User talk:ThuranX/Archive 4

70.232.140.196

Thanks. Not only is he NOT me, I've already reverted his bizarre little freakout essay. Thanks for being on the watch, I've already reported him to the admin who blocked his other IP. ThuranX 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears you've already beat me to the revert, and we edit conflicted... but i didnt' get the EdCon notice... anyways, he's gone way over 3RR on the Heroes page, pretending to be an NBC lawyer. We definitely need admin intervention. Cna you step in, or should I go to AIV? thank you. ThuranX 22:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP address for some time to stop further disruption. Asterion^talk 22:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re. Marzipan. Yes, you are right. I should have clarified this to him/her. Thanks for helping out. Asterion^talk 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock

Looks like Asterion already blocked him/her. What is the story with that IP? Ace Class Shadow (talk · contribs) is on my watchlist (because of the naming conventions ArbCom case) and his pages were hit a few times today. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have semiprotected your user and talk pages. I will review this in a few days or as soon as you are confident there will be no more disruption. Hope this helps. Asterion^talk 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks B

I see you've really had my back this week, as usual. Thanks. I don't think I have much to worry about if I start to conduct mysekf more professionally. No more "Crazy ACS" for a while...*sigh*. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, good looking out. However, the user's edits aren't vandalism. In the strictest sense, it might be a content dispute, but I don't have any problem with using "silly" over "retarded". (Some people take issue with that kind of stuff.) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User deleting links from references

Regarding 71.231.107.188 (talk · contribs), whose edits it appears you rolled back today because he was deleting a lot of dead links from pages' reference sections: I'm just wondering why it's such a problem that he was deleting dead links. Now what we have are a LOT of articles with dead links to yahoo news that he spent a lot of time deleting - there are few citations to be found, simply blue text that says "Yahoo news report" that leads to a 404 page. I totally understand the reasoning behind not deleting viable citations simply because the url no longer works, but it seems like what he was doing (at least, in the most recent edits) was valuable grunt work, and he was repaid by having his changes reversed wholesale. Thanks-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

First, there was an AN/I against him for his actions, so I'm not the only one who found his behavior odd. Second, he used misleading edit summaries. If you actually look, he dropped wikilinks, sentences, and so on. If he found a yahoo citation, and that was dead, he seems to have deleted the relevant information too. Further, Citations aren't supposed to be deleted just because the link location may have changed. there's more info on AN/I on this, I recommend taking a look there. ThuranX 06:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I came to this from AN/I - is there anything else besides the one user's request that someone block the IP? I did not notice the other changes the editor made to the articles, if that's true your reverts are more understandable, but my original question still stands. Is it bad to delete a dead link if all that gets deleted is that - a dead link, not a larger citation etc? Also, if the link is dead and the info is no longer accessible in any way (including any way that would be facilitated by having a full citation), is it such a problem to delete the text that depended on that link as its source? I don't have a particular feeling on this either way, I am just wondering. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Check his talk, you'll see links to the FUTON bias pages. I recommend reading them. THe principle is that while the rapidly accessible links at yahoo.com and cnn.com may change, the story is still there. It's far more helpful to wikipedia for him to relink the citation to the correct story instead of use a bot to find dead yahoo.com links and remove them and associated context. I am also concerned because if his does this with Yahoo, he can nxt do it to any other site. We have no way of gauging this user's biases, either. How can we tell if he's doing this in a general, NPOV manner, merely hitting major news carriers, or if he next intends to hit CNN.com, The New Yorker's site, and then Mother Jones? or hitting links to The Economist, the WSJ, and FOX? Either way, this is an amazingly subtle and high volume way to subtly push an agenda of removing newslinks which may cater to, in writing style, some political leaning or other. By removing a link instead of relinking, he can simply remove a percieved potential bias. ThuranX 06:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I read all the relevant stuff, I don't comment on things if I don't know what's going on:) So, what you're saying is, when a link like this goes dead, the story is still there just at a different link, so what a user should do is fix the link rather than delete it. Is this always the case? Does yahoo news actually archive every news story that ever passes across its voluminous pages? Also, I am somewhat skeptical of the claim that this might be political POV pushing, as we should assume good faith of this user (although if he is using truly misleading edit summaries, that's not in his favor.)--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I admitted already that I can't be sure he's doing anything wrong; that it's the potential for anyone to misuse this behavior which concerns me. I certainly think he's doing this in good faith; but the next person? Finally, I think that even if the yahoo story's been lost, most of them are from the AP, UPI, Reuters, and the other wire services, and can be found elsewhere. It's slower going, but if the editor doesn't want to do it, the article's context provides enough for a reader to search for the article in question. removing the citation instead means that any such info in the article can be removed as lacking citation, another way in for POV. It is far better to leave a citation in, to demonstrate that the item was cited at one point, and other editors should AGF about the cite, and work to replace it. Again, look at the user's talk page. I'm not the only one concerned abou this. ThuranX 16:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Mary Goldsmith

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Mary Goldsmith, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Carabinieri 23:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Henry Ford

Thanks yr msg. Is there grounds for commencing an arbitration proceeding? This is a longstanding problem. Also you should lodge a 3RR if warranted. I saw in an edit summary a threat to do so. Don't threaten. Do it. --Mantanmoreland 15:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

yikes! sorry for posting in wrong spot. You should get an e-mail address, by the way.--Mantanmoreland 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I probably should, but I geek out enough on WP as it is. Getting Email updates about it would probably incapacitate me, LOL. As for the 3RR, I decided that giving him the opportunity to self-revert something which is a borderline situation would be better than running for an admin. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem interested in working with anyone, and as you may recall, he wasn't interested last time he tried this either.ThuranX 18:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to add an email address, and I highly recommend it. As for Henry, I went back to the page and I see that the identical battles as previously are being refought. Given the protracted nature of this thing, you really have to follow the rules and go step-by-step in the dispute res process. --Mantanmoreland 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not worth it. Things like this make me stick to simple articles on Wikipedia. I'm wasting my day off arguing with a neo-nazi about whether or not Henry Ford was or wasn't one of many influences on Hitler, which he admits over and over in talk but seeks to remove from the article. The less I have to deal with him, the better, and I've already walked away from it. I'm tired of it. He won't reply with answers, he just deliberately misreads everything said to him, picks the best way to make it a fight, and goes with it. I've already stated there that I won't waste any more time with it. ThuranX 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Might be better to stick it through for a short while, as other outside editors take a look at it.--Mantanmoreland 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

there are no other editors looking at it. He's making personal attacks and gettign away with it. I'm tired of it. ThuranX 19:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that does not help his case. What makes you say other editors aren't looking at it? I am.--Mantanmoreland 19:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a final warning, revert or strikethrough, or else be reported. He hasn't replied. We'll see. As for who is and is not watching, no one other than BenBurch, an account under investigation for sockpuppetry, are opposing him. I'm tired, and have work to do. I'm out. we'll see what happens. ThuranX 20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Myspace

