User talk:Arcayne/Archive 1

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! NatusRoma | Talk 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Duckworth & Roskam
I suggest that you discuss on the talk page before making major changes, such as deleting paragraphs, to controversial articles. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Goethean, you don't seem to practice what you suggest. The paragraphs, inappropriate 'controversial articles,' and statements I have removed through the editing process have been to preserve the neutrality of the entry. It is inappropriate to include statements not made by the person for whom the entry was created. It is highly inappropriate to include yellow-page ads of an entrant's law firm when there are public use pictures available on the internet, and you should know better.

My personal political opinions aside, Wikipedia does not afford us the luxury of posting anything but the NEUTRAL truth. Statements by campaign staff or national political organizations does not speak to the individual entrant.

The Illinois races are exceptionally ugly this year, and I will not allow Wikipedia to be used as propaganda. I am not suggesting that you are actively trying to do so, but I think it is clear to more than just a few people that you allowing a personal bias to influence your prodigious abilities as an editor. As a co-editor and out of respect, I would ask you to take a step back and recognize that your personal bias might be coming into play here. Pete 21:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

There's Help:Contents and Help desk. Let me know if you have any specific questions. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will likely take you up on that, Goethean. Thank you for your kind offer.Arcayne 08:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

-

Arcayne, the vandal's name is User:Joehazelton -- lowercase 'h'.

Thanks for reverting the vandalism at Tammy Duckworth. To revert a page, you can follow the directions Help:Revert. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Got here via the talk page for User:75.2.250.145; where you state that User:75.2.250.145 is User:Joehazelton, a "permanently blocked user with a history of unbalanced and flagrant violations of WP policy." User:75.2.250.145 is also causing a bit of a headache on the Talk:Neil Patrick Harris page. Can anything be done about a blocked user resurrecting themselves with an anon account? An RfC, or maybe some admin intervention? Thanks! - -  weirdo actor tundefinedc - - 20:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Children of Men
Sorry about that.72.196.213.82 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agent Cooper's addition wasn't worded as well as it could have been, nor did it appear in the correct section, and I didn't even bother looking at his cited source, however, this type of criticism has appeared and should be represented in the article in some way. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel more comfortable with the re-wording of the citation? I've honestly never seen the film or the book, but I'd rather transform the citation into something useful than remove it entirely. Of course, I feel that the sole negative citation shouldn't be one of the few in the underdeveloped Reception section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am not very comfortable with it, Erik, and I will explain why. You are adopting a Defender pov which is not really conducive to neutrality. I would strongly recommend is that you read the book or see the movie before making an edit on a film. Otherwise, its like a person writing about the experience of piloting an airplane after having looked at a picture of one. We are not in the fair and balanced business; we are in the neutrality business. The two terms are not synonymous. :)


 * I understand your reasoning. It did seem to me that the edit was made with an agenda, so I tried to construct it so that wasn't so obvious.  However, when I do get the chance to see the film, I'll explore both the positive and negative reviews to see if there was really a prominent issue with the theme change in the adaptation process.  The article is in the history, so if it needs to be re-summoned for additional discussion down the run, I'll do that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. I've tried to remove all trace of my involvement in the article and its discussion, deleted my User page and am vacating my account. If you were to look at the history of my edits prior to October, you would see that I have fought mightily and with great difficulty for NPOV in articles that elicit strong opinions in others, and have generally been thanked for it by those more distant from the topics. This is the first time I've had what started out as a perfectly reasonable proposed edit suppressed for political reasons and then abused as a rightwing nutjob spouting paranoid nonsense for protesting POV-motivated deletions. The shame of it is not that the CofM article will be the worse without me; this film itself will be largely forgotten as soon as Bush leaves office. It's that you people drove away someone who has usefully contributed thoughtful discussion, cite-hunting, grammatical corrections, and informal mediation for months now. I guess the hive mind must have its say, but did you all have to be so fucking nasty about it? Signing off. Agent Cooper 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't working with any personal agenda, Cooper. You just starting blathering on about how it was some vast "political inversion conspiracy" to prevent your edits.
 * Your edits.
 * Specifically.
 * Are you aware of how friggin' loony that sounds? And then to accuse me of being a part of it when all I have done is to ensure that a NEUTRAL point of view is preserved. You needed to chose better citations, and not some over-biased nonsense that went far afield from the subject being talked about.
 * If you want to be gone, then be gone. If you want to be part of the larger community - a community that largely can't agree on the color of shite - then be the larger person and do that. But don't waste my and others' time by telling us we are all biased and you are the only one who can save us from ourselves because honestly, you don't have the bricks or the rep to to do so.
 * I will be entering this on my user page as well, since you seem all so very keen on removing comments that disagree with your own, delicate viewpoint. I actually think you can get banned for doing those types of deletions on legitimate commentary.Arcayne 22:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My intention was to only remove my own comments, not interfere with anyone else's. I have not deleted one single thing that directly expressed disagreement with me. I did try to close down my usertalk page as a part of a general attempt to withdraw, and that meant deleting what was on it, but as you can see

