Talk:T-1000/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

1994 or 1995: a discussion of OR

A user added twice the year '1995' to the article, extrapolating the date when the Terminator arrived in T2. The excuse for this was provided in the second edit summary: "The police computer in T2 says John was born on 2-28-1985 and is now aged 10. You do the math." Aside from the somewhat unfriendly tone of that, I reverted the synthesis by noting that our personal observations and calculations aren't citable, and therefore not includable.
The editor has added it yet again, theorizing that a simple calculation isn't original research, but common sense. I've reverted it again, on the strength of the argument I initially made - its synthesis. We need a citation stating it explicitly. Without one, we are stuck with the date of 1994. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The information presened in the film pretty all but flat out says it's in 1995. If John Connor was born in February 1985 and is now 10 the film occurs in 1995. That's not a synthesis of multiple sources, it's from one source alone and that is the actual film. Stating the film occurs in 1995 based on the info I just mentioned is not original research. I mean, seriously, if a prelude of a film takes place in, say, 2000, and the rest of the film is stated to be "seven years later", it's original research to say it takes place in 2007? I understand the need for sourcing, but does one need a source to state something as obvious as this? It's like asking for a source confirming that Danny Glover is, in fact, a black male. What's the source for T2 taking place in 1994 anyway? The 1994 date is directly contradicted by info in the film. Jerkov (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If the film states the character was born in a certain year, and is a certain age, deducing the year isn't rocket science, or original research - it's information given in the film. Where's your cite that 1994 is the correct answer? Also, since the actual film page for Terminator 2: Judgment Day also lists 1995 at the year the film occurs, I'll be changing it here as well. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am using the film's date, which is pretty much what we use for dates within the film, unless specified otherwise. I would point out that T:2 's production date was 1991, which would have technically made John the tender age of 6, using this reasoning. The film talks about a teenaged John Connor. As the average onset of puberty for boys is age 12, the film's internal date would have to be at least 1996. So, riddle me this, what form of cittion specific ally lists the date as 1995? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Watch the film. Watch the scene where the T-1000 looks up John Connor on the police computer. Look at his DOB. Look at his age. Jerkov (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What I am trying to say, Jerkov, is that what we see is clearly not what is. We are not citable sources. Additionally, the question becomes one of whether it is utterly vital to an understanding of the subject. As this article is about an entirely different subject, it clearly is not. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The film is a citable source, and the film shows he was born in February 1985 and is now aged 10, so the film takes place in 1995. You're acting as if I am saying it is set in 1995. I don't need to because the film flat out shows it is. "What we see is not what it is", what does that even mean? If the film shows he was born in Feb. '85 and is now aged 10 he was born in Feb. '85 and is now aged 10. Now, I have repeatedly demonstrated why the film is set in 1995. You haven't come up with anything to support 1994 yet. Jerkov (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I will ask again, is it intrinsic to an understanding of the subject? If so, how? If not, we don't need to mention it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, you want citations? Here: [1] - the film is set in 1995 - reliable citation, just as shown in the film. Happy? Sheesh, can't you find some other robots issue to play with? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dial it back, sport. That's not pleasant, and we really don't need to put you in your place. Be nice, or begone. Thanks for the cite, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessarily intrinsic to the understanding of the subject, no. But that's not really the point, is it? Wikipedia articles (as well as other encyclopedias) are always full of details not intrinsic to the understanding of the subject. It's not a dictionary. By the way, you still haven't provided proof for 1994 yet, nor have you responded to the comparisons I made in my post of 16:13, 10 June 2009. Jerkov (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is precisely the point, Jerkov. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan forum or a terminator wiki, wherein entire articles are grab-bags for garbage, cruft, and trivia. We include that information which is both cited and relevant. Thanks to RealFenn, we have citation. However, it still isn't relevant, intrinsic or important to the article - especially this article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Jerkov has a point - you act like you're in the right, yet you offer no proof or references for your reversions. You're apparently claiming that the information isn't relevant - well, guess what, other people disagree with you. Why not work towards a consenus, instead of demanding that you get your way? Again? The information is now refernced and cited. Unless you can show otherwise, it's time for you to back off. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Now, prove why it is important, or did you somehow forget my having asked that? Coz, frankly, it's tangential, and my edit - which you rather less than thoughtfully reverted - addresses the non-issue by removing it, replacing it with material which keeps the focus of the article on the actual subject. Prove that its important to have, or its gone. It's that simple. Or do you need more harsh lessons in how Wikipedia works? Again? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, prove that it's not? You added incorrect information that I reverted - get off your high horse, here. And lay off the threats, as well. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Back off the behavior, and you have nothing to worry about. It's really that simple, I've asked nicely twice now. And I asked you to prove why it is vital to the article that the date be in there. You seem to be of the opinion that it is. I've already pointed out that it isn't, as the subject is neither the movie, the date or the age of the young protagonist - none are the subject of this article. I apologize if I was perhaps unclear in specifying what you needed to provide a reasoning for. You may do so, now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the film takes place in a time other than the present I'd say it's worth mentioning when exactly it takes place when you can (and we can). Not to mention the fact that the time travel plays a pivotal role in the franchise. If the T-1000 travels from one time to another it helps the readability and clarity of the article to point out these times when you can. What's the use of resorting to cryptic language such as "the future" and "the past" (you might as well say "Time A" and "Time B") when you know the dates? Something as simple and basic as the year the film takes place can't be shoved aside as "fancruft", "garbage" or "trivia" as you so arrogantly attempt to do. Should we also remove the date of Judgement Day and the year Kyle Reese traveled from from all Terminator related articles? Sheesh. Jerkov (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(←dent) I think you have hit the nail on the head as to the difficulty here. The date that the Terminators and Kyle come from the future is relevant and important because it is in fact the future. They travel back to the past - aka, our present. It doesn't matter what year the present is, as it isn't specifically tied to any year, except for the generic "present". It isn't a period piece, like The Guns of Nararone, Star Trek or Pride and Prejudice its the present day, which makes the story work all the better, as things are common and familiar.

