very long over, but I wondered if you disagreed with the changes I made. --John 18:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I may reintroduce the simplifications I made then. --John 21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done so. Thank you for your apology, which was nevertheless not entirely necessary; the change I made was very minor, but accords (I think) with our MoS. Best wishes, --John 21:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ya well i forgot the topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by BSAidan (talk • contribs) 22:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, would you mind putting your reply to me on the Reagan talk page where my question was asked? Thanks!--Paul 19:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with discussing proposed edits on the article talk page, and don't mind having the text criticized - after all this is Wikipedia, and I've been here long enough (July 2005) to know how it works. Since the proposed text is public, and your dissatisfaction with it is also on the talk page, it seems un-wiki-like to hide the details, which are just as revealing about your opinions, as you feel that my edits are about mine! Thanks. BTW, regarding "idolatry," though I am old enough to have voted for Regan both times, and while I voted in both the 1980 and the 1984 elections, I didn't vote for Reagan. You should be more careful when making assumptions about the motivation of editors. Remember: "assume good faith," and "it is all about the text - ONLY the text." My motivations are clarity and accuracy. --Paul 19:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, are you going to comment on the "supposedly" edit? Thanks, --Paul 03:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Connor edit

Here are the diffs between your last edit and several edits made by an anon IP [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormin' Foreman (talk • contribs) 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Great work, I didnt know you were going to do it so soon. I'd would have helped you out :( Stormin' Foreman 23:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

More Spooner

You're not going to believe this - Spooner's at it again! I've already had to revert him twice and I've left a message on his page. You know the rest of it.... Happyme22 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne: I've asked Cowman to block Spooner. Perhaps if you get a minute, you could weigh in on that request? Thanks. Info999 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter

I've been dealing with r/l and multiple disruptive editors, and apologize that I let this drop off the even horizon. Do you want to wade in again and see if we can hammer out a consensus, or are you also busy with other things? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Highlander (film)

Please stop vandalising the Highlander page by deleting legitimate DVD covers that are included in the article and properly referenced. It is becoming very apparent that you are attempting to put the picture of highlander that you personally like into the article non matter what; and the logs show this behavior. If you continue to persist with this course of action I will have you blocked for Vandalism, Thank You. FrankWilliams 20:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You asked me about speedy-deleting such an image, but images with disputed fair use claims cannot be speedy deleted, per WP:CSD. Use the template {{subst:dfu|concern}} , replacing the word "concern" with your reason. Then are then subject to discussion. 21:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• The image definitely had a duplicate tag on it, not an invalid-fair-use tag. I've undone that mistake -- someone else will need to look at the fair use issue. NawlinWiki 23:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I happened to see the warnings, and ventured over. I thought maybe it was just one DVD cover that kept making its way onto the page...I didn't realize it was a whole gallery of them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My edits

I'm sorry, how is telling the truth "vandalism"?

Harry Potter and his friends ARE spoofed in "Epic Movie". That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

I added it because the page didn't mention it, when I think it should.

Before I came in, the pages for the Pevensie brothers from "The Chronicles of Narnia" all said that they were spoofed in "Epic MoviE". Would you consider that "vandalism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustinaldo (talk • contribs) 23:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Ronald Reagan. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Ronald Reagan).

IP address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.228.57.125

Blocking admin: Vassyana

Block reason: edit warring

Block originally applied to: Arcayne

I would like to ask to be unblocked, as my edits were within the Exception rule of 3RRapplied the edits that I did to the article to protect it from POV-editing in a biography wherein the subject of the biography has living heirs who are affected by negative information placed in the article (Exception #6 in the 3RR guidelines) The heirs in question include both a wife, sone and co-workers and associates that are both alive and persons having BLPs themselves.

My edits reflected a move to restore a more neutral version of the article prior to the partisan edits (as evidenced by the lengthy discussions in the Discussion page for the article on more subjects than the one arising here).

As well, the edit summaries of these removed posts were harrassment and personal attacks on me, which is yet another exception (#5) allowing for the removal of the post. While the harrassment remains in the edit history, we cannot allow an editor's attacks to piggy-back in atop the same edit, reapplied continuously. Lastly, my edit summaries requested that the philosophy of civility be folowed, and that after being reverted the 2nd time, that the matter be brought to the Discussion page of the article, so as to resolve any problems or correct any misunderstandings. The editor who's partisan edits I was reverting for the good of the BLP-related biography, refused to do that until assuring that their partisan edit remained in place.

Perhaps I was a bit more strict in my application of the exception rule in reverting, and should have asked an admin to step in on the process, but its my understanding that BLPs deserve the highest level of attention in Wikipedia, requiring immediate attention. I do understand that edit-warring is in fact harmful, but I reiterate that in practically all of my edit summaries, I requested that the version in place should remain until Discussion had occurred on the subject, which the partisan editor refused until the second request for Discussion. I also reiterate that my edits were not to reinforce any point of view but were instead to preserve the article until discussion could address the harmful aspects of the partisan edits on a BLP-related biography. I do accept the responsibility for not seeking admin assistance immediately, but I do not feel that that failure constitutes a blocking offense. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock declined. You were blatantly edit-warring, pure and simple. Sorry, no way you can invoke BLP here. What you reverted was the claim that Reagan "famously predict[ed] communism would collapse." First, there is no conceivable way this statement could be construed as libellous or disparaging to any living person. It's a simple historical claim and as such subject to normal rules of dispute resolution. It's only about him, not about his living relatives, heirs or whatever. Second, the claim that your reverts were justified because the other person had used aggressive edit summaries is laughable. There was nothing harassing, aggressive or incivil in those edit summaries. They were content-oriented, matter-of-fact arguments. And even if not, why on earth would somebody's edit summaries give you justification for revert-warring? As for your third argument, you don't get to demand the other side stop edit-warring if you yourself continue edit-warring. It's not up to you to decide when the other person has to go to the talk page, and the other person's failing to do so doesn't give you carte blanche.

Seriously, I've seen many lame excuses for edit-warring, but this is quite possibly the lamest and at the same time most arrogant and most self-righteous I've come across. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Could FPS have been any more dismissively rude and inappropriate in denying your request to be unblocked? Things got out of hand, and both you and Paul should not have reverted, but this admin seems to be suffering from a shortage of humility and good sense and a surfeit of powermadness. Really, really inappropriate way to have handled this, FPS. Hang in there Arcayne - maybe you can appeal to Cowman109, who was at least civil and thoughtful, and understands what has been happening to this article. Info999 22:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, FutPerf had his ass handed to him once before by me in a dispute, kind of an unusual situation. This appears to be his petty little revenge; otherwise, his neutrality thing would have been working enough to know that he shouldn't be reviewing any block with someone he got twisted by. A I've commented before - and strangely enough, about FuturePerfect - not all admins have their hearts (or heads) in the right place.

Perhaps an admin who I doesn't have a personal beef with me could chime in?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arcayne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to ask to be unblocked, as my edits were within the Exception rule of 3RRapplied the edits that I did to the article to protect it from POV-editing in a biography wherein the subject of the biography has living heirs who are affected by negative information placed in the article (Exception #6 in the 3RR guidelines) The heirs in question include both a wife, sone and co-workers and associates that are both alive and persons having BLPs themselves.

My edits reflected a move to restore a more neutral version of the article prior to the partisan edits (as evidenced by the lengthy discussions in the Discussion page for the article on more subjects than the one arising here). As well, the edit summaries of these removed posts were harrassment and personal attacks on me, which is yet another exception (#5) allowing for the removal of the post. While the harrassment remains in the edit history, we cannot allow an editor's attacks to piggy-back in atop the same edit, reapplied continuously. Lastly, my edit summaries requested that the philosophy of civility be folowed, and that after being reverted the 2nd time, that the matter be brought to the Discussion page of the article, so as to resolve any problems or correct any misunderstandings. The editor who's partisan edits I was reverting for the good of the BLP-related biography, refused to do that until assuring that their partisan edit remained in place. Perhaps I was a bit more strict in my application of the exception rule in reverting, and should have asked an admin to step in on the process, but its my understanding that BLPs deserve the highest level of attention in Wikipedia, requiring immediate attention. I do understand that edit-warring is in fact harmful, but I reiterate that in practically all of my edit summaries, I requested that the version in place should remain until Discussion had occurred on the subject, which the partisan editor refused until the second request for Discussion. I also reiterate that my edits were not to reinforce any point of view but were instead to preserve the article until discussion could address the harmful aspects of the partisan edits on a BLP-related biography. I do accept the responsibility for not seeking admin assistance immediately, but I do not feel that that failure constitutes a blocking offense. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The text you removed ([12]) was clearly not a BLP problem. The text you removed also did not constitute a personal attack or harassment. Exception #6 only applies in a user's own space. As the exceptions you cited clearly do not apply, your violation of 3RR was not justified, and the block was proper.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

-- But|seriously|folks  03:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

re User:Axel8 and User:Demyx9

Can you confirm that (it is your understanding that) they are twins? I am seeing accusations of sockpuppetry. If they are zygotic twins it would explain much of the similarity of user pages and editing interests... It is a bit delicate, because I am looking at some complaints of vandalism and am minded to act upon it - but will not factor in sock/meatpuppetry at the moment. LessHeard vanU 21:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Per WP:AGF I am proceeding on the basis that they are twins, and am offering any help I can give on that basis. I recognise that twins are likely to share much more in the way of same interests, so there are potential problems - but perhaps more with other editors than the twins. The help I have offered to both of them is, of course, available to you should you take an interest in either or both in their editing. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 09:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've dropped the twins a note on their talkpages re your message to me. I put a twins userbox on their pages, too. I think you talk easier with them than me and would be grateful if you would continue to look over them. If they, and you, get any hassle from any others then call on me and I will do what I can. Thanks for your help. LessHeard vanU 20:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits of Voldemort article

If you check the talk page of the Voldemort article, you will now find an argument against you removing my edits to the article, that you could not possibly contradict. I will now add my edit one last time, unless you provide me with a good reason not to. Wikiburger 16:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

I usually try to stay away from controversial articles and their content disputes, but I gave it a shot. Good luck settling things down! -- But|seriously|folks  17:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

vandalism charge

I use Popups to help me quickly navigate around Wikipedia and see recent changes. When I hovered over your Reagan edit, the summary diff showed the men/San Francisco restore, but did not show the Reaganomics change. So, I erroneously assumed that you were restoring the vandalism and using the edit summary of needing a talk page consensus to needle me. This was a stupid assumption, and certainly did not assume good faith. I apologize for the quick and angry response.--Paul 20:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I got your message, belatedly

Tungsten Steel CORE ammo was used in the hollywood shootout. Lead core with steel jacketing is a stupid idea which is why it isn't done. It would ruin barrels in short order. As I've noticed, the current wiki page reflects this and has kept my correction. Whether or not you think I am rude, I was right and somebody changed one of my technical corrections back to technical stupidity until I fixed it again. I find that offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.28.207 (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'd appreciate it if you stopped vandalizing my userpage. Thank you. Operation Spooner 15:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's called removing personal attacks, you silly boy. I guess I can take the other route. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's called vandalism of someone's userpage. You did not remove any personal attacks. Operation Spooner 15:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggested you ask an admin to help you understand NPA, as you apparently have an inordinate amount of difficulty with absorbing any information presented to you in a normal fashion, and I simply don't have enough hand-puppets or action figures to dumb it down any further for you. As you have failed to identify how you might just be misinterpreting wiki policy yet again, I think we're going to have to ask someone else to expose you to a more persuasive argument as to the repercussions of flagrantly violating WP policy. As for removing the personal attacks, I wouldn't dream of removing them again. I think your edit history is going to work wonders, all by its lonesome. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Operation Spooner 15:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, get some popcorn; this is like watching a car drive off a cliff. You know you shouldn't watch, but you cannot tear your eyes away from the calamity. lol... :D - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Highlander: The Source character articles

Should any of the new characters deserve an article?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Coulter edit

The edits you reverted do not bear on the disagreement that has lately resurfaced. They only slightly refine what stood, without changing its meaning or content. Please leave them be. Also, please avoid such an imperious and condescending tone in edit-summaries.
Cordially, Lonewolf BC 17:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not playing "semantic games", nor trying to side-step anything. The edits did not serve to advance any cause, nor did they have any bearing that I can see on the lately re-surfaced disagreement. They were no more than slight refinements to the writing. Whereas I've called (in edit-summaries) for discussion before the making of any subtantial changes to the standing consensus in relation to the lately resurfaced disagreement, I'm scarcely going to circumvent my own call for discussion. However, this business having brought the section to my attention again, I noticed that it could use a little sprucing up, so I did that. If you have some objection to any specific part of those edits, feel free to take that up on the talk-page, but I don't see how, for instance, merging the two footnotes relating to John Cloud's remarks in his Time article, or refining the CBC link make any difference beyond putting the same material into a slightly better form.
As for your tone, I don't want to dwell on that and I suppose that you don't mean it to come across as it does, but it continues to come across in the same troublesome way -- a bit sarcastic, condescending and officious. I hope you will consider that observation.
-- Lonewolf BC 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian?

I posted a reply on my talk page. But I was just curious about the Egyptian reference. Brian Pearson 22:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I do not think we need more citations in the Voldemort article, to prove that he is a psychopath - as this is already mentioned 3 times throughout. Wikiburger 13:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Help

This guy on our talk pages less hard than u said that we aren't allowed to edit the same pages and like and he said something about puupetry we don't really understand, we asked him to help us but he hasn't replied so we thought we'd turn to you.

Firstly there was some guy (Sceptre) who accused us of vandalism, but we would never ever do that, he said it was because he blindly insists that a group called Scooch who represented us in Eurovision came 23/24 even though we both saw it and they came 22/42 and just because we don't have any website proof and the fact he hates the band he called us vandals.

Then becuase we aggreed and he felt upset that he was wrong he reported us and I think he called me and Demyx a pupets (we're not sure we don't understand)

Then this Less hard guy says he might ban us but he doesn't think we are pupets

And then we saw on som talkpage and they called us Zygopatic (don't have a clue) and you defended us ,,,thanks.

Are they calling us pupets because we ask you for help and call us that because we listen to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel8 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi like Axel said all these people are throughing accusations and they don't even get our user names right. I though maybe you could explain to us cos youre really helpful and we gave you that brainstar of kindness as a thanks.

They talk in such hardlanguage and they say stuff like we're your pupets cause we listen to you or something like taht (that's the only reason we can think of.)

And it's all this Sceptres fault as he's just upset that we were both right and so he's done some ban thing so we can't agree, and he's an admin so its all right for him but he just doesn't want us to apply for admin next year so he must spread lies becuase otherwise it will be 2 admins against 1 and just so that even if we were cleared we managed to become admins we now have to disagree with everyone so we don't like pupets,,,,,

Axel's jus looked it up and he sys basically what it means is hes calling us sheep.

As you know loads of stuff is they're like anything we can do to stop this instead of us having to be seperate.

We even joined the Harry potter project so that if we helped with something big like that people might like us more is there like anything on wikipedia that's really respectable so Sceptre will leave us alone.

Ps he's changed it back to his wrong version and if we edit it back will we get banned.

We've just learned how to settle an edit conflict. If someone edits while you edit you have to find a special box and it merges 2 pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demyx9 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

When you say nip in the bud do you mean kick us out PLEASE DON'T —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demyx9 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

--Demyx9 17:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC) forgot to sign we got in troulbe for not doing that aswell sorry!!! --Demyx9 17:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

ps do you have to sign after all of your cooments or just every time you save! --Demyx9 17:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

... for the advice and tomorow we're going to have to write a list and then split it in half(it will be hard to remember though) we decided that every month we could swap lists or would that be wrong. Sorry aswell if we start become annoying it must be hard to have to explain all of this to us, not that you have to. --Axel8 18:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

P.s would it kill you to (A) send a message to me as well or if you're too busy just copy and paste it on to mine,,, after all I'm older than Demyx by 2 minutes so i should get one more than him and once again if you're too busy just forget Luke

B) Call me Axel8 or just Axel it's not AJAX, Axel is this cool guy from Kingdom Hearts 2 and Demyx is another one.

Once again thanks.

Hah you forgot to sign and we won't be forgetting Demyx in messages you did the right thing, forget Jake.

Thanks.

Request for Mediation

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/300 (film). For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 04:19, 19 September 2007 (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.

Reagan

Let me say that what you wrote was a piece of art! haha. Likewise, I truly respect you and feel that you are out to help the article, and you are pursuading me more and more. Let me explain my reasoning:

You speak in a hypothetical terms when you say "what if he didn't become president?" But that's just it; he did become president. It is arguable that Ronald Reagan's presidency was the most important part of his life. Yes, it was only eight years out of ninety-three, but it was arguably the most important eight years. Most people from other countries didn't recognize his name until he became president. Things that he did as president changed the world, just like Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. I am worried that what you plan on undertaking (i.e. major rewrites of all of the sections to portray "Reagan: the man") is going to spark heated discussions, edit wars and conflicts, and admins will deem the article unstable and revoke its FA status. I know it sounds like that's all I care about; it is a major part (I spent 6 months trying and trying!), but I do want the article to be the best it can be. If what you have in mind is doing what Info999 recommended to the "1980 presidential campaign" section, to all the sections, than I would not support your actions. Removing all quotes and facts not pertaining to "Reagan: the man" is something I think is stupid and premature. You cannot have Ronald Reagan without portraying his presidency: what happened in his presidency, why it happened (in brevity), what caused it to happen (in brevity), what the outxome was, why Reagan was involved, etc. I think you plan on removing some of those because "they are already said in the 'mother and father' articles." But doing that, like Paul.h said, removes all engaging prose and leaves the article much shorter with dry facts only. An FA cannot have only dry facts but rather engaging sentences with very well-written prose. Do you understand where I'm coming from? All the sections do not need major rewrites. Sure, add more about "the man" as Stans suggested; that will help the article and is a good idea, accomplishing more of your ideas, but not taking away from what is currently written. Maybe, when the time comes and if they are good and will help the article, I'll support your actions.

