User talk:Xihr

The edits you made to the "Ash quote" at Xenomorph (Alien) are indeed grammatically sound. However they are not verbatim, as filmic quotations should be. I hope you understand. (Broadacre 11:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC))

Since you have edited the article, I thought it would be helpful to inform you that it has been nominated for deletion. I am notifying as a normal part of the AfD process. --Habap 14:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I've removed the link Sweetback from the Sade article because that word currently points at Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song, the seventies movie. It would seem more sensible to me to either disambig the word or have Sweetback point to the band, with the movie being Sweetback (movie) or Sweet Sweetback or whatever, but at the moment it isn't and I didn't want you to think I was being a pest or looking for some oddly specific edit war :) StuartDouglas 21:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote:fair enough, but what's MySpace have to do with their marriage? As you didn't wait for an answer and removed the sentence without discussion I assume that was a rhetorical question. Still, I'll answer it. It was relevant to their divorce, not marriage, and to Sheri's status as a songwriter in her own right, albeit not sufficiently well-known IMHO to have her own Wikipedia page. Nik Kershaw was originally listed as one of her friends on MySpace, but has since been removed - the implication might reasonably be drawn that the divorce was not that amicable. Besides, people with an interest in Nik might have an interest in Sheri's career. Can you suggest how else that interest might best be served, given my previously stated opinion that she is not a sufficiently notable person, in Wikipedia's terms, to have her own Wikipedia page? Maybe add her MySpace to the list of external sites? Although some Nik fans seem to feel that all mention of his long-time backing singer and (to quote him) "muse" should be expunged wherever possible, I can't get that excited about it either way. And I'm not a Wikipedia addict so I'm not going to start a feud. Do what you like. NickS 21:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again - I see you've removed some rather partisan stuff recently added, but what do you make of this: "The songs from this album were written some years earlier while Nik and Sheri lived at Beslyns in Gt Bardfield."? NickS 16:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure sounds to me like original research, at the very least. I'll look into it. Xihr 21:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice you removed within a few minutes an anecdote added anonymously about how Nik Kershaw found his manager Micky Modern, as "uncited". Google shows that the essence of the story is related by Kershaw in an interview transcribed (with typos) at http://www.nikkershaw.it/press/interviews/2002interview.php?id=8 Is it not Wikipedia policy to flag such statements as uncited and allow time for a citation to be added? NickS (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not if also looks non-notable and possibly has point-of-view problems, which was the case here as well. Xihr (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you've really made me eat my words on Epsion Radiation, and I hope we can make that article better, adding the information that you answered to me. Slartibartfast1992 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Infinity Warrior

I ask of why you removed my comments. I have doctumented them and have been to many websites to prove them fact. That was unnecessary of you as you have weakened the page. I am not trying to be rude here but there was no reason for you to delete my post.

Because it's total nonsense and you did no such documentation whatsoever. See WP:V, WP:RS. P.S. Wiki markup is not HTML. Xihr 01:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's good for you. Jerkcity 23:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Has the inclusion of third-party references satisfied your specific desire for notability? If so, please remove the notable tag from the entry. More can be added if it is deemed necessary. -- Metahacker 16:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair point, there is no definitive release date for the game but I figured this was as good as it's going to get until they eventually announce the final date. I guess I'm just digging around for anything I can get at the moment on this release! --KASanderson 08:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The link to Usenet Freedom Fighters has been re-added to Notable Usenet personalities by anonymous IP (200.28.171.165). I agree with your deletion, but just for my edification, who are these guys? — Loadmaster 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Replace the '**' above with 'ff' to understand the comment. Spam protection wasn't allowing any new comments to User:Xihr's talk page because of that link. Alatari 05:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you restored the magazine and film listing that I had deleted from Charmaine Sinclair. In case you didn't know, I wanted to let you know that the listing was removed from the article in December (see Talk:Charmaine Sinclair#An overview of much-needed changes) and moved to Charmaine Sinclair/disputed content. The anon editor cut and pasted that "article" back into Charmaine Sinclair. Since it was deemed "unnecessary" and judged that it "did not add any encyclopedic value to the article" based on WP:WPPORN#Filmographies, I figured that the same thinking still applied. If you think that something has changed since December, I'm happy to leave the listing in Charmaine Sinclair.

Also, I didn't delete any categories. The anon editor cut and pasted the entire "disputed content" article — including its categories — so Charmaine Sinclair had each category listed twice. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Who are you, man, to decide to remove information about facts from wikipedia? Did you remove anything about twin towers because they are destroyed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpiw (talk • contribs)

No idea what you're talking about. Xihr 20:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, if you would answer my question posed to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autodynamics. Thanks! Nondistinguished 21:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I answered your question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autodynamics. Please consider my points. Thanks! Nondistinguished 22:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Xihr. You deserve a barnstar. Axl 18:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Life
		Awarded to Xihr, for contributions to videogame articles. Axl 18:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I've noticed you've made quite a few edits to the Elite article, while some are good I disagree with the removal of some information, though you're right that it shouldn't be in a trivia section - it may be good to work it into the article somehow (stuff like the BBC micro's mode switching). I do also feel that the rating system is an important part of the game - it's where the title of the game comes from, after all. Xmoogle 09:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning the ranks that can achieved and that "Elite" is the final one is fine. A list of all ranks and what points are required to reach them is game guide material, and not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Xihr 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert this? Denimadept 21:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the change was awkwardly phrased and inferior to the original. Xihr 00:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, quite the reverse. It used the wording right off the machine. Also, there were other edits you lost by doing a reversion. I suggest you reconsider. Denimadept 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Peace
		for this cool and calculated response to an obviously aggressive editor, I hereby give you this barnstar of peace. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

UnknownMan (talk · contribs) was trolling, and there is nothing inappropriate about removing trolling. Making edits like this is not helpful to admins trying to determine the consensus on these afds. Please revert yourself. Picaroon (t) 23:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any guideline or policy that allows removal of a !vote, however frivolous to be perceived, during an AfD. I'm certainly aware of no guideline or policy that allows removal of such a !vote and replies to it by third parties. This seems completely inappropriate. Xihr 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The people who replied were probably unaware he was trolling. As someone who has closes afds from time to time, I'm telling you that comments made in bad faith are completely disregarded in determining consensus. My logic behind these removals is that closing admins who don't do a thorough job checking over the voters may be swayed by his silliness, even though looking over his contributions show's he was just mindlessly disrupting the process. Now I will be re-removing the trolling, and if you think it should be replaced you may post to the administrators' noticeboard. Picaroon (t) 00:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If your concern is about closing admins giving it too much weight, then the proper response would be to indicate so with a followup response, rather than remove comments and responses that you did not write with no explanation in the edit summary. Xihr 01:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I plan on working on a RFC on Epbr123 sometime tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. So if you have any additional evidence in the way of page diffs, other than those provided by Cheeser1 on the Wikiquette Alerts page, please post them there so that they can be added to the forthcoming RFC. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Cheeser1's diffs are pretty complete, at least in the breadth of User:Epbr123's misbehavior, if not every single example of them (there are far too many to individually list at this point). If need be, I might add examples of his initial actions that precipitated the edit war on List of big-bust models and performers, as well as his long, unending, leading questions on its talk page in order to keep the argument going. Another good example of his disruption is simply (and falsely) accusing people of engaging in whatever behavior he's been accused of, apparently as an attempt to try to even the scales. I meant to mention, if there's something specific you want from me for the RfC, let me know. Xihr 04:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your discussions regarding the etiquette of User:Epbr123. Due to events that have occurred since then, an RFC has been filed and you are invited to participate in determining the course of action that should be taken regarding resolving the issues that surround the user and his contested actions. --Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Xihr. I noticed your agreeing with me with some reluctance at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (5th nomination), and I presume this is because of the external link dispute at that article. I just wanted to let you know, whether we ever do see eye-to-eye on that link or not, it's a minor issue. As far as the big picture, we seem to be on the same page. Regards, and happy editing. Dekkappai 22:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I still think the link is inappropriate, but obviously the much bigger problem here was the defacement, AfD, and further bizarre behavior by User:Epbr123. Compared to that, the link staying or going is of little importance. Xihr 23:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That source I posted did have a few skeptical comments from users posting their thoughts after the article. Albeit almost all were "you're the man" comments. I did find some source calling it Vaporware and since it's been 8 years and no results that seems relevant to leave the skepticism comment in. I'll look for the vaporware source. Found it: | Elite 4 Forums Alatari 05:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

