User talk:Theplanetsaturn/Archive

Hey there, thanks for helping to build Wikipedia, just to let you know, you don't have to create an article for every possible spelling of your article's title. We use things called redirects: just type #redirect [[the correct title of your article]], and wikipedia will automatically redirect anyone typing the wrong title to your proper article. Feel free to ask any user if you have any other problems, and good luck editing! Jdcooper 00:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was having a bit of difficulty getting it right. This will make things easier.

Al Sobrante

The part about him leaving Green Day without telling anyone might not be true (although I suspect it is), the part about leaving the Ne'er do Wells is correct, as I was standing there when the rest of the band found out. He had been missing shows or interrupting them with long monologues and bad jokes, sometimes in mid-song and rarely showed for practice. googuse 06:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

--The last time I saw John was shortly after he left Green Day, and neither him or any other members ever gave me any indication that the split was unexpected. The move to school had been planned for a long time, as I recall. In regards to the Ne'er do Wells, I really couldn't say as that was all long after the last time I saw him. So I should have left that bit in. Apologies.

Green Day

I understand that you are a fanboy of the band, but please stop the POV edits to the article, you do not need to put your own bias opinion on John Lydon or Steve Diggle, let their quotes stand alone, you personally attacked Diggle by branding him as "an ignorant"[1] is unacceptable... you have a poor grasp on PiL and your Iggy Pop comment is irrelevant. - Deathrocker 06:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Khoikhoi 06:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The edits I made were discussed at length on the talk page. I'm the one restoring the page to it's accurate state, while obvious and relevant information is ignored. The originator of the alteration I reverted (Tenebrae) has already conceded the validity of my revert. Please undue this blatantly absurd block immediately.Theplanetsaturn 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but WP:3RR is an official policy, and edit warring in general is discouraged. You might try following the one-revert rule in the future. Khoikhoi 06:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I was reverting blatantly false information, AFTER giving undeniable evidence to my position. How this can be construed as anything other than the reversion of vandalism is beyond me. And reverting vandalism (even more than 3 times) is an acceptable practice. Please undue this blatantly absurd block immediately.Theplanetsaturn 06:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply labeling your opponents' edits as "vandalism" isn't going to make you immune to the 3RR. Only reverts of simple, obvious vandalism (e.g. graffiti, link spam) are not considered to be contentious. What you and InShaneee were in is called a dispute over content, and you should resolve it properly. Khoikhoi 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Blanking information that is clearly accurate and relevant while justifying it with a knowingly false argument IS vandalism. In this instance, the claim that a published book is unavailable for purchase through a Google search, and therefore likely does not exist. Incorrect. A simple Google search of the title shows multiple websites where the book can be purchased. These same websites show copies of the book through photos. Photos taken from multiple perspectives. The book exists. This is both literal fact and already agreed upon through consensus, a consensus that InShaneee ignored with repeated reversions. I attempted to resolve this issue properly. You cite the rules, lets look at the rules: "significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary."

The reason in this case is not readily apparent, as the content has already been shown to be accurate, and due to this, the continued reasoning behind the edit was shown to be entirely frivolous. Vandalism. And reverting vandalism (even more than 3 times) is an acceptable practice. Please undue this blatantly absurd block immediately.Theplanetsaturn 10:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between good faith and bad faith edits. If InShaneee's edits really fit into WP:VAND, there would have been no need for him to make comments on the talk page. If you feel the block is still unjustified, please try the {{unblock}} template. Khoikhoi 10:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The determination between edits of good or bad faith must take into consideration more than a presence of a single sentence argument on a talk page. The argument made should actually addresses the FACTS as presented rather than purposefully ignore them. If InShaneee had been making an argument based on good faith, there would have been something of substance in his posts to justify his position. Someone editing in good faith will actually read and consider the argument justifying the reversion, InShaneee clearly did not. He repeatedly blanked relevant and sourced information while ignoring every valid argument presented. He ignored an existing consensus on this matter and reverted an agreed upon version of the page without discussion. Those are NOT the actions of someone editing in good faith. Vandalism. And reverting vandalism (even more than 3 times) is an acceptable practice. Please undue this blatantly absurd block immediately.Theplanetsaturn 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

<<unblock|see discussion above>>

<<unblock-auto|1=24.7.84.21|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Theplanetsaturn". The reason given for Theplanetsaturn's block is: "3RR violation at Jhonen Vasquez".|3=Khoikhoi>>