Well I've vented for quite a while haha! I know your a good person Arcayne, and want the best for this article, but can you understand where I'm coming from? Please get back to me. Thanks, Happyme22 05:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I tried to put all everyone wanted in a slightly different and shorter version of the lead displayed on Reagan's talk page. I've got wht Spooner wants (with the laissez-faire, which is probably a better generalization of his policies anyway); I've got what Paul wants; I've kept with most of your original ideas; I like it- see what you think. Thanks, Happyme22 04:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Lennon

I think the non-free image argument is a losing one, although those arguments still rage. In this case, I think the free one would win out since it is not horrendous. Look at Drew Barrymore. This was the photo up before I replaced it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Drew_Barrymore1989.jpg

Now this is the photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Barrymore
The Lennon photo is better than the 1989 Barrymore photo, and the non-free argument lost out there, I believe. It's a relatively settled issue, which is why I spend so much time trying to take decent free images. --David Shankbone 23:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Lennon

...was murdered. How is saying so not neutral? It's a statement of fact. Popkultur 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations in lead

Hi. I noticed on Savage 10FP you moved a citation from a lead to another paragraph (where it doesn't actually fit, it's a section on stocks). You mentioned it was per WP:LEAD but I don't see there that citations shouldn't be used in the lead, can you point me to the right area so I understand the policy/guidelines better? The section on Citations_in_the_lead_section seems to say that citations SHOULD be used in the lead. Perhaps there is another area with more info? Arthurrh 19:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A little something

		The Special Barnstar
		For helping out with the twins generally, but especially for never once mentioning that I was the admin who stained your blocklog with a 15 minute "timeout" a while back (which I had forgotten about) but just got on with doing the right thing. Respect is due. LessHeard vanU 13:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a "chick magnet"..? er... if you say so! (ps. I also approve of your pro choice comment on your userpage). LessHeard vanU 22:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

AXEL8 + DEMYX9 VS sceptre

Remember our dear little friend sceptre who reported us for no reason. Well now he's editing this article and now its really negative. So what did we do, scanned the rule book and found lost of rules. We went onto the talkpage of the article to discuss how we think it could have a more neutral point of view, but apart from this guy and us no-one's gone near the article since may or June.

So we took it to his talk page and e started talking all technical, but this time we understood it more, he told us that this is how it was and if we touch it "It will be considered VANDALISM a word he shouts far too often.

So we thought we'll edit slightly a bit each day just so that it's lees biased and he won't notice but he did and changed it back.

He says this group came 23rd out of 24, when we point out that 42 competed he says, any attempt to change this will be considered VANDALISM you have been warned.

Also he cites a webstie that concerns the tie break rules for 10th place and first place but nothing about any others.

Now he says that all of Malta only voted for the United Kingdom as a protest. The website he sites is just one mans opinion.

Please tell us what to do next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel8 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle

Regarding User:Sceptre and the twins, I don't know much about Twinkle but it appears to be a Java Script application that some editors use for semi-automated tasks like "undo" (in fact, closer to an Admins "rollback" function) and reporting vandalism - which is where I have noticed it. It allows an editor to do a lot of mundane tasks very quickly.

I have never used it because a) the term Java Script means nothing to me, and b) I make enough mistakes at manual speed, I don't need a script to magnify things. Anyhow, there is a link in my text above if you want to have a look at it. Once the twins are up to speed on WP they might like to try it out, I think the two of them could be pretty effective on vandal/new page patrol. LessHeard vanU 08:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

LEAD

I have commented. I said no coherent objection remains because no coherent objection remains. It's strange, really. People seem to agree that quotations, contentious BLP info, and statements like to be challenged should be sourced. So where's the dispute? It's just a vague dislike sans examples. Marskell 10:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What is this?

Diff. Part of what being an admin is about is enforcing policy. So, for instance, if on a guideline people want to contradict policy you ought to point out the error. WP:V does not have a lead exception. WP:BLP does not have a lead exception. There is no lead exception.

I have twice now asked: "Are you suggesting that any of quotations, contentious BLP info, and statements likely to be challenged should not be sourced in the lead?" If you're saying "no they shouldn't", you're violating policy. And it's quite irrelevant if you claim consensus on a guideline talk because you'll still be violating policy.

You are suggesting that leads should be written in such a way that citations are little necessary. I agree with that. I was arguing that point months ago on WT:LEAD. But that is a description not a prescription. That leads often have little or no citation is an outcome of how leads ought to be written, not a rule that must be followed. The rules, in fact, say that leads must sometimes have citations.

Shall we glance around? Why does Intelligent design have so many citations in the lead? Because it has so many statements likely to be challenged. Is it violating the rules? No, it's following the rules. How about this one. Is there any way Anti-Americanism might have a remotely stable lead without citations? No, there is not. This idea that all leads can be constructed to avoid citations is simply an error.

I'll save the NPA lecture. Marskell 13:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, WP:LEAD is a guideline. Perhaps this is part of the confusion. WP:V and WP:BLP are policy. Where a guideline contradicts a policy, the policy is trump. That's been a principal point since that thread started. "Well, we don't do that because it violates the policy you are trying to change" is indeed a circuitous argument—but it's not the argument I'm making. You want a lead exception, you need to go to the policies and work one up. WP:LEAD is not a policy.

I'm not stalking in the slightest, incidentally; I looked at your contribs to see if you were still editing after I posted to WT:LEAD (which I do often) and noticed the change. Marskell 07:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries; I don't have any reason to doubt your good faith.

Should we strive to have or not have lead citations? We're not striving for either. We create a full lead that introduces and briefly summarizes the main points, preparing the reader for the body; we do that while following policy. If in doing so it seems no citations are necessary, fine. If, as with Intelligent Design, editors feel that they need to cite every sentence, that's fine too. The amount of inline citations—zero, two, twenty—is not an end-in-itself. As I say above, it's an outcome of writing a good lead. There's no one size fits all. Certainly some leads have little or none; others have quite a lot. Both may be appropriate depending on the subject matter. Do remember the section states: "Because leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, lead information on non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source." There is a caveat in place. Marskell 07:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan's talk page

Hey there. This might be a stupid question but I just realized that on almost every other article's talk page, there isn't a specific section for "What was archived," but you added one on Talk:Nancy Reagan. I actually think this article is just about up to FA standards, and I don't know how they are going to feel about this. It also seems like it's taking up a lot of space and it's kind of pointless to write all that when they can just click on "Archive 1" if they want to view the archives. I know you do something like that on your talk page, but that's a user talk and not an article talk. I just wanted to get your motives. Thanks, Happyme22 00:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. That sounds helpful! Happyme22 00:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem

No problem, the Hamlet article is gradually shaping up, so it may be sooner than I think. Sorry I got snippy. The people who really know how to do things should probably be extra careful not to discourage each other. It's the people who don't have a clue that we should really be concerned about, I suppose. Wrad 04:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A general note of thank you for your select descripition (gasps for breath) on origional research

i think my previous note has been deleted, but nevertheless thank you for explaining to me what OR is. i never really understood till recently that WP is second source, or in that matter what second source meant =p. I had all kinds of people tell me, "what you are saying is O.R and it isnt welcome in wikipedia!" Youve actually gone to the length of explaining why its O.R, in clear terms to me Thanx dude.

PS your arguments are really profound, you ever think of politics? addy-gAddy-g-indahouse 11:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

An image has to be pertinent to an article, and add something to it. That's the rule. It should illustrate a concept, person or thing in the article. I'm not sure what the deal is with Flickr, because I never upload from there. --David Shankbone 12:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand its placement in the article. --David Shankbone 18:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Op Spooners' essay

You seem to consider it as a personal attack, but there's nothing personal-attacky about it. It's just a list of things assholes do to get their way. Elaboration? MessedRocker (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I figured that (why else would someone write an essay), so it's one of those subtle, implied personal attacks that take the form of such an essay? I would think that if it weren't for the motive, it would be a legitimate essay, but because of why it exists, it's not. I don't quite know what to think of it. MessedRocker (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

I know there's the whole Spooner thing going on with her husband's article, but let's try and go to Nancy haha. I've really been fixing it up, taking comments from the failed A-class review, and I think it's up to FA standards. If you're too involved with Spooner and his possy then we can deal with it later, but when you get a chance I'd like to hear your comments. And please, make changes if you wish. Happyme22 00:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RPA

I would highly suggest you leave Operation Spooner's user page alone, as if you feel you are the target of personal attacks, removing them yourself always causes only more trouble, as you yourself are not a neutral party to the matter either at this point. WP:RPA is a highly contentious policy as it is and should only be used in extreme cases, IE blatant 'fuck you's', for example, heh. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 01:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really a consideration anymore, as I've since learned that RPA has been rejected as a guideline against personal attacks just last week I guess I will just have to go and poke an admin the next time something comes up. As Spooner didn't really listen to you or your two fellow admins last time, I imagine it will take a bit more time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if you need to cite me as a "witness" I can give my testimony of what happened haha. Happyme22 04:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I replied on your Talk page, Hap. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

May Pang Page

I was rethinking the Weiner as a further reading reading addition. Weiner doesn't mention pang in that book from what I understand. Can you find the proper source to add? I looked and don't find anything he said on the lost weekend period. Sixstring1965 15:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hire...

Thanks for your edits on "The Hire". :) Just thought I would drop you a line and say thanks because you helped me out from time to time. TabascoMan77 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're a good guy. :) Funny as hell, too. That's WAY too many an "s" in "Tabasco" when you wrote me back. :P Hey, gotta get another opinion because Erik says "The Hire" page is looking great. What do you think of the whole thing now? Does it look ok? TabascoMan77 04:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WPHP barnstar

It's been long enough since the end of our discussion on WPHP for the thread to be archived. I was wondering if you had been able to update the barnstars which we effectively selected (by virtue of there being no other serious candidates remaining!), or if you thought them adequate. I intend to start working up a project "/Awards" subpage, with the three barnstars we decided on. I understand you still have concerns about having three levels rather than one, but I intend to present it as effectively one barnstar, with minimal emphasis on the three separate levels. Of course, if you do get around to improving the images you can simply upload them over the top of the existing ones. Happy‑melon 17:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Edumication

You asked me if I was "further on the curve" than you on this issue of citations in the lead. I don't think I am, but if I am, then maybe not very much further. Like you, I want a form of words that unambiguously discourages citations in the lead except in exceptional circumstances. Perhaps where we might be looking for something different is that I am not in favour of the weaselly way to avoid the need for citations in the lead, by avoiding anything other than general comments. It would be artificial to avoid making a statement about population in a city article's lead for instance, just to avoid having to duplicate a potential string of citations that appear later in the body of the article.

So I also want to see an unambiguous statement that there is no requirement to provide citations in the lead where that information is already sourced in the body of the article. --Malleus Fatuarum 11:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Look2

Thanks dude I appreciate the civility. Sorry for any jabs at you. FrankWilliams 12:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No Woman No Cry clip

Wikipedia:Media has the details you need. --w^{L<speak·check>} 13:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

MV DVD Covers

I went back and read the discussions. It seems we are still debating. I'll take care of the edits as soon as a consensus is reached. FrankWilliams 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"a real change"

I thought last night's edits amounted to a real change. The section is now acknowledging redudancy and providing a better tool for discussions. This isn't the first flare-up I've had on LEAD; hence my garrulousness. Marskell 09:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

de Fanel & Graham

This de Fanel character is going around to various HP articles and insisting that Harry's children are not pure-blood. I've shown him where JKR has said that blood-purity is defined by whether a character's grandparents were all wizards/witches, and as this is obviously the case with his kids, they're pure-blood. Yet he refuses to see sense. And on top of everything, he has not once tried to gain consensus for his views, he just reverts the edits of other editors, insisting we're inserting OR into the article, yet providing no rationale for his minority viewpoint.

As for Graham, there are other characters with similar situations. If memory serves, Quirrell and Madame Hooch have only had their first names revealed through the Chocolate Frog cards (and Hooch has had two different non-canon first names; which do we use?). Unless a name comes straight from Rowling, it's as good as fancruft, IMHO. faithless (^speak) 20:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't mind so much the names being included, but I think it ought to be noted in the article that the name comes only from the video game. I agree that we can discuss "non-canon" information, but believe we should point out info that doesn't come from Rowling herself.

Yeah, he gave me quite a hard time over at Talk:Blood purity (Harry Potter). I eventually decided I just couldn't be bothered with him, and conceded that article to him, since t will probably end up being merged eventually anyways. But now he's starting to spread like some Wikicancer. He must be stopped! faithless (^speak) 03:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Are all the {{cn}}s necessary (over at Blood purity (Harry Potter))? The article is already tagged, after all. And by the way, I think they go on the other side of punctuation, don't they? faithless (^speak) 03:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. After a quick glance I can attest that I know that at least some of the info you tagged is true, and I'll find the sources in the next day or so. You make a good point, Idon't think those tags ever do anything. faithless (^speak) 03:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart

Yeah, I can understand that. I was watching that guy pretty close and he did add some things that skewed the information, but other things were simple, and genuinely good, copyedits. I'm glad you made that point on the talk page though. I get that problem a lot. Not much respect for citations sometimes... Wrad 05:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. What's the problem? Everything in there is cited. I already looked at the source closely. If it has quotes, it's a direct quote. If it doesn't, it's a summary. Pretty simple. What's the problem? Wrad 22:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I will personally watch over what I wrote and make sure no one attempts to use the citation in a way it shouldn't be used. The best way to fix the problems going on is to have someone familiar with the source ruthlessly defend its integrity. Wrad 22:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought I already answered that. See two posts up. Wrad 22:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, if it has quotes around it, it is a direct quote, if it doesn't, it is not a direct quote. There is one line in the first sentence that is a direct quote. The rest of the section is not a direct quote. It is a summary of the important points within the source. Is this clear enough? If you are looking for a yes or no answer, the answer is yes and no. That part in quotes is direct, yes. The parts not in quotes are not, no. Wrad 23:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Glad it sorted out. Wrad 00:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Excessive categorization

Don't worry, I'm not removing articles from the wikiproject (they still have the HL template on their userpages). What I did was rather a bit of cleanup. You see, although categories don't form a tree as a whole, they do form a hierarchy locally, as is the case with the Highlander categories, this way :

• Category:Highlander
  • Category:Highlander books and games
  • Category:Highlander chronologies
  • Category:Highlander characters
    • Category:Highlander immortals
  • Category:Highlander films
  • Category:Highlander music
  • Category:Highlander screenshots
  • Category:Highlander television series
    • Category:Highlander episodes

Hmm... It doesn't show neatly, but I hope you get the idea: Subcategories are included in main categories, but they are more specific than main categories. Category:Highlander television series = the series, not the entire franchise. Category:Highlander episodes = the episodes, not the entire series. That's what we librarians call a thesaurus, if you are more familiar with this concept. Now, the principle is, in library catalogs and in Wikipedia too, you don't put an article (or tag a book) both in a category and its subcategory. Usually, you chose to keep the subcategory because it's more specific, and that's what I did here: I mostly removed Category:Highlander because it was too general. For example, in Highlander: The Series I removed Category:Highlander, but the article is still in Category:Highlander television series, which belongs to Category:Highlander, so it comes to the same at the end of the day. I do this all the time at job, and I wanted things to show neatly here, too ;D

Categories are not the same as wikiprojects. Categories are an internal way of classification, inside the articles, whereas wikiprojects are about improving articles by editors and have templates on article talk pages. (Sorry I'm stating the obvious here ;) All articles have (are supposed to have) categories, but all articles are not (necessarily) within the scope of a wikiproject. Of course, in the HL wikiproject's case, our scope is Category:Highlander, including all the subcats. Hope this answers your question. Rosenknospe 15:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Inaugural WPHP barnstar

	The Order of Merlin (Third class)
	The Order of Merlin, the WikiProject Harry Potter Barnstar, is awarded by Happy‑melon to Arcayne for tirelessly eating cruft and inappropriate articles across the Project, particularly for recent work on the notability reorganisation.

Ronald Reagan

I have the feeling people are still thinking in terms of Reagan-the-president. Brian Pearson 01:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hogwarts

I just can't believe someone managed to slip that in, especially considering all the nonsense regarding the location of Durmstrang a few weeks back. I'm just awaiting for the inevitable revert battle to begin. faithless (^speak) 05:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope it doesn't get to that. It ain't cited, so it cannot be in the article.

As for the Viriditas stuff, I am sorry you had to deal with that. I've been "interacting" with him pretty much since I started in WP (pretty clear proof that superior numbers of edits don't necessarily make a better editor), and I began keeping track of the guy's behavior ever since an admin suggested I do that, some months ago. Viri's coming up on the magic number, and then he will likely end up going bye-bye for more than his most recent block. It's kind of a bummer, bc when he isn't trying to get a rise out of me and sticks with what he knows (articles about Hawaii, etc), he does fairly good work. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'll see you on the Snape discussion page I hope.JJJ999 05:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no

YOUR argument is flawed, AS explained on another page. Go over to Logic and expand your mind. WookMuff 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"HP"

Re your post at my talk page, please see Talk:Harry Potter#HP?.--Niels Ø (noe) 21:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter

The September 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 22:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dab sections and dab groups

Actually, in dabs, both types of set-making are used. Some pages use sections, some use groups. See WP:MOSDAB#Longer lists. If sections are used, consider using __NOTOC__ or {{TOCright}} to keep the table of contents from pushing the list of sought pages further down. -- JHunterJ 12:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much!

Thanks for the support in rmv the childish attempts to incl castration of Wallace in the Braveheart article. Honestly, some people have no concept of the diff btwn BIOGRAPHY & MOVIE. Did you see their attempts to cite the fact? Ugh, fanboy nonsense!! Tommyt 16:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again - it's not meant as speculation

Hi,

This is about some of the details that I have included on Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again and which you have taken away on the grounds of "speculation". When I say that Captain Marvel's "wispy white hair" is "similar to that of Uncle Marvel" I think that it is on good grounds. Take a look at the following [13] and compare Uncle Marvel to Miller's version of Captain Marvel. I think that you will notice the similarity.

As for Dick Grayson, I noted that "In fact Batman shows no sympathy at all for his former sidekick and no qualms in killing him !" On what grounds is this speculation ? Batman is so callous and dismissive of a boy he adopted, trained and rejected because he felt he was not up to the task. He does not say a single nice thing to Grayson (only in sarcasm) and does not even try to reason with him. He simply decides to kill him there and then — without an ounce of sentimentality. This is not speculation on my part: it's pretty clear from the text.