One thread in one chat forum does not exactly demonstrate the claim. If it's to stay, it has to be better sourced, more neutral and less weasely. Xihr 06:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read the Elite 4 article? Any product that hasn't even shown interactive demos within 7 years of production time is highly suspect that it will even be produced. The wording maybe changed a bit but the gist of the skepticism about whether the game will even be made will need to stay in the article. I'll find some industry experts who also believe the game is a dead end and link their articles. Alatari 08:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Searched for 'Vaporware "Elite 4"' and have found 6 forums with at least 10 different user names stating they are serious fans and believe it will never happen. One on Digg wrote this article: |Why there'll never be an Elite 4. How many post on how many different forums stating skepticism before it becomes noteworthy and verified? Hmmm.... Still gathering evidence then Alatari 09:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The German language Wikipedia lists Elite 4 on their article about Vaporware as a top example: German Wikipedia Vaporware and yes I know we can't source other Wikipedia's. Looking for that ringer of a published authority who states what the evidence is pointing towards. Alatari 09:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Made my final edit. Hope it's a good compromise. I spent 3 hours researching it and it's solidly sourced. Alatari 10:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. It's now nice an NPOV and purely factual with no weasel words. Thanks for working with me on this. Xihr 21:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Frontier might get this thing published. Hopefully it will do the Elite universe justice. Also wonder how relations between MMO Elite and EVE Online will be. Alatari 11:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How come you're removing a paragraph as 'trivia' when it is clearly a information about the difference between this particular port of Starflight vs the other versions of this game? --Bhaak 11:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's trivial information about an obscure port that has no place here. Mentioning the ports is fine, but going into excrutiating detail about how precisely the ports were different from the original in terms of difficulty and exact placement of things is not constructive. Xihr 20:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cobb said, "I wanted to imply that poor old England is back on its feet and has united with the Japanese, who have taken over the building of spaceships". Since Weyland/Wayland is an English smith, a god of makers of things from metal, I felt (like a prior editor who'd inserted this) that it was relevant. Is this unreasonable, or just O.R.? --Orange Mike 15:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What's a COI linkspam? - DavidWBrooks 00:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ah - conflict of interest. But even if the poster is the guy who made the movie, I still think the math-journal reviews are legitimate additions. Why aren't they? - DavidWBrooks 00:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If they're legitimate interest, let someone else without a conflict of interest add them. Given his peppering of the page with his links, it's not only a conflict of interest, but spamming. Xihr 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I did re-add them - you took them out again. They strike me as legitimate, regardless of his/her intentions. What matters is the quality of the article, right? - DavidWBrooks 10:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoring his repeated linkspam isn't the same thing as a third party legitimately adding them. Xihr 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that you know, can you tell me why the Shays' Rebellion article is currently protected? There is no discussion on the talk page about editorial conflicts---though, to be honest, the talk page is such a mess it is damned near worthless---and there is, in fact, so little content in the article, and so little referencing for what content is there, I am not sure where or over what a conflict would have arisen. Has the page been a target for a great deal of vandalism? If you know, I would be grateful if you would tell me.

By the way, and on a related matter, thanks for the fix earlier on the Whiskey Rebellion article. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been on the receiving end of a massive amount of (very immature) vandalism, not legitimate edit conflicts. I assume that the cause is someone covering Shays' Rebellion in an elementary school social studies class somewhere and that the teacher encouraged them to research on Wikipedia, and/or they have access to the Internet from school, though I don't know for sure. Xihr 07:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that makes perfect sense to me. This, I assume, is also the reason that we get spates of vandalism to other articles involving the colonial and Revolutionary war periods. Alas... The internet (and Wikipedia in particular) can be a great tool, or it can be merely a source of amusement. Mores the pity that for a great many people it is more the latter than the former. Thank you for your response. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed this on the Sugar Act; the hypothesis seems a sound one. --Orange Mike 19:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed it in other articles as well, such as Whiskey Rebellion (possibly even the same class) and Code of Hammurabi. It also appears cyclical; it starts up and stops. Xihr 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem. These links have been up on that page forever, and they're a resource. There is no adds, there is no promotion, hell there isn't even any links on the pages. And the Text files are over 20 years old now, even the phone numbers on them to Apple BBS's from 1985 are all useless. Would it help if the link was to the same files via Textfiles.com?BcRIPster (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Xihr, regarding this edit, I placed {{fact}} tags on a couple of “quotes” because I haven’t found anything in the game to verify them. Although they may be uncontroversial, they seem like speculation of original research. Where in the game does the player learn that the message specifically “warns that Betruger's tests are threatening to overload the portal's containment fields”? The players know that the catastrophic scenario takes place, but can they be sure that's exactly what message contained?

When do the players learn that the demons are “confident that the only key to their defeat lies safely in their hands”? The best quote I can find in support of this statement is in pak003.pk4->sound\vo\delta2b\bet_soulcube_in_hell.ogg, but that does not prove that the demons are confident about having the Soul Cube. I hope you understand that my intention is to remove all the original research within the Plot section.

Lastly, why did you restore the information about the radio chatter of various teams? Even if it is a part of the plot, it is insignificant, and it is explained in further detail at the bottom of the #Presentation section. —LOL (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I only meant to revert the first {{fact}} tag, not the second and to restore the comment about the screams. I'll fix. Xihr (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just regarding your reversion of the Buckaroo Banzai page with the following comment "rv highly suspicious (poorly written) claims", sorry if it was poorly written, but all you had to do was google any of the new titles I put in to verify the legitimacy of what was added. You can also verify it on the Moonstone Boooks page: http://www.moonstonebooks.com/banzai.asp Can I suggest you re-write what I had added into more acceptable prose. 89.101.242.183 (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If so, you need to cite reliable sources which make those claims in the article. Xihr (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I will do, thanks for your help in this 89.101.242.183 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason for removing ">:3"? The table actually looks worse now for it, so I'm assuming there was some compelling reason. Cratylus3 (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the entry was clearly comical. Xihr (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your brief commentary on the Dewmocracy article. Would you mind elaborating on what material you feel is worthy of merging? I do not see how a merge would be beneficial given the trivial and non-notable nature of the information presented, and believe that shuffling it over to Mountain Dew would be a disservice to the people who have worked on that article. Coccyx Bloccyx 23:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The description of what it is, and that is all. User:Mithent's comment on the AfD page was sufficient. Xihr 02:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert my last change? You do not need a / after br when doing a break. Maybe you should have checked all that I did before unnecessarily reverting. I put the article back to where YOU said it should be. Then I removed the /'s because they aren't necessary and they aren't uniform to other articles' infoboxes. The revert you did was unnecessary. I had previously removed the unnecessary character summary additions to what you had. Your reverts weren't in good faith, IMO. Please explain.KellyAna (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

They aren't required, and they aren't wrong, either. They're perfectly valid. Try to concentrate on edits that will improve the appearance of the article, rather than edits no reader will ever see. Xihr (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That was rude. Did you miss the part where I DID improve the article by removing the edits you had previously removed? You seem to be asserting ownership over the article by making unnecessary reverts. Your explanation clearly indicates a "your way or the highway" attitude about the formatting, which is not compliant with Wikipedia policy. Your reverts were unnecessary and your edit summary was inappropriate. As I have recently been informed, reverting valid edits is definitely showing bad faith. KellyAna (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You lost me at "removing the edits you had previously removed." We're talking about one particular edit and one particular reversion, not other edits prior to that. And please assume good faith. Xihr (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to fully review all the edits and see that your edit did not assume good faith since you reverted a perfectly legitimate edit. My point is an IP edit came in once, their edits were reverted to your last revision. They came back and I reverted them back to your revision. THEN I removed unnecessary slashes. You reverted those edits (my removal of the slashes) which is considered against good faith. You cannot ask me to assume good faith when you did not on my edits even though I reverted originally to your "request" that character summaries be simple. You REVERTING my removal of the slashes is the definition of NOT assuming good faith so dont tell me to assume good faith. KellyAna (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You obviously need to read WP:AAGF. And how exactly your unwarranted editing of my own editorial changes on my talk page supposed to represent your claim of assumption of good faith? You're doing your best here to indicate that you don't deserve the fruits of WP:AGF. Xihr (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I brought in a neutral third party and am moving on. Do as you want and enjoy. KellyAna (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In the future, please try to be not so quick to jump the gun on accusations of bad faith, since doing so is in and of itself failing to assume good faith. Xihr (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you are the one making false accusations. I asked a question about your inappropriate reverts. You're the one that went where you did. You obviously assert ownership of articles you don't own. I would further advise you to behave civilly as you have not thus far. I asked a question, you immediately were the one who did not assume good faith and further edited links to make people look bad. It's sad really. Just sad. KellyAna (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I explained why I did what I did. You were the one who jumped full bore into groundless accusations. Please calm down. Xihr (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Calm down? Full bore??? You are a funny over reactionary. KellyAna (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, do you own the game? (before I ask anything else) -- Cat ^chi? 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And no, I will not pirate it for you. Xihr (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly not assuming good faith accusing someone of wanting an illegal copy of a game. KellyAna (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke, pest. I know this guy. Now you're just trolling; go look to try to make trouble elsewhere, please. Xihr (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No sweat I have legal copies of all the FreeSpace games except Silent Threat expansion. About the node map. I recall getting it off of the official site. That was some time ago - well over 2 years. It might have been added to the official website despite being a 'fan creation' as you suggested. Volition had done so in the past, especially for missions.

We certainly have this official map that establishes most of the nodes. Everything else should be in line with all briefing connections in the game. It is not OR to duplicate that info. I suppose we could verify all node related info not mentioned on the official map I just linked. We do know a lot about the subspace nodes from the briefings. For example we do know that the Sol (at the end of the first game) and Capella nodes were severed (at the end of the second game). I suppose we could cite exactly which mission establishes node connections. How does that sound to you?

-- Cat ^chi? 02:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the very least the copyright status of the image you posted is in question, and so probably is insuitable. A recreated map from a source map is perhaps borderline original research. A better solution would be to just include the original map you cited above, and get permission to do so. Even in that case, the caption to the image was overlong and didn't need to say much more than "This is a jump node map of the Terran-Vasudan region of space." Xihr (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image captions are supposed to explain the contents of the image in question. That is the very point of them. The reader should understand what about the image is significant. The summaries can be longer if an additional description is needed. Explanation over the alterations to the map (destruction of the nodes) only makes sense. The summary wasn't that long either, a mere 3 sentences. Consider various captions on the article September 11, 2001 attacks and how long they are. Mind that these are description of the photos and not a map. Or consider the article Tibet with 6 sentences as the caption.

A recreated map from a source map is not any where NEAR original research. We do it all the time on a wide range of articles such as various maps on countries, world and etc (see: Image:McDonaldsWorldLocations.svg). If a node between two star systems is mentioned on a briefing in the game, thats more than adequate to construct such a map. There is noting original of using information established in the game itself to construct an image. Consider reviewing this: Wikipedia:No original research#Original_images

We do not need any permission to use images under fair use. Fair use by nature is use without permission for educational purposes. If you mean getting free license permissions that is unlikely to happen.

