User talk:Noclevername/Archive 2

Thanks!
Thanks for the work on Space warfare in fiction. However, the page just got deleted (due to lack of sources) and because you restarted it again, it was speedily deleted. Just so you know, I userfied it and myself and other Wikipedians are working on a copy to post later on (when the sources are proper so that it may not be deleted again). It can be found here. Please don't recreate the article again in the same fashion (without many sources). I do not wish for the page to get salted (means that no article can be created under that name).

Thanks!

 S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  06:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note
I just happened to be looking through your discussion page and history there of and noticed that you have been deleting posts from other users. This practice is against wikipedia policy so if you can please place them back. I did the same thing before with a user who just put some nonsense but that unfortunetly how it is. Thought you should know. Thefro552 14:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Dreadlocke ☥  03:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My reply:
 * You Seem To Be Confused
 * At no time have I made any "personal attacks" or insults directed at you. I have stated my disagreement with some of your statements about article content; this is, after all, the purpose of Talk pages, but you seem to take my remarks very personally. I think you should probably go back and read my comments again, in an open-minded and objective frame of mind, before accusing me of making personal attacks. Merely telling you that I don't think a statement is right is neither insulting nor personal. I hope that you understand and will in the future receive criticisms in a more even-tempered way; there was certainly no malice intended in my remarks. Thank you for your consideration. --- Noclevername 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dreadlocke"


 * Just to clarify, in your edit this sentence is a comment about the contributor and not the content, and violates WP:NPA:


 * "since your defensiveness is clearly interfering with your ability to notice the suggestion I made in the above comment about the article"


 * Follow NPA and make no further comments about me! Stick to editorial comments about the contents of the article.  You are no longer welcome on my talk page unless it is to make an apology.  Dreadlocke  ☥  04:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I give up trying. This guy needs to read the definition of personal attack (not to mention "staying cool").


 * In response to your posting at Wikiquette alerts, you [did say your defensiveness is clearly interfering with your ability to notice the suggestion I made in the above comment about the article. If you are determined to interpret every critique as a personal attack ... . My interpretation is that this is a violation of [[WP:AGF]], but I agree with you that it's not a personal attack.


 * So, if I had to summarize the situation quickly (please let me know if you think this is wrong), I'd say that (a) you did in fact do something wrong (WP:AGF), though that is of much less importance (I believe this is generally agreed) than violating WP:CIVIL) or WP:NPA); (b) the other editor was correct that you did something wrong (because you should be commenting about content, not about what you think the other editor's mental state is) but cited WP:NPA rather than WP:AGF; (c) you correctly argued that you hadn't violated WP:NPA, as was charged, but (d) extended that (incorrectly) to argue that you hadn't done anything wrong at all; and (e) the other editor didn't realize that he should have been discussing WP:AGF, and so (f) thought that you were being intransigent when you wouldn't admit to an WP:NPA violation.


 * In short, I think this is a case of two positive contributors, a minor crossing of boundaries (WP:AGF), and a frustrating interchange because your posting was wrong (I believe) but the reason why it was wrong wasn't incorrectly explained. If that analysis seems correct to you (again, if not, please let me know), then I recommend that you either drop a line to the other editor apologizing (something like "While I still don't believe I violated WP:NPA, I now realize that I violated WP:AGF, and I apologize for that."), or you can simply let the matter drop.  If you do the second, I'd appreciate your letting me know, since I would then like to drop a note to the other editor to ensure that he does understand the difference.  If you do the first, please do not tell the other editor  was wrong, because that's likely to engender yet more bad feelings.


 * Hope this helps, and that you continue your good work here. -- John Broughton  (☎☎) 06:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My Reply:


 * Thank you for responding.


 * I wish to clear up a miscommunication: my reference to "defensiveness" was referring to the tone and content of his posts, and was not intended as a personal remark. If Dreadlocke has also made this mistake, I believe that may be why he kept referring to me as "commenting on [him]". I will attempt to convey this information to him, and apologize for being unclear. Thank you for providing an outside point of view; sometimes that's all it takes ;).


 * You're welcome. Some more (unsolicited, this time) advice regarding this: my reference to "defensiveness" was referring to the tone and content of his posts - yes, but please don't think that is neutral or even constructive.  "Tone" gets into behavior and motivation and is inherently subjective; it basically says "I'm not commenting on what you said, but how you said it.  And that isn't a good idea.  It's much easier to get an editor to agree on a compromise in wording in an article if you don't critique his style, and getting to agreements on wording is the goal here (as well as enjoying what we do).


