User talk:Nahallac Silverwinds/Archive 02

Oscar Gutierrez

Well the case is pretty clear, WWE.com is anything but factual when listing heights. See Kurt Angle for an example, or actually any WWE wrestler. Angle's case is just the clearest because he participated in the olympics, which reveals his real height. The company also advertized André the Giant as 7 ft 4 in, while his real height was 6 ft 10 in. Now googling reveals several pages that suggest that Gutierrez is 5 ft 3 in, for example [1]. Now granted, OWW is not really accurate in most cases either, but serves as an example here. I also remember reading that Dave Meltzer listed his real height as this, although I can't find the link now.
↪Lakes (Talk) 18:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he was wearing shoes with a thicker base than you. Can't really say.

↪Lakes (Talk) 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Vandals

It was user 146.201.172.57 at 2:07 today. The fact it's an anon user makes it more difficult. but it should get reported so there's a record. Be sure to tag that user page (you can even though it's an anon). This is why wiki should require user accounts and signing of postings. Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd comment on the merge proposal to but BP's sexuality article back into his main. What a crock, we just reached a compromise on this today! This is the bad part of wiki. Sometimes I wonder if it's worth the hassle. I put a notice on it up on our Todo page. Rlevse 21:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

PS It's important to report a vandal even if they can't do anything to them this time as next time they'll be on record and it'll be a repeat offense and stronger sanctions are possible.Rlevse 21:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

I've blocked the vandal for 24 hours. Cheers, Jacoplane 06:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cat votes

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_6, non-project people put two of our cats up for rename. Pls vote as you like. Rlevse 02:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! --Naha|^(talk) 04:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for sorting out the language links on my user page, much appreciated. CitrusC 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) --Naha|^(talk) 15:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks for helping my page Edition I little saying that languege . By skalar nicol tiestar

Anon vandalism

He's blocked now. You can report more vandals at WP:AIV or you can ask me again. Thanks! Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Naha|^(talk) 00:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Test score

Your wiki score is way higher than mine! Rlevse 03:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha and somehow you have way more edits etc. than me, not sure what up with that! I didn't really even answer all the silly stuff questions. --Naha|^(talk) 03:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Nationality disambiguation

Do you find it strange that there are no articles for "American people", "Canadian people", and "Brazilian people"...is there some reason why some nationalities have these articles and others don't? Or is it just that nobody has made them yet? BTW...thanks muchly for fixing the disambigs (at Jatene procedure) :). bcatt 12:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Good questions. I'd like to think there are so many nationalities that no one has gotten to those yet. I, myself, don't start many new articles and prefer to improve on others or do maintenance type tasks. I'm sure those articles will be made eventually :) --Naha|^(talk) 16:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to thank you for your contribution to my talk page and ask how did you get there?

It seems like you went there just to fix that small link and never read anything on it. :P

I believe it was through "What links here" from "Portuguese".

I aprreciate it regardless, just curious.

Thanks!

--Cacumer 08:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. Yes, what links here, correct! I got there via Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_maintenance. There are a lot of disambig pages that have tons of links (inncorrectly) pointing to them. Its a big problem and I've been trying to help fix it. My current adoptions are Japanese, Scottish, and Portuguese hehe. Just trying to remove links that point to those pages and point them to the correct page, typically either a "language" page or a "people" page. --Naha|^(talk) 19:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I took the liberty to get your fantastic idea on putting an alert on the top. Although I've never needed it, it was nice, and I've made a template with it. I hope you can make good use for it. I know I will. :)

They're on my talk page, so you can see how I did it from there.

Thanks again.