Please notify me on my talk page so I know you posted a reply.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not Wikipedia's current policy. Fair use is not clear or broad enough to save this particular case, since it is not clear exactly who owns the copyright (and the credit is assigned to someone's alias, rather than Volition, Inc. or something more direct). One needs to secure explicit permission, and/or a relicensing, in order to use an image of unknown origin. Xihr (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Xihr,

You removed the two lines of morse code (STENDEC/STR DEC) I had copied from the German WP in the Star Dust article.

Do you really think they constituted "original research"? I thought of it as simply a helpful illustration of the problems with morse and how a miscommunication could arise in this context. Please consider. Cheers! -- Syzygy (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Xihr, you removed my edit because you suspected it to be "linkspam". I'd like to ask you to look into the matter more deeply. Ever played Echoes? It is pretty similar. I was searching for the history of echoes when I stumbled across the game that it probably originated from. Therefore, a link is justified. I leave the matter in your hands however. Do as you think is best. Kind regards, --Cruzlee (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm just writing to see if we can discuss the revert you made to the Quake 2 article. Basically there were three things I added: some information about player models, a screenshot of Quake 2 Max, and a screenshot of Action Quake 2. Since you didn't give an explanation for why you reverted, I'd appreciate it if you could give me one for each of those changes. Thanks.

The technical information involved game guide material that was non-notable; the custom content graphics were also non-notable; and the screenshots are POV since they concentrate only on a mod of Quake II, and not the game itself, and have questionable copyright status. Xihr (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I didn't add any technical information. In the last edit I made, the changes I made were: 1. A couple of sentences in "Custom Content". 2. A reception section. 3. Three screenshots- one of Action Quake 2, one of Quake 2 Max and one of the Optimus Prime model. So which of those are you referring to? Second, I don't understand what you mean by "game guide material". Third, how are the screenshots of mods here any different to the one of the Ghostbusters mod used in Doom_(video_game)? Fourth I disagree that the custom content graphics are non-notable. They give people an idea of what custom models look like, and since custom models are used by pretty much everyone who plays Quake 2 online, I think it's a reasonably important feature of the game to illustrate. Anyway, thanks for your quick reply. Ben 2082 (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Xiph,

Could you be more specific concerning the "OR galore" you found in the article? Looking over the article, the only thing I could find that appeared to be OR was the table providing the relationships between Mandrake the Bard's Principles and Virtues. Kitanin (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is confusing about the tag, since the entire article consists of posting highly detailed, extrapolated claims without citation. Xihr (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, almost nothing in the article is extrapolation, but is instead directly from the games. (With the aforementioned exception of the relationship between Mandrake's Principles and Virtues, and upon a re-read, the Anti-Virtues.) Basically, the citations will be Ultimas IV-VII, Ultima VII part II, and Ultima Underworld II themselves. Kitanin (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference The Shield: The change you reverted contained analysis, which is original research unless it is properly attributed to a reliable secondary source. Please see the talk page for a more detailed explaination. Reverted (again). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might like to know. 70.130.233.21 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bravo. A very good start. Xihr (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remember WP:NPA. I do not have an axe to grind - the information you removed is of direct relevance to the article, particularly StarForce#StarForce_3.0_Reputation. --Tom Edwards (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And please remember WP:NPOV. Xihr (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: the information you removed is of direct relevance to the article, particularly StarForce#StarForce_3.0_Reputation. Do you dispute this? --Tom Edwards (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As I already indicated, I don't see how it's relevant except to make a POV claim. Xihr (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant because it goes against claims made later in the article. --Tom Edwards (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the article talk page is a much more appropriate place to have this discussion. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The pronunciation of “Sade” is already given in the lede. Why are you restoring the second note, which is redundant as uses an ad hoc notation instead of the IPA? —70.183.105.254 (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it's traditional, and very few people understand IPA well enough for it to actually be a useful pronunciation guide. Xihr (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What you're calling “traditional” is really ad hoc. Many people are going to see your second “h”, and wonder if there's an aspiration ad the end of the first syllable. Meanwhile, the IPA as close as we have to a generally understood system. Yes, not everyone knows it, but more people know it than would know, say, [shä·dā´] (which is how The American Heritage Dictionary would represent those sounds). —70.183.105.254 (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Same dude. Vandal, troll, abuser of sock-puppets. —SlamDiego_←T 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what is this in reference to? Xihr (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

His interaction with you has been to insist that there be a “silent R” in the phonetic representation of “Sade”. He has been a willfully disruptive editor, and was blocked. He got unblocked by promising to sin no more. If he returns to disruption, I suggest that you review his talk page and then contact an admin. —SlamDiego_←T 06:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I will take it under advisement. Xihr (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Xihr, I've reviewed WP:NOT, and I'm not entirely sure why you invoked it for the deletion of the magazine appearances section of Charmaine Sinclair. I think the deletion negatively impacts the rationale for the entire article, under WP:N#Notability requires objective evidence. Since the subject is a glamour model, highlights of her magazine appearances are significant. Perhaps a subset of her appearances, especially as a covergirl and a Playmate model, would be appropriate. Charmaine1997 (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that bizarre, I think. "Tristan Farnon" is the name of a leading character based on a real-life person called Brian Sinclair in All Creatures Great and Small, a popular series of books and TV programmes. It seems perfectly reasonable to disambiguate that name from "Tristan A. Farnon", and equally reasonable to direct the reader to the real name. What's odd about that? Richard Pinch (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If anything, the disambig should go to All Creatures Great and Small, not the person that the character was based off of. Xihr (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Is there a guideline to that effect, or is it simply your personal opinion? Richard Pinch (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any guideline directly on point, but it's hard for me to see how it's not common sensical. Xihr (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. I hope you find the current message, referring to Tristan Farnon, less bizarre. Richard Pinch (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I do my best to understand the points of those who have concerns over material I contributed. You stated a concern over WP:COATRACK.

I have had other contributors express a concern over COATRACK. I have asked everyone who stated this concern to be specific about which section(s) of the COATRACK essay they were concerned my contributions ignored. No one has been prepared to be specific. I don't mean to embarrass you if your characterization of the article posing a "definite" COATRACK concern was meant to be taken rhetorically, rather than literally. But, if you meant this to be taken literally, and you still hold that view, I would be very grateful if you were prepared to take the time to be specific.

I found the lack of reply to my query on the part of others who expressed this concern very frustrating, because if I really am oblivious to some aspect of my contributions ignoring the advice of this essay, their unwillingness to reply is not going to help me recognize this, and, well, stop doing it.

You also wrote:

...besides the subject is not as notable as the article purports to be.

It would be a big help to me if you could help me understand which passage(s) you think misleading purports greater notability than Abdul Salaam merited. Is there any way you could see your way clear to spelling that out?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I you do take the time to reply, you can do so here. I'll check back.

What is your problem with that section in the Röntgen article? There is no dispute going on here as you indicate in your edit summary. Someone made a simple mistake of misreading the decimal as the thousands separator, which in turn was due to a succession of misconceived formatting edits. It was reverted as being a mistake - there is no actual dispute going on. You also cited OR in your edit summary. Not sure what you mean by that either. The article needs a conversion into modern units otherwise it is not very intelligble or useful and there is no reason to think that the conversions given were OR. An unreferenced tag might have been more appropriate in this case. I am going to restore this, if you still have an issue please state them on the article talk page. SpinningSpark 10:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The article already contans proper unit conversions to SI; the equivalent SI unit is the coulomb. The dispute was over a series of uncited figures that were extrapolated from some unmentioned calculations. Such things don't belong in Wikipedia. Xihr (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what is wrong with the last edits to Sierra's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.27.16 (talk • contribs)

WP:BLP. Bigtime. Xihr (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Same as I told tabernacil, he missed the point because he didn't know what he was defending you about. He thought he was defending was just defending BLP, Which he wasn't. What you spend you time doing is not BLP. Sure a portion of it falls under BLP. But reverting cited references is NOT BLP. Much less the fact when cited references are from the person's official site. You need to watch what you are doing.Swampfire (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

