User talk:Croctotheface/Archive 2

This is the Pioneer Press article
http://www.topix.net/content/kri/3446430846152986143710581648501731740606 — DavidShankBone (talk • contribs) 15:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Enforcer
Thanks for the edits on the Enforcer article. I should have cited my sources with the Worrell/Laraque article and I will try to piece together the sources so I can expand the section a little bit, because I know that's true haha... But I'm sort of confused with the Bob Probert/Chris Simon example. The section is trying to make a point of differentiating between enforcers like Scott Stevens who play a very important role beyond enforcing and have other skills, and players like Bob Probert whose main role is fighting and who don't do much else. So with that in mind, Chris Simon in my opinion simply doesn't fall under the category of an enforcer who shows "an occasional scoring flare". He has played a role, especially in more recent years, that is far more than that of a fighter. He has shown a decent scoring touch and has scored many more points than a normal enforcer. This past year he scored 27 points in just 67 games, and during the 1999-2000 season he scored 29 goals and 49 points. Pretty decent in my opinion. So therefore the change to Tony Twist is a better example, because he almost NEVER scored, and he portrays that role of a one dimensional fighter much better than Simon. Other good examples are Jim Cummins or Rob Ray, who are also good examples besides Chris Simon. Just think about that and don't hesitate to hit me back with your thoughts. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Basstastic (talk • contribs) 22:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair enough. Basically my point is that it is a well known fact that most enforcers don't score very often, if at all. With that in mind, a player like Tony Twist or Rob Ray could possibly fit the example mentioned in the article rather than Probert or Simon. A player like Simon gets maybe 10-15 min. on the ice each night and sometimes contributes in other roles on the PK or PP and show an "occasional scoring flair", while a player like Twist is lucky to get maybe 5-8 min on the ice, is used exclusively on the 4th checking line, and almost never scores. That's all. Looking at Probert's stats however I see that he himself had a couple of solid scoring seasons as well. So I guess you can look at it this way...

Superstar Enforcers: Jarome Iginla, Gordie Howe Multi-Dimensional Enforcers: (Early)Probert, Scott Stevens, Simon One-Dimensional Enforcers: (Later) Probert, Twist, Ray, Jim Cummins

Thanks again for the advice. I try my best to contribute to the hockey section and I appreciate any input/advice headed my way. Basstastic 04:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Franken
I must have been tired - I thought I was removing the "liberal-oriented" language. Oops. --David Shankbone 14:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Heart attack linking
"If "reverting was even less necessary", then surely edit warring by reverting my reversion was even less necessary than that?"

actually, no. editing articles to make them more wrong is less necessary than editing to make them more right, no matter what the scale. especially if they've been corrected once and you're fixing them back so they're incorrect again. if you don't agree that a minor change is worth it, feel free to ignore it rather than re-breaking it to make a WP:POINT. cheers,  tomasz.  09:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1996 the year is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please stop changing and changing the year San Andreas is set in. I have proof and I didn't make because I don't have WordPad. {JarridUser 21:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)}

For the thousand times its 1996, it was a mistake the makers of the game did. If you don't change now, I'll get very, very, very angry. {JarridUser 21:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)}

Burntsauce
I note you posted on BS's talk page, no one knows why Burntsauce removes innocuous information from Bios citing BLP (which states contentious material and libel should be removed). But you should be warned if you revert a BS edit then the page it likely to be stubbed then locked like this was. S/he has a couple of admins in his pocket...anyway just a friendly heads up. Darrenhusted 16:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro
I removed the prod, not because I necessarily believe the article should be kept, but because it has already been through an AfD process. See Articles for deletion/Ben Shapiro. You could of course send it to another AfD. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Controversies over the film Sicko and comment on merge proposal
Hi,