I've been dealing with the blog.myspace.com issue as of late. One citation (Jon Favreau's Myspace blog) was removed from Iron Man, and when I restored it, I found myself discussing the issue with Wizardry Dragon. He's currently up for RfA now, and there's some brief discussion about the blog.myspace.com issue. Apparently, Raul654 added it to the spam blacklist, so I've contacted him to see what this was about, as some Myspace blogs are valid for usage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah, regretably, apparently, Jimbo Wales decided MySpace is out. When the owner says no, you can't argue. First evidence of the 'cabal' I've ever actually seen. I've asked about a way to appeal this, in light of the magazines discussing Piven and Story's intent to involve fans. I'm hoping that demonstrating that these two blogs, at least, contain enough valid content to be worth ban waivers or just a reversal. MySpace is too big and complicated to use a blanket yes/no. I'm hoping that there may be SOME way to introduce a discussion, but on the other hand, it might just get me permabanned for arguing with Jimbo. ThuranX 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

After talking to Raul654 (see User talk:Raul654#Myspace), he's recommended having an admin add valid Myspace blogs to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Know any admins that are helpful with film articles? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've requested the action of him. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Any idea who the admin was? I wouldn't mind chewing his ear off. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Chris had added it yet. I don't see anything in the history, but I don't understand how we were able to re-add the link on a couple of occasions if it was still blacklisted. I've pointed him to a SuperHeroHype.com citation confirming the validity of the blog. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Kosher

LOL, sorry. That's a good one though. I don't think I would have thought of that, at least not in that terminology. Kudos for extra thought. Bignole 04:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Genealogy wikis

Hello. Mindful of your recent attempts to weed out links to mostly small one-family wikis, I thought I'd better tell you that I believe the Genealogy Wikia deserves to be listed. In view of something above, I won't bother appealing to your loyalty to Jimbo (Wikia chief) - but maybe the fact that the one-and-only Angela is Vice-President may convince you that that wiki isn't rubbish.

Robin Patterson 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC) in Wellington

Spidey

Can you take a look at the Plot section at Spider-Man and see if there's anything that needs to be cleared up? Your insight would be appreciated. Thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot, it's at the ideal length of about 600 words. And for the bits of information that you mentioned, they probably don't quite belong in Reception. I've been trying to expand the Production section (pretty much done with Development), and Bignole's got some Reception and Costume stuff in his sandbox. I've been working my way backwards using an array of sources -- IGN, Access World News, Comics2Film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Link Removal

I added the link on the Furniture article to the Dmoz.org directory on Furniture. You deleted the external link calling it "commercial". I am not sure if you are not aware of what Dmoz is what? Dmoz is not a commercial webiste at all, it is the first man-made durectory of web links. There are over 1,400 articles on Wikipedia that link to the Dmoz Directory. Please see Open Directory Project for more information about Dmoz and the Open Directory Project. Please make sure that know what you are deleting before making such hasteful edits on Wikipedia. I am going to go add the link again now and please leave it alone this time. Eric 23:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A giant listing of all the places tht keep self-adding to the Furniture page, woo hoo! No, it's gone. it's a commercial spam link, plain and simple. every site on there is a place to buy stuff. that's commercial. It lacks any useful informational pages. A link should build on a page's topic, not take a reader where they can spend money on it. ThuranX 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag because it was put in by a unnamed user who is doing it to other ones that I believe still have references. Brian Boru is awesome 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Spelling!

Thanks for the advice! it was appriciated.--Vintagekits 21:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment solicited

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BenBurch

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenBurch (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

"Rampant deletionism"

Your use of this phrase on the adminstrator's notice board toes the very thin line between expressing a viewpoint with passion and a personal attack. Since it appears that the offer was made in otherwise good faith, can I get you to redact? - brenneman 05:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Argh! Sorry mate, I was clearly not very clear there: I just mean that single phrase should be redacted! Yes, good thing, extending hands across water, etc... I apologise without preveraication for my thick tongue. I just didn't wnt someone to latch onto those two owrds and miss the larger point. - brenneman 05:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not REinserting it. No desire to look like a fool. I did as an admin asked, end of story. ThuranX 05:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Hello?....McFly..anybody in there?

Yeah, I was loosely following what was going on, and I got a good deal by looking at other people's (including McFly's) contributions to better understand what was going on. I saw where he was reverting you and claiming that it was a double standard, and I went back and saw his original post. It seems that he's now just picking a fight over something very small. I reverted him earlier and left a warning on his talk page. If he continues, I would suggest seeking an admin for his disruptive behavior. That, or just deciding to let him delete it, thus eliminating him from future equations (hopefully). He may think that he has won the battle, but I think that's better than all of us falling prey to his little game any longer. Just a thought. Bignole 23:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Henry Ford

Thank you for your diligence regarding this article. The editor in question has a notable whitewashing POV. He and I have discussed some of his edits in Ford's talk page previously and reached some compromises - compromises he unilaterally broke with the edit you reverted. Feel free to call on me any time you need assistance reviewing this editor's contributions. Rklawton 15:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto (re your note on my Talk page).--Mantanmoreland 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoopsie!!!

