User talk:Arcayne/Arch005: 06.09-01.10

Talk:Firefly (TV series) edit -- not what it appeared

Just a courtesy note that I reverted with explanation a recent good faith edit of yours. Cheers. -- Thinking of England (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i saw it. Thanks for fixing it. I would have mentioned it, but I was pressed for time when I read it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

---

NoDrama experiment

This user was a participant in the 2009 Great Wikipedia Dramaout, improving articles from July 18–22.

• Created article redirect, M'Nagalah

Group or band – which one?

We are holding a straw poll (in a very friendly way, of course) to decide if The Beatles should be called a group, or a band. You can add your user signature to one or the other by clicking this link, Group or band – which one?. Thanks.--andreasegde (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hugo Strange volume and issue

Thanks for that - it was just before I started reading Detective Comics. (Emperor (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

July 2009

Your recent addition to Brothel (film) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Whpq (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, i just had a look; the article's a mess. One of my first articles, and nowhere near a good effort. Thanks for pointing it out to me (though using a template to do so seems a bit impersonal - I've been here for a while, after all); I'll attempt to address the film's many flaws by weeks' end, where I will invite you to have another gander at it. Sound good? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that some don;t like using templates to notify established editors. I'm sorry if that offended you. However, the purpose of a template is to give information to an editor unfamiliar with an issue. However, copying text verbatim from a press kit is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy, and surprising for an established editor. I assumed that you were unfamilar with the policy and rather than trying to explain it myself by redoing the work of the template, I used teh template which has already been crafted to convey all the needed information along with links to the appropriate policy. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't implying that you had to explain yourself, Whpq; actually, the coverse. It was my error and - as I said before - it was indeed one of my first articles, There appear to be a number of citations to work from, so I'll build the article up by Friday and drop you a line, so you can take another gander. Sound good? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please go ahead with improvements to the article. I have it watchlisted so you don't need to notify me. I'll have a look when it has been improved. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break Battle for the Cowl

Is this Arrbritray Break relating to Blackest Night: Batman because it sounds like it since you added this arguement alomost immediately after.? --Schmeater (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I've responded a bit more in-depth there. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should add a new part. You see the first arguement was if it should belong. That became Arbitrary Break, I think it's evolving into something about the plot and Batman R.I.P. I think we shoud split it because the main arguement of arbitrary Break seems to have ended. --Schmeater (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Given you're the level head one atm...

What's you're opinion of this in light of Schmeater's comment here that he asked you to blank. - J Greb (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to his credit, he wasn't entering it in the Battle for the Cowl article, which is what the kerfuffle was about. I;ve reverted that particular edit, as it goes into intricate detail and synthesizes some information. I think that some of the groundwork done in the BftC can be utilized in the Blackest Night article discussion. Schmeater almost certainly doesn;t know policy or guidelines. We point the user to that, answer any and all questions that pop up, and help the user move away from their currently unpleasant tendency to make it about the editor and not the edits.

One thing you can say about Schmeater - (s)he is prolific. I think the wiki could stand to have more of that. As well, the user seems to have a grasp as to the interacting plots of these storylines. We cannot use the suppositions and deductions that arise from them, but you have to admit that its nice to have someone who actually knows what they are talking about for a change. Another response follows this, immediately following your next post. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As well as this, which I believe was posted just before you stepped in... - J Greb (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

While he can certainly be faulted for turning the wiki into a battleground, I think its notable that after being counseled about such, he chose to work within the structure to reason with others. We need to positively reinforce that doing so is to be considered a Good Thing.

