User talk:Crossmr/Archive/Archive 07

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.

Space Quest I

I've removed the entire section that you tagged. The article looks so much better! SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD Log

I'm sorry to do this, but when you add new pages to the Articles for Deletion log, please add them at the top of the list as opposed to the bottom. That way everything is kept in order, as well as making it easier to see when a new page has been added. Thank you id advance Calgary 17:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Chess AFDs

Are you going to contest the "speedy close" after just 6 hours? Corpx 05:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Give it up people. It should be pretty obvious even after this short a time that there is no chance of getting a consensus for deletion. All you can accomplish by contesting the results is waste everybody's time. Clarityfiend 07:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your original point was that the article breached WP:NOT#GUIDE in that it was nothing more than a list of the rules and constituted a game-guide. If you look again there are new sections that make the article far more encyclopedic than it was. I think in light of these improvements and the overwhelming majority of the discussion being in favour of keeping the article, you might reconsider the AfD?193.128.87.36 12:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of The Sims 2: Castaway for consoles

I would like to know why you've removed The Sims 2: Castaway from Template:The Sims series. If it's a question of existence, the game is certainly being developed for the Wii, DS, and PlayStation Portable, with a release date of October 22, 2007. Although there isn't an official website for it, there have been multiple previews of it: at IGN, at GameSpot, at GameSpy, and among others. Also, it is different from The Sims Castaway Stories, which is solely for PC (specifically laptop friendly). The game article was just started today and obviously needs work, but it deserves a place in the template as the other The Sims-related games. --theSpectator _talk 07:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: After doing some more research and reading, it may appear that The Sims 2: Castaway (for Wii/DS/PSP with an ETA of September/October 2007/date-not-set-in-stone) is similar to The Sims Castaway Stories (for PC/laptop with an ETA of Winter 2008 [from official website]), however I don't see an indication that one is a port from the other. Although the setting is the same (stranded on an island), storyline and gameplay appear different with the console version focusing on the story of finding your lost companions with "quests" and character development, while the PC/laptop version having two modes: Story (explore island, build shelter, unlock rewards, etc) and Classic (standard create-a-sim). Are there enough differences to warrant two articles? It's hard to say right now, but with one shipping over a year before the other, and no preview stating that they are related, it's possible that they are separate. --theSpectator _talk 07:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, okay, thanks for responding. I'll keep that in mind in the future. --theSpectator _talk 16:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

SMS.ac, Inc. and List of social networking websites

Hi. I noticed that you had reason to post to the talk page of the SMS.ac, Inc. article. Given your past interest in the List of social networking websites, I wonder if you see the SMS article as appropriate for inclusion in the List, because I don't, and have therefore removed it from the List.

In my opinion, the article's slant is such that it focuses almost entirely on the business model and sms service aspects, and its only tenuous link to social networking is via one of the external links towards the end, the reader being prompted by a small chunk of text further back in the article. It's also still written like an advertisement in my view, but I have not tagged it (or re-tagged it?) as such at the moment.

I've no doubt that the content of the website accessed through the link is essentially social networking, but the main article is biased too much away from the crux. It would need a dedicated secondary article to properly qualify for the List, I feel.

Having been bold on this so far, I would appreciate your feedback. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Chess AFD's

Hi, I just saw your nominations of those chess articles. While I don't know that I'd support their deletion, I do recognize your concerns, and I'm disturbed that the discussions were closed as Speedy keeps. Rarely a good idea IMHO, and too frequently used in a way that stifles discussion. Though AFD as a substitute for talk page discussion isn't a good thing either. The pages themselves, while I don't feel they were objectionable in comparison to other articles on Chess concepts (see the various chess openings pages for some that are more in the line of a guide than anything else), did need some improvement, and it looks like that is happening. I am sorry some folks got irate though, it's a sad thing that people can get uncivil over such matters. It's one reason I've become disinclined to make any fixes myself. FrozenPurpleCube 07:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it may well be impossible in the short-term, but I have hopes in the long-term that it'll eventually be fixed. At least most of the worst examples have been removed lately, though many remain. Oh well, it's a problem for Wikipedia in general anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 06:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, just noticed something really funny, they [[1]], [[2]]. Sigh. I really wish that group of people would take things less personally, I really do. Oh well, I hope you don't have any problems with them in the future. FrozenPurpleCube 00:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Ok How Can I stay Cool When A person Keeps Deleting ONLY MY FU*Kin Post. When I only Post Info Tell Me That? Especially In the Talk Section. If You Dare Say I am starting A Discussion I am not on Talk Pages, I post Info And Wait for a member who knows more about wiki to put it on the ACTUAL Article, But when It gets to the Point Every Single Tiime I post Info then that crosses the line. Plus It turns into a discussion when Someone Post Right after mine about This info SPECULATING IT.

