User talk:Khaosworks/Archive3

here you go. Couldn't find a bottle.

Dalek

Votes and comments on WP:RM do not count you have to place oppose or support on the relevent talk page. Please move you oppose to Talk:Dalek. Philip Baird Shearer 28 June 2005 08:05 (UTC)

The Christmas Invasion

Geez! I think it's common knowledge that a. Jackie and Mickey are in it. b. It's set in London at Christmas. The reason I keep changing it is because the data looks awful as it is. I kept in the 'No other Info' thing because it's correct, but my preview just looks more neat. Kay?

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia

The article has been improved drasticaly, I think this is a good enough reason to reopen the FA status of this article. To be fair I am notifying all parties involved with the article on old candidacy. If I forgot one of you, its not intentional. Thats all for now --Cool Cat My Talk 1 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)

What images seem to be causing you the most problems on the page? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)

Isn't this your picture?

Spotted your 'Ten Doctors' montage, presumably picked up off Wikipedia, being used by this site during my regular daily Google News check for Who stories: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/paper410/news/2005/07/07/Entertainment/You-Should.Know.About-961146.shtml Angmering 7 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)

3RR

Ok, my bad. --Hottentot

User:Gabrielsimon

I see you blocked User:Gabrielsimon for 3RR recently... That's at least his third time for that, if it's not much higher. I need some help dealing with his harassment. He has taken it upon himself to add comments to my talk page claiming that he's trying to show me the error of my ways and that I need to grow up and etc. but consistently adds comments back even when I remove them. He has now gone into articles blindly reverting changes I have nmade and even removed comments I made to article talk pages that he had no history on just to remove what I had to say. When I warned him against such behavior on HIS talk page, he removed it immediately (probably faster than he could have even read it) which means it's clear that he thinks he controls his talk page but that other people shouldn't control theirs. He also has been getting into similar incidents with other editors, and I wonder what actions you would suggest. DreamGuy July 8, 2005 11:28 (UTC)

Uh, DreamGuy? You do the exact same thing as he does with regard to this issue. elvenscout742 21:50, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
which is EXACTLY why i started doing it to him, and he cant handle it, so thus, he should , logically, be able to see that he shouldnt do it, but no, he simply criues and plays the victim.... sad really.

Gabrielsimon 22:07, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be a "previous block" now? You might want to update the Wikipedia:Policy enforcement log. Uncle Ed July 9, 2005 13:32 (UTC)

RFC

I'm about to request comments about the dispute in Vampire and other pages. Gabrielsimon's behavior is simply not acceptable. Whether on purpose or not, he's acting like an "editor's bait", adding questionable content and then waiting for others to revert it so that he can denounce them as abusive. Would you back this request up? Do you have any suggestions on wording it? --Pablo D. Flores 23:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

would anyone like to make this person go away and leave me be? im trying the best i can, you know? Gabrielsimon 23:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

assumptions

you should really think about looking at dreamguys record too, you know, i only bother him to show him how he treats other peopel, and yet he cant seem to handle it, which is really what was expected. he can not admit when hes wrong and will stubbornly change things over and over, in articles even when h knows hes wrong, yes its not cooorrect of me to take action myself, but well, some timesi cant help myself, you cant take his overblown words at thier face value, he has quite the tendancey to platy the victim. all i was trying to do was to get him to actually answer my qyuestion instead of childishly removing it, but i suppose i was expedcting to much from him. (i also read everything that was ever posted on my pages, just to tell you) i get pulled on 3rr when i lose my head and forget to count, thats all...

Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 11:47 (UTC)

Arsenal crest

All the other pages have crests in the infoboxes because we don't have many better images that represent the club. Having written the football club infoboxes, I can tell you that the image parameter was added as an optional very recently. Images should be used to illustrate the article and to aid the text. The crest best illustrates the section which discusses its design. Images should not be included twice on a page, especially non-free ones. In general club crests have little encylopædic value (not to mention the fact that they are heavily protected by copyright, HQFL was asked by the Premier League to remove all its English club logos), and it is alarming that they have been used as the infobox image for all of these clubs. ed g2s • talk 9 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)