The block in question expired before the review team was able to respond to your request. Apologies. Luna Santin 09:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack on Tenebrae

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Argumentative accusations of "hypocrite" and "liar", etc. Occurs at Talk:Jhonen Vasquez --Tenebrae 22:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a close look at yourself first, Mr Journalist. Personal attacks take more forms than just name calling. You indulged in a personal attack when you made blatantly hypocritical accusations and warped my words out of context for no other reason that to assuage your damaged ego. Comment on content, not on contributors. is that not what you just said? Yet you describe me as "huffy" on multiple occasions, while ignoring my assurance that I was not. Calling you a hypocrite is accurate. You argued in a blatantly and measurably hypocritical manner. Your glass house must be getting chilly from all your casually thrown stones.Theplanetsaturn 22:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Use of: Hypocrite again. Sarcastic "Mr. Journalist" jibes. "Your glass house must be getting chilly from all your casually thrown stones." --Tenebrae 23:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny. We had come to an accord and then you relaunched an aggressive attack upon me without discussion. Notice, I'm not the one escalating this to your own personal talk page. Notice, I'm not the one who acted in a hypocritical manner. I was more than happy to discuss this issue with you, instead of returning to discussion, you turned to unnecessary moderation reporting out of context quotes. Blatantly a personal attack. You want me to stop? Look to yourself first. And I'm sorry you find your self described label as a journalist offensive. Perhaps you should rethink further appeals to authority.

Theplanetsaturn 01:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you believe my "motives are suspect". What do you suspect? --Tenebrae 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not applying your logic universally. You justified the removal with the argument that it does not fall under the definition of "bibliography". True enough. Yet you leave Invader Zim. So you expose either a misunderstanding of the the content or a bias against this one particular item. Even after I clarified to you the flaw in your approach, you continue to remove video from a bibliography in an inconsistent manner. Which leaves your motives "suspect". Either delete all video, leave the section as all encompassing as I have it, or use a new term of your liking. Whichever it is, apply your argument in a consistent fashion. This applies to demanding sources as well. There are many, many claims on any given Wikipedia page that are not sourced. You seem to be applying Wikipedias standards of sourced information only when it comes to what is unfamiliar to you.Theplanetsaturn 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, I didn't notice it?--Tenebrae 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems unlikely, as I've pointed it out long before my post above. Take a look back through the history of our exchange on this. Furthermore, why do you continue deleting the video? I've added the source information and you continue to revert.Theplanetsaturn 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying "That seems unlikely" is flat-out calling me a liar. I've endured your verbal attacks patiently. If you had put a proper footnote rather than an inline link, which is a deprecated form long gone out of editorial style and policy guidelines, the citation would have been more noticeable. You also could have pointed it out. Instead, you went straight to thinking the worst. That's fine. Calling me a liar is not. --Tenebrae 00:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The only one using the word "liar" is you. Infer what you will. But to clarify, when I say that your failure to grasp the blatantly obvious as "unlikely", I'm giving you the credit for not being an idiot. If you wish to warp that somehow into the opposite, that's your business. It's really of no consequence. But for the record: You only suggest that "perhaps" you missed the information. You bring it up not as a fact, but as a possibility. I consider the possibility unlikley. And by your own words, you do not consider your own explanation definitive. Hard to call someone a "liar" when they never made a clear statment in the first place.

And by all means, explain how you somehow missed this statement, as posted in the edit notes for Jhonen Vasquez: "Invader Zim does not fit the definition either, yet you did not delete that. Your motives are suspect. Address on talk page before applying deletion of relevant information." That was at 02:04, 23 January 2007. Yet when you reverted again 15:44, 23 January 2007, you repeated this error. After this, you make the claim at 21:08, 23 January 2007 that "perhaps, I didn't notice it".

