User talk:Khaosworks/Archive7

Thankyou
Thankyou for the edit! James Random>< Beg for an Audience


 * And another very heartfelt thankyou for your wonderful reworking of my edits to the article Julius Schwartz. You shuffled the info back into the article expertly and appropriately without gutting the balance I was hoping to achieve.  Your effort is greatly appreciated.  Sometimes those of us close to a great person are too close and can overdo a correction.  I happen to be believe Julie is not given nearly as much credit as he should but there is a sensible way to note his acheievements without gushing.  Thankyou thankyou thankyou. Lisapollison 12:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Psych (TV series)
The picture keeps on dissapearing i was struggling to get the picture back then you came along and fixed the problem, but the same problem has come back.

Titanic
He DID have time to pose for photos. The Doctor is a little on the vain side, would he have not had a look at himself before posing? Also (I'm not sure of this, its a while since I saw it) wasn't the picture taken BEFORE boarding? We're reading a lot into what I think is probably just an oversight by scriptwriters. However, I *do* think the strong implication is that 'Rose' takes place immediately after his regeneration. When the Titanic stuff happens is open to debate, but I really don't think it happened before 'Rose'.Damiancorrigan 09:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't know when it was, Rose and possibly Jack may well have been off camera, I also accept that the 'clinging to an iceberg' thing might have been a different visit to the Titanic from the one from the photo. But I DO think it it very unlikely that it happened before 'Rose' and for him to have gone through a whole adventure without having seen a mirror. It is also implausible that out of all the evidence that the whoisdoctorwho.co.uk guy could have found, he happened to find evidence relating to the Doctor's most recent adventure. You've said before that we have to go with what is likely - it is very unlikely that the doctor would have gone through a whole adventure without having seen a mirror and for that single adventure to have cropped up in that guy's archives.Damiancorrigan 11:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if he had gone two months without a mirror, he would have said something like "at last, a mirror" in 'Rose'.
 * I'm afraid I only have a gmail account so am unable to join the forum. If it isn't too long, post it into my talk page. By the way - I have an interview with Titan Magazines on Monday. I don't know what magazine I'm being interviewed for, but they publish Dreamwatch... Damiancorrigan 12:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't "clinging to an iceberg" that he said it was "Ended up clanging into an Iceberg". James Random 10:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who - The Idiot's Lantern (...sarcasm).
I re-watched the scene in question and I can't really see any indication that Eddie is being "supportive" of anyone. I still see dripping sarcasm. However, I don't think it's an important enough point to keep switching the article back and forth. I'm perfectly willing to "agree to disagree".

- Peace!

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to add my signature. Garth 187 04:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

TARDIS
Is there a reason why you zapped all of my revisions into the bin? back when i was an unidentified IPaddress? 82.35.104.205

is what i was when i made the edits.

Honestly. As a DW fan for a very very long time, I should have known there were going to be disagreements.....but zapping somebody's revisions? totally? even wheel in space references?

thats not very nice is it hmm?

Jaime9526jaime9526

Ultimate Iron Man
I understand what you're saying. The thing is, these edits constitute your conclusions ("This is his motivation for his many acts of "philanthropy"; "this version of Stark is also written with...") and speculation ("as well as possibly his motivation for becoming a superhero)", both of which are disallowed as [[Wikipedia:No_original_research|original research].

What would work is to quote one of the writers or a character in comics him/herself, e.g., "Joe Smith, who wrote Iron Man in the early 1990s said in (cite interview source here) that such-and-such provided the motivation for Stark's philanthropy and heroics," or "Joe Smith, author of Ultimate Avengers said in (cite interview source here) that he envisioned this alternate-universe version as more of a such-and-such than his mainstream-continuity counterpart". And like that.

Thanks for giving me the chance to explain my edit. I've liked your Iron Man work. -- Tenebrae 13:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool! Now that's editing!-- Tenebrae 00:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who and video
You should not have removed in particular the item regaring the "white dot" just because you had not seen this. Watch again. Regarding the video aspect, I will change the item to incorporate what both of us are saying. Colin99 07:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

hello
me again.incidentally, small world isnt it? Arsenals up the road....shame about the stadium change really, but cant be helped. I think theres a link between Islington and DW...

