User talk:Crossmr/Archive/Archive 09

Sorry

 * I was just trying to be funny, I didn't think you would take it so seriously. View WP:ANI for more info.

Fair use rationale for Image:Plantsimtoddler.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Plantsimtoddler.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hi DrNick ! 02:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

re: ani
Were you asking me, or the anon? I've posted, believing you were talking to me.- Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded with the link to the complaint on William's usertalk page. It's a lot, and I didn't want to further tangent the discussion. I have reached my boiling point with the anon, and am going to withdraw for hte weekend. People like that are just small, and I lessen myself by even interacting with them. You guys do what you want. Every time I am around him, I feel like going an extra two round in the ring at the gym, just to boil off my frustration. Anyway, have a good weekend. My attentiveness this weekend might well be spotty. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, here is a series of links, since you didn't want to check the diffs at William's page (note: I've boldened those bits where the anon was warned or blocked for harassment, incivility or gaming the system):


 * William, a lot of the issue seems to stem from arguments in Fitna, back in March of this year (though perhaps even earlier, as this dusty old AN/I would seem to indicate).
 * After the initial incidents, the anon started following my edits around, and pounced upon my educational background, calling it (and by association, me) false. He used it [ ( to post] to WikiProject Oxford and my own talk page, and anywhere else he could, using an IP SPA devoted to attacking me (he was blocked for this).
 * My understanding is that blocking a user is supposed to not only protect the article or the wiki from the blockable behavior, but also (at least attempt) to educate and reform the user, so as to prevent a revisiting of the behavior:
 * The anon has used brand new IP accounts to attack me and my edits.
 * - 3/15
 * - 4/03 - 4/04 advised by Scarian to stop making uncivil posts in Fitna discussion
 * - 4/03 - 4/04 - Fitna, Scarlet Pimpernel
 * - 2/27 - 7/03 AN/I: "(groan) Dispute getting nasty..." contribution
 * - 4/05-4/06 incivility warning
 * - 4/05 - 4/06
 * - 4/06
 * - 4/06-4/07 - Wikiquette Alert: "User:Arcayne" contributions
 * - 4/7 - 4/10 Fitna
 * - 4/7 - 4/10 Fitna
 * - 4/11 Fitna AN/I: User:Arcayne
 * - 4/16
 * 4/16 blocked 1 week for disruptive and disputative editing by JzG
 * - 7/02 - 7/03
 * 7/03 - 7/06 blocked 48 hours by Mastcell for PA and harassment (of me)
 * - 8/21 - 8/28 Fitna
 * - 8/14 - AN/I:Arcayne RE: Civility & Good Faith (result: anon was indeed trolling)
 * - 8/19
 * - 9/30
 * - 7/2 Dr. Who
 * - 8/17-8/18 Urolagnia, Jail
 * - 2/27 - 7/03 AN/I: "(groan) Dispute getting nasty..." contribution
 * - 8/19
 * - 9/30 - 10/7
 * - 10/01 Sylar
 * - 10/10 - 10/12 I'm a PC
 * - 10/10 - 10/08 I'm a PC
 * - 10/07 - 10/06 I'm a PC (blocked by Bjelleklang for 3RR and edit-warring in the article)
 * - 10/23 - 10/24 (31-hour block by Seresin for "vandalism and incivility")
 * - 11/7 - 11/10 ([1, fraudulent 3RR report; advised by Wiliam M. Connelly to "get an account") Fitna


