User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive9

Hello
I am impressed at your edit contributions and what not. I am wondering why are you not the admin? Have you want for lack of person to nominate? I will be that human live if you want, sir. JeanLatore (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Metalocalypse
Join if you want to help improve Metalocalypse related articles.

By removing the word untitledfrom Journeys end... you got the entire reference deleted
Look through the history of thepage. It was there for a reason.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Journey's End
Your comments on my talk page are highly offensive and unnecessary. To resort to name-calling as oppose to engaging in reasoned debate is illogical. As you were writing on my talk page, I was writing on the talk page for the article in question explaining why I think the references are necessary hoping for a discussion to be conducted there and for concensus on the issue to be reached. I wrote on there to avoid an edit war. I do not expect to be insulted whilst trying to help construct well-written articles on Wikipedia. Please consider others and avoid making such derogatory comments. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Being frank does not excuse rudeness and slurs against those with mental difficulties and I am well aware of what I was "fighting" over, thank you. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hardly a lack of willingness as I later revised my edits to provide a compromise, something the other editors in question were not willing to grant. Additionally, Wikipedia is not governed by majorities, rather by editors abiding by what they understand to be the guidelines, which, rightly or wrongly, was what I understood myself to be doing. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Code Geass settings merge
Thanks for adding the tags -- I got distracted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Placement of Wall-E quotation
I don't really understand why you moved the writer's quotation about the movie's story from the "Plot" section to "Cast". I don't see how it's relevant to the movie's cast, although I do appreciate your motive to trim the synopsis of the movie. Perhaps we could both work on lessening the actual details of the story, and include more of what might be found regarding the creators' intent with the story they wrote. That perspective might be more "encyclopedic." I'm going to move the quotation back, and do some trimming in that section of my own. Agreeable? Aratuk (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a box quote is a little more appropriate when you're producing a statement that has an overall value to the section, rather than one that flows naturally with the descriptions in the section. For instance, in the "Plot" box quote, it somewhat interrupts the synopsis to provide an insight from the writer. In that sense, it behaves more like an image. Are there style guidelines for this? If so, I'd appreciate it if you could link me to them. Aratuk (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree with the use of a "block" quote rather than a "box" quote for that bit in the "Plot" section. In fact, just as I went there now to look at it, someone has deleted it completely. As a "block" quote, it has the semblance of proceeding out of what came before it, and leading into what comes after, when on both ends there was just rote plot synopsis, which makes sense in the "Plot" section. So, it was kind of weird to just have a quotation from the writer thrown in to the main body of the synopsis, even though it was related directly to the story. In a colored sidebar the quote presents itself as separate but relevant to what's being talked about. Would you mind if I added it back as a box, and we can see if people still want it to be deleted? (It actually turns out there is a "proper" way to do this: cquote) Aratuk (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

All right. I don't understand why you like it over on that side, but I call a truce. Do you like that template better than the blue boxes? Aratuk (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:70.238.128.249
I gave the user a further warning on their talk page. If they persist without trying to discuss, then a block would be necessary. I'll keep an eye on them for now.  caknuck °  is back from his wikisiesta  05:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They've been given a short block to cool their jets and read their friggin' talk page. Let me know if they start up again.  caknuck °  is back from his wikisiesta  05:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Metalocalypse articles
If that's the case, look at the Robot Chicken episode articles and tell me why they haven't being deleted because they are horribly written. User:N.Flen

I think episode articles will be needed soon because the storyline is getting more complicated and that's usually when episode articles explaining the relationship between episodes are needed. User:N.Flen

Orphaned non-free media (Image:GrandFisher.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:GrandFisher.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pickles.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pickles.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ben10liveactioncompare.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ben10liveactioncompare.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Code Lyoko
Why do you not like my edits? I am with the company that owns the show! Please don't undo my edits, or post to my talk page about your concerns. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaffyEnt (talk • contribs) 23:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My Response to 

