User talk:Dancter/Archive 3

Sorry
Sorry, can't talk, too busy doing doggy with my dad. I'M the receiver ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiizle (talk • contribs) 02:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Dancter 02:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can't talk, too busy having doggy style with my dad. I'M the receiver ;)

Yeeeeep, I just love getting that sperm all the way up the innards of my asshole! I'm such a sick puppy, someone shoot me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiizle (talk • contribs) 02:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this up and you will be blocked. Dancter 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you help with citation problems?
Thank you very much for tagging Talk:Kundalini yoga as in need of better citations. Recently I have become interested in doing a cleanup of the articles Chakra, Kundalini, Kundalini yoga, and some other related things and have been rebuffed when I have insisted on improving the referencing. These articles are all largely unsourced and contain many WP:FRINGE claims. Can you assist in this cleanup effort by watchlisting these articles and helping to support compliance with WP:RS issues? Buddhipriya 21:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see quite a few listings in the references section, but without inline citations, it's difficult to check whether the article content is actually supported by them. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any of those works, so unfortunately I won't be able to check those. I'll see what I can do about tracking down some Internet-based sources over the next few days. Dancter 21:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am mainly concerned with enforcing the referencing policies and adjusting the article structure to insist on better inline references in general. If you can simply watchlist the articles and assist with defense against addition of unsourced content it would be helpful.  I do not support the use of web sources as references in most cases, as they tend to be non-authoritative.  I would like to see some solid academic books used with precise inline citations so the article becomes verifiable. Buddhipriya 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Project Ego / Fable series
Hey; I need a bit of help. I'm personally involved in this case, so I feel limited in what I can do. There's a group of users that continually add links to their fansite projectego.net (you've reverted a few such edits) to the varies Fable articles. Since I run a competing website, loinhead.net, I don't want to revert these things myself because of obvious conflict of interests. This ( http://forums.projectego.net/wikipedia-3018/ ) is the thread in which they're talking about it; I have explained that it's against the rules and they know this, but keep doing it. If you feel it's appropriate, perhaps warnings or the like would be in order - I believe they are. I just wanted to alert someone to what was going on. Cheers, fel64 19:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is indeed a conflict of interest. I encouraged Toddquest to discuss the projectego.net link in the talk pages, and it seems they have (see Talk:Fable 2). There's no absolute ban on fan sites, but my initial feeling is that this one probably isn't appropriate to single out. Please discuss it. I unfortunately am not familiar enough with the Fable fan community to have much to contribute to the discussion. That said, the link has been repeatedly removed by several independent editors, which seems to indicate some degree of consensus on the matter. It's better, though, if there is a dialogue in which it is established explicitly. Dancter 20:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am a member at the Project ego.net forum, And I will be checking back to all the fable wikipedia pages to MAKE SURE that the link no longer appears. I have warned the members in the thread of interest ( http://forums.projectego.net/wikipedia-3018/ ) Hopefully this problem will no longer appear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sephiroxas (talk • contribs) 06:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Game Boy m/Micro
I thought the plan was to stick with the capital version? Someone changed it all to lowercase and rather than revert it you took out the trademark information... Now I don't know what to think. --CBecker 17:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Though I do favor the capitalized styling per Wikipedia style guidelines, I don't feel strongly enough about the matter to force the matter against opposing edits, especially without support. No strong consensus has been established, anyway. Aside from the handful of editors who participated in the old move discussion, it's pretty much been just you and me. I wasn't prepared to engage in an edit war at the time, so I simply removed the trademark note, which had become redundant. I may still change things back if I feel compelled to, which I currently don't. I didn't mean to send any mixed messages. Dancter 19:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, really, I don't understand...if this is NINTENDO'S official means of capitalizing the system, why does Wikipedia have guidelines that overrule that? That doesn't make any sense at all.Phaded 16:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

PlayStation 3: connectivity infobox discussion
Hi, I’d just like to alert you to a post I just made on the PlayStation 3 article’s talk page. It regards the connectivity infobox that you removed from the article per Wikipedia policy. I don’t mean any personal offense, of course, but I’m trying to get people to support reinstating the use of the template in the article. Please see the post/discussion here, and respond on the talk page, not on my user talk page. Thank you. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
Thank you for your welcome. I've been signed up for a while, but just got round to having a go. Hope my entry is OK. One thing though, I ticked the minor edit box by accident before saving the entry I had created - can it be changed? Jvager 19:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems okay; the article you created is perfectly okay for a newly-created article, especially for a newcomer. As for the minor edit flag, I wouldn't worry about it. You can't really change that or your edit summaries once you commit them. Dancter 19:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jvager 08:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with Samsung article, etc
Greetings, Dancter. Due to widespread abuses, I have reported Firefox001/Pgdn/etc to Suspected Sock Puppets. They are collecting evidence to indicate that this user is improperly using multiple user accounts. It would be helpful if you added your testimonial to the discussion, as this user has been warned many times, and blocked several times, to no effect. I noticed you have already suspected these usernames of being the same person, as I have. If you would add your support to the discussion here, that would be appreciated. Thank you. Enigma3542002 07:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it. Dancter 13:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets all go to the lobby
Lets all go to the lobby and have are selves a snack ___ The infamous Edit Summary Vandal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.94.82 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

