Globular Cluster1

Ease up

...on the rhetoric; there is no reason for this sort of co,emtary in the edit summary. You can disagree without being unpleasant about it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not with someone like you apparently. There are limits, and I've dealt with you before enough to know that you've surpassed yours. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to be more clear: knock it off. I am being pleasant and courteous with you, and expect the same from you. If you are unwilling to offer AGF, find somewhere else to edit. Your attitude is boggling, as I don't recall where we might have clashed before. Clearly, it was a lot more bothersome to you than to me - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And let's take a look at the edit of mine you reverted twice. You are apparently under the impression that consistently is spelled "consisently"; I urge you to explore a dictionary - I am correct in undoing your continued mistake.As well, the grammar of four decades versus over forty years is excessive and - again - incorrect, grammatically. Now, if you want to say that I am not the nocest person, fine. However, you might want to put your feet on solid editing ground when doing to. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen you cocky wise-ass, you're not being "pleasant" with me, you're being a deliberate irritant in my view, and I seriously doubt that you've forgotten our past exchanges, but either way, I really don't care. I'm going by what you're doing now, not by anything that happened last year.

Oh, and by the way --I didn't realize that I had misspelled "consistently" just as you didn't realize your own error last night when you used the phrase "one of the more the most notable" and I corrected that on your behalf since you had obviously overlooked and missed it. And I see now that since you don't like my being straight and direct with you that you've pulled out one of your many sock puppets in a further attempt to get under my skin, so don't you threaten me, because I have a strong suspicion that you've bothered a lot of people around here, and that you have a very thick jacket of complaints by others who didn't care to deal with your nonsense --and it would be one thing if the only "correction" you had made was to correct the spelling of "consistently," but you didn't, you chose instead to display more of your 'flare' when there's absolutely nothing wrong with "over the course of four decades," or "over a four decade period" versus your "forty years." ...And by the way --if you go back to one of my earlier edits of that Page from this past weekend before you decided to start getting "creative" and making changes of your own, you'll note that the word "consistently" was in fact spelled correctly. In other words, I have you to thank for that obviously unnecessary typo.

And No, you're not the "nocest" person --I would urge you to consult a dictionary while you're at it, and don't let the door hit you on the behind on your way out.Globular Cluster1 (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

...And despite my vitriol with Arcayne earlier, I'll chime in that your revert -- suggesting we are socks, which talk-page discussions on my page, his page, and the article page pretty clearly show isn't the case; and describing the substantial, properly formatted and fully cited changes as "frivolous" -- was disruptive. Arcayne and I have managed to slip into a more-civil talk-page discussion; swooping in with an antagonistic edit summary without the courtesy of a talk-page comment in any of the sections addressing these changes or potential to improve the article doesn't help. You're welcome to chime in on the article talk page; please do. --EEMIV (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily owe you, or either of you, a "talk-page summary" of any kind necessarily. I described my changes, in brief, and adequately over the weekend when I made them, and now you think you can just swoop in here and rewrite everything I took the time to edit over the weekend, which is, quite frankly, why I never bothered to edit the Page in its entirety previously. And that's precisely what I meant about "too many cooks in the kitchen." I left some of Arcayne's edits from yesterday, even though I felt they were either questionable or easily disputed. In other words, what I'm telling you is that my final edit over the weekend read just fine on its own, and I have come to the conclusion that either you, or either of you, depending on whatever the case may be (I really couldn't care less to be honest), are really not interested in improving this character description and biography when you get right down to it, just in endlessly tinkering with it. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you do not own the article; if you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it. I've also put in substantial edits to that page, and it continues to evolve. I appreciate that you cleared out and revised some lackluster material, but an article that "read[s] just fine" isn't a final product; my additions, for example, removed additional plot summary in keeping with our writing about fiction guideline, cited additional sources, provided real-world information, and improved the nitpicky details of several citation templates in place. I also held off on making those edits specifically because of your "too many cooks" edit summary. It looks like your content dispute with Arcayne about how much coverage of Cawley to include has bled over into a sense of protection for your work as a whole. Furthermore, leaving a message is not the same as engaging in discussion; rather than reverting, even with suspected sockpuppetry, you should at least have left a talk-page comment -- and the second revert was, simply, disruptive. If you considered your "final edit" yesterday indeed to be final, then great -- but that doesn't give you the right to cement the article's final form. --EEMIV (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said or implied that the article was in some way "mine" to make a final edit to, however, if I had known that rather than modest, gradual, worthwhile edits being made over time that it would instead be subjected to a complete and wholesale overhaul all at once, in quick and very short order, then I quite frankly would not have taken the time and bothered to do the careful revision that I did over the weekend, and by your own admission, you didn't care to take the time to make the effort yourself, so you in essence waited for someone else to do the dirty work for you, and quite frankly, I resent that. And furthermore, I really don't care if you found my second reversion "disruptive," because all the changes that you've made in the article today alone are far more disruptive in my view, and I do believe that there is a spiteful element at work in all of it besides. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm missing what it is you think is "dirty work". Regardless, please bring it up on the talk page -- which I may have been slow to do, but which you haven't taken a stab at at all. I'm taking your talk page off my watchlist; if you want to talk about the Kirk article, there are plenty of open-ended discussions on the article's talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll consider it, however, I'm forced to wonder why the talk Page never occurred to you even though you made a multitude of changes to Page in just the last eight hours or so, so I'm forced to wonder why resorting to it was automatically my responsibility supposedly.