Don't get me wrong; I do see your point, but I am thinking that while the date that they come from in the future is important, the present that they arrive in - the setting for the film - isn't that vital here. I hope you understand my point. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Except T2 isn't set in the present, ours or anyone else's......Jerkov (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is. It doesn't have to be the real world to be the recognizable present. Maybe you could explain why you don't think the film's setting takes place in the present. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you think I've been doing this entire discussion? If it takes place in 1995 (or 1994 for that matter) it's not in the present, because the film was released in 1991. Jerkov (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, it isn't a significant departure from the present enough to bear mentioning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because you say so? Also, since you say "again", I conclude you already talked about this, so you did know it wasn't set in the present. So why did you say it was? Jerkov (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop the semantics, Jerkov - I said "again" as I pointed out to in an earlier post that it isn't necessarily significant to have in the article. i was simply reminding you. Did you miss that? It is set in the present that existed at the time of the film's release. If you find us in disagreement with that, and find yourself unable to concede that 2008 is just as much a part of the present as 2003 in a film, then you might need to seek a Request for Comment on the subject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well no, if it isn't set in the year the film was made in it's not set in the present, I thought that was pretty obvious. By your reasoning United 93 is set in the present, too. Also, I must ask again: why is 2008 as much part of the present as 2003 in a film? Because you say so? Jerkov (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I quit following this discussion a while ago. I'm going to remove it from my watch list. If anything comes up where I can be useful, please let me know--otherwise I'm done with the Sarah Conner Chronicles & related articles. Thanks. Erikeltic (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Because - and this is important - neither year is notably different for the purposes of the film as say, the depictions of the future, which are remarkably different. When there is no real difference in any way from the setting of the greater part of the film and the setting in which we find ourselves outside the theater, it is considered part of a modern setting, or the present. We are aiming for brevity, too. If there is a specific reason for noting the year, then please, offer it. Otherwise, there isn't a need for it.