I used the undo function... It must be broken... --BenBurch 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you

Re my note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#tried to discuss apparent personal attacks, editor dismissive, it appears no one else cares (as of this timestamp), or nobody wants any part of it. Thank you for at least taking it seriously. I try to talk to this user and I just get it thrown back in my face: "proof of concept." What would you do? Do you think I'm overreacting by asking for input at AN/I? I'm signing off for the night. I hope I'll catch you later. Peace, — coelacan talk — 04:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Home furnishing franchise

Thanks for the feedback. I edited the rankings section to make it sound more neutral. Jetsetta14 16:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to expand the article a bit more. One question, I used Warehouse club as a reference and noticed that that article gives specific history and company examples. Could you explain why that is acceptable in that instance? Thanks! Jetsetta14 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

68.166.69.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

if you look at the Gorilla page, you'll see he relogged in, and redid the edits. As his actual point, not his point, was at least worth discussion, I'm going to let the edit stand under AGF, but I felt it right to make you aware of his avoidance of the block. If you feel that because of his behaviors, the edit should be reverted, I understand and will not revert that. I felt that in the interest of not escalating, letting the edit stand till the section can be properly reworked was a reasonable compromise for now, and I will make a new section later tonight. ThuranX 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. If you feel that the situation can be managed in this way then I will leave it with you, as I am going off-shift now. Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RfAr

You have been listed as one of the involved parties in a case against Philwelch. Please follow the link above. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, ThuranX. I appreciate the fact that you don't wish to be involved in the Arbitration request mentioned above, but I've reverted your removal of the (brief) mention of your name in the request. Statements by other users should not be altered by others; likewise, the links to you as an "involved party" should not be removed. This does not mean that you are officially an "involved party": it simply means that you were mentioned in the initial case request and were notified as a courtesy. If the case is accepted, you are not obligated to participate at all, and from my understanding of the case, I do not think that it will center around you or your actions at all. Thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Location Maps

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:39 (UTC)

About your comment on my talk page: Please keep watching your favorite TV program ;-)) There were 2 reasons for today's modification in the above: The lead might have given the impression it was a mere report on the outcome of the former poll, and some readers might have a hard time finding the 'Final survey' subsection farrrrrrr down in the section to which I had provided a link. I should have thought about those aspects yesterday, would have saved me hours today :(   — Anyway, you still have almost 12 days to read and vote. — SomeHuman 9 Feb2007 01:12 (UTC)

Your changes to Hindu Fundamentalism

In India there is one and only one group of Hindu Fundamentalists represented by the Sangh Parivar and its ideology of hatred called Hindutva - a group of editors has tried to base this article on Hindutva purely on indegenous sources that are not critical of Hindutva and tries to portray it as a social movement Read these newspapersReseacrhes[1][2].Neptunion 00:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Phunbot

Thanks for asking me to take a fresh look at what Phunbot has been trying to accomplish on the Ra's al Ghul page. We'll see how that goes. Doczilla 05:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem?

Why did you revert my edit?

You said I engaged in speculation, what speculation? The process wasn't reversed, I have seen the show and even can give a link to it. In the show the process was not reversed, all that happens is Superman for an unknown reason gains his power back afterwards. So there is no speculation. Now if I said that the process was probably reversed by the destruction of the staff or the process was temporary due to it not being complete as the process was stopped before completion because of Batman's interference that be speculation or rather more an educated guess by me as I actually watched the show unlike you and if you have watched the show then how can you revert it as you know the revert isn't true.

As for my poor grammar, that can happen from time to time to anyone and besides I have seen you misspell in practically all your comments to me in the talk page so why are you talking about such a subject when you do it to. Besides I thinking attacking someones grammar especially when they have done the real contributing to the article is a bit rude, childish and mean. Pick either, they all fit. I mean we all make mistakes and if you have a problem with the grammar correct it, don't start insulting people. Now if I misspelled every other word in all my edits I could see you making a comment but making a rude comment about one sentence out of the hundreds I have done so far on wiki is rude.

So I am going to revert it back as I watched the show and actually know what I am talking about. Be happy I now don't do nicely detailed statements when it comes to sections like that and do it simple like you.

Also since I am the one who made the original contribution that you keep reverting my edits back to, I think I have some say in its content and when I did make that first edit afterward I actually watched the episode and then amended it make it correct which is why I got rid of the whole thing about it being reversed.

You can continue to revert it back but reverting it would be wrong as what you revert it to is wrong and since your big in having no speculation and big on facts I think its a bit peculiar for you to be purposely revert edits made by others that our correct to something you've been told by someone with facts backing them up that is wrong. I got over this whole Ra's debacle, how about you try to so we can move on and so I can actually go back to contributing as I haven't done anymore so far as I keep having to go back and forth to this article leaving me no time to contribute.

P.S. In my edit description I did say it wasn't reversed which means you completely ignored that as well of course all the stuff I said in the talk page about my edits being accurate as I watched the shows and didn't just come into an article like you and just edit stuff without any facts to base your edits on unlike me. Phunbot 22:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hinnen

At this point I don't care if they ban me or block me. Hinnen has been so mega-uncivil and mega-dispuptive that he has made this simply not-fun for me here. I cannot imagine why he is allowed to continue like this. And this wikistalking thing! Hell yes I said bring it on. I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him. --BenBurch 23:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom for Dino et al

While it may ultimately happen in this case, the "admin/senior editor community" needs to figure out how to provide more forceful and effective feedback in cases like this. We also have to figure out how to discourage admins and senior editors from self-destructing like this. Sending it to Arbcom just lights the spilled gasoline on fire and burns it off that way. We need to figure out how to spill less. Georgewilliamherbert 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Dino 14:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh..

Ok you said: Please stop reveting the edit. YOu have been contradicted by two other editors, and saying 'I have the facts' does NOT demonstrate that you do, in fact, have the facts. Further, the speculative way in which you wrote the edit shows you lack some facts, including the 'not known' part. Doczilla and I have chosen to revert this to a version which is concrete, firm in it's assertions, and makes no guesses'. While I understand your desire to do well here, you admit to having little experience. Please choose to learn from us, not oppose us. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and review your edits. ThuranX 02:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So lets get this straight by your logic this scenario would happen: 2 guys standing outside look at a the wall painted blue. Guy #1 says hey look at that blue wall and Guy #2 says its not blue its red then Guy #1 shows him the color blue and says that is blue, see. Then Guy #2 says I don't care if you have facts that it is blue, I said its red. Then Guy #1 says prove it, then Guy #2 says I don't need facts all I need is my buddy Guy #3 to come on over and agree with me and because there are two of us and one of you we are right. A child could understand that scenario ends up wrong and that Guy #2 & #3 are wrong and you want me to learn from you two.

And your assertions make no guesses, you say his powers come back due to the process being reversed. Uh that is a guess last I checked as in no way is that made clear in the episode.

Sorry I am not gonna learn by someone who purposely doesn't bother to care about facts and I'm sure not going to learn from an Administrator who lets such actions go on as he is a disgrace if he chooses speculation over facts here and he should have his position taken away or at least suspended.

And ya I do have facts, I have offered to give you a link to the episode on multiple occasions so you can see your wrong, your the one who doesn't want the facts because then you will see your wrong. Not my fault you don't want to admit your wrong, that's your problem and a sad one at that.