Present tense
Please see the discussion of present tense in Talk:Spider-Man here. Please explain why you need to revert the tenses in the Captain America article. Please don't edit an article when someone has places an inuse tag on it. --Chris Griswold 08:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dalekanium and Spencer Chapman!
I know that there was no reference to Dalekanium in Remembrance of the Daleks, it was referred to as Bonded Polycarbide Armour by the Seventh Doctor Himself

Wing Commander - "So we're dealing with little green men, here?" Doctor - "No, Little green blobs in Bonded Polycarbide Armour"

Spencer Chapman, as stated by Raymond Cusick in "Daleks the Early Years", was the original designer of the Dalek. While he may not have designed the Dalek as we know it today, Cusick himself states that Chapman was responsible for many of the concept drawings and the general idea of the dalek, these concepts are even shown as part of the interview with Cusick.

You may wish to verify these facts for yourself.

Posted by James Random

Image Tagging Image:Dalekattackgame.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dalekattackgame.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vic Vipr TC 12:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing without verification
You should not have deleted my footer about Spencer Chapman before you had taken the time to watch the interview on the VHS for yourself. The information I submitted was present and correct. Though you may have majorly contributed to this particular article, you do not own it.

Please refrain from deleting other addendums until you have verified them as being incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRandom (talk • contribs) 12:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone likes being told what to do by another user. If you would like someone to do something, the best way to do it would be to phrase your complaint or request in the form of a question. — Natha  n  ( talk ) 19:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Oi, Smarty-Pants
You did a good job of editing that swear-filter addendum for me. To be honest, I'm just glad you didn't delete it, but it is actually referred to as a "swear-filter" in the book by the Doctor, so it wasn't one of my own terms for it!

Cheers James Random 09:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Raxacoricofallipatorians
Slitheen is a family name dude "Slitheen isn't our race, it's our name..." - Just re-corrected it to the above title, the BBC sent me an email admitting this particular mistake of referring to Raxacoricofallipatorians as "Slitheen" so it's all bona-fide. Hope you don't take offence to my editing,. James Random 11:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who serials

 * Seconded — Natha  n  ( talk ) 18:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey pal!
I've started a Doctor Who Glossary of Terms and Names, but there's not much in it. It'd be really cool if you could add to it, its mostly to list relatively minor things such as Waterhive, The and such as the like, but goes on to give brief details on major things such as Daleks as well as links to their articles.

Have a look and see what you think.

James Random 15:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The scope of that list was far far too large. Tim! 17:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I know
Yeah - I'm trying to make the glossary have as many obscure details as possible to avoid deletion votes, so maybe you could help out there. I'm not against anyone deleting stuff that already exists, but there isn't much info on things such as Quevvils and Toop and so on and so forth, so those are mainly the things that I'm trying to cover.

Thanks for the input, matey!

James Random 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your user page
A recent bot edit seems to messed up your user page. I hope you don't mind my fixing it. smurrayinch e  ster( User ), ( Talk ) 17:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sam Hill
Check the page on Prescott, AZ- there is a reference to Sam Hill that mat interest you.

Hello Smartypants
And what means would you suggest, eh? James Random 10:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who Edit (unnecessary detail covered in Doctor (Doctor Who))
Just curious as to why you thought it was unnecessary. I'm not complaining as I'm new to this whole 'edit an encyclopedia' thing. I was just curious as to why you thought it was less of an interest than hints that he may of had more than 9 regenerations for example?

Peace --Jjmoreland 16:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again
greetings. I put some hello's in Chinese (Hong Kong and Mainland) but I'm not sure if the spelling is correct, could you please check these spelling and correct them? It's on my Userpage James Random

doctor who and the monsters
doctor who and the monsters was a season cause they showed 3 stories not 1!


 * nah, it was a set of repeats mate.Jaime9526jaime9526

Fear Her / Edna Doré
Hi, Khaosworks. I've noticed that you have put a trivia item about Edna Doré that is under dispute back in the Fear Her article. If you could hop over to the talk page of that article to discuss, I hope we can come to an agreement, since the item seems to have been removed and replace multiple times. -- MisterHand 14:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking
Do you mind blocking this IP? It has been vandalising even after we warn it. Thanks.-- Tdxi an  g  07:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, sir, in helping me fight vandals. See you soon, perhaps on IRC.-- Tdxi an  g  08:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

