User talk:Signpostmarv

Comments
This section was removed due to the commenter (Xinoph) making a series of personal attacks, and censorship directed at Signpostmarv. The personal attacks were centered around User talk:Signpostmarv and User talk:Xinoph.

The edits referred to in User talk:Xinoph are:
 * 1) to
 * 2) to
 * 3) to

The content of these personal attacks and censorships can be examined:
 * 1) accusing all of my edits of being a big waste of time
 * 2) using weasel words to accuse me of stalking
 * 3) making claims contrary to point 1
 * 4) self-censorship, originally thought to be a dropping of the situation in accordance with WP:RAA, but was in fact a migration of personal attack
 * 5) migration of personal attack from one user talk page to another
 * 6) removal of my responses to original personal attack
 * 7) *
 * 8) an apparent correction of second personal attack combined with a new personal attack
 * 9) remaking claims made in original personal attack, contrary to statement in point 3
 * 10) further personal attacks made on this page
 * 11) all personal attacks removed from User talk:Xinoph

Since Xinoph has reverted User talk:Xinoph to a point prior to the personal attacks, I shall consider the matter closed. However, any further abuse of the discussion page feature by User:Xinoph made on this page will be removed upon discovery without response.

Signpostmarv 15:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Comments
You should not delete comments from your talk page. I expect a restoration of my comment left here and an apology. XINOPH | TALK 17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While I deleted them, I've made no attempt to hide them.
 * No restorations are needed as they are linked to and available for perusal in this article's history.
 * An apology for what ? (no seriously, if you want an apology it would be helpful if you could be specific as to what you are requesting an apology for).
 * Signpostmarv 19:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
I also expect a removal of, and apology for, your personal attacks of and lies about me above. XINOPH | TALK 17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 19:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are no personal attacks.
 * There are no lies.
 * There will be no apology for what does not exist.
 * User talk:Signpostmarv was edited into a summary of events as a means of archiving the dispute between ourselves. I invite you to add a subsection in a similar manner should you feel my archive of the dispute is biased.
 * Signpostmarv 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Still waiting on that apology. You can leave it on my talk page with flowers. You never apologized for your nasty comments regarding my edits, even. You simply deleted my comment without replying to it. You are a hypocrite of the worst kind - and no, that's neither a personal attack nor a lie. XINOPH | TALK 19:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify: your saying that I made personal attacks against you is both a lie and a personal attack in and of itself.
 * That's actually what you did - accused my edits of being a big waste of time. It's hypocritical of you to be angry at me for using language you used first.
 * I did not accuse you of stalking, ever. You made that up.
 * You utilized self-censorship by deleting my comments from your talk page. It is hypocritical of you to be angry about this.
 * I never made any personal attacks against you. You lied about what I wrote, misinterpreted it to support your argument, then used weasel-words to attack me.
 * In short, you did everything you accused me of doing. Imagine the surprise here. XINOPH | TALK 20:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * if you examine the links I provided, you will see there is no falsehood in my claim of a personal attack. Also, note that WP:ATTACK states that saying "Your statement is a personal attack" is not a personal attack
 * In response to point 1: You appeared to make no direct response to my reply, and only continued to make personal attacks. Ignoring the fact that you moved a discussion from your talk page to my talk page, you will not be receiving an apology. In the near future.
 * In response to point 2: While it may not be intentional, as your history page shows, you did use WP:WEASEL to make a statement to that effect.
 * In response to point 3: There is no anger. I'm not sure where you're getting that from, however: Making a personal attack, then deleting it is self-censorship. My deleting of your comments in not self-censorship, since they were not my comments. WP:RPA indicates that the deletion of content believed to be personal attacks is an acceptable action, and although it might've been a little premature, I do believe the content I replaced the thread with satisified the concern made in WP:RPA that it is a form of censorship; that the replacement content explained clearly and calmly why the edit was made.
 * In response to point 4, I have initiated WP:DR step 4.1
 * Signpostmarv 22:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue is not the links; the issue is your editorial summary of events, and you know that. Moreover, don't tell me what I consider to be a personal attack; you can't read my mind. I consider almost everything you have written involving me to be a personal attack, including your initial statement, for which you have not yet apologized in any way, shape, or form. That Wikipedia Policy does not merely shows that Wikipedia is wrong, and too limited. I have been making this argument since long before you registered. I You're the one who launched a random personal attack, not me. You're the one who's got a rules dispute in his record, not me. The only conflict here is between you and me over your initial comment vilifying me, and the only way that conflict can be settled is by you apologizing - without using any weasel words, as you did initially - on my talk page. Any comments by you or about you on my talk page that do not involve you apologizing for a personal attack will be ignored. I will not leave any further comments here, and I will not respond to any future edits of my talk page by you. XINOPH | TALK 22:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I take it you are turning down my invitation to make any alternate or additional summaries ?
 * Signpostmarv 23:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Second Life Residents
You seem to be inappropriately adding many biographies to this category. For example: For this category to be appropriate, there would need to be at least some referenced mention about the person playing this game. Supposing this happened, there would need to be some compelling reason to categorize the likes of Kurt Vonnegut as a Second Life player. This would be like categorizing people based on what television programs they watch. Please stop adding this category frivolously. shotwell 22:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Adam Curry -- no mention of this in the article
