User talk:Jac16888/Archive 1

Writers and Producers
Thanks for removing all of that crap from the Scrubs episodes. Though I'm guessing once the new guidelines kick in, most of the episodes will simply be redirected to the main article. The way to avoid that is having a 'Production' and/or 'Reception' section, and References. They won't like the 'Featured music' section either: tho' the songs can be merged with the plot summaries. The JPS talk to me  19:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs episodes
Hello. I don't know if you've been following the debate, but the outcome will be this...: when you're working on episode articles could you ,please make it a priority to add secondary sources. Reviews would be good. Cheers. Otherwise some wiki-fascists will turn the articles into redirects to the main article. The JPS talk to me  18:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs Articles
You and I are the two major editors involved in the Scrubs articles. I would like to work with you to make these articles the best they can be. If you haven't already, I recommend reading WP:WAF. Many of these articles (especially character articles) are full of trivia and one-time occurrences. The character articles in particular need serious trimming to leave only the major events. Most character articles contain an "interaction/relationships with other characters" section, which have become very bloated. Wikipedia is not TV guide, and we don't need to recap every single event in two characters' relationships. Things that define the relationship (e.g. Turk and Carla's marriage) and recurring themes (J.D. calls Turk "Chocolate Bear") should be mentioned. This edit, added by an anonymous editor, is an example the the excessive level of trivial details that these sections contain. Please work with me to improve these articles. - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 18:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs broadcasters restored
I notice you restored the Scrubs broadcasters. I think I made my case on the Talk page. Would you care to take this to a request for comment, and would you abide by it? / edg ☺ ★ 18:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, i restored it, because i responded to your argument, which was far from valid, and since you hadn't responded several days later, i reverted. You cannot use the deletion of broadcaster articles as a precedent for removing broadcaster sections, since they are clearly different things. You have no established consensus for this move, or the several other places where you've removed it. Doesn't the fact that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television where you're talking about these edits with no-one, was started by an editor saying that they are good, relevant information and simply need standardising, and you somehow decided to remove them, based on a questionable, at best interpretation of WP:NOT. Or how about the fact that so many TV programs have had these sections for so long.--Jac16888 21:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't bother replying because I didn't think your argument really withstood the policies and precedents I linked, and no one else is supporting your objection. The two things aren't very different at all since they are based on the same principle. As for consensus, the precedents I linked would count as such, and your only other argument was that WP:NOT applies to entire articles but not to article sections, which isn't that tenable a position.


 * I don't think anything I say is going to change your mind, but my concern is valid, and consistent with Wikipedia policy. Would you abide by an RfC? Please? / edg ☺ ★ 21:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * if you want an rfc, then do one, but, you say no one is supporting my objection, nobody seems to be supporting you either. I'm not saying that WP:NOT doesn't count for article sections, i'm saying that it doesn't fit with WP:NOT, because it is not an epg, they are clearly different as they have times and dates, like an epg is supposed to, and if you check the article history, you will see that it changes very little. you say you won't be able to change my mind, will you be able to change your's? You keep simply quoting the same argument, which is not that valid, nor does it fit with wikipedia policies. And as for "I didn't bother replying because I didn't think your argument really withstood the policies and precedents I linked", i understand them very well, they are a very different case, and a poor precedent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac16888 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Great. Can you please fill in a statement of position here?
 * Also, can I ask that you please abide by the results of the RfC in summary, and not just a cherry-picked opinion that does not represent the general comment? / edg ☺ ★ 21:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm filling it in now. What are you talking about " abide by the results of the RfC in summary, and not just a cherry-picked opinion that does not represent the general comment?", what the hell is that supposed to mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac16888 (talk • contribs) 21:42 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In the Talk page discussion of precendents for the deletion, you chose some fairly exceptional comments as supporting your position. I trust this was in good faith. What I'm asking is that you consider the RfC fairly. / edg ☺ ★ 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you accusing me of?, i will go with the final decision made in the rfc, if its inconclusive, the section stays. Will you go will the consensus?--Jac16888 21:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for getting this in so quickly. I've made the request. These usually take a while to get started (and weeks to finish), so you have some time to refine your statement if you feel the need. Thanks for agreeing to abide by the decision; I'll certainly do the same.

