User talk:Artw/Archive 2

Chase Meridian merge
Hello, you recently expressed an interest in merging the article for Chase Meridian. There is a proposal for this here. Ryan 4314  (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schlund
The decision to delete the article Dan Schlund is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3. Thank you. Esasus (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Scott Russo talk page
The talk page is not meant to be a place to add unverified claims. It is to discuss possible edits to the article and to seek more information. Please read through the entire guidelines. I have picked out a few particular entries of relevance: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."

"Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details"Grizzlefuz (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What libel or personal details? Artw (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you not see how "... is a proud gay activist" is personal details? I'm not sure how I could further explain it. If he is a proud gay activist and that is relevant to the article, then it should be in the article and not as a point of fact on the talk page. I would expect that a source should be added if the claim is added to the talk page. Otherwise it is unverifiable and should be deleted. Grizzlefuz (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, please understand that I am not editing the article out of malicious intent. I don't know anything about this particular "Scott Russo" and there were no verifiable references. So I marked it for deletion. It sounds like you know about "Scott Russo" the comic creator. My goal is to create an article free of unverifiable claims and that clearly differentiates this "Scott Russo" from the other famous "Scott Russo"s that are out there. I think it would be much better if you can add (and cite reference!) to information about his background or where he lives or something like that so that it is clear exactly who this article is talking about. Please work with me to improve this article. Thanks. Grizzlefuz (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Astrology
Please refrain from simply reverting edits without prior discussion on the article astrology - and to severely biased and POV-pushing versions. The article is not about our personal views of astrology or the "truth", but rather documents what already exists. I'm assuming good faith at this moment, let's work together, ok? 87.196.45.78 (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly you should engage with other editors on the talk page of the article in question if you want to make that set of changes. Artw (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the version you and a few other partial editors keep reverting to is clearly POV and cannot be backed up by established research. I left a few suggestions on the talk page, which went wholly answered. The burden of proof is on your side, and I believe some of you will forever attempt to stop any revelant changes be made to the article which do not conform to their POV. Wikipedia is not here to please you. If some astrologers are offended by the fact astrology is characterized as pseudo-science everywhere else, so are some muslims who get to see portraits of Muhammad in here. Wikipedia is not censored, not original research, not consensus-"truth". I will revert, and ask that you do not further vandalize the article, because that is what this now is. Thank you. 87.196.45.78 (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or possibly it is YOU that is the POV pusher. You appear to be jamming a bunch of editorializing where it doesn't belong. Artw (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, we will say astrology is a pseudoscience, because it is documented as such; we will include it in the lead, as it is very much relevant, perhaps the most relevant thing; much as we would show an imagem of Muhammad, because it is of relevance, makes the article richer, and because Wikipedia is not censored/POV/original research/etc. But if I'm wrong with any of this, please do tell me how. I'll revert, and please do not further block it - and, yes, unfortunately I'm not having the easiest of times assuming good-faith. 87.196.45.78 (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Artw, For your information . After the reaction of William Connolley, I reexamined the edits by 87.196.45.78. They do not improve upon rereading, including as they do the standard claims which do not hold up very well when examined more closely, as Cosmic Latte has carefully explained. To top it off, the claims come without any factual citation. It is curious anyone, much less an Administrator, would find such changes to be an improvement on the article. I hope Connolley reconsiders his initial reaction. Odin 85th gen (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh boy. Crap like "You are becoming obscure (the usual refuge of the astrologer)" is really a bad sign - (unless of course you are an astrologer and tell people as much on Wikipedia). it;s basically saying "you disagree with my POV-pushingh - THEREFORE YOU MUST BE ONE OF ***THEM***". I really wouldn't expect much from that user, admin or not. Artw (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, he basically wasted no time to put me straight, that because I was not against astrology the normal Wikipedia protocols do not apply to me. He was much angrier about my two reverts in two days than the five this other guy did. Moreover, his possee soon picked up on the scent and headed straight to Astrology talk to prepare God's work, er, make that Science work :) Odin 85th gen (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Artw, it is still a fact that these were Western scientists commenting on the form of astrology they have been exposed to, Western astrology. I know American's tend to think of their sports as World Series, even if not played in rest of the world, involving the other 6 billion inhabitants. In the same way, Westerners think other forms of whatever don´t matter. It is just culturual arrogance. I suggest we put the distinction back in.Odin 85th gen (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the user page for Artw you'll see he isn't American. Neither am I, and I agree with him about your edits. Please try to justify your edits on the Astrology talk page. Verbal   chat  17:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Artw, I´ve made a good faith effort to reconcile the different viewpoints. That said, I am open to other formulations, if others are still not convinced.Odin 85th gen (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Local Community Party
Hi, you've tagged this for rescue. Please comment on the AfD why and how this article meets our policies for inclusion so others may see a path forward for rescuing it. -- Banj e b oi   23:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Same for New Millennium Bean Party and Nine Per Cent Growth Party. -- Banj e  b oi   23:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dim Mak
Hey there. Problem is with Dianxue that if there are origins separate from Wuxia they are mostly recorded in an oral tradition - which makes them nearly impossible to reference. Now I can find a preponderance of Wuxia books from the late 1950s that include Dianxue... and if I want I can dig up a reference to Count Dante's written work. Here is where it gets tricky though.

