Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:22, 21 May 2008

/Archive 1

/Archive 2

I apologize

I would like to apologize to you if I said or did anything that offended you as I only meant to improve the Taxi article. I don't agree with your style or your version of the circumstances surrounding the edit war, but you will be who you want to be and I'm sorry regardless that your feelings were hurt over it. Since all the major edits and discussions have been agreed upon as of today, I have archived the Talk page so the possibly-offensive remarks are removed from plain view. I propose that any major changes or any future conflicts are discussed first before an edit war gets started so we can reach a consensus to avoid these messes in the future.--Bamadude 01:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I accept your apology. I'm not sure what you mean by "my style", though: I never contacted or was contacted by anyone about "ganging up" on you during that discussion. You can look at my edit history if you really want. I remain confused about why there was such animosity even after we agreed that it was appropriate to comment out the message to editors. Anyway, I hope that we can be a little bit less heated in the future. Take care. Croctotheface 03:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts

Hello, hope all is well! I saw you posted a deletion notice for the Pankaj Arora article. I actually have a strong interest in South Asian entrepreneurs (and there are plenty of them in the NE where I am from), and have read about Pankaj in the past (as well as Anand Lal Shimpi who founded Anandtech and was also on the YoungBiz 100 list). I saw some of the previous comments about articles not existing just for promotion, and that makes sense. I feel Pankaj is notable in the community, and has been quoted in more press than what is linked. I think he is worthy of an article, but I am reaching out to you to get your input on how to strengthen the article. I have added some attributions to the claims via footnotes, and added some additional sources that were not previously present. I also deleted some material that I could not verify with ease. Also do note, some of the sources you removed did mention him by name so I re-added them and/or attributed why I think they were present based on content in the article that probably came from them. There are other stubs on Wiki of successful South Asians who have started businesses, are actors, into entertainment, etc. and it is a growing community! I do feel the topic has merit and again am looking for your input on how to make it better (and maybe make some other S. Asian stubs better like Anand’s). Hopefully you liked some of the changes I made so far... thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.10.53 (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You could start by deleting all of the stuff that reads like a website biography, and all of the phony, non-notable "achievements, like the Lillywhite campaign, that he probably did just to put on his resume. Croctotheface 22:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

But there are sources for that content? You feel it isn't important? I can remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.10.53 (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you really don't like the article. I don't want to get into an editing war, and this person isn't that big of a deal to me - so I'll concede my request and revert the page to your original deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.10.53 (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict. My original post is this: I mean, you said "reverting removal of sources" for one of your edits. All of the sources I removed did not mention him by name. They may have made an allusion to something he was invovled with, but that's not the same thing. All of the stuff he is involved with has gotten its own WP article, despite what seems to me to be spotty sourcing and stretching its sources to hype this person up. The photo is clearly from publicity material. This article has so many problems. It doesn't focus on what neutral, reliable, third-party sources have said about this person. It focuses on using those sources to make him sound impressive. It needs major changes, and I don't know if Arora will be notable after these changes are made.

And my new reply is this: if the guy is notable, then fine. I just don't think that he is. I don't like the fact that this article has basically flown under the radar, has basically no links to it, no editing activity, and reads like something the guy would write about himself. Croctotheface 22:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Stossel

I hope you have a chance to re-enter the discussion on John Stossel. The article has been locked and I think we're getting into a back and forth discussion. Some additional voices would be helpful to bring some compromise. Thanks, Morphh 18:14, 02 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I took the page off my watchlist because I didn't care enough about the article to deal with the headaches of the talk page. I feel like my time is better spent elsewhere at this point. Croctotheface 00:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was leaving you alone. I just felt you were a little uncivil towards my good intentions at asking you to review it profesionally believing you were of a respectable nature and able to give any article a good assessment yourself on a neutral basis. I apologize if I disrupted your course of editing. Don't take it personally or as a nuisance. I wish you all the best in the future. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 19:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

MagicKirin

I believe you were one of the ones who worked on stopping his sockpuppetry. Just to let you know, he is back in the form of User:Winterflyer Turtlescrubber 18:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Democrat In Name Only

You argued strongly at Democrat In Name Only AfD to keep the article. The article now is at DRV (here). It looks like it may get another run at AfD. Is there any chance that you want to create a non BLP problem, sourced draft article in your user space before Democrat In Name Only is relisted at AfD? -- Jreferee t/c 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Mackris claims

The claims that Fox News was trying to retaliate or w.e were not highlighted in the source. That is why I removed it. And I read somewhere in a wikipedia policy that if there are any claims made about a person that is not cited should be removed "immediately". Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about a living person—whether in an article or on a talk page—remove it immediately. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Citing_sourcesRYNORT 19:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Source absent on article