Phunbot 03:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no link offered. I'm not an Admin. I'm not longer going to help you. ThuranX 04:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have offered a link a few time, I have not posted it as I thought I get trouble for such an action but if you want the link now just ask and I will post it here.

I didn't say you were an Admin, I was referring to Doczilla. You were talking about both of you in your statement that I replied to above so I thought I didn't need to be that specific and considering how simple you like things I think you wouldn't want me to be specific. Phunbot 04:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Villian categories

They've declared "villian" categories to be in violation of NPOV and have begun deletion.

I created an "Enemies of Batman" category that I hope might be acceptable. Should I bother populating it, or do you think it's going to get deleted as well? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's already been tagged for speedy deletion. I don't think there's much that can be done. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Philwelch RfAr

This is just some procedural advice, not commenting on the merits of the evidence.

I saw you added a new statement to the arbitration case page itself. Given that the case is already open, the arbitrators would probably be more likely to see if it you put it on the /Evidence page.

Also, I think in a couple of places, you typed "RfA" where you meant "RfAr". You might want to change that to avoid any confusion. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Please see my response to your comments on my talkpage. Newyorkbrad 00:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Decided

I'll stick around for a while, if only to see if he decides to attack OTHER editors on his RfAr than myself and Dionyseus. ThuranX 02:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know; rest assured that all evidence (where your modifications appear to have been moved) will be considered carefully. On an unrelated note, I've unprotected your talk page now - it was semi-protected in early January because of vandalism, which seems to have subsided now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Philwelch

Do you want me to leave Wikipedia? Philwelch 23:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Email

Would you consider specifying an email in your preferences? I'd like to send you a (very brief) email. Milto LOL pia 17:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I already have one there. ThuranX 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, it's all set now. ThuranX 19:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, could you check your email before editing the workshop page of that case? Milto LOL pia 15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)`

Tom Butler Concerning EVP

ThuranX, yes I am the Tom Butler who is the director of the AA-EVP, along with my wife, Lisa. To tell you the truth, I didn’t even know those complaints were there. Had I known, I would have been quick to defend someguy. He has been one of the only people to genuinely work for a concensus.

I cannot agree with you that I have a clear conflict of interest, although I understand that a literal interpritation of Wikipedia rules supports your view. However, just because it is so written does not make it so. Remember the fifth pillar? .. no firm rules: If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules I am sure that should not be taken too literally, but nevertheless, I have had a lot of editrs in the EVP discussion tell me things that are simply self-serving. I will explain further with my response. Sorry you had to get involved.

My response is posted at your third reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Second_request_for_intervention_regarding_Tom_Butler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom Butler (talk • contribs) 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

I started the process for a deletion review on the EVP page. It seems apparent that Wikipedia rules make it impossible for original research to be represented in a balanced way. Just hours after the process was initiated, it was stopped and This note was put on my discussion page: This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. From: Yuser31415 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me how I should proceed to appeal this? When asked on his discussion page, he cited WP:POINT. His assumption that I am just grandstanding to make a point is unfounded. Tom Butler 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Transformers

The anonymous editor has placed a request for page protection. I've added a comment recommending whoever's in charge over there to review the edit summaries and the appropriate section on the talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow... remind me to use and abuse this feature when I disagree with someone. The page is under full protection now. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've listed the reasons why we've contested the addition; feel free to add anything further. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Starman, Jack Knight

Hello, I see you are a regular contributor of and keep a watchful eye on this page. I simply wish to extend my hand as a fellow fan as I regard Robinson and Harris' Starman as one of the best comics series ever written and likely my own personal favorite. I'm rereading the series again and feel the itch to contribute. Feel free to hit me back liberaly, be it here, my AIM @ Zabgoth, or my Myspace 11350636.

Hulk Image

The previous tag had a fair-use tag on it, so I thought it's going to be deleted anyway, so why not upload a newer versionGman124 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• If you want I'll replace the image and start a new image page for the newer imageGman124 00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I reverted my edit and put the new image on a newer pageGman124 00:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

Look at the Hollywood Reporter citation that confirms that Eckhart is in for the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Should be verified this coming week. Sick of the Maggie Gylleenhaal biz, though... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Variety says "joined"; I've re-added it. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Namor

I'll watchlist the sucker. Been keeping my ear close to the ground regarding upcoming films, and there's been nothing about Namor or Thor or Deadpool or anyone like that. Actually, someone made The Flash 'cause of the new director (Shawn Levy) attached, but that might be jumping the gun as well. I already loaded it up with the past production information that I've been hoarding at my future articles subpage, but I'd be fine with a redirect or something until production is guaranteed. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: torture in 24

I'll re-write those sections to remove any implicit connection between 24 and the increased acceptance of torture, since OR was your main concern. However I feel I am justified in writing that such criticisms have been made about 24 by third parties; and that it is seen as a factor in the normalisation of torture by the American military.Koonan the almost civilised 14:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Noting criticism is justified, the entire other part is OR. There is NO support for the assertion that 24 is a factor in the citations you used. One journalist compares and contrasts the show's version of tortue against what is actually done, but he doesn't say a=b. ThuranX 14:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Composite Man

Your revision was the more appropriate, being properly structured with content inserted in the right spots. I'll keep an eye on the page. I tried Googling for further information about the character, but there doesn't seem to be too many hits. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a persistent editor at The Mummy 3 who makes misconceived edits regarding the information provided by citations. He keeps adding "is rumored to" for information that has come straight from the director and the screenwriters. Can you keep an eye on the article if he reverts back to his incorrect edits? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw broke the camel's back. Hopefully that's enough deterrence to avoid a redux of poor re-formatting. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: home furnishing franchise

I think an AfD would be appropriate. At one point it may have been much spammier, but it isn't anymore, so it deserves a bit more community review, IMO. JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You're out of line and have been for some time

As a gesture of good faith, I'm giving you an opportunity to apologize and revert your blatent violations of policy. A.J.A. 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And which 'blatant violations of policy' would those be? The reversions of blanking vandalisms by an editor who won't work constructively on a page? The notice to such an editor that his edits are vandalism, and his hostility towards two other editors is unwelcome and bad faith? Two editors have repeatedly attempted to engage you, you ignore both editors. You revert to your preferred version citing BLP in whole, or notability, or citation, and so on. If you have a problem with the content, be clear, be specific, be concise, and be ON THE TALK PAGE, not in edit summaries while increasing your hostilities. ThuranX 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