--74.244.160.39 02:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

>,< I Will not Look at the guidelines you send me if I get my rights back. Especially Me being falsely accused of starting discussions When I post Creditable Posts. At Least Let them used for Past References. --74.244.160.39 03:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori

You previously made a comment about this user at WP:ANI#Problems between HanzoHattori and Custerwest, so I thought you would be interested to know that a user-conduct Request for Comment has been initiated at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori. Best wishes. --Yksin 20:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, a related article RfC has been initiated at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Request for comment. We could really use statements from people outside the dispute. Thanks. --Yksin 02:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You Should Be Happy

DotA Allstars was merged with Defense of the Ancients, and with the refs you provided at the AfD, achieved GA-class. So I guess your nom did something :P David Fuchs ^(talk) 14:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My removal of the prod on Supertall

I've removed the prod tag you put on Supertall -- see the talk page for my reasoning. Pinball22 17:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Rules of Chess

I read about the Rules of Chess deletion attempt on [a blog] and I'm really curious what the back-story is here. How did you come across Rules of Chess and decide that it should be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billgordon1099 (talk • contribs) 16:00, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I was hoping to find out more than just WP:NOT; it seems like there must be some interesting story or motivation behind why you were driving this effort. But maybe I'm prying :-) Billgordon1099 21:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Links?

Recently you told me that I added links to pages that do not belong (see my discussion page). I do not remember doing such things, but if you could inform me what I did incorrectly I would certainly try to not do such things again. Also, I have forgotten what article your other post was about. Thank you for trying to help me. M. H. Avril 22:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Calgary Wikipedia Meetup

With the municipal election coming up, I figured it would be good to have another local meet of Wikipedia contributors in Calgary. This would be a chance to chat about Wikipedia stuff in general, but also to discuss ways to cover the election on Wikipedia. I’m suggesting next week, at a location (TBD) in the downtown area. If you’re interested in participating, please vote on when you’d like to schedule the meet. Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Links?(RE)

I belive that you are talking about the links in the sims 2 games pages. I was advertising http://sims.wikia.com, which is a division of wikia specifically about those games, so I thought that it was appropriate advertising since it is a division of wikia just like wikipedia, and I do not belive many people have heard of it. Also, it seemed that most people were doing advanced edits on the pages of relatively old games, which is something that I thought would be more appreciated on my site because it specifically focuses on the topic and would further appreciate in-depth comments and information on the game that this general encyclopedia would. I am sorry if I caused any trouble. M. H. Avril 01:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Block log

Yeah, a mistake, I almost never view that page. I stuck "Njyoder" into the User field rather than the Title field. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wikisigbutton.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wikisigbutton.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 11:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit

Could you please explain this edit [3]. Last I checked this was not free software and its shareware. I'm not even the original author of the screenshot. I don't believe this was a valid move to commons.--Crossmr 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"we have released the source code (along with all necessary support files, graphics files, sound effects, etc.) for the Windows and Macintosh versions of Blades of Exile to the world. Do what you want with it (within the sensible legal guidelines described in the license), and have fun."[4] // Liftarn

Notice

I have proposed that the community ban Crossmr and Njyoder from editing PayPal or Talk:PayPal due to long term disruption. [5] You may wish to comment. Dread Pirate Westley•^Aargh 12:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sait logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sait logo.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 13:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fame at last