--Cacumer 09:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ohh nice, templates are good, I'll probably get around to adding that here! Thank you. P.S. the alert thing wasn't my idea, I stole it from some other user when I was fixing a link on their page hehehe :) Take care! --Naha|^(talk) 19:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

I have nominated Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) for a peer review, and I welcome your comments. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, I'll take a look at it! --Naha|^(talk) 04:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Input request

I'd appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Baden-Powell's_sexual_orientation. You always seem to have a rational, balanced view of things. This afd is getting carried away. Rlevse 16:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Just so you know, I'm not purposely ignoring it, I just don't have a clear answer for this particular problem yet hehe, still thinking. I'll try to respond to the situation properly later today. --Naha|^(talk) 14:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for still not casting a vote/commenting yet. I'm still being wishy washy about this. I can really go either way *sigh* --Naha|^(talk) 03:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

re: The Rare Breed

Hi. I've watched The Rare Breed many times on television; it's a great unassuming western. Gradually, I've created articles for the missing ones in James Stewart's filmography, and I finally got around to this one. It'd be interesting to hear more about the backstory to the film, as it's probably a lot different from the version on screen. Since there isn't very much information readily available about it, my version is only stub (without an infobox), so there's definetly room for expansion. Volatile 02:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I wrote a paper about William Burgess in geez ...my 7th grade Texas history class? I need to see if I can dig it up, and also find my grandmother's geneology notes about him. He was really a great and interesting man. And yes, the movie is pretty different from his real life hehe. Thanks again, --Naha|^(talk) 03:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh right ..he's my Great Great Grandfather :) --Naha|^(talk) 04:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Controversies about BSA

Wow-- thanks for doing all those citations-- you're my hero.

Also, you might want to chime in on the debate on the talk page, so that all your hard work doesn't wind up just getting reverted to the old version of the page. -Alecmconroy 03:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I like fixing things - I'm all about administrative stuff and cleanup! Yeah I should probably say something there too, bleh hehe. --Naha|^(talk) 03:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Tom Cavanagh.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom Cavanagh.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 00:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. I uploaded this a long time ago, but I can't believe I forgot to tag it! Must have been a brain fart day. It has been taken care of now, thanks again! --Naha|^(talk) 03:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Our db dump is a bit old, but we cant keep up with the number of uploaded images anyways... --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 04:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Psst

I'm trying to build support for this nomination in its last few days. Please check out this page. Pass it along. Nudge nudge. -- evrik 20:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this user and this award to me. I knew nothing of either before today. I have read up on both and voted in support of her :) --Naha|^(talk) 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean-up and the vote! evrik 21:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help :) --Naha|^(talk) 21:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

New Wiki

Hi, I see you have a depression userbox in your (vast!) collection. I'm currently working on a depression wiki over at Wikicities (Jimbo and Angela's wiki hosting project) and I'm looking for contributors. Hopefully it will be a useful place for people with depression to get information and support. I wondered if you would in interested in having a look and seeing if you can add to it? The url is http://depression.wikicities.com - there isn't that much there yet, just a few seeded articles and some basic help pages, but I hope it will grow to be a real wiki community. So please have a look if you can. Many thanks -- sannse (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to take a look at it :) Thanks for the information! --Naha|^(talk) 15:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

New caction tool

I'm pleased to inform you that my caction tool v2 is now released. To update to the new version, replace the link to the old version in your monobook.js with

{{subst:js|User:Haza-w/cactions.js}}

The reason I can't simply replace the old version is that the new one doesn't quite work for admins, and I'm still waiting for assistance before I completely roll it out.

Tell me what you think of it. If there are any bugs, then let me know, including your browser version in the report. Thanks, and I hope you like the new version! haz _(user talk)^e 16:08, 17 March 2006

Thank you for letting me know about the update! It is a bit different, I'm not sure whether I like it or not yet lol, but I'm using it :) --Naha|^(talk) 18:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Naha, I'm getting rid of the old version I'm afraid. If you want, you can copy the script to your monobook.js by using

{{subst:User:Haza-w/Interiot2.js}}

but I won't be able to fix any bugs, and there may be a few that I've fixed since the new version. The script will be deleted sometime tomorrow. Thanks! haz (user talk) 08:18, 21 March 2006

Ok thanks Haz :) --Naha|^(talk) 15:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ferrets and children

In most of ferret forums this matter is described: young ferrets <1year and kids <3 years are not advised together. The reasons are: 1)ferret is not socialized yet and it cant properly use its teeth and fangs on human and especially on such delicate skin as kids have; 2) kids which can catch and grab the ferret (<3years) cant measure they strength and can harm the ferret, what causes the counteraction; 3) ferrets are more active and manoeuvrable than dogs or cats .... so please mind my words and put precaution in your abstract, that young kids <3 and ferrets <1year are not advisable together(i have my own bad experience with kids and young ferret eermaniitis@mail.ru) P.S. I left this info on ferret discussion page, but there are no reaction