It would make absolutely no sense to move the crest out of the section about the crest, the "it may be stupid, but at least it's consistent" reasoning is worrying. And as much as I'd love to remove every fair use image from Wikipedia, it just isn't going to happen. ed g2s • talk 9 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)
The majority of football league teams do not have crests, and a significant majority of pages using the template do not have crests. ed g2s • talk 22:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already explained, because Arsenal has a body of text relating to the crest. If these logos were free and Wikipedia were to be considered a source of them, then perhaps they should all be in the same place, but they really are minor details in relation to the club, which get top billing for being pretty graphics and make the page look "nice". It'd be much better to have a nice shot of the stadium in the image box. ed g2s • talk 23:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was a minor detail, it is a choice between presentation and functionality. Reading the section about the new crest design, one expects to have both crests to hand as the discussion is essentially about the differences between two images. The claim for fair use there is very strong. On arriving at the page, the crest at the top provides no use other than cosmetic. ed g2s • talk 23:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"what's the point of the image field in the infobox to begin with?" ... none as far as I'm concerned, which is why I opposed its addition to the infobox. ed g2s • talk 01:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The decision to include the image line was made by one person, and I agreed with the concesson that it should be optional. Judging by the quality of the crest images uploaded, I wouldn't trust the opinion of this "majority" which is in favour of having the club crest on each page. By all means this discussion should take place on the Arsenal talk page, but I should remind you that votes are one of the last resorts in dispute resolution.

3rr

id like to report user DreamGuy for 3rr on the lillith page and the japanese mythology page and the Solar deity page and the Missing sun motif page. i have simply been trying to correcthis mistake, and he says im harassing him and keeps reverting it. hes broken the 3rr on all these pzges. Gabrielsimon 18:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:DreamGuy

Firstly, I must say that I have no quarrel with you, good editor. You clearly are only doing what you see as best, but I must call you on your defending DreamGuy and siding with him against Gabrielsimon. DreamGuy has broken at least as many rules as Gabrielsimon, if not many more. Allow me to direct you here for the specifics, as cited by yours truly and User:Dbraceyrules. Good editting! elvenscout742 20:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i am at very least civil. Gabrielsimon 20:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the rfc

did you even read the article andlook into it? Gabrielsimon 01:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

he wasnt talkingto you with that, he was tlking to someone else whos name i can not spell, if you wish we can put your wording in context by moving something esel there as well. please no over reactions Gabrielsimon 01:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you responded before I had a chance to write my reply to the charges. Your response claims that the complainants "sunk to my level", when, if you would now read the examples of their abuse and my response to their charges, you will see that what they have done is far, far worse than anything I did, and that the times I responded less than civilly toward them was because the stress of dealing with such constant harassment finally got to me. In fact you'll even see on the discussion page that Gabrielsimon admits to trying to get his revenge by doing things to annoy me and then hopinh I respond with an insult. I would apprevciate it if you could look over the evidence I provided and amend your comment. DreamGuy 07:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate you making the change. DreamGuy 08:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

inthe case of his "proof" labelled link 11 on the talk page, examine this. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gabrielsimon&diff=next&oldid=12643427 you will see he never bothered to read anything beyond his temper flare. Gabrielsimon 07:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gabrielsimon

Gahhhh. The guy is going around, purposefully making capitalizations wrong on articles that I fixed to piss me off, and when I fix them again he just reverts them all again. Can you please help me out here, as his actions are completely out of line. He doesn't even respond to attempts by myself our others to point him to Wikipedia:Capitalization. Maybe you could rollback his changes or something. DreamGuy 07:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


a title is capitalized to show respect, God is a title, in polythiesm, so it is being changed to calitapized, as with the OTHER titlesthat i keep fixing,m admit to being wrong and knock it off, dude. Gabrielsimon 07:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've clearly pointed out to Gabrielsimon that he's wrong to try to capitalize Goddess of War for no reason and he is ignoring you and still changing the article, would you mind editing Lilith to reflect the way it should be? Gabrielsimon and some anonymous IP address that looks like someone's sockpuppet keep switching it. DreamGuy 03:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

just becaue DreamGuy is wrong, he goes complaining, kindly ignore this. Gabrielsimon 04:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who images

Sure if you have some decent quality screengrabs by all means replace them. Some of the ones on DWIA are very grainy. DWIA's copyright page [1] seems to suggest all images are ok to be used — I guess a wikipedia article counts as promotion of Doctor Who. You have a good point about the size of the some of the images, I'll have a look at some of the bigger ones, but again please feel free to replace any you want to. --Tim Pope 17:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'd missed the logo on the Robot image, so sorry about that one ;) --Tim Pope 17:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Armageddon Factor

Khoas, what am I missing from the article? --JB Adder | Talk 02:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that'd be great. I had only caught the last two episodes of the serial, so I had to work off the summaries as well as what I knew. --JB Adder | Talk 02:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The Sunshine Camp

Hi, The sunshine camp was a title the Official BBC Dr Who site put up for a few hours until being removed. information was provided by http://www.gallifreyone.com .