He didn't miss the point. He understands WP:BLP, and you apparently do not. Since you are now maliciously reverting almost all of my edits, you are now entering disruptive territory. If you don't understand WP:BLP policy, then you should stay away from such edits. I emplore you to change your behavior; I don't want to make an issue out of this for you (as you've already got WP:NPA warnings on your talk page), but if you continue violating WP:BLP policy and continue maliciously reverting my edits, I will be forced to escalate this matter. I don't want to, but you're not leaving me much choice. I emplore you to cease and desist. Xihr (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong I understand BLP and I also understand your misuse of it. And I am no where near messing with almost all of your reverts. Just the ones I know a few things about. Especially when you do nothing to help the page. In most cases it would take you less than a minute to fix a problem. But for some reason you don't feel like helping improve. In fact you spent more time creating discussion with me, than it would take to fix the problem.Swampfire (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am finding this very frustrating. I have already pointed you to WP:BLP and quoted it directly where it indicates that unsourced material, whether controversial or not, whether positive or negative, must be removed without discussion. That is precisely what I was doing; you were violating WP:BLP in restoring it back without adding citations, which is also mentioned directly in WP:BLP. WP:BLP is very clear about this and is unequivocal since it's required to reduce the chance that Wikipedia gets sued. I see now that you are adding proper citations (not external links, citations) to the articles in question, which is great. That is all that was needed -- and it is what WP:BLP requires. You should be very cautious when reverting WP:BLP sanitations in the future since you are putting the project at greater risk by ignoring clear policy. I am glad that you now appear to be following policy and emplore you to continue doing so. Xihr (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not understanding, There are several times, where what you did. Does not fall under BLP. But you try to say it does. Removing a valid citation that pointed to the exact page, with the words on it. Is going completely against BLP, and yet in some cases you do it anyway. When removing content without proper cause (meaning you say it is BLP, when it obviously isnt) is considered vandalizing.Swampfire (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The egregious cases I'm talking about were clear WP:BLP policies. The reversions you did that we went back and forth on were all on biographies of living persons: Sade Adu, Rocki Roads, Adele Stephens, and April Hunter. All of these were WP:BLP edits. If you're talking about some other cases, then you're going to have to give examples. If you're just talking about reversions through the normal course of keeping a page clean, then I'm not sure you have a point here. Xihr (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your most recent was the revert on Rocki Roads in which the link from her official site, not only covered her birthday but her biography prior to adult film work.Swampfire (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to this edit, then I see that you're right, and I apologize. It was fairly late at night and I didn't notice that you had added citations, since you were approaching WP:3RR with re-reverting my sanitations without including citations on other pages. Thanks for adding the citations, and please keep it up. Xihr (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Which was my exact point, I could tell somethings you did things without truly checking the facts. Which to me is an act of laziness. Which is why the comment was made. Not to offend, but to maybe make you start checking things firstSwampfire (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You also did it here instead of reading the link. You just said it did not cover it. When i read it behind you. I saw that it covered it exactly. And you had also removed Sierra's official website claiming it was against BLPSwampfire (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. That edit summary is accurate; there is a reference there, but the reference does not support the claim. "Black and Silver" nWo is not mentioned anywhere in the reference that I can see. You can't just add random links to specific sentences; citations have to back up the claim being made that they are attached to. As for the Sierra (porn star) link problems, User:Golbez explained why. Xihr (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Then if it did not mention one lil detail such as "black and white nwo" why not remove just that part and left the citation?. Instead of reverting the whole thing? It would have taken you the same amount of time.Swampfire (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're not making sense. Citations follow the claims they are citing. The citation here did not back up the claim that it followed. Hence why it had to be replaced with the proper {{Fact}} tag. Xihr (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats where you were wrong. It backed up everything. Except the one part about black and white because it did say "nwo" so why not remove just the black and white and leave the "nwo" part, and leave the citation there to cover the rest of the things that it did cover. Because I read itand it did cover it. Also the Sierra thing you mention was not done right by Golbez, he did the same thing you did, and did not check the link. He should of just removed the comment and not the link in the other section. The link was to her official site, not an escort service. But he assumed they were related when they were not. Same as you. Yes I know it said escrt service by it. But that wasnt what it was.Swampfire (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What I am saying about the citation on April's page is, The citation covered it ALL, except the person had distinguished which branch of the nWo, by adding the words "black and silver" My point is, since you are telling me you read it, and knew the ONLY difference was the words "black and silver" why not just remove those 3 words so that it matches the citation? It would have taken the exact same amount of time.Swampfire (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations cannot cover entire articles. Citations must address claims. If the same citation covers multiple claims, then it should be repeated (with the <ref name="..." /> syntax). One external link, or one citation for huge blocks of an article, is not acceptable under WP:V. Xihr (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The citation wasnt covering the entire article. It was covering the entire statement, of which the editor added 3 words. 3 words that could of been deleted while leaving the citation.Swampfire (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Good afternoon. You've now twice removed and I have once restored a paragraph that I had expanded a short time beforehand. This seems like an excellent time to sit down and have a chat.

I stand by my opinion that remaking the music is a significant part of making remakes to the game. The UQM project featured updates to The Precursors' work right alongside updates to the actual game. I can't see any advertising in the paragraph, so can you please elaborate what's wrong with it in that respect?

In addition, can you tell me if you've played SCII or UQM so that I'll know where you're coming from, and what on Earth does this edit summary mean? --Kiz o r 09:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that edit, I missed the " key and hit enter, so the edit comment got clipped. What I was going to say was "your own use of 'probably' disclaims the point that this is WP:OR." If it's a confirmed fact that it's going to be the main soundtrack, then maybe it's borderline notable to mention it; if it's this speculative, then it doesn't deserve its own entire section in the article. Xihr (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I take it that you haven't played UQM, then, since it's been out for a good while. :) The team achieved its goal of reproducing the original and then started going beyond it. I used "probably" because I wasn't at a computer where I could check the game. Now, there is no such thing as the main UQM soundtrack, as UQM is designed for maximum customizability between the original PC release, the later 3DO release, and recent innovations. Nonetheless, there's a slot in the sound settings menu specifically for using The Precursors' remixes, and they're in the installer, so the remixes are an official soundtrack for the game. Looks good to me. --Kiz o r 21:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with the game. The source of the soundtrack is worthy of a footnote in an encyclopedic article, at best, not a whole section. It's completely superfluous and unencyclopedic; see WP:NOT. Xihr (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is better off without dedicating a section to the group, which is why it only had one small paragraph. Four sentences, in fact two before I expanded it. I can keep an eye on the article to make sure that the paragraph doesn't grow beyond being a part of its subsection. This is settled, then?
Also, you just linked me to 42 kilobytes of text. If you wished to use some particular things on that page as an argument instead of making sure I'm aware of that page's existence, I'm going to have to ask you to specify. :P --Kiz o r 07:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

revert it's called an opening scene for a reason and is definitely not trival in the case of this movie)

revert so an opening scene and , especially in this movie , has nothing to do with the plot .If plot is too long trim other parts of plot then

I can't figure out how you managed to work this out you're conceding the point that this is not plot and thus irrelevant here when neither edit summary of my made any such concession and especially when I wrote the section that I bolded .Garda40 (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The opening scene of Contact is part of the movie. It isn't part of the plot. What happens to the characters in it? What happens that affects further actions? Nothing. It's atmosphere, not plot -- and in an article with a plot section that's too long for Wikipedia's standards, it does not warrant a full paragraph of description. Xihr (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Xihr,

I added the plot details for "WarGames: The Dead Code" concerning the WOPR in the article, which you removed because they couldn't be canon. They were, however, taken from the leaked DVD itself, recalling just the events that happened in the second movie.

If you want to, I can recommit the changes only after the DVD has been released. The events I summarized are accurate for the movie. Stoney3K (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think the edit made on World War 3 was interesting, and I'm not sure why you want to get rid of it. Now, I'm not going to undo your change again because you'll certainly just revise it back, but I think it's helpful and interesting. Maybe not necessary, but is anything on World War 3 really necessary? So, if I were to undo your revision would you revise it again? Davies1492 (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that you think it's interesting doesn't make it encyclopedic. And it certainly doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. Please see WP:TRIVIA. Xihr (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's cool. This isn't really worth it. Davies1492 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kindly do not remove a fact tag again without providing a reference. Thank you. DMorpheus (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Requiring a citation for what the article is named in the article itself is slightly beyond absurd. See my commentary on the talk page. Xihr 23:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted the tag. Please do not remove it again without discussion or providing a legitimate reference. Thanks very much. DMorpheus (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had enough of playing your game. References have been provided, and you're still complaining. Please WP:AGF. Xihr 21:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds an awful look like a personal attack there, my friend. The references do not address the issue under discussion. DMorpheus (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like you undid the last revision I made yesterday. Listing the sequels in the summary might have been unnecessary, but the purpose of this edit was to resolve the "Sequels, adaptations, other ringworlds in fiction" section, as well as adding new references. Was it your purpose to remove these as well? LifeOnJinx (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That was probably a mistake on my part. Xihr 21:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The alternate derivation you removed from Kepler's laws of planetary motion was moved from Orbital mechanics. Since it has not been re-added to the latter article, it has now been removed from the encyclopedia. Did you verify that there was nothing mathematically interesting in that section? I did not write it, but I put it in the Kepler's laws article so that it could be compared with the other math there. (I don't object to complete removal; I just want to be sure it was removed intentionally.) -- Beland (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted your edits to Jasmin St. Claire, but instead of clicking on "Undo", I accidentally clicked on "Rollback", which prevents an Edit Summary, so I figured I'd explain the edits to you here. Notability pertains to article subjects. It does not pertain to sources. The criteria for sources pertains to Verifiability, not Notability. Second, even if it were decided that lukeisback is not verifiable, that does not mean you remove both the source and the material it is used to support. In doing so, you removed all mention of her porn career, including the type of porn she is best known for. I don't think this is a good idea, since it's the primary thing for which she is noteworthy, and merits an article. If you disagree and want to continue this discussion, let's do it on the article's Talk Page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course the reliability and notability of the source comes into play; see WP:V (policy) and WP:RS (guideline). WP:V#Self-published sources is directly on point; lukeisback.com is a blog and is therefore inappropriate to use as a reliable source backing up a claim about what makes someone notable, especially when taken in light of WP:BLP. If the claim is true, then you should find a more reliable source to claim it, otherwise it is inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Xihr 23:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say reliability didn't come into play. I said that notability was not a pertinent factor. Please do not conflate the two, or distort my words. Yes, if the claim is true, a reliable source should be found, which means it should be fact-tagged until such a source is found. You don't just remove the entire passage, especially when that information is what made her famous, and was the reason she was interviewed by Howard Stern. It makes little sense to have an article on Jasmin St. Claire, and not make any mention of her porn career. In addition, you removed the lostart source as well. I'm going to consult the Reliable Sources noticeboard for more on this. Let's be a bit more selective when editing. Nightscream (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed in my reversion that I see that I had misspoke, and typed "WP:N" when I meant "WP:V," which is directly on point as the given source, a porn blog, is not reliable and is unsuitable for use as a citation. And, contrary to your statements, W:BLP policy mandates that uncited statements regarding a living person be removed immediately and without discussion, whether they are controversial or not. As for the article then being a stub, well, that's a reason to add reliable sources, not to violate WP:BLP -- and if reliable sources are not forthcoming, then perhaps there shouldn't be an article at all. WP:N requires that an article assert its own notability; if that can't be done, the proper solution is to not have an article, rather than violate WP:V and WP:BLP by asserting unverifiable claims. Xihr 03:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, you confuse notability with verifiability. The article did assert its notability. But asserting notability and providing a source for that assertion are two different things. But you're arguing that the article should omit the one thing for which she became famous, which is irrational. In addition, the Lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article's most salient points, mentions this as the reason she became famous, which is only logical. Are you seriously arguing that this should be mentioned in the lead, but not in the article's body? As for citing a source, I did: I mentioned that she was interviewed in Howard Stern for her participation in the films in question. The woman is a public figure known for this. As for BLP, nowhere on that page can I find mention that states, "uncited statements regarding a living person be removed immediately and without discussion, whether they are controversial or not." Can you show me where this is? As for the article being a stub, I never said anything about stubs, so I'm not sure what the context is of this statement by you. Lastly, if you're not going to answer my point about the lostart source, then please do not delete that material. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't get around WP:BLP by insisting that a particular uncited or poorly cited claim asserts notability. WP:BLP applies to all claims in biographical articles, whether they assert the notability of the subject or not. I was paraphrasing WP:BLP, but it's quite clear on the subject, and in the second paragraph, even:

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

WP:V and WP:BLP are policies, and are not optional. Once again: If the statements are accurate, then you should have no problem finding reliable sources that assert her notability. If none are forthcoming, then this is a strong suggestion that either she's not notable for what you think she is, or that the subject is not notable and probably should be taken to AfD, or possibly both. Xihr 22:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quite aware of WP:V and BLP, and never implied that they were "optional". The problem is that you do not seem to understand that part of the collaborative process on Wikipedia is to talk things over with other editors. You, unfortunately, seem intent on ignoring much of what I say, and much of what's in the article. Some examples:

I pointed out to you that discussions like this should take place on the article Talk Page. Even if you prefer using personal Talk Pages, the proper format is for each participant (assuming there are only two, as in our discussion) to leave their messages on the other person's Talk Page. Your response? You ignored this, and continue to insist on having this discussion entirely on your Talk Page alone, as if everyone should have to come here to Talk to you.
You implied that I made some mention of the article being a stub. I responded that I said no such thing. Your response? Nothing.
I pointed out that in your numerous reversions, you deleted the assertion about her gang bang films from her Career section, but left it in the Lead section. Your response? Nothing. You simply ignored me.
I pointed out that St. Claire was interviewed on The Howard Stern Show for her participation in this event, and I did this twice. Your response? Nothing. You ignored me both times.
You don't even seem to read the article itself. In addition to the matter about the Lead, you deleted the mention of her gang bang films, but left in this subsequent sentence: "St. Claire was interviewed on The Howard Stern Show for her participation in this event, along with Annabel Chong, the previous record holder." Why would you mention this, but delete the "event" it's referencing?

Sites like imdb and iafd can easily establish an actress' filmography. Mentioning the name and nature of a film she appeared in is simple. Hell, you can just look up the movie on a site that sells it, as here. Are you seriously going to tell me that given her appearance, nude, on an adult video box cover that advertises her as participating in a gang bang in that film, that this does not establish that she's in the movie? This is not "contentious", it's a matter of public knowledge that is not in dispute by anyone. In addition, in film-related articles, including those for actors the only source needed for a film's content, or plot, is the film itself. If I see a film or TV show, do I really need a separate source from the show itself to describe what's in it? See the Plot section on Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines.

You cannot just delete material capriciously without any thought given to the look or structure of the article, and without directly responding to concerns brought to your attention by other editors, simply by saying "BLP" and "WP:V" over and over again, especially to an administrator who has roughly three times as many edits as you, many of which are in BLP and WP:V related matters. Either directly address the sources I have added to the article, and on the article's Talk Page, or do not delete it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see anything new here. If her claim to fame is well-known and public knowledge, then it should be easy to find reliable sources to back it up in accordance with verifiability policy. If such sources cannot be found, then the material must be deleted in accordance with BLP policy. These are Wikipedia policies, not my personal opinion or inclination. BLP does not say that the article must be completely rewritten to retain the harmonic flow of the article; that can be done later. What it does say -- which you did not seem to know ("nowhere on that page can I find mention that states uncited statements regarding a living person be removed immediately and without discussion, whether they are controversial or not") even though you're an admin and it was in the second paragraph of the policy page -- is that such material must be removed without discussion. I don't see how many more edits than me you've made has anything to do with understanding what BLP policy actually says and my attempting to follow it. However, since you're obviously playing the admin card, it's obvious I can't win this argument and continue to try to implement established policy on this particular page will likely only cause problems for me in the future, so I will drop it. Xihr 19:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and two of my admin actions were to switch to standard WP:BIO naming (last name "Schmidt", not "MES" nickname) and to add {{cn}} tags for his specific claims of notability. I also commented about both those issues on the article talk page after you (I think?) asked for admin input there. I think it's great to remove unsubstantiated (an unfulfilled {{cn}} request is a great indication of those sorts of statements) and off-topic material, but please don't blindly revert admin's work after asking for help:) DMacks (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies. There had been so much back and forth edit warring between the different trolls that I hadn't noticed the your responsible edits interspersed between the dozens and dozens of garbage edits going back and forth (keep in mind, we're hundreds of edits into this edit war). I just mentioned the issue on the page protection requests board as this has gone far beyond any reasonable ability to try to get cooler heads to prevail between the parties. It seems to me the page needs to be restored to sanity and protected and/or the people involved being given temporary blocks to at least send them the message to cut it out, as it's just plain disruptive at this point. If that's now being done, so be it, but this has been going on for weeks. Xihr 23:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly in your zeal to remove what you see as "garbage edits", you removed the entry on Doug Bollen, which most certainly was not a garbage edit. The page is now locked down and the work done by several people over a long period of time cannot, at present, be reinstated. It might have been better to discuss your intended edit on the discussion page, where a consensus about the Bollen entry had already been reached (i.e. retain the section but simplfy it.) Lotaresco (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A massive edit war was in progress and was being left unchecked. I've already apologized for over-reverting a little bit among the hundreds of edits that were going by. Xihr 20:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI. User:Nfscarbon is a user who steals images from websites and uploads them to Wikipedia claiming them as his own. He has issued a personal attack against you and another user name Fare Deal on his userpage. The other user has issued a warning to Nfscarbon for uploading stolen images. I am guessing you have done the same and have raised his anger enough to issue these attacks on his userpage. Just hought you would like to know. 156.34.209.81 (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Nfscarbon has been making a lot of edits to the Need for Speed: Carbon page (obviously) mostly consisting of attempts at improvements that end up mangling the article with horrible copyediting and bad grammar, which I (and others) have reverted several times. Xihr 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I see you reverted my edit to Lauryn Hill's page (Wyclef says she's got Bipolar disorder, explaining why the reunion didn't work). I agree that he's in no position to diagnose that (it does say he "believes" she has it (he's not diagnosing it) but that's not the point). However, I do think it should be mentionned why the reunion didn't work. The Fugees page has quotations from both Pras and Wyclef stating that they couldn't deal with Lauryn. I think some of these should be quoted in Lauryn Hill's page, or at least a paraphrase of "the reunion didn't work because Pras and Wyclef couldn't work with Lauryn Hill". M.Nelson (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a clear violation of WP:BLP, has WP:NPOV problem, and arguably has WP:UNDUE problems as well. An encyclopedia shouldn't be reporting such things. The factual reporting that the reunion didn't work out is perfectly acceptable; attributing someone's unqualified diagnosis of a medical condition as the reason is totally inappropriate. Xihr 05:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Xihr. I comb the AfDs for soon-to-be-deleted material and save it at another project. I noticed that you're still wasting time arguing with self-important jackasses and Machiavellian assholes, and have encountered their newest slogan: "Consensus can change". Naturally, you'll never get a straight explanation of this policy from either of those two thriving Wiki-demographics (jackasses and assholes). So here is what "Consensus can change" actually means: If you want to delete an article, and you encounter resistance, it is very simple to change "consensus." We all know it takes much more work to improve and save an article than it does to put it up for deletion, and their is nothing to stop a new AfD. So all you have to do is repeatedly put up any article for deletion, and eventually those who prefer to contribute, rather than remove, will be worn out and driven off, and voila consensus has been "changed".

I feel that this is a major problem with Wikipedia's deletion process, and it is one that the Deletionists are well aware of, and use to their advantage. There are absolutely no checks on the Deletion process, so their is no use fighting the deletion of articles just out of care for information at Wikipedia (as opposed to an article you really care about). If you want to stay at Wikipedia in its current anti-content environment, I recommend just working on (and defending) those articles which interest you. If the disgusting daily general removal of information from Wikipedia bothers you (as it did me), I recommend joining a smaller, specialty Wiki-project and saving this information there. Wikipedia's loss can be the other project's gain. Eventually, maybe, the Wikipedia community at large will recognize what a kangaroo-court the deletion system has become, and will rebel against the pompous idiots who think they are fit to judge what should be removed from "the sum of human knowledge" in areas about which they often have absolutely no knowledge or interest. But for now, Wikipedia is consciously lowering the bar on what it could be. By intentionally valuing only "some of human knowledge" it enables all the bias and arbitrariness that we see growing here every day. Wikipedia's goal today is to be an Encyclopedia Britannica lite, with a huge addendum volume containing trivia on current U.S. pop-culture, just because that's, what "consensus" (the English-speaking, predominantly U.S., mostly white, male Wikipedia community... gee, that couldn't possibly be a biased demographic, could it?) have chosen. Dekkappai (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I must say I largely agree. Wikipedia appears to be coming apart and the seams and crumbling under its own weight but few seem to care. Xihr 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, can you take a look at Invisible Pink Unicorn? There is a disagreement about "how strictly" WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:V need to be applied to this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're coming to me, but I looked over the article -- it seems in general reasonably sourced (and the sources in general seem reliable); my quibble might be with some various claims that verge on original research contained within it, mostly when it is elaborating on points (say, the "PBUH" remark at the end) -- in other words, the general thrust of the article doesn't seem like OR to me, but some of the side points are possibly borderline. Not sure if you wanted me to take my "red pen of doom" to it or just give my opinion, so I'll leave it at that for now. Xihr 03:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow I actually got referenced in someone's vandalism, it's actually kind of a compliment in a way, haha. Anyway thanks for reverting that edit. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a bit strange. No problem. Xihr 19:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You keep reverting the amount offered to $10,000. It IS $1000. Go to the timecube website, scroll to the bottom, click on "next page", then scroll down again. He offers $1000. Please stop reverting edits, or cite it properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternalblisss (talk • contribs) 05:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It was $10,000, if he changed it, then that's needs a citation. Xihr 07:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please try not to be overzealous on removing what you consider trivia etc ...