Based on my knowledge (and I fully admit I may be wrong) there is no written record prior to these sources. I have read a lot about martial arts, I've read most of the Chinese literary classics, and I've never seen reference to it

However nobody has, to my knowledge, really tried to research the origin of this too closely so finding a source to confirm that Count Dante and Wuxia are the origin point may be difficult without violating Wikipedia's policy on original research. I'm really dedicated to making this article better and would appreciate any advice you have to do so.Simonm223 (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably worth checking WP:V - if you can back it upw itha WP:RS you're good, otherwise it might be challenged and removed at any time. Artw (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Stevenson
Artw, a source has been produced on talk now referring to Stevenson's work as pseudoscientific. The current debate now seems to be on whether the BMJ and the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease qualify as scientific sources and RS. Noirtist (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dare Obasanjo
I didn't notice the first AfD (silly admins in 2006), my bad. BJ Talk 04:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
We've been rumbled! In seriousness though, thanks for putting our past disagreements behind you in this matter. Although, there are probably few editors left I haven't been accused of being recently. All the best, and thanks, Verbal chat  19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * heh. NP. Artw (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dang Verbal, I didn't know you had a sock. I'm guessing the bits where you disagree or act differently are just to "throw people off", right? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I often forget which ones are me and argue with myself. Aren't you my bad hand sock :p ? Verbal chat  21:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I resent that. I'm surely the "good hand" if I am a sock. I thought we were talking about you and Artw, though. How many socks do you have? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Max Bollinger
I am thinking that those suggesting he does not meet WP:AUTHOR based that opinion upon the 2 audio books in the original version of the article (now improved), and not upon a cursory look at Google Books. It seems Bollinger used his language skills to make the crossover from writing to acting and voicework, and has returned to books of late... now in audio format. Care to help me dig to see if his earlier books have received favorable reviews? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was possibly a little harsh there - I'll take another look when I get a moment. Artw (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah... I don't think you were harsh, as the original article was obviously written by someone who did not understand Wikipedia formatting. And unfortunately, the author may get blocked for improper username. But That can be explained to him and corrected politely as I try to look past his possible COI to see if the article actually is fixable.  So if Bollinger's books have received critical response, its one more step toward showing notability. If not, then not. Help as you are able is always appreciated. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Children of the Dog Star
I've had a quick run at giving it a polish and thrown the link into the thread on the Fortean Times forum I've been using to pass such links along to. The collision of Sirius and Kolob is interesting and I might punt it on to a few bloggers who might be interested in it and see if that shakes anything loose. (Emperor (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Edit conflict
Hey Artw. I had an edit conflict when I was moving some stuff around and trying to tighten up some bit. In the process I reverted a couple of your edits. As I worked over some of the same content, I'm not sure if yoru changes should be restored, but I feel free to do so. I apologize for the inconvenience. I'm off the article now and it's all yours. Have a great weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * NP, will take a look. Artw (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Human disguise
21:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I posted this link to \/, and was about to give you a copy. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And, Art, ummm, if you wouldn't mind taking away your negative remark from there, what would be nice is to have a collection of supportive comments there to link to when we do a DRV, right? (wink, nod) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that it's the correct place to put anything - your time would be better spent formulating a request to put to DRV. Artw (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Psst! "unprescedented" → "unprecedented". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Took the liberty of adding an illo at the top of your copy. If you dislike it, feel free to [crumple][toss]. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another illo, and a spelling fix. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll want to sign your 18:42 cmt at the AfD. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Astrology
Hi, I'm wondering if you'd explain what it is, exactly, that you feel is wrong with the lead as I've been putting it? Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't we had this discussion before? the edits attempt to represent science as being devided into "western" and not western, with the not western science being aproving of astrology. This simply is not true - science is science. Artw (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think that the very existence of "Vedic science" contradicts this view. I didn't invent the term; it's been around for quite some time. Even in the West, different people mean different things by the term "science" (which in its broadest sense, as you may well know, means something like "systematic study"): Natural scientists mean empirical hypothesis-testing, while computer scientists and mathematicians ("mathematics" being related to a Greek word meaning science/study) deal with more symbolism and abstraction (e.g., algorithms), and social scientists use all of the above and more (e.g., history). Even "astrology" (sharing the -logy suffix with words like "physiology" and "geology") literally means "science/study of the stars", while its Indian counterpart (Jyotiṣa) means "science of light". Perhaps science is science, but science is not always modern science (which, having emerged in in the 1800s, if glossed over as "science" would disqualify the likes of Newton and Copernicus as scientists!). And the overwhelming majority (90%, if I recall correctly) of an enormously populous nation (one out of every six people alive) subscribes to the distinctly non-modern science of Jyotiṣa, which is further categorized (not by me, but by what our old friend WP:DUE calls a significant minority of the entire human race) as one of the Vedic sciences. In fact, even if its formal name were "Hocus-pocus malarkey", it still would be a reasonably prominent belief system, and one that would seem sufficiently on-topic to note. Perhaps there is a better wording, which could more clearly indicate that Vedic science is not a modern science; I figured the basic antonyms "Eastern" and "Western" would do. But in any case, there is a community, even if it is not the modern-scientific one, that regards astrology as a legitimate branch of systematic inquiry (i.e., science), and surely this community is substantial enough to merit early mention. Plus, given that China, which is roughly as populous as India, has its distinct astrology, one could say that Eastern astrological studies (I don't know if the term "science" would apply as well in China as in India) are relevant to up to 1/3 of all human beings. Perhaps the problem with the lead was that it gave off the impression that modern science and Vedic science were as comparable methodologically as they are etymologically. This impression clearly would be false; it is not an impression that I, being acutely aware of the etymology, received, but perhaps it is an impression that other readers might get. I'd be happy to work towards a phrasing that would acknowledge such a prominent belief system, but would not tacitly convey (as much pseudoscientific discourse, admittedly, does) that this belief system is upheld by the principles of the modern science that did (thanks to the Renaissance and other factors) happen to develop in the West. I've no interest in turning any article into a battleground for some epic, Wikipedia-wide science-pseudoscience war; I'm not trying to take the side of anyone or of anything, for my interest lies in the explicitly editorial task of conveying an encyclopedic balance between semantic precision and semantic nuance. I'd be glad to try to come up with a better phrasing, and would be interested in any suggestions that you may come up with as well; however, I ask that, when considering reactions to my edits or responses to my comments, you bear in mind that my intentions are not partisan or adversarial. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest taking this to the relevant talk page. Artw (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Reptilian humanoids
Don't mind me, I'm just anal retentive :-)  Serendi pod ous  00:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

