User talk:Howa0082

Enterprise assessment
I think I meant cite web rather than cite episode, sorry for the confusion caused. What I mean is that some footnotes are in the format for example no. 14 while some are in the format. See citeweb for help uising the template.--Opark 77 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: Enterprise
You do Star Trek, right? How about you try and figure out what User:Howa0082 has been up to in Star Trek: Enterprise. --Jack Merridew 15:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to view the substantial edits I've done to the article, actually. I've improved it, found citations, regulated the formatting on the pre-existing citations, hacked out a bunch of useless stuff, and generally made it pretty. But just remember the only reason Jackyboy even brought this to your attention is because he disagreed with a comment I made in an unrelated deletion discussion. (And no, I am not wikistalking him in return, I was merely curious to see if he had reverted anything else I had edited. That's how I found this talkpage.) Howa0082 (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am in no hurry. Until the rfar concludes, Until then I will make little or preferably no edit to fiction related topics. I'll abide by the decision there. I do not want to make a futile attempt to improve articles in the meanwhile if all those articles will end up getting deleted w/o discussion. -- Cat chi? 20:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Star Trek: Enterprise
The article Star Trek: Enterprise you nominated as a good article has failed, see Talk:Star Trek: Enterprise for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 17:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Careful what you are saying...
Regarding (I bet you can guess...) this comment, please be careful what you are saying. The term 'policy wank' could be deemed offensive, and calling me an idiot is not in your best interests. Of course, it is made that little bit worse by the fact you are actually wrong, as I explained in my reply. You think I don't understand original research? I'm an admin. At least expect me to have a basic grasp of our core principles. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the fact I was an admin just so you weren't under the impression I was someone new to Wikipedia who had no idea how it works. I have a good understanding of policy, I just thought saying I was an admin was the easiest way to say that. For what it's worth, I'm not offended by the term 'policy wank', just you can never be sure what is or is not going to offend people, so it is best to be careful. J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

IP spammer
Hi, I left the user with a stern warning. If another spam link is added from that IP, add " " without the quotes to the IP's talk page- this will leave them a last warning. If they do it again after the last warning, contact me or leave a note on WP:AIV and they will be blocked. Basically, we don't block IPs unless they have vandalised after a last warning, unless it is severe- use of bots to vandalise, legal threats, death threats, etc. J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was a coding mess in that comment. Fixed now. J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, if he does it again, myself or any admin will be justified in blocking him. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election
An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Election
Well mate, it seems we have reached a stalemate. You know what I mean? I guess I am trying to say, the election is inactive now, no one has contributed in a while. Please start contributing to it again. And you should also contribute to the studying literature discussion article on the general discussion forum, you cunt.DangerTM (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Message
Yes you should. Boylo (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Barging in here, but I would have left a civility warning on their talk page and then informed everyone (all five of us, heh) at the coordinators election. It's not too late for a snippy, automated reminder of WP:CIVIL.  They are new here, after all. María ( habla  con migo ) 14:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

List of D&D monsters
Hello, we've been busily working on how to make tables for a D&D monster list page, and could use your input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppeteering
To be honest, it's not an area I am particuarly familiar with. Really obvious sock puppets being used for malicious purposes can generally be blocked on site, and the sock-puppeteer harshly warned. It seems that Suspected sock puppets is more directed towards larger cases than this, so I will look into the matter myself now. Who was it who blocked the first puppet? Perhaps they would be better to deal with the matter than me? (...) Having looked into the matter a little, Rlevse was the one who dealt with the case, so he may be worth contacting. DangerTM was blocked by Dreadstar for personal attacks and incivility, then added to the case page by Rlevse. Basically, Rlevse seems to be the guy to contact over this matter; he's familiar with the sockpuppet procedure in general and familiar with the case. Last thing- there's a difference between a block and a ban- the puppets have been blocked permenently, and the puppeteer has been blocked for a week, no one has been banned. J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead right!
See my message to the editor who first reported the sockpuppet: diff. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

reply
That is an IP for an editor known as "the falsifier" (read admin Wiki alf's page or former admin KnowledgeofSelf's page for lots of previous history from the same editor) who may be a copycat of the veteran vandal known as the the "toy town vandal". Several administrators are aware of this editor. I have alerted one via third party messenger and anymore edits from the IP will result in a block. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Will Thompson
Maybe you should assume good faith, I don't want to offend, and I have no intention of doing so, so when you say "at least you haven't called me a dirty name yet" I can assume that the yet indicates that you think I am going to insult you, or that Danger insulted you. Can you give me a brief run down of what this guy actually did. And don't worry if you think I will be offended, I have been desensitized by years of terrible horror films. WilliamMThompson (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks, I hope all this can blow over and we can start to work together.WilliamMThompson (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