Hi, on the entry on "It's the economy stupid," Rhodog noted that George Bush had an 80% approval record one year before the election. Source, please. I tried to find it to add it myself, but couldn't find it. <aybe you could. I also added a comment on the discussion page and on Rhodog's discussion page. Thanks!--Beth Wellington 02:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

question

When I said that the one source was no longer there in the criticism article, you said that it's OK to leave it there because it was once there. But what if the editor who wrote the article found out the information was in fact inaccurate and deleted it. So why would you leave a chance for misinformation to dwell? Thank you.RYNORT 07:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not actually responding to the merits of what I said there. There was a source, which, If I remember correctly, was a newspaper article, that was available online but no longer is available at this point. You, based on what I saw, want to delete that source and tag the statement as uncited. In fact, the statement IS sourced, the source is just no longer available in one click. That article that sourced it continues to exist, just not in a readily clickable form. If the standard you demand for sources is that you can read them online immediately, then we can't source anything to books, except ebooks. It would be patently ridiculous if we couldn't source to books; therefore the "must be able to read in one click" standard is terrible. Croctotheface (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You still have not adressed on why you would not delete it. The redirect for that article went to a page that said the article you are looking for is not longer here. I advocated to delete the source for it was no longer accurate and you said no. Now, I can see what your saying on a technicality, but the article was deleted. Gone. It doesn't serve any purpose. A citation there stating that a citation is needed to replace the one before would be better. Someone could have felt compelled to go find it, leading to others having the ability to go check out where the info originated. It seems that you try and use persuasive language on why you are right, but you are still not following wikipedia policies. It clearly states that if there is an article that is not reliable or a section that is not sourced, must be deleted immediately (emphases on articles of living people) and that was a quote from Jim Whales. Thank you.RYNORT 07:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The LINK may not serve a purpose, but the ARTICLE serves the very important purpose of sourcing and verifying statements in the encyclopedia. The article is not erased from history because it is no longer at the link the page points to. This is NOT some sort of "technical point". You seem to think that a source that you can't find in a single click does not exist. The policies you allude to, such as WP:V and WP:BLP, refer to UNSOURCED information. If the source were a book, and the only way for you to check it would be to go to the bookstore or library, then IT REMAINS A SOURCE. There is no appreciable difference between a book that you need to go to the library to read and a newspaper article that you need to look up in a database because it's no longer on the paper's website. Croctotheface (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you on IRC?

Are you on IRC? If so, what nick? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not; sorry. Croctotheface (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

