User talk:Crossmr/Archive/Archive 03

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

== Request for Arbitration/CoolKatt ==

After noticing that CK filed an investigation against me without my knowledge on July 1, I have decided to move forward with a Request for Arbitration. He now has an RfC, an investigation against himself, and now this to deal with. I have listed you, along with Kramden4700, Lambertman, and CFIF as the main complaintants (sp?). At your earliest convenience, please contribute. Rollosmokes 18:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Sims2

Sorry, I guess it was a misunderstanding. I was monitoring RC and thought the editor was deleting Sims 2:University from the list of Expansion Packs - it's my favorite Sims2 expansion so I definitely know it exists - and I reverted it based on that. Fabricationary 04:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about sims2

Thanks for correcting me about sims 2. It looked liked that some reverted the article to an older it ecpially because it said 2005 instead of 2006. I'll try deleting my message.--Scott3 17:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Prof Johnson

whom you recently scolded, is a General Tojo sockpuppet. That's why he's stalking. He's on file here --Dan 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furry fandom editors

Thought I'd respond here, to maybe remove some drama from the page over there. I have nothing firm about the editors I mentioned, but this is what I see: 68.69.194.125 is a regular visitor who focuses almost exclusively on this and "related" articles, and who has gathered a number of NPA warnings. User:CruiseFuton has four edits, an insult on ContiE's page [1], followed by editing a comment by the above anon on User:Perri Rhoades' talk page [2]. User:Dr. Righteous has a single edit outside of this article and its discussion [3]. And 81.178.225.214 has edits solely to this article and the discussions, including replacing sections added by Dr. Righteous. It just seems like we've got a lot of activity focused on those four users (with the occasional other IP throwing in a comment now and again). *shrugs* Seems curious, is all. Tony Fox (speak) 05:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I summoned 68.69.194.125. Sigh. Tony Fox (speak) 05:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see a loose trend at the moment, is all. I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for the second set of eyes, though, and the general support at the article. Tony Fox (speak) 05:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the additional similarities. If things go crazy, I may try to put together a CheckUser case and see what turns up. Tony Fox (speak) 20:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply to "Your Claim"

I find your accusation that I'm abusing the rules a bit of a personal attack. Just because you want to include material you can't source properly is no reason to start accusing me of abusing the rules. Perhaps you need to re-read WP:OR, WP:V and several of the other policies on including content in wikipedia again, but we don't relax the rules just because you think the content should be included, especially on policies that are the cornerstone of wikipedia. Schmucky was able to go out and find sources for the breastfeeding material, as such, it remains. Its not a complicated process. If you want to include a theory, put forth an original idea, define a term, introduce an argument (like a criticism), or several of the other things on this list WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F You need to bring a citation. If you cannot, its original research and cannot be kept in the article. The policy cannot be misinterpreted as it clearly states These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. So while you, or I, or a dozen of us may agree that some term means something, without a citation it fails the original research test and must be excluded. The complimentary policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth also has a very clear definition of what may be included. This is also a non-negotiable policy. The first paragraph very clearly defines the goal of this encyclopedia and what you wanted to include flew in the face of that. This spells it out very clearly The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth. These are not just good ideas, these are binding policies for inclusion of content.--Crossmr 00:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more inclined to believe you if these policies were enforced as stringently elsewhere as you enforce them in this one particular article, and if it didn't appear that your pattern of these deletions enforce a particular point of view.

Rather than make the mistake of claiming my perception is an objective fact, I have asked for an Administrator's review.

If you want to personalize this review request into a personal attack upon you I cannot stop you from doing so, but that is not my intent. My intent is that facts not be disincluded for capricious, arbitrary, or rules-abusive reasons. An unbiased administrative review will help in this regard, I believe.

I also request that you please cease making unverifiable accusations in my User Talk page.

Davidkevin 01:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think User:Eep² is a vandal (per WP:LTA)

I don't know what he's been doing lately, but unless he's been blocked at LEAST once he probably shouldn't be listed on LTA as that's for severe vandals who've sockpuppeted, etc. 68.39.174.238 11:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

he conducted sneaky vandalism that went undetected over a long-period of time. It doesn't particularly matter since no one paid any attention to it.--Crossmr 15:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Title Changes

Can you wait until the page is finished to nominate for deletion please? You may notice that it is a work in progress, so please retract your nomination until the sentence "This page is Under construction" is deleted.

Thank You, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3 Brands (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 July 2006

iF i COULD PUT THE TITLE CHANGE STATS SOMEWHERE ELSE i CAN'T BECAUSE PEOPLE KEEP DELETING IT. pLEASE LEAVE WHERE IT IS!