(ec x3)And I'll be far more direct with you. You will calm the heck down, or you can explain your inability to do so at AN/I. The only reason you aren't there right now is that EEMIV addressed this sockpuppetry bullshit before I did. Consider yourself born under a lucky star, my friend. Next time, I would urge you in the strongest possible terms to run a RfCU or SSP report before running around accusing folk of sockpuppetry. The subjects of such tend to get a little upset by the accusation, and sheds all kinds of AGF for anything you might want good faith in down the line. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like your tone, I don't like your threats, I don't like your arrogance, in fact, I don't like anything about you, so I would advise you at this point to stop sending me "mail" on this, my talk Page. I have nothing else to say to you, except that I'm not interested in your "bullshit" friend, so get lost.

And that's as nice as you're going to hear it from me. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What you don't like is of little concern to either me or Wikipedia. If I choose to offer you a warning as to incivility, and the consequences thereof, they aren't threats, they are simply consequences. Heed them, ignore them - I'll still be here. And as a last note, you might want to consider yur behavior. If I can take umbrage it it, chances are likely that someone else has, as well. You might want to learn to control your temper before it gets you into hot water. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't take a hint obviously, but at this point I'm not going to hesitate to call your antics harassment, so I'll say it again despite your wanting to have the last word here: Shove Off.

Oh, and about my supposedly having had problems with other people here, even though I'm quite certain that actually applies to you, your assumption about that with respect to me is nevertheless wrong.

Now take your threats, take your arrogance, and take your attitude somewhere else; in short, Take a Hike. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Supposed 'Vandalism'

Reverting the article to what is essentially its prior status without engaging in talk-page discussion has become tedious and disruptive. Consider this a vandalism warning for your disruptive reversion. If you take exception to updates to the article that bring it into line with our WP:RS policy and WP:WAF guidelines, take it up on the talk page. Continued reversions without showing a good-faith effort to engage your fellow editors will likely get you blocked from editing. --EEMIV (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight --I took the time *last weekend* to Edit that entire Page on a "good faith" basis, only to then see you and your friend show absolutely no regard for the time and effort it took me to do that by then taking it upon yourselves to simply rewrite the entire article as you saw fit, and to then have the gall to complain to me about how *I* should have discussed my changes with you guys first on the Talk Page when you showed no interest and made no effort to do that with me, even going so far as to say you had waited until someone else took the time to edit the article in its entirety so you could then give it an overhaul of your own because you didn't feel like being bothered with it until someone else took the time to do that first?

And now you have the additional unmitigated gall to act as though the two of you completely revised the article for the sake of being productive and adding substance to it, when in actuality it was a clear-cut retaliation?