you originally removed a large part of the article including references, external links, and other items with the comment "(rv inappropriate lists and trivia WP:NOT WP:TRIVIA)" with no discussion ... I assume the "rv" was meant to signify revert but this was not a revert but a removal of information that had been on the page for some *years*

I have amended it to remove the TV and Movie lists but retained the rest please Discuss the removal of any other items in future... ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 13:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"rv" was a typo for "rm," I don't see how that's a big issue here. The material I deleted is clearly non-notable, trivial, or downright linkspammy. Xihr 07:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A request to rewrite should be done, or a *discussion*, but you have just blanked it! Again! It is only Clearly anything in you opinion not to anyone else who has read or edited the article in the last few years please discuss it first or put a notice on it before just blanking material you personally think is spam etc .. the only external link was to a website about a theatre production which does not have an article on Wikipedia who else exactly does one reference it? ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 13:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT is policy. It is not optional. Xihr 23:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy is to discuss changes, assume good faith, and then the other policies you seem intent on forcing your interpretation of the policies on other people this is not polite and does not make good articles, If i feel it is worth it I will when I get time rewrite the article, unless you immediately undo the changes in which case wikipedia will have lost another contributor ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 08:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this response makes no sense at all. Wikipedia policies are not optional. Please read the Wikipedia document on what policies and guidelines mean. If you disagree with the existing policies I've cited, then by all means bring your interests in changing those policies to the relevant talk pages for the policy pages. But it's simply not true that the purpose of Wikipedia policies is to do nothing more than encourage discussions. WP:POL talks about that, too. Xihr 09:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing with the policies, just your interpretation of the policies? You seem to have decided that your interpretation of the policies in this case is the only possible one, and that the opinion of anyone else is irrelevant? If the policies are so clear and obvious then why discuss anything or even have comment pages? You seem to have forgotten some of the policies yourself Wikipedia:Editing policy in particular "Perfection is not required", "Preserve information" and "With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author be discouraged from posting again", I also note that you mainly removed a list which is covered by Wikipedia:Trivia sections and states that "Not all list sections are trivia sections" and you should not just remove them? I was mainly annoyed because you made large changes without any attempt at discussion or prior notification, and you removed more than was required, rather than that the removal was wrong in itself, it would have been better to put a notice on the page that you would remove the material unless modified, and then later remove it if nothing was done? ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 13:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits to this article you fucking asshole! Big King (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop personal attacking other editors. Doing so may result in a ban. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 01:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He made a personal attack against me too with his own statement "rv linkspam again; don't be obnoxious". Check his contributions as an evidence. Big King (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, citing the Wikipedia reasoning for why he partook in an action is correct; was in response to a flamer, and I believe he actually did the right thing. Unless you believe that there is a problem with his editing, which seems fine, it would seem that you were the aggressor. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 01:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attacks are inappropriate. Please learn to contribute reasonably. The reverts you're apparently complaining about were legitimate applications of policies and guidelines like notability and external link appropriateness. The link you posted in Quake III Arena is not appropriate as an external link (hence "linkspam") and your "facts" included in the Quake article are somewhere between non-notable and utterly irrelevant. Complaining about someone repeatedly reverting linkspam is not "obnoxious"; it's someone who is frustrated at trying to fend off that very link spam. If you have a problem with Wikipedia's external link policies, take it up with that forum, not me. Xihr 07:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You completely falsified the minimum requirements for Crysis. You forgot any mention of Vista requirements (Vista users need different requirements, says so on the Crysis box itself) and undershot the needed Hard Drive space by 4GB (it needs 10GB, not 6GB, even though you might not have done that edit).

Change it back to your edit and I'll bring in an Admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan123209 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A disagreement over content is not a reason to bring in an admin unless WP:3RR violations are occurring, which is not happening here. Please be civil and do not issue empty and pointless threats. At any rate, what you are complaining as correct is not corroborated by the Crysis site itself, something which is easily googled. It's 12 GB for both, not different for XP and Vista. Xihr 07:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'm tempted to simply revert you, I'm not. But do see the Talk page for Crystal Gunns. Tabercil (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, it's borderline, but it seems too iffy to me. We'll take it up on the talk page. Xihr 22:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit and cited the fact that I had placed on the Cynthia Rhodes article. Did you delete that and consider it vandalism? The article that I used to cite the edit came from a People magazine article from 2002. I just wanted to inform you that it wasn't vandalism at all, and everything is sorted out and corrected. Thank you for your time and have a good week... --Candy156sweet (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get "vandalism" from, since I said no such thing. My edit summary was "rm uncited WP:V WP:BLP". WP:V is our policy on verifiability, and WP:BLP is our policy on articles that are the biographies of living persons. The latter states unequivocally that (emphasis in original):

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

... which is why I removed the uncited claim. Now that it has been restored but with a proper citation from a reliable source, there is no problem. Xihr 21:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your contribution history, I guess you're a bit of a Richard Marx fan, eh? :-) Xihr 21:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I am. :) Mea culpa on the Vandalism issue; I didn't read the abbreviation right. Sorry for the confusion and again thank you for your time. --Candy156sweet (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Don't let go of those nights. :-) Xihr 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I won't. Have a good week... --Candy156sweet (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late and it probably doesn't matter anyways but I was looking through Cynthia's page and noticed that citations 8 and 9, even though different websites, are the exact same article from People Magazine. So the citation of Cynthia thinking Richard was too young for her was already there. Somehow, you must have overlooked it when you were looking through all the citations for verification. Jeremy706 (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the rescue tag is always used in conjunction with the AfD tag - a process which typically runs less than a week. Please leave the rescue tag in place until removed by the AfD closer. If the article is kept it will be removed, if the article isn't kept everything will be removed. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 18:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hadn't seen it used that way before, but I still stand by my comments: Improving the article isn't the source of contention in the AfD, so encouraging people to improve it when the improvements will not change the AfD's basic complaint seems like it might waste people's time. (Otherwise, wouldn't it be automatically implied in every article with an active AfD?) Xihr 09:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Aaron, Erin, Grey, Gray. Very confusing. The distinguish tag should stay. If you don't like it I am sorry. If anything on that page should go, it will be the pic of Erin in Buck Rogers. That's not a free image unless used on the Buck Rogers page, since a reasonable free image is already available on the page. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 04:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Aaron is a man's name; Erin is a woman's name. I don't see how they're confusing, since you're not speaking the name, you're reading it. Plus, the picture of Erin Gray near the top of her page should be a big hint. As for what you think may or may not be wrong with that picture, I don't follow, but at any rate that doesn't have anything to do with the ambiguity problem you're talking about. Xihr 06:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I seen you and Swampfire are in the midst of an edit war on this article. Please stop reverting each other and take the discussion to the talk page first to hash out your disagreements. Further blind reverts will lead to page protection and/or edit blocks, neither of which I want to levy. Tabercil (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely what I have tried to do.. After all, I solicited your advice on your talk page. He is demanding citations on ridiculous things, and when I give in and provide them, he is still reverting them. WP:3RR doesn't apply to vandalism or abuse. Xihr 06:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look, I have issued identical warnings to both of you. I'm trying to be a neutral party here, though I will say that I do think you are more likely in the right than Swampfire is. Tabercil (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

He just reverted the edits again, despite WP:3RR, his clear abuse, and your warnings. Since I got the threat too, I guess there's no point in users trying to rein in ridiculous WP:POINT behavior on Wikipedia anymore. If I'm going to get threatened for doing that, I have no choice to let him WP:OWN and do whatever he wants in the article. Have fun; he's your problem now. Xihr 19:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw your most recent comments on that page... hold off on making any hasty decisions, okay? I'm currently at work and that limits what I can do. Tabercil (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was sure effective. (It's also telling that he went away for five days, and this re-reversion was his basically his only edit.) Further, this is the exact same guy (and the same exact article) that both you and I had to explain BLP policy to just a little while ago due to his blatant WP:BLP violations, who then continued doing it. If admins aren't going to enforce the rules and their own threats, what's the point of any of this? Xihr 04:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

~~It's now been ten days and this is still unresolved, I'm afraid I have no choice but to escalate it to WP:AN now. Xihr 08:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Forget it. What's the point? It's obvious nothing will happen anyway. Xihr 06:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I just thought you might like to know, as you placed multiple {{fact}} tags on the Smelling salts article, that I have restructured the article and included a number of references, including a peer reviewed journal. Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks great now. Kudos! Xihr 22:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering the reason you removed the external link in the square degree article. You cited WP:EL, but I am not sure which specific point you were referring to. --Lasunncty (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Break 1

If you have a real problem with the IP user, might I suggest you submit a request for comment? I do think that you asking for suggestions on how to deal with him isn't appropriate for the FEAR talk page; it would be more appropriate to hold an RFC. I am asking you to delete that section ("Suggestions?") as it has nothing to do with the improvement of the article. Thanks! Delta (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He's actively defacing that actual talk page, so that seemed the most important place to bring it up initially. It's a "How do we get this guy to stop removing conversations that he participated in that related to the improvement of the page?" query -- discussions which he himself is participating in and actually adding responses to before reverting the whole thing again -- which hardly seems like a big leap for bringing up in that very talk page first. Without at least some support from the people helping the article and contributing to discussions about it, especially people like you who were actually involved in the discussion to get him to improve his edits in the article, then there doesn't seem much reason to pursue it. I guess Wikipedia wins again. Xihr 03:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your reasoning behind your actions, and it makes sense to me now, it's just that when you devote a whole section to discussing a single user, it seems to me at least to be a bit out of place, even if that user is being disruptive. I agree that his reverting is a problem, and I'm going to address that now. But in the future, you might want to try ignoring it. It doesn't matter who was right, as long as he removed his own edits in the end. Whatever; that's in the past now. The reverting of the talk page needs to stop ASAP.