AGF, NPA, etc

I'd like to continue our discussion here, if you'll humor me. Over the past few months I don't think we've disagreed once regarding policy/guideline interpretation and editing consensuses (what's the plural of consensus? consensi?), and I'd like/respect your opinion on this matter. I've been editing Misplaced Pages since 2004 (heavily since early 2006 or so), and I've always tried to be fair but firm, and have always tried to adjust my understanding towards community consensus. That being said, from time to time I've seen a pattern in which an editor begins making a pattern of edits that I cannot help but believe is designed to serve a particular agenda. I never assume such conduct is mala fides, but rather a misunderstanding of policies, guidelines, and norms, and I take particular care to explain the issue with regards to policies, gidelines, and norms. However, after repeatedly dealing with an editor over the course of months and/or years who repeatedly misinterprets or misrepresents the same policy/guideline/norm in a particularly biased way (in this instance, attempting to trim critical or negative information from Bill O. / FNC articles) it becomes difficult for me to continue without noting that circumstance. I believe that a reminder of such, if addressed properly and isn't directly accusatory, can help all of us remain balanced. Do you believe a pattern is not there? Should it always remain irrelevant? I'm still formulating my thoughts... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I just think that if you're right on the merits and people agree with you, then that's all you need to assert. Suggesting that somebody has an agenda, even if it's true, doesn't somehow discredit them. If despite their agenda, their arguments are valid, then you have no less of a burden to respond to them. Croctotheface (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that, regardless of agenda, a valid point is valid no matter who presents it (otherwise it would be an ad hominem fallacy). However, suppose we see an editor who repeatedly attempts to remove certain types of information by misrepresenting or misapplying policies and guidelines in the same way... after a while it becomes pretty frustrating (and fairly obvious). How should this be handled, do you think? Do we pretend it doesn't exist? I believe that at some point the community needs to take a stand against editors who repeatedly act in this manner. Also, keep in mind we're talking in hypotheticals right now, not addressing a particular situation or editor. I just want to understand your position. Thanks in advance & happy new year. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The community has always been able to deal with POV pushers. If the hypothetical editors have reasonable arguments, explain why your arguments are better. If they have no reasonable arguments and their edits are against consensus, then revert them as disruption. Saying that someone's goal is not to improve the encyclopedia, but rather some other bad thing, really is just an ad hominem, and it doesn't help anyone. Croctotheface (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno... After a year of dealing with the same misrepresentations and misapplications of policies, I really have trouble confining myself to only addressing the issues every time. I'm not sure that there are policies and guidelines that mandate that, in any case -- WP:AGF says one musn't continue assuming good faith when there is evidence to the contrary. Beyond that, people have actually been banned from Misplaced Pages for repeatedly pushing an agenda. So why do you think that one must never address those kinds of issues? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, if they have no basis for their position, it's a different case. If they have no basis for anything they're saying, just say as much and move on. If, instead, their actions, taken together, appear to support a point of view, yet all their positions are otherwise well-supported and don't run afoul of policies, then they're not doing anything wrong. There is no rule that says one must, in order to be a productive editor, work to remove unsourced negative information about conservatives and liberals in equal measure. Croctotheface (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving from hypothetical to specific, in this case the editor in question has been trumped by the community almost every single time (ie, his suppositions are not well supported and do run afoul of policies. Wouldn't that mean that they are doing something wrong, if they willfully misrepresent, ignore, or misapply the policies over and over in the same manner? Of course editors don't have to do the same for both sides of an argument, but editors do need to incorporate past lessons into how they proceed in the future. Consistant misapplication over and over is evidence of willful negligence, and after a year I find it difficult to believe that it is anything other than pushing an agenda. I fail to recall any policy or guideline that requires us to continue to ignore such a pattern over a long period of time (despite your public statement to the contrary). What would you have us do? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone does not have a valid position, there is no need to address what they say. Croctotheface (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not what they "say", it's what they do (repeatedly). I've seen this editor try time and time again to effect the same sorts of edits -- removing negative content from articles associated with conservative interests (FNC, Bill O., John Gibson) and insert negative information (or discredit) articles on subjects that reside at the other end of the political spectrum. In almost all cases his position was completely debunked by the community writ large... in one case that comes to mind off the top of my head he finally found a way to force an issue based on WP:SUMMARY after trying like four or five guidelines and being repeatedly rebuffed (see WP:PS). At some point it becomes pushing an agenda, and I don't think that the best thing to always do is remain silent. As I said earlier, I'm still formulating my thoughts on all this. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, again, it's not wrong to only edit articles about Fox News or conservatism, even if your edits cast those subjects in a more favorable light than the prior version of the article. It may be the case that all those articles had problems and the editor in question helped fix them. He may have gone too far, his edits may have been too favorable, but they provide the foundation for a third version that gets it just right. All of my comments presume at least some merit to what the editor is doing. If he is being disruptive, that's a different matter, but you don't seem to be asserting that. It's not wrong, in itself, to think "there's something with this passage" and attempt to change it based on various rationales. I had begun to write a response to this, but then I saw that WP:PS says what I was going to say. First, if his first five rationales were invalid, but the sixth makes a convincing argument in favor of his version of the page, then OK, convincing is convincing. It may be appropriate to tell him afterward that a better practice would be to present all rationales at once. However, the mere fact that someone's edits tend to cut "conservative" does not itself mean that he is acting in bad faith. If you have a serious problem with a user, then there are dispute resolution procedures, RFC/User, and things like that. If his conduct doesn't merit that kind of action, then I don't see how making accusations helps the issue at hand. Croctotheface (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've continued this conversation here -- thanks! I authored WP:PS, and I clearly state (and fully believe) we must "always address the content of the argument instead of the motives of the editor" and that "a policy-shopping editor may, after several incorrect attempts to apply policy, find a policy that does mandate a change." Likewise, I appreciate that you acknowledge that I am not making accusation of intentional disruption. What I am saying, however (and what you seem to either gloss over or overlooked), is that some editors (one in particular) repeatedly attempts to mis-apply or misrepresent policies in a decidedly biased way. At some point, after being continually rebuked by the community and having the faux logic explained at length, and repeatedly trying the same things over and over (always netting a benefit to a conservative POV) it has to jump from an "oops, my bad, I didn't understand" to either "I don't care what the rules are" or "maybe I'll get away with it this time." I've found it hard (in this conversation) to perfectly enunciate what I mean... am I being clear? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I get you. If someone thinks an argument is sound, I don't really have a problem with several attempts to use it even if it doesn't work each time. It should be easy enough to refute that argument just by saying, "You tried this before and it didn't persuade anyone." You could even link to the old discussion and the consensus established there. However, consensus can change, circumstances could be different, and so forth. In any case, I don't really see what good it did to say what you said that prompted my initial comment. Croctotheface (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it any clearer now?  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It was never that I disagreed with what you said about that guy. I still maintain that saying something about him rather than about the article or changes to it doesn't help anybody. Croctotheface (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

