User talk:Angelriver

Merging Madness
I think you’re right. This is all about a power trip for a teenage girl. I hate to say it, but a lot of people let what they can do here go to their head. A couple of years ago, I had an account here and quit when someone tagged a dozen pictures I had uploaded and got them deleted. Their rational was “copyright violations” and yet, I took the pictures so I owned the copyright and could upload them if I wanted. They were deleted anyway despite the fact I presented all the rational to the admins that it was my work.--MiB-24 (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's insane. I'm beginning to see why so many good people and good contributors get disgusted and leave. It's people like Lucy who make it very unpleasant, and who ruin quality articles with their hatchet jobs. Angelriver (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia could be a very good source, for everything from entertainment to academic studies, but it never will be so long as the rules are so vague that people can go around and exploit them to the detriment of the entire site. --MiB-24 (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, has this situation been pointed out to the admins? Or is it a case of "they just don't care"? Angelriver (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It happens so often so I don't think they care. So as long as users don't make personal attacks on one another, they rarely will stop people from exploiting the rules. Like I said, I had pictures, useful pictures, deleted because someone simply tagged them as a copyright violation even though they were not. However, tagging the images was “allowed” and he got away with it. Last time I checked, he is still doing it to people along with his sock puppets.--MiB-24 (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But why is he doing it? Why do any of these people behave this way? I don't get it. By the way, what's a sock puppet? Seriously, I have no idea. Lucy-marie called me an "abolute wally" and I didn't know what that was either. Angelriver (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess they enjoy the power trip. I cannot explain it otherwise. A sock puppet is a second account used by the same person. They’re totally allowed by Wikipeida which is very odd as I know of no other site that allows one person to have multiple accounts. They like to use them to bully users into giving up an argument. --MiB-24 (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to go to all the talk pages that Lucy is trying to nuke and post why the articles should not be merged. --MiB-24 (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG!!! I had no idea that the WikiNazis were wanting to merge Tony and Michelle as well! What the heck? How were they minor characters??? Well, I've added my two cents for what it's worth. This is really starting to tick me off. As far as the sock puppets go, it happens even on Fox's 24 Forum of which I'm a member. However, if the mods discover it, the poster gets banned. Angelriver 18:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we won this round with Lucy. Her childishness about this entire incident finally came back to haunt her. Of course she’s gone to an admin page to whine about you, but all it ended up doing was getting her merger tags pulled. Really, we could complain to the admins that she’s been spamming out talk pages with the exact same message.

Something tells me though Lucy is not the kind to give up just because she lost this round. She’ll be back to try again. --MiB-24 18:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is she complaining about me? I'd like to see it in case I need to defend myself. Angelriver 19:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It was on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where she was complaining, but Theresa dealt with it. That's actually what got her involved and thankfully she put an end to Lucy's out of control tagging of pages. --MiB-24 02:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was curious too. The precise location is here. TunaSushi (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks a ton for your contributions to keeping all the 24 pages. Lucy's been a nasty pain but she's really running out of excuses and more people are realizing what she's doing. I think the tags on Tony, Michelle, Kim and Audrey opened many peoples eyes. If we keep working at it lucy'll finally see reason.--Phoenixfan 18:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT
You are now using wikipedia talk pages to prove a point. The long comments you have posted are only required on my talk page and not on every character poage you desire. This is a violation of wikipedia policy, by using wikipedia to prove a point--Lucy-marie 13:16, 1 December 2007

Sign your posts Lucy. And isn't that what you've been doing? Using Wikipedia to prove a point? Angelriver 13:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you wil find I have not been using wikipedia to prove a point. I have stayed well within wikipedia policy and have not gone around posting identically large information on mulitple talk pages. I have also not posted repeat information on multiple talk page whihc is potentially inflamatory. The information you posted on the seven talk pages was both potentially inflamatory and posted in the wrong place. The correct place to have posted the information you have now placed on seven talk pages, would have been my user talk page.--Lucy-marie 13:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Lucy, you HAVE been using Wikipedia to prove a point. Every time you post a link to wiki policy, or "alleged" wiki policy, and telling everyone that these policies are what you are using to base your arguments, you are, in effect, using Wikipedia to prove your point. Angelriver 13:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not proving a point in voilation of wikipedia policy. That is using wikipolicy and allowing the user to have a refrence point to where the policy is. That is not the same kind of point you are using to create. The point you are trying to creat is a highly disruptive point based over diffrent areas of wikipedia. I have not tried tp use wikipedia policy in a malitious way, I have simply used it as evidence to back up my argument stand point. Which is making a valid point, you are making a disruptive point.--Lucy-marie 13:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it disruptive? Angelriver 13:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You are posting the same information over multiple talk pages which is: firstly disrupting the talk pages, secondly creating the unecessary duplictaion of information and thirdly is aimed specifily at one user, which is placed there to create a point that you think that there is a problem with that user. That is disruptive, the correct place to have posted the inoformation would have been the user talk page.--Lucy-marie 13:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I simply put the information on all the pages of MAJOR characters that you have tagged for deletion or "merging" in an attempt to get you--since you are the one deleting all of the pages--to justify the deletions you are making without consensus. I feel that the other users should be able to weigh in on those comments as well. Angelriver 14:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That is the main way wikipedia is used to make a disruptive point it is thought if I go round and place all this everywhere it will become correct or more accepted. That is not the way to go about it, it is best gone about by talking directly to users, if you feel that other user share a similar opinion to you, talk about it on thier talk pages as well. Discussion pages on articles are for the content of the article and not for talking about individual users. Also please be aware merging is not deletion, it is the consolidation of information on to one page. When pages are merged the history of the page is still accessable.--Lucy-marie 14:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It IS a deletion. And an unnecessary and DISRUPTIVE one as well. As far as I can tell, these mergers are simply done according to YOUR preference, and I feel that they should be severely limited. At the rate you're going with these deletions, the only major character that will be left is Jack, and while I love Jack and certainly find him to be the main protagonist, he is NOT the only major character on the show. Angelriver 14:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because you dislike something dose not mean it is disruptive. It is only disuptive when other pages and users are directly affected. The proposing of mergers is not disruptive in anyway. The posting of the same information criticising one user on multiple pages is disruptive. You allready seem to have assumed that the pages will be merged regardless of what you are saying. I have made no indication that I am going to merge these pages.--Lucy-marie 14:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did in fact make an indication that some of the pages will be merged. I believe it was on the Curtis talk page that you said that if notability couldn't be proved, that the article would be merged. Why bother tagging something for merger if you have no plans of merging it? That makes absolutely ZERO sense and seems as though it would be a violation of the tagging system. Tell me, how is it NOT disruptive to falsely tag an article for merging? All of this hoopla is because of your heavy-handed merges. Now THAT is what I call disruptive. Angelriver 14:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Curtis was tagged before the latest tags were aded to Tony, Michelle etc. The tags were added is so the discusion on the matter can take place. I also think that opinion form outside the world of 24 watchers should be gatherd to have an informative and wide ranging discussion from as many diffrent view points as possible. It is not disruptive to add a tag which although you may disagre with, you believe to be genuinly required for the article. No articles have been falsley tagged for merging.--Lucy-marie 14:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why place a tag on an article that you have NO intention of merging? Angelriver 14:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just explained that although I disagree with the tag, I believe that other people may find it necessarry to want to merge the page. I believe in full discussions on a matter and the placing of the tag is not an endorsement of the tag in these cases. It is simply placed there becasue it was pointd out that, if these are tagged then these must be as well.--Lucy-marie 14:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This is simply YOU trying to decide for everyone else which characters are major, and which characters are minor. This is very subjective. Just because you consider a character to be minor, doesn't mean that the character IS minor. And please explain just how NON 24 viewers are going to be able to add anything viable or noteworthy about a show or characters with whom they are not familiar. And just WHO made you tag those articles? From what I've been able to ascertain from reading all of the talk pages, there was ONE user who suggested merging some truly minor characters, and then you just went bananas tagging every character but Jack. It's time to stop, take a step back, and look at what you're doing. You're the only one, from what I can tell, who is supporting these mergers. Angelriver 14:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Of cours it is subjetive and there are approximatly one hundred 24 charactrs on wikipedia. This is just the merged characters. In my opinion there should only be pages on 6-8 of the most major characters in any long running t.v series.