False accusations of vandalism are uncivil. Please put a line through that accusation or otherwise retract it, and please try to engage contructively on the Talk page, as opposed to what you have been doing, which is to refuse to answer my points and then abuse me personally for not stooping to engage such comments. A.J.A. 20:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It is YOU who will not engage us. You dismiss us as cranks and vandals out to get Huckabee. When we present anything, you insult and dismiss it and or us. No matter what we do, you remove the information. It's blanking vandalism, and I'll treat it as such, since you have decided to ignore the talk page. Even now, as you challenge me to respond on the talk page, you ahven't edited it to reply to anythign left there for you. Manipulation of this conversation in the hopes of portraying me as the intially incivil editor won't work. We have repeatedly asked you do talk, adn you won't. You made accusations of plagarism. When I refuted those assertions, you said NOTHING. No 'thanks for solving that' or anything. That says clearly to me that your effort and intent was to find another wedge to divide the page, instead of working on it for it's betterment. I'm still waiting for you to actually ADDRESS ai.kefu's edits regarding notability. dismissing them out of hand as you have done is incivil and insulting, and to say 'I dismissed them, now do things MY way' as you continue to do is even more incivility. I done enough. ai.kefu has done enough. It is on you now to refute the edit, not delete it. I see that you've blanked the section again. I will revert it. ThuranX 21:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I never called you a vandal. I said you were breaking other policies, but I never called you a vandal. So please demonstrate at least a little good faith by striking that accusation out, as well as your previous uncivil remarks.

I brought several violations of policy to your attention, which you have never attempted to fix. Ai.kefu wrote asserting the notability of the case (which I've never denied), but said nothing about (let alone demonstrated) the notability of the criticism of Huckabee. There was nothing to reply to.

The way forward, if you wish to go forward, is clear: demonstrate that the criticism is notable, if you can, and with that done fix the problems I brought to your attention some time ago, then add the amended text to the article. A.J.A. 21:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before, I'll say it again. No more playing your game, no more jumping through hoops. The criticism stays in. You want to make it an edit war instead of using the talk page, you go right ahead. In fact, I'll go one further. Do NOT come to my talk page again. There's a talk page for the article, USE IT. Your incivility and hostility on this issue are beyond tolerable, and are nothing more than partisan whitewashing of your preferred candidate. ThuranX 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And again, I extend to you an invitation to apologize for the incivility you've displayed both here and on the Talk page at the article. A.J.A. 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a talk page for the article, use it. I've done nothing incivil that you haven't provoked by your own refusal to use the article's talk page, in favor of revert wars. ThuranX 21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Takei

I don't care either way, but he appeared in the Fix and Distractions, if that's your criteria for recurring. --EXV // + @ 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Huckabee Edits

I have reviewed the talk pages and it seems like there is quite a conflict there. The issue that I noticed is that the sections of the article in dispute seem to be worded in POV. Perhaps I can suggest, as an outside observer, that the additions be restructured to a NPOV format. As an aside, I have noticed similar issues on other Presidential Hopeful pages, in which all controversial information is being snubbed out of the article and "voted" on to be removed in the talk page. The issue I have across the board is that all candidates are not being assigned a "criticism" section in which valid issues are logged for readers to have a complete history of the event. Really, what good would a Bill Clinton article be if it left out Whitewater or Monica? I hope that this editting war can be resolved in a NPOV way. Thanks - Eisenmond 22:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the frustration on both sides. I really try to stay out of such heated editing wars, which is why until this issue is resolved I have added the NPOV tag to the article. I will definately try to take a look at the issue in more detail when I have some time. The main debate seems to be about the source of the cite. perhaps if a few "reputable" sources, such as the Little Rock Time (if that exists) or similar can be found to each say the same thing, then the sources should be cited and the section can stand. Let's work to put that extra bit of research. (not stating that either side is not doing research... just trying to suggest a way beyond this impass.) I appreciate your attempted use in the discussion pages. Thank you for following wiki protocol. It is commendable. - Eisenmond 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I got so sick of it, I took it to AN/I. I've tried talking, ai.kefu tried talking. He refuses to acknowledge anything not in his favor. I really am at my end on this. He won't talk about it, he repeats the same mantras, and that idealized page version really seems like agenda-oriented behavior to me. ThuranX 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Composite superman

Glad to be of any service. :) If I remember right, I found my way there from a report at WP:AIV (which, if I remember right, you filed), I check out there now and then -- too many memories from the days before getting adminship, when I'd report somebody at two in the morning, and nobody would check by for six hours. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:Henry Ford

Ok, from that summary protection can't help you. When it comes to disputes like this, you need to solve it permanently, not hope that admins will keep the article semiprotected. Semiprotection is also not used for cases like this, but is reserved for vandalism and linkspam. I recomend that you try for mediation, or a request for comment. If you guys don't solve this, you'll soon be violating WP:3RR (which is put on both sides, non-discriminatory), or the article might get full protection (which means it sits in a bad state for however long). Please see WP:DR and proceed with that. Protection can't help you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comics to comic book

Specifically, I'm changing Civil War (comics) to Civil War (comic book) and 52 (comics) to 52 (comic book) because the 'comics' ones redirect to the article with comic book in the name. Unless you're talking about something else. I thought we were supposed to avoid redirects. If I changed something besides those two, blame the autowiki. --EXV // + @ 04:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Captain Marvel (DC Comics)

I really don't know of one, I'm sorry. The only way to do it would probably be to do them by hand, something I unfortunately do not have available time for. --FuriousFreddy 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

preferred format

i don't know what the "preferred format" is. link? --EXV // + @ 04:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

i fixed it. but it doesn't show up in notes. it's because the tag is incomplete. you're edits sort of show up but the skip to link doesn't work. when i completed the tag, my ref showed up but your refs showed up twice. i didn't save the finished tag cos you're still workin' on it though. --EXV // + @ 05:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Heroes

I understand the reason you reverted my edit about the table. I dont understand though why you removed my edits on the Talk page. Can you explain me? I also need your opinion about having a table or not. Friendly, Magioladitis 10:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry then. I think is a good idea to make this table. It took me long time to make. -- Magioladitis 00:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

eb PUBLIC SAFTEY

Dude, i just finished creating the page and i am about to insert citations and references! Take of the deletion list. I am friend with the mayor if EB and i have permission to create that page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwk14724 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 3 March 2007