Thank You, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3 Brands (talk • contribs) 02:50, 17 July 2006

Deleted Page

Please stop targeting my pages. I only posted the partial info on that site, requested more time and you deleted it. With several other job boards listed on thie wikipedia I can't understand why I am being targeted. Please allow me the time to post a site that will show the relevance of my subject matter and I believe the communiy as awhole will be pleased with the content.--Tkaul1224 07:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I contest the deletion. This was my first submission (if you hadn't already figured it out)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkaul1224 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 17 July 2006

Spelling and templates

I only sought to help by correcting a spelling error that I happened upon. Others, such as myself, appreciate such corrections, except perhaps in linguistic discussions or when mentioning a word as word, where a precise syntax is intended. The template you added to User talk:Centrx was general and vague and refered to "someone else's edits". It was not a personal message initiating a conversation, and seemed more like a message from a roaming, monitoring editor automatically and impersonally using user-templates than it seemed like it was a person irritated by edits to his comments. —Centrx→talk • 07:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to irritate you. Sorry. —Centrx→talk • 07:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More care with correction

- Please base your notes and corrections on fact not opinion. While you may have no interest or understanding of the subject does not mitigate its relevance to the community. As is seen above this seems to be a consistent problem. Hopefully you wil take this undr advisement or it will be hard for the wikipedia to continue to enjoy its growth.--Tkaul1224 07:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes growth hard is people who refuse to follow the rules and continually ad content and create articles that shouldn't be.--Crossmr 07:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoolKatt number 99999 at it again!

CoolKatt's latest needless merger idea seems to be TVX Broadcast Group and Paramount Stations Group. It seems almost as if he is writing some sort of fictonal alternate broadcast history. Kramden4700 14:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presented as fact

Sorry, I don't understand your message. I'm not citing anything. Tyrenius 17:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've said my piece on AfD. Tyrenius 18:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an edit and now consider the article acceptable. Tyrenius 18:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"my typos are my own"

Just curious, but why did you revert the correction of "rights" to "writes" on WT:CSD? -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks for the suggestion"

I appreciate your explaining the redirect button. I thought there would be something like that. Thanks for the suggestion. David G 01:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note...

"It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!"

I must congratulate you on your civility with that comment you left for CK. Perhaps he'll respond to it with civility on his part. But, somehow, I doubt it. But he can never say we never tried! Rollosmokes 08:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise cleanup

Hi there. I haven' heard anything on my talk page about my proposed Enterprise continuity cleanup and your opinion? thanks. Magic Pickle 15:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for your comments! The version I have presented to you is the cleaned up version. Do you want to start the ball rolling with any comments? Thanks. Magic Pickle 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Deleting cited material without discussion is vandalism. One does not have to discuss and reach a consensus before making an addition to an article, particularly when it's well sourced. - 81.178.86.15 04:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the fact that that article has a history of editors deleting content that they dislike regardless of whether or not it belongs there, yes. - 81.178.86.15 04:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "running to request help" was due to your vandalism and your behavior in general since you took an interest in this article. Not because of some petty ulterior motive. It would seem from your disputes on various other articles that you have a history of attempting to [WP:POINT#Gaming_the_system|game the system]. If you could try to be more civil during discussion and not dictate to others, perhaps this wouldn't be necessary. - 81.178.86.15 05:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Point

What are you talking about? Look at the citations, they make absolutely no mention of any connection with furry fandom. - 81.178.86.15 06:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which you only began addressing after your citations were called into question.--Crossmr 06:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR?

We're actually equal as far as number of reverts is concerned. [4] [5] - 81.178.86.15 06:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word choices

I would say it's a common mistake here to overuse the word vandalism. The word is used here as a weapon far too often, and using it that way is counterproductive. I think the idea I'm talking about is presented pretty clearly at Wikipedia:On assuming good faith. You're right that people throw it around, but that doesn't make it right or helpful. I find that the very first step in dispute resolution is often to get everyone to put down the "v-word", because it makes productive discussion quite impossible. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Consensus

"But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities."

"At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."

From [[6]]

I found these passages particularly relevant. You seem to consider everyone with a different viewpoint as a troll, and you continually revert edits in a way that makes sure the article is biased in favor of furries. 68.69.194.125 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil?

It was quite civil. He's bringing some other flamewar from another VfD into this discussion, and it was clear-cut destructive vandalism. If he has a vote, he should make it. Maybe argue some threads. But 3rd person marking each Delete view as somehow invalid kind of subverts the voting process, doesn't it?--SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to: That's no reason to respond with uncivil behaviour. He doesn't control your actions.--Crossmr 23:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that you are defending a sockpuppet that was created less than an hour ago? --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 23:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet or not, which I don't see any sockpuppet tags on, its still not an excuse for uncivil behaviour. There is no excuse for uncivil behaviour.--Crossmr 23:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't have sockpuppet tags on. It's brand new, created for the sole purpose of vandalization. It's somebody breaking the rules. And BTW, I was not being uncivil. It wasn't a threat, it was a very specific promise of how I would follow up with his continued disruption, and I will. You are being uncivil by continuing to harrass me, and also unreasonable in thinking somehow a sockpuppet created for the sole intention of vandalization actually can have its feelings hurt. This is what I would at this point consider the end of the discussion. Anything else would be a sign of uncivility. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are attacking me with warnings and attempting to set me up for behaving in an uncivil manner so you can complain about me, probably to subvert the vote for deletion against the Michael Everson article. You responded to my warning the vandal about his vandalism so quickly, it raises my suspicion that it may be in retaliation for my very quick reversion of the vandalism that occured at the AfD. You are behaving in such a manner that seems to be attempting to troll me by continued action after being warned to leave me alone. I disagree with you plainly that I behaved uncivily. It is not required of me to agree with you. I also consider your warning of me behaving uncivily a personal attack and am removing it.