The thing with non 24 vieweres is that they will be able to give a disinterested opinion on the subject at hand and will not be judging the page based on their personal tases, likes and dislikes of the show.

The other thing with the mergers is that beore they statred there were more unmrged characters than merged characters and disparity of information was occuring. If a character is notable in one season put them in the article on the season, related to which they appeared in. That is if you really don't want them in the minors article.

It also seems that you are giving very much a fans perspective and that is much better suited to 24 wikia. Where every character has a pages, as much information and emotion can be had as you like can be added. This is however an encyclopedia and a page on every character you want is just impraticle.--Lucy-marie 15:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

NON 24 viewers aren't going to give any kind of informed feedback. How can their opinions have weight or merit if they have no idea what they're even discussing? As far as your opinion of having only 6-8 pages devoted to major characters, what gives you the right to decide how many pages major characters get? And even if there was a wiki policy stating how many pages could be applied to fictional characters, after all the characters that you have selected for merger takes place (assuming that it does), that only leaves 3 pages for major characters instead of the 6-8 that you are so generously allowing--Jack, Bill and Chloe.

And quit telling everyone to go to 24 Wikia. I'm not the only one who's sick of hearing you suggest that. You've also failed on many occasions, and by many other users, to answer the question of just WHO forced you to tag those pages, as well as what the point is of tagging pages that you have no plans of merging. What's the point of even opening up a discussion about merging if you have no plans to merge? It's senseless. I'd like an answer if you have one.