John Spano

I plan to add more refs ... it's gonna take awhile to plow through them, though. I was actually gonna ask you for a hand, since you seem to be the guy for all things Islanders on Misplaced Pages. Blueboy96 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

Do you know why this text was just blanked? Did you write all that or was it there before? Badagnani (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You can look at the revision history. i didn't add it, and I'm sure there'll be thorough discussion now that it's been removed. Croctotheface (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Richard Donnan

I don't know if you're still monitoring this dude, but I just spent another half-hour or so cleaning up his edits. I left another "make cleaner edits" post on his talk page, but who knows if he's reading those. If you could keep an eye on him too, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Skudrafan1 (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert Remark on Media Matters for America article

Please consider re-writing or deleting the Stephen Colbert remark found on the Media Matters for America page. The context of Stephen Colbert's remark is not fully explained, and its insertion into the article may be misleading. The paragraph on the Media Matters for America article is:

In September 2007, the conservative National Review accused Media Matters of creating a "phony controversy" and trying to "manufacture outrage" regarding Rush Limbaugh's controversial remark about "phony soldiers". The National Review wrote that Media Matters took Limbaugh out of context and suggested that they may have intended to present a "completely false account of what happened". Media Matters has argued that their item was accurate and included context and that Limbaugh and his defenders sought to remove context to cast his remarks in a more favorable light. Stephen Colbert, in character as a right-wing pundit, satirically blamed Media Matters for the controversy. "By posting on the Internet," Colbert said, "the general public words that were meant for people who already agree with us. Hey, Media Matters, you want to end offensive speech? Then stop recording it for people who would be offended."

The greater context of Colbert's comment, as found in http://mediamatters.org/items/200710090001 is:

JOHN GIBSON (Fox News host): ho started this phony war? ... Answer ... Media Matters for America.

COLBERT: That's right. Hatemongers like Media Matters take innocent statements like mine, Rush Limbaugh's, John Gibson's, and Bill O'Reilly's and make them offensive by posting them on the Internet, allowing the general public to hear words that were meant for people who already agree with us.

Colbert's retort was made in response to John Gibson's attack on Media Matters for America. Gibson said that MMfA was at fault for reporting the issue alone -- simply raising questions. Colbert's opinion may be relevant with respect to that remark, but Gibson's comment is not stated in the MMfA article. Colbert's words do not address the contention of the National Review: that MMfA themselves took Limbaugh out of context. The National Review criticized the way that Limbaugh's statements were reported in the MMfA story -- not that it was reported at all -- so Colbert's comment does not make sense in the context of this paragraph. 98.215.54.162 (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC) (74.134.102.134)

First, this comment would be more appropriate for the article talk page. Second, Colbert is indeed satirizing the notion that Media Matters did something other than post Limbaugh's remarks. Perhaps the entry could be clearer, but I don't think it's unresponsive to the topic being covered at the article. Croctotheface (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to comment on the talk page, but you guys said you had consensus after one user was unsuccessful in making the case for its removal. My point is not being addressed. It was not the claim of the National Review that MMfA should not be writing critical stories. That was the nature of John Gibson's comment, which Colbert was addressing. But you left that out. So, how can Colbert's statement be relevant? 98.215.54.162 (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should be taking place there, not here, even if the consensus has been established. If you have a new point to bring up, then go ahead. Colbert makes the point that all MM does is post transcripts of what people said. The Limbaugh defenders claim that the transcripts were somehow misleading, and that's why people were offended. Colbert says people were offended because they saw what Limbaugh said. It's certainly relevant. Croctotheface (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Media Matters for America discussion page 98.215.54.162 (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

broken redirect

you wrote: (revert--wasn't broken, so per WP:REDIRECT, no need to introduce extra hidden text)

Actually it was broken when I fixed it but then I added the redirect which unbroke the original. --Treekids (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected.  :) Croctotheface (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Improving Half-Life (video game) to Featured Article status

I am currently improving Half-Life (video game) to Featured Article status and noticed that you have made substantial contributions to the article recently. If you have time, please help out by improving the article however you can. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What to do next