I know it could be only a rumour, however it was not linked to any other Dr Who pages so know one who did not know the name would come across it and get confused until an official confirmation had or had not been made.

It could a least have its own page stating it is a rumoured/working title?

However Episode 2 has been confirmed as "Tooth and Claw" by the (uk) official Dr Who Mag (July Edition), so should be added?

thanks, Iain k 13:39 (GMT), July 20, 2005

Disambiguation

No, I don't mind at all. :) Highly impressive use of the word "disambiguating", by the way! ;-) Angmering 12:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Wolf

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Could_someone_help_me_link.2C_please.3F please.--84.51.149.80 07:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandaliscious fartbag

a caertain User:Fartbag has been vandalizing the goerge w bush pae again, check its history tp see. proof. i also see from this users user page that this user has done this before and hasbeen warned and blocked. what shall we do? Gabrielsimon 08:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a question

if i wrote up articles aboutcharactors from stories im making, would anyone object to it? i can be considred the expert on them, and i will be publishing these on my website soon. Gabrielsimon 12:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew

Hi, you voted to Merge Authentic Matthew at a VFD. However, the salvagable content of the article was already merged prior to the previous VFD. Is it possible for you to reconsider your vote? ~~~~ 08:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on a block...

I see that you blocked 166.121.36.7 (talk · contribs) for one week for 'repeated vandalism'.

Since it's a shared IP, I can certainly understand how aggravating some of the contributions have been. Nevertheless, I'm not clear on what the recent vandalism was. The contributions for the last couple of days actually look productive: a poorly formatted but apparently well-intended list of references for the term Relativistic mass (added here), and what appears to be a very detailed and informative addition to Timeline of Arda (here). I see one vandalism edit from two days ago ([2]), but I'm not sure that a 1 week block is necessary here. Could you perhaps reconsider the block? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...but I'm very concerned about the collateral damage associated with the block. If you continue to have trouble with this IP, maybe post a notice on WP:AN/I? We shouldn't let one twerp ruin Wikipedia for all the other good editors who edit from that address. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm probably just going soft. ;-) If there's another (lengthy) block imposed, I'd still suggest running it past WP:AN/I, just for a second/third opinion. You never know, some of the other admins might have some clever ideas about how to handle it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Barrowman

Thank you for editing my additions to the John Barrowman article. I went to high school with John, and have corresponded with him over e-mail recently. We were in high school choral groups and musicals together. We went on a European choral tour together with our high school chorus in 1983.

consensus

The Authentic Matthew VFD has closed. The results were

  • Delete - 21 (58%)
  • Keep - 11 (31%)
  • Merge - 4 (11%)

This was declared to have been no consensus, and therefore a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus).

Would you be prepared to add a vote there?

You voted to merge at the original VFD, but the article has already been merged, and merge does not appear to be a result which would anyway obtain consensus. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for your support on my RfA! When I submitted it, I was unsure of how I'd do, but the support was great. I promise that I won't do anything too stupid with the trust you've given me. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Stop by Wikipedia:Deletion reform! And did you enjoy the soda?

Your efforts

I appreciate your efforts. I have posted (I hope comprehendable it's after 2:30AM where I'm at) stance of how I view the article on the Talk:Western United States. While misunderstanding are certainly possible I believe the core ofd the dispute is that DHarjo has one view of how the modern West should be deifned while I belive and have cite sources that ther are several views. I believe all of the possible states to include should be able to be mentioned in the article while acknowledging that they are not always included, but that emphasis should be on the core western states. Bascially I object to states out side of the core of the West AZ,NM,CO,UT,ID,WY,MT being locked into or out of the region. Regions overlap and classifications of what belong in region varies I simply want this acknowledged. You can get a basic feel of what I want from the article by reading the mainpage of WikiProject U.S. regions which I am a memeber of. You can also find ready background information on this on in my sandbox where I have put together a rough draft RFC. I have found my second certifier, but have chosen to hold off on it to give your efforts a chance. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks. -JCarriker 07:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Do you no longer intend to try to work on Western United States? Please let me know either way. Thanks. -JCarriker 20:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew the sequel

The POV that was in Authentic Matthew, an article you voted to delete, before it was NPOVed has been re-created at a new article - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

