♦My Spellbook♦ (Or, "How I Learned to Stop Hatin' & Love All the Crazy")
Arc 000 Arc 001 Arc 002 Arc 003 Arc 004 Arc 005 Arc 006 Arc 07 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10	Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20	Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Interlude: Textboxes

• What has gone before...

I can see you recently had trouble with thuran and while i was banned at the time i can now tell you that i wouldnt let him bother you to much. Ive had my share of battles with him and his friends and you cant ever win but just letting you know you have a ally if you need one. TheManWhoLaughs 20:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. I love Wikipedia! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I kind of wish people would stop taking this so seriously. I appreciate the both of you sticking up for me when ThuranX got all snarly and whatnot, but after perusing the sorts of things he was involved in (there was this pretty icky AN/I going on wherein some user was being threatened in real life, and the 'Office' wasn't acting fgast enough for Thuran, apparently) during the time he was flipping out, makes me think he had just a bit too much going on, and he lashed out at me, coz I was there. I found this out after filing an AN/I on ThuranX myself, as I didn't think that getting treated like that was very cool at all. Maybe he just needs someone a bit higher hup the food chain to tell him to dial it back a bit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest letting the matter slide instead of resorting to an AN/I. The confrontation's tapered off, and I think that the AN/I option should only be revisited if things flare up again. And believe me, if you thought ThuranX was snarly, it's good that you never met Ace (who is MIA these days). While Ace was a competent editor, every comment he made sounded like he was having a bad day and was willing to take it out on someone. But yeah... it's my opinion that the AN/I won't help matters (as you noticed there and elsewhere, there's plenty of red tape to be found). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have been willing to do that, but you may recall that he said that this was something "that had been building for a while". That tells me that while he may have gone off somewhere, the behavior is likely not going to end if we run into each other again. Even if the AN/I goes nowhere, there will be a record of reporting the bad behavior, which goes to precedent if (and probably when) it happens again. And it shouldn't surprise you that ThuranXand Ace consider each other to be friends, so that may say something about why they feel that sort of behavior is acceptable. They may eben think they are 'cleaning up the town and taking out the trash.'

Like I said, I used to like ThuranX, because his edits are usually tip-top, but (like Ace) it's uncool to treat others like trash whilst doing so. And he certainly isn't going to listen to you or I. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I understand your reasoning. I hope the report doesn't stir things up again (that was my concern and the reason for my advice); he may take it as an insult. Anyway, from my collaboration with both ThuranX and Ace, I never really saw any tag-teaming between them regarding the appropriateness of their attitudes. I actually recall ThuranX telling Ace one time to take it easy. Bignole and I have spoken to both of them on occasion when we notice too much biting. I've blown up a few times myself, but I like to think I keep myself in check. I think that the main reason why we sometimes bite (not trying to justify here, just provide some insight) is when we deal with editors who don't have a clear understanding of policies or if there are a series of independent, anonymous, and incorrect edits which we constantly have to revert (like the Scarecrow rumor). But basically, I hope I was able to provide some form of mediation; I would like to think that ThuranX would hear me in some regard, and the same for you. The reason I laughed above was the taking of sides -- on a website! I mean... it's a bit silly to say, "I got your wiki-back." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think the feller is already insulted, and it wasn't like I was accusing him of something that wasn't the case; one can only be insulted when accused of something they didn't do. And I've never met Ace before, and wouldn't think that he and ThuranX would would tag-team folk; that's not the read I get from ThuranX, at least.

As for bitey-ness, yours is not a name I would associate with that. In fact, you and Big are exceptionally even-handed when dealing with folk, even those who are truly deserving of a verbal beat-down. I think that trying to remain polite allows rude folk to either realize they are being a Dick and calm down, or failing that, protect yourself so they can kick themselves out.