Quite honestly, I think the user is merely young and unfamiliar with both the rules as well as the often contradictory protocols regarding editor interactions. Remember how it was when you first started? That's where I think he's at right now. I know he's pushed your buttons, and frequently, but give the guy one more chance (I'm not saying you haven't, J, but some users need more help than others). I've almost always found you to be a very level-headed and charitable fellow, and its one of the many things I respect about you. Talk to Schmeater, and not at the user; the old saw about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar is usually true. If I can be of any assistance in this, please let me know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this - it is territory J Greb and I have been over so a fresh set of eyes always helps. Looks like you have everything under control, although I am still concerned about the constant accusations of ownership and the edit warring of their preferred version continues (and they are a hair away from getting warned and blocked). However, I agree that pointing out the necessary guidelines seems the way forward. (Emperor (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC))

Thanks Emperor - that is an awfully nice set of things to say about me. :)

And yes, i agree that Schmeater is on pretty thin ice; all the more reason to get the guy/gal to drop sme of the dead weight (s)he is carrying around, like OWN, CIVIL, BATTLE and CRYSTAL issues. He can't be forced to drop them, and a block is just going to discourage what could be a productive editor. I am sure he's pissed you off, and I appreciate your restraint. Help me to help the user, and get them into a mose constructive frame of mind. If we try and Schmeater still decides to go his own way, we can honestly say we tried to help. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

To both of you, thanks for taking a look. - J Greb (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Googoosh

Sir?, good choice in names. I saw you had comments on Googoosh page. I tried to add a citation, left the info in discussion page. I was told in big red letters that my attempt was toooooo long. Could you help? Atmamatma (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Gates, etc.

Be wary of any changes CoM makes. He's an anti-Obama POV-pusher and is under an Obama-related topic ban, and shouldn't even be on that page, since it's become an Obama-related subject. And by the way, yes, the woman denies identifying "two black men" to the police, so resetting it to "according to police reports", as you did, was the correct thing to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

I *have* talked first. And awaiting a response. See talk page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand, Michael; what I perhaps have not communicated properly is that - until the discussion has concluded as to the appropriateness of the included information - the info should remain out of the article, How many times must it be removed from the article before you relaize that you aren't going to be able to shoehorn it in by force of personality? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter

The July 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Here's the link... Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics and Talk:Arrest of Henry Louis Gates#RfC for "Beer Summit Beer" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharkxFanSJ (talk • contribs)

August 2009

Dear Arcayne, you appear to be engaged in an edit war with RFCBot on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics‎‎. I, for one, think it's funny that the bot reverted you twice without discusion. Everyone needs a good chuckle on a Monday, WP:DTTR aside. ;-) Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I not be interested in fighting bots. How to fix the RfC whilst not dismantling the bot? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. I have that RfC page watchlisted, and just thought it was too funny to pass up a comment on it. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If a bot breaks the 3 revert rule, does it block itself? Or at least report itself to the edit warring page? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol! This is probably how SkyNet started. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

SkyNet started as RFCbot? You know, dealing with an ongoing stream of RfCs is probably enough to give any AI a serious psychosis... Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yah. An endless stream of batpiss like that, I'd want to wipe put humanity, too. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Knowing plot summary

Yello again...

Regarding this, I was just wondering why in your edit summary you made a point about the summary not needing excessive detail (which with I agree) yet you reverted the removal of such detail. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. That's twice I cocked up today. Thanks for pointing it out politely, Chappy. I've self-reverted. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I figured that's what it was. You're so right though ...keeping plot summaries from escalating can drive one insane. Can't let people keep on adding 20 words or so at a time, or else a snowball will be an avalanche before you know it. If you look back at Waterworld's revision history, you'll see where the plot summary once grew to 2500 words. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Booking Photo

I can read your frustration. I personally dislike the side by side photographs - they are contrived. But keep the high ground whenever possible. I think those seeking complete removal of the mugshot are overreaching. If it ends up later in the article, that's fine - it helps illustrate the topic there too. Mattnad (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User Page Award