Seriously, how did you fail to notice it? You comment on the "Your motives are suspect" part but somehow you missed the very clear sentence preceding it? I'm sorry you find this offensive, but the concept that you missed this is very unlikely. And if you did miss it, then you have no business reverting as you're not paying enough attention to the text. You want to take offense at these issues, be my guest. But you are being incredibly indulgent in your desire to do so as I have made no comments or claims in your direction that are unwarranted.Theplanetsaturn 01:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your lack of civility and good faith has been noted. Oddly enough, we collaborated fruitfully: You put in information, I formatted it properly. Since the article is up to snuff, I don't think we need to communicate any further. Have a good day.--Tenebrae 01:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Of course. You wish to step in and cast aspersions on my civility and good faith when all insults are a matter of your lack of comprehension, be my guest. Your passive aggressive nature and your failed pretense at the high road are noted as well. By all means, take your ball with you and go home.Theplanetsaturn 01:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:GREEN DAY

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article Green Day and other related articles. Please consider joining the Green Day WikiProject, an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding Green Day. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with. Thank you for your time.

 Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 20:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tron3 400.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tron3 400.gif. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Little Gloomy "see also" link on Goth subculture

Hi there! The reason I purged the Little Gloomy "see also" link from Goth subculture (along with many others) is that the article made no reference to the goth subculture nor gave any sign as to why it was a significant and relevant link. If there is goth subculture content in Little Gloomy you might want to add something to the comic's article. --Stormie 08:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Stormie 12:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mattingly

Thanks for the information about fansites being removed from Wikipedia. I am unaware of this policy change. If you could supply a link to that information on Wikipedia I will be more than happy to follow it.

Thanks! Donaldd23 10:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Gothic Subculture

If you have a problem with me then take it to my talk page instead of attempting to insult me. Thank you.Crescentia 13:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You have insulted me once again. Judging from some earlier posts on here it seems to be that you have had some behavior problems on Wiki before. That's fine if you disagree with my stance, but basically calling me an idiot in so many words is ridiculous and childish. You did not make a good argument for your case, instead you came across as a vindictive immature person.Crescentia 19:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't even insulted you once. "Basically" calling you an "idiot"? I assure you, if I want to call you an idiot, I'll just call you an idiot. I didn't because I don't think you are. I credited you as genuinely believing your own perspective. But your belief IS wrong. Now, I didn't make a good argument for my case? The case that the label "goth" existed in the mid eighties? Are you serious? DO. SOME. RESEARCH. The case that the two counter cultures spring from the same well, and that the fashions do not belong to either subculture exclusively? Read the Wikipedia article on "Goth". I know it's a long trek from the talk page to the main article, but the information can be found within. Extrapolate. I've been taking issue with your argument and the manner you phrased it. This is not tantamount to a personal attack no matter how much it upsets you. In the meantime, you've indulged in personal attack after personal attack. "Vindictive" "Childish" "Behavior problems" "Immature".

You've kinda lost the moral high ground buddy. "Behavior problems" indeed.Theplanetsaturn 20:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Blah,blah,blah. You are talking hot air and I am through with you. I've done personal attacks? HA!!!!! I'm not the person who went on a tirade on the gothic subculture page. I'm not going to insult you here. Instead I'm just going to say goodbye and good luck.Crescentia 20:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to insult me here, yet you belittle my argument down to "blah blah blah", you describe it as "hot air", you dismiss your culpability with "HA!!!!!" and you depict the dismissal of an erroneous and fallacious argument as a "tirade". Gee, for someone so certain they have engaged in no personal attacks, for someone who says they're "not" going to engage in insults on this page, you SURE used alot of insulting language. I get that this is the only way out for you. But if you think you're leaving with your dignity intact, reread your own words again. You came to my talk page and continued a conversation I was comfortable being through with. Now you don't like the direction it's gone in you run away with cliche language of "I am through with you"? Typically, adults walk away without a parting shot when they're done. "Behavior problems" indeed.Theplanetsaturn 21:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

3rd Sockpuppetry case against Breathtaker

FYI Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Breathtaker3--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Incivility and edit warring

Just because another editor has behaved badly or been blocked does not give a license for uncivil behavior against that editor, including deliberate taunting or baiting. Edits such as [2] are disruptive and unnecessary, and may lead to a block from editing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to your perspective.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Goth subculture

The 87.122.* IP range belongs to the German ISP Versatel, so yes, you're probably right that there is a language barrier adding to the difficulties here. --Stormie 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I think the user in questions English is generally quite good, but maybe there is just enough of the smaller nuances of the language adding to the frustration and confusion. Taking in mind that no one is actually trying to be difficult, I posted a suggested compromise in the talk section of Goth subculture, that I think covers both viewpoints. I welcome any opinions on the suggested revision.Theplanetsaturn 04:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Show.aspx.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Show.aspx.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Breathtaker