And I knew what you were laughing at. I don't expect anyone to have my back, wiki- or otherwise. I would prefer my back didn't need watching, in any case. It's nice to have some encouragement, so I know I am operating in a vaccuum. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man guys like us are constantly fighting on here and i got peoples back because i got noone watching mine so i want some people on here who will give some damn respect which you cant get much of on here.TheManWhoLaughs 01:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a fairly long post with some advice on your Talk page. For the record, I don't think I am constantly fighting. Some people I work with better than others, and some people can't really be worked with at all. and just like business, where you gotta spend money to make money, you gotta give respect to get respect. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So like with books, got any movie recommendations? Lately, I've seen Pirates 3, Knocked Up, Blood Diamond, 11:14, and Dark City. (I've been looking for thematic citations on the latter; see here.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a lot of movies, as I don't usually have a lot of time. The ones I see are when I am on the plane or whatever. Pirates was fun, but a bit disappointing to me (though not nearly as disappointing as Batman & Robin, Highlander 2, Highlander Endgame or the last Matrix film). I did see Knocked Up and 11;14 and wasn't all that impressed by them. Blood Diamond was pretty good. I liked The Illusionist coz Ed Norton is friggin' brilliant, and he usually ends up in good films, which Illusionist certainly was (much more than the less-than-satisfactory Prestige - I like having someone to root for). When I have the time, i usually watch some science show or read a book. I get recommendations from a couple people before I commit to seeing a movie, since I tend to be insulted by stupid movies or those films that specifically try to manipulate my emotions (Lifetime is never on in my home), and I end up in a crabby mood the rest of the day. I will be going to see the new Potter film with my nephews, as I promised them, even thought they are too young. It is part of my job s an uncle to fill them with sugar, caffeine and scary movies before giving them back tot heir parents. Uwah hah hah, and all that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks II?, Just Cause?, Goodfellas?, Dollars Trilogy Maybe you don't want to worry about remembering the main character's name?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did like Clerks 2 coz we saw the same zany antics, but there was a point to the story that sometimes seems missing with a Kevin Smith "slice-o-life" film. I remember seeing Just Cause many years ago, and only recall that I was please that Connery wasn't cast in another bomb (it almost seems to be an unfair Holywood legend that Connery had the worst possible instincts for which roles to take). I liked Gooffellas, even though I don't really like Liotta. The Man With No Name films I do like, even though I often dislike a lot of movies from the late 60's and early 70's. Maybe it was some weird cinematography thing, but it always looked like people were wearing really uncomfortable clothing, and were sweating all the time, and I tend to sympathize with the characters.

My tastes in film tend to be pretty odd. I liked the 13th Warrior, even though it had Banderas in it. Strange Days, and The Long Kiss Goodnight were also pretty good. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember watching Just Cause with my parents (mom's a big Connery fan), and I remember liking it so I Amazoned it. But I found it at Wal-Mart on Friday so I bought it there. I watched it last night actually. I laughed harder at Clarks II than I did for the first one. The Dollars Trilogy is probably one of my favorite set of movies. The soundtrack is killer. I have just about every Eastwood western, though some of them I don't like the character; he basically raped a woman in High Plains Drifter. I've never sat through all of The 13th Warrior, and never seen Strange Days. I like The Long Kiss Goodnight, not a great movie, but entertaining. What about The Ugly?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of The Ugly. I recognize that you are far more a connoisseur of horror films than I am. Part of my personality is understanding function ove form, and so many horror films don't make sense to me, and that ruins the enjoyment of the plot for me. Primal fear films work for a while, but I get bored of the unrelenting gore and manipulative usage of low frequency rumbling (which activates the caveman in all of us afraid of getting trampled, the trampling stampede-y sound being a low frequency transmitted through the ground); next time you see a particularly scary film, pay attention to the usage of low frequency sound effects used to heighten your fear. It's really quite manipulative.