Just thought you'd be interested to know that this edit made it into the latest edition of Private Eye under the heading "Wikipedia Whispers": "Wikipedia has once again spared the blushes of Rupert Murdoch and his gorgeous, pouting gerontophilic bride, Wendi Deng." It compares your edit to a previous rewrite of Deng's article by an employee of Murdoch, which is (of course) a very unfair comparison - Private Eye fails to point out that all the names in the list were removed, not just Murdoch and Deng. Don't let Private Eye deter you, though! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 09:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Sorry for the bad advice re: progressing through all the dispute resolution steps again. I guess I misinterpreted the arbitrator's earlier sentiment on a case where someone returned after a one-year ban and was rebanned without the full dispute resolution process being explored prior to a return to arbitration. Picaroon (t) 20:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You're famous! (Sorta)

This edit you made got mentioned in a small piece in the latest issue of Private Eye magazine here in the UK. :-) They like taking pokes at Rupert Murdoch and noticed that the material you removed mentioned him. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

SLOPPY WORK.

YOU NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT I ACTUALLY DID. You wrote: "that is neither a proper citation method nor does it support the editorializing. You also removed content which has a reference." This is nonsense. The citation is entirely clear, additional citations you call improper were simply supplementary; the initial one was entirely adequate, and you removed paraphrased quotations straight from ebay pages THAT WASN'T EDITORIAL AT ALL. Nice move. IN CASE YOU HADN'T NOTICED, THE CONTENT I INITIALLY PUT BACK WAS ORIGINALLY DELETED BY SOMEONE AT EBAY. THAT'S WHAT ORIGINALLY MOTIVATED ME TO PUT IT BACK. FURTHERMORE, YOU REMOVED NEW CONTENT I ADDED THAT WASN'T EDITORIAL. VERY VERY SLOPPY.--Elvey 05:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC) So that means that "that citation doesn't give you license to analyze and present point of view on that policy" was a false and groundless accusation, since it was SOMEONE ELSE'S content I was just restoring (and later improving). --Elvey 05:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

PayPal dispute

Please read WP:NOR policy. While you can provide a citation that indicates Paypal has a policy and what it is, that citation doesn't give you license to analyze and present point of view on that policy. Doing so is original research.--Crossmr 14:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before you continue editing, as well read WP:V under burden of proof. Either the editor who adds or wishes to restore content is required to provide the appropriate citations. Since you restored it and failed to provide the proper citations I reminded you about the policy.--Crossmr 13:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You made a false and groundless accusation, and all I did was use CAPS and you're telling me to read CIVIL??? Please. Bottom line, there's highly relevant info on PayPal that needs to be in the article on widespread fraud. You can't argue with that. Your simple removal of ANY such content is flat out POV-pushing. My edits show clearly that I'm willing to compromise and substantively address criticism. YOU need to read Wikipedia:Trifecta.--Elvey 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

1. you commented on the editor, not the content, a clear violation of NPA and CIVIL VERY VERY SLOPPY, Uum... No I didn't. Such an incongruous comment from someone exhorting others to not take things personel <sic>
2. continually using all caps is considered impolite, Already addressed.
3. posting a false warning on a user talk page is a continuation of uncivil behaviour, False accusation.
4. In your restoration you actually included citations which weren't present before, this is very obvious from this diff [6]. Wait, adding citations to wikipedia is bad???
5. NOR: PayPal protects sellers in a limited fashion via the Seller Protection, no where in the citation do I see it described as a "limited fashion". This is editor inserted point of view and editorializing. If the buyer used a credit card, they might get a refund via charge back from their credit card company a lot of things might happen. Is this described in the citation? I don't see it. Note that this contrasts with the consumer protection they claim to offer. This policy should be read carefully before assuming protection While the paypal page encourages people read it before deciding to use the service, this has been reworded in the article to create a much different tone. Again unsourced point of view.