--Marktreut 22:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

You're welcome. I just saw the comment, and that you had not responded yet, and so took the liberty to try and explain the situation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-Mail

Am interested re cited text for Braveheart but (excuse my ignorance) am unfamiliar with Wiki-Mail and have drawn a blank trying to find out. Can you point me in the right direction? Mutt Lunker 08:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Spells in Harry Potter

Hey Arcayne, I'd appreciate your opinion on JJJ999's (arbitrary) addition to Spells in Harry Potter and the discussion going on there. If you agree with my viewpoint that it should be removed until consensus is reached, I'd also appreciate if you could remove the addition. I already reverted it once, and I don't want to be accused of edit warring. Thanks. V-train 22:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I knew about that, revealing the presence of a person. I kept telling him that and he kept saying "see through the cloak" on some other talk page. My issue is with his saying Dumbledore cast the spell without his wand, which we don't know (and his making the change without consensus). And thanks for weighing in on the discussion, I appreciate it. V-train 23:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroes tagging

I've taken the liberty of replying on my own talk page [14]. --Tony Sidaway 00:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He Who Must Not Be Named

The rationale is Ok. β^_command 00:32, 5 October 2007

Advise About Lucy

Arc, My best advise as a friend is don't feed the animals. They call them trolls around the 'net these days. I left this message in my talk as well. Sixstring1965 19:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Midnighter

Nah, it's cool, I understand. I agree that you shouldn't have removed that source I added. Conversely, I shouldn't have removed that tag you placed on the JLA reference, as that was one I should've left in, but neglected to do so. There is also some other unsourced material that I've attempted to source, and yet other that I simply removed. Unfortunately, although I've read some of the comics that would source some of this stuff, I don't own them, so I was only able to satisfy some of those tags. Thanks for collaborating with me. :-) Nightscream 22:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.....now that you mention it, it doesn't seem like the sort of info to place in the Intro, especially since most of it is already mentioned in the Vital Statistics section. Must be an off day for me, because I usually would've noticed that myself. I removed that from the Intro, and put some of it in the VS section. Thanks again. Nightscream 06:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Confused

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Mind, I've just woken up. Is this a particular article? Maybe if I saw what was going on I'd be able to think of what I'd do.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not wrong. To start with, here are some references to the Batman parallel.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Butcher Cover

Arc, Check out my discussion page about the Butcher Cover. I think you'll agree with me on this one. This person is bent on calling the top caption of the picture of the butcher cover "the Alternate Cover." I worded it as the Original Cover Design. Sixstring1965 16:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, if you think my change from "Original release cover design" to "Original cover" for the reasons stated in my edit summary needs to be discussed on the talk page, by all means discuss it there. My failure to do so is not by itself grounds for reversal. Adding a rationale for an edit in the edit summary is perfectly acceptable practice. --PEJL 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Arc, Plesse keep an eye on my discussion. This one doesn't get it. I think you understand exactly where I'm coming from on this one.Sixstring1965 21:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

IMDb

General WP:V and WP:RS. We cannot verify their information, as it comes from editors who submit it. There may be something about over at WP:FILMS, or WP:MOSFILMS, but I'm not sure.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You might be looking for WP:CIMDB, perhaps? It was a rejected proposal for how to use IMDb. Like Bignole said, you can argue against IMDb in failing to be a reliable source with the way it accepts new content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And about Frater210, if you weren't aware, check out the resulting incident report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attempted harassment measures. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand; what was the result of the checkuser request? Did the contributions of the sockpuppet not reflect knowledge of how to file a 3RR despite being new, which should raise concerns about the "newness" of the account? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, The Seeker bombed so badly at the box office. I guess all the POV-contributing fanboys were right that the adaptation would be FUBAR. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Replace Schumacher with Uwe Boll, and I agree wholeheartedly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Question about the Gathering kick-off

Hm, actually, no, I can't. The season 1 booklet only says that "the very existence of this series is somewhat incongruous with the ending of the first film," and there's Joe in "The Watchers" telling Duncan, "your kinsman Connor MacLeod, he did us all a big favor when he got rid of him," and that's about all I can find about The Kurgan in the series, to the best of my knowledge. In season 1, from the pilot onwards, it's pretty obvious to everyone in the series that it is the Gathering and nothing in particular triggered it; again, to the best of my knowledge. I'm gonna remove that sentence. Thanks for pointing this out to me, and have a nice day. Rosenknospe 11:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Brother

The only person still keeping this alive is you. That user did exactly what I told them to: ceased using that account immediately upon finding out that it was not allowed as a single-purpose account. There have been no contributions since 9/25 from that account. This matter is closed. There is no further need for you to keep this alive. - Philippe | Talk 14:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Lennon

I cropped it from a current commons image using photoshop so it shouldn't be a problem. I'm only too aware of our image policy trust me!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 09:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even look at the licensing. Judging by how tough the Commons are on images I figured if it wasn't a legitimate image it would have been deleted by now ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It states the source is from http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/index-e.html where taken by the government it has been released into the public domain. Now you may want to verify this, really the commons should have sorted this image by now and to decide whether it is valid. I just cropped what I saw as a commons image last night to try to improve the article of the great John Lennon. Perhaps I was dreaming about shagging Lucy Pinder in the sky with diamonds too much!!! (Diamonds being used to fuel my Kreblakistani laser beam to extertiminate the white house) I would ask Videmus who did a lot with images but I think he has left wikipedia temporarily. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the commons are always very strict on removing images where it is clear we cannot use them. I guess they were tagged that way for a reason as probably admin on there were indecisive either way. out of courtesy I just replicated what was there before to avoid any misunderstanding. Now I have to go back to shagging Lucy Pinder in the magma in my volcano. All the best, Adios ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OH indeed they are all very fit. Eva Longoria, etc etc. Note though I do like my pussy to be white and fluffy though (if you catch my Mr. Bigglesworth drift). LOL! Natalie Portman had to be about the only woman in the world who didn't look terrible with a baldy. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S top stuff on the 300 film. It is a great article. Best regards baldy ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Another image of Lennon. I happened to be readin the John Kerry article has came across an unlikely image of him with Lennon. So I cropped and enhanced it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Lennon72.jpg

Yes it could do with some photoshop work it wasn't the clearest of images anyway but a good find nonetheless and a significant one in relation to his anti war major involvement. I have always found John Kerry decent - much better than that weasel George W. As my mother always said Never trust a guy with slitty eyes! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Blair Witch Project

Maybe mention it on the talk page of the article next time? ;-) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroes template

I think this may be what you want [15] - not sure though. I didn't know you're part of the Heroes project as well; how long have you been here? asyndeton 16:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I need the one that shows the html coloring scheme. I cannot seem to find it anywhere... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroes Infobox.

Not sure what you're asking for. Do you mean something like:"Where in the template code do I find the codes for colors so I can change them from something pretty and graphic-designy to something staid and encyclopedic", or do you mean, where is, among all the tempaltes for Heroes WIkiproject, the one that's black and white, so I can invert it? If the former, I think they use HTML color codes, which are six characters long alphanumeric strings, look for those; of the other, find the template box title and search for it wit hthe 'templates' category checked. Hope this helps, and if I understand yoru description, yeah, good change to make, thought the colors are, i suspect, menat to parallel the eclipse symbol of the show. ThuranX 22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

going one further, would this diff achieve your goal? if not, please revert ASAP so as not to cause mass confusions. ThuranX 22:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroes infobox

Since you're now one of the troops, perhaps you can help me with an issue similar to one we had in HP. If you look at, for example, Claire Bennet's infobox, you can see that it's being used to hold far too much information. In HP we eventualy cut it down to the bare essentials, but when I brought it up here, I didn't get a response. I'm not terribly esatblished within the community, so I didn't want to make such drastic edits without consensus, but two of us should hold some leverage. Thanks. asyndeton 10:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not helping you out; I would have, if I'd logged in sooner. Personally I think we should lose anything related to family from the infobox; I agree it's important in the series and needs to covered in the article but I don't think the infoboxes can do it justice, plus this info clutters them up quite badly. Perhaps, like in HP, we could create family trees, accompanied by some prose, in a separate section?

I don't think 'Occupation' deserves to stay either and 'Aliases' seems a bit crufty to me. 'Real name' also seems a bit OTT as not that many characters use aliases (indeed do we need to state that 'Matthew Parkman' is the real name of 'Matt Parkman'?).

As for the image caption, I think it would suffice to say 'Peter Petrelli <br>as portrayed by Milo Ventimiglia</br>' or something to that effect; I think mentioning which episode the image is taken from or whether or not it is a promotional photo is unnecessary. What do you reckon? asyndeton 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree; I'll bring it to the Wikiproject:Heroes talk page now. asyndeton 19:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, you went through and changed "portrayer" to "actor" for all the Heroes characters. However, the "Actor" category doesn't show up on the page. Ophois 04:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The simplest way to fix it would be to change "Actor" back to "portrayer" on their pages.Ophois 23:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant change "Actor" back to "Potrayer". "Actor" doesn't correspond with anything in the infobox, whereas "Portrayer" does. Ophois 05:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It may sound better, but there's apparently no corresponding spot on the infobox for "Actor".Ophois 02:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Another Happy Product of our educational system

Block me, I don't care. A worthless excuse for a cunt like Ann Coulter deserves derogatory comments about her posted anywhere possible, whether factually, socially, politically, legally correct or not.

I dont know or care what "BLP" is but I sincerely hope hers suffers as much as possible. I have done my share of factual corrections, and wikipedia's integrity is publically trashed anyways, whether deservedly so or not. So a deserving, although perhaps "incorrect," addition is no serious faux pas in my mind.

And when the hell did wikipedia become a damn "online community," a la MySpace. It took me far too long to realize that messages between users were possible. The idea was so repugnant that I failed to consider it for awhile. I appreciate your time, your opinion is of (some) value to me, your thinly veiled and completely harmless "threats" are not. Regards, Zachary —Preceding unsigned comment added by FulMetlJakit (talk • contribs) 07:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Excuse me? Did you inadvertently scoop me up among the half-dozen mischievous editors' comments you swept aside? Observing from the other side of the world from the USA in Australia, as I do, where Ms Coulter's commentary is observed from a disinterested distance on YouTube, such commentary as that of Ann Coulter has to be taken as humorous. (Dire and satiric, to be sure, but humorous all the same.) Is it in your view vandalism so to characterise it?! Masalai 08:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter vandalism

Please stop. You comments to the article of a BLP are not appropriate or appreciated. You are an experienced editor who knows what vandalism is, and what the penalty for vandalism is. Knock it off, or face the repercussions. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't actualy considered the fact that the Outback might consider a Grand Pretender, like Stephen Colbert. She isn't. She apparently means what she says, and there is very little comedy about it. Perhaps you might have gleaned this from the fact that you changed the lead from political commentator or whatever to comedian/comedianne.

I'm rather hoping you are demonstrating a rather bone-dry sense of wit instead of being clueless as to Coulter's actual gig. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. Our political commentary in jurisdictions (Australia? Canada? Ireland? Israel? India?) where we have "responsible government" and the head of government must daily submit to Question Time in the lower house of Parliament is assuredly more lively than it now is in the USA where the Third Estate is so abjectly supine. But Ms Coulter brings to the currently pathetic American debate an element of absurdity which all Americans must surely welcome: she is indeed not a serious commentator but a comedienne: do you not see that? Wikipedia has now progressed beyond being a purely USA phenomemon: kindly note that USA politics are also the deep concern of the whole world.Masalai 09:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Anne Coulter and Supposed Flame Members

Hi, it's I the noob Mortello. Anyway, being here is enjoying, but excuse the aggressive responses. Although I don't cause trouble, I have a tendency of defending those I advocate, agressively, and that in turn may come off a bit too much when I get worked up. Anyway, I think I may or may not have done it again with the supposed flames, but now that I got your message, I know what to do. This time, rather than attacking, I'll try to keep the arguement strictly about the arguement rather than the member themself. Still, if a member uses a famous qoute that helps describe the person with accuracy, would that be so wrong? Mortello 21:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men

The admin Alkivar has unilaterally removed non-free images from Children of Men and Fight Club (film) with no attempt at discussion. The non-free images had fair use rationales attached, and the admin just decided of his own accord that the rationales were not sufficient. I've brought up the issue at WikiProject Films and am considering filing an incident report regarding his conduct, which is reminiscent of a similar brusque admin at 300 (film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have the admin explain why he decided to delete the images so abruptly. That's why I brought up the issue of Children of Men with you and Viriditas - I know that that particular film article had a lot of time and energy invested in it, same with Fight Club (film) on a more personal note. It just seems, well, rude to have them go *poof*. I'm all for making articles better, but I'd rather collaborate with an admin rather than mutter at his holier-than-thou conduct and attempt to figure out what would please Him. I've tried to do that with Fight Club (film) with four screenshots to gauge his actions for images that seem to have pretty solid fair use rationales for all but the most stringent editors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

From this: "You may wish to get a second opinion as i'm one of the more lenient admins when it comes to fair use." Scary! :( Imagine someone more stringent than him or ol' Ed of 300 fame... I'm shivering in my galooshes. He basically OK'd the Fight Club images and didn't consider the Sunshine cast one so beneficial. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

HP

Hi, I only recently noticed that you reverted my edits to Harry Potter (character). I've left a comment on that article's talk page discussing my feelings, if could please take a look and reply. Thanks. Paul730 09:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

heroes and powers

It's worth discussing, but ultimately, in the face of the current project through the project, minor. For now, until we shape up the articles and substantiate the characters via various interviews, I think it's minor. thanks for asking though, I posted a longer explanation at the talk page. ThuranX 03:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Die cruft die

• My apologies, send me the cleaning bill. I'm not going to pay it, but I promise to laugh at it heartily. Oh, and can you tell me when the next meeting of CruftEaters Anonymous is? V-train 08:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter stealing Barbara Olson's life

"I guess I cannot mention the conservative cloning machine, the telepathic mind witches from Mars, the vast, right-wing conspiracy, and of course the Horrifying Truth™ behind Twinkies. ;)" I guess you can't! I guess you can't mention wrackspurts, either. ;) Marieblasdell 03:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroes box

Yes, it will and you're welcome.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 09:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't berate the IPs

I reverted your comment [16] on User talk:190.43.172.191. Simply put, there's no reason to berate an IP for their spam links; I've already warned them, and they haven't edit since I gave the warning. Don't feed the trolls, please. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Lennon Picture

I discussed this action with John. He had a wierd problem with the image. First it was the copyright info, we got past that. Then he wasn't in love with the actaul picture saying it could have been anybody from the angle. yeah, right. That picture is an excellent example straight from the guy who took it. I am not discussing this further with John, He didn't even know it was on a cd cover. There is no reason it shouldn't stay, other than wanting an argument. I'll get ready to change it back this afternoon as soon as you respond. Sixstring1965 13:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I just requested a full face picture from david Spindel.. Sixstring1965 13:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

You blind revert all of my changes to this article and tried to claim the changes were not discussed. To the contrary, I was removing recent edits that were made by people who themselves did not discuss what they were doing an restored it to a well-discussed prior version. It seems like you blind reverted out of either a kneejerk reaction or from a bias against editors who are not signed on. To put it bluntly, the changes I made were badly needed, fully justified, fully explained, and yours were not. Do not make edits unless you pay attention to what you are doing. 71.203.223.65 15:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

Hey Arcayne. I nominated Nancy for FAC about a week ago. There's just mostly comments, but it'd be great if we could get your thoughts here. Thanks, Happyme22 21:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

About the redirects of DA members, I wrote something about this some days ago but no one commented anything. This is just a suggestion concerning the stuff about Notability. A strong article with 20 characters, some of them including notable secondary like Cho Chang, Dean Thomas or Ernie Macmillan is much better than having 4 different pages. Lord Opeth 02:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you altered the disambiguation link at Oliver Wood, but it doesn't go to any sort of Oliver Wood section. Can you fix this to make sure it points the right direction? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure what you mean, Erik. Are you saying that when you type in Oliver Wood,it isn't taking you to the cinematographer's page? Or are you saying that the redirect there for the Potter character doesn't take you to the minor Gryffindors? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fine now, but I thought I clicked on the disambiguation link and was led to an article in which the fictional character Oliver Wood wasn't mentioned. Oh, well, maybe I needed caffeine this morning. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I've posted proposals of merging in the talk pages of Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws. Lord Opeth 22:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, I did write the suggestion here in the Wikiproject HP some days ago, in the Notability discussion: Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability/Characters. I told you that previously. And I also thought it would be correct if we also discuss it in the concerning pages. I did those redirects you are talking about before you addressed me (I myself undid some of my own edits). I have never had any intention to disturb you or anyone else in the Wikiproject or in Wiki in general. I apologize if you thought that. Lord Opeth 19:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

Hoping to add a little more detail to the sub-section near the bottom of the article on the contemporary police investigation of the Ripper if I have the time or energy. Colin4C 09:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore's sexuality section

Your opinion would be welcomed in the discussion about whether or not the Dumbledore article should have a section dedicated to his sexuality. Thanks asyndeton 13:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem Editor Returns

Dreamguy (of whom the anon number is a sock) has returned to the Jack the Ripper page. See further Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2 for disciplinary action taken against him by the wikipedia. Colin4C 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ambush (BMWFilms) Ending...

Hey, Arcayne...

Sorry I hadn't gotten back to you about "Ambush". I've been a busy bee in real life lately.

My thoughts are that the smuggler dude didn't swallow the diamonds. I think he faked it just to make himself sound even more in danger than he was, previously. Although...he did kind of give him that laugh. I think, in the end, we weren't meant to know. It was The Driver's first official mission. The smile and laugh was like saying, "That's for me to know..and you don't need to know because you're just my driver."

It's fitting for the rest of the episodes where The Driver's clients all have some huge skeleton in the closet or are protecting their own interests and have gone to great lengths to do so.

TabascoMan77 07:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore vote

Hi. All the arguing over where we should discuss Dumbledore's sexual orientation is proving useless. We need to work out just who is in favour of what and a vote seems the only way to go about it. I'm asking for your opinion since you had a say in the general argument. Thank you. asyndeton 10:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

British English

I am indeed and very proud of it. From some of your edits and comments I have been lead to believe that you're a true Yank. Am I right? asyndeton 23:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed, but not that surprised; someone of your fine editing abilities must have been influenced by the very finest there is to offer ;) I regret to say I haven't taken advantage of any of the great establishments 'across the pond'; one day maybe.... asyndeton 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy‎ vs 71.203.223.65

I think it's fairly obvious that DreamGuy has no intention of answering your question. I have my own suspicions as to the reasons, as you obviously do as well. But I think that continuing to post the question at this point is devolving into badgering him, which really serves no good purpose. He's not going to answer at this point, so continued reposting of the question is not going to acheive that goal. So you need to think about what other goal/ends continued posting does achieve. If he's not going to answer, are there any other positive goals that could come out of continued posting of the question? I myself do not really see any.

The question then is, what next? Assuming that the two are the same person, if you do believe that the usage of the two accounts is a violation of WP:SOCK, then a request at WP:RFCU might be in order to possibly establish this once and for all. Personally I do see a definite similarity in conversation/debate style, but I'm uncertain that, even if they are both him, any violation has occurred.