The reason I like the 13th Warrior is the fact that it's cast is made up of essentially the leading men from a number of different countries largely unknown to the American audience. It's a total guy film. Stange Days is dated, being set right before the Millenium. It would have been better had they not done that, but Angela Bassett kicking ass in a chauffeur's uniform? Priceless. As well, that's probably why I like Kiss Goodnight as well - no one would cast Geena Davis as an ass-kicking government killer, and she pulls it off really well. the bad guys and the plot is pretty believable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I agree about Pirates 3 -- I enjoyed it, but wasn't truly satisfied in the end. I liked Matrix Revolutions in some regards, but it was flawed. (They should've stopped at the first one, basically.) I didn't like 11:14 that much, either -- it just seemed like a movie to show off the intertwined storyline technique and nothing else. I did like Knocked Up, though, more because of the contemporary references (I foresee the movie getting dated fast, though, for that reason) and because one of my roommates of the past two years basically had a lifestyle like the main guy's friends (except for that celeb porn site biz). I liked The Prestige more than The Illusionist (saw the ending coming from a mile away) because the concept was chilling to me and reminded me of The Butterfly Effect. And I gotta say Blood Diamond was weird for me to watch -- it was like one of these action romps but with too serious of a background (the carnage in Africa) to really appreciate. I think Fernando Meirelles' City of God and The Constant Gardener delivered more strongly using similar premises. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to see Clerks II via Netflix, but the DVD was scratched up. I haven't gotten around to seeing it, but I generally enjoy the crude nature of Kevin Smith movies. I need to get around to seeing The 13th Warrior, as I've heard good enough things about it to check it out. I need to check out Strange Days, though -- I'm a sucker for sci-fi, even the soft variety. The Long Kiss Goodnight, I'm interested in checking out because I saw and loved Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, which had the same writer (who also directed the latter one). I have a ridiculous amount of movies on which I'd like to catch up -- my Netflix queue, at last count, was 452 movies. I'm wanting to see The Lives of Others and Downfall (Alientraveller's recommendation). Kind of hard to see many movies nowadays, though... with my internship, it's a full work week, and I'm socializing with other interns during my free time. I don't cross paths with too many film aficionados. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ugly is less horror and more psychological. The leading man won a best actor award in New Zealand for his work in the film. It's kind of like a Silence of the Lambs in that respect.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be noted that he just removed the warnings. Lord Sesshomaru

I didnt remove them i archived them for some reason this guy has a personal grudge againts me and what he doesnt understand is hes about to be blocked for it.TheManWhoLaughs 15:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your advice worked, Arcayne... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that it did. Maybe he will read it again in a few eeks or months, and it'll sink in then. Crap, and I spent some time thinking about how to best say what I did, too. :( - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, he'll have all the time in the world, because Yamla gave him the indefinite for sockpuppetry.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I just saw that. What a waste of advice (guess he can't have my back anymore - hur hur). I kinda feel sorry for someone who cannot get out of their own way. He didn't even know how to say he was sorry, or thanks. Sigh... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Arcayne,

Regarding your inquiry into the unlockable Braveheart-themed video game sequence in the game Daxter, I have no earthly idea. I am no gamer, I do not even own a console. I was just wikifying the term "unlockable" in the Braveheart spoof section. I did however find this:

• A Daxter "cheat" page that includes information on the Braveheart unlockable

• And the PDF download page of the guide in question

I hope this aids you in your quest, my friend.

JAM

I wanted to let you know that I reverted your recent citation addition to the article. Imdbis not considered a reliable source by WP for articles. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that I may have misunderstood the reason it said "citation needed" when I went to the Blair which page. I thought it wanted proof that the mockumentary "Curse of the Blair Witch" existed. I know that it did as I watched it on the Sci-fi channel. If I was correct and the difficulty just is that the IMDB can not be used as a source, what internet source could be used for such a purpose?--Macindan 18:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for leaving me a "message" concerning the Thor edits. I'm curious as to what the problem was. Your tone suggested anger or disgust.

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....