While PayPal's determinations generally are reasonable More unsourced editorializing, in fact that entire paragraph itself is based on a citation that really has nothing to do with Paypal at all. This is an article about Paypal, not general internet safety. N/A This was new content.
The company—by its own admission—uses automated systems to verify tracking numbers in some cases. If a seller has an item not received claim filed against them, they are required to enter a tracking number for the item. If they fail to enter a valid tracking number that shows a successful delivery, or even mistype the number by one digit, they may lose the claim automatically without a real person ever adjudicating the claim. In other cases, ebay makes a determination as to which party is to win the claim. I see no citation for this and its filled with opinion on what "may" happen. The item significantly not as described claim is a more complicated matter. Really? Based on whose opinion? I see nothing in the provided citation which describes it as such. If the seller has not been found to have misrepresented the item in a significant way, then the buyer's claim will be denied and the buyer will have no further opportunity for claims of any type using PayPal's systems. The only recourse the buyer would possibly have at that point would be through their credit card company (if payment was made using a credit card) or by filing a claim against PayPal through the Better Business Bureau or another similar consumer protection organization. Again, this is not talked about in the citation provided at all and is provided without citation. Whether this is an accurate description of what can occur or not, this article is not a place to give a step by step guide to dispute resolution and what someone should do if it fails. WP:NOT wikipedia is not a guide of any sort. Each part of that has a problem with editorializing, which is not NPOV and Original research.--Crossmr 23:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Paraphrasing the policy isn't OR. It's paraphrasing, which is explicitly encouraged (in order to avoid copyright violations). I'll take a closer look to see if what you're saying isn't in the policy is substantially beyond paraphrasing. Are you saying it's anything other than paraphrasing? All I can see is that you're saying it e.g. doesn't have the string "limited fashion" in it.

VERY VERY SLOPPY is a comment on the behavior, not the cluefulness of the editor. I have no idea what you look like or (as they say) if you're a dog.--Elvey 00:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC) If you're going to continue to slam me with false accusations while failing to address the issues I've raised, then there is no discussion going on (viz: You made a false and groundless accusation, and all I did was use CAPS and you're telling me to read CIVIL??? Please. Bottom line, there's highly relevant info on PayPal that needs to be in the article on widespread fraud. You can't argue with that. Your simple removal of ANY such content is flat out POV-pushing. My edits show clearly that I'm willing to compromise and substantively address criticism. YOU need to read Wikipedia:Trifecta.--Elvey 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

You can summarize what is said, but if you change the meaning by way of summarizing it changes the point of view or introduces original research. Point of view has been created with a number of statements which are not drawn from the provided citations. If no citations are provided it can and will be removed per WP:V. Also VERY VERY SLOPPY is a comment on the behavior you used derogatory language to comment on an editor's behaviour. That is a clear violation of NPA. I don't think I violated NPA, unless saying something someone said is false is also an NPA violation, and I don't think it is either. As far as your attempt to address original research in the article goes, that entire paragraph has no place in the Paypal article. The article certainly isn't claiming paypal is rife with fraud (it mentions paypal as a means to protect yourself) however the paragraph is written to sound like using paypal is dangerous which is not what is written in that article at all. I think what is now there is supported by the reference and topical.
Also statements like this The item significantly not as described claim is a more complicated matter. are not a summary. That is a subjective assessment of the process by an editor which has no place in wikipedia.--Crossmr 00:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC) I read it as filler, and as such can be removed; doing so.

October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to PayPal, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Actually, YOU NEED TO REREAD NPOV. YOUR EDITS BORDER ON VANDALISM. Think about it. You're blanking sourced NPOV material.
PS and yes, I know you're an admin. Doesn't excuse your behaviour, rather the opposite. Elvey, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Train Stations

Um not really, to tell you the truth I thought they would be deleted so I didn't think I had to worry about that. I could go and remove all them by hand, but I cannot do that now or in the relatively near future. Maybe tomorrow, but I guess now that I think about it maybe someone with WP:AWB could do it. I don't know much about AWB but can't it be configured to remove templates from all articles in a category? That would seem to be the easiest and least time consuming. Any ideas on your part?
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Um I just saw your post on the Admin noticeboard...just to let you know that really isnt the right place for it. I would go to WP:BOT and look for the link at the bottom that says "Bot Requests." If all that is needed to be done is to remove the templates I can probably do it by hand. It will just take me a little while.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Plantsimtoddler.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Plantsimtoddler.png. 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) 22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Simexchange

Sorry about that Crossmr just got your message, but don't you think sales data is relevant? I think we should keep the links, I like The simExchange website and it provides detailed added insight on video games (and has become the industry standard for projections).

How more relevant can you get from a company that is quoted in 1,000+ articles?

In addition, am I supposed to add a Talk discussion on every video game website to see if people want the sales data listed? That would be too time consuming and pointless. I think we are doing a bad job at not informing the gamers that are on Wikipedia about the relevance of video game sales to the industry.