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Agent_Cooper&diff=75382094&oldid=75226125

there was nothing unfavorable there that I was trying to conceal. I think it recreated itself when I logged back in to respond to some of these comments about me. I didn't think removing myself was vandalism, but I'm prepared to acknowledge that I might misunderstand the rules involved.Agent Cooper 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the history. Yllosubmarine restored the comments by Agent Cooper that were removed by Cooper himself. I don't think there's a relation between the accounts. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i did misunderstand it. It apparently changed while I was looking at versions (kinda freaky how that happened, actually) seeming to appear as if Yllo had blanked the entries. I have already addressed the header and the topic. I will now go to Yllo's user page and remove the comment with an apology.

Please see my comments on the original article talk page, which you'll find are a sincere apology. I don't think I ever said that there is a conspiracy, though I did suggest that there may be unconscious bias. Surely that's discussable? There's a substantive question about what NPOV entails here, and if my interpretation of NPOV was correct, then unconscious bias would explain why you were violating it; I gather that what you think of me is something of the mirror image of that. And in the discussion there was a tone issue that I think neither of us were particularly sensitive to. I don't always hear how sarcastic I sound, and I think you may not be aware of how patronizing you sound. This whole thing was unexpected and exhausting for me, and I'd like to just let it go at this point. If you sincerely want to set me straight on the NPOV issue, I'll discuss it as best I can, but you should know that I really think that characterizing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Things as "over-biased nonsense" looks itself like bias, since this is a very prominent intellectual journal with a POV very different from your own (and from my own as well!); and that after reading the NPOV policy page, it seemed clear to me that reporting on a controversy is not the same thing as taking sides--it's part of the story of the film (even if it is true, I confess, that my personal response to the film was much like Sacramone's). When you leave up favorable reviews of a film that has been commented on by all sorts of "mainstream" venues as being a parable/critique of the war on terror and take down negative reviews by very prominent conservative commentators that regard it as a perversion of a fine pro-life Catholic novel critiquing the so-called "culture of death", and then lecture me on my lack of neutrality in a "let me explain to you how we do things here, little fella" when I've been contributing productively in other areas for quite some time, it rankles in a way that you really don't seem to have grasped. Now I'm willing to retract my earlier thought that you can't possibly believe that this is what NPOV involves. I see that you do. And in other contexts (say someone demanding equal time for Intelligent Design in a biology article) I would whole-heartedly agree with you. But this context seems really different. Both of the items we've been discussing are works of art with cultural-political messages. Liberal commentators do not have a monopoly on mainstreamness, and what they think of the world is not the only thing happening in the world. Now I don't want to waste your time or mine by having either of us go on and on about this, so you don't have to go into this in huge detail if you don't want to. I just want to make clear that I'm owning up to my own investments and shortcomings, and I hope that you will appreciate that. Agent Cooper 02:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Archivng
Per archive guidelines, I suggest that you archive all sections in which there has not been discussion for a while. Maybe what you can do is when you move the extraneous text to the archive, you can provide a link on top of the decent discussion to the original discussion that had been exported. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Smallville
I think what you don't like is someone much younger than you telling you what's what. I've been doing this a bit longer, and I've quite familiar with NPOV and RS, thank you. There is quite a bit of subjectivity to certain things. Also, what you need to be aware of is the Three-revert rule, because both you and I have reverted that page 3 times in less than 24 hours. 