		The Excellent User Page Award
		I, Pericles of Athens, award User:Arcayne with this honorary barnstar to celebrate his most awesome user page, which utilizes a tasteful layout and design while also containing very humorous and enjoyable content. May your user page go down into the annals of Wiki history as a most excellent one. Warmest regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 14:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me asking, but is this your first barnstar award? If so I'm glad to be the first to award you! Feel free to put this on you user page; for examples of such, take a look at my user page. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It isn't my first barnstar (I keep them on a subpage), but I plan on checking out your page, to see how yu've arranged your barnstars for new ideas. Some folk who are whizzes at coding are able to put things like their FA articles as well as barnstars in scroll boxes, which I think is particularly nifty! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And I hadn't realized that you had a sub-page for your barnstars, which is just as good as having them on your user page. If you want to know any tips, just ask! Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

re:Gates

What diff is going to make? are you talking technical or just any other reason. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that you need to discuss those sorts of changes before you make them. There was discussion about whether to change the name but it hadn't really begun before your BOLD change. Just revert yourself, putting the title backt ot he way it was. It will sort itsel out on the talk page. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I responded in the article talk page. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Arcane, what do you mean when write in your edit summary "congrats. You are now monitored? Please stay out of my talk page, thanks --J.Mundo (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it means pretty much like it sounds. You seem to have a tendency to revert in/change page names first and head to discussion later, if at all. Respectfully, i politely asked politely you not once but twice to self-revert, using the lame excuse that you couldn't because the page was protected. You want good faith, you earn it. You don't like my tone, act with respect, and you will earn it. Do what you have been doing, and you aren't getting either. Sounds like a lack of AGF? AGF doesn't mean ignoring egoistic behavior, my friend. Because you seem to have a significant problem with these sorts of edits, I'm going to keep an eye on them, and nip any problem edits in the bud. If you are uncomfortable with that, I am sorry. Use discussion more, and you'll never have a problem with me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

DR with KillerChihuahua

While I appreciate that you're trying to draw attention to your mistrust, which frankly looks rather paranoid, your comment on KC's talk page merely suggests that you failed to read the preceding wording about "some more of his recent and somewhat hostile comments". Your aggression is unhelpful, and you'd do better to patiently work to get agreement rather than demanding that other editors do things. Remember, assume good faith. dave souza, talk 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dave, I find it very hard indeed to assume good faith with KC, especially since he's assumed exceedingly poor faith regarding my edits three times before, and been proven incorrect on each and every occasion. Why he chooses to piggyback his assumptions on the complaints of ArbCom parolees, stalking anon sockpuppets and a user with anagenda, I'll never know. I've heard from others that he wants me out of the wiki, and by tossing mud on the wall, he's hoping that someday, something will stick. I've made every effort of trying to explain where he's made his error and I've arrived at the sad conclusion that he doesn't want to listen. He thinks he's right, and screw me for thinking otherwise.

While most of my anger is directed at KC's frankly stupid and ill-thought-out warning, I don't think JMundo is a jerk. he just thinks he's right, and a littell too arrogant to think he doesn't need consensus before making page moves. I have not demanded anything of anyone. On two occasions, I politely requested that JMundo self-revert. He stated that he wouldn't. Aside from reverting his page move, there isn't much to be done. He's done the same before, and will likely do it again. JMundo is on a learnbing curve, while KC should be closer to the top of that curve. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, your calling KC stupid simply draws further attention to your silly behaviour. She has a lot of experience and respect for her handling of such difficult and controversial discussions, you'd do better to try to learn from her rather than assuming that you're in the right. Everyone's on a learning curve. I've not checked out the arguments in detail, but the impression I get from your talk page behaviour suggests that you're dishing out advice and trying to run things in a way beyond your current capabilities. Focus on trying to persuade others of the validity of your case, and avoid telling them to get consensus first when you appear to be ignoring a majority of other editors. Oh, and colourful language can be fun, but you're tending to be uncivil. Trust you'll learn from this and won't give KC further cause for concern. . dave souza, talk 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sure there are things I could learn from KC, and I admire much of her handling of several matters. He predisposition to assume the worst in my actions is of deep concern to me, David. She has thrice threatened me with a block, and in all three instances, she has been shown to demonstrably wrong or relying upon uninvestigated, faulty evidence. I have not done anything to provide KC concern, and yet she feels oddly compelled to come to my page and threaten me periodically based on naught but thinly-veiled animosity.