Another thing to keep in mind as you continue to interact with DreamGuy. He is under severe editing restrictions from a recent ArbCom case. If at any point you feel that he has violated the terms of his restrictions, a report to WP:AE can be placed to get action. I myself should not take action in this case, because I have had an editing dust-up with DreamGuy in the past, and have more recently made it clear on his talk page that I no longer have any sympathy for him. - TexasAndroid 19:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan FAC

Sorry if I'm bothering you Arcayne, but Nancy's FAC is almost out, and we have 2 supports and 2 opposes. It'd be great if we could get your comments. Happyme22 22:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for taking the time. I know you said you think it could be more neutral, but I have requested User:LaraLove take a look and give it a copyedit. Plus, i've addressed all your concerns on the FAC page. The only one I didn't do is the linking at the bottom, and that's per WP:GTL. Anyway, thanks and feel free to go back and comment more. And I actully burst out laughing at your comments about the zen award haha. thanks, Happyme22 02:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Arcayne. Happyme22 22:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Adrian Paul as Duncan McLeod.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Adrian Paul as Duncan McLeod.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

fair use image

First, it was linked to "Highlander (franchise)", while the header said "Highlander series". Also, what it wanted was for you to link to the page you were using it on, in the fair use rationale. So, I added a link in the header. If that doesn't work, say the name in the actual rationale and link it there. I would also save, resize and reupload the image. I think it wouldn't pass the fair-use reduce criteria. I would reduce it down to about 450 in height.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, it's no problem. I remember the edit war too. I don't remember the specifics, but I have a vague remembrence. Anyway, I think Erik would agree that you've become a very good editor. You can be a little stubborn at times, but so can all of us when it comes to this place. I wonder, is it a bad thing that we get back to so fast? What does it say about our lives? lol. Well, I'm glad I could be of help, and I hope whatever I did works. I didn't remove the alert because I felt an admin could do it. Or you could I guess, and just wait to see if the Bot comes back.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The summary is a true edit summary. If you "upload a newer version" and put "reducing size" or "better quality"...or whatever the reason is for the newer version, that will appear in the box at the bottom where it says "uploaders". The fair use rationale will stay where it is, because you aren't changing the page, you are changing the image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it worked. I'm a student as well, full time. But, I also work at the Florida Dept. of Transportation, when I'm not in school. It's a boring job. I'm basically a pee-on, but it helps pay the bills while I go to school. Ironically, I almost got fired because I was the leading contributor to Wikipedia out of all the state agencies in Florida. lol. But, my bosses like me too much, so I just promised I wouldn't go on the internet at all, unless it was work related.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't edit that much during work anymore..lol. I think they had a problem that tax dollars was paying me to contribute as much as I was.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

NH Shootout edit and your related message I recently noticed

Tungsten jacketed projectiles would be beyond stupid because they would destroy barrels. You want a bullet's outer surface SOFTER than the barrel, not harder. Squeezing things designed to cut metal with their metal cutting surfaces against rifling is an infinitely stupid idea. Tungsten and tungsten carbide are used for metal cutting and armor piercing penetrators (which live far removed from touching barrel surfaces), not for jacketing/coating/gilding bullets.
I build and work with firearms for a living. There's a wealth of information already available on the web as to small arms technology and I didn't feel a need to reference it because it falls in the category of lead has greater mass than hydrogen as far as scientific novelty.
I don't have any access to the North Hollywood Shootout physical evidence locker any more than you do I will reckon. I didn't feel a need to look it up. Just because some moron news reporter made a horrible error regarding small arms and their related technology doesn't mean you need to also repeat it. I fixed it and people put it back to stupid.
No such thing as tungsten jacketed or coated projectiles as described. Never will be, never was, because it's a dumb and weapons destructive idea. (unsigned by user 64.128.28.207)

>replied on the lad's user talk page< - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply here: Yes, responding to September post. You will find that some places I go hunting there is a dearth of internet while out in the bush along with the dearth of electricity and roads and such. Was on one of my recharge the mental batteries vacations by avoiding things that take batteries. Anyway, the reason you don't need any reliable authority as to what I said is because it's hard to illegally import something that nobody has or will ever make. Would make about as much sense as using a chalk hammer to pound steel nails. If somebody puts "Jeffrey Dahmer ate George Bush's mum", I don't think there's a need for me to find a citing article debunking that statement in order to correct the entry and remove the garbage. Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.28.207 (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. 99% of the time reporters are anti-gun and clueless with an agenda/sales pitch and therefore get firearms facts wrong. 100% of the time if they are firearms journalists because then they have an agenda because they work for advertisers and are also trying to sell something. If people don't peer review the wrong articles they cite why do I have to be peer reviewed when I'm pointing out obvious facts of metallurgy that anyone with half a clue would see as intuitive? I can point to rescinded Pulitzer prize "winners" lots of people cited that were big fat honking liars and I bet I could cite them on some things and nobody would blink an eye unless they happened to notice on accident. But I need a citation source for laws of how the physical earth is commonly understood to work in a practical sense? That's stupid. We're then in the category of me saying nobody ever does or did something because it would be stupid but there's a big problem here--->: EVIDENCE CAN PROVE SOMETHING HAPPENED, I CAN'T PROVE SOMETHING DIDN'T HAPPEN.

If somebody had chosen to hang on to their contrarian stupidity I would not have been able to prove by published source that no foreigner ever made impractical and stupid 7.62x39 rounds that would destroy the mechanisms of the guns they were fired in and they could keep changing it back because I couldn't prove it didn't happen unless I got the cops to let me in their evidence locker to do tests, which would be unlikely.

Bit of a quandary, isn't that?

Maybe you wiki dudes could have a meeting about exactly why that is stupid as far as policy. I'm sure I won't be invited to the conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.28.207 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I said the citation policy, which could be carried to extreme, is stupid. Don't take it personal. It's a flaw though. You can prove things but you can't 100% disprove things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.28.207 (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but that's completely wrong. Nothing can ever be proven. That's why the law has the caveat "beyond reasonable doubt", and why the scientific method is based around the idea of experiments designed to disprove a theory. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: 300

I apologize for removing the section; just that considering 300 is a Featured Article, I think content added should be cited. I've responded about the inclusion of citations in the section you've written, so check it out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

CSI: Miami Edits

Regarding my CSI: Miami edits, I have had a section posted on the talk page for three weeks now regarding a proposed cleanup based on the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation article, which I feel is a good solid article for basing a cleanup on. The only response I got from anyone was one person saying yes, go ahead. If you have input, I welcome you to post to that page. -- Redfarmer 23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't miss the point. I said straight off I was going to base the cleanup on the CSI mother article. The fact that there are only two sentences will either be resolved by expanding the section or combining small sections into one large/medium sized "Production" section. Like I said, I've had no other feedback except for one guy saying "Yay." Please give me specific feedback on the talk page under the relevant discussion. I do not like the prospect of doing this all on my own. -- Redfarmer —Preceding comment was added at 00:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, why are you adding section stubs to sections such as the Recurring characters, which redirects to another article (a common method when an article becomes too cumbersome) and Episodes (a section which I did not create to begin with and the identical section in the original CSI article was deemed up to good wiki standards during a wiki review on the original CSI article). Also, how do you think the crossover section can be expanded further without repeating information in the episode synopsis? -- Redfarmer 00:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Adrian Paul as Duncan McLeod2.jpg

D'oh! Fixed :) SkierRMH 03:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

babble

But for clarification to please you, Reject by my usage is very similar to "I oppose." It used to be No and nothing more, but now it's made more clear. As to your claim on "burning need to be different," you really assume that simply by my usage of Reject & Oppose? Well, doesn't matter, the article is what matter and that is my focus. Leranedo 08:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of my point, sir. You say that your use of reject is the same as if one were to use oppose - odd, considering that you use both. Perhaps you might wish to conform to the same rules that the rest of us choose to follow as part of the community, if that isn't too much for you to ask. Or maybe just pick either reject or oppose - either one expresses your POV clearly.

As for my "fanatic assumptions and negativity" you might wish to add a wee bit more agf in there, sport. I've already noted your User talk page as well, and note it here bc it seems a sneaky way to end discusion after you, and it passes the duckiness test. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You wish to talk about something? On your comment on my talk page "if you had actually avoided using both words," the reason I did use Oppose is because other asked me to so it used to be No then it changed to No & Oppose. If you check my other recent oppose vote, they are also Reject & Oppose and my recent support votes are Pass & support. All standardized across the board. Other then that, do you have nothing better to do than hassle me?? Anyway, back to FAC reviewing. Leranedo 10:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IfD nomination

Yes; as far as I can see, it is correct. (I wanted to correct it myself, but wasn't successful, so I had just posted a notice that the nomination was broken.) - Mike Rosoft 20:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• In fact the nomination wasn't correct; I have fixed it now. I have also given the user my final warning; if he vandalizes either the article or the image description page once again, you can take it to the administrators' intervention page. Regards, Mike Rosoft 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2007 Newsletter

The October 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 20:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Preity Zinta FA

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Quiz

You might be interested in this --andreasegde 15:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think DreamGuy needs to be reminded of the ArbCom's restrictions

Hey, I am trying to think of how to do this without antagonizing DG further, but I think he needs to be reminded of the restrictions from the ArbCom. Despite Colin's misrepresentation of the results of the arbitration, there were edit restrictions placed on DG and I think one could make a very strong case that he is not adhering to them. I considered reporting to WP:AN/AE, but he hasn't done anything egregious enough that I felt right about blowing him in... but he's really not adhering to the edit restrictions placed on him, and I'm not sure what to do. --Jaysweet 19:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so about the anon IP thing... I saw your allegations and DG's denials, but I didn't see the actual edits. Do you have any of the revisions handy? That's a pretty serious accusation, so I'd want to be 100% sure. If he did do that, though, and is denying it, then I feel a lot better about blowing him in, because that's just not cool. --Jaysweet 19:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement Fred Bauder 20:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made a report, but I still don't feel totally right about it. DG hasn't really done anything that I feel warrants a block, but maybe a reminder from an admin that he could be blocked will do some good. Maybe... I'm kinda torn. --Jaysweet 20:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

...simply tinks himself the smartest guy in the room. Normally, that last part could be applied tomany of us...' ha ha ha, too true, too true ;) I got a real kick out of that one.

Yeah, it's too bad, DG seems to know more about Jack the Ripper than I could ever hope to, but he just won't budge a single inch on any issue. In any case, I made the report at WP:AN/AE and linked to your comments on my talk page which contain all of the IP evidence, so it's out of our hands now. --Jaysweet 22:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows

I didn't quite understand your point on the Wikiproject page. Do you mean a user page to save the current format? Alientraveller 22:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Blair Witch

Yes, the release date for Blair Witch comes from the Variety website. See [17]. Blair opened in limited release on July 14th and expanded on the 30th. All Hallow's Wraith 04:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim Kring on G4Tv.

Hey. You seem like a logical guy, so i'm here to ask for some help. Tim Kring, the creator of Heroes, stated on G4's "Heroes Postshow" last night during an interview that "Heroes: Origins" is postponed due to the writers strike and not canceled. I'm doing my best to try to find a transcript or a video of that interview so we can add it as a source here on Wikipedia. I need your help to try to find that source. Can you please do that? The Postshow reairs on G4 tonight at 7pm EST, if that helps any. Thanks. dposse 14:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim Kring wasn't speculating. How could he be? I mean, it's his show. Did you see the interview i'm talking about? He said that it's definately been postponed. In his mind, and the mind of NBC, the strike is going to happen. You have to see his words from his point of view. In the world of television, if a Guild or organization says something that derails your show, then it has already happened since it takes a long time to actually create a show. Do you see what i mean?

Look, it couldn't hurt to at least find a transcript first and then decide what we should do with it. Personally, i feel that there is a no more reliable source then the actual creator of a show. It's not coming from the actors or a producer, but the creator. He's the top guy. Could you at least humor me and just find a transcript or a video? dposse 15:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Fine. I was just trying to help out the articles. dposse 15:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, if i do find a transcript, would you be willing to consider using it? Or just looking at it and then posting it on the Heroes talk page so Wikipedia can come to a consensus? I still believe that Tim Kring would know the production status of his own show. dposse 16:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least you're considerate enough to have an open mind and let Wikipedia form a consensus about this. Not many wikipedians are that considerate. That's why i've cut down on my activity here. Thank you. dposse 16:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[18]

Leaders of the union representing Hollywood's film and television scribes declared Thursday night that they would go on strike in what would be the first walkout by writers in nearly two decades.

The interview was aired live on November 3rd. This announcement by the Writers Guild came two days before that. So, Tim Kring knew for a fact that the Writers were on strike when he stated that Heroes: Origins was delayed. dposse 18:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Scroll box

Remember the question you posed to me on the talk page of 300 about the References section using a scroll box? There's precedent set outside the TfD that I showed you -- WP:CITE#Scrolling lists. Just thought I'd show you to refer back to down the road if you see the illegitimate scroll boxes around Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The crteria for parody movie pages

Hi!

I just wanted to ask something:

whatis the criteria for parody movies on Wikipedia?

I KNOW that character/movie pages can't be edited to say "this character/movie was spoofed in..."

However, what about the pages abou the parody movie itself?

Can we point out which characters are being spoofed in the parody movie page?

For example, in the "Spaceballs"movie, can we put of which character Dark Helmet, President Skroob or Lone Star are spoofs of?

Or which specific scenes or characters are spoofed in "Epic Movie"?

Also, you say that spoofs are a matter of opinion. In that case, how can you decide what is or isn't a spoof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustinaldo (talk • contribs) 13:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

White House

Just wondered if your interested here - we could use your input. Thanks, Happyme22 15:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Arcayne. And nice one about NSA haha! Happyme22 05:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect on Peter Petrelli

Was there a reason you removed the {{semi-protect}} from the Peter Petrelli article? It is semi-protected, I asked and they granted. Finally, some peace. Padillah 20:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy

I think everyone who might have notfied him was banned from his talk page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

MV

I think your statement of leaving the article as is is quite eroneous. I added pertinent and cited material. User: El Greco only retort to this addition was "there's got to be a better way to integrate into the article than that)". What kind of a statement is that? The onus is on him to come up with a better way of presenting the material not me for introducing it. If what I have added breaks any policy please let me know. If not then it should stand. Thank You 206.125.176.3 14:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Darth Maul image

We both know that the image is not a screen capture from the DVD. I would prefer that you fix the licensing of the image or overwrite an actual screen capture image from one of the DVDs, please. I wanted to give you an opportunity to fix it before having the image deleted, which I think would harm the article (and likely cause you some trouble for incorrectly licensing the image), I think a couple of days should be enough to get the job done, right? Let me know if you have any difficulties with this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not my original upload, I just downscaled it to comply with the fair use rules, but I fixed the license anyway (maybe). Not quite sure what that picture is, it looks like a comic book illustration, is it? Melesse 18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nightcrawler

I think your edit, as a whole, was poorly intended, and was made so as to be difficult to rollback. Accordingly, I did not go through with a fine-toothed comb. If you want to return some of the tags that were more sensible, though, go for it. I agree with you about the Legion bit, for example. Phil Sandifer 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nightcrawler (comics)

Per your comment, I've copied your message to Talk:Nightcrawler (comics) and replied there. Happy editing. Hiding Talk 20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC) (formerly known as Hiding Talk 20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

ANI notice

Hello Arcayne. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

- Jehochman ^Talk 02:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

Your error: DreamGuy, not Dreamguy. Here are the previous cases. Relata refero 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise it seems OK; if it isn't, the clerk will help you clean it up. Make sure you let the checkusers know why it is important to know for sure, rather than merely go on the diffs/circumstantial evidence that has convinced Jehochman, not that I think they will turn down a request for an ArbCom-related RFCU. Relata refero 21:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter Petrelli edits

Excuse me sir if some of my comments, which were intended principally in jest, were "impolite," but you ought to apply such standards to yourself before calling others out. You seriously seem to be taking a far too authoritarian line with the articles you edit, trouncing and ridiculing the ideas of others, and maintaining that your interpretation of television episodes (of all things) is sacred and definitive. I will concede that a wikipedia article should not have over-the-top fan theories and the like--that is indeed not its purpose. But the discussion page of all things should be relatively free ground for discussion and debate of what we all glean from the episodes themselves, as well as other official media. Even when something appears on the show, it cannot always be fully explained, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the article, so long as the editor points out the ambiguity. Perhaps those sorts of things are more appropriate for the articles on the episodes themselves. But please do not accuse others of being impolite or sniping other editors or whatever when you don't appear to hold yourself to that ideal standard. I'm not out to make any enemies. As you suggested, I am indeed new to editing articles and do it infrequently. However, when I looked at the Peter Petrelli discussion page, I saw what looked like two editors berating everyone else and trying to control everything. I felt like backing up the other side, and if my comments were a bit much--sorry, but I felt they were justified. Thank you, and good day. Scwatson 14:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

I am copying this same message to both Arcayne and DreamGuy.

The time now is to move on. There is no proof that DreamGuy has committed any blockable offenses, so let's assume good faith and try to get a consensus going.

Regarding the accusations of sockpuppetry, since the RFCU was denied we will never know for sure. I propose we stay agnostic about whether it occurred, and never speak of it again (unless suspicions arise anew). DreamGuy, if you were falsely accused, I apologize. If you indeed were editing anonymously, consider this a mulligan: go forth and sin no more :)

Regarding Jack the Ripper, I would like to get an RfC going. The problem we have is that there are not enough editors to have a true consensus. If Arcayne says, "I think X," and DreamGuy says, "I think Y," then we are at an impasse without a 3rd (or 4th or 5th) opinion.

Does this sound okay for now? --Jaysweet 17:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Whitechapel Murders

Dreamguy has deleted my separate article on the Whitechapel Murders with the full approval of a supine admin. So it seems we are not allowed to mention the Whitechapel Murders anywhere on the wikipedia - neither in the Ripper article or elsewhere - only the 'canonical five'. Is Dreamguy thus the 'owner' of all articles on Jack the Ripper on the wikipedia? Colin4C 19:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Socks.

It looks pretty good to me, though I'm no expert. The only thing that might be wrong (and I stress might), is that perhaps User:Sixstring1965 should be listed as the puppeteer and Realsanpaku be listed with the other puppets? But I'm really not sure about that. Should probably be fine as it is.
Oh, and what can I say? Gay guys think I'm awesome. haha faithless (^speak) 05:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that that might not come across the right way; I'm not calling you guy, but rather the user who posted above you on my talk page, who literally is a homosexual. faithless (^speak) 05:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Arcayne for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Realsanpaku 05:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

YOU are the sock, and stop sending me threatening emails or I will report you to the police.Realsanpaku 05:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever sent you an email. Quite honestly, i am not sure to which of your many accounts I would write to. I know i am able to remove this entire post of yours as per WP:LEGAL, but I think I will keep it here a while. I am thinking the AN/I folk will get a kick out if it. As it is, Sixstring, I think all your socks are gonna get banned. And, as you an indef banned, blocking you is secondary to banning you forever. Find a new hobby. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Malformed sockpuppet report

Just giving you a heads up that Realsanpaku attempted to list you as a suspected sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Arcayne‎ , diff at WP:SSP. I reverted the change at WP:SSP and have placed a speedy tag on the malformed report. --健次(derumi)^talk 06:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(copied from User_talk:Derumi, I prefer to keep conversations intact on the page they started on, please let me know if this offends you)

Never having socked, or having been accused of socking, I was wondering if i can ask what a malformed sock report is? If I am to understand you correctly, it was filed incorrectly, or was not a valid report? How did you catch it?

As well, when i filed my initial SSP report, someone said that I should have listed the primary (and indef banned) account, Sixstring1965, as the puppetmaster. I am really keen on doing this correctly, as my last report was so inept it allowed the last sock puppet I caught to escape.