The title says it all. I am requesting your opinion only because you've edited the Sicko (film) article and therefore appear to have an interest in the movie. I created the "Controversies" article and think it should stay, but I'd welcome your opinion whatever it is. If you consider this message annoying, I apologize. I'm leaving this message with you and some others without violating WP:CANVASS. Noroton 23:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Style
Given your recent comment on the talk page of WP:MOS-TM, I was about to put you on my list of "people who appreciate friendly notifications on formatting disputes" (you know, the acceptable kind of canvassing), but since this stuff comes up all the time these days, why not aim a little higher, gather a few people and start a WikiProject Style? The MoS could really use sort of an executive arm, don't you think? - Cyrus XIII 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Is It Fall Yet?
Regarding the disambiguate from "telemovie" to "television movie" - the wikipage for "telemovie" automatically redirects to "television movie", so changing the wikilink to go directly to "television movie" is actually a disambiguation, per Wiki's style manual, which requests that all links go directly whenever possible instead of to redirects. Doing so reduces network traffic (in however small a way). I do this to improve the quality. I'm sorry if you see it differently. Salamurai 17:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Re your reply about this on my talk page, I've apparently misunderstood, and I apologize. Thank you. Salamurai 00:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Characters
OK, here is the deal. We have fiction guidelines that those cannot follow. There is likely no way that anyone will discuss, so I have followed WP:BRD. If you want to keep the articles, I will discuss, but if you are only reverting on "no consensus", please stop. TTN 01:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To discuss, someone actually has to be around. Most of those have been edited less than fifty time in over a year or two. There are also no "main" editors. That is the purpose of BRD. You are forcing something that will not actually happen (unless you feel that these belong). TTN 02:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not deleting anything, so AfD is irrelevant. The merging process is just one way of merging. It is not policy; it is just a way of gaining consensus. If I leave merge tags on these, there is no response, and I end up going with the silent consensus. That is exactly the same as just redirecting them. If someone comes along and undoes the edit, we can discuss, and then it is like there was a discussion in the first place. That is what BRD is about: to speed things up when "discuss first" doesn't work. TTN 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I just need people to want to discuss, so I can discuss with them. People have the ideal that we need to have a discussion on everything, which often leads to them just reverting and leaving. That makes no sense in the process. TTN 02:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am happy to explain to people why these don't need to exist in detail. The person just needs to want to discuss. If you say, "there was no consensus", you are not saying that you want to discuss, so forgive me if come of as harsh when every single person that reverts goes with that. Discussion and consensus building are two fundamental points of this site, but it takes more than one person to discuss, so again, forgive me if I find "revert because there was no discussion, even though the edit was made because that discussion isn't going to happen" a tad bit annoying. I believe that I always point out that if someone would like to discuss, I am open. It is their fault if they find me hard to discuss with (which is kind of funny considering that there are people way worse than I am). TTN 02:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Thompson (Daria): OK, let's discuss.
On 17 April I added a proposed merger tag to Kevin Thompson (Daria). No discussion has taken place regarding this. Today, TTN converted the article to a redirect to Characters in Daria. You reverted him, and in your haste to do so left the merge tag in place. Since you are the only person who has expressed disapproval with the idea, I invite you to make your case. Please respond to this comment either here or on either of the article talk pages (as appropriate) to avoid fragmenting the discussion. — The Storm Surfer 17:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't leave the merge tag "in my haste"; I saw it and made a conscious decision not to remove it. I'm not opposed to a discussion wherein consensus is gathered.  From the looks of the page, it appears that you didn't even create a place for discussion, let alone describe your rationale.  Regarding Kevin Thompson, I'm actually not terribly opposed to merging that article, though I am opposed to merging articles on the family members, Jane Lane, and others.  My feeling was that undertaking mergers the way User:TTN did was inappropriate and that I should revert any merger without discussion that could arguably be kept as its own article. Croctotheface 06:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that one shouldn't revert an edit they don't actually disagree with. If an edit may have been controversial, I'd probably leave it alone and let someone who was sure it was bad revert it if necessary.  But I can see how you would object to TTN's procedure.  As for a lack of discussion, I didn't state my reasons because I thought they were fairly obvious, and I would consider the lack of a response to indicate a lack of opposition in this case; adding the merge tag may not technically be discussion, but it borders on it.  — The Storm Surfer 11:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the edit by virtue of the way it occurred. I even asked on the WT:BRD page if the BRD process was appropriate for mergers, and the reply that I got indicated that it was not.  I can see merit in keeping the article separate even if I am not personally persuaded to that position or inclined to argue for it, and I felt that TTN's tactics were designed to remove the likelihood that someone who disagreed would have the opportunity to come along and make their case, or even see that anything of that nature had happened. Croctotheface 16:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Al Franken
I understand where you are coming from, but we have a guy who is running for a national office who purportedly admitted to substance use. That was an issue for Clinton, that was an issue for Bush, and it's been an issue for Obama. It sunk a Supreme Court nominee. It has crept into the campaign of John McCain. It was an issue for Ted Haggard. By any measure, it makes it notable. What I want to see is proper citation format and some links, not nebulous references to stories that may or may not exist. This has happened before on the Franken page, where someone added information, attributing it to a source that I added; in fact, the information did not exist in the article. I want citations, proper citations. Which means article title, writer, publication and date, and a ref if possible, which in this case is more than warranted. That's all. --David Shankbone 16:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Over
Hi. I noticed that you decided to be bold and revert my redirect at over (professional wrestling). It was decided awhile back at the WikiProject Professional Wrestling that all the content on the page was unnecessary and that a few (sourced) sentences on the List of professional wrestling slang was more than adequate enough to define the word. Having an entire article, invites vandals to add unneeded examples. Moreover, the word itself is not notable enough to have its own page, per Wikipedia notability guidelines. I'd appreciate it if you would not revert my edit again, as I have adding the redirect back. Thanks. Nikki311 22:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Commission on Presidential Debates
Thanks for the feedback on the Commission on Presidential Debates article, but I'm not sure what you are referring to as commentary and personal analysis. Analysis and opinion statements were properly quoted and attributed to the sources. The facts presented are well-documented and, to my knowledge, not disputed so I'm curious in what ways my contributions to the article are in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I don't mind being corrected or having any shortcomings pointed out, but without your input I really don't know what you are referring, why you removed a substantial amount of information from the article, and why you removed the parts you did. The information now presented lacks sources, fails to mention that the CPD refused to allow Ralph Nader -- who had a valid spectator ticket -- entry to the debates, that Nader was subsequently threatened with arrest (video footage of the exchange appeared in a documentary), or that the CPD settled a lawsuit over the incident. I believe the suit you mention is a different one, but you offered no sources. Calling the CPD a non-profit bipartisan corporation is misleading, though technically correct. It's strong connections to both the Republican and Democratic parties is well-documented and is a material fact that you removed from the article. None of this is criticism; I'm just genuinely interested in your thoughts here. We're obviously in disagreement about which facts will or will not be presented with the article. Jamie 19:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Sorry, I was using AWB, which doesn't know the distinction. I'll be sure to triple check my edits in the future. -- Scorpion0422 01:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Howdy
How are you today? Anyway, I only just realised that that bastard of a Half Life 2 article has become a featured one. I was wondering if you'd like to join me on a mini-article improvement drive for Half Life? I noticed that you'd done some work on it in it's history tab and was just wondering. It's fine if you don't. Message me if you're interested, friend :-) Scar ian  Talk  16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Grand theft auto Myths editing section
Hi, i'm an unregistered user of wikipedia and need ur advice on something. You and I have both been editing the section on "Myths" in the article for "grand theft auto: San Andreas" and i have noticed that you have reverted several of my efforts to improve that section, because all information was not verified. I asure you that all that info is accurate, and was wondering if you could give me on tips on how to "verify" my information so that it can improve that section without anyone deleting my efforts to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.48.239 (talk) 10:28, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Follow guidelines
I read your essay and I like it. —AldeBaer 22:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say "welcome to my world", but I think we share similar contentions on this. — [&#8239;ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ&#8239;] 18:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm Wilkerson
Replied. —AldeBaer 14:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked for a third opinion to help us get things going. If the 3rd opinion is to leave the article titles to include "Wilkerson", I'll leave it at that. I just thought I'd give it a shot. —AldeBaer 14:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Essays
Well, we had a discussion on the village pump where we found that there were way too many essays in Wikipedia namespace, so some cleanup was suggested. In essence, we're userfying those essays that are (1) written by a single person, and (2) have only few incoming links. This means that Wikispace holds those essays that are popular and often cited, and userspace holds those essays that are that user's opinion. Hope that helps!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Turd Ferguson
Please visit.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 16:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You Only Move Twice
Do not remove content from FAs without discussing it first. -- Scorpion0422 16:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is there a policy or guideline preventing "removing content from FAs without discussing it first"? Croctotheface 16:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, you owe me an apology for calling me a vandal. Croctotheface 16:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's called coutesy. We worked very hard to get the page to FA status and obviously nobody had any issues with the length. And then you come along and cut half of the content out without even discussing it. FAs are supposed to be detailed and comprehensive, it's what seperates them from the non-FAs. -- Scorpion0422 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Lack of courtesy" is a far cry from "vandalism", which is how you described my edits, and which I deserve an apology for. There was no policy or guideline forbidding my edits, as you implied with your first message here, but I don't mind being reverted.  We can disagree about where to draw the line between "comprehensive" and "overly detailed" or "trivial".  That's a matter for the article talk page.  However, you need to read about what vandalism is and is not before you level such charges against productive editors. Croctotheface 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can do whatever you like, but hounding me certainly won't get you anywhere. -- Scorpion0422 17:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, acting immature will get you nowhere as well. Stop acting like a baby and lets discuss the changes. I've been called a vandal many times and I don't fly off the handle and act like you do every time. -- Scorpion0422 17:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked for an apology, nicely, twice. You responded by basically telling me to go screw myself and deleting my comments.  You have no monopoly on maturity here.  Croctotheface 17:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR doesn't count in this instance because it's altered content. Besides, trying to get a user blocked is not a mature way to handle things. Let's handle this the mature way and if I must eat my words, then sobeit.