 * Again, it's nice to be talking to someone reasonable (the last person who posted to my user talk page left an unpleasant, albeit vague and pointless threat); and it's best to learn from minor mistakes and move on. -- John Broughton  (☎☎) 06:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi. You recently made an edit to Skiffy (and it was a good one, and appreciated), however, you left a comment on the talk page, but failed to provide an edit summary for the actual change. If you're going to do one or the other, I think most people (including me) would prefer to just have the edit summary. Your brief comment on the talk page would have made an excellent summary! This is not a major criticism—your contribution to the article was a good one and well justified. It's just something to think about in future. And if you already knew this, and posted the talk page comment after realizing your omission, let me point out that you can set your preferences to warn you when you try to save without an edit summary. I've done this myself, and found it very helpful. Cheers, Xtifr tälk 12:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will. Noclevername

Apology is accepted
Thank you so much for the apology, that means a lot to me. I apologize to you as well. I definitely could have handled the situation much better, and should have.

It's no excuse, but I have dealth with so many rabid and sometimes vicious "pseudo-skeptics", that I sometimes fail to recognize the good editor who is merely trying to improve Wikipedia and not just attack something they don't believe in - and one of the tactics they use is to attack the opposing editor, his character and beliefs, in an attempt to discredit his views and credibility. (Hey, I'm not trying to even come close to suggesting that you were doing this, I'm just trying to explain why I may have been a bit harsher than I should have been).

Thanks again for your apology. To me, this ends our dispute and we can move past it to be friendly (if opposing) editors! Dreadlocke ☥  08:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Dreadlocke. It's always better to discuss these things and clear the air than to exchange heated words. I'm glad we could work things out, and hope that any future discussions will be amicable. --- Noclevername 08:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed! Just don't talk about me!! (Well, unless it's to say how great I am or something...LOL!) Dreadlocke  ☥  08:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thoughtful advice, I'll do my best to follow it closely. Keeping my cool.  What a concept!  LOL!  Ok.  Enough of all that....let's go edit!  And hey, I did read your User page, and I think it helped me understand you better.  My best wishes to you in dealing with all that. Dreadlocke  ☥  08:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of trivia and cultural references in The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius
An editor has nominated List of trivia and cultural references in The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 10:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your help request
I have nominated the article Criticism and response in parapsychology for deletion on 2/04/07, but I do not believe that I properly completed the nom. process. (this was my first Deletion) Today (2/08/07) I re-read the directions (I believe I had been looking at the wrong page) and attempted to correctly add the article to the articles for deletion page, only to find the entire contents of the Talk page reproduced there. I cannot find a way to edit or delete this block of text. Please help. Noclevername 23:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the error, I'll try to help you fix it. In the meantime, I hope these are the instructions you're following: "How to list pages for deletion". Agent 86 01:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now fixed the error and you'll see that the nomination is now listed on the log for February 9. The problem was in the second step of creating the nomination. To create the deletion discussion page, use this template:



Replace PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion; replace Category with a letter indicating the category of the debate; and Reason... with the reasons you think the page should be deleted.

The nomination page you created did not use this template, it appears that you simply cut-and-pasted the discussion from the nominated article's talk page. When you nominate an article for deletion, while there is no one "right" way to do it, it's best to succinctly sum up what reasons you have to support the deletion, including any references to the policies and guidelines that are applicable. Read some of the other AfD nominations to get an idea of how other editors present their cases for nominating an article.

I hope that helps. If any of this needs further explanation, please let me know. Agent 86 01:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Criticism and response in parapsychology
Hi Noclevername,