Again, if you feel this point of contention is insoluble, please feel free to file an RfC. I will participate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Or, you could respect the wishes of other editors, and quit insisting that your interpretation is the only one. I'm going to restore the information, as the link provided matches what the other editors claim, and your addition of "teen-aged" in incorrect. Your opinions are yours, they are not law, nor are they policy. Please remember that. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I do remember that, Mike. Instead of maybe expecting a bad idea to be acceptable, you could work to find a compromise. I'm changing ti back. Start an RfC if you aren't willing to discuss the matter, That's the way it works here. Maybe you could try to remember that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you're going to play the WP:POINT game again, blindly reverting anyone who disagrees with you. Typical. Why not respect consensus instead of insisting that your vision is the only accurate one? Clearly, multiple editors disagree with you. Also, since you're the one who appears to be in the wrong here (removing properly sourced information, going against a rising consensus), I think it should be you filing the RfC yourself, if you want one that bad. It seems several of us are quite willing to discuss the matter here already - we're just not going to roll over and take whatever you want, just because you want it. The rest of us appear to have policy on our side already, I think. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What I am doing is trying to do is to stay polite - kinda why I haven't addressed your uncivil remarks. Keep it up, and that will change. Just because information has a source doesn't make it vital to an understanding to the material, and I believe i have asked at least three different times for someone to explain why its vital. I am trying to discuss this, and I am not expecting anyone to roll over and see reason. Please feel free to point out how exactly policy is on your side. I am eager to hear. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You're in WP:3RR territory now. You just can't let it alone, can you? That last reversion shows your true intentions, I think. You've been reported. Do it again, and you will be blocked. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny, i was going to say exactly the same thing to you, Mike. You just cannot seem to actually take the time to discuss matters, instead feeling that simple reverting is going to be enough to change the minds of others. It really isn't. Open an RfC to get some outside input on the subject. If you revert over 3RR, you will be blocked. And again, stop trying to guess my intentions - you are extraordinarily bad at it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, I haven't seen any uncivil remarks by Mark Wazowski in this talk page or the talk page for T2, nor in the edit summaries for both these articles. You also accuse MZ of not taking the time to discuss the matter although he's contributed to this discussion repeatedly. Thus I see no valid basis for these claims. Please don't try to paint those who disagree with you as being "uncivil" or "unwilling to discuss matters" as a way to gain the upper hand in a discussion. Jerkov (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm not. You weren't privy to the larger concerns arising elsewhere. Either way, we are wandering very far afield from the core issue here. With that in mind...

Regardless of whatever history you have with him, I see him being perfectly civil and open to discussion here, so you bringing his past ills back up is completely unnecessary and uncalled for. Which makes me wonder why you do bring it up, because I'm sure you know that all it'll lead to is more conflict. Of course, it could provoke an angry response from him, which would benefit your end of the discussion since it makes you look like the reasonable one. That's a clever strategy but I'm not falling for it. Jerkov (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Look, this discussion wanders pretty far afield. Take your crystal balling about my intentions and take them somewhere else, as you are consistently wrong about it, and I'm frankly tired of telling you such. This article discussion ain't the place for it. Full stop. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I may have been incorrect about your intentions, but it was still uncalled for to bring up MZ's past misbehavior in a discussion where he was being perfectly civil and reasonable. Jerkov (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not just you, Jerkov - he has a habit of these kinds of actions - stir things up, then act either contrite or pious. It's getting old. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Setting all the interpersonal kerfuffle aside, the initial subject was whether the information could be cited. We have discovered that the a citation in the form of a film review did exist and would serve the purposes of the discussion in the T:2 article, where the year was found to be necessary to an understanding of the subject (the film). We are presented with a different situation here. The subject of this article is of a fictional class of robot featured not only within that film, but its variations in other media. Is the year of when the 1991 film takes place (in 1995) vital to an understanding of the fictional robot model, or is it superfluous?
I believe it to be the latter,a s evidenced by my edit:

In Terminator 2: Judgment Day, the T-1000 is sent by Skynet to go back in time to kill a teen-aged John Connor (Edward Furlong) the future leader of the Human Resistance against the machines."²

which I feel is superior to this oft-reverted-to version:

In Terminator 2: Judgment Day, the T-1000 is sent by Skynet to go back in time to the year 1995 and kill a teen-aged John Connor (Edward Furlong) the future leader of the Human Resistance against the machines.