 * I hereby apologize to you for calling you a vandal and retract every mean and possibly insulting remark that was directed at you. I hope we can end this feud the mature way rather than you compounding things.-- Scorpion0422 03:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I accept your apology. I have tried to work to better an article that we both want to improve, or at least I hope we do.  I have to confess that the vibe I'm getting from you is something like, "This is my article, just stop trying to edit it."  As I said, I have concerns with WP:Own with you.  I noticed from your edit history that the vast majority of your recent mainspace edits are reversions.  They may be called for, or you may simply think that you are the sole and final arbiter for articles you edit.  I was troubled both by your personal attacks and by the fact that you were so dismissive--you said at one point, basically verbatim, "Go edit some other page and get that to FA status," implying that I should just leave "your" FA alone.  Well, no, I won't.  I'm allowed to edit it, and my edits to the prose were improvements.  The prior version's prose was poorly organized, wordy, and convoluted.  Mine is an improvement.  I mentioned the two details I removed, and the rest of my changes may have removed words overall, but they did not remove necessary words or content.  My version may not have been perfect, but it was unquestionably an improvement. Croctotheface 03:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So now you're following me around, are you? You must REALLY be desperate to get your own way... -- Scorpion0422 21:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're paranoid and need lots of help. That page has been on my watchlist for a year, since I first edited it. I have no idea what making a comment on a different page has to do with "getting my way" or any of your other delusions.  By the way, I see you haven't responded to my question at You Only Live Twice.  Besides the coffee makers, what "content" was there before I got there and is not there now? Croctotheface 21:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

