User talk:Metatron's Cube

Oregon Ballot Measure 16 (1994)
"rv Metatron's most recent edit. "Unsourced" alone is not sufficient for removal; if you believe the statement false, please discuss on talk page.)"

Actually I believe that the burden is on the believers of that statement to prove it's true. So, to avoid a Reversion War, I'm going to ask on the talk page for someone to confirm that. Then I'll wait for atleast, say, two weeks? Then I'll look at removing it again(depending on the response in the talk page). The above sounds reasonable to me, if it doesn't to you, then comment on my talk page(or the Talk page for Ballot measure).


 * I would not consider myself a "believer," at least prior to EncMstr's addition of a citation. I did not know whether or not the statement was true. I was simply urging you to use a process that leaves a clear record of what happened, so that if someone with knowledge of a citation (like EncMstr) should come along, they can see what happened. If you have good reason to believe a statement is false, removal is justified; but even then, I believe a note should be made on the "talk" page, in addition to the edit summary. Not all editors use their watch lists, or review edit histories. -Pete 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Never considred you were a "believer".

Kairos 07:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Tags
Please apply tags sparingly to articles. Addhoc (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A call to Gayass Wikipedians
I've started a discussion of the recent uproar here. I'm inviting all the other gayasses to join in and see if we can't work toward some unified position to present at the discussion - maybe a move to "Queer" or "LGBT"? Hope you'll look it over. Thanks! --Phyesalis (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude!
I love your userboxes!!!!!!!Norgy (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanxx 4 the reply, I must improve my user page lol... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnhorgan (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

vital force
It's not that the argument's weak - so are many of the other ones. It's the evidence that anyone ever uses it. I've never heard it. Do you have sources for this? The casting seed bit in the Bible referred originally to coitus interruptus, but was later extended to maturbation, and was originally about refusing to reproduce rather than dissipating "vital force". Paul B (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of adding to your ginormous talk page I'll respond here. The main point seems to be that gay's can't repoduce. Which I have heard a lot. So I'll look into renaming it.Kairos (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, sounds like a hint that I should do some archiving. Paul B (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
My bad, feel free to trout-slap me. But I'd recommend you pursue dispute resolution, rather than revert each others actions. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 07:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, OK. I'll consider it. Kairos (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?
Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the Notabilty Templates
I note that you have removed the notability cleanup template--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude chill. THough I DO appreciate you not just reverting my edits, If you really want to improve the articles then try being contructive about it instead of pissing people off. Excessive templating 'can' turn people off an article. In a case like the Sigil/Lady of Pains case requesting an expert or asking a wikiprogect(like the one for D&D or RPG's in general) for help can unltimately be for more fruitful that adding in say 4 or 5 templates.In your specific case, you might want to avoid adding noticability templates for awhile, as people might look askance at you doing it. If you really think an article isn't noteworthy, then I suggest first bring it up in the talk page or maybe ask someone you trust to do so for you(it will help if they do not do so anonymously).Kairos (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Little Question about you Nickname
Do you know any site about Metraton's Cube outiside Wikipedia? --Lucas Gallindo (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fruit of Life http://3rddimension.online.fr/metatron_cube.htm http://www.cubicao.tk/theory/tetrahedron_2.html Kairos (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

James Dobson
Hi, I noticed you took an interest in the article. Would you be interested in helping me drive it to GA/FA status? I think there's plenty of material to work with, but I don't think any one editor can do justice to a BLP of a person who inspires such diverse feelings. Interested? Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid my emotions might interfere with my efforts, though I can try to lend a hand. DOn't be afreaid to offer constructive critism of my edits.Kairos (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No editor should ever be compelled to do work on an article they find emotionally draining. I've been looking for an LGBT editor who's willing to partner with me on this for a while; it can certainly wait longer. My goal is to ultimately have an FA on Dobson in place by the time he dies, which it needs to accurately capture the man so many revere and so many revile--tough job! BTW, I agree with taking the homosexuality debate material out of Dobson's article--there are plenty of other places it can go. At any rate, if you change your mind, the offer stands. As is, the article sucks a lot less than when I started working with it, and I've tried to be fair to proponents and critics alike, but one person has so many more blind spots than two. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Your deletions on Talk:Homosexuality
You're absolutely right that Bushcutter's and 64.203.117.90's contributions to Talk:Homosexuality were pointless rants. Nevertheless, they comprised part of the structure of the section, and certain other editors' posts don't make sense without them. It might have been better if no one (including myself) had responded to what they wrote, but we did. . . so unless we purge those responses as well—not a great idea—the comments probably should be restored so that the section makes sense. Also, WP:Soapbox can be a little bit subjective: while the material you removed is absurd and based on ignorance and disinformation, it is also more or less on-topic, and I think it's often better to assume good faith on talk pages and take a liberal view of what is allowed. If nothing else, it displays certain editors' ignorance and prejudice, and maybe that's not a bad thing for it to be out in the open. What do you think? I can revert but would prefer that you do it, if you more or less agree. Rivertorch (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you revert? YOu caught me as I was going to bed...... Kairos (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All right. I'll even restore the comment you made after you purged the obnoxious rants. Am I awake enough to not screw it up? Rivertorch (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability tags
I see that you've been helping remove Gavin's crazed tagging, but I need to request that you stop simply removing notability and importance tags. Please do remove Notability tags, but replace the with importance, and don't delete importance tags. Many of the articles do need to demonstrate their notability, which the importance tag does without putting the article on a timer. That tag is completely reasonable on many articles; the main problem is the notability tag. Thank you for your help in this situation. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Gavin.collins
Hello. :) Could you please comment here on the latest outbreak of activity from Gavin.collins? Thank you. BOZ (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