He managed to get the entire 87.122 node blocked for a week... thought you might find it interesting.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

IP Madness

Just what is going on with User:87.122.5.162? Should this be reported at AIV? -WarthogDemon 01:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He's a persistent vandal who's been blocked many times. Yeah, it should be reported.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So I see. I reported him. :P The numbers confuse me so please report any numbers I may miss. -WarthogDemon 01:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've protected as many of the IP address pages that I could find for 1 month to protect from further sock abuse. Let me know if any more need to be added. seicer | talk | contribs 02:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on WHOIS, it's a shared IP range (87.122.0.0 - 87.122.255.255). Maybe a request could be put in to block the range? Blocking them one by one is a tedious task. Momusufan (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Something serious needs to be done, and soon. He is an absolute menace. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User page

Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: 87.122

I think it is time for another AnI report, and this time a range block is in order. I can't speak for you, but I am certainly sick and tired of this guy's nonsense. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The User in question has made it clear he will continue this disruptive practice.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite so. And he feels that the talk and user pages of anyone who disagrees with him are fair game. He is a menace, and I can think of no reason we should continue to be bothered with him. Would you care to do the honours? You have had more dealings with him than I. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. See here. Please add further information. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We're aware of that, as you were immediately unblocked. You shouldn't be blocked right now, so please try to edit. See your block log and noticed you were unblocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am still blocked.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We'll need some more information then, so please follow the instructions, and we can unblock your account:

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

1. If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
   Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
   If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
2. Try to edit the Sandbox.
3. If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section.
4. Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Deathrock

I have begun a discussion on the discussion page of the pertinent article, please consider this before reverting again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darqmann (talk • contribs) 22:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've commented in the talk section. You should wait for a consensus in the discussion before proceeding with the addition of the information.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Silence in the Library

Seeing as you are relatively new here, you might be unaware as to what is specifically involved with consensus. To begin with, it doesn't override policy and guidelines. In this case, the core policies being disregarded by adding the trivia is WP:TRIVIA and WP:SYN. I would suggest you take a gander at them before continuing, so we can all be on the same page of the discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated, but I have been editing pages at long as you have, at least under the handle you are operating under. While the entire section is arguably trivia, you would need to begin a major overhaul of the entire continuity subsection of every Doctor Who episode page to bring them all 100% in line with the guidelines you quote. And that would create a massive edit war. I would rather see this page treated as all the others are, than see this page singled out and edited in a manner that is inconsistent.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

First point, I have almost 10k edits under my name, and you have less than 1k; I think the volume of editing speaks, well, volumes.

Secondly, I don't care if every article has to be re-worked to follow a core policy. If the episodes are full of this stuff, then it needs to be addressed int he Doctor Who WikiProject, so that the adjustments can be addressed from a central hub outwards. Quite honestly, anyone who would argue (ie, edit war) with the implementation of policy, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't really the place for them. Its an encyclopedia, not a fan site.

Now, what could be done is to add to each episode thusly cleaned up a link to one of the very many Doctor Who episode guides that seem rife on the 'net. That way, readers who want the cruft and trivia and speculations can get them there. This is an encyclopedia; it isn't the place for trivia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality versus quantity, and you and I have neither the time nor inclination to invest ourselves in researching the relative quality of each others edits. How many edits you have under your name holds no relevance to this discussion, particularly as I was simply letting you know that I am not "new" to Wikipedia. Secondly, if you want to address this in the Doctor Who WikiProject then feel free. Once you have established that the entire series should (and more importantly) will be handled in an identical manner, then begin making the appropriate edits. I don't object to the notion, but I am firmly of the opinion that editing without first laying the groundwork of how these pages will universally be handled is inviting more trouble than the project is worth. There will be multiple instances of edit warring, which will waste a tremendous amount of time. And whether or not Wikipedia is the place for people to disagree with current policy and to strive to alter it... that's a matter of opinion and a debate not worth having.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you claim to not be as new to Wikipedia as your edit history would suggest, I don't think I have to remind you to keep a cool head in article discussions. Take it easy and debate nicely. The alternative is unpleasant. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a strange warning, as I haven't done otherwise. If I lose my temper, you will certainly know. And by the way, I've been editing pages longer than you have. So please cease your allusions to the contrary.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That isn't a warning, Saturn - its an observation. Defending your aggressive behavior by claiming I am doing the same thing is not a valid defense. If you want to be dismissive, you are going to get called on it. If you choose to be aggressive, you are going to get called on it. If you persist in such after being counseled to ease up, there will be repercussions.