You and Arcayne are both children -- You spent the last four days stewing because the article was locked by a Sysop and couldn't be modified, so you spent that time plotting how you would rewrite the thing completely from stem-to-stern, going back to look at just what my contributions were by looking at the history, and then making it a point to completely edit all of them out. And now you think that you're going to irritate me further by making threats and citing rules when what you guys do is use the rule book as both a shield and a weapon for the sake of your own perfidy. The two of you may have been at odds once upon a time as you claimed previously, but at some point you both decided to act as a tag team obviously, and that's exactly what the two of you have been doing over the course of the last week.

So with all of that being the case, I will make what changes, edits and adjustments that I may see fit to the article Page devoted to this character without feeling the need or necessity to in some way consult either of you first. And I'm not the least interested in your threats either, because you guys use the letter of the rule book to break the spirit of it obviously. And if need be I will take that up with a Sysop.

In the meantime I suggest that the two of you do something more productive with your obvious abundance of free time, such as getting jobs. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you don't want to be polite; that's your call. However, you need to understand that people aren't going to respond to you the way you wish when you act like an utter tool, and you are going to find that attacking them with ad hominem attacks is going to have repercussions beyond the two of us simply being disappointed at your behavior. Now you can take that as a threat, or you can take that as a warning, but it is intended as advice offered without shading. If you refuse to discuss your edits, you are going to be reverted. If you choose to edit-war over it, you will be blocked, as that sort of behavior destabilizes the article. The article comes first, and much, much later, our egos.

You correctly noted how EEMIV had disagreed with the article earlier in the week, and the reluctance to give ground resulted in the article being locked. What you have missed is that we figured out - and what you need to figure out - is that Wikipedia works because equally intelligent folk decide to work together to create a common product that is both encyclopedic and verifiably cited. Had you been monitoring or contributing to the article discussion page, you would have seen that EEMIV sandboxed the article and reworked it, taking comments and compromise from anyone who came along. No one was "stewing"; we were working together to find common ground. That means you could contribute, as well - and yet you chose not to. Because of this, you have no one to blame for these changes but yourself. The large-scale edits by EEMIV are not etched in stone; there is room for improvement (and I would imagine he would be the first to admit that). Rather than a mass revert, consider that the edits he made move the article in the correct direction. The article is more concise and less in-universe, and that is what elevates the article to GA and FA - and if that isn't what you are aiming for as well, then it begs the question as to why you are here.

Go ahead and make some improvements, GC1 - no one is going to prevent that from happening. However, if you are reverted, remember to head to the discussion page to defend and find a consensus for your edit. As you can probably guess, edits that find consensus tend to remain in the article a lot longer than those which don't.

Lastly, if you think EEMIV or myself have acted at all inappropriately, I urge you to go right ahead and contact a sysop - we call them admins here, btw - they can help confirm everything I've posted here. Understand that any further personal attacks against myself or EEMIV will not be tolerated; it doesn't assist editorial cooperation and thusly hurts the function of the wiki. So either be nice, work with others, or find another place to edit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to edit this article when and how I see fit, and will do so while keeping in mind the lack of consideration the two of you thought nothing of showing me last week. I reiterate that it is a bunch of bunk in my opinion that the two of you expect explanations on the Talk Page for the article when you showed no interest in showing me the same courtesy. No, you just revamped, virtually immediately I might add, with Update after Update, wiping out virtually everything I had done in the process, whereas I at least had made it a point to limit my many necessary changes to as few updates as possible, taking care to not alter any of the actual content contained therein, or by doing as little in the way of that as was possible given the circumstances. Even now, with the complete overhaul you have given the article by changing its content in virtually every way as far as I saw, you thought nothing of completely wiping out the work previously contributed by others, and that is rude, yet you continue to drone on about manners and etiquette when the two of you show little to no interest in extending the same courtesy to others. Talk Page or no, that's exactly what you guys did, and one of you in particular more than the other, so spare me. And as such, I really don't feel at all inclined to have to "defend" anything to either of you, either HERE on MY Talk Page, or on the discussion Page pertaining to the character article, where we would likely only end up arguing anyway just as we have here. I am utterly appalled and disgusted by the sheer disdain and contempt that you have shown for my taking the time to carefully edit the entire page only for the two of you to then post-haste completely wipe all of that work away without even giving it a second thought. In short, the two of you do not and have not practiced what you have gone out of your way to preach here in my view, not really.

