User talk:D4g0thur/Archive 2

Changes to User:Skankyyoda
Thanks for your message, and my apologies for reverting helpful changes.

In my defence, however, I think it's fair to say that the majority of changes to user pages made by someone other than the user themselves are generally acts of vandalism (the only two times someone other than me has changed my user page have both been vandalism), and the diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Skankyyoda&diff=133653667&oldid=133653393) showed primarily the repeated insertion of the same userbox a substantial number of times, which could quite easily, in other circumstances, be a form of vandalism. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, when vandal fighting time is a bit of a luxury, and whilst I agree that you are name-checked as Dagoth Ur on the page itself, it doesn't immediately strike one that it's the same as D4gOthur. Anyway, will happily make a mental note of your relationship and ignore any future changes. Gilesbennett 11:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
... for looking after my user page. Good to know there are guardian angels out there who care for me. :) JackofOz 13:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

0_0
How the heck did you find my secret page so fast? I made it 5 minutes ago, and, BAM! you already found it!?!?! How did you find it 0_0 ...-- Penubag  06:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you found it through the recent changes. I cleared my cookies before I signed in and made that edit, so that's why there's an Ip address. LOL wikiballs... And you have my reward on your page! =-D-- Penubag  07:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Reward
Hey D4g0thur, congratulations on finding the hidden page! Here is your reward, you've earned it!

Cheating is fine; I guess that I'll just have to make it cheat proof somehow. selfworm _ _ ( Talk ·  Contribs ) _ 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

page arrangement
I've switched two of the boxen around, that's the best it's going to get, unless you care to provide an alternate layout... :P - Imperator Honorius 14:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Raoul Wallenberg Traditional High School
Hi. The letters to the principal added to that page have been added and reverted several times, so it may be time to stop assuming good faith with respect to these additions to that page. I put a note on the talk page. Cheers! Flyguy649talkcontribs 14:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem! I found it from RC patrol, too, a while back and added it to my watch list. That's why I know it was b.s. Cheers! Flyguy649talkcontribs 14:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your AIV report
Thank you for making a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again.  An as  talk? 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but the warning is not recent. Whenever a final warning, or any warning for that matter, is 4 days old or more, the vandal must be warned again, and you must go through all three or four warnings before you report him. Cheers,  An as  talk? 20:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Easy to assemble.jpeg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Easy to assemble.jpeg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Unint 01:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Magik Two.jpeg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Magik Two.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling variety
[redacted. my bad.] --Quiddity 18:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The primary purpose of my edit was actually to correct a link to a disambiguation page rather than check spelling; however, my eye was caught by the misspelling of catalogue as catalog so I checked for other errors. Also note that the article's subject is a Canadian band and in Canada, although American spelling is not uncommon, the French-derived endings are standard (see Canadian_English for more details). For these reasons I am reverting to my version. D 4 g 0 t h u r  18:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been living next to America for too long! Most sorry. I shouldn't edit pre-coffee. Was/am functioning on autopilot... --Quiddity 18:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems, I sometimes forget how to spell as well... too much American TV probably! :P D 4 g 0 t h u r  04:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SongBird_logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SongBird_logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. ShakespeareFan00 09:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a description. Please do not misuse warning templates. D 4 g 0 t h u r  09:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you help with Genya Ravan once more?
Hi. As you were among those who edited the article recently, could you please help and try to correct it once more? The modifications by that IP 74.194.148.78 I consider rather as vandalism than contribution. Among others, they consist of an exact reproduction from the printed biography. But as details have been changed afterwards and I am lacking experience with this kind of situation, I am probably unable to correct that article the right way. :-(

TIA--Psycho Chicken 14:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I tried my best. Was your link to the IP-user's page an educated guess or finger-trouble? :-)) Anyway, I added something on the talk page, there (then moved it to the other one).--Psycho Chicken 08:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

link request
Hi, can i have a link on the UK manchester page,

Nicks removals Manchester removal company http://www.nicksremovals.co.uk

cherrs Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Removals076 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