== Regarding this ==

Hello! Might you consider allowing for a "merge" rather than a bolded "delete", i.e. so that we can make use of what I list at Talk:Battles_of_macrohistorical_importance_involving_invasions_of_Europe and in the section below? Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what the target would be. Artw (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for keeping an open-mind. We could redirect to List of battles and merge the following:


 * consider Battles_of_macrohistorical_importance_involving_invasions_of_Europe and Battle_of_Lepanto_(1571). Hanson's quotation that "To sixteenth century Christians, the sudden muster and vast size of the Christian fleet at Lepanto were proof of Christ to resist the Muslim onslaught" demonstrates the religious significance of the victory to the comabtants and would help flesh in that short section of the main articles.  The entries on this list contain various such examples that indeed are not duplicative of the main battle articles and for which we can actually augment those battle articles, notice references that appear in this article at Battles_of_macrohistorical_importance_involving_invasions_of_Europe, but not the individual ones:
 * Battle_of_Thermopylae: Grote and Grant from this article could be used in the battle article, which does not cite them.
 * Battle_of_the_Metaurus: The battle article has few references. The content cited from Davis in the list article is different from the citation in the battle article.  Thus, this and possibly the other reference from this list would add new content/sourcing to the battle article.
 * Battle_of_Chalons: The list article uses Fuller and Davis, which again, the battle article does not. Merging these items would certainly strengthen the sections of the battle article on importance/aftermath.
 * Battle of Toulouse (721) contains NO internally cited statements, whereas the list article features SIX citations that can be used in the battle article, thereby taking an article on a major battle with no footnotes and adding at least six to it.
 * Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I too am pleased to see this article saved! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 15:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Reptilian aliens
Coincidentally, I was just looking these articles over as I was looking at Dinosauroid. I'm unsure gutting the reptilian humanoids article was the way forward but there is now a reptilian aliens article. I'm still playing catch-up after being away for a week but will see what I can rummage together.