Oh, and by the way, just so the two of you know ...I've already seen your latest "contributions" to the discussion Page, and No, I wasn't impressed by any of it really because it struck me as just more of your usual games and routine. And just to be clear--No, this is not about my having a supposed sense of "ownership" about the article, but I do feel that if I'm going to spend my free time making a contribution, it would be nice if it wasn't all simply overwritten virtully immediately. And telling me that you actually waited for someone else to go through that kind of trouble because you were just too lazy to do it yourself is even more arrogant and rude in my opinion, and only adds insult to injury if anything, but hey, perhaps I was just raised to think that way. Imagine that.

As for my reporting a grievance to the appropriate section, for what it's worth, let it be known that that's already been done. Discussion Page or no, you guys have your own sense of "ownership" about this character article/Page, and that much is damn obvious. And one of your problems, aside from the ones I just cited, is that you also don't know when to just leave well enough alone. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

I've taken up your mediation request, edited that page and asked some thing of you on the Talk:James T. Kirk page. Let's get this sorted! Gavin (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Right I'm gonna look over all the "evidence" and see if I can pinpoint any particular issues- what you have so far said is that you believe they are trying to "Own" the article as a W:Cabal and also that rather than trying to push it towards a finalised-ish state (or as close as Wiki articles get to it) would rather keep it under construction for an indefinite amount of time? I shall be giving this case my full attention and will also seek advice concerning the use of Amazon.com links (personally I think they should be OK) and perhaps see about getting the article reviewed. Any good examples of misediting on their part might be helpful btw. Gavin (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that their wanting to "Own" the Page is accurate, which was why I really had to laugh a few days ago when one of them accused me of wanting to "own" the article on the discussion Page for the character. They've completely revamped the Page, overwrote everything, and any contributions I might be interested in making they're eager to edit down or edit completely out as much as possible, so again, let's be serious --who's really interested in "owning" the article? Their actions speak for itself as far as that goes, so it's funny to me when I see one of them talk about edit changes made today by them in the history summary due to a supposed "consensus" having been reached on the article's "discussion" Page -- a consensus between two people basically: them. RottenTomatoes.com, as an example (I'm just trying to make a point here), would laugh at that kind of a "consensus" ...in fact, they wouldn't consider it a "consensus" at all, but I digress, so my apologies.

Look, I really do appreciate your help, however, these individuals have me at a distinct disadvantage because they've been contributors here longer than I, and they're more well versed in the rules and know how to use them to their advantage, and they have a lot more time to devote to this kind of activity than I do, so in essence, they win by default. I simply do not have the kind of time that they do to devote to this kind of thing. And while it would be nice to find a way to come to terms with them, frankly, I just don't see it happening because to them this is all just one big game.

I'm still interested in your input nonetheless, however, out of simple curiosity if nothing more, and in the event it might actually stand to help yield a positive result at some point, even though I'm inclined to doubt that actually occurring.

You asked for examples, which I wouldn't have a problem pointing to, but that also comes down to how much time I'm willing to devote to this, and during the week offers me far less in the way of time than on weekends, and I suspect you're not that interested in sticking around for very long, nor would I want to hold you to that kind of a commitment, especially if you have more important things to do. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I really need some examples of what you regard as conflict because I am struggling to find "evidence" here of anything other than stringent editing and the occasional lack of good faith and civility. Have they ever maliciously or wrongfully blanket reverted your edits or something else that I have missed? Gavin (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to look back at the history. Consider what I had said to you just last night, for instance, about their editing out my contributions to the article, and look at Reference #5 there in the first paragraph of the article and the very brief portion of the quotation now there, and then trace back and look at that original quote in its full context that I inserted into the article this past Sunday --within less than two days, they eliminated an entire paragraph and cut it down to less than half a sentence. Now--are you implying that this is somehow my imagination, even after what I had said to you yesterday, and looking at what they've just done? Look at how much editing they've done to the Page today alone -- You don't think they're making it a point to "own" the article? (And by the way --you might want to check your hypertext Link for the term "own" from last night when you get the chance.)

