User talk:PeanutCheeseBar

I like to keep both sides of my discussions together, so if you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I left a question on your talk page, please reply there; I'm watching your page so I will get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks!

Welcome!

Hello, PeanutCheeseBar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - crz crztalk 00:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Kerry article

I know it's frustrating when someone keeps adding in material you truly believe to be POV or otherwise inappropriate. But you don't do yourself, your position, or Wikipedia any justice by violating Wikipedia policies in attempting to right that wrong. If they're really wrong then others will step in and take issue with it just as you have done. It may take time but this article has a high profile so I'm sure that we'll collectively converge on the right balance and content. I know where you're coming from and I empathize. Slow and sure. Don't let others drag you down to that level. Best of luck! --ElKevbo 02:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I've really sunk to Derex's level when he's been cutting out statements and intentionally rendering an article POV, intentionally misrepresenting my name and attacking other users (something he's been blocked for before), and posting antagonistic comments on my page and his. I'm loathe to let him treat Wikipedia as his own personal plaything and go unpunished; matters like this can be the cause of double-standards on this site. To that end, if he's not documenting justification of changes and cutting material without discussing it, then I'm not in violation of the 3RR rule since what he is doing constitutes vandalism. --PeanutCheeseBar 02:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You absolutely make this stuff up don't you? What have I deleted today? Nothing. The only reverts going on is you deleting well-sourced on-topic facts that don't suit you. I did, as talk page consensus indicated, yesterday trim the article way down to the basic facts. Several editors supported me in that both verbally and with edits. I've given up trying to hold the line, even though the section violates undue weight policy. Rather, I'm actually adding facts to flesh out the article. That you selectively are deleting those, rather than trying to proportionally reduce the article, says it all. And let me note that Tbeatty called my initial trim "proportional", and Tbeatty is about as openly and vigorously conservative as they come around here. So your hysteria about spin is rather poorly placed. Derex 02:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am quite conservative is well, though I believe in balance, and your insistence on deleting my comments about Kerry refusing to apologize, why he refused to apologize, and the fact that Democrats criticized him as well throws off the balance of the article (and that's just the tip of the iceberg). In addition, I'm suspecting that there is some sock puppetry at work, and I'm not the only person that believes this, as Folksong has duly noted. I've asked you repeatedly in the comments of my edits and your discussion page to join the discussion page on Kerry, where we can come to a compromise; if you cannot bring yourself to be a team player and participate, especially when I and others have asked you many times, then you don't need to participate in the editing of the article. --PeanutCheeseBar 02:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

PSI List

I merged the lead into the EarthBound series article. However, the list has no place on Wikipedia. We don't need to know all PSI powers in the series, let alone how much damage they do. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're able to revert my edits, you're able to respond to me. Wikipedia is not about teaching people about how much damage an attack does or what it does. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that PSI is significant to the series requires there be a list of all PSI powers in all of the games? That makes no sense. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? It'll never be significant enough to require a guide on an encyclopedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is my job to point out "no guide content on Wikipedia". Why won't you explain why this list is necessary to Wikipedia? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

FF is terrible precedence, just like Pokémon. Just because a game in one of those series has something like this doesn't mean that it is standard. But hey, even the FF magic articles doesn't just list magic and tell you how much damage they do, who can use them, and what they do. Wikipedia does not need to know how much damage PSI Starstorm does. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing the list is improving it. The list is NOT necessary. Write the importance of PSI to the series in the article. There need not be a list for PSI powers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You should just merge the article to series article until you actually make these improvements. Half the time people say they're going to do that, it's still the same months later. If you're still arguing about the list, look at Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nemu 18:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If it shouldn't be on Wikipedia, its removal is good. Why are you forcing me to repeat this? I have told you several times that it is unnecessary to list powers. Your example, FF Magic, does not have Fira or Firaga. It does not tell you how much damage Fire it does. It does not tell you all who can use Fire. It does not tell you what Fire does. If you are trying to use FF Magic to validate the article, you also validate removing a ton of content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Would you care to explain how any of that is important to the article? Translation of opening text is cruft, stuff about the rom is original research, and the trivia is unencyclopedic. Nemu 17:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What does people having played the rom have to do with anything? That does not make it any less original. All of the trivia besides the roms size(which is pointless), and the music composer(can be readded to an audio section later), is all OR also. And we both agree that the translation of opening text is pointless. Nemu 18:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do that. That tag is worthless. Nothing, I mean, absolutely nothing, good ever comes from it. Nobody actually uses it, so if you don't have sources to back it up, please just let me remove it for now. Nemu 18:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I do have little faith in the editors, especially for a small article like this. Several large articles I edit occasionally have had them for a few months to a year or so. I don't like to put messages on talk pages because I either never get a response(for literal months in the very least), or I get one or two people, like you, that want to keep everything(no offense meant), which does nothing for me. For now, can I just remove the info, and if you can source it, you can place it back up? Nemu 18:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Just a word of advice - if the argument at the AfD keeps going, it may end up being closed early. And if it's closed early, there's already plenty of consensus to delete the article. So it might be a good idea to just withdraw from the argument and let the AfD run its course. Or, at the very least, continue the discussion on your (or his) talk page, rather than at the AfD. Kafziel ^Talk 14:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