That said, I do respect your attempts to smooth things over, and will back off yet again. mark my words, though: KC will again make another unsolicited warning without having examined the matter. I would expect that you would step in at that point. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, you have said now in several venues that my warnings have "been proven false" which is utter nonsense on the face of it. A warning cannot be "proven wrong". A finding of fact can be proven wrong. You claim "investigations" have happened, and I have been shown to be wrong. Link to them. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what in my comments here and elsewhere suggest I am open to receiving commentary from you? Seeing as you have pointedly removed commentary from your talkpage from me, calling it a "rant", I am not sure that any discussion with you doesn't constitute an utter waste of my time, goodwill and effort. If you are unable to see where you have been incorrect in your assumptions of my behavior and underlying ethics, then i am unsure how anything I could say would make any dent in them. If you are genuinely curious as to where you have made mistakes in your previous warnings, do your own homework, but a helpful hint would be to consider whose complaints you are backing up with ill-placed warnings (an ArbCom parolee, a indef blocked sockpuppet and a person with an agenda). Suffice to say that I am trying to overlook your major failings here to offer you good faith in other areas. Do me the kindness of simply abstaining from providing me with warnings - you have demonstrated a clear lack of neutrality in dealing with me, and I simply do not have time to comment every time you get something wrong. I think that is all I really need to hear from you now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

this is completely unacceptable. You state I have been investigated and found to be "wrong" and when I ask for a dif, you tell me to "do my own homework"? The onus is entirely on you to ether substantiate your accusations or withdraw them. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What you want is immaterial here. Go away now. You have proven yourself to be unwilling to accept your mistakes, which renders moot anything you might say that isn't predicated by an abject apology. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence would indeed be useful. From what I checked of the recent incident, KC's warning to you was entirely appropriate. Your assertions about others don't excuse your own behaviour. Of course, if this has been shown to be incorrect somewhere, a diff will help to clear that up. . dave souza, talk 18:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's look at the most recent accusation. KC came to my page, warning my that continuing to add "defamatory content" would find me blocked.(1), this despite the fact that nothing of the sort had been added to the article, Arrest of Henry Louis Gates. Further characterizing my behavior (of reinstating the consensus image of an arrest photo of Dr. Gates) as part of a "smear" campaign and disruptive to boot, Killer Chihuahua took her lead from a posting initiated int he BLP noticeboard (by an editor seeking to have the image removed without discussion or consensus). Without arguing the merits of the image in the article, i will point out that that the image that is cited, legal, free to use, indisputably of the subject and still under debate in not only the article discussion, but where the issue had been forum-shopped to both Talk:BLP and the BLP Noticeboard. The image itself possesses no defamatory portion, nor would a neutral view of my actions be considered part of a "smear" campaign, and I take specific offense at that particularly base, unfounded and bad faith accusation. A look at the article discussion would support my characterization of the image.

Before that, KC characterized my asking the Admin Noticeboard for help with and anon (who turned out to be an indef-banned IP sock that had stalked and harassed me months earlier) as "forum-shopping" (2).

Before that, there was the premature closure of an AN/I complaint that, upon my re-opening, was found to actually have merit, and appropriate action was taken. At that point, i asked her to stop taking action or commenting on matters I was involved with, as I pointed out she could not be neutral (3) in regards to me. Her response? She deleted the post with a pretty unpleasant edit summary (4).

And the first instance of harassment by KillerChihuahua came after a complaint by that loveable ArbCom parolee, DreamGuy(3). She characterized me as a "liar" and "unethical", which I have proven at least twice was actually an accident of trusting someone other than DG (who hadn't garnered any good faith to merit trust from me).

This means that I've received three warnings from KillerChihuahua in as many months. No other single admin has given me that many warnings in the three years that I've been here, and certainly not in such a short time span. In light of this, KC's defense that she has no interest in me at all rings fairly untrue. Compounding the hollowness of her claim of neutrality is that in each of the instances I've noted above, either myself or another user (and sometimes an admin) have pointed out that the allegations periodically leveled at me by KC have been unfounded. And yet, not once in the past three months have I been offered an apology. Were Killer Chihuahua really treating me neutrally, she would simply apologize when proven wrong.