If the RfC is inconclusive (which is the norm, frankly), there are other dispute resolution procedures we can go through, but this should at least get us a few more opinions. / edg ☺ ★ 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I read what you said.
Your arguments have tended to include various insinuations against me. I wish I could be more patient with this, but I really need to point out that this is not productive, and I don't appreciate being called "unfair". The thrust of your argument is that no Wikipedia policy applies here because none state with improbable specificity the exact same thing by the technicalities you designate, and furthermore that I'm a malevolent person who is attacking something you like for no reason and with no support or precedent.

And furthermore, that I cheat. This insinuation makes me very angry.

I've actually given you a lot of time and opportunities to make your case. My reasons for everything have been stated plainly. / edg ☺ ★ 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * and i'm sorry i said that about you cheating, you just took me by suprise closing the rfc, and i was under a fair amount of stress at the time--Jac16888 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, that I can relate to. Sorry to blow up like that. Thanks for explaining.


 * Hopefully we can work together in the future underless contentious circumstances. :) / edg ☺ ★ 21:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs foreign titles
Hi, sorry to ruin your work but I removed the foreign titles section on the scrubs article. Probably should have brought it up on the talk page there first, especially since the previous RFC history there (I forgot about that). In my opinion this also falls under WP:NOT. Information like that is often removed from articles. See also the, a bit related, discussion here and some relevant links there. Garion96 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2007 (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.-- SuggestBot 19:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RAB
Hi. which bits did you consider were not sourced? Did you see the transcripts from the books on the discussion page? Contrary to your edit summary, the passage is referenced to three published books, not to any website. According to the telegraph there are some 190 books written about Hp now. I have asked Folken repeatedly to find any of them which disagree with the summary of the situation as described in the three books mentioned. From my own investigations, I doubt very much that alternative sources disagreeing with those quoted could be found. Sandpiper 07:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sandpiper, it's not a matter whether the speculations are true or false. It's a matter that WP can't be used to develop unreliable and non-notable speculations. I have already said it, your 3 books are all connected to the same restricted circle of die-hard fans, which is not reliable enough for Wikipedia. One was self-published (Granger), the other Mugglenet webmasters paid to have it published, the last one is from an unknown author who never wrote anything about HP before and who is making unsourced and unreliable assertions about fan beliefs that no one can verify.
 * It's useless to talk about your 190 books if you didn't reach any of them. It's not a matter of finding "disagreeing" sources, because it's not a matter of speculations being true or false. It's all a matter of speculations being unsubstanciated because only related to fan-forums discussions, and the only books about it are written by these very same forum fans.
 * By the way, all your edits are presented in a POV-oriented manner, first presenting the speculation as true, then trying to back it up saying "every one believes it". You're not reporting any "existing debate", you're merely giving your own answer to unanswered questions, and Wikipedia doesn't allow it. Folken de Fanel 10:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. I agree with Folken, because, A, how is anyone supposed to know that the books you are giving as refs actually contain the info you say, and B, the ref you give is to a "speculative book", the only book that contains the truth about RAB is deathly hallows, which, i doubt you've read yet. --Jac16888 10:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