I feel that the matter is already correctly represented in the article. The bottom line is that almost all domestic animals have the ability to hurt people, that can't be disputed. Most dogs, cats, and ferrets, however, that are properly socialized will not harm anyone, adults or children. It says in the article to know your children and the animal and make dicisions on a case by case basis because prolems can occur. I'm not going to add something to the article that I do not feel, from all my readings and personal experiences, is a large problem. I think the incidents are few and far between and giving it too much article space makes it seem like a larger problem than it really is. --Naha|^(talk) 22:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, which point of my arguments u not agree? I have 2 ferrets ;-) and i can say that GENERALY ferrets are the best pets for kids .... except this special case which possibility is high ... anyone can by unsocialized ferret having an infant at home and this combination - young ferret in exploration march and infant sleaping in cradle is 100% dangerous (dogs and cats in this case will ignore the sleaper, but not the ferret) ... but ok u r the boss ... if u say thats enough, let it be on you (my point was to warn people in the matter where general public is 100% illiterate and more relaying on experience with other animals)

I don't agree that any further warning needs to be given about the "danger" of ferrets with young children. I believe it is already addressed in the article sufficiently. I beleive anything beyond what is already said would be of an "alarmist" nature.

Also if there was a need to "warn people" Wikipedia is not a how-to guide for ferret owners or ferret owners to-be, that would be what Wikibooks is for, and further what other regular books that can be bought at pet stores and book stores are for. Due to the nature of all projects Wiki, people should check the information they find here with other sources.

What you say about ferrets and a sleeping infant vs. dogs/cats with a sleeping infant is false. It depends completely upon the individual animal. Maybe your dog and your cat would not bother the infant, and most would not - but there are dogs and cats out there that would - dogs and cats who have not been socialized correctly, dogs and cats who have been beaten or starved or otherwise neglected or abused. Would it be proper to randomly say that dogs and cats are dangerous to children - anymore so than another animal? No, I don't believe so, because the percentage of all the dogs and cats in the world that would act in that manner is so small, just like ferrets.

I do not believe I am speaking out my rear end here. I've had animals my entire life, dogs, cats, ferrets and even a hampster and a turtle. One of my closest friends runs an animal shelter and I've seen more neglected and abused animals than I care to admit come through there. And its amazing to me how so many those abused aniamls are still sweet and loving pets after all they have been through. "Credential-wise" I've also been a subscriber to Ferrets/Ferrets USA magazine for many years.

Furthermore, I am not by any means "the boss" of this article or any article on Wikipedia. I, like you, can edit any article on Wikipedia if I feel there is incorrect information. But, it doesn't mean that my edits, or your edits won't get reverted or refined. I've had my share of edits reverted and I've reverted other's. I speak my mind on topics which I hold near and deart to my heart and topics I know a lot about, and I strive for a balanced, just, neutral point of view on each and every one.

I do not believe anything is "on my head" because I believe the article gives sufficient warning for an encyclopedia article and, as stated above, anything beyond what is already said would be that of an alarmist nature which by definition goes beyond the point of facuality. Articles should represent the topic as a whole and not yield too much space to such things, lest they be headed as fact for all (ferret) cases. --Naha|^(talk) 14:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Gutierrez

I removed the trivia section because there was already one there, meaning he had 2 trivia sections containing the same information. Second, the article was way too big and I eliminated useless information. He does not need play-by-play every week, just important matches/storylines/news. Perry 01:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asking about any of your other edits, just the trivia section. I agree that too many of the articles are, unfortunatly, edited by "fanboys" who feel like they need to give a play-by-play of everything the wrestler does and all of their matches - this is not the case and it is not encyclopedic.