I'm not holding my breath for an apology though; she has made up her mind that I am a "liar" and "unethical", engaged in "forum-shopping" and "smear" campaigns by adding "derogatory" images. The continued unwarranted warnings are just an attempt to through mud on the wall and see if anything sticks, or if I rise to the bait. I am not expecting Killer Chihuahua to change. I just want her to abstain from using her admin tools to threaten me with blocks, as she is clearly a non-neutral party. I want her to stay away. I've asked this on at least three prior occasions, and in each instance, she's declined to do so.

You wanted diffs, David - there are some of them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to use the proper pronoun throughout for clarity, I believe "she" and "her" is correct here. –xeno^talk 20:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Crap, i thought I had. No slight was intended by a mistake in gender. I've endeavored to fix any gender slip-ups. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to resolve this without escalating; if you ban me from your talk page, then I have no recourse but to either ignore your nasty lies and attacks, or else take to another venue for DR. Are you certain you wish to ban me from your talk page? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you now threatening me? Not one thing I've presented is a lie. If you perceive the above as an attack, I guess that is your prerogative; I am drawing attention to your repeated attacks upon me, as per David's request. Are you sure you want to threaten me at this juncture? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you take dispute resolution as a threat, Arcayne? As far as I can see you've made a number of assertions, all of which are disputed by at least one editor. If you accept that KC is acting properly in good faith, then you can agree that she will continue to do so and will present evidence for each case on its merits, should you come to her attention again. If you persist in holding that she has been acting improperly, then full and detailed analysis is needed to deal with that serious claim. You can discuss your claims in detail on your talk page, in accordance with the first stages of dispute resolution. Failing that, you can either withdraw your assertions unreservedly or subject them to open scrutiny. . . dave souza, talk 21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did I take that as a threat? Well, to begin with, KC cals my post "lies and nasty attacks", and if I don't give her the opportunity to respond, she's taking the problem elsewhere. As she hasn't admitted even the possibility of misinterpreting my actions on any prior occasion when I've sought DR with her, I am disinclined to believe that her participation here would of a genuine wish to resolve differences. If I thought that DR would actually change her mind, I'd jump at the chance. However, I was born a little west of the Merry Old Land of Oz.

You asked for background on why I had little faith in KC's neutrality; I have presented such. I did not present those diffs and background because I wanted her blocked, de-sysopped or whatever. I presented it because I simply want her to stay away. She isn't neutral towards me, and I frankly don't want someone who unswervingly believes the worst of me sitting in judgment with the ability to arbitrarily block me. I don't think that's an unreasonable concern. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That said, if KC is sincerely interested in resolving this problem this time, I'll participate. I just don't want to waste my time if all that KC wants to do is to prove me wrong. I have no real time for that. DR is never one person's fault, and I have yet to see her willingness to admit to any wrongdoing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have time for that, simply accept that KC is acting properly. Your accusations against her won't stop her carrying out admin duties involving you, with due care as always. You have not been blocked by her, and will not be arbitrarily blocked. As for believing the worst of you, the only open issues appear to be the unsubstantiated claims you're making, and your unwillingness to admit to any wrongdoing as shown in your very partial account of your edit warring on the Gates article doesn't do you great credit. However, I'd hope that you'll see the advantage of discussing these issues frankly with KC here. . . dave souza, talk 22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. With respect, you're wrong, David. While I don't have to make the time, I did make enough to point out where KC has acted inappropriately - at your request. And even offered to try DR if KC is planning on actually using DR to find a resolution that admits her mistakes along the way. How is that backing off?

Allow me to be clear: KC has not acted appropriately. I am unsure how I can state than any clearer.

That you find that she has acted with due care here is - well, bewildering, to say the least. My claims are not unsubstantiated. Simple examination shows that KC has gone out of her way to warn me on at three different occasions over the last three months - more than any other admin ever has in the past three years. that each of these warnings have been proven baseless seem to be falling on deaf ears.