At this point, regardless of what I say or do, the article will likely be deleted and nothing I say will change that; truth is, ALttP is not the first person that I have taken up an issue with on matters like this, and it infuriates me that such destructive (and holier-than-thou) behavior is condoned here. I believe it takes credibility away from Wikipedia when one user can make a decision to blow something away regardless of what others have to say on the matter, and without consulting them first. I have tried to reason with him, only for him to show me an attitude and for him to say why he isn't wrong. I mean, look at the Pop Star history; he's vacillated from removing content, to adding it, to removing it again, and saying that someone ELSE should open it up for discussion. He's just absolutely out of control and has control issues, as shown by the fact that if someone makes an edit he doesn't like or agree with on an article, he just attempts to blow it away or have it deleted, and I can't believe that behavior is rewarded. Wouldn't you say that I have been quite civil with him? --PeanutCheeseBar 14:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Verbose? Certainly. Civil? I'd say not. I find it hard to find any civility in any of your communications with him so far. Accusations of meatpuppetry, of trying to railroad your article, of destructive behavior... doesn't look at all civil to me. That's not to say he isn't doing the same, but two wrongs don't make a right.

I also want to point out again that this is not a case of one user making a decision to blow something away. Eight editors agree that the article should be deleted. That's a pretty sound decision by a number of unrelated people. It's not just him. Regardless of what he's doing elsewhere, this is the only article relevant to this particular conversation.

Keeping up the argument isn't going to lead to anything but trouble. You're not going to change his mind, he's not going to change your mind. Sometimes you just have to walk away. Kafziel ^Talk 15:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am afraid I have to disagree with you on the civility count, as I believe I was quite civil with him when this discussion originated on his talk page. Though I have been rather tactful going further into the discussion, I DO have a limit for how much arrogance I can and will tolerate from an individual, and I make few exceptions to that rule. That aside, I am sorry if you do not like how wordy my responses are; given that we are communicating in a forum where it is difficult to convey different degrees of emotion (such as increasing frustration, for example), I make a lot of effort to make sure that things are quite clear, and sometimes there really is no way to say something without being very overt.

I also have to disagree again with the fact that this one particular article is subject to this AfD debate by sheer virtue of the fact that if you check the user's edit history, he has attempted to "railroad" other articles in the past when other editors have disagreed with changes he has made, and he has attempted to do the same to those articles. Regardless of whether or not the article should be deleted, recommending an article for deletion is simply a tactic he employs when he does not get his way, as you can see from his past and from talks on his page. To me, that suggests a much deeper problem since it affects multiple articles, and if you cannot recognize that and understand that, then he gets off scot-free and gets to do it all over again. The end result is that the quality of Wikipedia suffers, and given that this certainly isn't the first time this has happened (including the perpetrator going unpunished and the objector being warned and discouraged), I'm just less inclined to contribute. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't give the same "warning" to him (it's really just a suggestion), because it would suit him just fine if the AfD is closed and the article gets deleted. You're the only one who has anything to lose by continuing the argument.

At some point, you're just going to have to accept the fact that he had nothing whatsoever to do with this article being deleted. I listed it. He didn't ask me to. Several other editors support deletion. He didn't ask them to.