I was reviewing the edits you made, and it looked as though the entire trivia section had been removed ..somehow, which is why I replaced it. Apparently I was mistaken. I did, however, just shorten the trivia section because it listed a bunch of things that are not trivia. This needs to be done for several articles I'm afraid. --Naha|^(talk) 02:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Obsessed with Wrestling

I think Obsessed with Wrestling is generally reliable, although it does get some things wrong, e.g. The Undertaker's real name. The only reason I removed the link from the Shawn Michaels article was that it was already linked under "references", and linking to the website twice seemed redundant. As far as height and weight is concerned, there are no absolute sources. WWE.com probably does inflate figures, but that doesn't mean that we should automatically accept the figures of a rival website. McPhail 20:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Would you support a standard of only using height/weight stats from WWE (for WWE wrestlers)? And by the same token, only using those given for any wrestler by their promotion unless they can only be found elsewhere? --Naha|^(talk) 21:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. The only major exception to WWE.com figures that I can think of is Andre the Giant, who Dave Meltzer has stated was only 6'10', not 7'4". Other than that, WWE.com figures (and other official numbers) are a reasonable standard to adopt. McPhail 21:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Very true about Andre. It will be harding getting everyone to comply with this standard, but it just seems reasonable that we would, whenever possible, report stats that are given by the promotions. Due to the nature of the project and all the fanboys, sometimes I wish we could get the whole project locked down from anon editing hehe. --Naha|^(talk) 21:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing my page

Hey N.S., why did you edit my user page? How did you even find it? But thanks for fixing the links anyway. And by the way, I also used your awesome layout on my user page, but I changed it a tad to make it my own so it wouldn't be a blatant copy. Thanks. Oh, you NEED to mention me as a cool wikipedian please. It makes me feel special. -Rebelkass

Greetings, my edit summary note explains why I edited your page,: There was a link that pointed to a Disambiguation page. Links are not supposed to point to those pages for the most part, but are instead to point to the actual article for which they are intended. I found your page because I sometimes work with Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance, and your links to Spanish and Japanese pointed to the disambig pages for those words instead of to the language pages, so I fixed them to get your page off the list of pages with bad links. Your page was just one of hundreds on the list to be fixed that particular day.

I'm glad you like my user page, but I can't take credit for it. I borrowed the code for it from Nightstallion It really is excellent! Cheers, --Naha|^(talk) 18:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Scouting Barnstar

A hearty thank you for all of your hard work on Scouting articles, especially on getting items featured and cleaning up the messy controversies article. Keep up the fine work! Rlevse 15:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks Randy, my first barnstar :)

What???

What are you talking about? What page is this on?? --Killswitch Engage 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Killswitch Engage

Its on every page I've seen your signature on. Don't you see "Killswitch Engage" written again, for seemingly no reason, after the time/date stamp? Look at the signature above this. --Naha|^(talk) 18:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

C&VG

I noticed that you voted to delete List of deaths attributed to computer and video games, 'per nom' - I was wondering, given that all of the points made in it are wrong, as the nominator has admitted, which part of the nomination you support? For great justice. 18:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is PoV and certain claims are hard to prove, regardless of media attention. I also see the article as a definite future source of negative attention, vandalism and a dumping ground for untrue "facts" Maybe 'per nom' was a poor choice to leave as the note next to my vote, I just see the article as a problem. --Naha|^(talk) 19:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you coul take another look at what the article actually says - it is a list of occasions where mainstream media or reliable sources (such as doctors) have made the assertion that a death is linked to a computer game. No proof is offered or claimed. Which facts do you think are untrue? All of them are sourced and verified (the claims, that is). Perhaps you could help me out by explaining what you mean by the article being 'a problem'? For great justice. 19:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What you are reporting in the article is ..as you say, correctly cited. There is no argument there. The title of the article says "Deaths attributed to video games" and it is true that this is how the media has reported them, but there has never been any hard proof that any of the deaths you have listed were actually directly caused by the video games the people were playing. I've actually done some psychology research on some of these very people for a few classes, and while Wikipedia does not allow original research, I will say this:

The title of the article makes it sound like video games are the cause of all the deaths mentioned, not just a common factor among them, and that is a flaw. The "fact" of the matter, if I may be so bold, is that all of the deaths listed here, among others not listed, are of (mostly) people who had previously been suffering from various psychological problems before video games ever entered their lives. People who become withdrawn, depressed etc (for whatever reason - typically stemming from [cliche but true] family problems an sometimes biological problems) often seek out activities that they can seemingly participate in by themselves (even though in the case of MMOs they are not truely alone), and it just so happens video games allow this type of activity, and they are easy to get ahold of. This is just the nature of their types of diseases. In cases of obsession, if it wasn't one game, it would be another, if there wasn't a game to play it would be TV or emersion in books, or something. There is always something. People who are have addictive personalities will always find something to fill the hole they feel in their lives. In reality, the deaths are attributed to psychological instabilities, not video games.