One last thing, i read over Wikipedia is not a directory of links and posting a relevant link detailing the sales of a video game doesn't violate anything in there. Can you help explain this more? --Gamergirl9 (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was Tower Defense deleted?

I was just wondering why the Tower Defense page was reverted back to a redirect from what I had edited. It seems to me as though the redirect is falsely aimed, because it leads to an article about a specific tower defense, Desktop Tower Defense. I was just trying to create an article about the whole Tower Defense genre. Even though it may seem like it, I wasn't trying to advertise for Warcraft III or anything like that, but that game did start the genre. I read all of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy that pertained to anything like the article I edited, and I still don't see why it was deleted. I would appreciate it if you could restore my article so I could add more to it. Krakenen (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Leo Laporte

I only say that because I listen to most of his TWiT podcast and hear use the term for the last year or so without fail. The only person that still uses 'netcast' is Dick Debartolo (the Giz Wiz). When Zune 2 came out, he was shocked that Microsoft use the term podcast (which he thought they would never do due to the iPod connotation), but even before then he's used podcast rather liberally. And besides, you'd have to change every instance of podcast in every TWiT related article. τßōиЄ2001 (ǂ ) 07:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sim In Free Time

Why When I Added A Specific Animal Which I Was Given Information From The Sims 2.com! You Delete It? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erhama (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Medusa In Free Time

Maxoids Who Are Workers In EA In The Forums Of The Sims 2.com Have Officially Announced That Medusa Is The Creature Of Free Time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erhama (talk • contribs) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why Do You Need A Link,It's Already Known By Everyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erhama (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit

Can I Edit A Citiation That You Misplaced In The High School Musical 2 Foreign Songs?

A Link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PqbyuxmPdY You Put Canada,But It's Canadian French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erhama (talk • contribs) 09:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

[7] - "Both"? I'm not involved in the dispute at all. I'm just a concerned user who noticed RS' behaviour. :-) Scarian^Talk 08:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well requesting that I take "a week's vacation" is a bit extreme, no? I understand that you meant to heal the situation but I felt offended when you said that. It's like you're saying that I have lost my temper when, clearly, I haven't. I'm going to use a quote that I used a little while back:

“ an unbelievably tiny spec (on a colossal spectrum) ”

I'm sorry. I tend to get offended over miniscule things and I do apologise. I can safetly say that I am not involved in the situation; I only warned him and removed his personal attacks (They were not aimed at me, so I consider myself to be the neutral party). I appreciate your concern at trying to mediate the quandary but in my post to ANI I was not "exasperated". Thank you anyway :-) Scarian^Talk 14:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your note

Some Wikipedia editors do not seem to be aware of the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, particularly when they prance around disrupting that mission by placing useless templates on articles. When such disruptive editors object to being called "trolls", there is not much that can be done about that. --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a novel strategy: concentrate on learning about topics before you edit articles and then actually edit so as to improve the articles. --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Errors modifying quotes in Wikiversity article