To be honest, I don't really play video games. I have a PS2 that I use to play Star Wars: Battlefront, and that's about it. So I don't have a lot of interest in the articles he's merging and I'm not really the right admin to appeal to about it. I'm just here because I know Wikipedia policy, so I'm only interested in this as far as that goes. The deletion of the article is pretty well assured, and that is in keeping with Wikipedia policy. At this point, I'm just trying to save you a little aggravation. There's no shame in backing down on this one. Nobody is going to think less of you for apologizing (for the meatpuppetry remark) and conceding the deletion of the PSI List. You may have more to discuss with ALttP, but not in this particular situation. I assure you, if you just walk away from the situation for a few days, it will seem a lot less important when you come back. Kafziel ^Talk 16:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that the issue will be less important in a few days time, but in the long run, he'll just be able to do it again in the future. You listed the article for deletion, but he put down the template and made the suggestion that it should be done. Regardless, I'm saying he should be warned for the nonchalant and arrogant attitude he has taken towards those who object to him from several articles, not over particulars of one article. I really don't have anything to "lose" in this by virtue of the fact that this is an open-source encyclopedia that suffers due to how self-referential it is, from anonymous editors who aren't always qualified to make decisions on the content of some articles (as you've no doubt heard on the news), and those who are in a position of power to do something and correct some of these issues, but are too busy promoting their own views (such as whether or not someone supports anon users doing editing, how some things should be categorized, etc); it's more of a loss for the people who contribute something useful, only to have someone else decide "it's not Wikipedia material". I use to have the same view on the Larry Seidlin article that you have on the PSI List article, only to learn that people will continue to say "this is notable", or "I want to know more about this", and even if you don't believe it is, it does not change the fact that they still want to know. Shooting it down will only make it that much harder for interested individuals to find, and reinforcing (or the lack of inhibiting) another person who works to eliminate that information doesn't really help anyone in the long run (unless they're looking for bragging rights). If nothing else, I will not apologize for calling someone out when I believe he made a mistake, and especially when that person is too arrogant to discuss it in a civil manner; to do so would only reinforce his delusions of grandeur, and in all good conscience, I can't do that. I'm glad you were a little more civil than ALttP was, but I still have some disagreement with your belief that there is not a bigger underlying issue with that particular user; knowledge of policies may have put you where you're at now, but it doesn't do a lot of good if you can't spot a problem user like ALttP and put him in his place. All you've given him at this point was the warning to "play nice" the one time, and that's it. I hardly find that to be adequate or fair, especially in light of the long talk we've been having. That aside, though we cannot see eye to eye on some things, I am glad you are much more civil and somewhat more logical in expressing your views. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't need a warning. He's been blocked 12 times for edit warring and incivility. I think he's well aware of his shortcomings at this point. But in this case, you have committed more blockable offenses than he has. You can argue that all you like - nobody ever admits it, because everyone always thinks their situation is somehow unique and excusable - but it's a fact. I'm not issuing any warnings or blocks to anyone because I'd like to think this talk is productive. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that's what I'm hoping.

I do find it amusing that every time there's a content dispute, the loser drags out the old "This Will Hurt Wikipedia" argument. Hundreds, if not thousands, of articles just like this one have been deleted and Wikipedia is none the worse for wear. If you know of a more successful Wiki on the web, I'd like to see it. For that matter, try looking up EarthBound in Encyclopedia Britannica. Not one single mention. Does the fact that they don't have comprehensive coverage of every video game ever made make them less successful? Nope. And we have 100 times more information about video games, TV shows, movies, and comic books than any encyclopedia. We're doing just fine in that department. We've given a lot of inches, but you're trying to take a mile.

But, aside from all that, if you honestly can't see the difference between an actual live person like Larry Seidlin and a list of imaginary powers from a video game, I don't think this conversation is really worth having. Kafziel ^Talk 17:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If ALttP didn't need a warning due to being blocked several times in the past, then I don't see why he was not warned or blocked after the first few signs of hostility in this case or previous cases in the recent past (and why he is still allowed to edit even now). I don't like to exclude people from discussions if they have something productive to offer, but judging from this case and previous cases in ALttP's history, he has some issues with civility, and it looks like he's been given and burned through several chances.