Every PD in america is not noteable is your opinion. I created a pge about a Fire Dept, EMS , And PD. I cited all my work and if you delete it i will just copy it out of my word file and paste it up on wikipedia again and again and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwk14724 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 March 2007

What athority do you have to delete a factful, imformative artice, if i were to delete your page would you be upset. Who do you think you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwk14724 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 March 2007

User:Cwk14724 has since recreated East Brunswick, NJ Public Saftey. I have nominated it for deletion. Rklawton 23:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Coulter

I don't necessarily disagree with the inclusion of its material, and I'm definitely leaning towards including it, especially given my list of mainstream news sources that are reporting it. However, your brazen attitude of throwing around accusations of WP:OWN, calling me and anyone who dares to simply wait a bit on the matter to establish notability a freeper, is clearly unproductive. Don't assume my motives simply from my actions, or that I'm a freeper, liberal, or conservative, or that I believe I own the article. Just discuss the proposed changes and use logic rather than blind assumptions of your co-editors motivations. --kizzle 02:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You're clearly opposed to information that makes Coulter look bad. You oppose anyone who wants to add it, and accuse all usch editors of 'recentism'. Your hostility towards change and assertion that two equals consensus is as WP:OWN as it gets. You're just upset that someone stood up to you. Don't waste any more of my time, I've left the page. As I've said, I have ZERO doubt that you rightwing freeper types (members and idealogical sympathizers alike) will just revert out the changes anyways, so go do that. In fact, I'll go you one better, and provide you the text you should use:

"Ann Coulter is an incredibly savvy, witty, and subtle raconteur. Her sarcasm and clever plays on words are often misunderstood as bigotry and racism by smallminded liberals, especially those queers in the Hollywood cabal, who seek to defame and malign her for simple pop culture jokes like calling presidents White Trash, and vice-presidents 'Fag's. However, smart and intelligent people, like Neo-cons, can tell that Coulter is just being RIGHT, something she always without fail does."

How's that?ThuranX 04:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, take a look at the archive pages of the Ann Coulter article before assuming such things about people's motivations. Kizzle's been a great contributor to the article, even with the likes of Lou Sander around (Lou Sander thinks Ann Coulter is brilliant). The "recentism" thing is (I'm willing to bet) more of an image thing. There are lots of people who don't like to just put things into her article right after they happen (because she says a lot of crazy stuff). So it might just be better to wait on it a bit and form a paragraph that is NPOV and includes all the relevant information. Putting it in right away would upset some editors (for whatever reason) so we can't do that the moment something pops up. We've spent a lot of time working on this article, so it's something we've learned to compromise on. Personally, I'm for inclusion of a lot more quotes from her into the article (afterall it's the truth and I'm more of an inclusionist), but lots of people have problems with that. It's just something we have to deal with. --Ubiq 11:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I just researched and wrote the passage on Coulter and Edwards that's going to be included, check the talk page. I don't know how you're going to fit that into your assessment of me as a right-wing freeper, or that I'm "clearly opposed to information that makes Coulter look bad" or that I "oppose anyone who wants to add it in" or that I'm "hostile towards change" or that I'm "just upset that someone stood up to me". --kizzle 02:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You Misunderstand

I wasn't 'Spitefully' Spoiling the Story; I merely presumed that as it was placed in a Spoiler Space, those who did not wish to find out what happned to the Good Captain would leave it out. Please forgive me, there was no malice intended. SaliereTheFish 16:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of characters in Heroes

Sorry about messing up the talk page when trying to combine the article reorganization pages, and thanks for fixing it and working toward better resolutions! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I added additional rationale for no tables, although discussions are still spreading across various parts of the page so hopefully it doesn't get lost. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 02:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rodovid

Hello ThuranX. There are not too many editors of Wikipedia interested in their own family history as you are. Why are you so critical of Rodovid? It is a growing site, let it grow. Its main feature is the ability to create really huge trees and highlight lineages. Users can do mistakes and those can be corrected by editors. --Stanley78 08:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

D&D afds

Thanks for pointing those out. I've added my thoughts on both of them. Shimaspawn 01:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch

The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been published at the link shown. The Arbitration Committee has found that Philwelch misused his administrative tools. Because he gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions and after an arbitration case was filed against him, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at WP:RfA. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That was pointless PhilWelch got away with everything. Big deal. RfAr doesn't work. ThuranX 21:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bossong

There is no need to mention the German/French names for Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, and Alsace in an article about a surname; aside from the foreign language names being unconnected to the article, those terms should be accessible at the respective articles anyway. I fail to see how linking to Main is inappropriate.

Regarding Zweibrücken, I am editing articles linking to Pfalz, a redirect to Palatinate. Considering that "Palatinate" is an ambiguous term, it is useful to correct these links for the reader. As palatinate is the English translation of Pfalz, I corrected the links to Palatinate-Zweibrücken. I did not know at the time that Palatinate-Zweibrücken and Pfalz-Zweibrücken linked to different articles; I have now corrected that so they point to the same topic. Olessi 22:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Electorate of the Palatinate for the background. "Pfalz" by itself is an ambiguous term; when possible, the best target article available should be provided for the reader. If you are opposed to such changes, the best place to discuss it would be at that specific talk page. I am indifferent about the usage of Palatinate-Zweibrücken or Pfalz-Zweibrücken, although the English translation is valid. Olessi 00:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:User:Norkus007

Thanks for the heads up, I've contacted him and will await a reply. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey

1. Although redundant in name, my project has goals such as establishing article genealogy for important people as well as if users would like to know more about there genealogy.
2. I am not "advertising" my information. It is merely there for show. And just because I'm a minor dosn't mean you have to descriminate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norkus007 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Spider-Man Edits