LazyTown
Hello fellow LazyTown afficionado! Greetings from Japan. Just dropped by to say that, and that you have a great taste for TV shows! Plancus 17:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stephanie 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stephanie 1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stephanie 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stephanie 1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
On finding my secret page. In return, I would love for you to enjoy a smile. Enjoy your day. Z enlax Talk Contributions Signatures 19:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)



Z enlax 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. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The Haunted School (Goosebumps)
This is about your comment on this artical. You talk about how it is just about how it is just a plot synopsis and a trivia section and it is written entirely in-universe. Well most articals (if not all) on here about books are just that so I don't really see what the problem is.Wild ste (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stephanie 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stephanie 1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DJ Sammy - The Rise.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DJ Sammy - The Rise.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User talk:71.234.158.233
A tag has been placed on User talk:71.234.158.233, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  The Helpful One (Talk)(Contributions) (Review Me!) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fftmc.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fftmc.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DJ Sammy - The Rise.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DJ Sammy - The Rise.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hidden userpage barnstars?
I am new, can you explain this to me? --SpockMonkey (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * okay. Heres how it works. Find a hidden userpage, (tip:where you would least expect it) and then they usually give you a barnstar, click here for more info on barnstars.  Not   hing    4   44   14:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nothig44, I already answered him on his page because he is unlikely to check back here for reply... Happy Editing. D 4 g 0 t h u r  15:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Secret Page
I finally finished my secret page. Can you find it?--RyRy5 (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lazytown...
...WTF?

whoops forgot to sign

 Rogue's   World.   beta


 * How very constructive... I doubt even the most practiced writer could have put forward such meaning so eloquently.


 * You may or may not have noticed that I wasn't overly impressed by your question. While comments or queries which are productive or useful or at least have some point to them are more than welcome, pointless and irrelevant comments are just that. Pointless. It is a waste of my time and yours so, rather than waste everyone's time, why don't you go off and make some constructive contributions to the project like a good little boy?


 * If you're ever tempted to so insightfully comment me again, feel free to die a horrible, painful death. Thanks. D 4 g 0 t h u r  10:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron


I notice that you are part of Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me; I'll do what I can (be bothered to)... and good luck to all of you involved. This is the good work of the project; broadening our horizons and curing myopia! D 4 g 0 t h u r  08:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good deal, I learned a new word thanks to you today:
 * Myopia (from Greek: μυωπία myopia "near-sightedness"[1]), also called near- or short-sightedness.
 * Looking forward to working with someone as intellegent as you are! Ikip (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to ARS!
{| style="border: 4px solid #CC0000; padding: 6px; width: 80%; min-width: 700px; background: #FFFAF0; line-height: 20px; " align=center Hi,, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
 * colspan="2" |