TM
How astute, remember civility is the key. That verbal licking you gave me really failed to break the skin. MAYBE JUST MAYBE WE CAN GET ALONG? HOW ABOUT THAT?Tom.mevlie (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Editor
I don't understand.-- RyRy5   talk  21:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, a typo. I get it.-- RyRy5   talk  21:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. -- RyRy5   talk  22:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi yourself.-- RyRy5   talk  22:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Knight
I'm going by what's in the Japanese source. The other items were not mentioned which is why I kept undoing the edits.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I get that, really. But you just reverted it. You didn't make an effort to correct the sentence that was there, and the version you reverted to was crappy to begin with. "because it a Kamen Rider series"? So, I fixed it. Now it's not containing more information than was there before, but reads better. (By the by, are there other KR shows with female Riders? I can't think of any, beyond Sasaki in Hibiki. The belt-swapping in Faiz hardly counts, and Akira abandoned being an Oni immediately after transforming the first time. So is the comment about Ryuki having the only female Rider incorrect?) Howa0082 (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There was Larc in the Blade movie, but in order to be a female Rider, you have to die (SPOILERS).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 03:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hooray for pointing out the half-dozen exceptions to the description. Although, being the only SERIES, not movie, with a female who isn't EVIL or QUITS might work as an overly picky defintion of Ryuki. Maybe we should put that in the lede, for accuracy's sake? Howa0082 (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because the source referenced says that Adness chose it because there were a lot of Riders and one was a chick.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 04:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...should I have invoked the tag? Howa0082 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point, Mr. Dragondragon got embarassed and deleted the convo off his page so no-one could see how much he missed the joke, so I moved it here to preserve the lulz. God, I love that man.

Kamen Rider Blade
Taken from the other party's page, as usual. ITT: Deliberate misunderstanding.

15:36, 2 May 2008 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) (15,492 bytes) (This in no way represents how these articles are supposed to be formatted)

