User talk:Champaign

New Stuff

Bishop (Latter Day Saints)(talk): LDS Aaronic Bishop (aka Levitical Bishop)

(Edit 13 August 2023: This topic is included here since relatively new information has come to light that contradicts my following comment.)

"According to Latter-day Saint scripture, a bishop in the church does not need to be a high priest nor does he need counselors if he is a Levite and a direct descendant of Aaron, the brother of Moses.[2] In the LDS Church, it is rare for a bishop to be selected under this doctrine." Rare? I have never heard of a single person who has ever held the office of bishop as a lone Aaronic Bishop (also known as a Levitical Bishop). My understanding is that this office in the LDS Church is treated much like the same office in the Community of Christ in that nobody has yet been called to act alone as an Aaronic Bishop, but is always a high priest who has the authority to officiate as, and is specifically called to be, a bishop within a three-person bishopric. If there has ever been an Aaronic bishop serving alone in this capacity in the LDS Church, I would be very interested to find out who that person was and when and where he served. I would also be interested to find out if there have been any other Aaronic bishops serving in any of the other denominations in the Latter Day Saint Movement. --Champaign (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard rumours before, but nothing more. Certainly there is nothing in reliable sources about it having happened. But I also don't think there's a reliable source that says it has never happened. So without a discourse on how there are no sources on this one way or the other, "rare" might be the safest description? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
President Joseph Fielding Smith has perhaps elaborated further on this topic than anyone else. Interesting to read his quotes here - (scroll down to "D&C 68:15–21. Under What Conditions Can a Literal Descendant of Aaron Be a Bishop without Counselors?") - http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-60-68/section-68-scripture-is-the-will-mind-word-voice-and-power-of-god-unto-salvation?lang=eng Hooson (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Note: Since this comment was made, the following information has been included in the article in question. --Champaign (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop (Latter Day Saints): Levitical bishops

According to Latter Day Saint scripture, a bishop in the church does not need to be a high priest, nor does he need counselors, if he is a Levite and a direct descendant of Aaron, the brother of Moses.[1] In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), apostle Joseph Fielding Smith taught that this provision applied only to the Presiding Bishop of the church and not to bishops of wards.[2]

The Presiding Bishop of the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, W. Kevin Romer, is recognized as a “literal descendant of Aaron” and holds the title of Aaronic High Priest.[3]

Notes

  1. ^ Doctrine and Covenants 68:14–21.
  2. ^ "Section 68: Scripture Is the Will, Mind, Word, Voice, and Power of God unto Salvation", Doctrine and Covenants Scripture Manual (Salt Lake City, Utah: Church Educational System, 2002).
  3. ^ "Remnant Doctrine and Covenants Section 161".

Prime (symbol) (talk): Origin of Prime Symbols (′, ″, ‴, ⁗) as Stylized Superscript Roman Numerals

I read somewhere that the prime, double prime (or second), triple prime (or third), and quadruple prime (or fourth) symbols are actually stylized versions of superscript Roman numerals (I, II, III, and IIII—as an alternate version of IV). However, I don't remember where I read this. I'll keep researching this idea and merge it into the article if I can, but if anyone is able to locate a reference on this, and should you have the time, can you also include this information in the article with its source? Otherwise, you can just message me the reference and I can put it into the article, and make sure that you share credit in some way. Thank you so much.

— Champaign (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Slim Shady (talk): Why was stuff deleted?

Why was information concerning Tom Green, Brittney Spears, and Christina Aguilira deleted from the article? The claims were all correct and supportable by looking at the lyrics. --EngineerScotty 17:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because they can do it. You have to source your info thoroughly and quote it verbatim from a known source. And even then, your info isn't guaranteed to stay up. I love it when I put in a lot of time to research and write something into an article, just to have it reverted by a bot, not even an actual person, but a silly old bot!!! That's why I'm down to just making spelling and grammatical corrections only these days. Champaign (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of the music video material is gone. Like the real appearance of Fred Durst. It seems like looking back in the edit logs someone keeps controlling the verdict, yet not delivering actual descriptive information or evidence of the material in the music video. Rather than revert, it should be edited to add the actual information of the music video Jerry Steinfield (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old Stuff

Greatings and Conversations

Welcome, Champaign!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions!
You might like to check out our tutorial, a resource created especially for new users like yourself.
You also may want to introduce yourself to the community at the new user log.
I would suggest a look through our policies and guidelines.
If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page, or at our questions forum.
I hope very much you enjoy being here with us, and I wish you luck with your contributions.