and please don't use my talk page to have a massive argument, like you have done on your own talk pages.
 * I fear the penalty for becoming involved in a debate is that people will talk to you. In general, I think people take it on trust that a referenced book does say what the editor claims it does. If you doubt it, there are copies widely available for purchase, and then there is always requesting a copy from your local library. As I already said, the question of whether what is believed about the books turns out to be true is immaterial. What is being reported is what is believed. We are not reporting what is in rowling book 7, but langford book 1 (etc). This is exactly the same as in any other article, really. As witness the quote that rowling was actually asked about RAB on publication day (by Spartz, who wrote the mugglenet book: he actually asked her personally), this is longstanding belief amongst readers. Who did you think it was when you read the book? Rowling told spartz she thought he would work it out correctly, but I see you doubt her? Sandpiper 23:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Horcruxes, Sandpiper, and Folken
Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I am trying desperately to extricate myself from this ridiculous mess. :) Ccrashh 15:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * it seems theres no escape. i posted a rfc about the rab article, which only got one response, which sandpiper quickly rubbished and they didn't come back, and the other day i posted about it on the ANI board, which just got somebody telling me that, yes, it is a problem. which wasn't very helpful. i just wish we could make sandpiper realise that once the book comes out all these different articles that they're posting about langford's opinions and various other people will be totally irrelevant. but nope, no such look.--Jac16888 15:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't see it that way. For the most part the issue I have been debating with Folken is long standing content which has been here since a few months after publication of HBP. This spring he turned up and decided to remove certain things he objected to. I was not the first editor to be fighting the side of the argument I am on now, but having got involved I have been with it ever since. Probably because I can't resist attacking a flawed argument. The point about expecting a major change in the articles quite soon is well taken, but it is Folken who has jumped the gun. He has been fighting to delete content, almost as though he was attempting to remove any reference to things which offended him, ready for the book launch. Ironically, I think I even pointed out a few to him, which he then immediately pounced upon and started arguing about. Sandpiper 17:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * blah blah blah blah blah its all folken's fault, blah blah i'm the great hero of this piece, defending my wonderful edits blah blah. oh, i'm sorry, got a bit lost there. give it up sandpiper, do you really think you gonna convince me? stop wasting your's, mine, folken, and several other peoples time, there gonna disappear when the book comes out anyway, so why bother trying to keep them.--Jac16888 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that like saying we might as well scrap all the cars now, cos the oils gonna run out one day? Its an interesting point to wonder exactly how the articles would be if folken hadn't chosen to get tough. Sandpiper 22:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * there is a slight difference in your comparison between these articles, and cars. one, fuels not gonna run out in a months time. and two, it wouldn't be a worldwide catastrophe if they did your sections were removed, except to you that it is.--Jac16888 09:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * if it comes to that, it wouldn't be a ww tragedy if the whole of wikipedia disappeared. I doubt many people edit here because they think they will vhange the world. You think that if ther was an announcement that all petrol would disappear after 21 Jul, people would stop driving today? I think they would do exactly the opposite. Sandpiper 18:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * heres a question. what the hell are you talking about? are you seriously comparing your none-too-important article sections, which for some reason you are determined to force upon us, to the petrol supply of the entire world.--Jac16888 16:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) you seriously need an ego check

RE: hi
No need to apologize! I'm glad to see people are reporting that kind of stuff! Keep up the good work. --Hemlock Martinis 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Help!!!!!
Please Help!!!!!!!! This Ip was blocked over a year ago, but suddenly i can no longer edit, i just get the following message,

"You have been blocked from editing. 81.79.11.212 (an account, IP address or range of addresses) was blocked by Deiz for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

vandalism only anon account Your IP address is 81.79.11.212, and your block has been set to expire: indefinite."

Which makes no sense, since i've never vandalised, and my IP address is 81.79.22.97 Whats going on?--Jac16888 19:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Walter Zwolinski
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Walter Zwolinski. I do not think that Walter Zwolinski fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because there is an assertion of notability in having a top 3 hit in Canada. I request that you consider not re-tagging Walter Zwolinski for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with prod or nominate it at WP:AFD. Carlossuarez46 22:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

technicolon
Gotcha re:removing speedy deletion tag. Bit new here so still learning the ropes. On that particular page though I can assure you that I know a LOT of people in the animation industry talk about this site :) definitely a legit topic and not a vanity page.

Unscripted 360
Hey there. I'm not too familiar with Wiki so I hope this is right. :) But I'm recreating this page at the request of several of the listeners to Unscripted 360 radio show.

I've seen several other podcast shows/blogs/websites listed with no deletion or hints at deletion so I'm a bit stumped at the deletion tag. At any rate, I hope this message is received and the page continues to exist. I never knew there was a previous page at all but after getting notices about and finding out it was deleted, I decided to recreate it.