And please stop making assumptions about how many pages I want there to be devoted to 24 characters. For one thing, you don't have this information, and for another thing, it's not your decision to make. Angelriver 15:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I can sort this out. I removed the merge tags and I removed your comment from the pages in question. I suggest the best way forwards is for you two seek out quality sources/references for the pages in question. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Theresa. I will look for sources and references to back up my stance on these articles. Is there any way possible to also remove the merge tags from Sherry Palmer and Kate Warner? Angelriver 16:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That was an oversight on my part. I've removed them now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You have my thanks, as well as the thanks of many other I'm sure. I'll continue to research articles in support of keeping these independent pages. Again, thank you. Angelriver 16:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagging Madness 2.0
Here we go again. A different user, AnteaterZot has tagged every “24” character with a “reliable sources tag.” This is just another way to eventually merge or delete the pages unless people can provide what he is demanding. As a side note, it looks like he tagged almost 500 pages in the last 36 hours. Another self appointed “guardian.” --MiB-24 (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as someone else found out recently, unless he has community support, he may well get his tags pulled. Angelriver (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We just have to remain vigilant as these self appointed “guardians” are not going to give up. His tagging ~500 pages in the last two days should prove that. What annoys me is the show itself IS the source. We should not have to find “outside” sources for the pages. However, as soon as this semester is over, I’ll find as many as I can to shut these idiots up. --MiB-24 (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside all the Wiki mumbo jumbo that practically requires an astrophysics degree to understand, what EXACTLY do we need to find? What kind of articles or sites are they looking for? Angelriver (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I’m going to assume what they want are newspaper and magazine articles, official books about “24” such as the official companions for the various seasons (all written by Tara Dilullo) and 24 Behind the Scenes by Jon Cassar. Of course if they would stop to check and get of their self built throne, they would realize the show itself is the source for information on the characters. --MiB-24 (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've got a couple of the companion books and the Behind the Scenes book. Is the book itself evidence, or are they wanting something specific from the book? This whole thing is senseless to me. Angelriver 23:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In general, what is needed is something to show "real-world notability". Take, for example, Andy Sipowicz from NYPD Blue. The article doesn't source it, but he is supposedly popular with older female viewers as a sex symbol. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess these self appointed guardians of Wikipedia will not be happy until the only is material left about plants, animals, and dead people. --MiB-24 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not true, what I want is articles that are sourced, like Jesse Hubbard and Angie Baxter. Heck, they don't even need that many sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Anteater, you mentioned Andy Sipowicz in an earlier comment as as example of "real world notability" and then went on to say that it wasn't even sourced. And you're using it as an example of how to source something? Please. That makes no sense whatsoever. I'll just never understand you Wiki guardians who go around and make it your personal mission to police this site. Angelriver 00:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just like with Lucy, it’s all about imposing their will on Wikipedia. I guess they like the power trip. We already beat down Lucy and her insane attempts at deletion and we’ll stop this one too. All he does on Wikipedia is call for articles to be deleted or merged. Remember it is possible to look through a person’s entire history here. Constant abuse of the tagging system should be grounds for banning. Oh and by the way, if he actually knew proper grammar, it would be “sources are everything.” --MiB-24 (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. You're going to have to let me in on your secret of how you can see someone's history. And I agree with you about people who abuse the tagging system. And what really gets me, is that Lucy had no right to go ahead and merge those articles. She didn't have consensus or community support. That's why the rest of the tags were pulled. And as far as the comment from Anteater about Andy S. goes, all I have to say is, "Jack Bauer is popular with all age groups as a sex symbol". It's not sourced, so you'll just have to take my word for it. There. There's ONE notability reference. Angelriver 01:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just follow this link to see his editing history. Special:Contributions/AnteaterZot. You'll see this is all he does and his goal is the same as Lucy's, to merge or delete nearly every page he has tagged. I suspect when I pour on the citations as soon as I finish this semester, he'll just say they're not enough and tag the pages for deletion. --MiB-24 (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll go see what he's been up to. And as far as deleting the pages, it's not like he's going to have any support. No one is going to agree with him. "On his honor....." Yeah, right. Pffft! Well, I didn't take this junk from Lucy, and I'm not going to lie down for his guy either. Angelriver 03:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It’s pretty clear that this new troll is doing this as part of what is basically a conspiracy to purge Wikipedia of every single article that he and his ilk have targeted which appears to be well over 7,000 so far. (The guy has no life as he spends 8-12 hours a day, every day doing nothing but tagging pages.) Like I said, soon the only things these Wikiguardians will allow are articles on plants, animals, and dead people. Some of the pages he has tagged have plenty of outside sources, but they just don’t mean his self imposed “standard” of what is a “source.” Some people just need a life. --MiB-24 (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll never understand these people. I've been talking to friends and digging up sources and have a couple of leads on some good ones. I have a question though. Let's suppose that Mr. "I Have No Life" Anteater nominates these pages for deletion. Then what? Does an admin do it? Is there a process to protest the nomination for deletion? I'm assuming that a page can't just be deleted on a single person's whim. Angelriver (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Due to how poorly written the rules are on Wikipedia, articles are often deleted within days or even hours after being tagged. The trolls love to exploit how easy it is to accomplish this. Lucy would have gotten away with it if she hadn’t tagged so many pages at once. Now Anttroll is going about it a different way. He’ll leave the source tag for a while and then attempt to sneak a deletion tag through when he thinks no one is watching. --MiB-24 (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As Angelriver has already discovered, there is a discussion about this and the issues it's creating here.  All are welcome and encouraged to join in.  I find the statement "what I want" to be troubling.  Wikipedia is not about what you, AnteaterZot, want, but rather what Wikipedia guidelines and policy want.  This behavior gets more and more troubling the more people it affects.  Please, join in the discussion.  Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi IrishLass! Just to let you know, I was on one user's talk page and saw where Anteater admitted to having an agenda. He's determined to delete as many pages as he can, and I'm not at all sure I understand why. You're absolutely correct when you say that Wikipedia is not about him, or any one person at all. What baffles me, is that we just got through fighting a battle to keep these character pages from being merged into insignificance. Theresa, one of the admins stepped in and deleted all of the merger tags. And now, we're pretty much right back where we started. It's quite frustrating. Angelriver (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

On my honor
I'm just tagging, I promise I won't start demanding merges or nominating the articles for deletion. Undoing all my tags prior to finding sources will just make it look like the page is weak, so please don't. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Honor? You're kidding, right? I've had a look at your history, and it doesn't appear that you do much besides tag articles for deletion. And what gives you the right to "demand" anything? You can try to nominate the "24" character articles for deletion or merger, but like Lucy, you won't get any community support. --Angelriver 03:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

To the OP of this section, you have no honor so your whole comment is a joke. Thanks for the laugh. --MiB-24 (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You know what they say, MiB: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, try to delete the hard work of those who can." Angelriver (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a headache
Why can't I just create new pages, and have a good night sleep without having nightmares about someone coming along and trying to screw everything up? Now I didn't read all comments here, but from the looks of it, it seems I'm not the only one that is sick and tired of trying to contribute new articles only to see it mined by anyone who is anybody, and in my case now, being tagged because of it lacks "reliable sources"... Why must I talk about this? And then, where must I talk about this? On the discussion page of the article, on the discussion page of the tagging user? On here (because Angelriver heard my complaints) or somewhere else? This is why it's really hard to keep up and I'm sure this is yet another reason why people give up contributing.

Now, I would like to debate the entire subject, but I would like to talk about my own article, which was about a music album. I have had this album since 1998, year it came out, and recently noticed that there wasn't any article for it. Si I took to myself in creating the page. I've taken most info from the album's insert, scanned the cover, and got some other info from the producer's website. I even got in an email conversation with the producer who gave me some more info and even informed me about a second album on the way, and email conversations with Musimax tv channel who gave me some info about the videoclips of a song or two.