I do find myself gobsmacked when you point to my edit-warring in the Gates article as just cause for the warning - er, that wasn't even the main issue KC warned me about! Lol! Even if that were the reason (and, looking back over the warning, it was indeed there, tucked in at the very end of the warning, right after accusing me of engaging in a racist "smear" campaign), we both understand that it takes two to edit-war. To illustrate my point, allow me to ask if KC warned any of the other participants of the edit-warring (including the editor filing the BLP noticeboard complaint) the same warning? We both know the answer to that after a quick look at her contribution history - of course not. How about even a gentle aside? Again, nope.

I was singled out, as she had singled me out on at least two prior occasions.

I'm sorry, Dave, but I've noticed that you don't appear willing or able to see how KC's behavior has been inappropriate, when it so clearly has. I am unsure of your intent here; are you acting as neutral intermediary for this DR, or as KC's advocate? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, DR does not begin by insisting that one party must admit wrongdoing. Its a dispute - you claim I have done wrong, I dispute that. You cannot resolve that by insisting that you get your way. That's not DR; that's autocracy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, I am the wronged party here, not you. If I choose to ask for an apology because of what I feel to be bad behavior on your part, I am entirely within my rights to do ask. Of course, you are within yours to insist that you have not, despite evidence to the contrary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

We disagree on who the wronged party is; hence, the disagreement. And you have provided no evidence of wrongdoing on my part. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

being nice

Re: Back and forth with Unitanode. I have no personal animosity towards him. I'll admit he's no friend of due process - he helped changed the name of the article and then was deleting photograph based on his own preconceptions of what that mugshot means while ignoring the discussion. But as you can see, I really don't like people hiding their motives or actions and he clearly didn't like me cornering him. As an aside, you may want to edit out "ass-clowns" in your comments - it's sometimes used as a derogatory term for homosexuals.Mattnad (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I never knew that ass-clowns was a term for homosexuals. I had always thought it referred to someone so incompetent that they couldn't find their ass with two hands and a map (1). If you can cite its homosexual connotations, I'll certainly self-revert; slamming idiots and not gays was my intent - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it's slang, and I don't have access to the OED, here's a link [1]. See proposed definition 2.Mattnad (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But note that definition #1 and most of the other links provided support my definition of such. If someone complains that I am casting aspersions in regards to their sexuality, i will be happy to point out that I am instead referring to idjits, and not calling those folk gay who mnight take offense at being grouped as such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

True enough. It's likely that no one will notice so you're probably right. I read a lot so I pick up on many variations word use.Mattnad (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. As I was totally unaware of the secondary definition, i will likely use it with more care in the future. Thanks for learnin' me something new today. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You are going to be better served by actually reading the above; all the better to get to the meat of the matter. I rather recall you offering me the same suggestion when i asked you why you called me an "unethical liar" during the first warning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is alternative textttttttt

Hiya, Arcayne. Seems like you've been keeping an eye on 300 (film) all this time. Was wondering if you've gotten a whiff of the alternative text for images guidelines? Since 300 is a Featured Article, I was wondering if you could take a few minutes to add alternative text to its images. (For the poster image, add alt= above caption= and fill in the field with text.) For an example, see Fight Club (film) alt For 300, here's the alt tool. Let me know if you have any questions or need a hand! —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Time permitting, I'll look into it today. :) So, essentially, I just add in alt text describing the image? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Batman: Reborn

I have posted something else on the Battle for the Cowl disscusion article, but what I really wan't you to see is the disscussion on the Batman: Reborn page. I wan't to know if these sources are correct. --Schmeater (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Robin Hood

Hi Arcayne, as a significant contributor to the article I wanted to make sure you were aware that Robin Hood has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

NoDrama experiment

This user was a participant in the 2009 Great Wikipedia Dramaout, improving articles from July 18–22.

• Created article redirect, M'Nagalah

DR with KillerChihuahua

(cont'd from archive)

We disagree on who the wronged party is; hence, the disagreement. And you have provided no evidence of wrongdoing on my part. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(more on this in a bit...)