I don't know how to respond to your proposal to delete the page, because there are no very-specific criticisms being leveled. Why do you want it deleted? If you think it is propaganda, perhaps you could say exactly what about it meets these criteria? If you think it is advocacy, what phraises, ideas, etc. are advocacy? What paragraphs are not NPOV? Have you read WP:DP, Deletion_policy? Basically, you've said which sections you think it violates, but not exactly why or how.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My Reply:
 * Hello, Martinphi. I was trying to be clear on the Talk:Criticism and response in parapsychology page, but I'll try to explain a bit more clearly if I can. According to the criteria under What Wikipedia is not, the article seems to be inappropriate to Wikipedia, since it essentially presents points of view; these statements may be accurately cited, but I do not believe that Wikipedia is the proper place to air disagreements. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to use the article's talk page. Thank you for participating. -- Noclevername 02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mindwipe
I have added a "" template to the article Mindwipe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ju66l3r 22:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gave you some citations. My favorites. Hang in there kidoo. Depression: The Tricks, Try writng lists of things down on 3x5 cards. Things I can do. Things I have accomplished. Things I am proud of, and read them each day, over and over. MAKE yourself believe them by WRITING them down over and over. Check out cognitive distortions. Write down things you are distorting. MAKE yourself do the things you used to like to do. MAKE yourself read a book you enjoy. MAKE yourself listen to music you enjoy. MAKE yourself look at photos of friends and family. MAKE yourself watch a favorite movie, comedies are especially good. You cannot laugh and cry at the same time. MAKE yourself exercise. Go outside if you can. NO alcohoic beverage of any kind. Not a glass of wine or beer, nothing. Remember a place or time when you were very happy and imagine yourself there. Try to capture the feeling. Read books by Albert Ellis You can buy used ones cheap. Start with: A Rational Guide to Living. He's the best. User:Kazuba 22 Feb 2007

Edit summaries
Hi, I've been checking out your edits to Futurama articles and I think you're doing really good work I do have a small complaint though as your edit summary for nearly every edit is "minor edit" which isn't very descriptive. Something like "grammar" "spelling" or "formatting" would give people a better idea of what you had done. Also, removing rather large sections of text from the article (like here might not be considered minor by some editors and may even be considered controversial to some. While I agree with this change I just thought I'd suggest that in the future you not mark this as a minor edit or give a description such as "removing inaccurate/speculative culture references". I think it will help you avoid possible confrontations in the future.  Thanks for making the good edits and keep up the good work! Also have you considered joining WikiProject_Futurama? We're attempting to concentrate our efforts and I think you could be a big help! Stardust8212 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, just wanted to give you a heads up so someone didn't take issue with it later. Stardust8212 18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want to reinforce the first sentence of the previous comment. You recently made a useful addition to the Q-ball article. Your edit summary was "minor edit", but since it was already flagged m that doesn't add any info. It would have been nice if you could have written something a bit more explicit, like "added link to cue ball article". Anyway, thank you for your participation. Dark Formal 20:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction
Since you've edited this list considerably, I was wondering if you had any opinions as to what could be done to clean it up, deal with all the red links with no annotations (and possible non-notable items), and generally ensure that all the entries are actually on-topic. I've raised some concerns previously on the talk page, for reference. –Unint 23:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hothouse (novel)
Thanks for the corrections; they improve the article. I was particularly amused at my original use of the term "coaxing it into a bowel". A bowel?! Yes. Freudian slip? Who can tell. Heh.  Gardener of Geda  | Message Me.... 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiGnome
You can;t really call yourself a WikiGnome, as it would be a misuse of the term by definition. The fact that you bring it up with reference to yourself calls up attention, which a WikiGnome, by Definition, does not. Just thought you might want to reevaluate that definition. Remember, doing good, incremental edits is not what defines a WikiGnome, but the lack of attention seeking.TheGreenFaerae 11:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be mean or bitter. I'm simply noting that calling one's self a WikiGnome is a paradox. You are free to do as you wish, but you should be aware that a rather testy admin would view it as fraud, and I have seen people banned for misuse of terms. I think that's bogus, but you should be aware that it could happen.TheGreenFaerae 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Psychic
Would you be insulted were I the one to tell you that that is a good edit you did on the Psychic article? (=  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed the Skepticism section a little. The thing about "it breaks physical laws" or whatever, was a bad argument, and not fair to skeptics, and we can't make the absolute claim that the evidence is unverified.  See what you think.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we keep trying. It really needs a culture section, but I know nothing about that -don't watch enough TV.  It's fine with me to merge the articles you just tagged- Skeptical view into Controversy.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. I re-worded some.  There was trouble at the John Edward article over the word "perform," but it can mean both "actually do" or "put on a fake act", so personally I think it is NPOV.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Added books and names...  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good now?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "At least, until everybody and his uncle starts sticking in their uncited, misspelled opinions. Que sera, sera."
 * Yeah. Nice to work with someone instead of against for a change (= .  This is what it would probably be like if I edited other types of articles, huh? (Going to bed.)  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