Sorry, if my questions are a bother, and i certainly wanted to thank you for fixing things. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The created page that goes with the report was formatted badly enough that it never displayed on WP:SSP, which I watch. So when Realsanpaku replaced his or her username with yours, that made the contents of WP:SSP noticeably shorter. I checked the history to see whose case got resolved and caught the edit. For what it's worth, I (at this point) do not know how to format a proper sockpuppet report, but I have a fair idea that "Please check this guy out." ... isn't the way to go about it. I also gave the fellow a warning for the personal attacks on you. Never worry about asking questions; I never do. I imagine you and I both want to make WP a better place, and enjoy learning how. :) --健次(derumi)^talk 07:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I do, on both accounts. I am honored to be considered an equal in such estemed company. Again, thanks for the assist, and I hope to see you around sometime. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report

Every user whose behavior has been brought into question on your sockpuppet report has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. I have therefore closed the case accordingly. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to leave them on my talk page. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and add them as suspected sockpuppets if you would like, take my close as an official endorsement of that. Also, when it comes to that IP address, I'm [19] pretty sure it's blocked. Thanks for making the sockpuppet report, I know it takes a lot of effort and it's usually unpleasant. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If the comments left by the sockpuppets were disruptive, you could remove them and simply leave a statement saying "disruptive comments by sockpuppets removed," along with a link to the sockpuppet case. If the comments aren't disruptive and don't violate talk page guidelines, you should keep the comments where they are, but label those comments or sections as posts by sockpuppets, again with a link to the closed sockpuppet case. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The suspected sockpuppet page is a category page, so to add more users to it you need to add the sockpuppet template, {{sockpuppet}}, to the user pages of the users you would like to add. The template has several parameters, such as who the user is a sockpuppet of, and the evidence. The syntax would be {{sockpuppet|Sixstring1965|suspected|evidence=[[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Realsanpaku]]}}. Also, Sixstring1965 was blocked indef by Jeffrey O. Gustafson on October 28th. [20] RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

---

---

Nancy Reagan FAC

Nancy's back up at FAC here; just thought you might like to comment. And thanks so much for pitching in on discussions I give you links to. They really help me out, as you so often have. Thanks a lot. And sorry about the accusation of sockpuppetry. I just checked out that guy's page, and he seemed a little crazed :) Best of luck. --Happyme22 (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It's my first abusive puppetmaster. When I was at ArbCom contributing to a complaint there, I read about some instances of far more insidious and complex puppetry. This guy was a gerbil by comparison. . I will stop by the FAC on Sunday. I still want my zen award, tho'... ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A Sale of Two Titties

Interestingly enough, I did find an article that compares Harry to Sydney Carton, but not ol' Snivellus. faithless (^speak) 08:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcmeister

After I read what you were attempting, it certainly sounded just like it. Got me to laugh. You know me, keeping my cool until someone really annoying comes along, like Robinepowell. Yourself?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, apparently, there's an Admin list with my name on it somewhere.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but there is no such subpage, otherwise it'd show up in a search of user pages on WP. The anon is lying unless there's a diff or link that can be shown. --健次(derumi)^talk 00:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

B-b-b-but... there's a cabal!!! I just know they're watching us. Wikipedia's own Illuminati, I tell ya... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fnord. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nov. 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Braveheart. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please don't remove maintenance tags, unless a fix has been made. Thanks. --Madchester 02:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, um, okay, Mad. Perhaps you may have missed my message, but its considered impolite to drop generic tags in an experienced editor's talk space over a simple mistake. the cn tag got caught in a larger revert. Anyone here can tell you i am a citation-tagging monster. After all, I am fairly sure you make mistakes as well, and I would know better than to drop a generic tag on your page and call the mistake POV. Have the respect to talk to a fellow editor the way he's earned, okey-doke? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry and Ron

Thank you for this edit summary. Tvoz |talk 07:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. sometimes, i think that if Dateline NBC held a "Harry Potter: to Catch a Predator" episode, they could fill a season's worth of episodes in the first day. I actually feel sorry for Emma Watson. All that money and fame, and the pervs who fantasize about her are never going to go away. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Elric

Hi Arcayne, Why did you delete my comment under the "Elric drug addict" section? I was trying to illustrate how ridiculous it was. I assume you took it another way? Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you haven't edited here a lot, you might not be aware that instructional sarcasm is not really an effective tool of persuasive argumentation, Ethan. Your stated intention was to use irony to illustrate your point. However, it came across as unnecessarily rude and inappropriately unfriendly to your fellow editors. I can understand how it can be difficult to hold both your temper and your tongue (believe me, I really, really do), but the effort has to be made. As it wasn't a helpful remark, and seemed more malicious than playful, I yanked it as likely trolling. Perhaps in the future, you could strive to either communicate your irony more pithily, or simply do away with it altogether. I hope that explains matters better. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I swear...

...that when Wikipedia and the rest of the world has gone to dust, post-apocalyptic tribes will sing tales of the woeful clashes of Arcayne and Viriditas. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, when you say stuff like "emotionally stunted", it really doesn't show that you've moved on. ;) When you reach a point where all dialogue with him is focused on the content and disregards the past in its entirety, that may be a strong step -- even if the other side continues targeting you personally. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arcayne, This kind of stuff crosses the line: "maybe its something simple, like you are just infatuated and have a boy-crush on me, While I am indeed flattered, you should know that I am a guy and just not that into you, and you are far too young." Please don't say stuff like that to other editors, ok? There's no excuse for it. --MPerel 03:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that wasn't very nice; it was also something that I apologized to Viriditas for on his User Talk page,. However, it hasn't escaped my notice how you haven't offered a similar counseling for Viriditas' personal attacks. I mean, it isn't as if you don't have enough opportunities, editing alongside him in a few different articles, trading user Talk page chit-chat and awards and all. I think perhaps you aren't being very neutral here. I didn't choose to start a fight with viriditas, and indeed have even taken steps to disengage from such contact and de-escalate the situation. Your non-AGF contributions to the matter has not served that intent. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's apparent you two don't seem to like each other, and it affects not only the both of you, but surrounding editors and the editing environment in general. What can be done to heal this rift between you two? Can I help? I have some ideas, if you're open to it would you email me through my profile? --MPerel 16:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile

—Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Elric

No need to watchlist, I blocked the IP for 48 hours. Let me know if he keeps at it, but I will be travelling extensively in the coming week so any longer term action might need to be given to another admin. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No 3RR report needs to be filed, however, it would be a helpful piece of information in discussing this IP address in the future if need be. You are right in that a note is usually left on the page of the blocked IP, I must admit that I am extremely lazy in leaving blovk/warning notes. If you've never seen it before, MediaWiki:Blockedtext is usualy more informative than any note I would have to write myself. Just be sure to mention this to another admin if they are considering a block, although most admins would check the block log for an IP long before the IP's talk page. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Heroes

The precedent and consensus, as well as guidelines for TV, is that credits count over all else. When/if an actor is given opening credits, they should be in the 'main cast' list. Consult someone at the TV Wikiproject for help with seasonal cast chagnes and how that should be presented, but the 'credits count' theory has worked well so far. Last season, this frustrated editors who wanted Ando in, but also helped us preclude the inclusion of actors who, while promiinent, appeared seldom, like George Takei. It's the simplest litmus test around, a clear brightline distinction, and removes any judgements by editors or shifting consensus lines. I'll leave it to you to revert yourself until a good plan for the seasonal stuff can be edited out. I'd personally accept a 'Former Cast Members' list which contains main cast members from previous seasons and/or volumes. ThuranX (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I replied before checking page history, but I'm sure you would've reverted, as you seem to be on-board with the credits now. As to former, as I said, creating a former cast list is fine by me, but check the TVWP first. ThuranX (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Robin Hood edits

Re your message: Ah, I see. I wasn't aware that were were content issues with the article. My revert was prompted by the childish vandalism preceding my revert, not the section in question. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Braveheart

Fine then. Explain it to me. It's used as a reference to the film. How is it not at all a reference? Explain how this possibly works. - Amedeus (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Posted as a response on Amedeus' User Talk page:

Okay, the prerequisite for notability means that the film making the reference closely follows the referenced film in more ways than one or two statements. The South Park episode copies the theme and specific scenes from Braveheart, in that case, the speech at Stirling Bridge (gah, I'm going to hate myself it was Falkirk). The reference used in the American version of The Office specifically refers to Braveheart as the source for prima noctes, and one of the characters throws in that it "is confimed on Wikipedia" to boot. That's pretty notable. The third reference, the Daxter video game unlockable sequence is specifcally from the dream sequence wherein Wallace talks to Murron in the woods. All of these references either copy a scene or specifically refer to Braveheart by name before mimicking the film in some way.

Your inclusion of Baseketball references a line in Braveheart while speaking in a Scottish accent. If they copied the entire scene, complete with thistle and riding in the rain, then it would be notable. As it is, it copies a line, which isn't really notable enough for inclusion. I hope that helps explain what I meant. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hood

If you have no problem with the edits, then I'm confused as to why you would revert them so many times? Seems rather pointless, I don't understand your issue with this. Nobody else has any issue with them and they are well sourced, neautral and in following with how Wikipedia policies. I added a more neutra structure for the opening overview , thats all. The old information has been kept in, no essential information has been taken out, just a well sourced improval. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe i've addressed my disappointment with your failure to discuss your large-scale, sweeping edits prior to making them, or at least making them incrementally, so that your fellow editors could address specific parts of your version, and not have to deal with them en masse. I believe I've addressed them no fewer than four separate times. If you choose to forego the editorial process, please do not act surprised when your edits are struck down. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

3rd opinion!! This guy acts like User:CalcioSalvo or even User:SalvoCalcio. Same interests and same method of working!! He does some excellent edits but seems to be a loner, not given to discussion. This lack of consultation can be counter productive on Wikipedia. It just wastes everyones time.--212.139.124.101 (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, who are you referring to, exactly?

Sorry, I forgot to sign in last time. I mean Yorkshirian. I'm not sure but the style is very similar, really well referenced but doesn't seem to want to co-operate.--Ahjet (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what WP:SSP and WP:RfCU are for. If you suspect a connection, follow through. I cannot stand sock-puppets, as they are counter to the driving principles of Wikipedia. the only exception to this rule is doppleganger accounts, wherein an editor can edit utterly different articles without a casual connection to their primary accounts. With articles like coprophilia and pedophilia out there, it is of little wonder why someone would want to further distance themselves from average scrutiny. So long as the admins know it is a doppleganger account, then all is fine. If you suspect something suspect going on, report it; don't edit-war it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

I really appreciate the template you posted on my User page. It will definitely come in handy while I am still learning. Stephoswalk (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

JTR

What do you mean by 'withdrawing my remarks'? If you mean deleting them that will do no good as Dreamguy will just re-instate them the same way he retrieved all our bad tempered discussions from the archive when Kb put them there and resurrected my bad tempered remarks when I deleted them. He loves feuding and disrupting the wikipedia project much more than compromise. He will destroy it if you let him. I am a constructive good faith editor. See for instance: Gothic fiction, Music hall and Striptease which I contributed much to without getting into any conflict with anybody. Colin4C (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have withdrawn/deleted my remarks. Colin4C (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dreamguy has put them back like I said he would. I told you! When are you admins going to do something about him? I have deleted remarks again as per your advice. Colin4C (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And I put a strike-through on the text. When I last checked, they appeared to have been unmolested after that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I want it either to stand or be completely deleted. I never agreed to a strikethrough. I stand by every word of it and only deleted it to promote harmony on the page. Colin4C (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, um that isn't really the right mindset for seeking to de-escalate the issues between you two. Whenever someone tells me that they 'stand by the remarks', it is usually true that they know the comments are uncivil and are going to use a variation of the WP:DUCK defense. What almost always missing in that defense is the realization that one's perception of a duck is not always objective. I suggested that to de-escalate the problem that you attempt to minimize your remarks, either by strikethrough or outright self-revert. DG kept restoring them; apparently DG is perhaps unaware that the comments live on in the edit history. So the only other alternatives were to either strikethrough the comments or to simply let it go and try to be more civil in the future.

Since you stand by your remarks, that tells me that you aren't trying to de-escalate the situation but are instead trying to win the argument. I don't really want to get involved in that, Colin. As I believe that DG is continually burning all his bridges as he goes from one RfC and ArbCom hearing to another, and essentially edits on borrowed time, I think it is counter to my responsibility as a good editor and ordinary human being to help him drive off a cliff. He's just an unhappy person; he isn't the AntiChrist, and I refuse to join any Crusade that is out to 'get' him.

So, if you aren't interested in de-escalating the problem, I cannot help you. Sorry for the long answer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So you approve of him rubbing my face in the dirt and victimising other editors and making the wikipedia hell? He knows what he is doing. He is not stupid. He is getting immense pleasure at sticking his fingers up at the admins and getting them to do his dirty work for him. No need to feel sorry for him. He regards you and the other admins with total contempt. He has insulted me on that page about 20 times and utilised a sock pocket to revert my edits and put up banner headlines threatening to blind revert all my edits. The admins did nothing about it...except feel sorry for him. Perhaps he'll change tommorow? Perhaps Jack the Ripper became a saint and healer after he killed Mary Kelly? He is utterly blatant about it. As we speak he is meticulously combing through my edit history and wikistalking me and trying to delete my articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horror and terror Maybe that's my fault as well? I am seriously thinking of quitting the wikipedia. I hope you and your pet troll are happy about that. Colin4C (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am not suggesting any of this is your fault, or that DreamGuy doesn't have issues; Helen Keller could see that he does, but you are proving my point about how you are turning what I see to be just an unhappy little monkey into something more sinister. Karma will take of DreamGuy as well as the simple weight of the enemies he tends to make. Look over your own commentary here, Colin. If any of that were in an article, would any of it strike you as speculative and original research? You are not in DG's head, and for Odin's sake, why would you want to be?

I recommend that you avoid editing in articles that he contributes to for a while. Develop some perspective and distance. If you don't, you turn into him and will get yourself blocked, as you do not possess the slippery evasiveness that DG appears to possess. Let it go while you still can. Only ruin can await you on your current path. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's one that Kb and me edited: Music hall. It has now been awarded GA status. Colin4C (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne

I truly believe that Arcayne is a serious and well-intentioned editor, but also has a wonderful sense of humour, which a lot of other editors seem to miss. He is serious about the things he believes in, but he does not take himself seriously. He is a "good egg", as the Brits like to say.--andreasegde (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. He's intelligent as well. Respect is due. --andreasegde (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Aww shucks (blushing). T'weren't but a thing. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold on; you've got 8 (count 'em) Barnstars. You don't need me to help. :)) --andreasegde (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sith edits

• I've just put the comment back. please do not delere comments from talk pages as that is against Wiki policy. Jasca Ducato (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, about that - it was removed because it was uncivil and had zero value as directing the discussion. Bone up on WP:CIVIL and then talk to me. next time you add it, you'll get to see admin policy up close and personal-like. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

With regards to our discussion on the Lord Voldemort talk page

Thank you Arcayne. I'm afraid I did register but I was blocked for recreation of deleted material. Not a serious crime in my opinion. I appealed to be unblocked but they ignored me so now I'm stuck editing as an unregistered user. I refuse to create another account as that would make me guilty of sockpuppetry, something which I refuse to stoop to. My only hope is that someday someone will take pity on me and unblock me. But that's beside the point. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by address line. With regards to the narcissist issue, Voldemort is known to regard himself as the mightiest wizard there ever was and he frequently brags of his abilities as shown by him saying "I am extraordinary" to Severus Snape in Book 7. He refers to himself as special when talking to Dumbeledore in Book 6 and in Book Seven when he contemplates the thought of his horcruxes being destroyed he refers to himself as "the most important" in his thought process. He also largely looks down on everyone around him and obviously loves being the centre of attention. All of these are traits of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Furthermore care to have a look at the link to MuggleNet Wikiburger provided further up the page.

http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-yrome02.shtml

The website contains solid evidence to the possibility that Voldemort suffers (if suffers is the right word) from NPD. Would you agree Arcayne? 86.133.200.236 (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As this was cross-posted in the Voldemort Discsussion page, I've responded there. Short answer:no. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

True. But what about all that other stuff I mentioned? 86.133.200.236 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.200.236 (talk)

The stuff I mentioned about Voldemort regarding himself as the mightiest wizard of all time, considering himself special/extraordinary and important, bragging of his abilities, looking down on everyone around him and loving being the centre of attention. That stuff. 86.133.200.236 (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ho ho ho

Ah, nobody got back to you about it? I'm not sure if any of us were familiar with free licensing. From what I can tell, it seems good and dandy. It may be best to truly check with editors who deal with older images like these, rather than editors that deal with non-free production stills and screenshots. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I did, I had two Thanksgivings in a row (due to a stubborn grandmother who wouldn't be part of Thursday's plans). Plenty of leftovers as a result. Hope you had a great Thanksgiving as well! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: 300 edits

Yes, my comment was directed at you, as you appear to have accidentally put the word "Iranians" back in twice. Whoops. :) Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 15:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Here and here, which is what confused me. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 15:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Petrelli edits

Perhaps you're right! Maybe I should comment better.--76.26.31.85 (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What a nice pik-a-nik it was

Your set-up of the argument-deflating picnic was a splendid idea, and I meant to come over and commend you on its implementation. It was pretty darn effective in accomplishing its task. That is the sort of effort I like to see in admins. Thanks for stepping in and doing a great job! :)
On another note, where can I get one of those nifty Creep Eliminator barnstars? I've killed off at least 4 sockpuppets and learned very steeply about the ArbCom enforcement process by helping a notice along. Does that do the trick? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you! We were fortunate that Aleta happened to bring lemon and mint along.
More seriously, pulling off the stunt was pretty much representative of all that I quest to be on Wikipedia: beneficial, polite and bizarre. As I was otherwise uninvolved in the discussion, I couldn't know if the break was effective or if the debate was naturally winding down. Thanks for the thanks, and for confirming that it worked!