That aside, I think you misinterpreted my so-called "This Will Hurt Wikipedia" remark; the loss of the article isn't what would cause harm, but the continued existence of a user who incites controversy by changing around articles without regard for civility and compromise and exudes arrogance and megalomania while doing so would. My case is neither special or unique in that I am not the only one that has made it (in general, not for the particular article), and that people like him do stuff like this all the time and continue to get away with it while the objector gets reprimanded. One article is not a loss when you consider that there's a rogue user who's butchering several rticles and changing them to his liking (or simply trying to have them axed, as is the case with Frank Grimes).

As for the Larry Seidlin article, you must not have read the history of the AfD debate or of the article itself; the point I was trying to make was that the article was not notable at the time it was recommended for deletion (and it was horribly POV, for that matter), but had Seidlin not began acting up in the courtroom (as later reported in the news) or people not taken interest in the matter, the article would likely have been gone, or more of a stub than it is now. I'm sorry you can't see what I was attempting to infer , but I thought you might understand.

Lastly, if you don't remember, I did say that the article was lacking in material relevant to the story, and needed improvement. As I also told ALttP, I didn't so much take issue with the page being deleted as I did with his attitude in this matter; I certainly don't like to see pages get deleted, but it bothers me more when people conduct themselves in the way that ALttP did, because I simply have very little tolerance for arrogance. You certainly don't see me arguing with the other users who voted to delete it, both because they are unrelated to the matter and because they have not been inherently hostile towards me; I only took issue with the one who had to have a nasty attitude. All I ask for is some decent logic along with a helpful or civil attitude, and I will return the kindness and gracefully accept defeat. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there IS the simple fact that few, if not all of the articles I merged/redirected had no controversy to their merge/redirection in the first place. Which you continue to ignore simply because it kills your argument that I have a "disregard" for the opinions of others, just because "your" article was AfDed. I recently stopped edit warring over people disagreeing with the merging of articles or redirecting of them, but certainly not because of you claiming that I have no concern of other peoples' opinions. I have been far more civil than you in this situation. I'm sorry for being arrogant, but Wikipedia would be worse for wear if I wasn't here - an inestimatable amount of lowered quality, but the Kirby articles and Katamari Damacy possibly wouldn't be as good as they have become since I began work on them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy; I don't completely agree with some of the statements that you've just mentioned, but I'm much more inclined to listen when you're civil about it, and saying you are sorry goes a long way to show that. I graciously accept your apology, and I want to put this behind us, for the good of all parties involved. To that end, if a dispute between us should arise over another article or otherwise, I hope we can be this civil when dealing with it. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG

Could you give you opinion on keeping the Wii Points in the discussion over at WP:VG?

Smile

GreaterWikiholic has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Assume good faith

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please participate in a respectful and civil way, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. RobJ1981 15:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Take your own advice; if you want to practice civility, then don't attack everybody who shows you where you have violated Wikipedia policies. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policies has Rob supposedly violated? Please provide links, too. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the list talk page PeanutCheeseBar, I admitted I should've waited a little longer. Other than that, I'm pretty sure I've violated nothing. In my opinion: this is defamation of sorts, in an attempt to either get the page unprotected or get in me in trouble for getting people to voice their opinions against the points at the list page. RobJ1981 17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nishkid64, Rob has violated WP:CCC on a few occasions pertaining to this article (leading to this ongoing dispute), and Bishop2 has made note of both his "forum shopping" and violation of WP:CCC with this comment: [[1]]: Only since Rob started bringing in other parties because the first two debates and votes didn't go in his favor, sadly. --Bishop2 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC). Keep looking throughout the page; he's been attempting to get them removed (and keep them removed) for the past few months, as a few other users have pointed out as well. He wants to make things a certain way, yet when another editor has suggested mediation, this was Rob's reponse [[2]]: ::::Don't assume I volunteer for mediation, because I posted. I don't have the time to do it, nor do I have interest in it. I can somehow bet mediation will be the same as this: an arguement that gets no where. Regular editors of the article will want the article back to how they see fit, while myself and others wont. RobJ1981 18:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Rob, given how many places you've posted your discontent with this issue, I'm still attempting to post and respond in all locations where you're stretched this dispute to; you'll have to forgive me if I want to get up and leave the PC for a while because I have other errands that also need to be done while I have the free time over the weekend. That having been said, your steadfast "I'm pretty sure I violated nothing" is only serving to engender more uncivility (as well as demonstrate your unwillingness to compromise or ability to admit you made a mistake), and that same attitude is what is causing other people to turn on you and point out your mistakes as well. We're all supposed to be on the same level here Rob; please do not lose sight of that; I don't care how long the page stays protected, so long as the edit warring and reverting does not continue after we reach some consensus or have a mediator assist. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Be civil and stop attacking