SIOT
Great to have a skeptical editor(here) who is actually NPOV for once- I spend so much of my time trying to get rid of POVs (:  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I know the feeling; "skeptical" is supposed to mean "waiting until all the evidence is in", not "I've made up my mind, so there!" as so many seem to think it does. My interest is in accurate, verifiable information, not touting a viewpoint or spouting accepted dogma (I thought that's what Wikipedia was supposed to be about) but apparently there are some who don't get that science is about questioning and testing everything and not taking anything for granted. Noclevername 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is so great! That is why I added my name to the Rational Skepticism members list- I am skeptical in the tradition of Truzzi.  Although it does seem to me that the parapsychologists might be onto something.  I don't think that means I'm "not a skeptic."  I'm not sure I've met any other true skeptics on here!  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, we live in the age when Truthiness and the Chewbacca defense rule the world. Too many people believe something is true just because they want it to be true, even when it's already been disproven by direct evidence (Flat Earth, Creationism). I guess I'm just trying to fight against that a little here (talk about a never-ending struggle!) I'm always glad to find someone else who appreciates outdated concepts like "facts" and "evidence"; let's hope they don't become totally obsolete. Noclevername 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Where can I find that Ration Skeptics list? Noclevername


 * You might want to take a look at this- we need editors like you involved:


 * You can find the Rational Skeptic's list here: and main page here  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Psionics
I think Psionics wasn't notable. I think there weren't any sources, because there weren't any sources avaliable. If you want, just revert me, but I redirected it to parapsychology (I don't think anyone really cares about it).  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, so you really want Psionics? What's your take on the article?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, it may be worth it. I tried to find sources once, and could find absolutely nothing.  It seems like just a term, and there would be a lot of chat rooms where it might be mentioned, but no published sources.  It seems like it should be merged with Psi (parapsychology), and put entirly in a popular culture section.  Well, if anyone can find anything...  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Galactic arm, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Owainbut 08:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Transhumanism
Noclevername, Transhumanism is a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article which was featured on the main page of Wikipedia on June 2, 2006. You should therefore be mindful of the fact that the main contributors to this article negociated intensely over several months if not years to produce the current version of the Transhumanism article. Although the article can and should always be tweaked if necessary, the vast majority of your edits do nothing beyond trying to dilute the power of criticisms of transhumanism to appeal to the mind and reason, which clearly diminished the hard-fought neutrality of the article. So, ultimately, please discuss changes to the article on the Talk:Transhumanism page otherwise they will be reverted. --Loremaster 15:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Loremaster is going a little too far in some of his edits - I've taken interest in this on the Wikiquette alerts and will be providing commentary to hopefully direct Loremaster to a more productive attitude. Alvis 05:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to look at the rules
1) Stop biting me. I am attempting to be bold, only to be repeatedly slapped down for it. You need to stop making wild accusations.

2)You do not own an article; therefore editors do not need to ask permission to edit. Blind reversions of any "unauthorized" changes is a violation of both the guidelines and the spirit of Wikipedia. Please follow Wikiquitte in the future and maintain civility, rudeness is never appropriate on a Talk page or elsewhere. Noclevername 20:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I know the rules. I've apologized for what you perceived as biting on the Talk:Human enhancement page. However, my fair and accurate comments regarding the Transhumanism article stand. You don't have to ask permission to edit but you should discuss these "bold" changes in light of the consensus the main contributors of the article have reached. --Loremaster 22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is Fair?
Threatening to summarily revert my future edits simply because you dislike one that I had previously made is neither fair nor accurate. The proper way to reply to an edit you disagree with is to discuss it on the Talk page, not to destroy it. If you act in this manner again I will call for an administrative intervention.

I do however agree that discussing changes first might reduce disagreements such as these, and will try to be more cautious in the future. This does not excuse your behavior, however. I did not vandalize nor delete any pretinent information, therefore according to the rules of Wikipedia you had no call to delete my additions. If I add something you disagree with, tell me, and we can reach a true consensus, but don't use threats. It is a poor way to behave.