These guys are just being schmucks -- they're playing games, and it's a shame if you can't see that. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorted! But the thing is, editing an article allot is not a bad thing- especially when it is a group of editors together- who don't even agree on many edits! Yet they are working on the talk page together...however this does not rule out the possibility that they are purposefully excluding you. I am going to ask an experienced editor for advice on this. Don't worry though, we'll get this all sorted out. However, please refrain from the personal insults i.e. schmucks. Gavin (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I let a moment of frustration get the better of me. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)!

You are welcome to contribute

Currently, we are discussing an issue in the Kirk article that I thought you might be interested in participating in. Call it an olive branch. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in participating in the editing of that Page any longer. You would only remove, cut down and mutilate anything I might care to contribute, and/or move it into a Section that it doesn't even belong in.

You don't intentionally aggravate someone and then offer them a so-called "olive branch," expecting them to get involved in what would amount to just more of the same shenanigans.

Go climb a tree. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, okay. It's all my fault. Same old glob. Good riddance. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there goes mediation! p.s. I would love to know how you came across that Dr. Gavin page...Gavin (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no point trying to have a dialogue with people who use their types of tactics, and think nothing of either stretching the truth, or telling outright lies for the sake of getting a decision favorable to them. (See the article discussion Page if you haven't already and would like to know what I'm referring to here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_T._Kirk ) Why would I bother wasting my time --only to encounter more of the same nonsense? No thanks.

p.s. I would really like to know how I came across the Dr. Gavin Page too, since all I did was click on your name Link on the Case Report Page, and that's where it took me. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The Captain Kirk discussion has flared up again. Erikeltic (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you really surprised? Those two guys wanted to own the article, showed absolutely no consideration whatsoever concerning the effort I put into editing the complete text that was already there months back, completely overhauling it on their own without so much as bothering to ask me about what I might of thought of any of their radical changes in the immediate aftermath, and they resisted every effort to include anything I might have offered up at any point thereafter. They're a couple of supremely arrogant inconsiderate dictators, so this was inevitable, which I knew full well when I chose to abort any further editing attempts to the article. And just to be clear, whatever is going on now has nothing to do with me --I haven't bothered with that article since I bailed and said I was bailing on it. I hope they kill each other (figuratively speaking). And the last laugh is sort of on them anyway, because when the new movie gets released in early May, the article is going to have to largely be redone as a result.

Thanks for letting me know though. Maybe I'll drop by for a laugh at some point just for the hell of it. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to comment here so your response in the Kirk wiki wouldn't get lost. Thanks for what you wrote. Marfoir (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to thank me --you were right. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on how we can reach a consensus on the info box discussion currently raging in Captain Kirk? Or does consensus when dealing with Arcayne mean you just give him what he wants, despite the lack of logic and substance in his arguments? Erikeltic (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed the broader discussion to be honest, only a portion of Marfoir's disagreement with that guy Mike about Cawley's inclusion. As for how to deal with the likes of Arcayne, I can only suggest that if you're that interested in having a meaningful impact on the article Page, then be prepared to have the time, tenacity and familiarity with the rules and guidelines in order to get anywhere, because he'll use all three of those against you wherever possible. There is the possibility of overruling him by consensus however. It depends upon having the numbers, along with everyone involved seeing eye-to-eye on whatever happens to be at issue. And if people need my input for this latest request for mediation, I'll make myself available. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/James_T_Kirk, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Marfoir (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just reviewed the reasons behind the request for mediation and signed my agreement, for what it's worth. Keep in mind though that I have not actively edited the article in months. And in my opinion, there are probably other issues worthy of such attention that have not been raised, but I'll just leave that to the side for now. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I'm a "meatstick", but regardless thanks for signing the mediation. I read over all of the things you posted and I think we have very similar mindsets regarding right & wrong with this issue. I think we were just a few months away from one another. Marfoir (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call you a "meatstick" - Who, if anyone, referred to you in that manner?

I'm not surprised the request for mediation was rejected. They probably felt it was too trivial and they just didn't want to be bothered haggling with people over it, especially with someone like Arcayne hogging up the article, always determined to get his way. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/James T Kirk. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 06:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.