I put a lot of time and effort into this, because I believe in the whole idea of Wikipedia, and want to be proud to say I'm a small contributing part in it. But what's the use of going through all this if someone comes along and suggest your article isn't good enough because you don't have sources..!?!? What can the sources be when I have the album in my damn hands and I am literally transcribing word for word what's in it. How can I mention the official producer as a source? Want me to put up a fake website, with some sort of interview with him, then linked this as the source? I'm a webdesigner. I actually CAN do that easily... Do sources all have to be on the internet? Because franckly, I would not call this "reliable" at all. I believe one of the reasons Wikipedia existe, is to be able to have all info about something in one place and to be true, real, complete and freely available... What good is WP if, to have your article kept, you must put some sources that come from the rest of the mostly unreliable web?

Another thing: if a new article is created, give it some god damn time to progress. I had the tag on it after a week or so. I bellieve that if anyone could add anything on it, 1 week ain't enough. Let it grow, we'll see after a year.

Another thing: When I can't find info anywhere else, I come to WP. And THAT'S why I've created the article on the album No Word Needed. Because info wasn't found anywhere else, and this is the best place to put up something for all to benefit.

And yet another thing: not everything goes on the NY Times, the Chicago Tribute or the Emmys... The article I've writen is about an album that came out in 10 years ago, in Quebec Province. Even if I could find some 5 pages article about it in 7 Jours, the Le Lundi or the Journal de Québec, anyone that is not from around here wouldn't recognized these as reliable, and thus my article wouldn't be worth squat? Who are these people to decide what is reliable and what is not?

Do I look like an unhappy camper? Yes, I am an unhappy camper.--Smumdax (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock
Check out these typo-tastic accusations from across the pond. TunaSushi (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What the hell? Is she trying to say that I am a sock puppet? Pffft! That sounds very rude to me, and not in the spirit of Wikipedia.....;-) Angelriver (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost at a loss of words for her actions and commentary. I think she singlehandedly ruins the Wikipedia experience for me. Do you know if Somalia123 an alias of hers? TunaSushi (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea about Somali123, but I undid some changes he/she made to the Minor 24 CTU Agents page. The page had already been archived by Lucy with no discussion, and I saw where you told her not to do it again, then just a couple of days ago, the entire discussion was archived again. I reverted the page and left a stinging message on Somali's talk page warning him/her not to do it again. Angelriver (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

