User talk:Arcayne

This user values third opinions and occasionally provides one.

Saturday

8

June

03:08 UTC

This user thinks huffing kittens.cannot end well

♦My Spellbook♦ (Or, "How I Learned to Stop Hatin' & Love All the Crazy") Arc 000 Arc 001 Arc 002 Arc 003 Arc 004 Arc 005 Arc 006 Arc 07 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Interlude: Textboxes What was archived What has gone before... Notice of Pending Action RE: User:Arcayne A Wikiquette_Alerts section has been opened regarding User:Arcayne. Interested Wiki Editors may add comments here:[1]05:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC) CoM comment I’m behind a couple days and trying to catch up… I’ll reply to the last part of your CoM talk page post to me here since I don’t want to clog up the article talk page, particularly since the heat on that page seems to have cooled thankfully. I wasn’t sure what your assumptions about my feelings meant, you can explain more if you like, but regarding my attempted intercession months ago to help improve interaction that we began behind the scenes and that fell by the wayside, I apologize for dropping off…I got busy with life, the crisis between you and Viriditas seemed to pass, and the whole thing sort of lost momentum. I also began to feel I may have overestimated my ability to help (I have a certain general way of looking at things that not everyone can relate to) and wasn’t sure you were really still interested. Let me know whether you think it would be helpful to pick it up again. I’m still willing to help in whatever capacity I can. You can just reply here or email me if you wish. --MPerel 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC) EU=NGO Hi just so you know, anon editor:75.58.54.151 has lifted your statement that the EU is an NGO from Talk:Fitna_(film) and posted it (including your signature) on both talk:European_Union and talk:Non-governmental_organization. Arnoutf (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Hi. :) Just trying to make sure I'm write on that, its always safer to check witht the experts when an expert states a fact so confidently. Thanks.21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Flag issue reported I have reported the Flag discussion to WP:WQA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapowow (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Matter concluded with warning to the issuing contributor, and RfCU filed on a likely sock. Reagan concern Actually, I reverted his edit twice, and then made another edit that had nothing to do with the prior two. So technically I didn't violate anything, but came close. And smart thinking about the email; I'll do it right now! -Happyme22 (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Harassment Actually a bizarre post I consider your 'contact' and mischaracterisation of my edits to be a form of harassment. I'd like to ask you to not contact me further, on any matter whatsoever, in any way shape or form. Thanks.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Er, you mean this post? Reagan edits As per your repeated (1, 2, 3) edits in Reagan, I was wondering where in the proffered citation was the text: As with many actors, they were always a superstitious couple, and she consulted atleast one astrologer and adjusted his presidential schedule to try to ensure that he was not harmed again.1 I looked through the reference, and did not find the statements which you ascribed to the reference. As the wording seemed pretty discriminatory, could I trouble you to re-phrase the statement before re-adding it?1 I am curious as to how my contacting you regarding a misquoting of a citation to be harassment. As for contacting you, I would like to remind you that you do not own even your own user and user talk page. Whenever a situation arises with your edits in an article I am involved in, you will get message about it. If you have an issue with this, I strongly suggest you contact an admin and discuss the nature of user and user talk pages, as well as the proper definitions of harassment or civility. Consider my short note of enquiry far better than say, a complaint filed at an admin board. As I am not being uncivil or harassing (contacting you once is not harassment, btw) in contacting you regarding a potentially embarrassing problem that you find yourself in (ie, misrepresenting a source in a Featured Article and then edit-warring about it), I would wonder why you would send such a message to me. The next time you characterize an innocent edit as harassment, I will report you, out of simple protection to the community. Good day. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Your intent to, and further example of harassment has been noted.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Sigh. Yet another satisfied customer of the American Egocentrism system of Self-Education. Moving on... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Laughing Sorry, I can't help it. Cheerio Tvoz |talk 08:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Oh- I stumbled upon a really long and convoluted appraisal of your social skills somewhere and thought, oh yeah, that's our Arky. Laughing only with the greatest respect, of course. (And I hate those little colorful buggers too.) Tvoz |talk 14:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Yup, that's where I saw it. I find that page to often be a great source for late-night entertaining reading, and I wasn't disappointed last night. Tvoz |talk 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I'm once again amazed at the energy expended over minutiae. Tvoz |talk 15:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Wikiquette Well I was thinking of the "beat on each other", "dick" and "don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining" ones (and the last one may well get an airing from me in future, but not on WIkipedia!). I agree that they aren't exceptionally strong, but when faced with an editor such as the one who posted the Wikiquette about you it is often a lot easier in the long run if you maintain the high moral ground and leave them to howl at the moon. The best way to deal with an aggressive but incorrect editor is to use as few words as possible, and make sure that they are all backed up. That way, when the admins (inevitably, in this case I think) get involved, your position is easily understood, an their's is the rambling, incoherent rant. Pyrope 15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, you have raised the issue on an admin page and they will doubtless take a look soon Take a breather for now, I think you have both expressed your viewpoints adequately already, across a number of talk pages. I think what you are seeing as multiple socks are actually the product of a dynamic IP, and the user concerned has not denied that they are one and the same. It is deeply odd that someone so obviously experienced chooses to operate as an anon IP, it is also very strange that they are so vindictive as regards whipping up support for their point of view on the Wikiquette discussion. And if you are reading this Mr/Mrs Anon IP 75...whatever, your posts themselves may well have bee neutral, but your choice of who to notify certainly wasn't. Anyway, time for you to sit back and wait to see what happens with the checkuser request. Pyrope 15:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Did so, and lo an behold, Buddha provided. That's not a checkuser result, that's just a WHOIS enquiry. I'm not sure that you listed correctly btw (Case should have gone under the account name, with the IP addresses as the socks), and the admins are absolute sticklers for proper formatting. It doesn't appear to have been transcluded to the main page yet. You may want to contact an admin (try the one who performed the WHOIS) to check its status. Pyrope 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Ah, I see. The problem is, if it is a simple case of running WHOIS on a series of IPs that is a very different prospect to a full-blown checkuser. Anyone ca do a WHOIS check, only admins can do checkuser, and it takes quite a while. I still reckon that you should contact an admin for advice. Take a look at the activity on the checkuser main page and pick an admin who seems to run a lot of checks, they will know the score. Pyrope 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC) It appears that s/he doesn't have the admin bottons needed for checkuser, so try another one. As far as staying calm goes, been there, done that, learned the hard way. I even resigned from Wikipedia for two months over one dispute, just to lower my blood pressure. The best trick is to write out your initial response as you would normally, be as sarcastic and abusive as you like, and then instead of hitting "Save page" hit the Wikipedia globe. Choose an article on the main page. Read it. Then go back to the previous comment. It is surprisingly hard to be unreasonable a second time round; by that time you have got the frustration out of your system on the first (aborted) reply, and are able to put things in a much more reasonable, neutral tone. Pyrope 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC) the book never won the a pulitzer, it was allegedly ( i doubt that as well) nominated, but never won. also, even if it had won, there is no point in mentioning it, the page is not an advertisement for betty mahmoodi