Amusing sidenote: I have David Icke's home phone number!! (Emperor (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Artw! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) John Tizard -

AfD nomination of The Adventures of Captain Jack
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is The Adventures of Captain Jack. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Captain Jack (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Git (British slang)


The article Git (British slang) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Nothing links here, Git mentions this dictionary term

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cyber cobra (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
Four out of your last five edits on Jim B. Tucker, over the past two days, have consisted of removing the notability tag. If you continue to edit war, you may very well be blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Artist bios at AFD
Good work on Dennis Detwiller and Mark Harrison (comic artist)! In addition to those, List of Magic: The Gathering artists has been nominated for AFD, along with the following Magic artist articles: Paul Bonner, Sue Ellen Brown, David A. Cherry, Fred Fields, David Ho (artist), Quinton Hoover, Dana Knutson, Stephan Martinière, and Terese Nielsen. If you are able to do more of the same for those, that would go a long way, I think. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers. TBH. Mark Harrison and Dennis Detwiller are the only ones there I am really familiar with, and I'd sooner concentrate on getting those up to snuff rather than spread myself too thin, but I will certainly take a look if I get to the point where those are either totally rock solid or I can find no more references for them. Artw (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's cool - so far so good! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw your work on X-Mansion and Baxter Building as well; do your sources have anything for Massachusetts Academy (comics)? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That one seems a little more borderline. I've removed the prod and taken it to AfD. Artw (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just looking over the Mark Harrison article and it strikes me a good source would be the Meg 243 interview with David Bishop which I don't have. Worth punting it over to the Hivemind to see what they can collectively dig up? I'm still digging though. (Emperor (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Possibly. TBH you probably have more sway there, want to give it a go? Also I'm a little nervous doing that as I don't want people swarming in with Keep votes but nothing to back it up, so wording has to be VERY careful and explicitly warn people not to do that. Artw (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. (Emperor (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC))
 * There is also coverage in TPO. I'll have a root through that. (Emperor (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC))
 * As it seemed it was going to "no consensus" I didn't ask on the forum in case there was an influx of "keep"s, which could have been... awkward. I've asked now and will see what we can do on getting this article up to spec. (Emperor (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

Some of the original batch of deletions were kept or ruled no consensus; the rest look like either clear keeps, or likely more of the no consensus variety. Sue Ellen Brown has been deleted, and Paul Bonner has no support, but many of the successful "rescues" in this case are thanks to the efforts of you and others, so I applaud you for that. Franz Vohwinkel, Nene Thomas, and Randy Post have been subsequently nominated for AFD, if you have anything that you can do for them. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jclemens/Baxter Building
Feel free to come help me improve this. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, will do. Artw (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

{{ subst: #if: {{{header|}}} |

WikiProject Cryptozoology Invitation
}} == Nomination of Planet killer for deletion ==

A discussion has begun about whether the article Planet killer, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Planet killer 2 until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page
What's this about?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 01:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict. Somehow ended up with neither comment. /shrugs. Artw (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's been a big problem with edit conflicts lately. I've been going back to the edit window, copying what I attempted, and did a hard refresh to see what was written.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 02:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy
Don't bother engaging him. Hopefully someone will enforce WP:FORUM or WP:SOAP and that will be that. — Strongjam (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that is probably for the best. Artw (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you: Gamergate controversy
Thanks for this edit to the Gamergate Controversy. The article looks quite a bit better now :). ↢ Remor A ↣ 19:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Your revert
I'm starting to think you reverted the wrong version? — Strongjam (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops - only the title change was intentional. Feel free to replace the 4chan stuff as you see fit/per whatever is going on in talk . Artw (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Page can be chaotic at times. — Strongjam (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