You need to stop assuming things, and basically attacking me because you think I've done so many wrong things. I have the right to my opinion, and you don't seem to respect it. Also, my other dispute doesn't need to be dragged into the points issue. Assume good faith, comment about CONTENT, not contributors. I will be reporting further rude behaviour of yours to an admin. I shouldn't have to put up with you acting rudely. You have no right to treat me this way, period. If things don't go your way: you shouldn't act rude and think it's alright. In my opinion, your behaviour isn't justified at all. Talk about the issue of the article, not how you feel about the editor you don't agree with. RobJ1981 23:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, I have every right not to agree with you if I don't agree with your logic, and you've been continually trying to make this a personal issue when I point out that you've made mistakes. You really have no room to say that I'm rude or have "bad faith", considering that you've constantly been attacking me for drawing attention to your blatant violations of Wikipedia policy, and continually threatening to report me to an admin (as you've done throughout this debable) is not "good faith". I will not have you blackmail me in an attempt to silence me because I draw attention to your infractions. --PeanutCheeseBar 00:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That you believe another editor is attacking you does not entitle you to attack them back. Don't call the kettle black. Please stop leveling accusations at other editors, regardless of whether or not you disagree with them. >Radiant< 12:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussion on the talk page Radiant; I'm not the only person "attacking" this user. In addition, Rob has already brought the issue up to an admin again, so it's being handled on that admin's talk page; as I noted above on my talk page, I don't like to stretch an issue out over several talk pages, since it's easier just to keep it all in one place. --PeanutCheeseBar 13:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said you were the only person attacking Rob. However, I am asking that you stop attacking him. >Radiant< 13:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of putting the word "attacking" in quotes previously wasn't an admission of guilt on mine or anyone else's part, it was meant to signify that what he perceives as an attack really isn't an attack; it was constructive criticism that he's just outright refusing to accept. Other users have said that they don't want to repeat their points over and over, given that they've stated them before or they agree with what someone else says, and some users have even brought up the point that multiple people should not have to justify to the one why they should keep the points when the one refuses to justify why they should be taken out. Even when I suggested within the article's talk page that he take a Wikibreak if it's getting him so wound up, he simply shot it down and just leveled another accusation. However, as I said, the dispute is being resolved elsewhere. --PeanutCheeseBar 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The admin hasn't replied once: that's not being resolved. That was a blatant lie on your part. I don't appreciate you thinking I'm stupid (this is in response to your latest Virtual Console list talk page). I know people don't agree with me, you don't need to point it out because you think I'm stupid. That type of attitude is very disrespectful. You really think it's alright to harass and attack me, don't you? RobJ1981 20:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, forgive me for having enough good faith in the admin to believe that he'd respond on his talk page; you don't need to come here to my page to attack me because he hasn't responded to you on his. As for you, I don't think you're stupid, just really easy to offend or looking to be offended; however, keep acting in the manner that you do, and your actions will surely change whatever perception people had of you before. Lastly, you have no room to lecture me on being disrespectful, considering your demeanor throughout this manner, and the it's not my fault that the admin hasn't responded to you on his page. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. RobJ1981 20:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Practice what you preach, and keep this discussion on the admin page as I noted above, or I will report you for harassment. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Rob and PeanutCheeseBar, you both need to stop arguing. Even if I mediate the dispute now, what good will that do? You're going to be back fighting each within a few days. I request that both of you guys take some time off to cool down, and stay away from each other and the Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America) page. Also, if the attacks and incivilities continue, a formal mediation request may be necessary. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Rob is questioning Neo Samus' comments. I don't see any fault with that. Please do not keep up the accusations of "forum shopping". People do take these things personally, and using that against Rob is not helping the matter. Also, if you have any personal complaints, please e-mail them to me, instead of posting on my user talk page (where they are visible to Rob and others). Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted it on your talk page on purpose; Rob has no shame in doing something he shouldn't be, then acting like he's all offended and like he's a victim when someone draws attention to it. What Rob is doing is bordering on controlling, in telling users what to do as the model "moral compass" (when he should just be staying out of the matter entirely, given recent events) As for the shopping around, I'm not the only user who has noticed this trend, but unless you read the talks page, you're not going to see that; he's been told once before by you, by myself, and by other users not to bring up an issue again so soon after a resolution, and despite the fact that he acknowledged that he should not have done it before, he continues to do it now, since the discussion is not going in his favor. This behavior should not be condoned or ignored. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I did examine the details carefully last time, and I also looked at the page again. You are a responsible party, since you are provoking this sort of behavior. This all started because Rob wanted to discuss Wii points, despite the fact that a consensus had been reached on the talk page. After that, a number of people assumed bad faith and made accusations of forum shopping (and other stuff), which undoubtedly affected Rob's attitude towards these editors. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rob's had an attitude the whole time, not just since the "accusations" began flying; he wasn't satisfied with the points being kept after the first discussion, and so he chose to take further action in ways that are generally discouraged. As such, I'm not responsible for him doing something he admitted he shouldn't have been doing in the first place, and there's nothing wrong with pointing out him having done something wrong, especially since all he's done is make threats or grow continually more arrogant instead coming clean (which he barely managed to do, and only after you told him not to bring the issue up again so soon). I've only seen him say "please" once in this entire conversation, and in the context that it was used, it barely seemed sincere; that hardly strikes me as someone who had good faith when this began. The other users are not stupid either; I wasn't exactly the first person to make note of his forum shopping or bringing up an issue again ao soon, but I was the most vocal, since every time someone made mention of it, he acted like he was being victimized and needed someone to validate his feelings (and the lack of admonishment did just that). If you really had read the whole discussion, not just parts (which show where he's been exceptionally obnoxious), but the whole thing, you should be able to see that. As such, you should not be so quick to label me a provocateur, since any attention or commentary on him doing something he shouldn't or saying things he shouldn't just sets him off even more; it's a no-win situation with him. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just look at the above section. Comments like that DO NOT help the mediation process, whatsoever. They are incivil, and can be interpreted as personal attacks. Please do not comment on Rob anymore. I know you're only trying to help, but I don't think it's really beneficial for the mediation. I will look at the situation and try to settle the issue. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, forum shopping is a serious allegation, and you just don't throw it out there. Rob was clearly not forum shopping, since he was just trying to bring up a discussion (even if shouldn't have) because he did not feel that the supporting arguments for the Wii points were very persuasive. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, but that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it; I stand by what I said before, but your attempt at civility in this matter is not unappreciated. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, as I suggested, please avoid editing the talk page for the time-being.[3] Thank you. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as I stated, as long as Rob is attempting to do something to change that article (directly or indirectly) after your request for both of us to take a break, it's hardly fair for me to sit by idly and watch; it's not out of lack of respect, but there are several other users who are posting on his page and pointing out his hypocrisy. Granted, I don't continue to post to join them; I simply put in my two cents on a discussion which appeared to be civil, and until I read this message, I was about to intervene in what is about to become an edit war. Furthermore, I haven't referred to him (at least not in the article), just as you asked; however, considering how condescending he is towards the other editors, I'd say he's the real provocateur in this situation. Maybe you need to pay more attention to him, since other users are complaining about him too... --PeanutCheeseBar 23:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the direction the article is going in at this moment, it might be deleted by the time I come back... --PeanutCheeseBar 23:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and civility final warning