It has no malicious links or information and is currently a mirror image to others of its kind so the content is valid, important and correct.

Thanks for the help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DeaconBlade (talk • contribs).

User page
Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, that sort of nonsense doesn't bother me. As long as they aren't doing it to someone else. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpage blanking
Thank you for reverting. I think I upset him over removing some allegiances in Harry Potter infoboxes. asyndeton 21:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

vandalism
hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page and talk page, its much appreciated--Jac16888 12:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem :) Gscshoyru 12:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting
Thank you for reverting vandalism on my user page! :) ... disco spinster   talk  12:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reported him/her, and there should be a block on the way. ... disco spinster   talk  12:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If the vandalism continues from IPs, you can request that your user page be semi-protected so that only registered users can edit it. ... disco spinster   talk  12:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Pride of Mind
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Pride of Mind. I do not think that Pride of Mind fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because one former member is a former member of a (semi-)notable band, so asserts notability barely. I request that you consider not re-tagging Pride of Mind for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with prod or nominate it at WP:AFD. You may want to do that. Thanks for helping keep WP clean. Carlossuarez46 19:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the result was ultimately correct so no big deal. Carlossuarez46 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
I would suggest you read the trivia guidelines by clicking the link within the trivia tag. No articles are supposed to have any kind of trivia section to it. -Freak104 02:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I also forgot to mention a very important point: instead of going through and deleting the tags (which is pointless) why not go through and incorporate the trivia into the article like the tag says? You seem to have an extensive knowledge of Scrubs and would be perfect for the job. My goal in tagging the Scrubs episodes was to motivate someone who knew the show better than I (I watch, but not every episode) to improve the articles. Take initiative and improve the articles, don't complain. -Freak104 03:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm done for the day, won't be on for a while yet. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help when I'm next on. -Freak104 18:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bandagi Miyan Syed Khumdmir Rz
Thanks for the smile - have a good evening! --kateshortforbob 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs peer review
Hey there,

Scrubs has been rated as B-class according to WikiProject TV, and the suggestion of a formal peer review has been made. I reckon we should go for it - I think the time is right to start making a major push towards making Scrubs an FA, and a peer review is the first step towards doing that.

I also think we should create a Task Force as part of a Wiki Project like Comedy or TV Show - that way a major co-ordination of the Scrubs article improvements could be undertaken. Fancy it? Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel 13:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can definitely see your concern, though I really don't think the member number would be a problem - there are a few users who regularly update the articles, and to get a bit of co-ordination would be useful. I did it myself with Only Fools and Horses recently - within a few weeks of starting the project (now inactive, soon to be revived as a task force of WP:TV) it became an FA, and progress with all the articles - particularly the episodes - has surged, even with only 2/3 regular contributors. I see the same thing happening with Scrubs - a task force would allow us to identify priorities, establish proper, full, comprehensive templates (not all the episode pages sing to the same lyrics, and that's leaving aside the utter chaos that is the character pages) and means of doing things - and petty arguments over irrelevant misinterpretations of WP:EPISODE would cease to be an issue (I'm a Battle Royale nut, and have to deal with people constantly attempting to mass AFD 46 minor character pages on notability grounds, when the fact that they all appear in a novel film and manga series, the former of which was raised in Japanese parliament as a concern and the remake of the middle being a strong candidate for most controversial/anticipated/hated/wanted idea for a film in the last 30 years being irrelevant apparently, so I know what it's like).

