User talk:Warcaptain

Comment on my User Talk
I would agree that there is a good bit of edit warring going on at GraalOnline. I would suggest bringing the case before the mediation cabal. I would caution that, although it is good to include criticism of articles, it is generally a bad idea to put things in that are not notable. It's also a bad idea to engage in edit or wheel warring. I've restored my welcome message. It is considered back practice to remove messages from your talk page. feel free to get back with me with any further questions. Alphachimp talk  21:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes thanks, I meant no disrespect or unappreciation towards you. I saved it in a text file so I could use it if needed.  I will contact the mediation cabal now. Thanks so much. --Warcaptain 21:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's no problem. A lot of people don't realize that they should not remove messages. Coincidentally, whenever your page gets really full (if you stay on Wikipedia, which I hope you do!), you can archive it. By the way, you don't have to copy the message. Just use ~ . Regards,  Alphachimp  talk  21:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, I hope this issue can be resolved quickly. The actions that are being taken by the Administration of the game are horrible and the Wikipedia is the only place that Graalians are allowed to alert the 'world' about it.  They are now banning people in-game for changing the article, and for having anything on their personal websites about my forums (UGCC) --Warcaptain 21:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You have been warned 3 times to not make personal attacks and you continue to restore the same content, also like is saying mediation cabal you have removed warning from your User talk page, this is not allowed and will be reported.


 * in the GraalOnline article you not written one line that was not advertising for your UGCC forum. Before asking mediation make something for the article and not just vandalizing it. Graal unixmad 02:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR Violation
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Alphachimp talk  02:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop reverting now. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. Alphachimp  talk  02:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I revert the page to remove vandalism done by other members. Thanks for informing me, what actions does Wikipedia prefer I take to remove vandalism? PS: Make sure you tell this to User:Stefan Knorr and User:Graal unixmad--Warcaptain 02:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

 * If you refuse informal mediation, this conflict could result in penalties for both sides, for disruption. Please take part in informal mediation. Killfest2 (Talk)  03:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would love to! <3 --Warcaptain 03:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation comment response
Requesting sources is very different from completely removing content because you do not feel it is fair. I agree that it may be a more valid arguement if there were sources, and I would be happy to find them. Sources are hard to come by on Graal as it is against the rules on the game to say anything negative against the game or its staff. Linking to the UGCC was my effort to offer alternative views and support the criticism. Proper citation would be good, I agree, but the point was never brought up or dealt with in the correct manner. --Warcaptain 04:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll admit the method of simply removing a bunch of content and not giving a reason is a poor way of handling things here. But try to see it from their point of view - this section of the article is slamming several aspects of their site and backing up that criticism with absolutely nothing.  The editor(s) which added that criticism can say "a bunch of people say" and "many believe" and "frequent criticism is lodged" all they want - but without evidence, it has no business being in there.  For all I know, those are all complete lies.  If you and seven - or even seventy - of your friends all have the same complaints, that still does not make it a verifiable fact.  I'll often add fact tags to articles that sound like they're just making stuff up - but when that stuff is slamming someone or something, I'll usually just remove it and state why in the edit summary.  Regardless, I'm within my rights to remove it with an edit summary such as this edit.  It's not wrong to do that and it certainly isn't vandalism!  WP:V says so.  —Wknight94 (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I also think that in delicate situations like this.. especially if you are the one the criticism is talking about, you shouldnt just REMOVE it. You should open a discussion and try to work things out with the people who put it there before coming in and saying "Oh no, dont say that about me!"  It's just a conflict of interest.  I do try my best to see it from their point, and I also really try to discuss it with them like adults but always they block my emails or ICQ messages so that they dont have to talk to me.  I am honestly not trying to advertise, more inform on what they are doing since they succeeded so far in silencing it on their own turf. --Warcaptain 05:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Image I uploaded
Do you know why the image of myself I uploaded for my talk page was deleted? I am not sure what the rules are, but I know I saw on several pages pictures of themselves. So I thought it was okay, but just trying to clarify.

Thanks! --Warcaptain 18:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I restored the image. It looks like you didn't specify the license when you uploaded.  It used to be they had to inform you when one of your pictures was going to be deleted but they must be clamping down.  Take a look at the image licensing now and make sure it's okay.  Wikipedia is pretty picky about image licensing.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought I selected the 'I have permission to use this image.' If they automaticly delete things with that option why do they even put them up x-x Well thanks, I will use GPL now. --Warcaptain 20:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if you pick that one, you have to provide some sort of proof that you have permission from the creator. In this case, you are the creator so you should select one that says as much.  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
You say:

Unixmad has also broken rules about attacks off-wiki by banning users in-game who revert vandalism done by them on the wiki, ie: User:Quamsta and User:Di4gram.

Unixmad has just in the past hour created an request for comment, which I replied to immediately.

''No one but Unixmad and the rest of the Graal Online administration support the actions he has taken on the article, and you can go through discussions to see. Moon Goddess, Stefan Knorr Bingolice (unixmad) and Unixmad are the only ones who have supported these actions, all others oppose.''

Can I get a copy of this request for comment?''  Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant  (Talk)  02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is his request for comment here. I replied to it as well.--Warcaptain 03:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

DELETE
A forum that bans its users and acts no different than the GraalOnline official communication center, but rather only exists to try and get a select few unbanned by the exploitation of the complaints of others is really not notable or worth a Wiki article. If it was a unique, fair and objective forum that was not about the personal gain of a few and was different, then maybe, but this is not at all the case. Vipercat 11:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude. Get a life. I hear your ban was temporary anyway. And your reaction too it proves what kind of person you are. --RogueShadow 11:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Viper, this whole thing is not about getting revenge on someone. It is about making a decent, unbiased, resource based Graal article. Stop posting this everywhere. --Moon Goddess 13:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Really.. you were banned. The obvious harrassment of Unixmad on the UGCC by you was unacceptable.  I do not like the guy very much but you must learn to be mature about things and not deal with them by mudslinging.  Your ban is only for a week, why can you not just take that time to calm down and regroup.. find a place you can be happy in and come back and post with that in mind. --Warcaptain 17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted GraalOnline article maliciously recreated secretly in german...
I don't really like you and don't even know if you still exist, but that is not at issue here, what is at issue is the integrity of wikipedia, NPOV and general fairness... Unixmad has not ceased in his surreptitious dirty, sneaky tactics at using Wikipedia as his propaganda posting board, if you are still around you should speak up on this...

The GraalOnline article that was deleted due to WP:WEB, NPOV, and other issues noted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GraalOnline has been secretly reposted at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graal_Online, with little to no changes except for the language translation... The English page was nearly unanimously voted for removal and barring any significant changes should not be allowed back in any language... Vipercat (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)