If you engage in any incivility and personal attacks at Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America) or on any user's talk page, you will be blocked for disruption. This is a final warning, and I don't want to see any more shenanigans at that article. If someone else engages in incivility, please report to me. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, please don't act all "goody-goody" about this. You have definitely been one of the instigators for the incivility and personal attacks featured on the article's talk page. As agreed by another administrator, do not make unnecessary, unproductive and offensive accusations directed towards other users. You're equally responsible in this, and any future postings of that nature will result in a block. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that was unwarranted; I have not been engaging in any incivility since our last discussion, nor have I directed any accusations towards Rob (nor have I acknowledged him) or any other users (please check my contributions since the previous comment on this page). The only thing I can think of that directly refers to another user is my post asking why Radiant removed the points from another page because:

• He keeps stating there is a consensus, when it is clear that there isn't; several people are disagreeing with him (if there was a consensus, there wouldn't be so many users reverting the page). To that end, Drumpler and DurinsBane87 are being pretty good sports about participating in this discussion and canvassing the other editors for input, regardless of their side (and Drumpler is FOR the removal of the points; I'm certainly not being nasty towards him).
• It's a change that could possibly upset other users, considering the matter is already under discussion.
• The future of the other pages is somewhat dependent on the fate of the NA page, which has been under discussion for deletion.
• He only made the change on the EU article, and not the JP or AU articles; if he wanted to be consistent, then I would think he would have applied it across all articles, not just the one.