Crossmr, you have deleted some material, apparently mostly links, from within specific quotes that were precise quotations with attribution and online verifiable sources attached. This quoted text was cut and pasted directly from online research papers published by scholars. It was cleaned up by me so the formatting made the text readable as it was in the original source. I suggest you repair this damage. Quotes may not be modified to suit publishers whims, they are attributed to specific authors and must be accurate. If you do not fix this damage within 48 hours I am going to take this matter up with an administrator as it directly bears on Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy and correctness. I would fix it myself but I am getting a bit tired of being on the verge of an edit war with you and Unitedstatesian with no reasonable specific discussion of the deletion of my work. Lazyquasar (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Crossmr, I am fairly familar with most Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Recommending that I read a bunch of stuff against vague allegations is not useful. I have not threatened you. If you feel I have please quote the specific text you find threatening so we can resolve the confusion. The promise to notify an adminstrator if you do not repair the quotation you damaged at article wikiversity stands. Allow me to give you a few hints. You can delete the quotes if you do not like them by moving the material to the discussion page and stating the reasons you find it inappropriate in the article. This is fairly standard practice and part of a local dialogue to attempt to improve the article. You can also delete the material and document the reasons although many editors find this pre-emptive behavior arrogant and irritating. Many prefer you start a discussion first before deleting. What you may not do is modify content of quoted text because it is attributed to an external author who is not locally present to defend his work. This is a well known standard practice in academia and I have never heard any discussion at Wikipedia that these proven practices should be not be followed at Wikipedia. In essence, you have modified a quote so that Wikipedia is now misquoting the orginal author. I will check after the stated time limit and follow up with an administrator if you have not taken action to repair the damage. That is a statement of fact or promise, not a threat. Lazyquasar (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The changes you made modify the quote because the information was there for the convenience of the reader. You intentionally made things less convenient for the reader by deleting information the author wanted them to have. I noticed you chose to delete the quotes rather than face the wrath of the adminstrators I "threatened" you with. Perhaps you should discreetly ask an admin or two what they think about modifying quotes "because Wikipedia is not a web directory". An early fundamental principle of Wikipedia was to improve others work not delete it. Since you are not interested in improving the Wikiversity article perhaps you should edit at other articles you are more interested in or knowledgeable about ... or even read the Manual of Style regarding formatting quotes and reformat them yourself as references. Have a Merry Christmas and an excellent New Year's celebration! Lazyquasar (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"It was intended for editors to take sources and create their own words based on reliable sources." Deleting the information gathered is not creating your own words and citing reliable sources. It is merely obstructionism for others who work on articles partime. Wikipedia supports authors who wish to provide completely polished works, it also supports collaboration between contributors who wish to split the burden of work. I spent hours collecting that information and providing it to others who might wish to use it in improving the Wikiversity article in response to detractors claiming there was no third party verification of Wikiversity's notability. You deleted them from the article after a couple of days with a few seconds effort. I suppose you think you are really a contributor now and should stand for election to admin status. Perhaps you could mitigate your damage by providing a link to the diff file where the quotes are archived in the comment where you state: no one has expressed any interest in discussion for a day or two so I shall delete entire section, header and all. This would allow others arriving to easily find the information you deleted from the currently served article and discussion pages. This would apparently achieve both publicly stated goals: 1. Making information available for others to improve. 2.) Keeping information that looks like advertising testimonials for Wikiversity out of the main article space. The fact that you chose to delete rather than relocate to the discusion page for discussion as was also suggested .... or point at the information in the diff files (which was not previously suggested) leads me to believe that you have little interest in collaborating to improve the Wikiversity article. "Assume good faith" does not mean one must be a drooling idiot or a passive patsy for others aggressive behavior. Lazyquasar (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"You said the author included those links for convenience, hence why they should have been removed and replaced with wikilinks. Its the preferred method of linking on wikipedia and provides the same convenience as I had previously and initially suggested to you" However, you did not convert the links to wikilinks; your merely deleted the functionality of the existing links along with the correct URL text that a user could copy and paste into their browser URL setting. Your edit summary "Applicability to modern learning - remove some overlinking, we're not a link repository" clearly shows this intent and inspection of the diff in archive clearly shows the result. [8] A blanket allegation of personal preference does not justify making a direct quotation inaccurate. Further, whether you and others like it or not, much of what distinguishes Wikipedia from a traditional encyclopedia is exactly its internet aware active links. The merit of individual links needs to be evaluated via some judgement about what is useful to the reader and other editors, not a single editor's blind preferences to link only to other Wikipedia artices or to have no links at all. The MoS you cited clearly acknowledges this fact. "When either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic). Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Bolding added by me for your reading convenience. The style used by me,the first major contributor, was useful and convenient for other editors considering ways to use the information in improving the article. Your minor deletions and major deletion of the entire section are useful to no one, unless you feel a short construction stub with inaccurate quotes or nothing is better than a longer construction stub at producing a complete featurable article. Lazyquasar (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Darkside2000

I am not sure what this edit means. Could you explain it to me? It looks like you created the page, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it looked like something else (like you had created the user page), and I wanted to ask. How would someone creating an alternate page look different? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I caught a sock-puppet that way once, and I thought, 'omigosh, here's another one..' It's nice to know I was wrong. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Jeebus, the guy is grasping for straws, eh? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lumber Cartel

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lumber Cartel, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumber Cartel 3rd attempt. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Brand licensing

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Brand licensing, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Brand licensing. Busy Stubber (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)