 * Lawrence Lessig -- no mention
 * Kurt Vonnegut -- no mention
 * Leo Laporte -- no mention
 * Tod Maffin -- no mention
 * Howard Rheingold -- no mention
 * Cory Doctorow -- no mention
 * R. J. Rummel -- no mention
 * see User talk:Shotwell
 * Signpostmarv 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Second Life Residents nominated for deletion
I nominated this category for deletion. You will probably want to give your input within the next seven days at Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_6. shotwell 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation -- Second Life
I have opened the mediation request Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-30 Dispute arising from edits made to Second Life and subsequent accusations of personal attacks on both sides. Do you accept me as your mediator? Have you contacted the other parties about the mediation? Alan.ca 03:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with you being the mediator. The other party has been informed on this talk page.
 * Signpostmarv 04:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have contacted Xinoph to ask if he consents to mediation, at once I receive his response we can move forward. Alan.ca 04:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Xinoph claims there is no dispute. Is it possible that this matter has been resolved? Alan.ca 05:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Xinoph is once more being ignorant of his own behavior, and as you've experienced Xinoph seems to think it is appropriate to move discussion topics started on his own talk page out to the author's talk page.
 * While Xinoph might think that there is no dispute, the facts during the dispute were under dispute, and as such I would appreciate the points listed in the cabal being cleared up.
 * I'd also appreciate it if you could clarify if it is appropriate to move discussion threads about in the manner that Xinoph does.
 * Signpostmarv 07:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the mediation cabal is to provide a neutral mediation point for interested parties. It is not a place for deciding administrative action or passing judgement on uninvolved parties.  It was my hope that I would be able to help you resolve the dispute with Xinoph, but he is not willing to be cooperative in the process.  I have no choice but to close the case.  If you are seeking an advocate to represent you in resolving this dispute you can request an advocate at wp:ama.  Good luck, again, I'm sorry we couldn't help you.Alan.ca 08:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Second Life
Second Life is a Featured article candidate! frummer 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * should we give it another try sometime? frummer 22:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * get the article to a decent state for a solid month. Then re propose it.
 * Signpostmarv 22:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, perhaps you can get five or ten of us together? you know the others? frummer 23:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * btw check out Linden Dollar, just moved it there ysterday. frummer 23:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! In eliminating a block of text that I had nothing to do with, and which I had no problem with your deleting, you also reverted out several perfectly good grammatical and stylistic changes that I had just made. Some of those changes were a matter of taste, no doubt, but some were clearly corrections that should have been retained. I'm a bit puzzled as to why you would do this, when you could have just excised the offending para. It's not as if I've been a bad contributor to this article; I'm responsible for a lot of the polish that it currently has, and for a lot of its current structure, as you'll see if you delve back into its history. I'd appreciate some consideration before my copyediting, stylistic work, etc., just gets reverted without reasons even being mentioned in the edit summary. If it wasn't deliberate on your part this time - which is what I'd like to assume - could you just bear in mind that I'm around, and that I've been working hard on this article with nothing but good intentions. Metamagician3000 11:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Second Life map.gif
Original message at 

Thanks for the info, Signpostmarv. If I find a spare moment, I'll update the map. Cheers. &mdash;Slowspace 11:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:SL Logo with text (large, vertical orientation, white background).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:SL Logo with text (large, vertical orientation, white background).jpg. 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. —Bkell (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Businesses and organizations in Second Life
I have nominated Businesses and organizations in Second Life, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Businesses and organizations in Second Life. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Russavia (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fly For Fun
I have nominated Fly For Fun, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Fly For Fun. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Businesses and organizations in Second Life
I have nominated Businesses and organizations in Second Life, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Businesses and organizations in Second Life&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

CFD nomination of Category:Second Life Residents
This category, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. It has since been renamed to Category:Second Life residents, so the CFD discussion is at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 13. Your comments are welcome. Robofish (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Second Life
For a university assignment I have to edit/add to your page Criticism of Second Life Is there anything in the article that you feel that I could add to or improve. I am unsure of exactly to edit because the ideas that I have e.g. explain more about 2nd life is already covered more in other articles. Any feedback would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LewisHoward (talk • contribs) 18:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Culture of Second Life for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Culture of Second Life is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Culture of Second Life until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)