T-Man Ban
I DEMAND his immediate ban. He just reverted my work in List of Batman: The Animated Series episodes in its entirety, with complete disregard for naming conventions, and a complete disregard of my edits for consistency of "Part One" and "Part I" (he of course being all over the map on this). DOES HE GET TO OWN THIS PAGE? If so, then Wikipedia is a pathetic excuse for a resourse. I HAVE HAD IT WITH THIS BOOR. He is a complete waste of everyone's time. Why do we put up with this??? And how long does he get to defame me with impunity on his talk page? I DEMAND that all mentions of my by him be deleted NOW!!!! -- Dyslexic agnostic 07:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who - Jackie Tyler, Not a Companion? How do you figure?
How is Jackie Tyler not a companion while Adam Mitchell was, especially now that Jackie has actually travelled in the TARDIS?

Garth 187 21:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I got your point. Makes sense to me! Garth 187 10:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

IP block "too"?
In addition to what?--84.51.149.80 16:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Irony in the Sontaran Experiment
Hello!

It isn't ironic that, in order to "sell" us on the clone angle, the Production staff go through the trouble of hiring the same actor for Styre that they had for Lynx, but then use so much different make-up that the actor looks completely different?

Is my definition of "ironic" that far off?

BTW, you do a great job cleaning up the Doctor Who stuff!

Walt

Your edit to Cybertrooper
Your recent edit to Cybertrooper (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot4 10:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Schlechter Wolf"
Hi Khaosworks. I notice you've been reverting people who say that "Schlechter Wolf" simply means "Bad Wolf." Before you do so again, please read what I've posted on the relevant talk page. ~ CZeke 11:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence Miles
Hi

I notice you seem to have reverted my update to the Lawrence Miles page ... can we talk about it? I'm new to the whole Wikipedia thing ...

Cheers

David (david@howeswho.co.uk)

Doctor Who Doomsday Episode
Please explain why you rudely amended every part of the doomsday episode page. Many people had made contributions and the page was very good. Then you came along and deleted the whole thing, and rewrote it yourself! How rude. I am disgusted! You have even used language which some people will not even be able to understand. I urge you to think twice before completely redrafting work which many people have worked hard on. Consider others and don't be so ignorant! What right do you have? the redrafting was unnecessary and the new version is worse than it was before! Shame on you!

Why
Why do you keep removing what I add to the Trivia section. Its actualy true. 86.139.106.168 14:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point
I see your point now that I look at the past versions of the doomsday page. I apologise for my "in-your-faceness". Please except my apologies and know that I respect the changes you have made. I should have checked past page more closely. Sorry again. Daniel Supreme 15:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Captain America
I'm watching out for User:Sage99 and well, and posted a desist request at User_talk:Sage99. I think he just hit 3R. If you want to report it, I'll support you and you can include my name. --Tenebrae 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On it. So I guess you're either in Europe or work the night shift :-) -- Tenebrae 15:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa!
 * 3RR filed here: Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard.--Tenebrae 16:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize Khaosworks/Tenebrae. I thought my information was being ignored. In Young Men 24 it tells us the level of degree and states increased to a Supernormal degree. The defintion for Supernormal is: Beyond what is normal, thanks for helping with the Cap bio.Sage99 18:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Article on The Nice?
I see you've reverted my edits to Narbonic. It's usually preferable to discuss such edits at the very least with the parties involved or on the Talk page of the article in question.

In any case, you state that The Nice group of cartoonists is notable, though I can't find evidence to suggest such a thing. Can you create an article for the group and include your references to it so we can use an internal as opposed to external link to refer to the organization? Thank you. Fagstein 04:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Webcomics Nation
Actually, WebcomicsNation.com was being considered for speedy deletion. Webcomics Nation, on the other hand, has a claim of importance, so it can't be speedied. I don't think it would even get deleted after an AfD -- I've seen much worse topics survivre AfD. So, I think you ought to put the link to Webcomics Nation back into Narbonic. -- Dragonfiend 04:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Douglas Adams and the Celebrity Whovians category
Actually there IS plenty of evidence :) In the 13 November 1999 interview on BBC Radio 4, included on Doctor Who at the BBC vol. 1 AND Douglas Adams at the BBC, Adams talks about watching the show from very nearly the beginning, and says that Hartnell and Tom Baker were his two favorite Doctors. One of the documentaries included with the City of Death DVD set also makes the joke that "no fan of the series would be allowed to write for it now, would they?" and then goes on to interview the current writers, fans all. --JohnDBuell 11:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Zygon.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Zygon.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Yates.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Yates.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 20:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

alternate
Alternate means "every other" or "each following and succeeded by the other in the regular pattern" when used as an adjective in British English. Tim! 11:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Parallel is used predominantly in the script though rather than alternate. Tim! 12:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And what about Anti-plastic?
Banana and pocket watch appear more often then anti-plastic. And bananas are even as popular in the latest series as jelly babies in previous!