Please, O noble leader, how are these articles to be formatted? WP:Toku doesn't have a guideline for ANYTHING, let alone format. From the actual Wikiproject page, I can glean only that we shouldn't use trivia sections, should not write bulleted lists, should use one template for Power Ranger characters, and use a certain template for Japanese names because the other one sucked. There are no format guidelines for this project at all, Dragon2, beyond what I just named. If someone I more-or-less invited to help from the TV Wikiproject, who does the article assessments and would probably know their guidelines better than you do, wants to edit the article to reflect WP:TV's guidelines for what's appropriate, who are you to decide those edits don't represent our non-existant guidelines? Or is it just that you can't stand seeing the articles touched by people not registered at WP:Toku? I'm not trying to be insulting, I am genuinely curious about why you behave the way you do. Howa0082 (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The formatting of the most recent series (Den-O, Kiva, Gekiranger, Boukenger, Go-onger) is how I would like to reflect the formatting of all of the series articles. I know it doesn't resemble the formatting of anime series pages, but the Blade page, as it was, did not resemble any of the other pages on currently airing or recently aired toku series.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So write down those guidelines on the project page. Or just ignore my points again, sure, and not do a single bloody thing to improve the project. It sure as hell wouldn't be the first time. I've suggested we have a rating scale for assessment and prioritizing TWICE, and the second time, you couldn't even be BOTHERED to tell me you didn't approve. I don't CARE if EVERY article has a list of episodes in the body of the article. When that list has been split off into it's own article, THERE IS NO REASON TO KEEP THE LIST IN THE BODY OF THE MAIN SERIES ARTICLE. It's cluttered, and redundant. There's other things that could use improvement in the article (among many other articles in the project), but if you keep reverting everything back to your broken format, no article will get to featured status. EVER. Like it or not, we're a derivative WikiProject. We fall under many other projects, and those articles from a certain media type, movies or tv, get rated according to THAT project's standards. If we had our own standards, maybe this would be a different matter. But we don't, because you don't want there to be publically-viewable standards. You just want to be able to swoop in on any article at any time and make things just the way you want, other editors be damned!
 * Do you remember my fixing the list of Den-O episodes? I removed endless headers, because it made the table of contents so big, it wouldn't fit on my screen all at once. And you reverted it, because you thought it would be easier for people to navigate a page with a table of contents SO BIG, you had to scroll to see all of it. In fact, Den-O is STILL like that, despite all other Kamen Rider series that I quickly perused just now NOT being that way. Your ownership of every article in this WikiProject is infuriating, counter-productive and, worst of all, it's not even consistant, as I have just shown you. Howa0082 (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I will work on writing down those guidelines. I know that there is no prioritization (I never really had one in mind at all). And for a long period of time, the episode list had been deleted because all it had been was a fair use gallery. The WikiProject is in the making and I haven't had much time to put thought into it. I know a lot of the articles on the series aren't consistently formatted, but each one (as far as I know) has a section on episodes, containing a numbered list and possibly a link to a fuller episode list (which is getting to be tiresome as they grow into multiple paragraphs). There is no uniformity now but that doesn't mean that there won't be uniformity at all. My changes to the Blade article were made such that there would be some uniformity with it and the current pages (while I was fixing a blatantly wrong use of DEFAULTSORT on every single Kamen Rider page). The Hibiki page I recently tried to bring in line with the current series, and I'm fairly certain the Kabuto page is in line (but I haven't seen it recently). Being an ass to me now just because things at WP:TOKU aren't written in stone is really counterproductive, rather than my trying to keep things semi-consistent despite the lack of written guidelines.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and one would think that by using the table of contents (despite how big it is), they can use it to peruse the page because of the section headings that you dislike so much.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 20:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring my other, perfectly valid points, in favor of being snotty again. Thanks, boss. You reverted me on that page because, as you said then, "the list of Kabuto episodes is from last year which is before I started really editting these articles." in reference to my pointing out that the list of Kabuto eps was supposedly our standard to aim for. Well, it's been nearly seven months since that, and it's still the only list in that format. If you're going to make stuff be the same as other stuff, be consistant about it. I keep saying we need some kind of standard for this project, and you just keep ignoring me. Howa0082 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which list what format? The standard for the project is not written down, I know that. I'll talk with a couple of other members of the project to try and come up with some sort of concrete format, that if anything would resemble the 2007 and 2008 pages as they are now (List of Juken Sentai Gekiranger episodes, List of Engine Sentai Go-onger episodes, and List of Kamen Rider Kiva episodes all resemble the formatting of List of Kamen Rider Den-O episodes). When I get time, I'll reformat the Kabuto episode list such that it's inline with these, as will the Blade episode list. Wikipedia is a work in progress, as are these pages.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Elitism
When involved in a dispute with anyone, calling their actions vandalism when they are not is rude and offensive. I brought the administrator bit in because Ryulong is an administrator, and one would assume he's not vandalizing pages. I was simply trying to make my point clearer, I was not implying that administrators are better than anyone else in any way, as I thought would have been clear in my later comments, particularly "Admins have no more right to edit pages than other editors do." Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally, when somebody mentions that "User:O-Admin-san is an admin" they are using it as a shorthand way of saying, "O-Admin-san is an experienced editor who has been entrusted with the Mop." We're still just fallible editors, like everybody else; but after a lengthy debate some other folks did reach a consensus that we're worth at least paying attention to. It doesn't make us any kind of elite or Higher Beings. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek: Enterprise
Taking a quick look, some suggestions I would have would be:


 * Clean up the production section. The formatting with the two different quotes in such close proximity is off putting and confusing. Neither seems to fit well with where they are placed, either. I think the first could be summarized and included in the paragraph above it where its mentioned what the series name would be.
 * Shorten up/Tighten up the plot. Its a bit long, particularly season 4.
 * Needs a bit of MoS work. Soundtrack, novels, et all should be in a "Media information" section near the bottom. Cast goes above plot. Cancellation after Plot, then Media Information, then Reception.
 * The US Rating section needs to be redone as prose as part of an overall reception section with critical reviews.
 * The see also in the cancellation section isn't necessary, and the prose needs to be tightened up so three subsections are unnecessary.
 * Rebroadcasts and the DVD release also go in the media information section.
 * And, of course, the biggest thing is the need for referencing :) Ref 25 also needs to be fixed to be accurate: the source isn't archive.org, that's just the archive. A couple of others also need format tweaking and making sure they have complete information. Non-RS sources, such as TrekUnited and TrekToday need to be removed all together.

I hope that helps some. For now I'm going to leave it at start, though I upped its importance to mid being an ST series. I also added an archiver to the talk page since it hasn't been archived in quite awhile :) I've also put these comments in the talk page comments on its rating. Collectonian (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dragondragon, etc.
Please stop referring to me as Dragondragon, Dragon2, or other permutations thereof.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Howa0082/Sandbox2
User:Howa0082/Sandbox2, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Howa0082/Sandbox2 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Howa0082/Sandbox2 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 20:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)