I'd be happy to award you a suitable barnstar based on your accomplishments, but this one isn't for going against that kind of creep but example creep; i.e., for removing excessive detail for the shake of the articles as a whole. It's a nice thing to have around while debating with deletionists or other keen removers, to show that we're not on opposing sides the whole idea of forming distinct sides here is rather stupid. --Kizor (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: JLA

Justice League#Film. It hasn't made it out of the woods yet, what with the writers' strike and all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Erik already pointed you in the right direction.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Just because I took a finance exam one time does not mean I'm majoring in that course. There is such thing as taking different courses toward one's business major, you know? ;) Keep deducing, Sherlock! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thought for the Day

"It is easy to summon up demons - for they are always summoning you" - Aleister Crowley (aka: 'The Great Beast') Colin4C (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars

Just glancing over the website, it's copyright license is that of LucasFilm, so I wonder if it is an official website licensed by Lucas's company.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that concern. Did you bring this up on the talk page? I say this with a grain of salt, because I know how the Star Wars fans can become borderline psychotic if you question their SW God.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the information at StarWars.com is official and accurate. It's probably fine in a descriptive manner... I used to be into Star Wars, so I know that Korriban is really a fictional planet in the that universe. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your diligence at 300 (film) amazes me. I passed on active participation so long ago because I didn't think that such a Hollywoodized production warranted so much historical nitpicking. I can't imagine how much discussion you've invested in that film article's talk page. :) Kudos to you for being a steward of the article all this time. Perhaps I can summon you for Valkyrie (film), which will be its own barrel of monkeys with Cruise's Scientology and historical figures' degree of Nazism? I just know that it's going to happen. *sigh* —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to see Beowulf, but I thought that American Gangster was a very solid, very enjoyable film. It did bother me to think how people can be so corrupt like that. I'd definitely watch it again; there was so much to consume on the first viewing. If you ever want to know what films I've watched lately, you can check out User:Erik/Films, so you can bug me about my opinion about any of these movies. :) Did you see either of them? If so, what did you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm really looking forward to Valkyrie: I like Tom Cruise and Bryan Singer, and what a cast! Beowulf was roaring and moving good fun: I'm pleased so far at the article's reliance of academic essays on its differences from the poem. But I can't help thinking the poem is false having seen the movie now... Good old Neil Gaiman eh? Alientraveller 09:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Passing a message on

I got this message. I was asked to pass it on, which I have now done. --andreasegde (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. (Your comments about blocked person, that is).--andreasegde (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Elric again

An IP address is attempting to remove your cite tags on Elric. I have done two reverts and noted it on his talk page. Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Countdown

I think they should be grouped by less specific story-arcs. I went back and grouped them thematically rather than every single subplot. What do you think? --In Defense of the Artist (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone else disagrees. Can you think of a better way to group them? --In Defense of the Artist 13:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Right...since there will probably be a lot of unforeseen connections that will tie the disparate plot-lines together. Got it! :) --In Defense of the Artist 17:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spoof Chef.as.Braveheart.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Spoof Chef.as.Braveheart.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Creating an archive

What is the process for creating an archive? I would like to archive a talk page but I'm not entirely sure of the process. Padillah 14:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

As a very friendly request, could you please review WP:Talk_page#Formatting and further review Wikipedia:Guide to good indentation? I've noticed several instances where improper indentation has somewhat disrupted the flow of discussions on talk pages. Regards. ObserverToSee 17:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Without Permission

I made a small typo correction on your userpage. Hopefullly it was okay. Lsi john 23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my typo. I didn't realize my user-page was under such scrutiny. :)

It isn't.. it just caught my eye, as did the typo.. and I thought i'd fix it while I was there. Lsi john 23:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Heroes infobox

Hi. You reverted one of my edits. Just check Talk:List of characters in Heroes and you ll see everything is fine. "Parents" and "Children" have been removed from all infoboxes since 17 November. Check here for example. Reply here I'll check it. Friendly, Magioladitis 23:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2007 Newsletter

The November 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Certainly, I regret if any words of mine have been construed as personal attacks. I have simply stated facts, since my first allegiance is always to the truth. --Law Lord 10:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Family stuff from Heroes

Are we not using the family stuff infoboxes anymore? You removed it, someone else must have added it back in, and I just reverted the person who had removed it again. they were polite enough to chat me up and point out the background. I thought the family stuff was important. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is important and that we need to have it in the article, but I thought we were going to make a family tree like in HP? I feel quite strongly that the infobox isn't the place for that amount of information, for aesthetic reasons if nothing else. I suppose since I removed I should have asked someone in the community if they could make the necessary trees. My bad. Apologies. asyndeton 12:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, its no problem. I guess I agree that the family stuff doesn't belong in the infobox. If I knew how to make a family tree (the compu-techincal part, I mean), I'd do it, because it doesn't look like that has been done yet. Something like that could be tied to an article about the founders of the company. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I know what you're saying about the techno side of family trees; seems like a job for Micah IMO ;). I'll post it on the project page and see what that turns up - AulaTPN did once say he'd help create a Bauer family tree but that would have been much shorter and it doesn't really seem fair to get him to do this since he isn't in the project.

Um I'm afraid I can't really comment on whether or not it should go in the Company's article; jolly old England is always a fait bit behind you Yanks as far as entertainment goes and so I'm only going to finish season 1 on Wednesday.

Btw I liked your signature's format so much that I decided to commandeer it. Hope you don't mind! asyndeton talk 11:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

NR FA

Hey thanks for that. but it was you that really helped that article a long time ago. Thanks, though. Happyme22 (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Harold Washington Edits

What was the problem with the edits I made, the edits that I made were the one agreed up on in the discussion page.Walljr

Reagan

but we cannot simply ignore the fact that Ronald Reagan contributed greatly to the end of the cold war. Call me a Reagan partisan or whatever, but there is truth in that phrase. Maybe it just needs to be worded differently - I'll come up with something and run it past Rise who came up with the wording. And you don't have to appologize :) Happyme22 (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I do undertsand your thoughts. The article is full of statements that can be challenged, but that's true in every article. This one is special because Reagan is a very iconic figure with mixed reviews (a great example is the last FAC). But this ties in to what I was mentioning a few moths back in this section of the talk page. Anyway, I'll expand later, probably on the talk page, to get many editors' opnions. Happyme22 (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Block decline for JohnSavery

Greetings! Thank you for your report to WP:AIV about User:JohnSavery. It was a valid and good-faith report; however, I declined your request since there was no vandalism after the user received a final-level warning this morning.

I agree that the attack on your user page was utterly uncalled for, and had JohnSavery done anything further to your page after JHunterJ's warning, I would have blocked him. However, since the warning seems to have stopped the vandalism, I don't think a block is preventing anything further. So, no block now, but if he commits any further vandalism, then I'd fully support a block.

Again, thank you for your report, and please, feel free to report any other user who you see acting in a similar manner. —C.Fred (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

this question comes a little late(about reverting vandalism)

I've started using Twinkle and Friendly and hope I'm doing alright. I have one question: What are the implications of reverting something "as vandalism"? Does this cast aspersions on the editor? Or is something actually done? Sometimes the editor is just being a jerk and I don't want to get anybody banned. Thanks for the input. Padillah (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"World's Finest" in Midnighter

Please stop trying to shoehorn mention of Batman and Superman's nickname into an article that is not about that nickname or either of them. Saying that Midnighter and Apollo are a parallel of Batman and Superman is one thing. Shoehorning the "World's Finest" into the passage is redundant and irrelevant. Hell, Bats and Supes aren't even referred to by that name in the book they currently star in. (Sorry I accidentally omitted mention of Superman in my last edit, btw.) And most modern references to Batman do not use the article "the" when doing so. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you are going to get a lot further with me by sending me somewhat less strident, impolite messages. It also makes me less inclines to want to editorially rip you a new one. So be polite, for your sake and my blood pressure, okey-doke, sunshine?

Moving on, that Superman and Batman are actually referred to as the Worlds Finest enough that they eventually had their own comic that ran for over forty years says to me that it isn't unencyclopedic to refer to them as such. Please feel free to check out the actual links for World's Finest to confirm this. That their current comic pairing doesn't call them this doesn't negate the moniker, and in fact reinforces it. That the Midnighter and Apollo have been cited as analogs for the Batman and Superman. As well, the very citation refers to the pairing of Batman and Superman as "the World's Finest" is undisputed. Lastly, THE Batman is the proper name for the character, and not the colloquial. Take a look at the actual Batman article and see this for yourself.

"Shoe-horning" would require imply that I am trying to add something to the article which isn't supported by citation. This clearly isn't the case. I will copyedit the Lead so that my adding it back in doesn't seem to be more in keeping with the supporting citation.

In the future, come to me with a problem before it apparently escalates enough that you feel the need to approach me the way you did. I don't respond well to rudeness. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought I was straightforward enough in the Edit Summary, and since it seemed to have no effect, I snapped. Sorry about that. As to the arguments:

Using "WF" The article is about Midnighter. Not Superman or Batman. Thus, references to Supes and Bats should be made casually, in passing. Putting "WF" in there, when that term is probably not known to the general public is not only unnecessary, and not relevant to Midnighter, but the sentences reads in a rather clunky manner. Compare the version of that sentence I advocate with the one you do. Do you honestly think yours reads better? That should be the priority, especially in an Intro, where clarity and succintness in summing up the article are of paramount importance. Whether the citation uses it, or how long their comic book ran, really isn't.

Using "the" Batman. The proper name to use for someone or something is that which is more commonly used. Batman is commonly referred to as such, without the article. You advised me to look at the the Batman article, and I did. This is what I found in the opening line of the Intro: "Batman (originally referred to as the Bat-Man and still referred to at times as the Batman)..." See that? "Batman". Not "The Batman". It only mentions that the article "the" is used at times. But not commonly.

"Shoehorn: The word "shoehorn" is a device used to slide your foot into a shoe into which it cannot easily otherwise fit. Used as metaphor, it refers to forcing something into a limited or tight space. It has nothing to do with whether something is empirically supported.

Thanks for the copyedit, and sorry again for being rude. Thanks for taking the high road, thus forcing me to see that I was being a bit of an ass. :-) Happy Holidays! Nightscream (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, and thanks for being more polite; it's a big plus for me. Allow me to cut right to your points:

Using "WF" - the article draws the connection - a fairly sizable one, I think - between Midnighter and Batman. The citation also draws a connection between the duo of Midnighter and Apollo with the pairing of Batman and Superman. As the latter pair have been repeatedly, citably and notably referred to as the World's Finest and the article actually exists entitled World's Finest discussing this pairing, it is appropriate to note it. Yes, the article is about the Midnighter, but since a number of parallels have been cited between his partnership with Apollo and that of Batman and Superman, even noting the titling of the Batman/Superman pairing as World's Finest, it behooves us to include it.

Using "the" Batman - It is also appropriate to note at the first mentioning the proper term of the character, and as Batman's 'formal title is The Batman, it's encyclopedic to note it. Subsequent mentions of the character don't require the definite article.

"Shoehorn" - I am aware of the proper definition of the term, Nightscream. What I don't understand is your contention that the article is so bloated that a properly cited reference and a definite article are going to cause the article to explode.

Also difficult to fathom is your inferred contention that if it is older, it has no relevance. I would submit that pairings like that of Midnighter and Apollo would never have been conceived has it not been for the existence of the World's Finest or the component members. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

WF It is not appropriate to note it if doing so causes the sentence to become unwieldly, and less to the point, and if it is not relevant to the article, especially the Intro to it. What difference does it make if a connection is drawn between Apollo and Midnighter and Batman and Superman? I've never contested this, as it is not the point. WF references belong in articles on Batman, Superman, and World's Finest, or in articles that mention that title. Casually mentioning it as an aside in the Intro to different character's article may serve to stray off on a tangent, and confuse non-comics readers who don't know what that nickname/title means.

The Batman If you can provide reference that indicates that one way of referring to Batman is more "proper" or "formal" than another, aside from how he's commonly referred to, I'm all eyes. :-)

Shoehorning None of the ideas you attribute to me regarding my use of the word "shoehorning" are those that I have expressed, either implicitly or explicitly, nor that I harbor. Nowhere did I mention or imply anything about the article being bloated, or the relationship of something's age to its relevance. You seem to be going on and on about the significance of WF to Apollo/Midnighter, when my point is not about the connection between the two. (Have I attempted to delete any references to Superman or Batman in that passage in any of my edits?) I have been quite clear in stating my point that it is unnecessary to mention the name "World's Finest", and more to the point to just say "Batman and Superman". Nightscream (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

WF is not an unwieldy term, as I will illustrate in an edit as soon as I am finished posting here (I'll subsequently provide a link for it here).

The Batman is the formal name used in the comics, the various television programs (live-action and animated) and product merchandised by DC Comics. References to the character initially being called the Batman still occurs in the comics (Nightwing, the GCPD mini-series, Batgirl: Year One. Batman: Year One, Batman One Million, etc.) Using a commonly referred to name is entirely appropriate, after the proper name is given. Other examples would be the Atom, the Green Arrow, etc. As well, common parlance is not an excuse for failing to use the proper name. For example, many people commonly refer to Spider-Man without with hyphen (Spiderman), which is entirely understandable, and entirely inaccurate. Should we use the non-hyphenated version simply because that is what is commonly used? Clearly, we cannot.

Shoehorn is the term you initially used, defining the metaphorical usage as "forcing something into a limited or tight space". You implied that the article was too full to allow for the usage, which I found puzzling. If I misinterpreted your usage of the term, accept my apology. Allow me to simplify my reasoning here (not intended as an insult, but an attempt at transparency):

1. Midnighter was inspired by the Batman character. As well, the Midnighter copies many of the traits of Batman.

2. Midnighter is partnered with Apollo, who has been cited as being an analog of Superman.

3. Batman and Superman are historically and citably known as the "World's Finest".

4. When this pairing is analogous as a reference point for M and A, it becomes notable. As there is a citation to that effect in the article, it becomes ever more so.

5. Therefore, noting the existence of the WF moniker used to describe the pairing of Batman and Superman - analogs from which Midnighter and Apollo were created and paired together - is significant and important.

I hope that explains my point better, Nightscream. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• "4. When this pairing is analogous as a reference point for M and A, it becomes notable." The pairing and the analogy. Not an obscure nickname that the general public is unaware of.
• "As there is a citation to that effect in the article, it becomes ever more so." I do not see how the presence of a citation in any way effects the wording you use. This is a non sequitur. A citation merely supports the fact that A/M were modeled after S/B. It does not require one, however, to use a nickname to define the latter duo when the general public is not familiar with it.
• "5. Therefore, noting the existence of the WF moniker used to describe the pairing of Batman and Superman - analogs from which Midnighter and Apollo were created and paired together - is significant and important." Only if you can demonstrate why identifying that duo as such is relevant to Midnighter--which it is not. The point is that one duo was modeled after another. Identifying the prior duo does not require the use of such a nickname, any more than referring to Batman requires that we refer to him as "Gotham's protector".
• "You implied that the article was too full to allow for the usage..." I did no such thing. I stated--not implied--that it was unnecessary, particularly for the Intro, in which being clear and succinct was even more important than in the article's body. From the start I made it clear that it was the passage that became unwieldly when that nickname was inserted into it, using that specific word in my first post to you, and in my second post, I specified "sentence" and "Intro". I never said or implied "article". Nightscream

Well, I rather disagree with your contention that 'World's Finest' is an "obscure nickname". A Google search uncovered over 160 results for "World's Finest", and almost all of them referred to Batman and Superman. In addition, the publication history of that particular branding of the DC hero pairing has run for over 40 years - hardly an obscure reference.

As we seem to not really be finding a resolution, perhaps we need to file an RfC regarding this point, and get some neutral input. thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A Google search will uncover all sorts of information that the general public is unaware of. Again, where you get the non sequitur that something is not obscure if a Google search can reference it, I don't know. Go show an illustration of Batman to 100 people at random on the street, and see how they identify it. Most of them (if not all of them) will identify it as "Batman". Not "The Batman". Ditto for "World's Finest", which most of the general public is not aware of. What you keep going on and on and on about (how long WF has been around, how many references you can find for "the" Batman, etc.) is information known only to hardcore comics fans like you and I, and has nothing to do with the points I'm raising. What does the fact that Batman was initially referred to with "the" have to do with how it is appropriate to refer to him now (and in casual passing) in an article about a completely separate character? My conclusion remains: Mentioning that Apollo and Midnighter are patterned after Batman and Superman is sufficient. It is not necessary to mention what Batman and Superman have been called as a duo, nor how Batman was "initially" described, particularly in passing in the Intro to a derivative character. If you can provide a counterargument to this point, instead of the ones you've been using that have nothing to do with it, then by all means, solicit a third party opinion. Nightscream (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And if you showed pictures of Spider-Man or the Atom to that same random group on the street, they would identify them as "Spiderman" and Atom, so I would dare say that the argument is about as valid as my Google one; incidentally , it isn't a non-sequitur to note the predominant presence of one thing as an identifier for something, such as 'World's Finest; (which - again - is neither obscure nor non-pertinent), as we aren't really weighing hits against google-bombing and whatnot. You are a smart fellow, please don't insult either of us by playing coy as to my argument. While I am are aware you disagree with my argument, please don't pretend to not understand it; it wastes both our time.

My position remains unchanged. Unfortunately, you have not offered me compelling reasons why a derivative character of the Batman shouldn't refer to the correct name of the parent character. I can see a bit' of leeway in referring to Batman and Superman's relationship in comparison to that of Midnighter and Apollo in simply avoiding making the comparison so as to avoid the mention of the titled pairing of the DC characters. If you offer perhaps a more compelling argument to counter mine as to why we should avoid the long-term name of the Batman-Superman pairing, I am quite willing to listen. Of course, it will be far more difficult to dissuade me from "the Batman", as that is pretty cut and dried.

I suggested the RfC because I foresee that if we cannot agree, this will only go back and forth some more, and one of us is going to likely become impolite, and then it will get ugly. People will cry. Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa will be spoiled. the might even be a great gnashing of teeth. ;) I suggest that an RfC allows us the opportunity to have our arguments - while they are still cogent and civil here - heard by a third party (or parties), who can weigh in and render a neutral decision not based on any personal bias. I think it is a fair next step in this process, as I don;t really see either of us budging off our present positions. If you file, I will support it, - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You have not offered anything to illustrate coyness or pretense on my part, which I find far more uncalled for than my earlier bit of rudeness, despite your admonitions against rudeness. Since everyone loses their cool every now and then, I will now offer the same friendly suggestion you did before in the same spirit of WP collaboration: Let's keep it civil, okay? You offered a Google search as an argument that "World's Finest" was not obscure--I disagreed because my use of "obscure" pertained to that name's place in the public consciousness--which is obscure. Google references will abound, but only to the extent that the afficionados of a particular industry are a presence on the Net. My random street sampling suggestion would, IMO, further prove this, as most people would identify Batman without the article, and Batman and Superman as such, and not with the WF name. If you feel you can refute this, fine, but please do not attack me with unsubstantiated accusations.

You have not established that "The Batman" is the "correct" or "proper" name of the parent character, you've merely asserted that it is. Can you offer some type of evidence or argument to support this?

If you wish to call for an RfC, please do so. My position is this: The following sentence:

"The character resembles the DC Comics superhero Batman, and he and his partner, Apollo, are seen by some as a parallel of the Batman/Superman partnership."

...is far more clear, and better-written, than this version:

"The character resembles the DC Comics superhero Batman, and he and his partner, Apollo, are seen by some as a parallel or reinterpretation of the Batman/Superman "World's Finest" partnership." Nightscream (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my ideal phrasing would be:

'"The character is seen by some to be a parallel or reinterpretation of the DC Comics superhero the Batman. He and his partner, Apollo, are seen by some as a parallel of the Batman/Superman "World's Finest" partnership."

As a lot of people on the street aren't - according to your suppositions above - aren't even aware that Bats and Supes even had a comic book together called World's Finest or were referred to as such, it is our position as an encyclopedia to note the likely reinterpretation of that WF relationship as it applies to Midnighter and Apollo. As such, I believe my version to be far more clear and better-written.