 * The user has been advised (or outright ordered) on at least five different occasions to start an account; the user still prefers not to, and that begs the suspicious question of 'why' the anon doesn't.
 * The anon has been told in no uncertain terms to stop posting incivility.
 * He has wasted space AN/I noticeboard's time in having filed or contributed substantially to no less than nine frivolous AN/I complaints ( there are more, but here is the rogues' gallery of them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - the last three of which were specifically pointed out as evidence of a vendetta by the anon) since April, and all of them are attacks towards me (maybe origination in this dusty old AN/I). Of course, the anon has pointedly avoided notifying me of any AN/I posting, presumably in the hopes that a lack of response on my part would imply guilt amd I would be blocked before even knowing of the posting.
 * Luvasfbr also noted that a wikiquette alert was also filed by the anon a few months ago, though I was never notified of its existence (again) and cannot find it in the archives.
 * He has disrupted Wikipedia with his multiple attack accounts, including going to wikiprojects where I have never made a single contribution (he was correctly named as a troll there) and then further disrupting wikipedia by point-style adding a saccharine apology to my user page with the Oxford userbox.
 * He appears to be seeking personal information about my educational background by questioning it (ie, calling my earned degrees "advanced" degrees knowing that the correction of noting they are undergraduate degrees). Because of this, I am very concerned that the attacking of my educational credentials is a subtle attempt to gain personal information about me.
 * These attempts are additional nuking expeditions by the anonymous user to poison the well of wiki opinion by calling me a liar, an "aggressive kiss-ass and political networking gladhander, etc. For the most part, the users here have suggested the venue of DR or simply walking away. To date, the anon has 'never'' pursued any avenue of DR, instead following me to articles and discussions where they have never contributed before, and then only to contribute stale arguments.
 * It was previously suggested I simply ignore the anon's effort, which, until recently, I have. However, I should not have to overlook the continuous, bad-faith efforts by an anon who pointedly refuses to set up a public face to his edits. He has argued in the past that as a public editor, he is doing this for ideological reasons (a reasoning strongly criticized by both Ed Fitzgerald and Bzuk in the previous AN/I's) or is encountering ISP problems. However, a careful look at his contributions notes that he only switches IP addresses to avoid restrictions placed upon his editing behavior. Despite the "ISP problem", he has managed to contribute with the same ISP here for the past few days - following exactly the same pattern his previous times at AN/I. The user can maintain a single IP address - he simply chooses not to. It is in this way that he is able to escape admin scrutiny and oversight and continue his attacks largely unabated.
 * I feel that even though range blocks are a fairly blunt instrument, it is required here. The user has used their post-block period to do little but attack another user. As the focus of that user, I find myself a little concerned for my personal safety, as the user appears to be seeking personal info about me. I am also concerned that the user has tried five different times to have the noticeboard, never once having notified me; a clear indication that the user is attempted to have me back-door blocked. It cannot be confirmed, but is reasonable to suspect, that this renewed attempt by the anon was inspired by Edokter's retracted block of a few days ago.