Yep, new series, right. But what about Colin Baker? He has banana in his pocket too. I've seen only one episode with him - The Two Doctors - it was there. --Ferra 14:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Still want banana to be, but OK, thanks for keeping watches howbeit :) --Ferra 14:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Hey, congratulations on becoming a judge! (Sorry it's two months late, but I don't check-in to Wikipedia very often.) -- Ravenswood 22:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarah-Jane Investigates
Sorry for diving in too quickly with the change to Template:Doctor-who - I checked the template talk page but should have had a glance at the history to see if anyone else had thought to add it. I'm more than happy to accept the consensus that it's a bit too soon. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Danoneill.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Danoneill.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Angr 13:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Girl in the Fireplace
Hi there, I've just launched a new thread on The Girl in the Fireplace to respond to your reversion of my edits. (As I say there, no offence is meant - just good old Wikipedian discussion). But as it's basically a response to you I thought it would be courteous to give you a heads-up on this page too. Cheers...Peeper 19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Iron Fist
Khaosworks I don't know if you've been following the discussion on Iron Fist Talk pages but I was wondering if you could look into it. Some folks seems to be hung up on images in a tables format. I've check most of the other comic pages and they all seem to have a bunch of covers or other images. I don't think 8 is excessive. What is your opinion?? I think the martial arts character is so unknown that having Key images is crucial for the uninitiated. I understand fair use and all of that but there really are tons of comic cover images throughout wikipedia are these 8 really jeopardizing anything?? I initially put the images in a table so they would


 * A. Be at the end of the article and out of the way
 * B. Tried to avoid the formatting issue that we had in Shang Chi

The user A Man In Black really seems to monopolize articles with his opinions and interpretations of the policies and guidelines and leave no room for interpretation unless they are his. What do you suggest?? Thanks FrankWilliams 15:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok Thanks for the input. I'll think about building a stronger case.FrankWilliams 22:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Martha
If i'm going to waste my time cropping and uploading images to be used do me a favour and delete the image upload so i dont get spammed by OrphanBot thanks :)  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 13:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers.  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who Plot Sumamries
Hi. We corresponded some time ago about the style and content of DW plot summaries, of which you know I have contrbuted quite a few. I notice that you contributed your unease on the talk page for The Daleks after the radical rewrite therein. You may have noticed I have tried to stimulate a more general debate on the general Doctor Who Project talk page before this rewrite process goes any further. If there's consensus for change, I'm happy to accept it, but at the moment I feel one person's vision is being rolled out without full debate. I'd appreciate your steer on this. Litefoot 09:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Tardis-hieroglyph.png
I was attempting to show the utter lack of camouflage that a police box would give for the vast majority of history (in a section which explains the broken chameleon circuit). But I suppose you're right, it doesn't really fit. I just thought it was a neat picture. Don't suppose there's another article it might fit in? └ O z L a w y e r  / talk  ┐ 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotation mark characters
Personally I think we should use the directional Unicode characters “ and ” (which btw are not "smart quotes", that's a word processor feature that replaces quotation marks with a "smart" algorithm), but if you're changing them you might as well do “If This Goes On—” too. —Keenan Pepper 10:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Interested in RfB?
Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. I have been thinking about nominating you as a Bureaucrat on Wikipedia. Are you interested in taking up the extra responsibility? You are a great editor and I feel that it is time to expand your technical capabilities for this project. Hope to hear from you soon. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  09:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