75.132.32.113
I am growing sick of 75.132.32.113 vandalizing the SSB template! Today when I reverted his edits, I checked his talk page and noticed that you had given him several warnings in the past. I just thought I'd let you know that he is still vandalizing the page. --Superneoking 17:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:PanelDePonDS.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PanelDePonDS.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed image
Why did you remove the image from Jenna Fischer? It's a screenshot from a film and should be able to be used to represent her, shouldn't it? -Mike Payne 14:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does that very well, as I mentioned in my edit summary. Using it as the sole representation of the subject is misleading, as the particular image does not adequately depict either the actress herself or her characteristic work. In fact, part of the impact of that image is due to the contrast with general perception. In addition, non-free image use should be restricted to only as much as necessary to illustrate the subject, and the image currently is of a much higher resolution than that. Dancter 18:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably the reason why I like the image... :/ How about the one on the page now? It's already used in the Lollilove article, or I could just lower the resolution of the photo from Blades of Glory instead... -Mike Payne 04:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's better. Ideally, an image with a GFDL-compatible free license would be used, such as this one, but it doesn't seem that a good one has been found yet. Screenshots or movie stills are generally only fair use in context of the work itself, but I'm not so worried about problems with the use of the LolliLove image in the Jenna Fischer article. I'm not planning to remove the image, but that's not to say that someone else won't. If you have the patience, Non-free content covers the issue more in depth. Dancter 05:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai
Trivia is unencyclopedic. I'm removing it. Any oppositions, please notify me. Thanks :). -- Endo (Exo)  17:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Check again. The trivia section was restored unintentionally due to an edit conflict. I had already redone your edit right afterward. Dancter 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Princess Ariane
Saw your comment at Princess Ariane about the user insisting that her birth is a 6 and not a 7. I've tried engaging this vandal in the past. He's also edited from the following (blocked) accounts:  Special:Contributions/Weather72787, Special:Contributions/Daisiesarepretty, Special:Contributions/68.161.57.216, Special:Contributions/68.161.98.86, Special:Contributions/68.161.130.102, Special:Contributions/68.161.105.197. I first noticed him switching the date on Jessica Lee Rose. Rose happens to be famous for her April 26 birthday, so it struck me as suspicious. I verified perhaps half a dozen of his date changes, and realized that they were all false. I tried pointing him to evidence that his changes were inaccurate, but it quickly became obvious that he's just a vandal, and all he does is change 6's to 7's. Thanks for helping watch the pages -- definitely keep an eye for those dates getting changed from 6's to 7's.  He'll be back, I'm afraid. --JayHenry 23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize the user had such a history. I wouldn't have bothered with a reply had I known. I've seen them do some other things, some of which require some work and creativity to make convincing, so it's not just changing 6's to 7's. But that is probably a good indicator. Dancter 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Automatic band members
Hi sorry don't know where to put this but it regards the Automatic edit. The case involved is well known in the local area and if you'd care to check it up you would have found that it is true and perhaps is more informative than the majority of information in that entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.205.110.51 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize, too. I should've examined the text a little more closely. It's not nonsense. I stand by the removal, though. When it comes to biographical content for living persons, the policy states that inadequately sourced material is to be immediately removed, especially negative content as you added. It wouldn't have been inappropriate to keep it in the meantime while a source is tracked down. If you can include a decent citation next time you add the information, it should be okay. More information can be found at Citing sources. Dancter 20:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Bud Bro
Hey man it wasn't a personal attack or vandalism. It really was a noted quote at least in the nati where she is popular. Second of all your mom did call. I dont know why your upset about it. Chillax bud-bro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.138.162.255 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not upset. I'm just warning you. Stick to the subject matter, and don't make irrelevant dismissive comments about other users, and you shouldn't have any problems with civility or personal attacks policies. I've asked you several times to make your additions compliant with policy, and you haven't done so. Need more help? Here. I've even linked to the specific section which describes how you're supposed to cite. It's as simple as that. Dancter 23:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Hello. I'm including this invitation on your talk page only because you've already expressed an opinion on the inclusion of images in the Brain Age article. I've tried to look at the fair use criteria and think I've addressed them. It's possible I haven't done a very convincing job, but your input would still be appreciated. Also, as a more general policy issue, what do we do if not everybody agrees? I mean, copyright concerns aren't really the same thing as general consensus, so... how do you resolve that? Bladestorm 04:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sara Bareilles
Hi, can I just ask where you got the information about The First One, which you listed on Sara's page as her first album? I'm guessing that this might be an early home recording or a demo tape - is there any more info you can give about it, perhaps in the biographical information? I've been a fan of hers for four years and have never heard of this album, so it might be helpful if you added a citation or some other backup information because it's not listed on her website or any other easily accessible resource. Thanks. -- Cue the Strings 03:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's an official title, but just what it became known as after The Summer Sessions was released. I was doing some poking around some old snapshots of the official site through the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, and came across the info, uncovering an error in my original contributions in the process. I'm been having some problems accessing Wikipedia today, so this will have to be short; but if you look around, you should be able to find a track listing, and maybe some other information. Dancter 05:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet Another Michelle3801 Sock Puppet?