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

Towelie
Hi. Please do not add unsourced material to articles, as you did with this edit to Towelie. Information added to articles must be supported by reliable, verifiable sources cited in the text. The information about the meaning of the word "Okama" is not so supported, and has already been removed more than once in the article's history. Wikis and other websites without editorial control are not considered reliable by Wikipedia, nor can other articles on Wikipedia itself or its sister sites be used as sources. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not unnecessary, as any material that may be contentious or subject to challenge must be sourced, as per WP:V. Something like this is indeed contentious, and that is why I'm challenging it. If it's well-established, then it shouldn't be too difficult to cite a reliable reference source for it. If you can't, then it cannot remain, and will indeed be removed, as it rightly was on the previous occasions. Moreover, this notion, even if it's true, is completely irrelevant to the Towelie article, as it has no bearing on that episode or its plot. We don't even know if the creators knew of that word's meaning when they wrote the episode. At best, it only bears mention in the LGBT in Japan article, and only if it's sourced. If those reference sites you linked to are reliable, they could be used to support the latter article, but I notice that the English word "okama" doesn't appear anywhere on them. As for whether there shouldn't be any debate, well, I agree. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear on this, not only regarding sourcing but regarding WP:Trivia as well. Including that material in the Towelie article fails both of those policies. Nightscream (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't sweat it. As for Parker's knowledge of Japanese, well, it may be safe to say it on a Talk Page, but not in article, unless it can be sourced. I myself don't read Japanese, and didn't know he lived there, and even if he studied Japanese that does not mean that we can assume that he knows every bit of homosexual slang, much less that this was his intent when the episode was written. That would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. The South Park Studios page you linked to as a source supports none of this. It only establishes that he speaks fluent Japanese. It does not say that he was aware of that particular bit of gay slang, or that this was his intent when the episode was written, and you cannot conclude that you somehow know for a fact what his "intent" was. For more information on interpretation of satire and parody, see this discussion I had on the matter with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. Nightscream (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the assertion cannot be included at all, because it is not sourced. Wikipedia publishes material attributed to reliable sources, not speculation attributed to individual editors. Including your own personal interpretation or analysis is a violation of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:SYNTH. You can't get around this by rewording the material to essentially say "maybe". If it doesn't come from a reliable, verifiable source, then it doesn't belong in an article. See WP:CRYSTAL, the first line of which states, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." That is not me being "unreasonable", that's simply Wikipedia policy. Please stop adding it. Nightscream (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not established that I have "misinterpreted" any policy, or for that matter, even attempted to do so. If you can show how the myriad policies I have cited, as well as a discussion with Jimmy Wales himself, have been "misinterpreted" by me, and how WP policy actually supports your contention, then do so. Otherwise, the policies are self-explanatory, and the material in question clearly flies in the face of them, which I have shown. It is not the role of that article to state the meaning of the word, unless it is relevant to the article. Because this may be a joke on the part of the creators is, as you concede, a "possibility", then stating this indeed constitutes speculation, does it not? Do you dispute this? And do you dispute that WP:CRYSTAL, as well as a number of other extensions of WP:V clearly forbid speculation? If not, then the material's inappropriateness for inclusion is clear, and its removal was just as legitimate as the removal of any number of unsourced bits of personal analysis or interpretation that countless editors have removed across innumerable articles.


 * As for your most recent edit, the speculation is not the meaning of the word, but Trey Parker's intent. When you indicate that Trey Parker may have intended this or may have intended that, that is called speculation. Please do not pretend that you do not understand this, because is the precise point upon which our discussion on speculation has been on thus far. As for WP:CRYSTAL, the fact that it specifies future events does not mean that Wikipedia's prohibition on speculation in other areas or of other types is permissable. After all, are you seriously suggesting that the intent of both that policy and WP:V in general is that personal speculation on the intent of a writer of a TV show is considered permissable? I think you know that this is not the case, and that pretending otherwise is a far better example of "misinterpreting policy" than anything I've done.