Unless previously seen by clinicians before their deaths, there are no reliable sources. There isn't some magical part of an autopsy that shows person x was influenced by game y. In the cases where person x shot person y and said "the game made me do it" - yes, its true they said that, but what else was going on in their lives? It wasn't just the game.

I'm not saying computer/game addiction isn't a problem, but its not the underlying cause of anyone's death. The true article would be "List of deaths attributed to psychological problems" of which there are thousands, much too long and not really encyclopedic. --Naha|^(talk) 19:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I'd like to ask you to read the article, which is actually titled List of deaths attributed to computer or video games. The claims that you 'refute' are not made in the article. It is simply a list of occasions where mainstream or credible sources have made the allegation. It does not discuss the veracity of the claims. Please, take a look, and read it, and condsider it in the light of what it is, not what you assumed it was based on an erroneous claim on afd. For great justice. 19:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

With respect, please do not assume I have not read the article, I did so immediatly after finding the AfD. What I am refuting, which is what I thought I stated above, is the title of the article: "attributed to computer or video games" implies causation, which leads to my elaboration above. Causation has not been proved, therefore the title of the article is flawed. --Naha|^(talk) 22:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Appologies - the fact that you didn't even get the title right, and totally misrepresented the content lead me to think you may not have read it. I also suspect from your comment that you don't know the meaning of the word 'attributed'. It absolutely does not imply that causation has been proved. For great justice. 06:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Tongue and cheek "appologies" can be left at the door, especially when they are followed by more criticisim.

Above, I was shortening the title to reflect the part I have a problem with - the shortened versions I used above do not change the meaning of the title, it was just simple shorthand. Anyone can see that, so please quit pulling unnecessary punches and making accusations toward other editors, they are not becoming and will not gain you any support. Also, I am very aware of what the word "attributed" means and stand by everything I have said regarding that matter. I'm sorry you can't see that, I feel I was quite clear. Further, I did not misrepresent any of the content in the article, I never claimed anything I stated was in the article, but rather what a real article on the matter should be about. Perhaps a better title for your article would be "List of deaths attributed to computer or video games by the media." If you honestly think people do and will not read causation into the current title, you are sadly mistaken. --Naha|^(talk) 07:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I also believe it is you who "don't know the meaning of the word 'attributed'" :

from www.dictionary.com

at·trib·ute ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-trbyt)
tr.v. at·trib·ut·ed, at·trib·ut·ing, at·trib·utes

1. To relate to a particular cause or source; ascribe: attributed their failure to a lack of preparation.
   
2. To regard as the work of a specified agent, place, or time: attributed the painting to Titian; attributed the vase to 18th-century Japan.

n. at·tri·bute (tr-byt)

1. A quality or characteristic inherent in or ascribed to someone or something.
   
2. An object associated with and serving to identify a character, personage, or office: Lightning bolts are an attribute of Zeus.
   
3. Grammar. A word or phrase syntactically subordinate to another word or phrase that it modifies; for example, my sister's and brown in my sister's brown dog.
   

Note the bolded portion above; I rest my case. --Naha|^(talk) 07:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume that english is not your first language? Frankly I don't know where to start. Your shortened version clearly changed the article, because it removed the word attributed. I can see now why you think this did not change the meaning, see below.

I don't, as an aside, think you understand the meaning of the phrase 'pull punches'.