November 10, 2014
RE: [] Sorry if you thought it was disruptive, but that really belongs on the user page. It's a comment on user conduct not content and Dreadstar was handing out warnings for that earlier. Didn't mean any disrespect. I recognize you from elsewhere and I generally agree with you. — Strongjam (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI
A subject in which you're involved is the topic of discussion at ANI. BlueSalix (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Cook. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this seemed valid under WP:NOTAFORUM - I guess not. :-) Artw (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. I assume good faith here. But yea, deleting other editor's comments is a no no unless they are abusive slanderous etc. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would consider them both. I am also a little unhappy that the editor in question appears to have gotten a pat on the head for them and continues the exact same pattern of behavior in the ANI. Artw (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna get into the he said/he said dispute but FWIW I do think that ANI should be the last resort for dispute resolution. Not the first. I avoid it like the plague if at all possible. If you are having issues with another editor my first advice is to let it go unless the issue is more than personal and something that needs to be addressed. If that's the case and a talk page discussion doesn't resolve it, then ask for a 3rd party intervention. The most important thing in any dispute is never loose your cool. Stay calm and ask for help from a respected and non-involved editor if you can't resolve it yourself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok I think it's time everybody calmed down, dropped the sticks and walk away. Continuing this little spat is not going to end well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet the comments smearing me and BlueCalix and his little buddies have been given permission to repeat them at will. Even if I walk away from this article it can be assumed he and his friends will do the same thing next time tries to improve one they have at AFD. That's not really a resolution. Artw (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:DR very carefully.-Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you have made where we stand extremely clear. Artw (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor in question is continuing his odd and disruptive behaviour Artw (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

BLP violation
Restoring material that has been identified as BLP violating without reliable sources is a BLP violation. Removing BLP violations is not subject to our WP:3RR policy whereas restoring such material may result in the editor being blocked. See our WP:BLP policy, it clearly includes lists as the policy also makes clear. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you will find you are in error. Please restore the removed content or I will treat your edit as vandalism. Artw (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I know form long experience thta I am right. How exactly is you calling a living person a mobster without bothering to reliably source and thus verify your claim not a BLP violation? If your response is to treat me, a highly experienced BLP editor, as a vandal when I have quoted BLP to you in the edit summaries, then you should expect negative consequences. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comment has been linked at the BLP noticeboard. I would also point out that I was not the one who originally removed this material, so that is 2 established users you are claiming have vandalized the page today, and why? Cos you dosagree with them. Sigh. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits!
Very helpful. Benefac (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Jon Pickens
Hi, Artw. Thank you for your help on Jon Pickens earlier today!

I was wondering about the source "Playing at the World". I don't have a copy yet (although, Christmas is around the corner...) so I was wondering if you could help me. When you added a citation, you added the quote which starts "This same Jon Pickens ..." That line, on its own, suggests to me that the book must have said more about him, and this line is just a follow up on that. Can you tell me what else the book says about him? I would like to get as much useful content in the article as possible, to better show how notable he is and avoid deletion. BOZ (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a huge amount more, I'm afraid - though probably I should add it in. Basically it indicates he wrote for A & E about a playtest and for Dragon on the early days. I'd argue that these help establish WP:AUTHOR but they do nothing for WP:GNG - TBH since 70s and 80s sources are thin on the ground that is the most likely route for a keep. Artw (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We might as well add what we've got! :) BOZ (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sadly I'm not seeing anything in Of Dice and Men - was hoping maybe there would be. Artw (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I looked there too, already. So far it looks like he will be kept, just hoping the momentum continues that way.

Hey Artw, on a related note, maybe you could help me out with some of the pages I have listed at User:BOZ/Draft pages? Many of them only need another WP:RS or two and I will be comfortable with putting them back into article space. Anything at all you can do to help there would be great. BOZ (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Will take a look when I get a moment! Artw (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries and no rush - they will be there for a while. :) Happy editing! BOZ (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Hum
Here's the problem. The title is WP:OR, this concept is discussed in the literature as low frequency noise. "The Foo Hum" is an informal term applied to a small subset of places where low frequency noise has been reported. Some individuals reporting low frequency noise, are suffering from tinnitus (this includes me). Most of the sources are either primary on unreliable, some very unreliable, so the other article is better on the grounds of (a) title and (b) quality of content. It is, however, a plausible search term so does not require AfD (and in fact would be a waste of time at AfD precisely because redirects do not require deletion). I could delete the history and merge it to low frequency noise, I am an admin, but that would not really help and again is not required IMO in this case. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great case for AFD! Artw (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, you chided me to not remove an AfD tag from this article on the non-phenomena. Is the AfD automatically removed after a decision was made? I was also unable to locate discussion of the AfD. My only real consideration on the entire matter is, it *is* notable, although it is poorly written. I'm only here out of genuine interest in the process around the template, I did note it said the decision was "keep". My removal was done under the color (or colour, depending upon which version of English you use, the real one or my American one), of "be bold". I won't be able to read your response until late on Christmas, as I work midnight shift on the eve through the early morning and due to security concerns, avoid personal account access at work.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. The AFD will be removed after the AFD is completed - you can read up on the process here: WP:AFD. Artw (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