Take a look at User:DaisySpeaker. She's made one wholly disruptive edit by moving the Daisy page, and another by replacing all the pictures with this crufty little MSPaint creation. I suspect puppetry. Your thoughts? Suigi 03:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * She also replaced an image with one named [[Image:DaisyinBrawl.jpg]] and added a false caption to match, though it's not apparent since the image has been deleted, and the article edit was done anonymously. I think it's pretty obvious that it's Michelle. Dancter 05:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Your input is requested in arbitration
Hi there. You responded early on in Talk:Pac-Man Championship Edition to User:JAF1970 regarding an accusation that I had vandalized the article. I know you've stayed largely out of this dispute (which has grown to humongous proportions), but if you have time, I'd like to invite you to review and comment on my request for arbitration regarding this user. Thanks. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt ArbCom is going to accept the case, given that the other avenues haven't been fully exhausted, yet. Right now you have both a Wikiquette alert and a Mediation Cabal case still open, with other options left unexplored. My recommendation would be to try and be a little more patient, and at least allow NicholasTurnbull the time to give informal mediation a shot. I've so far refrained from extended involvement in your dispute largely because of my involvement in other disputes with JAF1970. I don't think it's appropriate for me to participate at this point, but if the third-party facilitator requests my input, or in the case of a more open forum, such as an RfC, then I may comment. Dancter 22:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood, and thanks. I weighed very carefully my decision on whether to escalate to arbitration as quickly as I did, and ultimately decided to do so because I feel that JAF has violated several policies and was poisoning the atmosphere in the related articles - mainly by overrunning my requests for discussion as heavily as he has.  If it had been limited to personal attacks and arguments in my User talk page, I'd either have ignored him or exercised more patience with the mediation, but JAF has been actively blocking my ability to be useful, and I can't abide by that for long. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I do think it's unfortunate that responses have been so slow for your various requests, but you should be aware that, even if the case is accepted, the Arbitration process is likely to be even slower than you've already experienced. Dancter 00:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So long as someone actually looks at it, I'll be fine. Arbitration seemed the only way to get any real teeth into this issue.  If they do accept the case and come to a decision, it's enforceable, whereas the other methods don't have any enforceability.
 * Just out of curiosity, what kinds of disputes have you had with him in the past? &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: Since it doesn't look like mediation is going anywhere and JAF has apparently dropped the subject, I'd like to archive the atmosphere-poisoning sections of Talk:Pac-Man Championship Edition and a couple related articles, so that the Talk pages can get back on track. What should we do about that? &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the discussion has indeed ended, then it should be okay to move it to an archive, to "clear the atmosphere", as it were. As long as the intent is not to hide anything, I see no problem with it. Just like most things in Wikipedia, there should be a general consensus for the archiving. Dancter 22:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to have, so I went ahead and archived the dispute, then made sure the article-specific stuff stayed on the page. Hope that'll help get this article back to where it should be. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Royalty articles
Sorry Dancter, I was only trying to correct Princess Haalah's birthdate to April 7 because her birthdate is April 7. The reference where you got the birthdate has the birthdate incorrect. 141.157.201.208 19:07 7 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.201.208 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not enough to explain your general editing pattern, such as your forged timestamp. You have yet to demonstrate the verifiability of your information. Per Verifiability, "Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." This has been pointed out to you in numerous messages on multiple IPs. Dancter 22:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I had acted in accordance to an assumption of good faith per WP:AGF, before your rejection of my compromise, and tampering of talk page signatures made it clear that you have little regard for consensus or policy. Until you can demonstrate a willingness to cooperate, I can no longer consider your dispute to be valid, thus my restoration of the April 6 date. Dancter 00:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Dancter, I Wasn't watching what I was doing I wanted to organize some articles so they can be read clearly. but I touched the date of birth. But it was an accident. I wasn't even going to say that the reference was wrong. Once again I apologize for the vandalism. I'm very, very, sorry. 141.157.201.208 02:47 12 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.201.39 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You sure love those 7s, don't you? If you can explain to me how changing one can "accidentally" change "June 26" to "July 27", then maybe you could fool someone into taking you seriously, as you did me at first. The warning still stands. Vandalize another date, and you will be reported. Dancter 03:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

N'Gai Croal
Thanks for your catch; I picked the bio verbatim because (I know this is lame) I've seen it done before. I'll see about snatching permission and if not, write something in other words. DavidBeoulve 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Images used in text