I stumbled across your user page in an unusual way (see below), and after reading it, I thought an introduction might be appropo. We seem to share similar interests and I am currently taking some upgrading courses at www.UWO.ca in order to qualify for law school entrance exams. I wanted to bring to your attention a situation which makes me (as a relatively new user to this project) question the mechanism that allows "problem editors" the freedom to continue making edits. In the past few days I have been watching the Gabrielsimon saga as it unfolds. It has been much like watching a car crash happen in slow motion. This situation has both interested/fascinated and perplexed me. I noticed you responded on User talk:Gabrielsimon concerning his use of sockpupets to make new edits and to register votes beyond the scope of singularity. I myself have noticed that another new user, Gavin the Chosen has been making edits in similar style and scope as the user Gabrielsimon and his identifiable sockpupets. I made a comment to this effect at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Evidence. If you have the ability and time to check and see if my claim has any veracity, I would appreciate it. If it is found that my suspicion is incorrect, of course I would be more than contrite, and willing to offer my apologies where ever appropriate. Thank you for your time, and hope to see you around the wiki! Peace! Hamster Sandwich 20:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt to apologize

Well, where to start... well, first fof i find being who i am now is much less stressfull then being who i was, I have taken the steps to become who i am and abandon the other account beccause it will help to proove that i have learned fromthe RFC, and might help inprooving i have come around enough to please the RFA, and now, i have made edits that are usefull and helpfull , aside from a brief spurt of Fnord!-ing, and one block for a misunderstanding, i have not broken any rule in quite sometime now ( which might be a r ecord for me) and i should hope to make it stay that way. I am sorry if i have offended in some way, really, i am....though i wonder what Hamster Sandwitch has against me...Gavin the Chosen 10:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Six Sigma

Hi Khaosworks, thanks for protecting Six Sigma. The discussion on the talk page has apparently wrapped up, so I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look and unprotect the page. Thanks. --Spangineer (háblame) 12:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Compassion & Sabbath

Hey, Khaosworks. I remember you from OG (which just got too crazy for me in the fever-pitch anticipation of the new series). You've certainly done a lot of good work on the Doctor Who section here!

Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be able to help with Sabbath much, since I stopped reading the EDAs regularly around Time Zero. (I read The Gallifrey Chronicles, and some of the intervening books are on my to-read list, but I haven't gotten the proverbial 'round tuit'.)

Anyway, I'm just a dilettante here. I'll see you around! --Josiah Rowe 05:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klass update

Thank you for the update on Phillip J. Klass, I hadn't heard of his death. Also, I had been searching for his birth date, and could only find it to be 1918 or 1919. Then I found the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, which listed it as 1921, so I changed it to that.

I would like to get your opinion of the NPOV of the article about 10 days ago. I put NOPV on the article when I thought that a lot of newly-added criticism was too one-sided. The author of it moderated it a little bit, but I would like to get your opinion as a third party. Thanks. Bubba73 17:29, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Bf-109

Thx :) do you have the ability to check his IP? if yes, could you do that, please? :)--Witkacy 16:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Infobox standardization support

You have voted for the suggestive title Infobox standardisation on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation even though your comment indicates that you are actually against standardization creep or at least do not support it unconditionally. VfD for these cases offers the option to vote move to NPOV title. Comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation if you want the page to be moved, for instance to Wikipedia:Should we have instructions to standardize infoboxes?. --Fenice 08:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khudos for Khaosworks! :)

As a long-time Doctor Who fan, and a frequent reader and occasional contributor to the Doctor Who pages here on WikiPee, I just wanted to say that I really appreciate your style, dedication, and professionalism.

And, um, that's it. Good on ya, mate. :)

P.S. Rogue thought running direcly from my brain to my fingers; if someone uses a handheld to access this site, sort of "Hitchhiker's Guide" style, does that make it a... WikiPDA?

Right, I'll get my coat.

--Jay (Histrion) 15:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dalek streaming report - some advice needed

I noticed that this morning you added a link to the OG thread wherein the link to the stream of Dalek was revealed to all to the notes section of the article on that episode. There is a report from The Stage entertainment industry newspaper about the whole affair which might also make a good link, but the problem is that I wrote it, so I didn't think it would really be ethical for me to add it myself. I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and tell me if you think it's worth adding a link on the episode's page? Angmering 08:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boycottthecaf

Whilst I am one who can take a personal jab or two without any sort of retaliation, I feel that I must bring this user to attention. Boycottthecaf has, once again, set out on a mission of personal attacks, starting on my User Talk page and following me to another article's discussion page. It's only going to get worse and I thought that I should bring it to your attention since you have seen firsthand his vandalism. (By the bye, he'll probably see this since he's taken to following my contributions, so...) - DrachenFyre 12:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Cremation of Care