in re Midnight Caller
谢谢 for cleaning this up CyntWorkStuff 17:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Block of Daffy Duck
While I don't want to condone Daffy's incivility, It is not a great practice to be blocking people with whom you are engaged in an editing disagreement. Get the help of another admin so that your actions are not seen as being vindictive. Had you called on me, I would have declined because of my own edit battles with Daffy. At this point, you might want to unblock him and bring it up at WP:ANB/I. -- Samuel Wantman 08:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't want to unblock Daffy. I don't think the block is unjustified. I just think that you weaken your own position as an admin by doing the block yourself. It is very easy to post on ANB/I. By having someone else do the block it strengthens your position as an admin and gives you more authority. There are good reasons for the policy, beyond whether or not you can be fair and impartial in this situation. Perceptions are as important as the facts involved in the block. I'm not just talking about what Daffy thinks of you, but how others may percieve your actions, such as myself. No matter how justified I think your block is, now I have an image of you as perhaps being someone who might loose their calm in a frustrating situation. Looking through your block history, I don't see anything similar to this, so I'm not concerned. I just seems that if you are going to block someone for incivility, you should do it in the most well behaved manner possible, and that would be getting another admin involved. --Samuel Wantman 09:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm glad you have taken my comments exactly as I meant them to be taken. I don't want to belabor this, and I think you have addressed my concerns. Going to ANB/I is not just paying homage to the process. In our discussion, the process still was followed (except that I am probably not an un-biased editor in regards to Daffy). Following the process would probably have been a more efficient use of both of our efforts. -- Samuel Wantman 19:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Move of The Massacre of St Bartholomew’s Eve
Hi, I moved The Massacre of St Bartholomew’s Eve to The Massacre of St Bartholomew's Eve. You reverted that with the comment "rv move to use non-unicode character". Yes, of course. But: Why? Do you think the correct title would be with that non-unicode character in this case or do you think it would be correct with the unicode character but unicode characters shouldn't be used? --Tobias Schmidbauer 11:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who - The Face of Boe and Beholders
''unnecessary comparison, and not to mention the only resemblance is that it's a head. He bears more resemblance to Futurama's heads in jars''

Unnecessary comparison perhaps, but he has a fair amount in common with a Beholder. The Face has head-tentacles with strange blobby bits on the ends of them; they certainly have a resemblance to the Beholder's eyestalks. I'd say they have more in common than not; he's got one more (main) eye than they have and he's a nicer bloke.

But you know, fair enough. I just thought you were a bit off in saying there's no resemblance. Kelvingreen 15:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

New New New New New New New ... York
Wondering why you removed this from the list of fictional cities - in the episode, the Doctor specifies that this is the correct name of the city they visit on New Earth. Adambrowne666 22:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he doesn't say it's the "correct" name: he says that it's called "New New York", but that technically, it should be "New New New..." etc. because it's the fifteenth one. Later on, the police announce themselves as the "New New York" police department, so the longer name is not what the "correct" name is. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - what if I added it parenthetically to the New New York entry? - I reckon it's notable enough for at least a little aside like that. Adambrowne666 00:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Alma mater category
Fancy joinginCategory:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen Mary, University of London? Timrollpickering 08:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Robin Hood characters
Should they have their own articles or not?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 13:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