As for your talk page...erm, sorry about that. Didn't mean to toss a slab of meat to attract trolls and sockpuppets. Please accept my humble apologies. If things get out of hand, I recommend letting an admin know. Delta (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, and am glad that you looked at it closely enough to see what was going on. As for notifying an admin ... there's pretty good evidence right here on this talk page that not a lot is likely to happen, where there was another case of clearly disruptive reverts and admin warnings were issues, defied, and then nothing much of anything happened (and the reversions continue). This case is even more difficult to raise to admins who aren't paying attention, since one of the keystone points of bringing a dispute to one of the WP:AN pages is to warn the user on their talk page -- except this user is editing from so many dynamic IP addresses (as you've probably noticed by now) that that provision is prohibitive for the person trying to raise the issue and, for all intents and purposes, pointless (it's unlikely to ever even be seen). Finally, as for your apology about throwing a bone to pick -- no apology needed; the misbehavior is theirs, and you have nothing to do with it :-). Xihr 05:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

D'you think requesting protection on your talk page and the F.E.A.R. talk page would work? Delta (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We could give it a shot, but I suspect this guy would just start using different accounts to get around it (presuming you mean semi-protection). If you mean true protection, it's not like prohibiting all discussion really solves problems if the offenders are sufficiently persistent, which this guy certainly seems to be. It's a systematic problem in Wikipedia: If people being disruptive are subtle enough (remember how long it took you to notice that he was being difficult, and you were acting in completely good faith), and/or misbehave in ways that manage to get around certain procedures (editing from multiple IP addresses makes it basically impossible to warn them of their behavior as the formal procedures requesting admin assistance require), then it becomes harder and harder to get quick resolution (who are probably overtaxed anyway). Going directly to admins in good faith who are even familiar with the players involved doesn't seem to work too well, either (though this was regarding another miscreant -- at least I presume so). Hey, whatever. Recent incidents have made me start to wonder why I bother the effort of contributing to Wikipedia, anyway. It's starting to look like it's crumbling under its own weight. Xihr 07:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a wikibreak to just relax a bit and forget about all these shenanigans. I do hope you'll stay though. Oh, and I've put in a request for semi-protection - I figured it couldn't hurt. Delta (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this isn't the first time, as I mentioned (though maybe it's the same guy, who knows). Thanks for the request. Like you said, can't hurt. We'll see how effective it is, if it happens at all. Xihr 05:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that somebody won something. And at least Wikipedia can only loose by such disruptive behavior from both of you, Xihr and he. From my point of view Xihr also did an impressive work to deface the talk page. Was it really necessary to go this far? You look like you know the Wikipedia guidelines and policy better then him, so why don't you prove that by setting a good example? The Wikipedia policy isn't written in stone and perhaps he interpreted it in a different way then you. This doesn't mean that he was right or wrong, but accusing someone isn't a good start for a discussion. And perhaps you should have talked to him first before reverting the article page many times. Communication is very important if you work with many people together. Don't know if your reactions are a good way to get somebody to improve this article. I think Delta was the only one who reacted reasonable, and at least he was able to convince him by not trying to argue him down. You should think about it. By the way, I've deleted the new discussion of Xihr in the F.E.A.R. discussion page. This is really the wrong place for it. 193.100.62.28 (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) — 63.84.x.x (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note that this a dynamic IP that's never edited the F.E.A.R. or talk page before the reversion he acknowledges and this comment to my talk page he couldn't have been watching before. I think it's pretty obvious that it's a sock/meat puppet of the original editor. It would be nicer if Wikipedia weren't as easy to game as this. Xihr 20:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You are really funny. Now you show some signs of paranoia, or what? BTW, you manipulated the discussion page now by inserting some new comments between Delta's and mine. Is this also consensus and policy or are now making your own rules? It's pretty hopeless to discuss with someone who is so uncooperative and stubborn like you. 84.63.221.255 (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's ironic you're accusing me of paranoia when you then complain about this; it's routinely done in talk pages. By inserting it in the proper place, I'm indicating who I'm talking to, not "manipulating" anything (if I had stuck it at the end with further indentation, it would imply I was replying to you, not him). (The comments are all dated, after all.) Do you know of any consensus or policy that disallows this? No? Anyone still believe this guy isn't just being difficult? But then, what does it matter? No one's going to bother doing anything, anyway. So, you win. Have fun WP:OWNing the article. Xihr 00:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As a fellow FEAR editor, I would definately recommend you report to an admin and see what they have to say. What's going on now needs to be solved quickly. AlessaGillespie (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See my reply to Delta above. Xihr 21:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Break 2

Note that this was left by 84.63.213.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), since they appear to be trying to hide their true IP. --Chasingsol ^(talk) 10:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I think it's quite apparent that all these IP addresses (both on Talk:F.E.A.R.#Level list and here) are the same person. Now he's just left to defacing and parroting fragments of arguments I'd appropriately used against him out of context to make it sound like he's making arguments, when he's just defacing and being disruptive. Xihr 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I also notice that Delta's request for semiprotection was declined since things seemed to have "cooled down" -- even though the last vandalism edit was earlier that day and the page was still in the state of having been vandalized when the decision was rendered. What a joke. Xihr 23:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I re-requested the semi-protection, as they told me to do if it had "started up again" (it hadn't ever ended....). Let's hope someone will actually do something about it this time. Delta (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a barnstar for fighting a battle you can't win even though it's clearly the right one? :-) Xihr 00:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Denied again. I suppose they want you yourself to do it, Xihr....whatever. I hereby devote myself to fighting tyranny that comes to befoul this talk page! :) Maybe it'll die down after a while.... Delta (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

When I read your comment I thought you were being sarcastic, but no, the admin really did say that I should "protect such kind of protection," whatever the shit that means. Oh, right, and also that the disruption has stopped again, even though the last disruption reversion was done by you just a few minutes before the ruling. Pathetic. Thanks for your support, though. Xihr 20:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Giving it another go. Maybe after a few days of CONSTANT REVERSIONS, someone in the right state of mind will finally end this. Delta (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, an admin actually did something this time! Thanks, Delta, that was some impressive effort. Hopefully the vandals will get bored and find new targets after a few weeks, but we'll see. But the difficulty in securing the most basic protection of an obvious extended vandalism through the official channels does not make one sanguine about the project in general. I once again wonder if Wikipedia isn't crumbling under its own weight. Xihr 07:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, seems you're right there. My mistake! Rehevkor ✉ 03:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit confused about your rational to why including Ava's performances in shemale films needs to have a citation? If you truly feel this way why don't you also remove urination and bukkake from her page, as they are uncited as well? Will this casting credit of her in Transsexual Gang Bangers 10 be a good citation?

Smedpull (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The claim was that she was notable for it, which is totally undemonstrated. I didn't notice the claims on the other two things you mention; if those are claimed to be notable as well, then they should be removed too. Xihr 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Xihr : (→Biography: rm uncited WP:V WP:BLP)

70 108: About this edit. Do a little research. The info was ALREADY there. All I did was put it in oder. The info is true. Read:
proof 1: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_16_98/ai_65702465 and
proof 2: http://www.xs4all.nl/~mroyen/News/2002/news_january_27_2002.htm . 70.108.114.83 (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. Biographical articles require citations on such claims, and these claims weren't cited. Uncited claims on biographical articles must be deleted without discussion. If there are reliable sources that support the claims, by all means restore them but add these citations when you do so. Xihr 00:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow does that mean we can cut Anggun into a small stub :) ?? Satu Suro 13:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I could use your verbal-asskicking over at Talk:F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin‎ for one more round. I'm about 5 seconds in this argument away from cursing on the page like a sailor and/or ripping WP:POINT a new one. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 14:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Xihr 02:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Me and Eldraque (I think, he's still not signing posts, and now he's logged out) are now engaged in a philosophical, existential argument about source notability (and also a string of sentences with little more than just "objective subjective" tossed around in them), at the bottom of that talk page. I'm stuck, unable to convince this guy that there are limits to what you can cite. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 14:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I responded. Hopefully he'll get the hint. Xihr 22:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see this and discuss, rather than removing seemingly non-contentious material about a long-deceased person, claiming BLP. Ask for sources, don't just delete - unless I am missing something. Let's talk about it on the article talk page. Tvoz/talk 22:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. But even if he were still living, I think this would have not been an occasion for invoking WP:BLP, as there was nothing defamatory or contentious about the section. You're right that better sourcing is needed in the article, but we only remove unsourced material from biographies when it's problematic - otherwise a request for citation should suffice. I think you are misreading the BLP policy when you state that all unsourced material gets deleted immediately. If that were the case, we'd have empty bios all over the project. Contentious and potentially defamatory material is to be removed on sight, but not all unsourced material - think about it, and read even many FA biographies - you'll see that not every word is sourced. But controversial stuff has to be. Anyway, I did rework the article a bit and asked for more sourcing. Tvoz/talk 02:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP reads "[u]nsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis in original). So, as you see, the issue is not whether it's defamatory, or even whether it's positive. It's simply whether it's contentious. Now, granted, in this case the subject of the article is deceased -- though even there is precedent that BLP policy applies to recently-deceased people since there are still estates to work out and thus legal issues are still in play -- and not even recently deceased. So BLP does not apply to this article, and that was simply my oversight as I forgot that fact when making the reversion, and you already got my mea culpa on that on the article's talk page. But taking your hypothetical where the subject were still alive, I'd say that childhood details and private information about the subject can easily be contentious. Remember, the purpose of BLP policy is to keep Wikipedia from getting sued. Contentiousness should be viewed in the eyes of a potential litigant, not an editor who doesn't have a vested information on the details of what's in the article. That's my two cents. Xihr 20:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from World War III. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but calling my reversion vandalism is clearly an inappropriate lack of an assumption of good faith, especially considering that my edit summary clearly indicated the reason ("rv NOR WP:NOR") -- as it's obvious original research -- and similar cases like this have been discussed to death on talk page, which you should have actually, you know, read. Topping that off with a generic vandalism template given that it's clear even from the talk page which you added to that I'm an editor with thousands of edits over several years really takes the cake. Please read before you accuse people of vandalism. Xihr 05:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First, level one warnings assume good faith. Second, a former US ambassador is comparing the situation to the Cuban Missile Crisis, not me, so it is not OR. Third, I did not see any references to this current situation on the talk page.JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said this specific incident was discussed. There are numerous discussions about analogous contemporary incidents where something is in the process of happening. It's still original research and news reporting which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Xihr 05:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling my edits "obvious trolling" and "nonsense" is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And so was calling my edits with clear explanations in terms of Wikipedia policy vandalism, but you didn't seem to have a problem with that. Xihr 05:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on World War III. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. I reverted your edits with an explanation in terms of WP policy. You reverted them, falsely calling them vandalism, then I reverted them again with a longer explanation. Your lack of assumption of good faith is manifest here. (Not to mention warnings about WP:3RR are awfully rich when you're the other person involved in the reversions!) The obvious padding of generic warning templates is not kidding anyone. Xihr 05:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Supreme Commander for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