I've very limited net the now, or I'd request the peer review and start the task force myself, but I definitely think it should be done soon by somebody. We've no excuse for Scrubs not being FA by Christmas. Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel 14:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, since a task force is specifically for the improvement of articles (more specifically, the coordination of the improvement of articles within a shared theme) the sooner the better really! Doesn't have to start out big or move fast, it's not like it will get deleted if it builds and accomplishes slowly. Do you have any ideas off the top of your head for an episode template that would be appropriate. Even though I'm in work so seriously shouldn't be here, I'm really tempted just to put a temp page up just now for this, even if it is only a WIPCaissa&#39;s DeathAngel 14:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Cristian Ávila Uruburok
Please do not use unless you find the article in another Wikipedia. That tag is only supposed to be used if the article exists in another Wikipedia like the Spanish Wikipedia. If you cannot find the article in another Wikipedia, please follow the procedure at WP:PNT. Jesse Viviano 16:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I had to edit my comment above, because I screwed up with a formatting error. Jesse Viviano 20:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey
db-spam and db-ad are exactly the same. You really didn't need to change it. Kwsn  (Ni!)  14:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This. Don't get me wrong here, you didn't do anything wrong, just for future reference, the two tags are identical so you don't have to change db-ad to db-spam.  Kwsn   (Ni!)  14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well, it'll be gone shortly anyway. Kwsn   (Ni!)  14:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy tags
Thanks mate. Shall use them in future -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 10:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

References ?
I read your post on the Village Pump policy page: is there any verifiability to the quote about the CIA editing the Nixon article?Richiar 02:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Weird Al
It's not racist. It's paying tribute to my favorite Weird Al Yankovic song. At when was the last time you saw a TV made by a cracker? Whenever it was, there were jobs back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CadillacDTS (talk • contribs) 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am referring to a unkempy non-cracker. Secondly, your mom stands out. Don't think I won't recognize her in a crowd.

Teague-Jones Article
Jac,

I need to understand what is meant by "rm some unsourced stuff, sp". All information provided had the research reference source provided, as was cited and inserted into the article at the top. And this source has additional sources. I also noticed that in the changes made, this provided source reference was not cited.

So essentially about half of the information provided was removed. About 2 of 4-hours of work. If it were a matter of writing style, then that would have been different since presumably the information provided would have been left in tact. But no.

I had more to invest in time and material for Wikipedia of a historical nature, having been in Central Asia, but I begin to see this will be a waste of time. It is apparent that information is allowed to be altered by anyone, information deleted, or adding whatever misinformation is felt appropriate for the hour without a responsible explanation or request for verification.

The source for everything was provided. That is why it was posted.

No Thanks GJBanton —Preceding unsigned comment added by GJBanton (talk • contribs) 23:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Schweigler (category deletion)
Hi. There are a couple of ways to go about deleting categories that are of no further use. Speedy deletions for categories is not quite as "speedy" as those for articles, because the only valid criteria for deleting a category (other than completely uncontroversial issues such as typos) is if it has been empty for four days (see WP:CSD). The other option is to take it to Categories for Discussion, where actions such as merging, splitting and renaming are also dealt with. In this case, I would just leave it the requisite four days (put it on your watchlist to remind you) and then tag it for speedy deletion - there's nothing much worth discussing here, and once the editor has got the message that Wikipedia is not a genealogy site there will be no more use for the category. ~Matticus TC 09:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:A Belated Apology
That's really nice of you to say that - and it's good to see that you're now contributing more regularly! Have a nice wikiday! enochlau (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 17:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs episode articles
And thank you! I really don't get my people want to delete stuff like this. It's obviously notable. Anyone outside of the AfD regulars would agree it belongs here. It seems like these nominators want to turn Wikipedia into something it's not. I hate having to review the AfD nominations, such a waste of time, but a lot of nominations need more Keeps. We can't keep letting the same small group of people decide what is worthy of inclusion. The regulars seem to be a little caught up in policies, and forget to use common sense. They only apply WP:IAR to WP:IAR itself. I know your a fan of Scrubs, but I also know you have the right mind set of what Wikipedia really is. I hope you continue to keep an eye on the AfDs because they really need more input by editors like you. The general audience and less involved users hardly ever venture into these discussions, which they shouldn't have to, but someone needs to speak up for them. For the readers. Thank you again and keep fighting the good fight! -Rocket000 21:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your question at ANI
Not so recently, but I've dealt with two similar incidents within the last year. The best solution is to notify the authorities promptly and put a long block on the account, preferably with minimal onsite fanfare. Durova Charge! 20:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

heehee
There's a bit of irony for you. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  02:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Remember me?