 * Rather than accuse well-established editors and administrators of misinterpreting policy, and without backing that assertion up with cogent evidence or reasoning, perhaps you should familiarize yourself more closely with the relevant policies, and make your case after you've done so, if your edit count is any indication. Unless you can do this, then the material's appropriateness for inclusion is clear, vis a vis WP policy. Do not add it again, without citing a policy-based rationale, or you may be blocked for disruptive editing. Nightscream (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of those facts are irrelevant to the article, and are therefore inappropriate for inclusion, as per WP:Trivia. Please stop adding it. Nightscream (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is your final warning. The next time you violate WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:Trivia, or engage in any disruptive editing by introducing unsourced, POV or irrelevant material into articles, you will be blocked from editing. The two facts in question are not relevant to the article, because they do not provide any information about the episode itself or its production, and merely constitute your attempt to introduce personal speculation into the article, albeit in an implicit manner. Nothing in our discussion refutes this. I understand that you haven't edited a lot, and I'd be more than happy to assist you in learning more about WP policies, but you seem to be under the impression that I'm imposing some type of personal interpretation of them. I'm not. Exclusion of irrelevant, fannish or speculative material from articles, as well as any material that seeks to do this in spirit, is a well-established practice on Wikipedia, among countless editors operating in consensus under these policies. The entire site is not going rewrite its policies and guidelines just to suit your refusal to understand this. Revert that material again, and you'll be blocked. Nightscream (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I stated above, the statements I made were not "opinion", they are statements of Wikipedia policy, and enforcement of those policies does not constitute "abuse". It is the valid practice to enforce those policies by excluding the information you insist on adding to articles, and always has been, since long before I discovered Wikipedia and started editing it. But if you do not accept this, then you don't have to. Just ask any other well-established editor or administrator, and they'll tell you the exact same thing. We can even start a consensus discussion on the article's Talk Page if you want, and you'll see this. It's not a major point that generally requires one, since the relevant policies are so unambiguously clear here, but if it helps you better understand Wikipedia's policies, I'll help you put it together, and invite others if you wish. Nightscream (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Towelie
If you believe that, then you're wrong on both counts. First for continuing to insist that my adherence to fundamental Wikipedia polcies constitutes an "interpretation" of them, second for thinking that one editor or administrator's will can "overpower" another's. That's not how it works on Wikipedia. As to the first point, I've explained in detail that various policies like WP:Trivia do not permit inclusion of fannish or irrelevant facts being added to articles when their relevance to that article cannot be demonstrated with reliable sources, and are only advocated based on the aesthetics or whims of the editors who favor them. Articles are supposed to summarize the most salient information in relation to a subject. Obscure trivial facts that may or may not be relevant to an article, and whose supposed relevance is subjective, and can only be asserted by an editor, are not appropriate for inclusion. If you're saying that this is wrong, and that I'm "misinterpreting" policy, then what you're essentially saying, if I understand you correctly, is that Wikipedia policy does allow these things. Do you really believe this? Did you really study those policies and discussions I cited to you carefully? I pointed out to you that all well-established editors removed such material like this. Do you not believe me?

As to the second point, no editor "owns" articles, as per WP:OWN. Aside from the ability to protect and delete pages, use the rollback feature, block some users when they violate policy repeatedly, I do not have any "power" to do anything that is not in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia works by consensus, and transparency. It does not work via rogue editors or administrators secretly engaging in unilateral activity without the approval of the rest of Wikipedia. If I violate that consensus myself, any such decisions I make will be reversed. If you or any other editor feel that another editor or admin is wrong, you can request Third Opinion (which yourself indicated you were familiar with before), start a consensus discussion, etc. I made this offer, but you've ignored it, continuing to wallow in victimhood, claiming that you don't have the "power" to present your point of view, which is false. This suggests to me the possibility that you simply don't want to do this because perhaps you're afraid that a consensus of other editors will tell you exactly what I told you they will. I may be wrong, but I will reiterate the offer: If you want, I will start a consensus discussion on the Towelie Talk Page, and invite other editors to join. I will present to them the discussion we had, so they can chime in on their thoughts. Naturally, I will make sure that my contacting of those editors does not violate WP:Canvas. What do you say? You might find the experience interesting, and it may improve your perspective on editing. Until you respond, I will ask another editor with strong knowledge of these issues to chime in here with his opinion. (I would suggest not archiving our prior discussion until it's resolved, though: Keeping it in one place will make it easier for others to read all that was said.) And if you insist that you don't want to pursue it, then fine, I won't, but please don't make false assertions about others having "power" over you, because no one has the power on this site to impose their views over the will of the entire community.

And as far as my comments about your history, they were not made to be patronizing. I was trying to understand why someone would fail to understand not only why the material you wanted to add was inappropriate, but how the editorial process works. When I checked, I saw that while you've been editing for three years, you've accumulated just under 1,800 edits, which kinda explained it. This is not a criticism or an insult, but merely an observation that if you believe that one editor or admin has to the power to impose his/her view on another, or over the will of the entire editor community, then you're obviously not familiar with how Wikipedia works. I understand that every editor spends the time that they can editing; my point was merely that you should try familiarizing yourself more closely with some of the policies we discussed. But if it came off as patronizing, then I apologize. Nightscream (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)