 * In conclusion, the anon user is not interested in contributing to the encyclopedia; they are interested in attacking me and having me removed from Wikipedia. Almost all of the anon's contributions have been personal attacks. This doesn't represent the goals that we set for our editors. The anon should not be allowed to continue harassing me. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out to FutPerf, William's recent block was in response to the anon bringing up my educational background yet again, and calling it all some "utter lie". If you wish, I can explain it via email. I don't usually give the specifics of my background, as it can be used to track down and harass me in real life. However, I have not overstated my educational background, and though I once or twice did use it as a component in a discussion, I was properly chastised for it, and have not done so since, and certainly not in the last four months or so. I am very well aware of the Essjay matter (presumably, that of which you alluded to in AN/I), and I am scrupulously careful to not misrepresent myself. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne and the 75.X.X.X editor
A new discussion has started over the issue; the specific, consise diffs you are seeking are in that discussion. Scroll down to the bottom of the ANI page for a more complete and consise explanation of the problem. I haven't added a comprehensive list (which it looks like Arcayne did above) but rather a smattering across space and time to give people the idea. I can always provide more if needed. This editor has been harassing Arcayne in edit summaries and in discussions for more than a year; they tend to avoid being a WP:MAJORDICK over it, so much of their stuff flies under the radar, since they don't swear or otherwise fly off the handle, however it is no less disruptive when viewed across months and months of editing. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 01:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the 75.x anon's chronology
As you asked me to not post where he had, I created a subpage to address (and largely refute) the claims of the anon, though it might be a moot point at this juncture. I will also post the link in the relevant AN/I complaint. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: solution section at AN/I
I actually do possess multiple degrees, Crossmr. The PPE and the Associate degree in History. That's two. And, as both links you provided were the same link to PashaGol, might I trouble you to strike both them and the oblique refutation of my education? I do not want to have to respond to them, continuing the discussion. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now come on... I thought we were going to let this drop. Seriously, the veracity of your statements on this matter are not in dispute one way or the other, but when you make statements like this, Arcayne, it looks like you are intentionally stirring the pot.  I just spent the better part of a week defending you and then you do this sort of shit?  Thanks for making me look like a fool... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not stirring the pot, Jayron. I was making sure that I am not misrepresented. Crossmr posted in an AN/I that I misrepresented multiple degrees, noting that I only had one. How did I invalidate your defense? I wasn't planning of carrying it any further. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And Crossmr, I just read your post - it did look like I said both were from the same place. Bad writing on my part, not intentional. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh, I just logged on and followed your link. Sigh again. Anyway, the best thing I can do here is nothing at all. I'm heading back to my articles - I am trying to get one up to GA and a new one on the back-burner for DYK. I don't have time for the same old nonsense. I suspect you don't either. FutPerf was right, even more than I (and yes, that does drive me a little batshit ;) ). He's gone for at least a month. Let's have a tea, a cookie and drink to our next interaction being something having to do with the encyclopedic content. Or chicks. lol -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Crack intro
If it's been unsourced for as long as it looks, you're quite right to nominate it. But to give the article a fair chance, could you perhaps contact the relevant video games wikiproject and explain them your concerns. That would give the article more than a fair chance to be referenced. - Mgm|(talk) 12:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Often articles can remain untouched for months at a time because the knowledgeable editors don't know there is a problem. If you bring it under their consideration head on, you'll have not just an indication no sources can be found, you'd be absolutely sure of it (and you'd get brownie points from game lovers for making the effort). - Mgm|(talk) 13:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