PS. If you have any further comments on my edits to an article, the proper place to address them is on that article's Talk page, not my Talk page. Noclevername 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I did NOT threatened to summarily revert your future edits simply because I dislike one that you had previously made. That would obviously be ridiculous. I've always explained why your edits were inappropriate or unneccesary and why they would be reverted or altered.
 * 2) It is appropriate to comment on your edits on both the talk page of an article you edited and your own personal talk tage (to make sure you are aware of the former). This is common practice. --Loremaster 23:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So, ultimately, please discuss changes to the article on the Talk:Transhumanism page otherwise they will be reverted.


 * This is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noclevername (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC).


 * You are being obtuse. If you read that sentence in the context of the entire comment I wrote. I was refering to changes that you make that diminish the neutrality of the article. If this wasn't clear to you, I apologize. However, I stand by my comments whose spirit is not in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. --Loremaster 00:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * From my perspective, it is you who are being obtuse. I did not make the article less neutral. And if you believe that I did so, the proper way to respond is still not to arbitrarily delete what you disagree with, (or feel is "non-neutral") but to discuss the matter. I apologize as well if I phrased my additions to the article in a way that was open to misinterpretation; it may be that some of it can be reworded (NOT reverted). To simply delete another's edits because they have not been run by you first is rather rude, I hope it will not happen again. Remember, I am also one of those who has worked on that article, and my work is no more or less important than that of yourself and others. Noclevername 00:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't care what you find rude. I've explained my reverts or rewordings and I will continue protecting the article from your undiscussed, unsubstantive and clumsly contributions. As for comparing your work to mine, you are forcing me to point out that my work is in fact more important than yours since not only have I been the main contributor to this article for years but it is mostly my work that has ensured that the Transhumanism article became good enough to be featured on the main page of Wikipedia. Are we done? --Loremaster 00:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have posted a report on your inappropriate behavior on Wikiquette alerts. Noclevername 01:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How sad... I've posted my reply to your report on that page. --Loremaster 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wanted
Thanks for the contribution! I never really figured out the best way to explain that concept, but I do believe you've nailed it. Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Helpme
Yes, what is it that you want help with? GofG undefinedundefinedundefined Talk 00:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain where to go, I've been having major difficulties with User:Loremaster; I posted the following--

I must once again report that User:Loremaster has been using insulting and uncivil language on a Talk page (Talk:Human enhancement):

Since you seem to be only person unable to grasp simple concepts, I don't see why I should be pending backwards to dumb down the article by making it less consise. ...

...Your points are ridiculous which is why I didn't and won't acknowledge them... ...you don't understand simple concepts. You seem to have not read the sources cited in the article that would help you understand these concepts better. I've improved (rather than dumbed down) the article in response to some of your comments. As for the rest, I am not going to waste my time responding to what I consider ridiculous points. If you think this lacks courtesy, I don't give a damn. I am not here to make you feel good. I'm too busy raising the quality of Wikipedia articles to Good Article status, which I have succeeded in doing several times. This is the second such offense, and he is still guarding the Human Enhancement article and the Transhumanism article from edits like a junkyard dog. Please help him adjust his attitude.

...on Wikiquette alerts, but I see on that page that it's about to be deleted. Do I need admin help, or can this be resolved some other way? Noclevername


 * It looks to me like he is violating WP:NPA, but it's pretty minor. I'll point this out to him, and if you two are having a content conflict then you can try the Mediation Cabal. By the way, it's generally easier to sign with ~ than typing out Noclevername . Have a stop by in the IRC channel if you want further advice, by the way. GofG undefinedundefinedundefined  Talk 00:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Always, friend. I would, however, be a little less jumpy to accuse him of WP:OWN, as his edits to the article are very good, but I notified him of his rather uncivil comments. Please, leave me a message if you ever need anything, and remember, the IRC channel is always there :D. GofG undefinedundefinedundefined  Talk 01:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Opinion Requested
Hi, I'd like to hear you opinion on the following debate. (Merging Alternate Versions of Characters)

Notability of Return to Rocheworld
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Return to Rocheworld, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Return to Rocheworld seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Return to Rocheworld, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Return to Rocheworld itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tea incense
An article that you have been involved in editing, Tea incense, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Tea incense. Thank you. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 20:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Church of Humanity
A template has been added to the article Church of Humanity, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Oli Filth 00:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