I wanted to get your opinion on how to handle the situation that is ocurring in the Politics of Bill O'Reilly page with user jimintheheatl. He seems to be POV pushing and not listening to consensus at all. I gave him a NPOV warning and he put one on my page in retalliation. I myself did something like that with Blaxthos when he and I were getting into it (because he wasnt discussing the issue on the article talk page and just sending warnings out), but since then Blaxthos and I have resumed good faith between us and one of my first acts was to remove my retalliatory one back then. Jimintheheatl simply will not give in and keeps reverting the information despite consensus of it not belonging in that particular section of the article. Would appreciate any thoughts you have on the matter and any suggestions you have on handling the problem. Thanks. Arnabdas (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually like to get involved in things like notifying administrators about these things. Recalcitrant editors who can't accept that nobody agrees with them show up from time to time. Usually some kind of admonition or block sends the right message, or they just get bored of everyone else reverting them. In general, I don't really like to get involved with this kind of stuff. Croctotheface (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally respect that. As I said, I left a warning on his talk page, to which he retalliated and left one on mine. Several others left warnings on his page for different edits. If you gave him one maybe it would help, but that of course is up to you. Arnabdas (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly

I responded to and worked with another editor who thought the material was appropriate. You simply deleted the edit. I would say the burden is on you, therefore, to show why the edit should not be included, rather than simply reverting as you have done. Jimintheatl (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I did explain why it's not appropriate. And who is the other editor, anyway? You haven't participated in the talk page discussion. Croctotheface (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

MOSTM

Given some of the recent discussions on the MOSTM talk page, I was wondering if the overall guideline could use a little makeover. You know, putting formatting and usage in separate sections (along with the one graphic logos), adding a suggestion to mention official typesets in an article's lead paragraph, some respective rephrasing of the guideline summary/nutshell and so forth. Some recent (Sailor Moon SuperS → Sailor Moon Supers) and current (Yahoo! → Yahoo) move requests might also be relevant to the guideline. What's your opinion on all that? – Cyrus XIII 15:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree the it could use, as you say, a bit of a "makeover." Its organization is lacking for sure. If you want to go ahead and make some bold changes, it would get the process rolling even if everyone doesn't support all of them. Croctotheface (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

FPC I'd Like Help With

I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind going to Portal:James Bond. I'd really appreciate any criticisms or support that you could provide for this Featured portal candidate. Thanks. Ultra! 14:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly

okeedokee But what happens when partisans try to overwhelm debate/ ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You could open a request for comment at WP:RFC, for one. But honestly, I don't think everyone who opposes the homophobia thing is an O'Reilly partisan. I'm certainly not, and you can examine my record for that. If you're going to swear off brute force edit wars, though, I think everyone would appreciate it. Croctotheface (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits raise doubts as to your "nonpartisan" status. You are misrepresenting GLAAD's critique. Read, or reread it, please. Jimintheatl (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't much care what you think of me. If you can't see or disagree with the distinction that I make, that's your prerogative. Croctotheface (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Given my previous arguments with Croc, I can definately tell you he is not partisan. Given his neutral take on this matter makes me realize that I haven't always been as neutral as I thought I have been. Arzel (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You may be best served by ignoring Csloat at this point. At least Jim is responding to your comments and being civil. Csloat isn't. FTR-- I do support exclusion of the MMfA campaign from the article, but have no problem with the GLAAD and SPLC critique for the 'lesbian gang' story going in. Don't take my silence on the issue as me having changed my position, I'm just not interested in repeating the same points over and over again. Ramsquire 22:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Ramsquire on Csloat, I was coming here to basically say the same thing. I've noticed his subtle use of ad homs and logical manipulations in the discussion. You've said what you said and most people agree with you there and the discussion is just going in circles right now. Bottom line is there is no consensus for this inclusion at the moment and this can go to ANI if there is continued edit warring after the lock expires. MrMurph101 (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the support, but I also don't want to be the only one reverting these guys. I am generally not inclined to go to ANI or places like that, so if you guys don't want to continue the talk page discussion (which I empathize with), then maybe you guys could do some of the reverting/reporting. Croctotheface (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

a virtual handshake for WT:N

I think you and I may not see eye-to-eye on this discussion, but you impress me with the patience and determination you've shown here. It seems to me that many editors would have either grossly violated WP:CIVIL, taken a wikibreak, or given up completely by this point. Thank you for doing none of the above. Aylad 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I should've responded to this sooner, but thanks for the compliments. I think that, however improbably, my most recent change is going to stick. That's close enough to what I'd consider an actual definition of the word that I am no longer moved to complain. Croctotheface (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR on BOR

That looks like your fifth revert today on that page. csloat (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)