Can you provide a reason here as to why you think the image you reverted is neither noteworthy or interesting? Most people aren't going to pore over the archive for past reasoning.Arcayne 01:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's gone for now. He doesn't seem to be a constant editor so I won't waste my time.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  03:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please direct your comments regarding the Spider-Man image to the Discussion page and not my Talk page, please.Arcayne 03:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I can appreciate that, but I am not going to hunt through archives; it perhaps should not have been archived, and the fact this has come up clearly indicates that the topic doesn't have concensus with the current group of contributors. As I see it, you don't want the image because you are waiting for a better one to at some point become available. Unfortunately, that is not a suitable reason for rejection of an image that is both noteworthy and interesting as per WP:IMAGE.Arcayne 03:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're not allowing me on YOUR talk page, get off of mine. ThuranX 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw, and I appreciate the feedback on the Spidey talk page. I'm open to having the discussion brought back for newer editors. By newer editors I mean those that have established themselves, like Arcayne.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  03:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this one wasn't blurry it was actually rather clear (and with new SFX I might add). I disagree with it, not because of the quality, but more because of the lack of substance. It's just a head and some eyes, with some barely visible teeth, and nothing even close to those leaked images that came out today (that we can't use). I don't think the fact that it's "interesting" is relevant to the fact that that particular image lacks notability. I think the concept of having it is notable and encyclopedic, just not that particular shot; and I don't think that substituting that image in until we get the right shot of him does anything for the article besides adding a new image. We don't have a picture of Harry up on his glider, and that's just as notable as Venom. Then again, if I bring that up I'm sure people reading the Spidey 3 talk page will take that to mean we need that image.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  03:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's still not really a clear image, though it IS better than before. However I agree with you about the image in general. I find it very frustrating that lately, Wikipedia's gotten more hostile and less consensus oriented. Used to be we could point someone to a consensus thing, say we've set a benchmark for checking for new info, or a standard we need to meet, and that stands. I've seen a lot of pages lately where people are just getting nuts. More and more, I find myself thinking 'just because anyone can edit wikipedia, doesn't mean everyone should.' ThuranX 04:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to apologize here as well for calling you prickly. I have learned to avoid any sort of uncivility, and you can be a bit brusque, which can be easily misinterpreted. So, for my part, I am sorry. I didn't mean to be rude in not asking you to post to my Talk page.

I can understand how you feel about WP, but I think you are getting to the point where you are starting to know more editors who share your points of view on topics, and see people who differ from them as being unwilling to seek concensus. I am seeing that as well, and I don't think I've been here as long as you have. That said, the benchmarks you are speaking of are rarely enforceable, as they are not WP policy or even guidelines, but rather a group of editors familiar with each other arriving a lot quicker at a midde ground. Because WP has over 3 million users, and more each day, concensus is not a static thing, but instead changes to the quorum of editors choosing to consistently applyu edits to a given article. Concensus has to be occasionally revisited until the article has reached concensus enough to manage itself into FA shape. That doesn't happen with 2 or 3 editors, but instead with dozens of editors who seek new concensus as new viewpoints are introduced. This is how WP works, according to the Five Pillars.

Are there dicks out there, trying to enforce an opinion clearly out of bounds and not in keeping with WP policy? Absolutely. User:Scumbag is one of the more organized guys who directly flouts WP policy in his edits. I am not like that, and don't condone it.Arcayne 04:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I suggest, however, that before provoking a new conversation on a talk page, check the archives. YOu my find that the existing rationale for consensus is clearly spelled out. Then you can either decide to agree with the consensus, or formulate a cogent reply touching on multiple points. Instead, by directly demanding of established regular editors that they drop everything and explain it separately to you, you immediately set them on edge, as you did to me. Thanks, and continue this on the talk. ThuranX 04:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is something of an unfair characterization, Thuran, which one of the things that set me off. I am an established, regular editor as well as you, and I am not "demanding" anything. If I ask the appropriate editors for clarification or their reasoning on a particular decision, then it serves everyone to get an answer. Not once was I impolite, nor did I ask anyone to "drop everything." I think that perhaps these sorts of abrasive characterizations are neither clever nor helpful, and never really engender a feeling of comraderie; maybe that is something you have noticed in response to some of your comments in the past. But that's just my take on it. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Big and Erik didn't seem to take issue to my questions.

Clearly, I am not going to take the time hunt back through archives back to May of '05 to find the pertinent discussion, although a quick scan refers to talk about a 3 or 4 frame blurry image. Perhaps you could provide me a couple of links to where it is clearly spelled out? In fact, when you find them, maybe you could post them on the Discussion page, so future editors won't wonder about the "agreed upon benchmarks" previously agreed to. Concensus, as I said before, is not a static thing within WP; it needs to be sought continuously. That is part of the job, as well.Arcayne 05:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Clearly, I am not going to take the time hunt back through archives" ... that says it all. good bye. ThuranX 06:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be reworded. The way it reads now is like the trailer was released on the 9th and hasn't been seen since. It says it "was" attached, not that it currently still is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it attached to anything other than 300?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't access the site from work, but if the trailer that begins with Brock asking God to kill Peter, and ends with Venom grabbing Spidey's head is on the official website, then I'd use your wording, but add "but has since been released on the official website"...or something like that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for telling me. I'll keep an eye out. As for the message on your user page, please don't leave. ArbCom was not run by Essjay (he was only part of it for a month). Even though Essjay made a big mistake, he was still a valuable Wikipedian. Everyone makes mistakes, it's just that the people on a higher stair fall harder. bibliomaniac15 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: RichardBennett's edit summaries RFC

Hi I noticed you complained on User_talk:RichardBennett's talk page about his edit summaries. I am creating an RFC that covers that and more; there needs to be two signatures on it to get it kicked off (mine would be one), since you have attempted to get him to improve on this, and it pretty much hasn't (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RichardBennett). If you wish you could sign it, I need two signatures of people that have tried to intervene, and AFAIK you would count. Thanks if you can help with this, something needs to be done, it's gone on far too long.WolfKeeper 05:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for any help on this you can give.WolfKeeper 05:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the user page edit. If you do still wish to sign the RFC, I think you need to go here and simply sign with four tildas. I've added a link to your complaint on his talk page.WolfKeeper 08:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

300

Any chance you can add this film article to your watchlist, if you haven't already? I've been dealing with badly presented edits of the film's so-called political implications. The film's coming out this weekend, and while the article is semi-protected, I expect some high traffic from people who want to share their own opinions and petitions about how "insulting" this film is. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 07:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

300

dont remove section - greeks critics agree http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/08/arts/EU-A-E-MOV-Greece-300.php - read it

This user

Isn't sure that he wants to stay at wikipedia any more. He will be looking in from time to time, but has found the general tone of the project to be getting worse. He is tired of being blamed for all the problems in discussion after discussion with tendentious editors who refuse to accept policy as it applies to them while citing various civility violations left right and center against others. The agendas active on this project are beginnign to truly rip apart article after article, and the new editors who come here are more and more frequently crusaders against or for whatever notion's stuck in their head. The recent and ongoing issues at Mohammed/Images, and the entire Essjay controversy, which my real world acquaintances are using against me, are enough to push me away. Other edit troubles at pages I regularly watch are also increasingly frustrating to me, especially when repeated insults and mischaracterizations by others are dismissed, while my blunt tone is taken as incivil and warned, are pushing me away. I will be taking time to figure out my feeligns about my involvement. ThuranX 00:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic-group lists deletion discussions

Hi, I noticed you participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (3rd nomination) deletion discussion. If you haven't participated in the very similar List of Chinese Americans discussion, which involves essentially the same issues, please do. I'll asking everyone who participated in one to participate in the other. I apologize for bothering you if you already have participated in both. Best wishes, Noroton 03:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stay.