As for who is the more veteran of us, I don't really care. Your edit history suggests you've been at this for far less less time than I, but I will extend to you the good faith of not asking why you are (presumably) using a different ID now, as that is off-point. I will ask you again to stop being prickly and be more professional and courteous. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling your warning an observation is merely a matter of semantics. We can go that route if you prefer. Explaining to you that you're simply seeing your own nature reflected back upon you isn't a defense, it's an observation. One that you would do well to consider. As for tenure, I think it strange that you say now that you don't care who has been at this longer, yet you are the one who has repeatedly appealed to longevity. My edit history shows I have been active for over two years. Yours shows a year and a half. Perhaps I'm mistaken and you've been editing since the inception of Wikipedia. It hardly matters, as long as you are actually done appealing to such things. As for my "prickly" nature, you say things like that and you act like you don't deserve disdain. You who exposes oversensitivity at having your opinion met with a "dismissive" attitude. Practice what you preach. When you're glass house isn't full of holes, then I'll consider taking advice from you. In the meantime, I don't see any purpose in you continuing to post on my talk page.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nor do I. Best wishes to you. I hope that attitude works out for you. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could extend me the same courtesy that you yourself have asked of me. As you have asked me to not post on your user-talk page, please do not post on mine. Neither you nor TT have commentary that I wish to hear. If you choose to comment on my page again, I will consider the request to not post here to have been retracted. This of course does not affect any discussions occurring in articles.

Thank you in advance for your observance, and I bid you good day. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am more than happy to honor your request, unless you continue to slander me elsewhere in Wikipedia. If you make comments that are designed to provoke a response, don't be surprised when you receive one.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, just how many times should I remind you to not post on my user talk page? I appreciate your explanation, but it isn't really needed. I was wrong where I was wrong, you were wrong where you were wrong, and TT was wrong where (s)he was wrong. I didn't slander you (read the definition of such), and maybe let it go and move on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you address me on your talk page, I will respond on your talk page. If the dialog on a topic involving me exists on your talk page, I will post on your talk page. And I am aware of the definition of slander. I would say slander was exactly what you were practicing. You may not feel an accusation of "passive aggressive" behavior was false, but I certainly do. You clearly misconstrued the intent behind my words (which I admit could have been clearer) and applied a label that was incorrect. You can pursue this further or let it go. You involved me in this after our dialog was finished by posting inflammatory comments about me behind my back. I reserve the right to clarify my position.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. I have asked you to not post on my talk page. Repeatedly. The next time it happens, I ask others to get involved. Let. It. Go. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Or you could simply edit your comments that further the dialog on your talk page. You chose to address me, and then delete my comments when I respond? Does that really seem reasonable to you? Otherwise, get others involved. For the record, I have commented on Keeper76's talk page about his/her reversion.

I have no specific problem with you, I even agree with some of your points. But if you don't want my response to you to stand, edit your comments that you directed at me.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As Keeper has pointed out,your continued posting was borderline harassment. I appreciate that you agree with some of my points. That may serve as the seeds for future contact, but for now, Iam just tired of talking to you. You helped to create a toxic atmosphere for friendly editing in the article, and I am trying to be a better, more charitable editor, and talking to you at this time is not helping me to achieve that goal. Please do not contact me again. If I make a comment that you find so flagrantly unpleasant, say so on your talk page. Maybe even sue. Let's just stop talking now, okey-doke? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's borderline harassment for to post on your talk page, why is it okay in your mind for you to post here? All I am asking is for you to strike the part of your comment where you are addressing me specifically. Is that such a difficult compromise?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry, I meant the last post to be my last, but you seemed to want an answer to your question. If you can wait nine days, it will be archived along with everything else, as I tend to archive every 2-4 weeks. Now, unless there is something else you need the answer to, tis is my last message. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I can understand that. And I can wait the nine days, though I would prefer you just strike the comment. For me, it would be a show of good faith, and go a long way to us working together in the future, perhaps on the issue of Trivia, if it comes up.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)