Thanks for your message, I already undeleted it, see Special:Log/delete. -- Curps 02:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe

Zoe has accused me of being a racist, and has threatened to block me because of it, even though he has not responded to repeated calls to point to what alleged racist things I have said. This is becuase there is no such evidence about, but that doesn't seem to deter him. I don't know if he can block me, but it shouldn't be for some made up accusations. This also is apparantly isn't the first time he's falsley thrown around the racist label on someone. The man is reckless. By the way, I am black. --Boycottthecaf 06:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no sockpuppet you

And there I was about to compliment you on your remarkable knowledge of Michigan law! :-) FreplySpang (talk) 03:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

DW WikiProject -- stub graphic question.

OK, I've got something just about done. I assume you want it in .PNG format. Any dimensional limitations? (TARDIS pun fully intentional. ;-) ) --Jay (Histrion) 20:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC) (off to find out how to upload files to this thing... oh, and I left an identical comment on the project talk page.)[reply]

Terror of The Aztecs

It really is, you know. In the VidFIRE feature. Angmering 16:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge Admin

This user is suspected of being a Rouge Administrator. Caveat lector.

It has become quite clear to me that you are a Rouge Admin, and I think it is time for someone to formally recognize this fact! :) I think you are a great admin, and it's so cool how you keep popping up on my watch list as a tireless defender of Doctor Who. :) Cheers, Func( t, c, @, ) 15:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much!

I just had to thank you for cleaning up all my edits to the various Doctor Who articles today- I went a little crazy and just started editing all sorts of stuff, and you improved it a whole lot. I know it's a little thing, but it's really good to know that there is someone so dedicated to the project. Thanks again! Sean 00:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Hicks

Hi Terrence - do you have anything you could add to the Bonnie Hicks article I started? Thanks for your input on my cont's to date! --PeterMarkSmith 11:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reversion

Why did you reinsert the edit of a banned user? Under Wikipedia policy a banned user is not allowed to contribute anything to Wikipedia. All their edits are supposed to be deleted on sight and not reinstated. In that case the user's one year ban has had to be restarted from today because he breached it (for the 22nd time in one month) with three edits. All as per Wikipedia policy are supposed to be deleted on sight automatically. Please do not reinstate any edits of any banned user on Wikipedia. If they are banned their edits are not supposed to be let stand under any circumstances, irrespective of content, accuracy, quality or otherwise. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's official policy explicits states that other users are requested not to reinstate edits by a banned user, even under their name. (Official policies, btw, as opposed to the MoS, etc are considered mandatory. I don't know, BTW, what he wrote, nor do I care. As per policy I deleted it, as you are supposed to do too. If you reinsert it, as per the mandatory policy it too will be deleted. Please follow the mandatory rules of Wikipedia on the issue.FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiographic?

Wow! Otherwise, nice work on the paragraph. I can live with it. klenk 07:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, would you have preferred "simultaneously outrages... then delight?"  :-) klenk 07:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I really think the word "simultaneously" comments on something significant about Coulter. It is not that she is controverial, not that she makes people upset, but that simultaneously she makes one side completely batsh*t and one side completely giddy. I do think it could be argued that this is, in fact, an aspect of her signature. klenk 07:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page for Talk:Ann Coulter. klenk 07:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you came running after I made a vandalism report on the Coulter page. Was that a coincidence? Are you an admin, or do you know of one who can check into this person's behavior? He has made three anonymous changes about her sexual history in a very short while -- and they are his only contributions as a user. klenk 08:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I do see you are an admin -- I just read the list. What is the procedure in a situation like this? Can I continue to revert the sexual remarks, or would that be a 3RR? If so, may I visit John Kerry's page and add quotes from women who said they have had sex with him? Would those remarks be edited away? Your thoughts. klenk 08:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have a queston: I have, as you know, made a number of edits at the Coulter page. Regarding the sexual remark, I have carefully counted and I have only twice removed that remark. I would like to remove it again. By my understanding of policy, 3 reverts are the limit, so I would not be breaking policy by doing this. Am I right? Please and thank you. klenk 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K, another policy point: Now that I have thrice reverted the sexual comment, may I still revert other portions of the article, or am I restricted from any more reverts of any kind on that page? Please advise. Thanks for engaging on the Coulter page, by the way. This is getting fun! klenk 10:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I would like to thank you for your support on my RFA. I am not proud of having been the target of wiki-facist, though. That page was created by a legitimate editor who got very upset about a {{cleanup}} tag I put on an article he was working on. I just failed to get him to calm down (it wasn't for lack of trying). Anyhow, I have often seen good people freak out temporarily because they felt treated unfairly, so being the target of freaked-out people may not necessarily be a good sign. Rl 12:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers SPD Morpher Definition