1 more from either of us and it will violate that policy. So I think it would be wise if we both stepped away. Bignole 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, your first mistake was just deleting information because YOU believe a source does not qualify as reliable. Unfortunately, nothing is that black and white, and I'm sad to see that someone with any degree (says how old you are) actually thinks that it is. If there was no source, I can understand removing information, I've done it myself. If you disagree with the reliability of the source, what YOU should do is go to the talk page and bring it up. Obviously, unless the information is brand new, others have not shared your concern or they would have done the same thing. The fact that MM was in Smallville is not new, that was something that was established by the creators early in the season. Phil Morris' attachment was also established weeks ago, before they show came back to air Justice. So, did you "make a mistake", initially no. I wouldn't say you made a mistake. I mistake would be a little greater in degree, but it's my opinion that you used poor judgement. Just because YOU disagree with a source does not mean that YOU are correct if you try and cite WP:RS. Unless I'm mistaken, and you are the individual responsible for outlining the entire RS policy? Again, not everything is black and white. But, enough said. Bignole 21:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that I am in fact older than you (as my having a degree apparently makes me much older than you). Perhpas I should make it clear that I (personally) did not disagree with the citation source. I disagree with its reliability as a source of factual information, and I purge information based upon the structure of the article statements and the citations upon which they are based. If a citation source is weak, then the article utilizing it had better make clear that the source is weak. If it represents itself as anything other than marketing conjecture or media hype, then it's going to get reverted.
 * Every. Single. Time.
 * If you wish to take the time and effort to write a stronger article, either draw attention to when the information you are citing is not from the best of sources, or go out and find better sources. It isn't hard to do, especially with someone as experienced with WP as you claim to be. Do the work, or don't complain when someone corrects all the sloppy.
 * You keep saying that MM's appearance was not new, that it was "established." I do not think you are using this word correctly, insofar as Wikipedia defines it. Unless it is from a reliable source, it is not credible. And again, no - the CW's own media team, comic book or Superman fanfic sites do not constitute reliable sources of information. Please re-read my posts on what constitutes a reliable source, as I should not have to repeat it more than 3 times.Arcayne 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I don't know how old you are, but you said you had a degree and your picture is that of someone much older than me. What exactly would be the "marketing hype"?? An interview with Phil Morris is marketing hype? He does an interview, in which he states he is playing Martian Manhunter. That's pretty cut and dry, why you don't like that is beyond me and I'm sure that if you were to take it to a third party they would agree. There is an interview with the creator, pretty cut and dry there too. Also, there's the producers of the show clearly stating the character of Martian Manhunter is in the episode, and he is played by Phil Morris. Now, if you don't agree because he doesn't look like MM, that's your problem. Any third party mediator would agree that all of those sources are reliable. The fact that YOU don't is irrelevant, because no one else shares your opinion. You were the only one disputing the reliability of the source. I agree, the original source was a weak one, but it was created (not by me) awhile ago. It's all irrelevant now since the CW lists the character as being there, and Phil Morris playing him. Your argument would be like saying just because the official "The Dark Knight" website says Bale will be Batman again, that's unreliable because it's just marketing hype. So, if the people that create the show are not reliable, then who would be? I think you should re-read that policy and consult another party, preferably an administrator. Bignole 22:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, I am going to archive this conversation after about a week, since I would prefer my talk pages filled with someone actually saying something of value. I keep saying the same thing, and you keep either sidestepping or utterly missing the point, so I am going to forego the politeness and use very small words in the fleeting hope that you will finally catch on. Ready? I don't care if I am the only person in the world who is suggesting that a reliable source be found, or at least a more reliable source than the marketing organ of CW. I mean, Jiminy Christ, they started out last season by suggesting that Bruce Wayne and Wonder Woman were going to be making stopovers in either Smallville or Metropolis, and that Chloe was an alien. Of course you won't see that now, because the marketing wonks received differnt marching orders from the producers, and pulled them from the website. To the marketing department, truth and news is malleable, something that can be spun to fit a situation. You give instance when Morris said he was Martian Manhunter, or when the producers suggested that. If it is true, why isn't it in the mainstream press that covers entertainment? Why isn't Martian Manhunter listed in either the opening or closing credits of Smallville? The reason is simple, and I would like you to try really hard and focus for the briefest of moments here: it isn't mentioned because it has not been made part of the mainstream press yet. For whatever reason, it has been leaked though less than reliable media because it can be denied or back-pedaled a lot