RealFennShysa has attempted to bridge the gap with a recent edit, which I think comes closer to what might serve the article best. This edit by myself seeks to tweak that edit more. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If I read something about a robot being sent back in time I'd wonder where he was sent. I don´t see the problem with mentioning he was sent to 1995. As for the "teenaged" part, I agree that this is incorrent. 10 isn't really teenaged, doesn't "teenaged" officially start at "thirteen"? Jerkov (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good. A little agreement isn't bad. While I think the experts are divided on when someone becomes a teenager, I think most don't think it starts at ten. As for the other, the article is about the robot, not the film plot. As such, discussion about the film plot should be kept brief and encyclopedic. That the robot comes from the future to the present is clear enough for the purposes of this article. It isn't an exceptional claim that requires citation. If the film was set during, say, the Great Hanshin earthquake of January 17, 1995, well that would require a citation. Because the 1995 of the film is a generic year, it doesn't warrant mention. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)`

On topic, I don't see how "1995" is any less brief and encyclopedic than "the past". "Future to 1995" isn't an exceptional claim requiring citation any more or less than "future to present" (and again, it's not the present since it's 1995 and the film is from 1991). You say this isn't intrinsically important for the understanding to the article because it's about the T-1000 and not T2 itself. However, by that reasoning we could also remove John Connor's name while we're at it. "Leader of the resistance" suffices, right? You don't need to know his name to understand the T-1000's role in T2, right? As for your statement that the article is about the robot and not the film's plot, the robot has a pivotal role in the plot; i.e. you can't really prevent the overlapping of info about the T-1000 and the info about the plot. It's the same way info about the lead singer of a rock band will inevitably overlap info about the band itself because the singer is part of it. Jerkov (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you cannot see the difference between the mentioning of a main character (and impetus for the Terminator's actions) from the most mundane fact of a year. You don't need the year for the movie to progress; were it set in 1862, then a point could be made for inclusion, as it is not the present. However, it isn't. It's in the present, and the inclusion of specificity over brevity is both unnecessary and inconsequential.

Seriously, point out how it is critical to an understanding of the subject matter. The comparisons you are offering are akin to that of comparing apples and oranges; the relationship between a lead singer of a band and the band itself is a poor metaphor, as it suggests that you are making the setting year with the lead singer to the plot; it places an undue weight on the year that wasn't (citably) intended by the creators of the film. Maybe avoid the metaphors and concentrate on the key issue, please: how is the mentioning of the year is intrinsic to an understanding of the T-1000? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my statement; that is a fallacy. I was talking about leaving out the main character's name, not the character itself- similar to leaving out "1995" but keeping "back in time". For an "intrinsic understanding" of the T-1000 you only need to know that it's mission is to kill the future leader of the Resistance; the leader's name isn't very important. He could be called Mikey, Jack or Luke; it wouldn't matter for the general understanding of the T-1000's mission. I don't really think we should do this, but I figured it would be a good way to confront you with your own reasoning.

Again, you insist that it is in the present when it's not. T2 takes place four years into the future, and I have already offered evidence for that. Just because you don't think it's far enough from the present to be important doesn't mean it is. You don't get to decide that on your own. As for my comparison, you're also misrepresenting that: I wasn't literally substituting the plot with the lead singer and such as a means to create some kind of metaphor or analogy in which to make my point. I was using it to demonstrate that overlapping is inevitable when you're dealing with subsections of a larger whole (singer is a subsection of the band, T-1000 is a subsection of T2). When you're talking about the T-1000's role in T2's plot you'll inevitably reiterate info already in the article for the film itself.

As for your insistence that it must be "intrinsically important to an understanding of the subject"- no, it's not, necessarily. But I don't need to prove that it is because to my knowledge there is no Wikipedia policy dictating this (and if there was, I reckon it would be to prevent people from adding irrelevant info, for example as info on Robert Patrick to this article). Articles on Wikipedia aren't limited to info absolutely necessary to understand the subject (you'd have to cut a lot of info if this were an actual policy and not just your personal opinion), they are info relevant to the subject. The year to which the T-1000 was sent is relevant information and it doesn't make the article any less understandable.

I also see that you edited my previous comment, removing part of it. It's generally discouraged to do so, no? You may respond by labeling the part in question as uncivil (although even that's no justification for editing other users' comments), but I was merely calling you on your patronizing attitude by it. Jerkov (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel you are being misrepresented; perhaps if you avoided bad metaphorical, analogical and/or semantical comparisons, your point could be made more succinctly. To rephrase, you clearly have some difficulty with my interpretation of our policies and guidelines; I have suggested that you seek a Request for Comment on the point of dissent - that's how dispute resolution works. I've suggested it before, and since you are not willing to bend, and I am not willing to break the rules, you are probably better served by going that route. I will participate in such.