NHL uniforms
Fair enough on the capitalization - cheers. TheHYPO 08:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Serenity (film)
Thanks, I wrote that part of the summary before I began, and neglected to change it when I'd finished - believe it or not, but a simple round of copy edits was all I intended before I got... carried away. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well
You know what, I'm incredibly sick of fighting with you. All I want is for the article to be as comprehensive as possible, and I've given in and you've made tonnes of revisions and several bits from the production section are gone. I think you are sick of this as well but the only thing stopping you from leaving that one bit in is stubbornness. You're pissed off that I called you a vandal and thus you are determined to get your own way. Okay, fine. This isn't an attempt to get you to go away, I honesty just want to end this and move on. I hereby issue an apology and I retract any statement that I have made that you have taken as a personal attack. I really hope we can reach an agreement on the article because like I said, I'm sick of this stupid fight. -- Scorpion0422 00:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Two hours left until I can revert you. Do you want to try to stamp out an agreement, or do you enjoy pointless feuding? -- Scorpion0422 20:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You win
Alright, I throw in the towel. I'm done. It's obvious that you are the most stubborn, most uncompromising, least professional people on Wikipedia and congratulations, you have won and have gotten what you want. And you continually criticize me, however it was you who came in with your "my edits are perfect" attitude and acting like you're Dostoevsky. Nobody is perfect and yet you kept saying "my version is better" and "I want" and it quickly became obvious that you saw the disagreement as a personal thing rather than over an article. You even admitted that basically the only reason you continued to refuse to allow the sentence to exist is because I had called you a vandal - look it up, removal of sourced content without discussion IS vandalism. And you know what, IT'S A BLOODY SINGLE SENTENCE! Nobody cares and yet you were acting like it was the most heinous piece of information in the history of the planet. It just got to the point where I asked myself: Why should I care anymore? This guy obviously is desperate to win and wants to win this more than anything else, so why should I continually war with someone who isn't going to change their mind?

Either way, I'm finished with the damn page. I'm taking it off my watchlist and you can have your way with it and if you want to remove the entire production section, be my guest. 350 Simpsons articles desperately need attention and cleaning up, but at least you got to remove a couple sentences from an article that was already decent, right? I sincerely hope that I never have to deal with you again and I look forward to opposing your future RFA. -- Scorpion0422 21:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

DiPietro
Fine then