easier than if it were released to the mainstream media. Morris is well aware of who signs his paychecks, so he will say what he is told to say. I meaqn, next you will say that he actually likes comic books. Shya, and if you pull the other leg, it rains beer. Please, wake up, sport, this is how marketing departments as media organs operate. It has happened before, and will likely continue to happen. What I find pathetic is how you tepidly agree that the source wasn't the best while simultaneously defending what essentially constitutes editorial laziness. It was the link you supplied and for whatever reason, you couldn't be bothered to put in the extra work to cite an actually relevant and reliable source until someone called you on it. How can you possibly defend that slackerboy nonsense? I will say it again: if you aren't prepared to do the work, don't act all surprised when someone calls you on your sloppy homework by editing you into oblivion.. Furthermore, to insinuate that I am taking exception to the casting of the character is pretty insulting. I actually think the casting was pretty good, as was the performance. See, this is where you consistently miss the point: you think I am making this a personal issue, and that I am against using any citation. This is absurd. It is not personal; I write for WP, and I take that responsibility seriously. It seems that it is an ego thing with you, sort of like the person who doesn't get to talk in large groups, and therefore does it online. I am not saying you don't have anything to contribute. I am saying that you don't seem to like being corrected. That, my friend, is ego, and it has no place here. Period. Arcayne 06:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your agrument about "why wasn't it mentioned in the opening or closing credits"?? Do you ever watch the show? Do they label Justin Hartely as "Oliver Queen" when he appears, at the beginning? NO. Did they do it for Lee, Ritchson, or Gallner? NO. As for "closing credits", this is how I know you don't watch the show, they don't have any. The entire "credit" at the end of the show consists of very quick acknowledgment to some crew that aren't mentioned in the beginning and it goes immediately to the studio trademarks. Tell me when you have ever seen "So and so as blah"? Did it say "Tom Wopat as Sen. Jennings", No. It just said "special guest Tom Wopat". Nice try. As for your "slopping homework" and "ego", it seems you are the one with the ego, because I believe several editors have agreed with ME, and not you. My ego is quite fine, cool breeze. Also, I didn't supply any link, I pulled a link from another article that was using it. Check the edit history of both Martian's page and Smallville season 6's page, and you'll find that I did not provide that link. The only links I have provided YOU were the two interviews and the CW website. But, if you want more that's cool IMDb,TV Guide, and TV.com. I'm sure you'll say they aren't reliable either, but you know what, that's fine. It's obvious you have two problems: your personal bias against these sites, and the fact that you have not correctly read Wiki policy, or had enough experience on Wiki to best understand how some sites' reliable can be ambiguous depending on what they are publishing. Publishing interviews, that's pretty clean; publishing opinion is another thing altogether. But, there's no convincing you of anything, just like you know there is no convincing me. I suggest you archive this now, because there will not be any further discussion of this matter on our respective talk pages. Cheers grease lightning. Bignole 06:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, BigNole, the do have the credits at the end of the show, however, those without Tivo might not be paying attention to the credits that are squashed into one side of the screen, and they do not consist of only crew acknowledgments (lol, what a maroon!). Maybe you were hyper-focusing on taking a bathroom break or some such. And it's kinda funny you mentioned Justin Hartley; his casting as Oliver Queen actually made the mainstream press, making for awesome reliable sources. Perhaps you glossed over that, or were on yet another bathroom break. Pulling the link,suplying the link - dude, are you tryng to now backtrack on your OWN admission of sloppiness? Don't get stupid on me now, please. Imdb is a good source, as is tv guide, but you didn't supply those. You supplied one from comic connection, and CW and Kryptosite. Please keep up. If you aren't going to bother remembering what you did, why should I? You need to garner just a bit more experience in the realm of editing, my friend. Perhaps you will learn the difference between reliable source and a verifiable source. You haven't commented that you know the difference, and I am beginning to realize that you just may not get it. And of course I can be convinced, Nole. In fact, were you actually reading up on the sites we have been back-and-forthing on, you would see that I caught one of my own mistakes, and took steps to correct them. That you think that you cannot be convinced is not a sign of maturity but that, too, is something you can only learn with time, experience and maturity. Good luck with that.Arcayne 07:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on January 28 2007 to Martian Manhunter