If you had, indeed, read the article, you would not suggest the title 'by the media', since the attributions were made by coroners, family, perpetrators of violence themselves, and the media. The word 'attributed', as you point out, means to ascribe. Perhaps the problem is that you don't know what that word means? I am truly sorry to come across as rude, but I feel a responsibility to put you right on these things. For great justice. 07:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I have read the article several times, and I ask that you quit making that accusation. Second, English is my native language. I hold an associates degree in English, thank you. Third, I've just read the entire above discussion again, and can't find where you see a reference to the title, by me, with the word "attributed" removed. I found two instances of the shortened versions. Here they are, in context:

1. The title of the article says "Deaths attributed to video games"
2. "attributed to computer or video games" implies causation

I see the word attributed in both of those instances. So can you please point out an instance where I referred to the title of your article without using the word 'attributed'? Neither of these shortened versions change the meaning of the title.

Next, the word "cause" is used in both the definition of "attribute" and the definition of "ascribe." I've pointed out on several occassions that "attributed to" and "caused by" can be the same, but for some reason you feel I have not proven this. So here, as more evidence, is the definition of "ascribe."

as·cribe ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-skrb)

tr.v. as·cribed, as·crib·ing, as·cribes

1. To attribute to a specified cause, source, or origin: “Other people ascribe his exclusion from the canon to an unsubtle form of racism” (Daniel Pinchbeck). See Synonyms at attribute.
2. To assign as a quality or characteristic: was quick to ascribe jealousy to her critics.

As far as asking people to re-read things, I suggest you re-read what I've already said above. I have already mentioned the coroners and "perpetrators of violence themselves" in a previous response and don't feel the need to reiterate that again.

The entire point is that video games and computer games were a common link among the deaths mentioned, one of at least two common links. The deaths should never have been "attributed" to them, but rather to the medical and psychological problems all of the victims shared. If this article remains with the current title, Wikipedia would be furthering the inncorrect claims. There are a hell of a lot of people who read this encyclopedia, and it is an editors job to report facts so those people who read it get the full story. I understand it is a fact that the deaths have been attributed to the games by certain people, but again, they were inncorrect in doing so. Sadly, it is currently much more fun for the media to talk about video games than it is to talk about various medical or psychological disorders. That is why the computer and video games get the headlines, and the rest of the information is either not mentioned, or further down in the articles.

Lets go to the actual articles: In one of the instances of the Berzerk game, Jeff Dailey had scar tissue and could have just as easily died jogging. In another case, Shawn Wooly was epileptic and also had psychological problems which his mother alludes to in that very article. The remainder of the same article goes on to describe how people with addictive personalities or psychological problems, low self esteem etc. are vulnerable to these kinds of outlets. That is probably the best article out of the bunch, but again - the computer game got the headline. The second article about Shawn Wooly flat out says "Shawn struggled with learning disabilities and significant emotional problems." But even after stating that, the mother places blame (cause for her son's death) on the game - “That damn game. He shot himself because of the game.” In this instance, the mother needs something tangible to place blame on, to allow her to cope. She can pick up a copy of a game and hold it in her hand, something that can't really be done with seemingly abstract medical or psychological problems. I could go on but this is getting tiresome.

I've proved my reasoning to you over and over and quite frankly am through with doing so because it is taking me away from editing articles. Believe what you like --Naha|^(talk) 20:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re your degree - sorry - I get those kinds of emails too! Seriously though, I guess that's why Wikipedia notes the relatively low prestige of associate degrees in higher education. You're in a hole, but you can't stop digging - if you keep insisting that attribute does not mean 'to regard' then there's nothing anyone can do. You have your interpretation; the rest of the world has theirs. Comically, you keep quoting dictionaries that prove my point, not yours.

You miss the whole point of the article (I attribute this to your weak grasp of the language) going into your opinion of the value of the attributions. That's irrelevant. The article is about occasions when people have claimed that deaths were caused by games. That's what attribute means. Whether or not the people were right to claim that is not the point.

You are right about your analysis being tiresome. Your opinion about the fact that people attributed the deaths to games is not interesting at all. It's simply your POV - the list is factual and verified.

Still, thanks for playing, better luck next time, For great justice. 15:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, folks. Time to stop the squabbling here. I'd appreciate it if the two of you would refrain from contacting each other again on this matter and instead go about your Wikiwork. If you do have more to say to each other, please contact me and I'll be happy to arrange for mediation to solve your dispute. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)