Like I said, I will wait for you to file the RfC, since we seem to be at loggerheads and no one is willing to consider a compromise. Until then, I intend to support my edit in the article. Is there some reason why you are not inclined to submit the RfC yourself? I only ask because every time I suggest we seek outside opinion, you seem to shove it back at me in some odd parody of the Mikey commercial for Life cereal? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You were the one who first brought up the idea; I was merely agreeing with it, and figured you would initiate it, since it was your idea. Again, why do you have to distort this quite reasonable mindset on my part with something so negatively connoted as "shoving something back at you"? However, the phrasing you posted above (which I now see you edited into the article) reads far better than your prior one. I think that's a good compromise. Nightscream (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpas all around I guess. (It's infectious, I tell ya!) I thought the edit you suggested was the one in the article now, even though I now see there are minute differences. Go ahead, and let's see what we see. :-) Nightscream (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to inquire, since this doesn't seem to have been mentioned... wouldn't Superman/Batman count as a post-World's Finest partnership? I don't believe that "World's Finest" was used in the update, so it may go to show that the partnership doesn't carry around a particular nickname all the time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i think it's not so much a post- World's Finest relationship, but a more intelligent exploration and continuation of it. All of the issues (from both Batman's and Superman's private reflections on the other) refer to their previous and long-term experiences with one another. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not this is an exploration/continuation of the partnership, a topic like Batman/Superman does not explicitly use the moniker "World's Finest". With "World's Finest" thus not being so universal, it's a reach to re-utilize it when the context is not explicitly there. It would be like interweaving Batman's own monikers ("Caped Crusader", "World's Greatest Detective", "Dark Knight") in an article passage that wouldn't clearly entail their usages. I understand what you're attempting to suggest, Arcayne, but I was offering the example of Batman/Superman to show that the partnership is not explicitly and continually referred to as the "World's Finest", especially in the context of Midnighter and Analog. Thus my intention is to suggest ambiguity on these grounds as an attempted neutral voice. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the term 'World's Finest' is recurrent in the Superman/Batman series, and the term is utilized in the article for the current series. However, that's rather beside the point. The origins of the Midnighter (and Apollo) are found not in the more current series but in the older series as a different interpretation of the dynamic between two such characters. As well, the reference in the Midnighter article is used as an identifier for the Batman/Superman pairing, and not explored beyond that; the wikilink for the term explains the pairing in more depth. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Since that perspective doesn't qualify, my follow-up suggestion in an attempt to reach a compromise would be to create a "See also" section in which World's Finest and Batman/Superman could be wiki-linked, while the lead section would exclude mention of World's Finest. I don't believe that the article is so long that these items would be overlooked, and they would be implicitly relevant to Midnighter, as the argument here has been for an explicit mention. Thoughts on that? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd hold that AIV report...for now

Regarding the message you left on my talk page about User:Noahwoo: I'll say the edit to the Greater Vancouver Zoo article is reasonable, since it's removing a presumed copyvio, but an edit summary would have been a good idea. I'm not sure what the agenda is with the Santa Claus edits, though - or earlier ones to Easter Bunny. I think your question is reasonably civil, and I'd wait and see what the response is. If there's no response or a polite apology, and if there's no further vandalism to Santa Claus, then everything's good. If there's an uncivil response or further vandalism, then file the report. —C.Fred (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Biting newbies

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, as you did with User_talk:70.232.36.207. 24.6.192.223 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I am not sure Nick Gaskin cast as a caveman would agree. If you want to be a clown, join a circus. If you want to edit and have fun, edit Wikipedia (note that this is directed at the other anon, not you). I appreciate the heads-up, but I've no patience for vandals. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the Amalgam edits

Actually, that was just a tiny handful that had gotten missed when about 900 of them got edits in the last month. Finishing those for consistency does not go against the current discussion. You read what people said about backfilling when appropriate and if determined to be appropriate. They need to be deleted now for consistency. Doczilla (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, you are actually participating in the discussion where we are seriously discussing revising that policy. Going ahead and removing all of the entries with a bot doesn't seem a bit less than open-minded to you at all? Are you aware that others might see it as 'doing whatever the hell you want, despite what gets worked out'? Honestly, i don't think you are like that, Doc, but reverting all the Amalgam entries whist conversation is ongoing about an alternative method to address them is in discussion can easily be perceive as less than genuine. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "worn to a nub". Yeah, I went through a LOT of them before I started using the bot because I'd been wary of some of the errors a bot might make, but it wore me out. Doczilla (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not an admin. A number of people have asked me to consider becoming one. Half a dozen different people all brought it up during the same week a little over a month ago. I asked them to hold off on any kind of admin nomination because, as much as I know we need more admins to help with the comics articles, it sounds like more grief than it's worth. One of the reasons I took on this Amalgam task was that I felt I ought to find out how well I can handle something like that with existing edit tools before even considering taking on the responsibility of admin tools.

Anyway, to your question: It's tricky. I have been thinking about exactly that issue, though. If we don't break the key issues up where they have separate section headings, everything will blur together. On the other hand, when we break them up by section headings, we wind up with multiple conversations which cause people to notice some discussions but not others. A related problem is that people will veer one section into a tangent already covered elsewhere and cause the point of the current section to get lost. On top of all that, people do have other issues to raise on the WikiProject Comics talk page.

I considered creating a separate talk page where we can compile all this stuff. Unfortunately, it won't reach enough people who aren't already engaged in the dialogue. We need for others to keep discovering the discussion. So . . . I've named problems. Gotta keep thinking about the solution. Doczilla (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem

Don't worry about it. It's done now. I'm sorry if I seemed overly harsh. I watched the last episode of series one and was disappointed with it. But thank you for your apology. All the best, Hiding T 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Image notice and subsequent notice removal

I nominated it for deletion because I believed it was too big and on a page which didn't have rationale. I figured out what I did was stupid and instead removed the image from the offending article and put a tag on it for a fair use reduce. FunPika 02:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it is 300x300 pixels. FunPika 02:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Your suggestion

So, as you may have noticed, I acted on your suggestion and have tried to bring some order to the alternate versions discussion. I see that you have found the discussion atWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Character_alternate_version_guidelines. Once we get the old discussions archived, this should work fairly well. We'll just have to make sure people not already involved in the discussion will easily be able to find it. Doczilla (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Authority

I noticed you and someone else disagreeing over issues regarding the Midnighter article. While editng Authority articles, you might fix capitalization of The when it's done in the wrong place. See WP:CMC/EG#Capitalization_of_the_word_.22the.22 for what I'm talking about. I've noticed a great deal of inconsistency in whether people write The Authority or the Authority within a sentence (when referring to the team as characters, not when naming the title). Doczilla (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hogwarts students article draft

Hi Arcayne, I did a draft of the article in here: Draft. I would appreciate your opinion. Lord Opeth (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Perhaps you might wish to assist this user

Because, quite frankly, my patience has run out. After about a month of uncivil behavior, Agha Nader decided to post that I was a racist. I have offered him the opportunity to retract his statement and apologize within the next 12 hours. If an apology is not forthcoming, I will escalate the matter. I have tolerated the incivility in the 300 and Persian Gulf articles, and even went along with him submitting wikiquette complaint based on a failed RfC he could not file over 6 months ago. You seem to be able to reach him in a way that I never have. As an admin, you can perhaps advise him that the shit will indeed hit the fan if that apology doesn't arrive in the alloted time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to Arcayne's complaint on my talk page [21]. Also, I filled the wikiuette report because it was the next step in dispute resolution. I was unable to report a RfC because it not reached that step yet. However, as you will see on my talk page, Arcayne has made prejudice comments in the past. I merely pointed out his most recent one.--Agha Nader (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage you to visit Nader's page and see that response, FayssalF, and maybe take a look at the wikiquette complaint as well. Pay particular attention to the diffs he lists, so as to see the context of the comments he attributes to myself and others. I'e made it clear in my reply to his response that further accusations do not constitute an apology, and that the clock is still ticking. Actually, it isn't, as he is aware of the personal attack and apparently isn't considering apologizing. I will allow the full remaining time. He may come to realize that it will only escalate if an apology is not forthcoming. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys. Thanks for letting me know about that. Well, first, let me tell you both that i've just seen 'the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstars' (Arcayne's userpage) and 'the Original Barnstar' (Agha Nader's userpage). This means that you both are an asset for Wikipedia and it's a pity that things are not working great for you. It is true that Nader should have avoided the accusation of racism at your talk page. We just don't fix problems that way. There are plenty of ways to sort issues out and both of you know a lot about that. On the other hand, setting an ultimatum for an apology is inappropriate itself. So what i am suggesting is that you go through formal mediation. If you think that would be a waste of time than you must forget about dealing w/ eachother for at least a period of time until everyone cools down. You may also consider a short break from editing those articles and let third parties help you instead (Wikipedia:Third opinion). But before that let's delete User:Agha Nader/RFC/User:Arcayne. I hope this would restore some of good faith assumption to the table for the time being. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that, too. Will Nader also be withdrawing the wikiquette alert he created based out of that report, as no sense deleting the barn door without also deleting the horse that escaped? How about that apology for the accusation for racism, sitting on the 300 page, as well as its removal/striking-through? I set a time limit on the apology, as these sorts of accusations, untended take on a life of their own. If I choose to vigorously defend myself from the disgusting charge of racism, it is because any reasonable and innocent person would do so. So, I ask, is Nader prepared to remove the wikiquette complaint himself as well as offer an apology and retraction of his accusation? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)`

Arcayne, please don't set ultimatums. Agha, could you please retract the wikiquette alert? As for User:Arcayne/busywork 2, i must say "Yes, I believe it doesn't serve for anything except for keeping the situation heated". Regards. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Broncofreak12321

Sorry Arcayne, I am sorry if i offended you are any of your fellow wikipedians. You are right i am new to wikipedia and i did not mean to put Anakinjmt "down". respectfully yours, broncofreak12321 P.S. send me a message back please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broncofreak12321 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Calm down

Aloha. I would request that you step back for a moment. In this edit which you have been discussing with Broncofreak, it's clear he wasn't altering the other editor's post, he was just commenting on his own (see how he signed it?). He is new, and your comments come off a little like biting the newbies. A more proper and polite thing would have been to just refactor his post to the accepted format, and make a note on his page explaining how to use tha talk pages. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing that i didn't mean to offend anybody.

--respectfully yours (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)respectfully yours--respectfully yours (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:broncofreak12321 p.s. to explain my stupidness i'm 15

Thank You

Arcayne, I've pondered if doing this is appropriate, but I haven't been able to inhibit myself from doing so. Thank you for doing what you've done here [22]. I've found the repeated personal attacks and accusations by this user, insulting, demeaning and somewhat intimidating. I'm sad to see that this action was necessary and at the same time glad that you were able to take this action properly with respect to WikiPedia policies. I'm hopeful that this user will take a constructive experience out of this and stop resorting to these tactics in the future and realize that civility will take his points much farther and faster than his consistent incivility when faced with disagreements. Would it be proper for me to add my supportive comments on this incident report? If any of what I'm saying or asking here is inappropriate, please feel free to delete this from here. Regards ObserverToSee (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

What is Emergancy Manegment?? User:broncofreak12321 —Preceding comment was added at 19:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the EM deal on here. Emergancy Manegment sounds pretty cool. User:broncofreak12321

Re: Dude, where's my Santa?

I deleted Image:MerryOldSanta.jpg as being a copy of Image:1881 0101 tnast santa 200.jpg/Image:Nast Santa cropped, 1881.png on Commons. The resolution (167x234) was pretty low, so the alternate images appeared to be superior choices. I could undelete Image:MerryOldSanta.jpg if you'd like, and transfer it to commons as another version of the images. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about the lack of notice, it was a shortcut. Your image summary is, indeed, superb. :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded it into a higher resolution so that we can make it larger on the page. --David Shankbone 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You can use Special:Log/delete to check the deletion history of any article or file. GFDL edit history is accessible for all articles and images, deleted images and/or previous versions are preserved for those uploaded since mid-2006-or-so. If you ever need access to a deleted image/article edit history, you can ask me or any admin in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles to provide you with a copy (with a few rare exceptions). Oh and I used the Move-to-Commons assistant to quickly transfer your file, since it preserved the GFDL edit history and properly links to the original en.wiki page & author. HTH, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Since both of you might be watching my page, I've a question: when an image is deleted, isn't a bot message generated to note the impending deletion, or is it left up to the deletor? (This isn't a crack at Anetode, who is pretty accomodating, but a general inquiry). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted images are routinely evaluated by patrollers and bots (although sometimes incompetently) who are required to leave a notice for images that have no copyright tags, source information, improper rationales, or are orphaned. WP:IFD/WP:PUI usually handle the rest and free images are routinely transferred to commons and deleted (local copies, that is) without notice. Sometimes people take shortcuts when it comes to vandalism images/copyright infringement or other obvious cases. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed explanation. i will likely refer to it often. Immortality, baby. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Batman

Oh awesome, how was I Am Legend? Alientraveller (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite well done, but I am almost positive a bunch was cut that could have actually assisted the film's plotline (which was under 2 hours long). Aside from Smith, i felt no real emotional connection to any of the other characters. As well, I was disappointed that descriptors of the infected (apparently there are two kinds) were barely touched on.

On the other hand, I am consistently and continually surprised at Smith's capability to access the immediacy in any role, which is rather stupid of me, considering how well he has handled every role since bad Boys II. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Great to hear that you enjoyed it! I'm definitely looking forward to the film (probably won't get a chance to see the teaser unless it gets online), and especially how the new portrayal of the Joker is received. As for I Am Legend, I read the book not too long ago, and I feel like the film won't really meet expectations, especially the third act, from the looks of the trailers. Will Smith is a decent actor, but I can't help but wonder if a different director could have made it less Hollywoodized. Smith's in Hancock next, and that should be interesting to see. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

hey evil uncle....

check your email Tvoz |talk 07:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand

I am discussing the issues about the Whitechapel Murders and following on from what KB said. I haven't mentioned anybody's name. As the other editors on the page have pointed out it is you who are conducting a slanging match with DG not me. Are we not allowed to mention a certain stand taken in the debate because it is associated with another editor? If the cap fits wear it. I MENTIONED NOBODY'S NAME. On the wikipedia we are allowed to debate the issues. If someone has an idiosyncratic personal credibility investment in some murders that happened over a hundred that is their problem. To repeat I AM DISCUSSING THE ISSUES not personalities Colin4C (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't see the incivility of your posts, then i guess there's little more that can be said on the matter.

Is this a cultural thing? In the UK we are noted for our sense of humour and a sense of irony and hyperbole etc. This seems to go completely over the heads of American mods who take everything absolutely literally and get annoyed at anyone cracking a joke which they can't understand. Colin4C (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I went to school at Oxford. I am aware of Britwit, and the differences betwixt it and American humor.

Just to add that I am a published author in the UK - with books published by the Oxford and Cambridge University Press not someone to be kicked around and verbally abused as you seem to delight in doing. I am an academic by training and profession. Look up "Colin Forcey" on google if you don't believe me. If you were a student in my class or if you met me would you be so personally abusive to me? Colin4C (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have offered you the same advice were you Billy Shakespeare, though I'd have likely been scolded for not rendering it in iambic pentametre. A mistake is a mistake, and I felt it prudent to give you the observer's point of view. Were I to have kicked you about, you would certainly know the difference. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else who has not treated you with the level of respect I have. Had I not cared,i would have sat back with a bag of popcorn and watched the circus that is likely to ensue presently.

Why do keep misrepresenting my standpoint at JTR as a personal feud between me and DG??? I am just talking common sense. If DG believed that the sun rose in the west and I held a different view would you think that I was launching a vicious personal attack on him by espousing the opposite view. At university we have robust discussions on the ISSUES. We don't decide not to have a discussion because someone has a well known pet theory and might burst into tears if it is attacked. I was interested in JTR long before I knew Dreamguy and am not going to alter my views of what is obvious common sense to save him from some putative personal trauma. The wikipedia is not about pandering to DG's personal hang ups or being the greatest wikilawyer on the planet it is about KNOWLEDGE. Am I right on that? If I am wrong and the wikipedia is just about using and abusing the wikipedia rules in the most devious ways possible then you had better block me now. I AM NOT AND NEVER WILL BE A WIKILAWYER - wikilawyering is a bloody pathetic, childish piece of stupid bullying. I maintain that COMMON SENSE should be our watchword. At university we don't continually denounce each other for transgressing university regulations WE GET ON WITH THE JOB and try to advance KNOWLEDGE. Colin4C (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would remind you that we are neither in parliament nor in the university classroom. While it is high form to dissemble your opponent in those particular battlefields, such is not the case here. DG always reacts defensively when attacked. I would not offer him any particular shield from the eventual action that gets him banished from out august company forever. You are essentially allowing yourself to be used as a target for those slings and arrows which would be more rightly focused upon his behavior. However, I've mentioned before that if you don't see any fallout from this behavior, there is little I can do.

If I wanted to be a wikilawyer I would ask you to see Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and Wikipedia:Use common sense but I hope we can discuss things like rational human beings. Just imagine we were in a face to face situation in a classroom or pub discussing these matters. Colin4C (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would do that, were the rest of wp doing that, but such is not the case.