WTF do u mean?
What "nonsense" did I add? --Ramirez Martinez Gomez 2250 06:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Im sorry. It was all a joke. I'll remember for next time. --Ramirez Martinez Gomez 2250 06:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Stargate (device)
Just curious - in the quote "pull[ing] out of a simulated bombing run in an F-16 at eight plus gees", why is there brackets around the [ing]? If we got it from a transcript, it must be a mistake as they would just say the word "pulling". Anyway.. just thought I'd ask because it was confusing me. :-) Morphh 15:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Logos
Using logos on a template where they do not directly illustrate the article is not a necessary use of Fair Use media as covered by our guidelines. You must make a Fair Use claim for each use of the logo, and the context would probably have to be a discussion of the evolution of the logo, or at least something that actually referred to the image. Thanks, ed g2s &bull; talk 19:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Suicide Squad
Here is the parody http://www.tv.com/codename-kids-next-door/operation-h.o.t.s.t.u.f.f.---operation-m.i.s.s.i.o.n./episode/745741/summary.html?tag=ep_list;title;9Brian Boru is awesome 02:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Isolus
Thanks for trying to be flexible. I understand you have more experience on both the topic and Wikipedia editing in general, but why assume the Isolus will only appear in the one episode? Wouldn't it be smart to have the Isolus section in the actual aliens page? Right now it is good, but if they appear in another episode then reediting is going to be necessary. 1) Redirecting a Isolus search directly to the "Fear Her" episode will have to be removed, 2) moving the Isolus info from the "Fear Her" episode to the alien page if not it's own page will have to be done, and 3) like you mentioned earlier, multiple screenshots on a Doctor Who episode page is not preferable to the community. I won't touch the articles anymore, but I think it is better to do everything proper the first time rather than later. --Evmore 05:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:McGann.png usage
Could you drop a link to the page(s) where this image is being used (because they don't show up in the list). This will head off any future issues with it being an orphan fairuse image. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversion
Could I ask why you reverted by edit here, when it provided a link to a list of Torchwood episodes, which would flesh out the List of Torchwood episodes article?--84.51.149.80 12:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, it led to a list of synopses and episode titles on my browser. As for it being unsigned, well. While I respect that this is WP policy, who cares?--84.51.149.80 14:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that "it's your call" (is Singapore really that Americanised?), but I still think it's a bit petty.--84.51.149.80 14:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who episode breaks
I've now read the style guide, which doesn't explain why such an arbitrary choice was made, and because it was arbitrary I disagree with it. Simply scattering horizontal rules through the plot summary carries no intrinsic meaning, and I'll wager the majority of casual readers will have no idea why they're there, as I did not. Users of Wikipedia shouldn't have to read the style guide — which is intended for project members and editors, not the general reading public — in order to understand your article layout. As for "cluttering up the COT", that's ridiculous. Organizing the elements of the plot in such a way that they can be accessed separately as needed from an outline (which is what the COT is) is just that, organizing it, not "cluttering it up". A finely branched and properly organized outline is a more useful research tool than one consisting solely of major subtopics, and to suggest otherwise implies a basic lack of understanding of outlines and their purpose. If you're not interested in subdividing the plot summary by episode, then there should be no distinction between episodes; the use of horizontal rules — especially since elsewhere in Wikipedia (and in typography and pagination in general) they're used to designate breaks between subtopics, not breaks within subtopics — simply confuses the issue. I won't attempt to correct any of your project articles again, rest assured; I have no interest in turf battles defending arbitrary rules, no pun intended. --Canonblack 10:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

abuse
i keep gettig abuse from some knitwhit, is it you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Supreme (talk • contribs).

i keep getting emails from someone about the doctor who issue which include offensive language and insults to my religion (see my page) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Supreme (talk • contribs).

no you nincompoop, see my page for my religion.

i keep receiving E_MAILS! are you sure its not you, perhaps you have memory loss —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Supreme (talk • contribs).

don't call me dude you patronising fool —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Supreme (talk • contribs).

you called me dude! very well, if you wish to end this i will go. let us never speak of this again —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Supreme (talk • contribs).

Reply to your message.
In response to your message: "As stated in my edit summary, a person's age cannot be said to be "Not applicable". Secondly, "sparks a romantic relationship" is grammatically unsound - people don't "spark" a relationship. Factors and circumstances do. Please address these concerns before you revert again. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are in violation of WP:MOS when it comes to headers. In addition, "origination" is not the word you think it means (it's not even good English in this context); Salaryman and Cam whore are not split words or capitalized respectively; Nathan has to be older than Peter; Peter's power has been confirmed by a reference. Keep this up without explanation and I will assume that your are purposely being disruptive and I will block you accordingly. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC) When you do not reply to overtures on your talk page, and simply revert back to your own edits without explanation despite the reasons given to you in edit summaries, then it becomes very difficult to assume good faith. If you can edit the article, you can edit your own talk page, so I don't see what the difficulty is. I don't apologize for the warning: at least it got your attention. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)"

I Am Not a Vandal 1. Sorry for the confusion. I finally got a response from the help desk. I am not a vandal. I had no idea at all how to reply or see the talk page. I received your message, but was completely unaware of how to reply back. I also was unaware that there was a method for explaining my revisions on the edit summary. I now see that under the edit.

2. Your belligerence is unappreciated. You could have messaged me, and explained clearly the proper way to message you back, and how to use the edit summary feature. Thankfully, there was a good person from the help desk to let me know how to respond to your message. I am not here to be disruptive. All of us here are working very hard to make this article the best it can be. Please refrain from presumptions about our intentions. They are not appreciated. It is much easier to say, “I will assume that your are purposely being disruptive and I will block you accordingly”. This is attitude is far more easier than actually taking the time to understand the situation of others. It is easier than taking the time to help them understand how to use this interface. Simply assume they are a vandal, and block them makes life a lot easier.