Furthermore, the Wiki is an encyclopedia, and as such is supposed to concise and brief. You may have noted the numerous 'too long' tags in media articles; while such isn't needed here, the need for brevity would appear to be obvious to anyone casually visiting or editing here. There is no reason to add or cite 1995 in the film. If you feel there is anything notable about the differences in the film between 1991 and 1995, I should like to know that, as you were a bit unclear on that point. You have already agreed that it isn't intrinsic to an understanding of the T-1000; while overlapping with the film version of the robot is going to happen, some self-restraint is called for when adding too much from the film article. This isn't a matter of shoving characters into the background. It is more a case of not applauding the set instead of the subject. Now, you may call that my interpretation or whatever, but if you ask ten different editors in the proposed RfC, a majority are going to agree with this assessment. Clearly, you don't believe me, and would prefer to keep arguing. File the RfC, and let a whole bunch of other people tell you instead.

And yes, i removed the uncivil bit. As it doesn't serve to do anything but be an uncivil attack, I removed it. If you add it again, it will be removed again. What you feel is "calling me" on what you personally feel is patronizing is what we call trying to pick a fight, and it is a pretty ineffective method of editing, especially with someone more familiar with the wiki. Please move on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"I am sorry you feel you are being misrepresented; perhaps if you avoided bad metaphorical, analogical and/or semantical comparisons, your point could be made more succinctly."Don't try to turn it around like this. My comparison was perfectly clear, and from what I've read from you so far you're more than smart enough to have understood it correctly. Thus I conclude that you deliberately misrepresented it in your previous comment.

"and I am not willing to break the rules,"Wikipedia's rules or your rules?

"you clearly have some difficulty with my interpretation of our policies and guidelines;"I do have difficulty with you treating your personal interpretation of Wikipedia's policies as policies themselves, as well as your smug and patronizing attitude.

"Furthermore, the Wiki is an encyclopedia, and as such is supposed to concise and brief. You may have noted the numerous 'too long' tags in media articles; while such isn't needed here, the need for brevity would appear to be obvious to anyone casually visiting or editing here."Adding the year the T-1000 is sent to doesn't make this article any longer or shorter. On a side note, I find it interisting that you now insist the year shouldn't be mentioned at all while initially you ardently claimed it was 1994 instead of 1995. Where was this "it's not intrinsically important to the understanding of the subject" routine then? When you couldn't convince the other users of that you suddenly switched to insisting the year shouldn't me mentioned at all, as if to say "If I can't get my way, neither can anyone else". You'll probably just shove this aside as more "crystal balling" but I find it somewhat suspicious. On a side note, in my experience articles that are too long are generally split into seperate articles and don't have their information "trimmed".

"If you feel there is anything notable about the differences in the film between 1991 and 1995, I should like to know that, as you were a bit unclear on that point"For one thing, 1991 would be the present given the year the film was made, and 1995 would be the future. When a film is set in a year other than the present (in this case 1991) this should bementioned, no?

"You have already agreed that it isn't intrinsic to an understanding of the T-1000; "What I don't agree with is your claim that it is policy to only add information intrinsic to the understanding of the subject and that this "policy", if it indeed is one, should be interpreted so evangelically and bureaucratically. Perhaps you could point me to this policy, because I seem to have missed it. If you fail to do so I'll have to conclude that this is just your own opinion, the way you want articles to be written.

"while overlapping with the film version of the robot is going to happen, some self-restraint is called for when adding too much from the film article. "I'd say that mentioning 1995 instead of the unspecific "back in time" (which could mean anything, like "back to the 1800s", and is therefore unclear) falls well within these borders of self-constraint that you set up. And again I must ask- is this "self-restraint with overlapping info" an actual Wikipedia policy or just your own opinion presented as one?

"Clearly, you don't believe me, and would prefer to keep arguing."I'd stop arguing, but then you'd probably accuse me of not opening myself to discussion like you did with MikeWazinski.