- Zapptastic at 04:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Muffin tops

(The following message was written to my IP address)--Champaign 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Muffin tops, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Konstable 04:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The following was posted on this user's talk page.--Champaign 05:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do *not* send me messages calling my genuine attempts to improve an article vandalism. I found the 'See also' in the "Muffin Tops" article quite informative and largely relavant to the topic. In fact, I am going to ask for a reversion and leave it to consensus. Next time, you see something I edited and don't like it, change it, revert it, whatever, but DO NOT accuse me of vandalism unless it is something that blatantly fits the definition of vandalism. Thank you.

--Champaign

PS I was reading article at the time, and did not consider it necessary to log in for a small edit. That it why my IP address is there. But even *that* should not make *any difference anyway.


(replied on your talk page - article reverted, warning removed).--Konstable 05:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry for that, reverted the article.--Konstable 05:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a little hidden comment from the warning from this page - it is used by some automated tools to detect warnings (i.e. so you don't show up as having a vandalism warning).--Konstable 05:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right then. So then are many of these vandalism warnings sent out automatically by programs then? Is that really fair? Or is there just so much vandalism that no human can actually keep up? Do you think I would be better off logging in before editing, even for small edits? BTW, sorry for my end of the misunderstanding. -- Champaign 05:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The problem was

The reason I reverted the edit is because it came up in a filter of some common vandal terms - "Cleavage". Most of the time what pops up into the filter is ok, but a lot of other times it is vandalism - here I thought it was vandalism because it was a "Muffin top" page with a picture of cute a muffin and an anon user making "Cleavage" edits, and I didn't think much more of it. Mistakes like these happen every now and then but I wouldn't say they are frequent, so don't get too paranoid about trying to avoid them. The best thing to do to help others avoid them is to use edit summaries, and an account always helps too.--Konstable 05:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Pauline Robinson and Aleister Crowley

This is the most outlandish speculation I have ever seen. And I'm not a big fan of Republicans, the Bushes, of either one of the Presidents Bush! But we have to stick to verifiable information here. I am also highly skeptical of a reference from a blog site that sites this same article as one of its own sources. Please make sure your information is at least on ground that is relatively firm before posting it on Wikipedia. Posted to Pauline Robinson by Champaign 19:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC). Posted to User_talk:Robschoen by Champaign 19:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I assumed my edit summary was self-explanatory. Your compromise revert is fine. I wonder if anyone is going to have sufficient interest to make it a well-sourced article? Simões (talk/contribs) 17:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Robinson

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Pauline Robinson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Pauline Robinson

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pauline Robinson (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Proposal to move State of Kanawha article to a new title