An admin removed the in-universe tag at Minor CTU agents in 24. I wonder how she'll react. TunaSushi (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucy's actions caught up with her at the article UK names of Skyscrapers. Same nonsense over there, see her talk page - unilateral action, no discussion, then strident rebuttals peppered with selective interpretations of Wiki policy. She caught the eye of several admins this time. TunaSushi (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand her. I mean, what is her objective? What is the point of all this crap? I saw where her talk page had been archived. And the funny thing is, I noticed the other night that Somali123 is the one who archived it. Maybe, like you said, Somali is her sock. It's been my personal experience that when someone accuses someone of doing something, it's because they, themselves, are doing it...how interesting. I'll head back over there and look at the latest archive and read up. Thanks for the info! Angelriver (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, if you ever need help, don't hesitate to post it on my talk page. I see Lucy is at it again with her merger and tagging madness. I guess she hasn’t learned from getting slapped down the last time. --MiB-24 (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you guys know that she unilaterally merged Graem Bauer with minor characters, against consensus. She's also accusing me of original research because I pointed out facts on Philip Bauer's talk page, and she's trying to merge him, Mike Novick, and others. We really need your guys help in slapping her down again. Especially for Mike Novick's page, where she is getting heat for that. She's also trying the same thing for Martha Logan despite the fact that Jean Smart was nominated for an Emmy because of her role. Oh, another note, it appears she merged Abu Fayed's page as well, despite the fact that he has the largest body count of any character on the show.Lan Di (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not Again
Now someone is trying to nominate Chloe O'Brian and David Palmer for merging! It is an IP address, from the US. This person has done this to many other articles from their talk page and has been slapped down. I don't think this is Lucy, she is british, and this person is american. Lan Di (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Ryan Chappelle's, Mandy's, and Habib Marwan's merges needs to be yanked. I'm reluctant to do that as I believe an admin needs to do that, and you have worked with someone familiar with this problem, so I believe that person could help us.Lan Di (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The person who tagged all the pages earlier today was clearly just trolling. That said, Lucy has gone ahead and nuked the page on Marwan.  The merger tag for Chappelle was removed earlier today by someone else. --MiB-24 (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's good about Chappelle, but I can't believe Lucy nuked the page on Marwan. He was the single handedly longest running villian on the show. She nuked Fayed, Saunders, now Marwan, and has trolled on almost every character excepts Bill, Chloe, and Jack.Lan Di (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is her standard MO. She’ll tag a page and if no one says anything within a few hours, she’ll nuke it and claim there was “consensus” to do so. --MiB-24 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the merge tag is on Morris' page, but as I explained earlier, I am pretty sure someone that is an admin has to remove it. you guys have someone who knows about this problem, and that person can handle it alot better than I can. Also Teri and Nadia's tags need to be removed, as lucy clearly lost those discussions.Lan Di (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I was going to remove the merger tag, but Angel beat me too it. :-) --MiB-24 (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was a little quick on the draw, wasn't I? ;-) Angelriver (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, I think you beat me by about 10 seconds. ;-) --MiB-24 (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL! Well, one does what one can to save Wikipedia from evils of needless Lucy mergers. :D Angelriver (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like lucy is complaining about me now. I didn't even do anything wrong excepts point out facts. I'm going to see if I can find where she is whining about me--Lan Di (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't let it get to you. She's complained about me before, too, and all it accomplished was getting an admin to get involved and remove her tags before issuing a rebuke of her actions. Angelriver (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * She wasn't even polite enough to comment on my talk page ;). Her arguments have almost no weight since she's been banned once. I attacked her credibility and I should win, since she has done this before. I also have one really good friend as an admin, and I'll bring him in if she wins this round.--Lan Di (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Now she is threatening to delete Philip Bauer's page because she lost an argument.--Lan Di (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, why is Morris' merge tag still on? I thought it was removed, but the history of the page says otherwise. Like I said, I don't want to start a firestorm with lucy by removing Her tag more than it already is.--Lan Di (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Noooooooooooo! Someone is trying to merge Tom Lennox's page! This isn't lucy, I don't even recognize this person. Maybe you guys have had a run in or know anything about this person.--Lan Di (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My Edits
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a troll who has been using a public IP address to vandalize "24" character articles. My edit to the Kim Bauer page was an attempt to delete the vandalism as well as the merger tag that someone keeps placing on the article. That discussion has already taken place, and Theresa Knott, removed the merger tag several weeks ago. Angelriver (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Sort of. Your revision resulted in "slut" being added back to the page, which my filter caught. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The person on 68.9.253.178 edited the Kim Bauer page twice. The first time he put merge with "slut" and then changed it a minute later to merge with "24 minor characters." When Angel undid the second revision, it changed it back to "slut." It is a common tactic of vandals to do these kind of double edits. --MiB-24 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying MiB. In fact, when I tried to make the edit to undo the word "slut", it wouldn't let me save the page because someone had changed it since I tried to edit. So it wasn't my edit that added the word "slut" back into the article. When I got back to Kim's page, the vandalism had already been removed. That is when I deleted the merger tag. Next time, I'll wait a few extra minutes. Thanks again. Angelriver (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Mergers
Looks like Lucy has decided since she can't get a consensus on merging all of the pages, she'll call for "neutral" users to come help her. Village pump (assistance) --208.180.22.12 (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good grief, how pathetic. Where is this request taking place? Angelriver (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's at the bottom of the Village pump (assistance) page. --208.180.22.12 (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up....I swear, I'll never understand why this is such a priority for her. These characters having their own pages doesn't affect her life in any way....Angelriver (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My theory is it gives her a sense of power, something almost every teenager craves to no end. Just look how she attempts to bully her demands though, often using deception to do it.  Anyone can toss out bits and pieces of the rules to fit their agenda.  Just remember, in Lucy’s mind, consensus means everyone agrees with her.  If most people don’t, it just means the wrong people are involved. --MiB-24 (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How completely egotistical. I know a LOT of teenagers, and not ONE of them is anything like Ms. Lucy-marie. Thank God. And I still fail to see her logic in getting people involved who don't even know anything about the series. They certainly won't be able to offer any informed feedback given that they don't watch the show. It's just another lame attempt to force everyone to do her bidding. Pfffft Angelriver (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean for it to sound like I was insulting all teenagers. I know of plenty who behave themselves very well.  In fact on the forum I run, 4 of my moderators are teenagers.  It just seems that some kids become keyboard commandos the instant they sit at their computer. --MiB-24 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. It didn't sound that way to me at all. I know some teens as well who are just like Lucy, and it always amazes me the difference in attitudes. Angelriver (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got to love Lucy's latest argument which is basically, “the outcome of the discussion was predetermined so the pages should be merged anyway.” In other words, because she thinks everyone is part of some kind of “cabal” against her, then her merger demands should go through anyway. --MiB-24 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's bizarre...and you're absolutely correct. The forces of evil were allied against her, so the outcome of the discussions should be null and void. I mean until these mergers have been completed, the ENTIRE Wikipedia encyclopedia will come to a screeching halt. She's doing everyone a favor really....Angelriver (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy is now trying to see if she can people to support her in saying that TV Guide interviews are not valid sources. This is clearly in response to the one you posted about Morris O’Brian returning in Season 7. Reliable_sources/Noticeboard I think this proves beyond any doubt that Lucy is not trying to “improve” Wikipedia. She is out to advance her own, twisted agenda against anything relating to “24.” --MiB-24 (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What the hell?! You know, I've bent over backwards to be as polite to that twit as I can be. I've provided her with link for the reference she requested. What the hell more do I have to do? I swear by God's green and verdant Earth, Lucy-marie singlehandedly ruins the Wiki experience for me. Angelriver (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you can let people like her win because it just encourages more to act like e-thugs. --MiB-24 (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, but it does become tiresome. Her unwillingness, or inability, to see reason is absolutely off-the-charts ridiculous. Angelriver (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, I can’t explain why she has to act this way. She has become obsessed with imposing her will on certain parts of Wikipedia and when people oppose it, she either cries about a “cabal,” claims people are being “mean” or “rude” to her and then tells everyone to go read the rules, or she will revert to the usual tactic of “the rules say I’m right.”  