New proposition regarding D&D article notability
Hi! I know that you have recently been active in some Dungeons & Dragons articles, so I thought that I'd point out a new proposition that I made regarding their notability at WT:D&D. Any input on the idea would be much appreciated. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT
Do not refer to good faith contributions as "vandalism" as you did here. A content dispute is not considered vandalism and calling a long time contributor a "vandal" is considered a personal attack. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I woudln't call Gavin Collins a long time "contributor". And due to his conflicts with the wikiproject D&D over Notability makes ANY edit he makes here {until it's resolution} IMO is innapropriate.Kairos (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not how Wikipedia works. Anyone is free to edit or change whatever they want. If there is a dispute, we assume good faith, revert back to the old consensus, and discuss how to move forward. Accusing someone of bad faith is considered a breach of WP:CIVILITY and is inappropriate. Doing it repeatedly can be considered disruptive. I know you and Gavin probably disagree about a lot of content, but that disagreement must not become personal, and must not devolve into questioning each others' motives. Randomran (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There has been a long-ongoing dispute regarding Dungeons & Dragons articles between User:Gavin.collins and the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject (prominent members who have been involved in the dispute include User:BOZ, User:Drilnoth, User:Shadzar, and User:Webwarlock). Problems: The issue started because of Gavin.collin's tagging. He often tags articles with templates such as notability, context, in-universe, plot, nofootnotes, and unreferenced, typically adding multiple tags at once. Examples include (although there are many more, as seen in his contributions:, . Some members of the project have been lead to believe that he also does not read the articles he tags. For example, he made the following three edits within a 1 minute period: , , . At this point, unfortunately, the tagging is only part of the problem. Gavin seems to be quick to accuse others of vandalism, Conflict of Interest, and of "hiding something". There have been large amounts of edit warring (visible on most D&D articles, including, ) and unproductive discussion, which oftentimes gets rather heated on both sides(evident by the following: , , , and most of the archives at WT:D&D, most notably , , , and ). Kairos (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. None of that means his edit was vandalism.  I'm not saying you should be happy about his edit, or seek to not change it, or not seek redress if you think he's messing things up.  All I'm saying is that you can't simply revert his edits as vandalism. Protonk (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the dispute between the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject and Gavin.collins. Thank you. -- BOZ (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U
Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed against Gavin.collins. Since you have been involved in the dispute regarding his disruptive edits, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

BlackWarGreymon
Hi there, I haven't edited the BalckWarGreymon or any article for that matter in a very long time. Either your mistaken or very late. Your post on my page says December 23, 2008. The last time that I edited that article was April 28, 2007.--Mmmundo (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just very late. Sorry for the confusion.!Kairos (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer
Would you mind explaining this edit of yours, reverting back to that mess and, in response to me, saying that we do things like that here? Um...I assure you that we do not. Per Wikipedia, plot summaries should not be too long, and we should not treat plot sections as if its events actually happened in real life (they should righfully be labeled Plot, Storyline, or Character history).

Wikipedia is not about plot-filled and messy articles (even though plenty are like that here). Articles here should be professional-looking, not fansite-ish.

I have worked on and fixed up the Luke and Noah article pratically since it was started. Obviously, I am looking out for its best interest. I was not simply removing all that mess just to be a bully or annoying.

It is what it is. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You staing that something is a mess, or that putting in dates that deal with when certain plotlines aired is somehow magically dealing like the story as if it were real, do not make your statements real. You did NOT make the article "cleaner" or "less messier" with your edits. Kairos (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PLOT, Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Plot summaries and How to write a plot summary all disagree with you. Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you honestly believe that with all that plot summary, Luke and Noah's article would not get called messy and cited as needing "cleanup" and that its plot should be cut down, by other editors evaluating the article, then you are mistaken and obviously have not been through or witnessed this with as many fictional topic articles as I have.


 * I will be adding more real-word information to Luke and Noah's article soon and will be cutting down that plot section. One way to have that plot section be as long as you reverted it to, though, is to have it described from a real-world perspective all the way through, with comments from the actors, creators, writers or producers of the series about the storylines. That section should still be called a plot, character history, synopsis, or storyline, though. Example: The featured article Pauline Fowler.


 * As I stated, I am only doing what's best for that article. I am not trying to be some annoyance to you or anyone else on Wikipedia (even when I am).


 * I've got work to go attend to; I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality
Hey, I noticed your participation here: Talk:Homosexuality/Archive_11. Check out the new one: Talk:Homosexuality Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship. How's everything going?

I don't know if you've been around in a while, but I'd like to point out to you the success we've had with the D&D GA-drive so far: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and we plan to hit Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) after some work. :)

If you're interested in coming around to check out what we've been up to, you are welcome as always. :) BOZ (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Goat Star
The award is documented in User:Chzz/Recipients of the Goat Star. I am working to progress William Windsor to Good Article status, so please look in some time. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  22:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)