I'm honestly not attacking Radiant; I just don't understand why he'd only make the change across one article in the name of consistency, then leave the others alone. Regardless of what you think I'm doing or what my intentions are, I am truly just trying to participate peacefully. I stated on June 2nd that it wasn't a good idea to unlock the article before until this was worked out, and that was even when it did not have the points:

I don't care how long the page stays protected, so long as the edit warring and reverting does not continue after we reach some consensus or have a mediator assist.

I'm not attacking anyone over good or bad faith; I'm just asking you to please have some good faith in me. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't throw out Assume Good Faith like that. I assumed good faith at first, but I have seen you telling Rob that he's forum shopping, and comments like the ones you wrote at [4]. I have interacted many times in dispute resolution with Rob, and I've found that he is not incivil. He may get angry at times, but only when provoked. This is exactly what you've been doing, and I urge you to stop acting like you have no involvement in the situation here. Another admin, Radiant!, agreed that you're probably one of the most incivil people at the talk page, and any person who reads the talk page and the user talk pages can see that. Just acknowledge that, and move on. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I stopped assuming good faith with Rob a while ago, and yet he continued to throw "assume good faith" in my face continually; his attitude is what really pushed the line, considering it seems like a double-standard for him to say that stuff to me, but yet continue acting the way he does. I had said before that he would not leave well enough alone concerning that article, and you dismissed my thoughts (or rather, didn't answer them); to that end, I still didn't assume "bad faith" with you, and only now I asked you to assume good faith in me (I haven't continually asked since this started). Also, I don't completely agree with your "he only gets angry when he is provoked" notion; however, I've stated my views on this matter more than enough, so I'm not going to say them again (and I really do hate repeating myself over and over). I don't typically let things get under my skin, but I felt quite provoked by some of the things he said and did, and I don't appreciate condescending attitudes from anybody.

As for Radiant, I've e-mailed him so that if he has any issues with me, he can take them up with me there; I noticed where he said that I wouldn't accept any consensus, and I just wanted to clear the air with him and let him know that I'm not really that hard to please. I only asked for consistency (and not just merely from the EU article) simply because I am a casual editor (as you might notice from my low contribution count), and it is really quite difficult to get in the habit of contributing when there are no set standards for some things. It's a lot more clear-cut when it comes to minor errors such as spelling mistakes, grammar errors, or the occasional vandalism, but when it comes to citing links or other things, I just copy and paste, and modify accordingly. It's much simpler that way, and given the amount of free time I have (which isn't a lot), I like to make it count.

I think incivility is in the eye of the beholder; it's a lot easier to point a finger and say someone isn't being civil when they're not on your side of the debate. I imagine that I have come off as uncivil from some of the things I have said and done, but there are a lot of editors with attitudes or huge egos on this site, and I just have a low tolerance for people who have either one; there's only one other user who frustrated me half as much as much as Rob did, but that user eventually came to say that he was sorry for being arrogant, and I accepted his apology, dropped the argument, and moved on. If Rob did the same and showed he was genuinely sorry, I'd let it go; as I told Radiant in the e-mail, I don't want bad blood over an article on the internet. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Maryland Dereg

I've begun an article but it's not complete enough to post to wikipedia yet. You can find it here: http://www.fcmidi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2317#2317

I'd love you to help me with it. Two minds work better than one. TheCommodore7 20:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of input for the past few days; I've been a bit busy, and I hadn't had time to read it in full detail. It's a very good start; we need to dig up some sources to reinforce it and source some of that, and maybe add the political impact of the deregulation, since it was a subject of debate by Erlich and O'Malley in the last election. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and get a hold of the initial settlement from the 1999 legislation for sourcing. In addition, I'll try and get as much information from the recent PSC case as well (the PSC website has been invaluable for my own personal research). I like to avoid newspaper citations as much as possible for that infomation as the Baltimore Sun has made several statements that can't be backed up by the supporting documents. All the political stuff will have to be sourced to newspapers, though, and I see no problem with that. I've wrote some more today and will post it to the site above when I get home from work. TheCommodore7 16:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree about not using citations from the Sun, although I think a lot of what they say is too polarized to be used regardless of the subject matter. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Larry Seidlin