I think perhaps a new title be created and this article be moved to it. I was thinking something along the lines of Kanawha (Historic U.S. State) would be much clearer and less ambiguous than the current title which is vague and not accurate in the sense that there is no state known as Kanawha that currently exists. --Champaign 08:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the Roman Republic (in fact, we have three) although no such republic currently exists. We should not use parenthetical disambiguators when they are unnecessary, as here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You guys were right. Although some of you (not naming names) are like broken clocks which happen to be right in this case, but for all the wrong reasons! People, and bots, like you are why there are still people out there that don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source of information!!! and why there are many people out there who would be willing to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia but don't bother because they're afraid doing so would be a complete waste of their time!!! To the rest of you, sorry, my sincerest apologies! Champaign (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents, leave it alone. Vaoverland 23:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Champaign went ahead and moved this article to Kanawha (historic U.S. state), despite having received only negative responses to his proposal. Champaign did the same thing for several other articles about historical entities in the United States (see his talk page). As the Septentrionalis & Vaoverland have pointed out, there is no need to add a parenthetical disambiguator to indicate that a state no longer exists. Calling this the State of Kanawha no more implies that it still exists than World War II implies that the war is still going on. The title State of Kanawha is quite precise and unambiguous, since there has only ever been one entity called that. Kanawha (historic U.S. state) is also arguably inaccurate, since Kanawha was never a state of the U.S.—it was only admitted to the Union after the name had been changed to West Virginia. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 04:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and have concerns that there are many other articles to which such logic could be applied. How do we proceed per WP: consensus, and put this pack as it should be? Vaoverland 06:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a request to move the page back to State of Kanawha to Wikipedia:Requested moves — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 18:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as discussed above. Vaoverland 00:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see I supported this above; I still do.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support move back to State of Kanawha. The move to Kanawha (historic U.S. state) was contrary to strong consensus. Andrewa 14:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this not at Kanawha (U.S. state) like Georgia (U.S. state)? Is there a reason to pre disambiguate as historic? Is there another US state of Kanawha? Vegaswikian 19:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed from Kanawha (historic U.S. state) to State of Kanawha as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 09:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Proposal to move State of Franklin article to a new title

I think perhaps a new title be created and this article be moved to it. I was thinking something along the lines of Franklin (Historic U.S. State) would be much clearer and less ambiguous than the current title which is vague and not accurate in the sense that there is no state known as Franklin that currently exists. --Champaign 08:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not real strong reasoning: Joan of Arc doesn't currently exist, but we wouldn't rename the article on her Joan of Arc (historic person). Plus, calling Franklin a "historic U.S. state" is technically incorrect: Franklin was never a U.S. state. As seen from this online source, "State of Franklin" was the correct title for this article and it should not have been moved. I see from your talk page that you did a whole slew of ill-advised page moves. :-( —Kevin Myers 00:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. All correct. I'm reverting this. "Franklin" is ambiguous, and everyone who refers to this particular historical territory or movement calls it "The State of Franklin." Iamvered 18:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You guys were right. Although some of you (not naming names) are like broken clocks which happen to be right in this case, but for all the wrong reasons! People, and bots, like you are why there are still people out there that don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source of information!!! and why there are many people out there who would be willing to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia but don't bother because they're afraid doing so would be a complete waste of their time!!! To the rest of you, sorry, my sincerest apologies! Champaign (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for State of Franklin. Calling it a historical state suggests that it was a state and is no longer. Ground Zero | t 03:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iamvered's attempt to move the page back was unsuccessful. I've added a request on Wikipedia:Requested moves to move this page back to State of Franklin. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 03:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally hd a rough time finding this article because I was looking for the "Free Republic of Franklin". Was this not the title given to the land? Since the land was not actually admitted as a "state", I believe calling it such is a bit inappropriate. csmdad 16 November 2008

Are there reliable sources that refer to it as the "Free Republic of Franklin"? There are quite a lot of high quality sources that describe it as the State of Franklin. older ≠ wiser 14:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of the "Free Republic of Franklin", but I've heard and read plenty about the State of Franklin. --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move State of Sequoyah article to a new title

I think perhaps a new title be created and this article be moved to it. I was thinking something along the lines of Sequoyah (Historically Proposed U.S. State) would be much clearer and less ambiguous than the current title which is vague and not accurate in the sense that there is no state known as Sequoyah that currently exists. --Champaign 08:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 06:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You guys were right. Sorry, my sincerest apologies! Champaign (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Proposal to move State of Deseret article to a new title

I think perhaps a new title be created and this article be moved to it. I was thinking something along the lines of Deseret (Historically Proposed U.S. State) would be much clearer and less ambiguous than the current title which is vague and not accurate in the sense that there is no state known as Deseret that currently exists. --Champaign 08:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect page with that name could certainly be useful, but you will find "State of Deseret" in most history texts dealing with the settlement of the American West and/or Mormon migration and settlement. It may be that the title of the proposed independant state was actually "State of Deseret". I have never heard any other title. Best wishes. WBardwin 01:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it back. It really was called the State of Deseret, even though it wasn't actually a state of the U.S. Under WP:Naming conventions, we should stick with the most common name. COGDEN 04:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You guys were right. Sorry, my sincerest apologies! By the way, thank you for being so civil about it. Responses to my other article moves have not been such. --Champaign (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