list of articles
Hey, i saw a post somewhere, seems to have gone, wondering about a list of articles edited free of duplicates. i thought of a kludge: using the wikistalk tool to compare you with, erm, you:. Does that serve? 86.44.28.24 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, works great. I was hoping I could sort by # of edits (I like to go back and check articles I've tagged in the past, so I'd likely have only made 2 or 3 edits to them) but that's very helpful.--Crossmr (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Help Desk inquiry
Hi Crossmr, I have just been going thorough the archives of the help desk and noticed your question was not really discussed or answered. I would like to offer my thoughts if I may, The only thing I can think of is if you go to my contributions (as you were) but change the tab next to namespace to (article). I do not know if that is what you were doing already, doing that will show only edits to articles, it is a mess because it shows every single edit made to every article you have edited and considering you have edited 3000+ different articles that will be a lot of pages. There really is no easy answer that I can think of but it's the best I can think at the moment!.-- intraining  Jack In  20:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 

intraining  Jack In  has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Good to hear, I went through these tools and could not figure it out myself.-- intraining  Jack In  03:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Hello, I replied to your comment. &mdash; neuro(talk) 17:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to spam complaint
Hello Crossmr, I was just curious as to why my actions were viewed as spamming by you. Clearly IGN, gamespot, and other video game review websites are allowed to post their reception information about games, so why can't Game Revolution? Game Revolution was the first game review site up on the internet and is a legitimate website. Also I'm not paid by Game Revolution so I am not promoting my own self interests. Thanks ahead of time for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Swanson (talk • contribs) 02:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy response Crossmr. I understand your side of the argument but at the same time I feel that the content I added to Wikipedia did not detract from any of the articles, and instead built upon what was already there. I'm new to Wiki and maybe that's obvious but I always thought the main concept of the site was a speedy way to find any kind of information in the world. While I can see why my actions can be viewed as spamming, from a users standpoint I feel like my information only builds upon the encyclopedia that is Wikipedia. On the subject of video games I know that when I look one up on Wikipedia I prefer to see many reviews posted by different publishers in the reception area. I apologize if I'm being obtuse but I firmly believe that my contributions have only contributed to the site, and that is the most important evaluator in my opinion when deciding to remove content. Thanks ahead of time for your response. --Nick Swanson (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, thanks for working with me on this rather than being antagonistic. I haven't yet contacted the project VG editors yet, but I intend to. That being said, I have looked at some of the templates they include on the project, specifically the VG review table, and since they include a naming convention within the template for GR, I have to assume that they expect GR to have their scores posted on Wikipedia. I understand your opposition to me going into articles and adding just one line of dialogue to the reception area. It just makes it more cluttered and doesn't really say anything that hasn't been said. But would you be opposed to me just adding the GR score in the VG review table? I feel like this is a reasonable compromise since it allows GR to share the field with other reviewers and doesn't clutter Wikipedia. Thanks again for your help. --Nick Swanson (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Template:VG Reviews --Nick Swanson (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All right I'll talk to the guys over at VG project then. I know GR was one of the earliest review sites so maybe I'll just focus on adding receptions to older games that don't have reviews from some of the bigger and newer sites like IGN. Thanks for the constructive criticism. --Nick Swanson (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Something positive
Hello! You've placed a rather spurious amount of boxes on this page and commented that you think the article should be deleted, which I think is pretty harsh a judgement. Since you've placed a box saying you dispute the article's neutrality and the subject's notability (I would add such information to the article but I'm not even sure how to determine a comic's notability, so thoughts on that would be appreciated as well), would you please add some sort of motivation to the discussion page? As it stands, it appears you simply dislike articles about webcomics and want it deleted because of that, IMHO. And you motivation is, of course, much more expansive than that :) Erik (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

British Fritzl
Hi I just added a bit more but lack your skill with the refs, so if you can possibly tinker as you see fit, that'd be great:) (I'm off to sleep in a bit.) Sticky Parkin 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What consensus?
You have removed gallery sections from Korea-related articles as quoting "per consensus". As far as I've known, there is no ongoing discussion on gallery. The guideline you refer to says gallery is "discouraged" not prohibited. If you want to open a discussion at WT:KOREA, I will join in it. Some articles have excessive images, but others don't. I think removal of images should depend on characters of articles.--Caspian blue 14:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Galleries
Loving your work removing useless galleries from Seoul Subway stations. Lemme know if you ever need backup.  Dei z  talk 05:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Seems he's got the policy now at least.  Dei z  talk 09:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of people like to wander about and take photos of unusual or idiosyncratic things - skyscrapers, subway stations, markets etc - and upload the fruits of their labours to WP. Trouble is, you get the ones who start building their own photoblog. It's hard for non-Korean speakers to get much text-based information about these places, especially stuff that can be reliably sourced in English, so they compensate by adding a glut of photos. Of course, sometimes it gets ridiculous, like the 13 slightly different, yet effectively identical vistas of Tower Palace 3. Korean editors with a good command of English tend to quickly get bogged down with Korea / Japan nationalism-related topics, at the expense of adding content to other articles.  Dei z  talk 13:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Caspian blue 22:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you reformat your proposed wording?
Can you format your proposed wording as a table with borders or something so we can clearly see where it begins and ends, and where the commentary that will follow begins? Thanks. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

False accusations
Alas, you can't admit your own mistakes, and then falsely blame your charges? Good practice as always.


 * 1) You falsely accused me of making "false accusation like "You threaten Macropolis". Nope, I said your tone is threatening and he was scared enough to leave Wikipedia. Do not distort my comment.
 * 1) You falsely accused me that "there is no single discussion on article talk pages regarding "gallery", therefore your deletion is legitimate. After pointed out by me, you said you visited the talk page. However, your "declariation for deletion" tells that you did not fully read prior discussions. My analysis is correct.