Now that many months have elapsed since Judge Larry Seidlin has been in the news with a bonafide story (other than gossip about a show that nobody has confirmed), how about weighing in on a discussion about merging him into Anna's article at his Talk page?--Bamadude 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits

...are absolute nonsense. Klaus Nomi has nothing to do with Dark Wave. You should read books and not add crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.4.212 (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Klaus Nomi is a Neoclassical artist, and has always been regarded as such; a simple Google search of "klaus nomi neoclassical" clearly demonstrates this. in addition, the personal attacks are not appreciated; please refrain from making any more attacks. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you see that there are different Neoclassical styles? Your edits are absolutey arbitrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.38.130 (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

...and it is listed as such in Nomi's profile that he is Dark Wave; furthermore, his style of music does not fit in any of the other categories in the article you linked to. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

...listed by YOU. He's not a Dark Wave musician. New Wave ok, but never Dark Wave. Marc Almond also used classical elements, but he was never a Dark Wave artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.46.229 (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong; I reverted an edit on the Nomi page that a now indefinitely-banned user made to reflect changes on the Neoclassical (Dark Wave) when he didn't like seeing Nomi listed on that page either. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"We've already established that Nomi is a Neoclassical Dark Wave artist, especially considering he does not fall into any of the other Neoclassical subcategories"

How have you established this? Can you cite it?--Dr who1975 (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the statement pretty well speaks for itself; check past edit notes for the Neoclassical (Dark Wave)page, and check Nomi's article. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the edit notes as you requested. With respect, the edit notes do not establish it. I'm very open to having him in the article/genre, just find a halfway decent citation outside of wikipedia and cite it in the articles. Allmusic doesn't even have Neoclassical Darkwave listed as a genre.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to precedent; however, considering the fact that many music or Dark Wave sites now simply parrot back what Wikipedia already has instead of delivering original content, there aren't many original sources anymore. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)

From the talk header: This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Next time you want to talk about the subject in general, use an actual message board, instead of an encyclopedia's talk page. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rob, although I agree that the conversation in the Virtual Console talk page had started to go off-topic, that is no reason to delete an entire section, especially considering there was legitimate information contained in the topic relevant to the article; please exhibit more prudent judgment in the future when trimming off-topic information, as it could be otherwise construed as vandalism. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all off topic. Use a message board, instead of abusing the talk page. As I stated in the January 14 section: If it doesn't go into the article (due to a poor source), or whatever: it shouldn't be here, period. Only you and a select few even seem to care about listing the new releases: so use your talk pages for it instead. A correct track record or not: Neogaf is still a message board, that's not a reliable source. So listing a new releases section here is a form of crystal balling and speculation as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong; the topic titled "January 28" was about the VC release for that date (1080 Snowboarding), and it was unnecessary to cut that from the discussion. I have deleted the OT information, and I will ask you kindly once more to leave article-relevant information intact; do not remove article-specific discussions again, Rob. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Mother 3

If you're interested in Mother 3, I request that you provide your assistance in the article. Thanks! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Moore

Please take it to article talk. --John (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to move it to article talk; it's been mentioned before that the article was inappropriately moved, and as such should be reverted back to the way it was. You don't make changes to an article and then discuss it afterward, it's illogical. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See here and also here. --John (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion, but still disagree with the move. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I suggest you please take it to article talk. --John (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the Michael Moore controversies link? It no longer exists and on previous versions it only redirects you to the Michael Moore page instead of a different page? Robsreports (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted by another user a few weeks back, and after I restored it, was deleted again by "John". Despite that they "merged" the article, most of the relevant content seems to have been deleted, and Moore sympathizers seems to have been satisfied for now. I pretty much let it go because it doesn't matter what I or anyone else says or does, it'll just turn into a revert war, and there are more of them than there are of people who want to actually see Moore's controversies (like you and me) listed on his page. --PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of DeFilm for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DeFilm is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeFilm until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, PeanutCheeseBar. 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)