How new editors are treated very badly here on wikipedia
Hi you are getting this message because of your interest in how the deletion process is currently set up.

I thought you maybe interested in this discussion here: Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 62

thank you. have a nice day. 750editsstrong (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

discussion about Sageworks article
Hi, there's some active editing and discussion going on about the Sageworks article at Talk:Sageworks, and you're invited to participate. Some editors commenting in the recent AFD have already been invited by another editor, and i am just making a point to contact the others, including you, to avoid any appearance of selectivity. -- do ncr  am  22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident
There is a question for you regarding apparently irrelevant WikiProject tags you added at Talk:2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident. You have edited since, so I wonder when you will reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject templates
Oh no I did not. I don't suppose you could fix that could you? I suck at editing and I'm worried I'd completely screw it up if I made a big change. I can try, if necessary Inicholson (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverted your self-revert
Reverted your self-revert that you made on 2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident. Please don't take it as a repudiation of your editing there -- I just think that you were being too cautious, is all. I've left me rationale on the talk page. Cheers, Hi DrNick ! 19:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. More than happy to let other editors hash this one out. Artw (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know the feeling.  Hi DrNick ! 19:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Transracial
There's a difference between OWN and consensus editing i.e. the MOS WP:MOSDAB. Widefox ; talk 02:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See your talk page. Artw (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeat AfD
You participated at Articles for deletion/Ashley Golebiewski (2nd nomination) earlier this year, an AfD that closed as keep. The article is now up for deletion again by the same editor at Articles for deletion/Ashley Golebiewski (3rd nomination). Your input as to whether or not consensus has changed will be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

GG Article
Hey, just a quick note that the GG article is under 1RR restrictions. Might be best if you self-reverted and discussed instead. — Strongjam (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like the article has moved on since then, but noted. Artw (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Incel
Hey, we generally agree so I'm a but surprised, most of the deletion rationale appears to be "we haven't had an article before and shouldn't have one now" I've provided a list of sources below which gives the subject significant coverage is there anything wrong with the article? Valoem  talk   contrib  19:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think comments in the deletion debate cover why those sources aren't very good for that purpose pretty well. Artw (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made responses to those comments. There is argument that those are primary sources. If a study has been cited it is notable. Regardless I provided a second list of sources which also define the term from others who have researched the topic as well as some mainstream sources. Hap made an argument that the source "A History of Celibacy" uses the term celibacy, virginity and chastity as synonyms. Those are in fact similar, but she also defines involuntary celibacy as different. There was an extensive discussion on Jimmy Wales' talk page found here, the sources were also reviewed by DGG both of some have a history with librarian studies and both deemed the term valid. Please review the discussion, when you get a chance and let me know if you opinions change. Valoem   talk   contrib  23:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Personal Attack
I have deleted your grossly insulting remark on Talk:Gamergate. I'm not going to issue a block at this time, but please be aware that there is a very low tolerance for comments like that on this topic area. Discuss the content, not the editor. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I read the comment; it wasn't insulting or degrading. It was (correctly) calling out the editor's agenda - one that has been present and obvious since the first days of the article.  Are you sure you're not involved now, Wordsmith?  It appears to me that you are.  I should think you should recuse yourself from administrative actions around Gamergate.--Jorm (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Telling an editor that they are wrong is not insulting. Telling an editor to stop posting because they are mentally ill and a conspiracy theorist is. No, I am still not involved. I'm acting in a strictly administrative capacity, and see no reason to recuse myself. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortnunatly the user in question shows no sign of stopping posting conspiracy theories about coverage of the subject, engaging in long pointless conversations where they call for a rewrite to accommodate their beliefs and generally using the talk page as a platform for fringe advocacy. You will understand this is frustrating, especially given the before mentioned reluctance of admins to do anything about these problems. Artw (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll believe you're uninvolved when you no longer interact all chummy-chummy with the Gamergate redditors. --Jorm (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried being friendly with the anti-GG redditors, but they deleted my comments last time I did (speaking about Ryulong, I think). If GamerGhazi or other anti-GG outlets want to hear what I have to say, a mod can email me at Special:EmailUser/The Wordsmith or drop a note on my talkpage with their address. If invited I'm perfectly willing to have a chat, AMA or whatever else (though I don't think I'm really all that interesting). The Wordsmith Talk to me 01:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no "anti-Gamergate" movement. It's like saying someone is "anti-Rape". It's the default position for most people to not be horrible or to associate with horrible people.  The only people who think there are two "sides" are Gamergate proponents who want to try to normalize the behavior. --Jorm (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight: You're accuse me of being biased because I talk to people from one faction. I offer in good faith to talk to the other one too, and you respond by saying that there is no other side and that anyone who disagrees is "horrible people". Someone is biased here, mate, but it ain't me. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. The Wordsmith Talk to me 02:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh. It's interesting that you jumped to that interpretation of my words, rather than what my point was.--Jorm (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This conversation should probably happen elsewhere. FWIW, Wordsmith, it does seem you meet any reasonable definition of "involved" here and should probably avoid any taking any admin actions on Gamergate related pages in future. Artw (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hope the new phrasing is more to your liking. Would disagree entirely that it's not part of a discussion of content. However having more admin eyes on the page is a good thing (we've pretty much been left to spin in the wind and what few admin actions we've seen have been more harmful that helpful) so please do stick around. Artw (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The new wording is fine, thank you for being understanding. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Mundane science fiction page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=727522272 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F727522272%7CMundane science fiction%5D%5D Ask for help])