 * 1) You falsely accused me of that I'm the one who initiated the edit war at Bosingak. However, you're the one who began deleted the gallery and received the 3RR warning according to our policy. When the edit war occurred I clearly repeatedly suggested you to open a discussion, and you did not and then reverted 3 times. You're the one who rather chose to edit war with threatening edit summaries.


 * 1) You falsely claimed that your removal is supported by the consensus. They said you should've opened a discussion since you're the one who wished to carry the deletion campaign.


 * 1) You falsely accused that I made a personal attack to you for my comment that the current problem is caused by your unilateralism. That is a valid analysis and your unwarranted accusation is a rather clear personal attack. Your threatening tone is already pointed by another editor.


 * 1) You falsely that I was repeatedly informed that your removal is a valid consensus at image policy. I clearly left the message in my edit summaries.
 * 1) You falsely accused me of having no time to insert enough contents and then have failed to provide "a good reason" for your own sake. What are you? You're not a judge or enforcer, so do not threat people with your wrong interpretation of the policy.


 * 1) Your threatening tone and the misquoting of the policy do not provide a good atmosphere to talk with you civility.

So yes, you've made many false accusations and others in the not nice mannor. Why should I provide "good reasons" for your persistent unpredictable standard on gallery? If you can't make a compromise between users, well, you may consider stop caring Korean related articles.--Caspian blue 03:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) As soon as I opened the discussion, you falsely accused me of violating the image policy that none agreed with you except Deiz.

Regarding your another false accusation
This is a notice for you --Caspian blue 04:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

re: collapsing
Fair enough...I was on the fence about whether or not to do it, so I don't feel badly about having it undone. (And whether it's collapsed or not, that's one of the biggest TL;DR-fests I've ever seen!)GJC 06:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I kinda think that's how certain parties win arguments--they type and type til the guy on the other side is too exhausted to do anything but capitulate.GJC 06:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I
In short, probably not. In long, check your email. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Something Positive

 * Greetings, the article above has had it's NPOV tag removed (arguing that the original tagger hasn't 'followed up') and since you seem to have originally tagged the article I thought I'd drop you a quick FYI.  I can't find a policy to back it up, but the argument being used to remove the tag doesn't seem right to me.  DP 76764  (Talk) 16:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As stated in removing the tag, you need to describe why a tag is added and a link to what is missing, please use the talk section of an article to describe this. In this specific case, be aware that it is often circular citations when dealing with fictional works (i.e. the citations for nineteen eighty-four reference the book, and interviews with the author).  Four suggested interviews were added to the Something Positive article's talk section for someone to add in to the article where appropriate. JScribner (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability meta-info added to the entry's talk. JScribner (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

M edits
Hi! I'm trying to clean up the category for genre films on wikipedia. Most of them are based off of movie database sites that are updated by users such as imdb or the korean movie data base like you've given me. They aren't completely accurate and too minimal. For example, if you take a look at the imdb page for The Host, Critics wouldn't claim "Oh! The Host! What a great Comedy Drama  Fantasy  Horror  Sci-Fi  Thriller movie!" Cats shouldn't be cited by these things. I've been using critical reviews for genre types and allmovie.com which is much more simplified. If you disagree, feel free to re-edit. I wasn't meaning to cause problems. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User:70.54.2.151
Not in the same country. Probably another one from the forums. Black Kite 01:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

threshold afd
Does it not matter that the AFD was closed one day too soon? Five days is a policy just like being able to discount canvassed editor's comments. Why hold to one and not the other? --Theblog (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are going outside the bounds of the intended use of the deletion review page, please review the top portion. I think there is no reason to rehash your well known argument. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that clarification, I will jump right in then! --Theblog (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