I have no doubt her ultimate goal is to nuke every single page about a 24 character and have them relegated to a single paragraph on some insanely long, unreadable page. --MiB-24 (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, it's been a few days since I last was here, and now lucy is trying to play the same game again? That was the reason I left in the first place, because of her tactics and stressing me out by claiming the rules are for everyone else excepts her. It appears that if she doesn't get the results she likes, she'll go somewhere else until she gets what she wants. I think I may have found a solution to the problem of lucy: WP:CABAL--Lan Di (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's always the same thing with Lucy--her way or the highway. And it's actually quite amusing at times to watch her antics. She just accused me of being uncivil and said that she is ALWAYS civil. Then, in the very next comment, she's telling me to "give it a rest and edit something other than "24" pages. You just have to laugh at her hypocrisy sometimes....Angelriver (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please watch your own civility here. If you are having problems with her then your best bet would be to start a WP:RFC for her rather than become fristrated and therefore uncivil about her here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You have no idea how many attempts have been made to be reasonable with Lucy-marie. This entire issue was resolved a month ago, and the consensus of ALL but Lucy was to separate certain characters from the merged article--characters that Lucy merged WITHOUT consensus. She had also placed merger tags on every character except for Jack Bauer and Chloe O'Brian as being minor and not worthy of their own page. After a month of discussions, during which Lucy was again the ONLY one in support of the mergers, Theresa Knott became involved and went through and removed ALL of her tags. Lucy also has a habit of throwing the rules up to everyone else but not following them herself. She has, on many occasions, been extremely uncivil and resorted to calling users not-so-nice names. There is no reasoning with her. When asked to provide a reference for a statement I made, I provided the reference to TV Guide.com just to have Lucy request help from other users to say that TV Guide is NOT a reliable resource. No matter what you do, nothing is ever good enough for her unless it's done her way. All of the editors involved in this dispute see the issue the same way. Angelriver (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, with you, and I personally think that Lucy is completely in the wrong, but I still felt obliged to give you the notice just to remind you that you might have violated 3RR, even with all good intentions, if you had carried on. The template actually looks harsher than I meant it to, it was just supposed to be a gentle 'Uh... excuse me...'. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Instead, assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Phoenix -  wiki  14:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please try to investigate the details of a situation before making judgments. There is much more going on here than you can see from a couple of comments on Lucy's talk page. Angelriver (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cabal
Lucy has decided to drag this debate into the realm of mediation and named you in her dispute. See the link.Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13_24_character_merging_of_minor_characters. --MiB-24 (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh good grief.....I have no words. Angelriver (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I looked at what the mediation cabal is, it is not official and their input is not binding. Now lucy is going to try every dirty trick in the book, including her obscure reading of the rules. All we have to do is attack her credibility and show that she is the one being unreasonable and we should win.--Lan Di (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just remember not to make it personal which is exactly what Lucy wants. If she can get people to attack her, then she can use that to get them banned and then she'd be free to go ahead with her merger madness. --MiB-24 (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I should have been more clear, I never intended this to get personal. What I have been trying to say is to show a track record of her being slapped down, by Theresa Knotts. Also the fact that she was banned, and her own archives where it was proven that she provoked a fight in the buildings dispute with regard to naming. If we can prove a record of her being unreasonable, of making accusations without proof, and of a history of causing trouble, we can win this easily. I can also get my admin friend involved, as he likes me, and will help us out if I ask for it.--Lan Di (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmph! She hasn't responded in what, 2 or 3 days. What is going on?--Lan Di (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The strange thing is, I get slapped on the wrist for being uncivil on Lucy's talk page, but I don't see incivility on my part. She is blatantly uncivil, and nothing happens. She actually told me to move on and start editing other pages for a change. And I've lost count of how many names she's called me and how many different times and ways she's called me stupid. Angelriver (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, and based on her record, I can't understand why she hasn't been banned again. She has done this before, remember the skyscraper dispute? She got in big trouble for that, and she only got slapped on the wrist even though she should have learned her lesson after that. She also archives everything and has lost records on her talk page according to archives I have read. Yes, she calls everyone names if they don't agree with her even when confronted with the truth. She's called MIB-24, you, me, and many others names yet she gets away freely. If she keeps going on like this, I will get my admin friend to slap her down extremely hard.--Lan Di (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy is back to throwing out the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" crap as an excuse. On the Cabal page, she is totally ignoring everything you all have said. --208.180.22.12 (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we all know this, but consensus is about one side having more people agreeing on something than another side. To measure that, you need to have a vote. I don't know how else you can gain a consensus other than counting people for or against something. She also ignores the fact that many of us are using the doctrine of WP:IAR. Now on the cabal page, she's claiming an issue of WP:WORLD as the best explaination for her complaints. As for her ignoring everything we have said, that isn't surprising. She tries to deflect complaints by using other rules claiming she is doing things in good faith. Now she's deflecting by claiming that what we are saying is besides the point. Isn't that what WP:POINT means?--Lan Di (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've replied to her latest inane comments as well as those of some guy she asked to come back her up. Let's see what she has to say.  I'm sure she'll claim that the Cambridge University Dictionary’s definition of “consensus” is wrong. --MiB-24 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Lucy's reply to this. --208.180.22.12 (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Typical, "I don't agree so it's not valid, go read this rule" crap. --MiB-24 (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is another good one. Lucy wants to add something to the rules, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, to prohibit the use of dictionaries since MiB-24 used one to refute her consensus argument. --208.180.22.12 (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, why am I not surprised. --MiB-24 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't that what wiktionary is for, to act as a dictionary? Yes, WP is not a dictionary, but words are defined through a dictionary, hence using a dictionary as a definition for words that are unknown or under dispute.--Lan Di (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at what I just found --Lan Di (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy has officially gone off the deep end with her latest comment on the cabal page. --MiB-24 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Arrested for what she's thinking about some of us?? Oh my......Angelriver (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at this: She was slapped down again and she archives it before I can respond to her incivility.--Lan Di (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * She always archives her talk page the instant someone reprimands her for her behavior.--MiB-24 (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh brother, check what she said on my talk page. I wrote on my admin friend's page, and she replies almost immediately. She must have my activities on her watchlist, but it's getting a little strange how she can respond so quickly. There's nothing against the rules, but it feels like cyberstalking, even though it isn't.--Lan Di (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