We need more people like you, not less. --BenBurch 16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

300

The sources are about the costumes, used as an example. The text is sourced from another article, cited at the end. I believe you're confusing sources for what Persians actually wore, with the commentry... Khoikhoi 23:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Heads-Up

I know that you, Erik and Bignole recently were "warned" by User:Mardavich about reverting edits and 3RR and the like. I wanted to let you know that he unsuccessfully tried to get me blocked for 3RR. It was a close thing, as the admin looking at the complaint probably only skimmed through the complaint, as is usual, and Bignole intervened, preventing the block from happening. I wanted to let you know that this user, and likely others, might be targeting others making edits contrary to their POV push, and if you are running out of reverts or move into target territory, it might be helpful for us to watch each other's backs. Either way, I wanted to let you know of the tactics being utilized.Arcayne 13:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thread and editor

Gah. I feel like I need to wash my brain after dealing with that sort of person. I hope my response was up to what you were looking for. I am actually a little queasy that someone like that has access to the internet.Arcayne 21:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Fine Gentleman is now frustrated over the inclusion of this citation being added to the Depiction of Iranians section. He posted his reasoning for removing it in the Dicsussion section before removing his post. Were I him, I wouldn't wan it in either - MEMRII goes off on a rant about how the Zionists and American extremists, blah blah blah. I didn't really want it in the article in the first place, but hey, noteworthy is noteworthy, as User:Mercenary2 said in defense of its inclusion. I had reverted it back into the article. Just wanted you to be kept abreast of events in fairly real time. I wanted to let you and Bignole in on his current activity. 4 arms is 4 worms. Arcayne 21:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Heads-Up

I wasn't sure if you were aware of this, but our fine young gentleman User:Mardavich is again up to his tricks, this time attempting to sneakily report you to AN/I, evidenced here. After his unsuccessful attempt to get me blocked for 3RR, he is currently trying to get Bignole for similar edits to 300. As if that weren't enough, Mardavich named all of ous (Erik, Bignole, you and I) in yet another AN/I complaint. Thought you might want to know, as from his methods you would have never known he was after you as well.Arcayne 14:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Shoehorned comment

Sorry. I was trying to make the connection to SlimVirgin's response clear, but I guess readers will figure it out. --Tsunami Butler 22:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Schallodenbach

Please, Thuran, accept my sincerest apology about the said deletion. I just suppose I'm a bit tired of Wikipedia aswell, in the way how everybody never seems to think whhat I have done is good enough. I guess I was just being stupid. Feel free to reinstate your comment. ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of 'minor edit'

Thanks for your note. I have the "Mark all edits minor by default" flag turned on since teh majority of my edits are, as you note, mostly simple cleanups. Even some of the specific edits you cite fall within the definition of what makes a minor edit. At [3] I combined two sentences into one, added a penenthetical clarification, fixed spelling and at [4] I alpabetized a list and added some info I can't believe requires any review or could ever be the subject of a dispute.

Going forward, I'll be more conscious of using the minor tag, but I don't think I've used it inappropriately in "many" of my edits. -- Sean Martin 17:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the comments

Hi. Thanks for the comments on my talk page. Miss Montegreen had now vandalised my page so many times that I felt it was time for an archive, but I did make sure to include a link to the archived page. She did not seem content until my page was covered in yellow triangles and exclamation marks, and every time I removed them, she would immediately re-add them. I have never in my time editing wikipedia experienced such defacing of my talk page, and I was about to ask if it was possble to protect my page or block users from editing it. Having seen the comment at the top of your take page just now, I guess the only solution is to repeatedly remove such edits. Afterall, if the warning is really genuine and legitimate, then the user providing it should not need to keep re-adding it, unless it is their intention to simply deface the user's talk page perhaps. --Rebroad 17:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Rush related article edit war

I've noticed you've been a regular editor of the Rush article in the past. Thought you might provide some help over at the Vapor Trails article. A relatively new user (named Kundzu) has suddenly decided the Rush album infobox genres were false(or not complete enough) and has decided to alter them all. I have no objection to a couple of the edits. But he has decided the Vapor Trails album is Progressive metal....which, I think, is foolish. I thought I might be alone in this but earlier today Wisdom89 rv'd in support of my earlier view of the article. Wisdom89 has now asked for input on the discussion page in order to anchor the article with a concensus so that the current edit war can end...and so hopefully no future debate will spring up. Do you think you can partake in the discussion? And do you know any other regular Rush editors who can pitch in? Thanks. PS: I noticed the section formatting on your talk page was messed up a little...I corrected it. It was a minor fix....a missing pair of "="'s in the section title. Hope you don't mind. 156.34.232.31 23:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fenian Swine

Thanks for your vote.--Play Brian Moore 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Responce to "Threatning Language"

Now, I could be mistaken, but I didn't know that changing a picture and making a joke phrase counts as threatning language, but hell, believe what you please. Cole435

Spider-Man 3

Due to the persistent disputes regarding the symbiote's origin in the Synopsis section, I created a proposal to scale back on plot details for various reasons. Since you've participated in previous debates about the reliability of such information, I'd like your input for the proposal at Talk:Spider-Man 3#Scaling back plot detail in the article. You may also want to review the most recent dispute above that section that led to this proposal. I think Bigs and I are a bit sick of constantly reiterating our marginal points when new editors come in to protest about the Synopsis section. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ghostly talk

You'll understand that my AGF comment was not aimed at you. DGG 05:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

I apologized on the article's talk page for giving you and the others the impression that I was acting with condescension. I did do something before leaving the message on the talk page -- request protection, which is what I felt was the best way to handle sockpuppet vandalism. It looked like he was also trying to add content (unsourced as it may be), which is why I wasn't immediately assuming it was 100% pure vandalism. Leebo ^T/C 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thor (Marvel Comics)

Kudos on the judicious streamlining. Now that 's encyclopedic! --Tenebrae 04:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but it was just a revert to a better state of the article. ThuranX 11:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)