Comma needed?
Is a comma needed in your lede proposal between lengthy and disparaging? I seem to recall from ancient history (high school english) that a comma was needed to separate two adjectives. I'm posting here because I do not wish to become involved in that topic area. Thank you for your efforts to improve the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers! I'm going to avoid too many edits (or at least try to group them up) but feedback is helpful. Artw (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate talkpage
Hi. I received a ping notification that you head mentioned me on Talk:Gamergate controversy, but I checked and I don't see my username anywhere on that page. Do you know what might have caused this? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea, sorry. Artw (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It was unintentional. Artw meant to link my username, but due to template syntax he accidentally transcluded my userpage, which contains a mention of your username. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thank you both. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MacGyver_the_Lizard
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MacGyver_the_Lizard. Lizzymartin (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI
You can ask for that edit to be rev-del'd if you're worried about privacy. — Strongjam (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Artw (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Harry Potter
Hey! I appreciate you taking the effort to undo my NfDs based upon your personal opinion of whether the articles should remain and willful ignorance of my provided reasoning which you seemingly did not even attempt to respond to. I am glad you took the initiative to do so. Editors like you make sure WP has extensive collections of Harry Potter plot. Thanks again! Cheers Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  03:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad to help Wikipedia have content, sorry if that means your AfD isn't going to go well. TBH it wasn't very well formed and you can probably use your time more constructively than arguing the toss on all the keep votes. Artw (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Controversial Reddit communities
Afternoon, I would appreciate your input to an RFC introduced by an SPA relating to the inclusion of SRS in the "Controversial Reddit communities". SPA has canvassed to overturn 3 years of consensus on a 4 day vote. Koncorde (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also appreciate you changing your close to include the original closer's name. Right now, you reclosed it and signed it with your name, rather than the original closer's, making you seem WP:INVOLVED. Also, I believe if anybody has the ability to edit the closure, it's the original closer...which you strangely reverted, addressing consensus even though you personally took a view on the subject. Tutelary (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reverted - probably best if someone else closes that. Weird editorialize and cooking the books re:votes and arguments will not be accepted though. Artw (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The user closing is currently being determinedly stalked on his talk page by the IP. I have left my update for Godric based upon my 'canvassing' due to concerns with IP behaviour and lack of response from Admin. This is what will have prompted the re-evaluation. Even accepting the admonishment of myself (which I wholeheartedly own up to) I also cannot see how he got to no consensus. The RFC itself was intentionally pointy and canvassed by RFC creator prior to my actions. Koncorde (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No way in hell is that "no consensus". It's incredibly poor judgement by the closer. As for the IP I suspect he's posting from a number of other IPs as well and up to no good on any of them. Artw (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I raised two notices regarding the user. One for Cavalierman who had the same capitalisation habit (and numerous associated profiles, at last count I think 25 unique IP and growing). second for Cali11298 who Cavalier man profile was also suspected / associated with and had similar posting habits in many profiles. I got a "too old" response on one (fine, Cavaliers was over a year ago) and nothing at all on Cali.
 * I last dealt with user 8 months ago and requested that they create an account. That they haven't so far and are dodging around IP suggest an established banned editor trying to keep their heads down. The fact they recognised Mark Bernstein and that at the same time discussions about the thread were on 8chan told me this was all suspicious. Koncorde (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Greeeeat:
 * Clearly we need to escalate this one in some way and everything is about to become immensely tedious. -Artw (talk)
 * Have we misread Godric statement? Did he in fact say "No consensus for inclusion" which would be correct Vs "No consensus"? Koncorde (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh, if you want to leave if at that then I'll leave it at that. Seems like an open invite for Captain Sillybugger to come back and have another swing at it to me though. Artw (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently no, it means what it means, but it also means what I said. In the end I'm happy to take the spanking if it means obvious POV push is restrained. I am same page as you though. Until someone reigns in said IP it will stalk end users and mis-use processes to meet its goals. Koncorde (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Artw, there is a procedure for appealing a close at Closing discussions. It begins with trying to persuade the person who did the original close. If agreement can't be reached, a discussion can be opened at WP:AN. There is no right to undo someone else's closure just because you disagree with it. If you think there was canvassing, it should be documented. Though the IP-hopper may be annoying it is not evident that his activities biased the outcome. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He knows you so well. Koncorde (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh. I wonder if I should drop by to dispell the notion that he is some kind of new user? Because absolutely he is not. Artw (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Knows Dumuzid, Mark Bernstein , yourself, (and has dropped hints on others) and wider understanding of Help Desk, The Village Pump, Tea House, etc but not the Administrator noticeboard...interesting blind spot eh? My all time favourite is his pinging of established users something most established wikipedia users don't do.
 * Anyway, I suspect our user is formerly / currently User talk:Proustfala per the grammar / typing style of edits on the etc and general playing dumb ,,. Plus it has the Tea house invitation on that page, coincidence? Maybe. I can track comments on other users talk and article talk pages by various IP relating to same or similar content (particularly Rape on Campus, The Donald, Pizzagate) that may lead back to an old 2015 IP user who had a very high horse on several similar articles, but refused to sign up for an account when prompted - but the tone / grammar is different enough to not likely be the same person. Koncorde (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I appear to have dragged you into something I never intended. Koncorde (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh. Well I probably *should* take a break, this whole business being quite annoying. Though I'm not sure I feel about having been tagged as making "personal attacks" on a "user". Brusque with them, yes, but I wouldn't call it that. Um, they know "like a motherfucker" is an intensifier, right?
 * I hope this whole business is causing you to reflect on quite how annoying it were when you used to weight in on the side of SPA and IPs back in the GG days and renounced that shit. Artw (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh. Apparently the Admin blocked one of the IPs, which is pretty worthless, and felt compelled to block me for "balance". Whoopy-doo. Artw (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you are confusing me with someone else there to be honest. My only opinion on the Gamergate article was that it was shit and un-encyclopedic (still is) I made this case and similar several times over. Rocky appears to be making a go at condensing it, at long last, after what can only be described as a stream of consciousness style edit process. I'm not aware of supporting an IP or SPA, unless I actually thought they were making a valid point (and to be honest, I really don't remember a single instance). I'll have a glance back through in any case because I can't even recall having a dispute with anyone particularly (apart from the use of the word "movement" which I still think is needlessly excised). I know the Sea-Lion blog for some reason also had it in for me at one point also which was odd, because I was also copping for it from 8chan and some now deleted Reddits etc. Maybe this guy knows the truth? Koncorde (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (shrug) Anyway, article seems to be improving in general so that's good. Artw (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Note about block
See. The phrase "personal attack", which was part of options we have when making a block, was really too strong, although there was problems with the whole discussion. Since I can't modify the logs, I'm adding this with a proper summary. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Artw (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)