I was offering you my candid opinion as to how you were flirting with disaster. I offered you advice on how to prevent someone from acting on what appeared to be a fair amount of incivility on your part. I did my good deed by letting you know what could happen. If you choose not to act on it, that is entirely up to you. Fare thee well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes - getting good article status for the Music hall and East End articles shows what a dangerous liability I am to the wikipedia. Colin4C (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe sometimes I don't adopt a 'bureaucratic language' on the Talk Pages. As a matter of fact I do not have a job as a bureaucrat, a policeman or a lawyer or work for the government. Neither do I spend all day berating 'subordinates' in the office like some typical management fascist. I have an artistic temperament. How I write reflects my personality. Is that a crime on the wikipedia? Maybe you expect that everybody should express themselves in just the same way on the wikipedia, despite coming from diverse countries and backgrounds. Colin4C (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said you were a danger to the wikipedia, Colin. I just said you were flirting with disaster. I don't think you a bad person at all; had I at all thought so, i would simply watch and see what would likely happen.My comments were based out of my own personal experience. As I said, you don't have to act upon them. I am sorry to have brought the matter up to you at all. Good luck to you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to add with respect to the JTR article that the first person to add the elementary information as to where the bodies of the victims of the Whitechapel Murderer were found was me on 1st January 2007. It seems that none of the longstanding editor(s) had thought of that before. I'm just saying this to counteract the ongoing propaganda on that page which asserts that the article was absolutely perfect before I came along and ruined it for everybody. Following JC, in an ideal world I would wish to 'turn the other cheek' but it seems that 'mud sticks' on the wikipedia. If something is asserted long enough and loud enough even the admins (bless their souls) start to believe it. I find myself in a Catch 22 position: if I reply to constant misrepresentation I am considered to be 'as bad as he is', but if I don't people believe the propaganda, especially if they are newly arrived at the article and don't know the absolute total deviousness of which some people are capable of. I always give people the benefit of the doubt, but if after the twentieth time of this precedure one still finds oneself being traduced and misrepresented and stabbed in the back one adopts a different attitude. Otherwise one becomes a pathetic victim, and whatever else I may be I am not that - and never will be. Colin4C (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration; I sometimes share it. However, you cannot respond in the same way as some stupid git without a lick of personal awareness, or the mud does indeed stick. Either way, my comments have only been designed to help you. if you feel that they were not, I apologize. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

general comment

It usually does not help to insist upon an explicit apology. If one is not offered, just hope for better things in the future--there's no point on carrying on an unsatisfactory exchange about the past. If someone insists on being foolish, the only practical thing to do is to let him--others will understand the situation properly. DGG (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you are right. I just kinda expected better from the user, as I've seen that its possible for them to do better, and was disappointed when they repeatedly failed so completely. I appreciate the advice. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• In reference to the comparison made between The Blair Witch Project and the segment entitled "The Navidson Record" in the novel House of Leaves, is the novel itself allowed to be used as a source? There are pages in the novel that explicitly explain the documentary-style of TNR in House of Leaves, and similar references to the disintegrated expedition that ends with the death of a character by an unseen force in a space that doesn't follow normal physics, much like the plot of TBWP. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and although I can provide needed pages, I don't know whether a self-reference of this nature is allowed. Dndnerd (talk) 9 AM, 16 Dec. 2007 (Central)

Mediation case

I'll be formatting the discussion page to allow for everyone involved in the dispute to voice their initial opinion. (I'll separate the What's going on subsection into subsections for each user). I'll clarify that on the meditation page itself. CloudNine (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom voting - Oppose for Giano

[23]Just as a point of fact, Giano is not under notice of banning in any way, shape or form. As well, you are voting "per Chick Bowen", who struck his oppose vote several days ago. I am not trying to change your vote, just ensuring you have the necessary facts to make your decision. Risker (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Chick reversed his vote days ago, long before your vote. Giano (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Weird, i don't recall seeing the strike-through. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? - hard to miss I would have thought! Giano (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff[24] from December 6th. Risker (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I'd think so as well. I mean, I tend to read things through fairly well. A strike-through rather sticks out inthe head as a retraction or negation. I am sorry I couldn't support. You seem like a spiffy, friendly guy, but are a bit too quick with the barb for my idea of ArbCom. Granted, some of the people there would be better off working the grill at a roadside dine (as evidenced by the DreamGuy enforcement complaint), but I expect calm, rational people. Rational you are. Calm you simply ain't. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's where the confusion was; the actual vote was stricken, but not the commentary. I also read the noted cites of both the supports and opposes before weighing in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano is calm when calm is necessary, fiery when that is what is needed. Arbcom doesn't need automatons. It needs rational editors who can see logic and reason before it jumps up and bites them in the ass (as it did in the Durova case, for example). Mr Which??? 20:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(←dent) Who says I am looking for an 'automaton'? I said, "Sometimes, he doesn't play well with others, and the high ground always needs to be taken as an ArbCom member". What you call 'fiery' others call uncivil. Now maybe its just me, but I can be pretty harsh in my edits. I am not proud of it - even when I am exceptionally clever and thoroughly trounce someone in dire need of such. it doesn't fix them and certainly doesn't encourage them to be more constructive; it drives them further away from being better, and they eventually self-destruct. Do I want to work to tone that part of my editing behavior down? Yes. Do I want someone on ArbCom who champions this as a groovy part of their personality? Hell no. ArbCom is supposed to be that Hall of Justice-type joint where things get sorted out calmly, though slowly. Giani is better suited to dragging folk into ArbCom, kicking and screaming. Actually, I just realized that I kinda see Giani as Lobo. Funny, smart and clever, but willing to rip your lungs out and fill them full of second-hand smoke before stuffing them back. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder and Uninvited Company spring immediately to mind as countermands to your thinking on Arbcom. Both allow personal grudges to cloud decision-making, something I don't see Giano doing. That's the larger problem: Arbcom has become an "old boys club" of policy wonks (whether "boys" or "girls"); it sometimes seems that, as a body, they are so navel-gazing that they are of little practical good. Giano would be a necessary breath of life into such an environment. In all honesty, though, it doesn't really matter, even if you were to switch to support. Jimbo wouldn't appoint Giano if he had 80%, and he's made clear his position on him. As Jimbo's appointments are all that really matters, his lifetime status as god-king is the larger problem. Mr Which??? 20:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay. I have no real way to respond to much of that, uncited and unsupported as it is. While I think that everyone makes mistakes, its better to try and avoid the mistakes you know are going to happen. If the ArbCom is the old-boys club you repeatedly suggest it is (here and elsewhere), then he would have very little impact on the voting. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

reply: Blair Witch edit vs. House of Leaves

That's fine, although I don't really even think the C.H. reference in the same section is close to those same standards either. There's numerous comparisons out there between BWP and HoL; if I get the time I'll find better sources than what I read this morning.

P.S. Some bot left me instructions on how to sign user talk notes, but I'm not quite sure what the heck was going on. What is "four ~"? If you have a moment, I'd love to see a clearer explanation of what the bot told me from an actual human WP admin ;)

Happy Holidays.

-Dndnerd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dndnerd (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Thanks for catching that

I've made some tender little folk upset lately. Any ideas on who the vandal was? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No idea. I usually start my morning by filtering Recent changes for User page edits made by anonymous editors. Your page just happened to be one of the most recently hit. --Onorem♠Dil 13:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Greetings and salutations. How do I archive some of the fond memories I'm sick of looking at on my talk page? Hotcop2 (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link that should help . . . [25]. R. Baley (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congrats, Arcayne, you've made my quotes section! Kudos to you. I actually have very high standards, only adding one or two quotes per month. You made me laugh, and your comments will forever be preserved for posterity here. cheers, Keeper | 76 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

He is pretty good at the witty one-liners, as I have witnessed (and often laughed at - and I mean in a complimentary way, of course... :) --andreasegde (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Andreasegde! I bet he might like the link to the Beatles quiz and archive, :)

Seriously, Keeper. It is high praise, indeed. :D - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

...and your response on my talkpage made me laugh out loud also. But I won't be adding it, don't want it to look to "Arcayne-ee" ...Cheers, and happy editing. Keeper | 76 21:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Winston O'Boogie (Lennon)

If you feel like putting in some "Citation needed" thingys, it would be most welcome (I'll bet nobody has ever said that before...:) --andreasegde (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, though someone once called my Mom a whore for using them a lot. My dad ate them. He's like that. it tends to make family gatherings pretty tense, as we always have to count heads to make sure Pop's not out back grilling up one of the kids. All families are dysfunctional, I guess. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Smallville

What do you mean? The only episode that has an article is the pilot, the rest all revert to their respective season pages, because there was nothing but plot information and some random trivia about the episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they had some "featured music" lists, but after Matthew, myself and an admin had a discussion about their inclusion it was decided that the individual songs did not have much value for simple inclusion in a list, but that it would be better to write about the use of these pop culture songs on the main page. I have part of season two's production information started in my sandbox, I just haven't finished it yet...been busy with other projecs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that series. Sure enough, you'd find a series that doesn't have a fansite for it. I did see this website on the Wikipedia page. It appears to have songs for the episodes. Does that help?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It sure does (smiling contentedly). I am also glad that you found it in the external links for the show. I guess that so long as a link to where all that stuff that folk deem crufty is included, it's okay. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Cultural?

Arcayne, through our interactions over the last few weeks I have developed a respect for you and your knowledge of WikiPedia community in general. I saw CloudeNine's response that he would look for clarification at [26]. I went to that link and saw this [27] where you've stated "this is another cultural-type dispute". With all due respect, categorizing this as a "cultural-type dispute" is inaccurate and in some ways insulting to the participants. It also trivializes the issues. You've also stated in a response to another editor: "No, they don't want it mentioned anywhere in the article. Besides, as an alternative name, it does belong in the Lead (perhaps in parentheses, afterthe more widely known name)". This is untrue as "they don't want it mentioned anywhere in the article" implies that all relevant editors want to remove the already existing reference from the article. My assumption of good faith on your part remains, however, I would respectfully ask as to why this has taken place and why you are viewing this as "cultural" which could be interpreted as a tint of what Agha Nader has claimed. I have no doubt at this point that it is not. However an explanation is warranted. Regards ObserverToSee (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your detailed response in my talk page. You have certainly provoked additional thoughts on my part and given me an understanding of where your thinking is influenced from. I too have a similar background and thoughts as you do, however, I'm not seeing this particular issue as pathetic and petty. Maybe it's because I'm right in the middle of it. But I see a political agenda that's being pushed where it is being promoted through various ways and means and I have uncomfortable feelings seeing WikiPedia being used to promote it. I'll try to step back and watch for a while and strive to get an understanding from a higher view and distance. Regards ObserverToSee (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, --Elonka 10:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:John Lennon page

Arcayne, this edit on the John Lennon talk page was over the line. Your response to InnocentVictim (who certainly appears to be a sockpuppet of SixString, but I don't care; that's not the point here) does not belong on a John Lennon-focused talk page, and given the content, may not belong on WP anywhere. In general, the various accusations you've made on that page have made the situation worse, not better, and if someone were to ask me which was worse, (A) the edits and sock-puppetry by SixString or (B) your response to it, I'd say (B). If InnocentVictim is a sockpuppet, you can report it to admins and let one follow procedure to have that user blocked or whatever it is they choose to do.
I'm no angel, and I have added things to talk pages that I regret now, so I understand how things like this can happen. IMO, it's time for you to end the dispute or take it to the proper place on WP for dispute resolution. In the meantime, please consider this a polite rebuke from a dis-interested observer, that's how it is intended. John Cardinal (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to write me with your concerns. While I may very well regret this in later years from now, I don't think I said anything that could be interpreted as untrue or inaccurate. I will concede that it didn't belong in the John Lennon page. I will submit that SixString and all of his puppetry doesn't belong there, either. I think what set me off was his contention that he was goingt o edit the article no matter what Wikipedia thought, and what little patience I had for the clown evaporated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Erik (talk • contrib) - is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wow.

I get that you're angry, but this edit crossed the line. Your tone and words are way too hostile, and the threats are going too far. May I suggest that it might be time to back off, step away from the computer, and calm down a bit before you make an edit that you might regret when you're less angry? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Might I ask what you considered to be 'over the line'? Before you answer that, please consider that folk accusing me of laziness and OWNership in less than 24 hours don't really seem to be all that conducive to politely mince words. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Arcayne. Thanks for the greeting! I was actually raised Catholic... Finding time to buy Christmas presents in Israel has been a bitch. --David Shankbone 20:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sixstring

He won't give up, and that is the truth. Wan*er "editors" that write "McCartney likes fucking little boys" are by far the worse. WE KNOW who Sixstring is (and he knows it as well) so why not just tolerate his comments and let him be? He knows he can't upload another photo (upon pain of death) or lie anymore, so I suggest letting him make his comments which don't hurt anybody, because that's all he can do. He will not go away. My advice is this: Become an admin (if you're not one already, because you should be) and block the Bas*ar*s that are really hurting Wikipedia. All the best to you, because you are a really good person (pat yourself on the back from me). Please don't be angry. --andreasegde (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Andreasegde. That's great of you to say. The reason I won't tolerate SixString1965 - or any of his puppets to play in the article is that he lost that privilege by lying and being deceptive. A pure cup of water with even a drop of crap in it is still unfit to drink. If SixString wants to earn back the write to contribute to Wikipedia, then he has to come clean, not sock and throw himself on the mercy of whatever admin is willing to offer him a - I was about to say second chance, but he has socked so many times that this is something like the 17th or 18th chance he will be asking for. If they let him back, he needs to toe the line and essentially put up with everyone knowing what he was, and working damn hard to improve himself.

If he's willing to even trythat, he might get another chance. But sockpuppeting? Not only no, but hell no. He does it the right way or not at all. I don't mind splitting up my edits to keep him blocked and away from editors who actually make a conscious effort to follow the rules. I like you, but you are wrong to even consider accepting his trespassing, or accepting that he's just goingt o break the rules until we get bored with it. I am saying unequivocally: I will never, ever get too tired to have him blocked, so long as he thinks that sneaking in is the only way available to him. If he's willing to try to come back the right way and walk the hard road, then I might even be willing to help him. Otherwise, we can simply find out who has more staying power. The smart money would be on me, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Supportively, R. Baley (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's much appreciated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. There's also a report at ANI. . .you might want to copy it to your hard drive and use it again if necessary (while adding relevant additional info of course). Or just watch it get archived and make a link to the archived version from here. I've found both methods to be a time saver when you need to get people up to speed. R. Baley (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good idea, RB; that didn;t occur to me as a solution, though i was aware of the problem on how to bring new admins up to speed. thanks bunches. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry X-mass brother

Agha Nader (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Agha Nader (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

GOOGOOSH

Dear Arcayne,

I am sorry that we have not been able to reach a compromise. However, I have worked very hard and I do not feel that it is in your place to tell me what citations you think are good enough or whether or not they are acceptable. With that said, I still think we should reach a basic foundation on this page. I will send you the sources from which I have gotten my information.

1st off- Googoosh stated in an interview that she was born in 1950. Here's the URL http://www.googoosh.tv/media/independent.html - So I do not know where you found that she was born in May 1951. Did you put a citation for that? No.

2nd- GOOGOOSH CONCERTS

Toronto 2000- If you click on the [22], you will see the link and find out that Googoosh had a concert at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto on July 29. I added the Air Canada Centre and you deleted it.

Venues- I added the venues of the concerts from August 5, 2000 to March 18, 2000. These venues were confirmed on Googoosh.TV (Here is the URL http://www.googoosh.tv/concert.html)

PARIS Concert- It was confirmed that Googoosh had a concert in Paris at the Zenith Hall on March 16, 2001, I added that information and you deleted it.

DUBAI-In the article "Don't Cry for Me, Iran" (Here's the URL http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,103628,00.html), it talks about Googoosh's Dubai concert on the 21st of March 2001. I know it was on March 21 and not the 24th because the date of the article is March 23, 2001. Googoosh's second Dubai concert was on the 24th and if the article is dated March 23, then they must be talking about Dubai on the 21st. If you look at the article, it says that Googoosh sang at the Dubai World Trade Center.

DUBAI on the 24th- Googoosh had a concert on the 24th at the Al Ahli Club in Dubai. If you go to this URL (http://www.googoosh.tv/googooshconcertflyers/AGP_77_GG[1].TV.jpg) you will see that this is true. I added the Al Ahli Club to the Dubai Concert on the 24th and you deleted it.

VENUES- The venues for the concerts on and between August 18, 2001 and October 21, 2006 have been confirmed on Googoosh.tv - Here's the URL http://www.googoosh.tv/concert.html

Miami 2007- I was the one who added the September 15 concert, so I should be able to edit that freely.

Atlanta 2007-

Cupertino 2007- Googoosh had a concert on January 20, 2007 and I have the URL to prove it (http://www.7rooz.com/archives/2007/01/official_googoo.html) This is not a blog! When I added this, you deleted it.

Vancouver 2007- The city of Vancouver's website stated that Googoosh and Mehrdad had a concert on December 1, 2007 at the Queen Elizabeth Theatre. Here's the URL (http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/theatres/events.html). I added this, you deleted it.

UPCOMING CONCERTS- I added a section for upcoming concerts, to better inform people of upcoming performances from Googoosh. These concerts were confirmed by Ticketmaster and International Music Production. Here are the URLS (http://www.intermp.com/ http://www1.ticnet.se/PriceTable?l=EN&EVNT=GLO68GLB12275&CL_ORIGIN= http://www.ticketmaster.co.uk/event/17003F6F8C0750AE) As you can see, these concerts have also been confirmed.

I understand how you want correct information to be posted. However, I work very hard to verify the information I find and would apprectiate if you'd stop undermining my hours of work and accept the information I post. Now that I have verified this with you, please contact me and let me know what you think.

Thank You, JES01995 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.22.123 (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf issue

Hello. It does not matter how many degrees you have or how much education, I merely said that I thought you were not familiar with the Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf issue. This is one topic that I am guessing was not the subject of your studies. I could have a PhD in politics or history, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that I am fully knowledgeable about a certain subject. Again, the main issue here is whether a fringe name should be included in the lead, the history of the origin of the term Arabian Gulf and its popularization by Nasser's pan Arabism is documented clearly. Thanks.PashaGol (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks for your message. How old do you think this issue goes back? The British came up with it first as part of their divide and conquer strategy in the early 1900's but certainly it was Nasser who really spear headed the issue in the 50's and 60's. At most, the name Arabian Gulf for the Persian Gulf is no more than 80 years, and its usage is really recent, dating from Nassers pan Arab nationalist movement. Even when the British came up with the idea they never really put it into practice and even Arabs did not use the term Arabian Gulf until Nassers time. It was Nasser who started the entire movement in the 50's and 60's and even then it took time for the term to be used in the Arab states. By the United States own admission, the term Arabian Gulf is a political tool. It is a fringe name, is not widely (barely I'd say even) used internationally and furthermore it has no legitimacy. Think of it this way, African nations getting together and deciding to call the Indian Ocean the African Ocean would not make the term African Ocean as main stream or as legitimate as Indian Ocean. African Ocean would be a fringe name. The whole Arabian Gulf/Persian Gulf issue is thoroughly discussed in the article and the name Arabian Gulf is mentioned[28], so this is not about the name, its whether a fringe name should be included in the lead, and I must say that I myself think a fringe name should not be in the lead. Thanks.PashaGol (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding this [29], I dont believe a consensus was ever reached. The mediation is still open [30]. Thanks.PashaGol (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Darkside2000

Explain a user blanking their talk page 4 months ago? You'd have to ask them, but in my experience users often do that to cover up anything they've done they may not be proud of. The user was chatting on a few sims related talk pages and using them as more of a forum than for discussion of improvement of the article.--Crossmr (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Initially yes I created the user talk page, because it was blank. it always says that when make the first edit to a talk page. What do you mean by an alternate page?--Crossmr (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sexy, eh?

Oh Arcayne, don't you know that flattery will get you everywhere? But right back at ya: here's wishing you a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, a Kwazzy Kwanzaa, a Tip-Top Tet and a Solemn, Dignified Ramadan. :) faithless (^speak) 12:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm hoping you read the title in the same way that Montgomery Burns says, "Simpson, eh?" That's what I was going for, at least. faithless (^speak) 12:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Best wishes

Thank you for the card, and a very Merry Christmas to you too. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~NeonFire372~ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdose on cranberry sauce or cookies!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Arcayne/ECard}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas

asyndeton talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdose on cranberry sauce or cookies!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Arcayne/ECard}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Smiles, everyone!

Hello Arcayne, Doczilla has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I saw how that now-banned user had been harassing you, and I just felt you could use some cheer. Doczilla (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)