i had to chuckle at your revert - what a lovely example of

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.

(i would be the wikipedian who recently added the term 'silent'). no biggie though :) --Kaini (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also what the term actually means. Brief googling indicates that this is not controversial. What controls is speaking, not making noise. Xihr 19:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is LeShaun. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeShaun. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bianca Trump. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bianca Trump. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mason Marconi. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mason Marconi. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded again. Thanks. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this is better. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, like you say, it's still a bit long, but it's certainly a vast improvement. Xihr 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to a subsequent editor hacking it down even further :) Who knows, I may even come back and do that myself when I can face looking at it again. Cheers, — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Crystal Gunns. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Gunns. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on World War III. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No kidding. No WP:3RR violations have occurred, as the reversions have taken place over much longer than a 24-hour window. If you look at the edit histories, I'm the only one who's been explaining my behavior and encouraging the other party to discuss it, who so far has refused. Xihr 17:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This templates purpose is to notify you of the the 3RR. Requesting temporary full-protection. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected., your welcome to discuss it in the mean time. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Xihr 19:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a section at the article's talk page for this topic. Dan56 (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that your userpage was recently vandalized Barts1a (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for helping revert it. Xihr 23:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you add a link to your talk page in signature (see WP:SIGN) and archive your talk page???

Coercorash^{Talk^Contr.} 05:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Because I created the custom signature back before the standard template contained the talk link. I'll consider it, though, thanks.

As for not archiving the talk page, it's just not that long yet. Xihr 18:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you placed a tag on The Final Countdown (film), indicating that the plot summary was too long. I couldn't agree more. Is the new version acceptable to you? 98.82.0.102 (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree; I've made some copyediting tweaks to taste (feel free to tweak more). I'm fond of the movie for nostalgic reasons (I recently saw it again not too long ago), but of all movies, it surely shouldn't have a long plot section, not having much of one, after all. One note, though: It might be worth mentioning the time loop with the guy who gets stranded in passing, maybe in a third paragraph. Xihr 21:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit to Contact (novel)? I made two additions - the number of editions and the fact that the novel had been made into a musical. Both edits were substantiated by verifiable references. What is your problem? GroveGuy (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The reversions were explained in the edit comments. The equivalent of <ref>Some book</ref> is not acceptable -- be more specific. Xihr 03:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Pls look before you leap. Don;t just revert to increas your edit count. Her surname Mohlabane is cited in the reference: http://allmusic.com/artist/p535369 . 69.140.210.255 (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy, namely WP:BLP, requires you to cite that claim. If you already had the citation, then you should have included it when adding that personal information about a living person. Xihr 20:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on $\lg(x)=\log _{10}(x)$ , it makes sense that base 10 would have its own shorthand.Mattski (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. It's a sensible abbreviation (as is lb for the base-2 logarithm, which is a little more common elsewhere, such as in computer science), but it's fairly European-centric so I've found it tends to cause some confusion. Xihr 00:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You have twice removed an update to this page for no reason, you have left no comments, once two editors have read and changed The article to make it complete. If you continue this, I will have to treat it as you are vandalizing this page. It is a sourced and is part of the history of that movie and its update film. There is no reason to keep removing it, other than to increase your edit count. Jsgoodrich (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Contrary to your claim, there are no references in that section. The original editor couldn't even spell the word sequel, after repeated attempts. Xihr 02:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

First I was the original editor, second if you see a problem with an article ie Spelling, grammar, correct them not revert them. Also before you go slamming someone for a repeated spelling error, you should think about why it might be repeated. Some people have Dyslexia, I am one of those people. So if we are both here to help make wiki better, fix not take away. Also while you point to good faith, you should look at WP:Reverting"Revert vandalism on sight, but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. Edit warring is prohibited. See three-revert rule. Editors should provide an explanation when reverting." The policy is to make sure the reversion are limited and last resorts, not once but twice your revered an edit. It was made in good faith, and it linked to the movie wiki bag about the movie. I and many other editors find this type of behavior a waste of our time. When we take time to make a edit to improve a article, then a person comes by for no reason and does a harmful reversion, it hurts the whole. This is because we get tired of fighting edit wars to keep needed changes. You should work on improving wiki as you have in the past looking at a large number of your latest most are reversions (RV). I would simply ask that you work on improving and not taking and keeping wiki at a stand still Jsgoodrich (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No edit warring rules were violated, so your bringing the subject is completely academic. The reversions were explained; they were uncited (and still are despite your previous claim) and almost incoherent. I repeat that you should assume good faith, which you are manifestly ignoring here. Xihr 03:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

First I never said they were, what I have stated and you do not care about is you are violating the good faith. You are reverting not trying to fix. The large number of RV's you have made show that. Also you should look at the fact that also not ever word in wiki needs a cite. The movie another wiki article is linked. which has a full description of it. The number of RV you have made is just so high you I do not think are following the Policy of not doing reverts. Jsgoodrich (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Enough. You are obviously not reading responses and are just trying to pick a fight. I'm not going to take your bait. Xihr 03:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As you commented in the earlier discussion, I wanted to make you aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bands Against Bush (2nd nomination), which I have just started. Please feel free to comment there if you wish. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article Tensor density. Then if you still do not agree with the section Levi-Civita symbol#Tensor density, then please make your case against it at Talk:Levi-Civita symbol and I will try to clear up your misconceptions. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

An all-contravariant tensor (density) cannot possibly equal an all-covariant tensor (density). They are simply not the same types of things. It would be like saying that a matrix equals a turnip. Perhaps you meant that the components of the tensors (densities) are equal, but even that doesn't sound right; the relation depends on the metric signature. Xihr 10:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I will respond at Talk:Levi-Civita symbol. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

So after years of tinkering and picking fights on Wikipedia you've been reduced to fucking around with hyphens. Not exactly the culmination of a dazzling career, was it? 87.115.23.31 (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, troll. Xihr 22:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

hahaha

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Xihr. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Xihr. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Break 1

Break 2

Break 1

Break 2

Xenomorph (Alien)

AFD of CS weapons

Sweetback

Nik Kershaw

About Epsilon Radiation

Sexual Healing

James D. Nicoll

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars Release date

Notable Usenet personalities

Charmaine Sinclair

Unicorn &amp; Butterfly

Question asked

Barnstar

Elite (computer game) edits

Centipede reversion

Barnstar

Inappropriate deletion?

Regarding User:Epbr123

RFC filed against User:Epbr123

List/External links/big picture

Elite (computer game)

Starflight

Weyland the Smith and Weyland-Yutani: A Connection?

Flatland

Shays' Rebellion

Ultima IV maps

Doom 3

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension

ASCII art

Dewmocracy

The Shield

FreeSpace 2

Star Dust (aircraft)

Geometry Wars

Quake II Revert

Virtues of Ultima OR tagging

The Shield: OR and seconday sources

Salted bomb

StarForce: No personal attacks

Pronunciation of “Sade”

FYI: 90.205.80.229 / 90.208.215.240 / Avengah

Deletion of magazine appearances for Charmaine Sinclair

Tristan A. Farnon

Could you please explain more fully?

Röntgen article

Sierra (porn star)

BLP

Ur-Quan Masters and its band

Contact (movie)

WOPR

World War III

M10 Wolverine

Ringworld

Kepler's laws of planetary motion

Jasmin St. Claire

Admin action on Notable Usenet personalities

An editor has a personal attack against you on their userpage

Lauryn Hill

"Consensus can change"

Invisible Pink Unicorn

World War III

Time Cube

Claudia Christian

Quake [&amp; Quake III Arena]

Crysis

Crystal Gunns

Cynthia Rhodes

The rescue tag

Erin Gray

Sade Adu

Smelling salts

removed external link

Re: Talk:F.E.A.R.#Suggestions?

Doom 3 wossname

Ava Devine

Chante Moore

Unicorn & Butterfly

Quake [& Quake III Arena]