""And yes, i removed the uncivil bit. As it doesn't serve to do anything but be an uncivil attack, I removed it. If you add it again, it will be removed again. What you feel is "calling me" on what you personally feel is patronizing is what we call trying to pick a fight, and it is a pretty ineffective method of editing, especially with someone more familiar with the wiki. Please move on. - "I suppose I could have been more correct and direct, but seeing as I had already repeatedly pointed out your patronizing and arrogant demeanor, which is again evident in this last paragraph, I chose to be sarcastic. Also, as much as you seem to enjoy putting yourself on a ivory pedestal, there is no "you" and "we". I also don't appreciate you trying to turn this thing around and making it seem as if I'm picking a fight. While my "thanks, mom" comment could be interpreted as such out of context, when it's viewed in context it's perfectly clear that it is meant as a criticism to your arrogant and patronizing treatment of those who disagree with you. Of course, you decided on your own that it was nothing more than a baseless attack and that it was okay to edit another user's comment, because you appear to be under the impression that you own Wikipedia. I've seen some of the discussions in your discussion log, so I know this isn't the first time you heard that. Jerkov (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, do you have that out of your system? Can we go back to the article now? Stop using Wikipedia as a vendetta bulletinboard. Stop. Now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not using Wikipedia as a vendetta bulletin board, I am criticizing you for your conduct towards dissenting users, which impairs consensus building and thus is entirely relevant to the article. Dissent is approached by you with condescension when it doesn't go away as quick or easy as you'd like; you act like you know everything better than everyone else. This naturally irritates others, and whenever someone expresses his irritation in less than constructive terms you latch onto that to paint them as being uncivil. This is entirely relevant to the article since you displayed the above in the preceding discussion about it. I know from your discussion log that you have had similar criticisms before, thus I am not alone in noting this, and I don't plan to let you get away with sloughing off criticism by trying to paint me or anyone else who criticizes you as having a vendetta or needing to "get something out of his system". You still haven't provided evidence for your claim that it is policy to only add information intrinsically important to the understanding of the subject at hand. All you need to do is provide a link to the policy in question, and I'll concede because it means you'd be correct and have policy on your side (although I suppose we could debate on how strictly that policy should be implemented). I find it intriguing that you haven't done so yet, since you were quick to provide links to other policies in previous replies. If you don't do so in your next reply I'll assume from that point on that it is your personal opinion that this should be so and not an actual Wikipedia policy, and that you are elevating your personal beliefs regarding article content and style to policy status simply because you want things done your way. Jerkov (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, have you noticed the name of this article? It isn't the 'try to take Arcayne down a notch' page, now is it? You are not going to be teaching me anything. You aren't going to correct me on anything. You aren't interested in working productively with me, as per your comments elsewhere, so why not just focus on the article? I've already provided ample explanation for my reasoning; as you don't agree with it, I am not sure what you are expecting. Clearly, the RfC will help to cut through your personal problems with me and stick to the matter at hand. Now, can you please confine your comments to the subject, and leave you personal crap with me out of it? If you cannot do it, maybe you need to take a longer tea break. Any subsequent commentary that focuses on the editor and not the edits will be ignored, unless it persists, which will necessitate escalation. It is in your best interest to stop, and stop now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, instead of acting like you're not at fault, why not answer his question and provide a link to the policy in question about "intrinsically important" material? It's a simple request. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because this is a discussion about the T-1000 doesn't mean I can't criticize you for your conduct. Especially since it disrupts consensus building and since your main argument is based on an as of yet unfounded claim of a policy that I at this point don't believe actually exists. Feel free to prove me wrong on that part; if you can prove that this policy of "intrinsically important info to the understanding of the subject" is an actual Wikipedia policy this discussion is pretty much over, having ended in your favor. I don't know where you get that I am not interested in a constructive dialogue with you; if I wasn't I wouldn't have invested so much of my time in this discussion. But whenever I criticize you (and I do think I have been quite civil in doing so, a few off-handed comments aside) you just say I have personal issues and try to use my apparent off-topic venturing as an excuse to stifle my criticism. If I wasn't interested in a constructive dialogue I would have called you some names and left this discussion long ago. By the way, part of my last post was actually on-topic, but you ignored it. It was the part where I again asked you to simply prove your claim that you have a Wikipedia policy on your side by linking to said policy. As TRFS already stated, that's a simple request, no? Jerkov (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it exactly means that conduct isn't discussed here, unless it clearly violates policy. You think I'm acting superior, condescending, etc. Sorry you feel that way. And I have answered the question, at least three different times before. The polices in question are WP:TRIVIA, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOT (as in, we are not a collection of useless information). If it does not add to the article, it detracts from the article. Such information, I will concede belongs in the T:2 article. It doesn't belong here, citations or not. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)