I myself have contributed a great deal of time and effort to provide accurate and legible information on this page only to be turned around and accused of intentionally falsifying or destroying it. Much of the work on this page was created through my time and effort for the sake of providing thorough information about the subject for the users that browse it. Wikipedia is for users and supported by users through our donations to keep a good encyclopedia free for everybody. Your threats and belligerence are not the way to treat people.

Taking time and effort to understand the position of others is how to make this a better place. This place should not be about belligerence, assumptions, closed mindedness, and prejudice conclusions. It is a place where people can share information in a friendly and respectful manner. Objectivity and open minded. Taking the time to understand and assist see the point of view for others. Not hostile and presumptuous. It is not right to accuse people of being a vandal and “assume” they are vandals when there is no proof or evidence for it. The proof has to be beyond reasonable doubt. That is what reasonable doubt is about. It is what being reasonable means. Assuming based on prejudgments and presumptions is not what being reasonable is about. You have to investigate and understand for sure if a person is intentionally vandalizing by showing them how to respond properly. Instead you make an assumption. The assumption is incorrect. And the results are disastrous. I hope somebody does this to you so you can know how it feels to be accused of something that you are not. Jumping to conclusions about people is abuse. There is no justification for this attitude.

Users put a lot of time and effort to put correct information on this page. We are not here in anyway to be disruptive. You and all of us are here for the same reason. To create an informative page with true and accurate information. The assumptions and hostility might work great for you, but there are better ways to handle situation.

3. I did not know that there was a proper standard for those headers that I changed. I will try to fit the title correctly in my edits.

4. You are right about my misuse of the word origination. I will make efforts to correct this as well. I am not perfect, and I appreciate all corrections to my mistakes.

5. Peter’s powers are not Mimicry until the show itself confirms it.

A. Anything up until the airtime of a series can be changed, and therefore, is considered unconfirmed. Once it appears on the series, it is confirmed and no longer disputable. Until the show itself reveals Peter’s power is Mimicry, his powers are up for speculation. Please do not be belligerent. All of us here can come to agreements about our differences peacefully without fighting over edits. You cannot claim Peter’s power to be Mimicry until the show itself reveals it.

B. Spoilers are intended for those who have already seen the show. A person sees the spoiler warning. If they have already seen the episodes, they might not want to see spoilers that give away episodes that have already aired. They might think that it is safe to view past the spoiler warning because they have already seen the episode. Then they see spoilers that had not yet even been featured in the show. It is easy to blame them for the mistake, but we must take at least some responsibility in ensuring we are not spoiling future shows with the information. Only spoiling current shows that have already aired.

A spoiler means that if you have already seen it, it is safe to view. If not you have not seen it, the show will be spoiled. If we put spoilers for future episodes that nobody has ever seen because it is impossible for them to see into the future, it is not fair to them. If they have seen the episodes that have aired, they should have no problem going to reading the article without any future shows to be ruined.

Our choice is to either: -Omit anything that has not aired yet as unconfirmed because anything can be changed, and therefore not fully confirmed material for an encyclopedia. -Change the spoiler warning to warn the viewers of this show that there will be spoilers for episodes that have not aired.

6. I did not know about the words salaryman and camwhore. Thank you for correcting them. Please do not be belligerent. I appreciate honest corrections when I am in the wrong.

7. >30 is not a valid age. I found out through research that Nathan is actually 41.

9. My edit was changed 2 seconds after I posted it. Nobody even read it. They just automatically assumed that the whole thing was bad, and replaced it. This is what I mean by unreasonable and ill-mannered behavior. These people do not know how to conduct themselves like adults. Using assumptions to accuse people of vandalism, and refusing to read and understand the points of views of others. This behavior shows what world we are living in.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.130.161 (talk • contribs)

Heroes
I am still learning how to use the talk page. I have only seen the Heroes "talk page" for the first time 1 minute ago. It is not even listed under "talk", but under "discussion".

I was being accused by you that I was not stating the reasons why I made the edits, and so appeared to be a vandal which I am not. Your accusation was not only incorrect, but unreasonable. And I did state my reasons. Only, I stated them in the edits. Everytime I made an edit, I stated why I believed they were sound within the arrow "" brackets.