References > Citing sources

When you make additions, like you did to Harry S. Truman, please cite a source. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thanks. ~ WikiDon (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make additions, I just merely put two pieces of information that were already there into one (somewhat) easier to read sentence. (Or at least, this was my intention.) Your beef is actually with the people who put those original pieces of information into the article in the first place. --Champaign (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to research who was/were responsible for putting the information on Anderson Truman's middle name and how it's spelled in the article on Harry S. Truman, but there are just too many entries to go through (I tried to sift through something like 2000 edit entries that chronologically preceded my own without noticing a single reference to the section on Truman's middle initial; it was just too overwhelming) without the ability to only see an article's history applicable to a section without seeing the history of the entire article. So, I gave up. But it appears that you fixed the problem in the article anyway. I have just sent the Wikipedia staff an email about the possible necessity of adding the ability to see a section's history. I'll let you know if I hear anything back. Thanks. --Champaign (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Being able to see the history of a section within a large article

(This was posted in the Village Pump. The Village Pump postings on this subject are being reposted here. -Champaign (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The other day, I had a need to see the history of a small section of a large article I was working on. So, my only recourse was to view the history of the entire article. I must have looked at over 2000 entries of edits and not one of them referred to the section I was working on. It was just too overwheming, so I just gave up. Anyway, if there were an ability to view the history pertaining only to a section of an article, the information I needed would have been much easier to acquire. Just a thought. Thanks. --Champaign (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not possible, I think, because the software doesn't record where in the article you make an edit. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many times I have wanted this feature, it would really come in handy. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles will be stored as one file, not a group of sections, so this would be impossible. It would be very problematic to change this, e.g. renaming a section would be much more difficult. It would have some advantages, e.g. being able to watch a given section only, or view its history, but it's not likely to happen. Richard001 (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is something that currently can only be done with external tools and only works as long as the section isn't renamed. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as long as only one section is edited at a time. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you really want to achieve, but this tool is sometimes helpful if you want to identify who did what change. I know this is not at all what you where asking for, but maybe what you needed. :-) --Stefan talk 11:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


No existence of "trigintillion"? I beg to differ!

In the talk page of the Names of large numbers article under the section No existence of "trigintillion"? I beg to differ!:

I have removed the sentence, "Trigintillion, often cited as a word in discussions of names of large numbers, is not included in any of them, nor are any of the names that can easily be created by extending the naming pattern (unvigintillion, duovigintillion, duoquinquagintillion, etc.)." Trigintillion would seem like a very logical name for 1093 as triginta is Latin for thirty, so the name can obviously thus be easily created and used for this particular large number and the section on Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers uses this word just fine.--Champaign (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note from Champaign (talk): My edit was reverted by Spacepotato with this edit summary: 09:13, 8 January 2009 Spacepotato (talk|contribs) (32,208 bytes) ("Trigintillion" isn't in the cited dictionaries. It's in this article, but this article is not a dictionary.)

Ok. I concede your point. However, the sentence reads in its entirety:

Trigintillion, often cited as a word in discussions of large numbers, in not included in any of them [dictionary numbers], nor in the names that can easily be created by extending the naming pattern (unvigintillion, duovigintillion, duoquinquagintillion, etc.). [strong emphasis and italics added]

Extending the naming pattern accordingly (by the way the third item on the list of examples should be trevigintillion and not "duoquinquagintillion," which would correspond to duoquinquaginta, the Latin for 52, and to 10159 numerically in short scale...well, perhaps the writer was jumping numbers, but no matter), one would unavoidably end up at novemvigintillion or 1090 and this number times 1000 (1093) can have no other name "by extending the naming pattern," except trigintillion. Also, while it may be true that it is not a dictionary number, I have never heard this number name come up anywhere "in discussions of names of large numbers" I've ever had, which brings up another point: what source could be cited to support the assertion that trigintillion is "often cited as a word in discussions" like these? I figured, why even bring up trigintillon at all whether it's a dictionary number or not? I don't think the word is notable and I defy anyone to please show me a source that says it is. Anyway, I would like to give one week from writing this for someone to please show me a good reason why this sentence is relavent to this article. After that, if such is either not forthcoming or insufficient, I shall see no other alternative but to remove the entire sentence. --Champaign (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have misquoted the sentence in question. It reads:

Trigintillion, often cited as a word in discussions of names of large numbers, is not included in any of them, nor are any of the names that can easily be created by extending the naming pattern (unvigintillion, duovigintillion, duoquinquagintillion, etc.).

This means that (a) trigintillion is not in the cited dictionaries and (b) other words, such as duovigintillion, which can be created by extending the naming pattern are not in the cited dictionaries. The sentence does not say that trigintillion cannot be created by extending the naming pattern, since, as you point out, it can. Spacepotato (talk|contribs) 19:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination of William Chubby for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Chubby 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/William Chubby 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. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, WTF!!!

Come on, man! This is one of a handful of African-Americans that were members and Priesthood holders in the early Joseph Smith Latter Day Saint Church who went on to start his own denomination. There has to be some more information on this guy somewhere! Seriously, I'm broke and unemployed, so if I have to be the one to fish for this information, I'm probably going to have to find a way to get some money for it, otherwise, I guess Mr. Chubby is f%&$ed! ...At least as an article. I'm serious. I have a family to support and this kind of research takes time and energy I could be using toward finding a job. --Champaign (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Police Impersonation: Using fake police lights to get through heavy traffic

There are numerous stories out there about people who are not officers acquiring and using police lights either mounted on their unmarked car, or a temporary light that they place on the cartop, sometimes with an accompanying siren, just in order to get through heavy traffic they would ordinarily have to wait for or drive very slowly through. I'm tired of fixing articles and/or inserting new information into them only to get them reverted by some ignorant bot or user not paying close enough attention for some silly reason that usually doesn't even apply, so I'm going to leave it to one of you geniuses out there to confirm this information and to make the actual insertion. Thanks. --Champaign (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Jess Weixler: Date of birth

As the date of birth has never been confirmed via a reliable source it has been removed. I've searched for verification, but have come up empty handed; all of the online sites are either tertiary sources/user-generated websites (such as IMDB), or wiki-mirrors. I'll keep trying to find a date, but please do not add a date without also including a reliable source. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the date of birth for Jessica Weixler on IMDB is June 8, 1981. Now, let's see if someone can confirm that with a reliable source. Thank you!!! --Champaign (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Seefra: Edits and Redirects

If you wish to edit this page down to a redirect, fine, but please do so with care. This article refers to a fictional star and star system that is in the TV series Andromeda, NOT any object in the real-life constellation Andromeda. I have reverted ALL redirects because they were all pointing to the article List of stars in Andromeda, a page about the real-life stars within the real-life constellation of Andromeda, having absolutely NOTHING to do with the TV series. So, again, if you wish to copy portions of this article into one of the many articles connected to the TV series and then set up a redirect to that article, this would be fine, but the redirect as constituted previous to my reversion of this article were ALL in error, so please do NOT just blindly revert my reversion or set up another redirect without at least reading the article to which you are redirecting us to in order to make sure that it IS in fact pertaining to the same subject matter. Also, if the information in this article is not in the target article, it would be a vast improvement to work in the information within this article into the target article before setting up the redirect. Thank you very much! --Champaign (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canon (fiction): Possible Misuse of Links to This Article and the Term Non-Canon

There are a number of articles of certain TV serial programs (such as Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc.) that state one of their categories as "Non-canon Fiction" and link this text to this article. The problem is that the term "non-canon" is too general and imprecise, and may even be getting misused. The term "non-canon" seems more applicable to fan-fiction or "official" episodes that do not follow one or more thoroughly previously established plot points of an original franchise. What I think is intended here is the phase "reboot fiction" or "reset fiction" and perhaps a link to the Reboot (fiction) or the Reset button technique article may be much more appropriate. --Champaign (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]