PHEW!
Thank heaven that's over! &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Sabayon logo.png)
You've uploaded File:Sabayon logo.png, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 18:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Questionnaire
As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Threshold
I was unaware of the DRV, but it's certainly not a speedy candidate - I didn't even look at the old version of the article before writing the new one, so there's no way it's a recreation of the previous text. But upon looking back, it seems to me that there's little sourcing overlap, and that the new version cites three independent and reliable sources, which at least on the face of it addresses notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The attack on the reliability of TMC is nonsense at best. The CGM mention is not extended, but I have trouble with the idea that singling a game out as particularly significant amounts to trivial coverage. And I see nothing resembling a reason why the Bartle post would be dismissed - it meets WP:RS dead-on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, but this isn't a namedrop. This is an express calling out and claiming importance of. It's not like Aristotle got mentioned in passing in an article - CGM expressly singled out Threshold for significance. That's above a name drop. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's hardly a massive list when you consider the scope of what's included. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of MUDs sitting about. As for Bartle, yeah, it was an attack on Wikipedia. That doesn't invalidate it - he wrote on the fact that a significant game had its article up for deletion. The motive doesn't invalidate the point - that he wrote to praise Threshold as a significant game. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comity
You really should focus less on deleting articles, IMHO. --The Cunctator (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, I helped write policies like Assume Good Faith. --The Cunctator (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it was just my opinion. I don't doubt your good faith; I just believe you're misapplying your energies. --The Cunctator (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Please read WP:V
All of this section lacks citations, so why remove this particular paragraph and not the others? If we keep this article (in my opinion it should go but that's a different topic), we should treat it like any other Wikipedia article. i.e. leave the unsourced text for a while and if nobody can provides sources, delete it. That's actually what WP:V suggests: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." Laurent (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok I've just seen your post on the PSP Homebrew page and answered there. I agree that the article should be merged with the PSP Homebrew article. Laurent (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

DeShawn Sims
I have responded to your GAC commentary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good articles/recent
I noticed that you passed another article today and did not add it at Good articles/recent. When you pass an article update that page so that the article appears as one of the newest GA on the top of Good articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ne-Yo
Hi. Thanks for dropping by. The citation is actually in one of the refs used, but it only mentioned briefly that Ne-Yo has a baby, no further info. Seems like its a secret baby of sort, as claimed by some not-so-reliable sources. If I can't find an in-depth article about his personal life, I'll mention the baby briefly. I'll try to improve/beef up the article's content, if I have enough time. I'll keep you posted. --Efe (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added the info about his son. But I still have to add more. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm tired. I have added two lines in the personal section. If you still find the article lacking, please tell. Otherwise, please decide whether to pass it or not. Thanks for taking time in reviewing the article. --Efe (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for passing it. I have added back the template per instruction at GAN. --Efe (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

response
I did that block, hoping it may be a little harder for him, but on further thought, it probably won't. The best way to handle this is to watch the articles that he edits. I'll definitely help with this. Protection may even be necessary, but a range block is not good because of the good editors that may be blocked. Academic Challenger (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

editors help
Hello I run asianmediawiki, the site last year was placed on the meta's blacklist for inappropriate links. I believe out website would be of help to wikipedia and have had users ask about the blacklist. I have requested the blacklist to remove but mike and beetstra asked me to first ask a long standing editor in that realm to request it first. May I ask you to place such a request? Please have a look at asianmediawiki's content if you are not already familiar with it. Thank you .. --RamenLover (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"Asian Fetish" article
Crossmr, I noticed that you have worked extensively with the "Asian Fetish" article. I am just now coming back to try to clean it up, and I cannot do it alone. As you know, there are some editors who try to dominate this article who have a very POV agenda. I am not necessarily trying to debunk anything; but I feel the article, as it is, is so completely unacademic and sloppy that there must be some people who are willing to watch it and make some changes. Let me know what you think, please?Computer1200 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your e-mail


Crossmr, Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.