If you want to find an arbitrator for arguing over nothing, that is directly your next step as per the arbitration guidelines. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 00:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, leave me alone. You are bothering me for the sake of bothering me. You don't even need to reply. Just stop typing and pressing Save on my User:Talk, please. Thank you. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 00:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rekarb Bob

Believe it or not, he/she is a sockpuppet of Buckner 1986. They have similar editing patterns, and even use similar edit summaries. They also edit articles related to The Price is Right. So, the edit you reverted was not vandalism. CoolKatt number 99999 20:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to learn, but you and various other users will not let me. CoolKatt number 99999 21:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's end this

Let's just end this now. I don't want anything to do with you anymore. CoolKatt number 99999 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah

I've actually got a script. Nite, Alphachimp ^talk 07:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply

you make me laugh...the user in question was actually there when I "vandalized" his page. --Osbus 14:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert vandalism

I've just seen that you have reverted vandalism on my user page! Thanks a lot :-) Sucrine 15:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt_number_99999

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt_number_99999. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt_number_99999/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt_number_99999/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility, not me, but him and how about you

I saw ur message on my user talk page.

I hope you posted the same message to the other guy too. If you didnt, you are quite wrong and not impartial. Did you even read his message to me on my user page to which I replied on his user page (the reply on my own user talk page is a little different), and for which u messaged me? Please do that and you will learn, I replied to him, point by point, using his very words! How can that be uncivil then???

Keeping with your message, I only replied to him point by point, in his own medicine, nor did I make any personal attacks in the message i left on his user page nor did i make any disruptions on any wiki articles. Thats just wrong on ur part.

Further his comments werent against me, they were against good sense! His attempted criticism was totally wrong and unjustified. He just wanted to have his vain last word in. When his "superior" final views failed, I guess he must have complained to you. Further, I think that guy is obsessed in seeing his name on the top of the history page of the article in question. Seriously, does he think people care? What a pathetic loser! lol.

If you read my user page, you will notice an admin(i guess) Sue-Anne really appreciated my same, if i say so myself, pretty good edits to which this vain Vesther guy had obvious problems with "without any basis", obviously because someone other than him had made them. Even after my final crisp edits to the article, after which I never even read it, this guy kept trying hard to somehow "condense" it even more as he kept informing me in his messages! I guess more than 1 letter is too big for him!! And somehow funnily this guy keeps repeating about the leadership issue as the the reason for the firing, when I myself had mentioned it earlier as the primary reason for firing. So whats he saying and to whom? Is this guy dense or what? Thats just too stupid & funny. His density, lol, is most amazing!!! If that guy cant stand people editing articles in a good manner (in a manner for which people actually complimented me), what is this guy doing on wiki? Does he own the articles? lol. Assuming good intention is one thing but how can one not respond to the stupid things he keeps posting on my user page???!!! And when his stupid attempted criticisms are given back to him in his own medicine, he suddenly starts crying?? I pity the poor guy.

Further I see he wrote on the message board that he appreciates my inputs in certain areas of the WEBSITE. Now, the small section of the article in question, which I had contributed to, itself is only a few lines. He has to decide whether he is appreciative of my lines in that section or not, he never let me know his appreciation! lol. And he further keeps trying to condense those few lines. Just Look how many times he is trying to obsessively change those "very few lines" and the very small section now. And all these months he was sleeping before I contributed my inputs into that section? Amazing!! That guys got serious issues. MAN. LOL.

I know, you may find this a little strong right now, but really you too would have been exasperated by this guys "denseness" by now. LOL. This guy just wouldnt listen to good sense. Theres no point in arguing with such a fool.

Anyway, I expect you to post the Civility message you posted on my page, on his page, unless you are unfair.

I am tempted to write a message to him saying "Hey, stupid, how can people accept your stupid dumb utterly wrong criticisms and how can people not respond to ur dumb comments when u leave them on other's user pages!"

But, now, THAT would be uncivil, so I wont!!!

Anyway, this is all quite silly and irrelevant and a waste of time (this message itself is too lengthy!!). I expect NOT to hear from u about this further on my user page though I will check if u posted a message to him, to confirm your impartiality either which way.

Also, I hope you remove your civility message from my user page, because i dont think its correct or impartial.

Also because I use my account now instead of the IP.

Bye bye.

Anyway this is all quite extraneous and silly. Lets get on with the real purpose of bettering wiki articles and of course being civil on the way!!

lol.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.203.71 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 26 July 2006