People were reediting, but I wondered why nobody stated a reason. I now know they have probably responded within the talk page that I now see.

I got Nathan's age from the age of the actor. Just like the ages of all the rest of the characters, I used the age of the actual actor which is 41. The fact is that all of their ages are unknown as characters. I do not know who wrote in the ages of the rest of the characters, but I was the one that wrote Micah's age at 10 based on the same reasoning.

As for Peter's powers, accurate information must be provided. The reference was noted, but his powers are not official until the show airs, Anything referenced can always be changed between now and airtime. Therefore, the reference might say his powers are Mimicry, but they might turn out to be something else when the show finally airs. Decisions made on an interview that was done over a month ago can easily be be changed and updated There is a possibility that he might be revealed to have a different power when the show airs.

Shows do this all the time. I can even give you an example of even this show doing a last minute switch. The actor that played Mohinder's father, Chandra, in Episode 3 is not the same actor that played Chandra in the commercial. I can only speculate that the show received a larger budget, and went with a more reputable actor at the last minute.

Peter's powers can be anything by the time the show airs. Once the show reveals his powers, his powers are official. There is no more changing them without changing the story. Until then, whatever the interview stated anout his powers can be changed at any moment. You cannot claim Peter’s power to be Mimicry until the show itself reveals it.

NOTE: "A. Anything up until the airtime of a series can be changed, and therefore, is considered unconfirmed. Once it appears on the series, it is confirmed and no longer disputable. Until the show itself reveals Peter’s power is Mimicry, his powers are up for speculation. Please do not be belligerent. All of us here can come to agreements about our differences peacefully without fighting over edits. You cannot claim Peter’s power to be Mimicry until the show itself reveals it.

B. Spoilers are intended for those who have already seen the show. A person sees the spoiler warning. If they have already seen the episodes, they might not want to see spoilers that give away episodes that have already aired. They might think that it is safe to view past the spoiler warning because they have already seen the episode. Then they see spoilers that had not yet even been featured in the show. It is easy to blame them for the mistake, but we must take at least some responsibility in ensuring we are not spoiling future shows with the information. Only spoiling current shows that have already aired.

A spoiler means that if you have already seen it, it is safe to view. If not you have not seen it, the show will be spoiled. If we put spoilers for future episodes that nobody has ever seen because it is impossible for them to see into the future, it is not fair to them. If they have seen the episodes that have aired, they should have no problem going to reading the article without any future shows to be ruined.

Our choice is to either: -Omit anything that has not aired yet as unconfirmed because anything can be changed, and therefore not fully confirmed material for an encyclopedia. -Change the spoiler warning to warn the viewers of this show that there will be spoilers for episodes that have not aired."

Wold Newton Wikia
Hi. Saw your suggestion about a Wold Newton wikia, and thought it was an excellent one. I'm currently uploading a bunch of files trees to the WNU Yahoo Group, and may mention the idea there. Please drop me a note. Thanks! Icarus 23 06:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (I Jaked Andrew Levine! -- heh-heh! 9-})

What about a soft block?
You unblocked this IP because "collateral damage - myself", but could you implement a soft block (I think that means they'll have to login to edit)? There's been one blatant vandal edit after the unblock. TransUtopian 19:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem re: not being here all the time. :) Re: "Soft blocks don't always work because the "recently used IP" autoblock can also kick in.", admins/you can't switch off that part of the autoblock when soft blocking? TransUtopian 14:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Avengers issue 1 and 2 content
Please refer to the post I made on the appropriate pages discussion page. re: Avengers article deletion of corrections made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibnfrey (talk • contribs)

Anti-Catholic remarks!
This is getting really pathetic. Why are you sending these extremely abusive comments? How on earth did you get my email address? It must be you because you're the only person who discussed the doomsday issue with me. I received 3 more anti-catholic emails today! this is very upsetting, please stop!

i know you can see my messages. This is pure cowardice if you refuse to respond. clearly you are guilty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Supreme (talk • contribs)

Hiro
No problem (-: - Thanks for using teh "Upload a new version.." feature ;-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

very well
okay, sorry for the "Nincompoop". I'll report this to the wikipedia supervisors and pass it on to relevent authorities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Supreme (talk • contribs).

Fair use
I urge you to participate at Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos in the section 13.4, Are We Going Too Far?. --Yamla 22:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)