She's complaining about you again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iridescent#User:Angelriver check it out--Lan Di (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw that. She doesn't like it when people point out her behavior. Angelriver (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently. Don't respond, you saw what happened the last time she complained. I also reported her to my friend. She's digging herself a deep hole, as you didn't even say anything against her, you were just pointing out a fact. Also, maybe you should join WikiProject:24, those guys will help us out. I joined today out of frustration for lucy's tactics.--Lan Di (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's probably a good idea. And being fairly new to all of this myself, I'm sure they'll be of great help. Thanks for the suggestion. :-) Angelriver (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, I've been around for a while, 2-3 years I believe. I don't know what brought me back, but I think it was seeing major 24 characters being merged that piqued my interest. For the most part, I just make grammer and punctuation corrections. But this is the first fight I've been in, and many of the rules are contradictory and are not easily defined, depending on your definitions of what something means. What is on our side is that we have for the most part, never called her names, but apparently attacking credibility is against the rules, as I have read, even though it is relevant in the case. I'm just doing it out of frustration and to prove that a track record is relevant to how a person is acting. I've gone through archives to find out information, and I will continue to point out a record of her disruptive edits, as a person is less likely to be believed if they have a record of bad behavior. I offered for her to fix my user page, and she hasn't, if she really wants to do something.--Lan Di (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks for the help on humus sapien's discussion page. And another thing, if I'm uneducated, how come I am a member of Phi Theta Kappa, with a certificate to prove it. How come I am in college, about to get an Associates Degree in Computer Information Systems, transferring to either Mercyhurst College or Norwich University after I am done in community college. I would love to challenge her on those points. Also, I have many awards for getting things done, so I would like to see what she says about that. I will scan my award to show, with my name and private information blacked out.--Lan Di (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We have a large problem
Now that we are in arbitration, there is a user by the name of User:Judgesurreal777. He merged nearly all the character pages that are under arbitration and from his history, if his merges become undone, he automatically goes through WP:AfD. I was going through the 24 pages, and noticed a number of them missing. That is how I found out about this in the first place. We need to stay on alert for these types of people. I can say with certainty that this is not the work of lucy, and she has nothing to do with this excepts putting in the merger tag. She is blameless, and I have been able to find common ground with her. I think we can use her help in stopping this madness that is happening.--Lan Di (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noticed his edits, but I don't believe for one second that you're going to get help from the source you listed. If she hadn't wanted them merged, she wouldn't have placed the tag there. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I'm keeping my eye on the other pages, however, and will make sure there's no more merging without consensus. I know there are still several pages under dispute. If you think you can get Lucy's help, that's great. I wish you luck. Angelriver (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lucy has already said she won't do anything to stop him. This kind of person will eventually try to merge every page, not just the ones Lucy wants gone.  He even has a list User:Judgesurreal777/Topic_Building which says to me he is planning an attempt to merge them all.  This guy has a proven track record of trying to delete any and everything related to fiction.  Heck, his friend appears to be AnteaterZot who has a similar hobby. --MiB-24 (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dearie me...Jack is on that list...--Phoenixfan (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, everyone is. Look @ the guy's track record.  He will try to get rid of every single character page, by deletion if possible. --MiB-24 (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, he can't just have them deleted, can he? I mean doesn't there have to be consensus of the editors before action is taken? Especially action like that. Angelriver (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to stop him from trying to slip deletions past on the WP:AfD page. If no one is watching, it could be over before anyone has a chance to type one reply.  Remember, this is what certain other people have done in the past.  Tag page, wait a few hours, demand merger/deletion, some admin complies.  I’ll do my best to watch when he tries to pull a fast one, but I can’t do it from work.  The stupid Barracuda Firewall blocks Wikipedia as a “kid site.” --MiB-24 (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I know what he is trying, and lucy seems to agree to some extent that some articles shouldn't be merged. She's being civil from my talk page, as you can see. As for the firewall, MiB-24, do you want to get past the firewall? I can get the protocol codes to bypass it if you wish. I've been able to slip past by my college's Panda firewall, which is extremely powerful and blocks everything. I know the protocols for most of those firewalls, and I can get you ways to blow right through it. Oh, I gave him a stern warning not to try anything foolish, or he will be stopped in his tracks. I'm hoping my warning is enough to stop him, or at least discourage him from doing anything that could destroy Wikiproject 24. Lucy actually suggested that we get the pages protected, but the problem with that is the admins will never go along with protection to prevent merging, I've already read a few arguments, and many were denied.--Lan Di (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I’d love to be able to get past Mr. Barracuda, but considering how they are when it comes to Internet security, they’d probably bust me in 5 minutes or less. Several of the top level people spend most of their days monitoring web traffic and seeing how often we trip the dang thing.  The firewall is so stupid that for a time, it blocked Procurve.com (an HP website about their Procurve switches) as a “porn site.”  I’ll ask the guy in charge of the thing if he can unblock Wikipedia.  He’s unblocked another site for me before.  It was probably blocked because some customer of Barracuda suggested that Wikipedia should be added to the list of “kid sites” and they didn’t even bother to do any research as to what it is. --MiB-24 (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wowie kapowie
Hey, Phoenixfan here. I just got back on for the first time in a month...and all I can say is wow. I was sure this issue was done. I really want to start helping again, but I'm sorta lost at what's been happening. Could you fill me in (preferrably on my talk page.)--Phoenixfan (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically Lucy decided to take it to arbitration because she couldn’t get a consensus to merge the pages. It got fairly nasty this past weekend, but I’m sure if I mention who did what, I’ll just get accused of personal attacks.  (Check the editing history to find out what happened.)  Now today this new person has gone on a merger/deletion rampage as part of his crusade to rid Wikipedia of all articles relating to fiction. --MiB-24 (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I just skimmed the whole giant arguement. I also will not mention specific incidents, but I'm pretty sure you and I are in agreement.  So this new person is going for everything related to fiction????  Crap, I hope they've got Harry Potter covered...Phoenixfan (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Omigosh. I just looked at that guy's whole list...that's just creepy.  If he attacks Kingdom Hearts and Legend of Zelda and heaven forbid, Narnia...Lord knows I just might have a spas attack.---Phoenixfan (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I just discovered him today. As for arbitration, it seems to have stalled, which is to our advantage, as stalling for time is what we need to stop those articles. That other guy is going to try everything to merge and/or delete. He has nothing on lucy, at least she can be rational and respectful if you can find the right way to talk to her.--Lan Di (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The mediation has not stalled it appears as if a concensus has been reached and a date set of February 25 as a deadline. If you beileve this to be incorrect please raise this issue on the mediation page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would call your mediation cabal case stalled. We're waiting for DBD's input (at least I am personally), and then we'll see.  Lan Di, is this the same thing that you're calling arbitration? TunaSushi (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I don't particulary care for the term mediation cabal, as it sounds strange. I just call it arbitration for shorthand meaning. That is essentially what the mediation cabal is. Anyways, the solution has been found if you have went to the page. Watch certain reactions from some people.--Lan Di (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I’ve noticed he is constantly nasty on his talk page toward anyone who disagrees with him. I fully expect him to try and delete every single page on “24” characters within the next week or two.  I don’t get why he thinks every single page regarding fiction needs to be deleted. --MiB-24 (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I haven't seen the moderator to have come back with a solution. Until he does, it appears that it stalled. And DBD hasn't talked to anyone else, or at least what I have seen from his contrib page, regarding the situation. He only said one thing to someone else, and look through his contributions to see who he talked to if you wish.--Lan Di (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain this
The arbitration page has come to a close, and I have no idea what retcon means. Can any of you guys explain what DBD is saying?--Lan Di (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like DBD's saying that the merger issues themselves aren't notable, that Lucy-marie needs mentoring to learn collaborative editing, and that she should leave the 24-related articles alone. This seems reasonable to me, if mentoring deals with her problematic behavior.  She'll never go for it though, because she'll never admit she has issues. TunaSushi (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And you were absolutely correct. Angelriver (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * True, after all, the mediation isn't binding.--Lan Di (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Lucy’s refusal was 100% predictable. She would never, ever go along with anything that doesn’t back up her demands.  However, if the moderator had ruled in her favor, she would scream that we had better abide by it.  So after all that, we’re right back to square one. --MiB-24 (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh well, it was all for nothing. I wasn't completely surprised, but her harsh reaction was a surprise. I was actually getting her to work with us, but now we are back to square one. Remember, the mediation is not binding, it is just a suggestion after all.--Lan Di (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While it isn’t binding, the whole thing was Lucy’s idea. If she was never serious about agreeing to what the mediator suggested, then she never should have started the whole process.  But like I said, if the decision had the mediator ruled in her favor, she would demand to no end that we go along with it.  Given the fact that Lucy is convinced she is always right, she probably assumed she would be proven right and was sadly mistaken. --MiB-24 (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree fully, there is not really anything we don't agree on regarding this situation. However, I was starting to work with lucy as you can see on my talk page, and it isn't with her getting what she wants. It started with a test by using an article in Nadia Yassir's page to see her reaction, and while it softened a little, it did show me she was trying to show good faith, in my opinion, although it isn't enough to keep the article by itself, which was never intended. I am still working on that article, and when I feel that there are enough sources, and she doesn't agree, I will bring this up again.--Lan Di (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Lucy got someone to butt their nose where it doesn’t belong and back her up. I don’t care of the guy claims he is “uninvolved,” he sounds EXACTLY like Lucy. I have no doubt she asked him to come over demand all the pages be merged/deleted. --MiB-24 (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw that. That "uninvolved" user is currently involved in another unrelated Cabal case concerning characters from another TV series. Coincidence? I rather think not. Angelriver (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I quit believing in coincidences long ago. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories either, but when it comes to the Internet, very little is by chance. I should invite all of you to a “24” forum I run so we can discuss the show in peace, but of course if I do, then we’ll be accused of caballing again. --MiB-24 (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Email me the info. I'd like to take a look regardless. Angelriver (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I checked this user out, lucy and this new user have absolutely no contact going throughout their history and the only way they could have possible contact is outside WP, which I don't bother to trace, as it uses up all my system resources.--Lan Di (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A New General Rule I thought of
Because of the ambiguities involving these characters, there should be, at least for 24, that any character with an actor who is on contract, should have their own page. That would simplify many problems we have been having, but most of the characters except for Nadia Yassir and Martha Logan, were not on contract, and the new person wants to nuke those pages as well.--Lan Di (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