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 21:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I posted that report yesturday, during the beginning of our "tiff". I voiced that I wanted to withdrawal the report, since it was early yesturday and you probably were not aware of the policy governing 3 reverts inside of 24 hours. Bignole 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was unaware of that, as I've never reverted anyone before. I would not have violated the rules no matter how frustrated I was. I would like to request that this block be removed. the person I was arguing with and I have reached an understanding. In addition, now that I am aware of he rule, I don't plan on violating it again. Thanks. :)Arcayne 01:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, you've reverted before. It's a matter of going back and forth ("edit warring") that the 3RR policy is built for.  If Agent Cooper re-added the link, and you removed it, and he added it, and you removed it again, that would be reverting back and forth. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men link dispute
I've requested arbritration concerning this. Agent Cooper 12:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, as I was mistaken. I am not saying that I have never reverted anyone before, or made corrective edits. However, not being aware of the 3rr rule, I didn't realize I was coming close to breaking the rules. Concerning AgentCooper and my edits, I was not the only re-editing his work, and he was edit-warring as much if not more as others. As well, the edits in Children of Man did not form the basis of my initial suspension. I am not offering this as an excuse, but instead as a factor in considering that I am not some scofflaw who doesn't follow any of the rules. As this is the first time I have broken the 3rr rule (or any rule of WP), I would think that a warning would be sufficient. I am not sure why arbitration is warranted here.Arcayne 14:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He's referring to the Children of Men incident over the "POV" link, not the 3RR. You can see his request here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been to the link (thanks for providing it). I think that Coop has incorrectly assessed the situation. How do I address the issue in the context of the request for arbitration?Arcayne 15:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, re-checking it, the section's been removed, with an admin saying that it was not an arbitration matter. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * oh. And here I was, composing a response to it Had you the chance to read it? I was pretty surprised at some of the accusations of anti-Catholicism, trying to make the article only positive. Admitttedly, I was ungentle with his comments, and could have been more polite, but I don't see how his commentary of everyone's inherent bias (that unconsciously opposed him on a cellular level, apparently) was at all conducive to a good environment for editing. Wikipedia is in fact "ours"; yours, mine and even Agent Cooper's. I think he missed the point when I said that Wikipedia is ours, and excluded himself from that ownership. He did seema bit paranoid.Arcayne 15:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My personal stance is that the link was acceptable, as I've identified similar reviews by "biased" film critics (such as at the film article for V for Vendetta). I don't think that there's an issue with inserting that kind of criticism as long as the reviewer's background is identified neutrally, and the reviewer's stance is presented neutrally.  I think that since it's been addressed in the film article that the director was not aiming for Christian overtures as the original novel did, it's reasonable to include the Catholic review that Cooper linked to.  If you're still in disagreement based on your interpretation of NPOV and RS, I've asked the admin who removed Cooper's request to see what the best course of action would be.  I think both of you could have discussed the link in a better manner (as I don't care to be long-winded or subjective in these disputes), so I'm trying to be some kind of mediator, I suppose. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page matters
I don't know if you noticed, but you placed comments on Agent Cooper's user page instead of his user talk page. Just want to make sure you recognized the distinction between the two. I've moved the comments to Cooper's user talk page now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Aw crap. I thought I had put them on the user page (supposedly knowing th diferrence). Thanks for the assist. I owe ye a virtual beer.Arcayne 16:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never been to the article, so here's my neutral opinion. I see the question as one of whether the source is reliable (Reliable_sources). For example, a Wall Street Journal report on the Catholic reception of the film would be a more reliable source, NPOV notwithstanding. Beyond that, I'm afraid I don't have time to devote to the issue right now. You may want to try WP:RFC too. Xiner (talk, email) 15:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, will do.Arcayne 16:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)