 * Thanks for messaging me. No hard feelings whatsoever. I'd actually gotten so used to hostile correspondence that none of it seemed far from ordinary. This more than compensates. / edg ☺ ★ 22:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleanup, but...
Thanks for improving the personal attack, but the user had just pushed a complaint of that issue onward. Could you mention the diff of your adjustment at User_talk:Charles Matthews so readers will be aware that part of the record is obscured? (SEWilco 22:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

About User:SEWilco
I had some justification: 

Why do you guys let, um, "individuals" like him screw with stuff the way he has? He's demonstrated over and over again that he's no more than a right wing nuisance with zero intentions toward ever "improving" anything? -BC aka Callmebc 23:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage, both today, and the last vandalism a couple of weeks ago, it seems i have a guardian angel watching over me(or a least my user page haha). I'm still trying to work out how i upset today's since that was their only edit, very odd. Anyway, cheers --Jac16888 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As always, not a problem. The ip is probably someone you pissed off before, and his ip changed, or the ip of a user that you pissed off. Or something. Gscshoyru 20:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thanks for reminding me about WP:AIV, I'm only just back after a break. -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 00:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Scrubs fan
Hello. I happen to notice that you like Scrubs. I thought my 8 edits to the Dr. Cox article was a lot until I saw how many you have. That's amazing. If there are any Scrubs articles that you would like me to help you edit or expand, let me know. Hotsaucedude 16:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your the links. I am having a lot of fun editing Scrubs articles. It seems like many of the articles need to be expanded.

When editing some of the articles, I noticed that you made various reverts. Someone of them removed nonsense and irrelevant details. In my efforts to improve these articles I do not want to add irrelevant details (or inadvertently vandalize). Do you have any guidelines on what specific details should go in one of these articles? Thanks. Hotsaucedude 14:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other articles about older Scrubs episodes that need to be expanded? Hotsaucedude 21:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My Rite of Passage
I didn't realize you'd added other things in that edit, sorry. And I just thought it was nifty that I found an obscure cultural reference. Thanks for reorganizing it into the non-trivia format it is now. Cs302b 06:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for the barnstar!--Opark 77 16:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

J.D.
I was the anonymous IP that did some light editing on the Romantic Involvements on J.D.'s article and it was reverted because it wasn't a clean up. I just thought that condensing the information where most of these relationships don't last for more than 2-3 episodes and aren't even the central focus, as Scrubs episodes tend to have 3 plots going on in each episode. Could you be more detailed in what was wrong with my revision? For example, is it really necessary to know that Julie was Zack Braff's real life girlfriend at the time, or that they were always interrupted before they kissed? Notthegoatseguy 15:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User: 65.25.105.176
I noticed your repeated vandalism warnings on User: 65.25.105.176. This user continues to vandalize pages. See Cyclone Sidr‎ and Hindustan Ghadar‎. I've reverted the vandalism I've seen from these pages. Do you who can block this user from editing? Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind note. Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Incense & Health
Would you have a look at the talk page of incense and let me know your thoughts.

Thanks!

BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

re Bobes66's adminship
Thanks for submitting my admin application properly - I thought there was something wrong with it! I will think about pulling out. Thanks again, Bobes66. --Bobes66 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs Vandalism
Hello. While I was editing the My Number One Doctor article today I happened to come across a fair amount of vandalism. I removed it. I also found some random, irrelevant comments about jobs in the Dr. Cox article. I deleted them. Seeing that as you are not a fan of vandalism and constantly remove it from Scrubs articles, I thought I might bring it to your attention. Also, if you have any of information about what I should do when I see vandalism, let me know. Thanks. Hotsaucedude (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Perry Cox comment
Oops. Sorry about that. :-) I assumed that the NBC bio had been revised not to include the info anymore. --Baylink (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, it was my mistake, i copy and pasted the link from the talk page, but accidentally picked the wrong one. Happy editing. By the way, sorry i'm replying here, for some reason i can't post this on your page, apparently the above message contains a blacklisted url.(???) --Jac16888 (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was the url tinyurl.com tripping the BL filter. I delinked it on Baylink's talk page.--Hu12 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)