Hi, Arcayne, you've asked about my intent. I look things over, and call it as I see it. Since this discussion arose over the recent warning you were given about the Arrest of Henry Louis Gates article, I've had a look at it. At the article talk page three editors expressed concern over using mug shot as the main image in the infobox, and JN466 replaced it by the double picture. You wrote "And why was the image of the mugshot not retained elsewhere in the article?" and Mattnad who also objected reverted the change. Following a brief discussion JN inserted the mugshot in the Arrest section and replaced it in the infobox with the double picture. You then began reverting to keep the disputed image in the lead and demanding consensus before the change. Wrong. Per WP:BLP, "Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved." All the other editors appear to have accepted that the layout was dubious, and accepted the compromise. Consensus was required if the dubious image was to be kept in the infobox, not the other way around. Far from accepting that policy, you made a false and bullying accusation on agr's talk page that he was "reverting images over and over again" and that he should "maybe take a little break,, and come back and build a consensus".[2] After that, agr raised the issue at BLPN, where KC responded and gave you the warning. In response you called the warning a "bogus claim" and threatened "repercussions".[3]
Let's examine the issues you have raised about the warning, in the section you have now archived. Firstly, "continuing to add 'defamatory content' would find me blocked.(1), this despite the fact that nothing of the sort had been added to the article". You were adding the image in dispute to the infobox, in clear violation of BLP as cited above. "The image itself possesses no defamatory portion, nor would a neutral view of my actions be considered part of a "smear" campaign, and I take specific offense at that particularly base, unfounded and bad faith accusation. A look at the article discussion would support my characterization of the image." Several editors disagreed with you, as is clearly shown by the talk page, and the consensus is that its use in the lead is inappropriate. KC did say "Cease your campaign to make this article a smear; cease edit warring." and while that's not actually a reference to a "smear" campaign and refers to the effect of your actions rather than intent, it could be misunderstood.
Regarding edit warring, you stated "Even if that were the reason (and, looking back over the warning, it was indeed there, tucked in at the very end of the warning, right after accusing me of engaging in a racist "smear" campaign), we both understand that it takes two to edit-war. To illustrate my point, allow me to ask if KC warned any of the other participants of the edit-warring (including the editor filing the BLP noticeboard complaint) the same warning?" Where did that "racist" come from? I've not seen any edits where KC accused you of that. As before, making the article a smear is not the same as engaging in a smear campaign. As for warning other editors, they'd each only reverted you once, restoring the version with majority support and least BLP concerns, as required by policy. Admins warn editors making multiple reverts, as you'd done. You complain that you've "received three warnings from KillerChihuahua in as many months.... And yet, not once in the past three months have I been offered an apology", and demand that she stop dealing with your misdeeds. You don't get to pick and choose which admin deals with you, and think yourself lucky it wasn't someone who just looked at your record and decided that you should know by now about edit warring and didn't need another warning. As for an apology, you've falsely accused agr of edit warring, and far from apologising continued to bluster when that was pointed out.[4] Your reputation for acting properly would be greatly enhanced if you were to apologise to him. . dave souza, talk 21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I will respond to this email in due course with DIFFS. As for an apology, I am fairly certain that successful alchemy has a better chance of happening. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The stone is still grinding

I hate to ask you to look at this again, but Talk:Batman: Battle for the Cowl#Blackest Night tie-in is still running.

I'm really starting to think it turning into a badger game and I'm getting tired of having to hit the same point to this editor over and over.

- J Greb (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Seek admin input, J; I've talked 'til I was blue in the face, and he simply doesn't get it. I am going to assume good faith that he is not purposely missing the point, but its growing increasingly difficult to assume such. We both have other things to do; bring the problem to some admins who aren't afraid of reinventing the wheel, or file an RfC about the nonsense, and maybe the crush of voices will tell him what we have for weeks. I wish I could help, but with work and family issues, I'm going to be of little help, my friend. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Understandable... take care and I hope things work out. - J Greb (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter

The August 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Voting

The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter

The September 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Batman Split

I just want your thoughts on the disscussion I posted at the Batman article talk page if you have any questions feel free to contact me. --Schmeater (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:River.and.reavers.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:River.and.reavers.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

You are invited to join the discussion at [AFD] for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, since you have participated in the discussion of the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyyo

Replied on my talk page. Keegan (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)