There is a minor editing war between myself and an unknown user who is hiding behind various IP addresses including 63.204.72.51, 67.123.142.49, 70.119.69.107, and a few others. The morpher definition has been discussed on the Talk Page for SPD as well as being listed on the primary site for Power Rangers information: Power Rangers Central - (Entry). It seems petty, but the proper terminology is "communicator", not "phone." Thanks for all your assistance. - DrachenFyre 12:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Power of the Daleks

  • Please give a GOOD reason for reverting my edits or i'll have to report you! (nothing personal) - Lokomotiv Plovdiv
    • No problem, thanks - Loko Plovdiv

Logic

You support 4,000 word long articles on single episodes of Doctor Who, but deny an entire comic series its own page... I'd like to try and understand the logic behind this...

Apples and oranges. It's not the length of the article that concerns me. It's whether or not it's actually necessary to have the article in the first place. I'm not "denying" a comic series its own page. It already has a page; it's called Avengers (comics), which focuses on the team. There is no team called the New Avengers, that's been my position all along. On top of that New Avengers the comic has lasted barely a year (is not distinct enough, in tone, in composition or even in material, from the original to warrant its own article. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You say there's no team called the New Avengers... That's just your opinion. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on fact, not an individual's ideas. The new series of Doctor Who has barely been around for a year, but you're giving pages away to each 44-minute long episode! Am I supposed to believe that this information is so important to Wikipedia and shouldn't belong on some sort of fansite? You are "denying" The New Avengers its own page. The The Avengers page is for its own comic - which The New Avengers is not a part of, hence the link on the new page explaining that for history, you can go there. Avengers fan
Doctor Who has a 42-year history, which is reflected on its own pages - we don't have a separate page for the new series; each story has its own page, as are the stories from the "classic" series - as well as connections in every story to that history. Consensus has also been reached on the proper length of those pages.
But again, I'm not comparing the two, and I refuse to take the Avengers argument to my talk page. I've made my position as clear as I can on Talk:Avengers (comics). I'll abide by the majority consensus on whether to merge the two pages or not - I suggest you do the same. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to point out that while you feel it necessary to create such long, in-depth pages on single episodes of television series', I feel it necessary to have a page for a series of comic. I was only trying to understand how you feel justified in developing all of these pages for mere episodes - not even an actual topic, when you're opposed to a topic having its own page. You don't have to answer if you don't have one. Just trying to get my head around it.
"Don't answer if you don't have one." I have an answer - it's just one that you are failing to understand. I'm not opposed to a "topic" having its own page. You don't seem to understand that that "own page" already exists, and New Avengers is redundant. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the Avengers argument, it's a personal question from me to you, which is why it's here on your talk page. I don't understand how you find a page for an entire comic series redundant, where none of the information is covered on the page for a different comic, and see such important relevance in so many in-depth episode summaries. I can see how all the information in those episode synopses are incredibly redundant, and would be just as well suited to a small brief a main page for the series. I just understand that the contributors must see some relevance to it and don't try to delete your hard work. -- Avengers fan 15:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The synopses are not redundant because there are no articles for them. The individual episodes/stories are part of the larger set of Doctor Who articles, and there is a lot of information for them. There is little to no information on New Avengers that cannot be contained within the original article. If you can't see the difference, I'm afraid I can't help you. And you're correct - other people see relevance to the synopses. Obviously, based on the vote, the community doesn't see New Avengers the same way. If they did, I would let it go. But they don't, so you should let it go. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't have to unanimous - consensus *has* been reached, unfortunately against your position. You are free to solicit other opinions from established users.
He has, but his version is slightly (understandably, I suppose) POV. User_talk:Ragib#What_Can_I_Do.3F - SoM 17:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the irrelevance in all that information, just as you seem to see it in my work - and even revert whatever changes I try to make without even knowing what those changes are! (See your recent revert on the Avengers page if you disagree) Has it not occured to you that while people see how utterly useless the information in those Dr Who episodic articles is, they have the decency to see that you personally see importance in what you're doing and leave you to it? It would be nice if that same decency could be shown to me. -- Avengers fan 16:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]