List deletions
Over on the Psychokinesis page, we just had the lengthy subpage "List of cultural references to psychokinesis and telekinesis" speedily deleted in six days. No one noticed until it was gone. See the Talk page there for a discussion. Stay on your toes. 5Q5 19:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Colonization of Trans-Neptunian Objects
An article that you have been involved in editing, Colonization of Trans-Neptunian Objects, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Colonization of Trans-Neptunian Objects. Thank you. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The N-Men
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The N-Men, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of The N-Men. Ridernyc (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Moties
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Moties, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaker-to-Animals
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Speaker-to-Animals, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Moties
An editor has nominated Moties, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Speaker-to-Animals
An editor has nominated Speaker-to-Animals, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sam Melnick
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Sam Melnick, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gregory Pelton
Another editor has added the  template to the article Gregory Pelton, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comics Articles for Deletion
One or more articles you’ve been involved in editing (Melter, Ringer (comics), Ego the Living Planet, or others) has been nominated for deletion. If you feel you can make contributions to the article to improve it and make it worth keeping, please do so. BOZ (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Metaverse
I fixed it. It seems that some guy turned up in early 2007, rewrote the whole thing (badly) to fit his personal opinion, and then left again. Annoying. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   21:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi!
I had to merge Moties because it was just redirected to the source book. Regards.--Miotroyo (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah! own section was needed.--Miotroyo (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Shanti Virus
A tag has been placed on Shanti Virus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 22:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Article collaboration proposal at WikiProject Space Colonization
Hi, I've put together a proposal for an article collaboration of the week at WikiProject Space Colonization. I would appreciate if you could take a look and let me know if you're interested in participating. Wronkiew (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Beowulf Shaeffer
I have nominated Beowulf Shaeffer, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Beowulf Shaeffer. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lying Bastard
I have nominated Lying Bastard, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Lying Bastard. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kdaptists
I have nominated Kdaptists, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Kdaptists. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Since you have edited at mutant page I presume you have a good knowledge of the topic. I have a picture of a dead animal that seems to be something between a dog and a bear, but I see no reference about it on Wiki. Do you know something about it ? Kindly reply on my talk page. Thanks Jon Ascton   (talk)  20:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

do you by chance
post over at bautforum.com?  Serendi pod ous  11:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm Parallaxicality. You may remember me as the guy constantly pointing out that he edited Wikipedia and desparingly asking for help. :-) As a matter of fact, I still have one of your posts as my sig over there. Anyway, looks like our respective Venn diagrams have at last intersected. Nice to finally meet you in my natural habitat.  Serendi pod ous  12:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Uranian (comics)
On Eternals (comics) you added that the Uranians first appeared in 1950 (in Marvel Boy and were created by Stan Lee, which is not reflected in the information at Uranian (comics). I don't have the issue (although I will be picking up the Agents of Atlas trade, which it is in). Could you update the Uranians article with whatever information you have? Because it is obviously missing a big chunk of history.

Also on Titan (Marvel Comics) you added that they were retconned as Eternals. I'm (slowly) rewriting and expanding the publication history on The Eternals and from what I've read Starlin introduces Thanos and then Mentor/Starfox before revealing that they are Titanians, all as one part of the same storyline. It does seem that this same storyline retconned the Uranians as Eternals but the Titanians weren't, strictly speaking (unless the Titanians had previously appeared which I don't think they have). I'm hoping to expand and clarify this bit of the PH and just wanted to check if I have got this right - the Titanians were merely revealed to be Eternals while the Uranians were the ones retconned.

Thanks for the help. (Emperor (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Nuts! I've got my dates the wrong way round. For some reason I had it in my mind that The Eternals appeared before Jim Starlin's run on Captain Marvel (and connected stories) and that Starlin then sneakily revealed that the Titanians were Eternals a few issues later. Instead the penny now drops: Starlin created them, as well as Zuras, and Zuras was one of the other characters that Kirby retconned into his line-up of Eternals. So yes retconned is the right term and I need to clarify this point, as well as the Zuras article. Thanks for that, it should really help.


 * More on the Uranians would be appreciated though. ;) (Emperor (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Articles for deletion nomination of The Artifact (Eureka)
I have nominated The Artifact (Eureka), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/The Artifact (Eureka)&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cheyarafim
An article that you have been involved in editing, Cheyarafim, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Abductive (reasoning) 23:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Orion's Arm
An editor has nominated Orion's Arm, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.Robofish (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)