Hi, I noticed that you commented on the use of the Microsoft Points image, and wonder if you might be able to take a look at Prince (musician) which makes extensive use of an image direcly in the text of the article. Not only does this impair the article's readability, but the image also doesn't appear to be free. I don't really know enough about the rules of this, and as you seem to know what you're talking about I'd ask you what you thought. :) Cheers,  Mi re ma r e  16:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo Wii 480p Issues
Yes the forum isn't a first or secondary source but the numerous articles from tech/gaming sites should be considered secondary. I will re-add the issue along with correct secondary sources from respected sites. ITZKooPA 16:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, all the secondary sources simply link back or reference the forums. Nintendo still has yet to comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ITZKooPA (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the forum thread would be considered primary source information, akin to an "eyewitness account". Reliable secondary sources are needed to put the information in the proper context. Even then, some care needs to be taken, as it is still possible misrepresent the issue. This can be seen with the issue with Xbox 360 faults, in which the wording has been debated very closely, as can be seen in discussions at Talk:Xbox 360 technical problems. Dancter 20:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So if the forum page is good to use as a source what caused you to rescind my addition? Did you feel the wording, as you stated above, was improper? ITZKooPA 17:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that the forum page is good to use as a source. I said that it's primary source information, and that a reliable secondary source is needed to even begin with. Did you read WP:PSTS as I indicated in my original edit summary? If you wish to discuss this further, it would probably better to take it to the Wii talk page. Dancter 17:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bully (video game)
Someone added a link to "Nintendo Wii" in that article when it should be "Wii". Would you mind fixing it? Just64helpin 22:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just64helpin 22:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sonic in Brawl
I really misunderstood what you're saying in the super smash bros. series talk page.--Mariofan90 21:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Light6 provided a link to a post on G4's "The Feed" blog, which cites an article on The Sonic Stadium as a source. That source article was deleted. It's still available in Google's cache (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:KKLoeWidCC4J:www.sonicstadium.org/sonicnews/310/), where the coverage traces the information to an alleged Spanish-language interview posted on a forum. Sonic HQ, from which The Sonic Stadium got the news, has reported that the interview is a hoax (http://sonichq.mobiusforum.net/newsite/news/). Dancter 21:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Theta Beta Potata
Given the location of the house, Iowa, there is definitley significant converage. Also you might want to read the deletion debate concerning the article. Though the debate was concluded with a "no consensus" it demonstrated the need for this article to be separate from the punk house article and that there was enough information and sources to warrant it. The no consensus has to do mostly with an internal debate concerning what criteria should be used to establish the notability of any given punk house. Read the debate and get back to me. Xsxex 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By "significant coverage", I was referring to the qualification pointed out in the general notability guideline, which I do not feel has been met by the article in its current state. I had read the AfD debate, and was unconvinced. If a separate standard is needed for punk houses, then a guideline should be established for it, as you pretty much stated yourself. As of the time when I added the tag, I did not see any relevant specialized guideline for punk houses. I appreciate that you changed the heading from what you originally posted, but that you posted it at all indicates to me a particular sensitivity and possessiveness regarding the article. The tagging was not a deletion notice. Even if it were, it would not be against any policy (see WP:CCC). Dancter 02:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question
Dancter, I'm sorry to bother you, but I note that you recently reverted an edit by 68.160.229.30. I need to ask you how to go about blocking this individual. I hesitate to invoke such a sanction, but a brief trawl through 68.160.229.30's contributions shows a history of changing digits almost at random (eg 26 to 27). Normally this would be just a nuisance, but he's being doing it to the 2007 United Kingdom floods article (e.g and ), which is difficult to maintain as it is a current event. Even that would perhaps not merit blocking, but one of the "26"s he changed to a "27" is the date of death of two flood victims on 26 July (see . I am not quite sure what the procedure is here, but if you could explain to me how to go about blocking somebody, then I can start things rolling. If I am out of order for asking for such a thing then please tell me and I'll desist, but as you can imagine, feelings are running pretty high on this matter and somebody making random changes is the last thing anybody needs. Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown 01:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AIV is the place to go. I've dealt with this user across quite a few IPs. It's the same individual JayHenry is referring to elsewhere on my user talk page. Dancter 01:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Boy, that was fast! Thank you, Anameofmyveryown 02:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)