New MedCab Mediator
FYI... case on hold ... TunaSushi (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I was the only person whom the new mediator didn't inform. Angelriver (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw that, and in case you weren't following it, I thought you'd like to know. TunaSushi (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

24 Minor Characters
As you are most likely aware, an injunction has been made, ruling that for the time being, no merger tags are to be removed or deleted, no notability tags are to be removed or deleted, and no articles are to be deleted, for the time being, this is in regards to this article, and a few others. If these articles were merged regardless of this, would you support me in getting a Request for Protection for these pages? If you could reply on my talk page it would be best Steve Crossin (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a question, was I the new 24 editor you were referring to? Well, I assure anyone, I am no-one's sock puppet. Accusing me of being a sock puppet is an offensive comment. It's probably a violation of some policy, but I only have a basic knowledge of Wiki Policy for now.


 * Yes, I was referring to you. And for the record, I don't think you're a sock, but Lucy obviously does. I wouldn't worry about it though. She thought at one time that I was, too. Angelriver (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't worry about it at all. Actually, my first ever edit on Wikipedia was not 24 related, it was actually on an article about the Cold War. Has she ever read WP:AGF? Steve Crossin (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also seeking an opinion on splitting the 24 Minor Characters page. I've added extensive reasoning on the talk page. Can someone discuss this with me? Also, on my talk page is preferred. My main goal is to improve these articles to the best of my ability, and I ask that anyone who looks at my edits always remembers WP:AGF. Steve Crossin (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll head over to your talk page in a bit and discuss it there per your request. Angelriver (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting from a response on my talk page, but if you're just writing something very long, please ignore this comment Steve Crossin (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about lucy, I'll talk to her and help her understand that you aren't a sockpuppet.--Lan Di (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

MedCab Case
Heya. i was wondering whether you could be interested in continuing to participate in the 24 characters medcab case. I believe that this dispute can be resolved given a little time and more patience from the parties involved. Seddon69 (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Sorry I've not been around lately. I got laid low with the flu for a couple of weeks....Angelriver (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)