I wrote everything you are questioning. You may believe that I copied this info from an official website, but in truth, I wrote the copy that appears on the official website and I am posting it here with permission, so there is no violation. I thought I was being very cognizent of all the COI rules (which I did read beforehand). Please give me an example where I favored my website in the lead over another website and please give me an example where I included any hyperbole in any of my postings. I appreciate that you regularly edit the Code Lyoko page or pages on Wikipedia, but I thought the intent here was to be helpful and not promotional, which is what I thought I was doing. If you would prefer that misinformation and old information persist on the pages, then I guess it's your prerogative, because as a new user, I clearly have no ability to argue with you. The fact that I am supposed to be an authority on my subject seems to be of no concern to you. I don't know if I am allowed to post a phone number here, but you're welcome to call me at *redacted* if you'd rather discuss this, since I'm just learning how to use Wikipedia and it's very time consuming. Thank you. TaffyEnt (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

--- Re: this edit, again, I was replacing old, bad information. The link I replaced on bobsaget.com is a dead link. Why should people be left with the impression that the show is now dead and gone? As for Kabillion, it most certainly is a TV network and certainly more legit then most of the other channels I saw listed. Fine, posting our link in the intro is a borderline infraction, but an honest mistake. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place here. I can't post because of supposed COI issues, but I'm supposed to let the pages sit idle when there are legitimate things to add? Give me some advice Obi Wan. TaffyEnt (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shawlong.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Shawlong.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gillians.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Gillians.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ben 10 Alien Force
Huh, who could have guessed that X Equals Ben Plus 2 would air on August 31st. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwizardry (talk • contribs) 18:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, my friend. I am glad you have blocked username 98.141.74.134. He has undone all my efforts to improve this glorious Wiki. This site could use more people like you. All glory to the Hypnotoad! SkrallAgoriSkrallAgori (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I find myself requesting your aid once again in creating a subpage. I haven't the faintest idea how to make one. Respond to me when possible. Glory to the Hypnotoad! SkrallAgoriSkrallAgori (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A user subpage. SkrallAgoriSkrallAgori (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Code Geass (Romance)
Hi, I was just wondering why you said that Romance was not a genre. Well it is if you go to the Anime article it says that romance is a genre. Just to let you know.=) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grecia741 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He didn't say it wasn't a genre, just that it wasn't one of the main genres in Code GeassWestrim (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

geass
His heart stop needs to be there because it could result in his death —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pimpedpoped (talk • contribs) 06:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. That's what I figured, but it also could be construed to say she was no longer MIA.Westrim (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Shuhei's kido/zanpakuto
I haven't been too sure about whether or not it's his zanpakuto or a kido myself; do you have like, a link to a subbed clip in the movie where it shows him using the kido, so I can edit that excerpt and cite it appropriately?  Stardust Dragon  21:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * well, they could just as easily be speculating or posting OR. thanks though, I'll see what i can find on there Stardust Dragon  00:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * but we get all sorts of speculation and OR and crap on here daily...  Stardust Dragon  00:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep yep, you're right I'm wrong. does the jwiki have the name of that spell, by chance?  Stardust Dragon  01:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, and let me run on over to their Kido page...  Stardust Dragon  01:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Naruto Shippuuden Episodes
The title of episode 74 does not appear at http://cal.syoboi.jp/tid/1106/subtitle. What reputable source has this episode title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.244.88 (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was an accident. Sorry. That doesn't change the fact though that there is no source for this title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.244.88 (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

FMA Light novels
If you don't want to get into this I understand, but I really could use your help to mediate this issue. I thought you could weigh in on the debates on the WT:ANIME and the Talk:List of Fullmetal Alchemist light novels pages. They have gotten... bad, and some outside input might quell things. I've also asked an editor named Tintor2, who also worked on the novels, to weigh in as well as Wikipedia:Third opinion for input and mediation. Since I've been able to reach terms with you on issues we were divided on, I thought you could help.Westrim (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wanted it merged, and was rightly told that was a bad idea, but the problem was mostly Collectonian hammering me in a way that violated pretty much every guideline of etiquette. I wish there was some sort of editor reporting system for when someone is being a class-A jerk so someone higher up can at least scold them. Every encounter I've had with her, even the one time we were on the same side, has been wildly antagonistic, and this time I considered leaving Wikipedia altogether. I can stand being wrong- you know that- and I can stand irritation from someone who opposes me (otherwise I'd be a hypocrite) but I can't abide her instant dismissal and condescension of any dissenting opinion even when I essentially agree with her. In my last responses on it I supported a merge-in that she herself proposed, and still got treated like dirt actively trying to interfere with her. If there is some sort of system that I can plunk down her history of antagonism onto and say "please take care of this", I'd be much obliged it you could point me it's way.Westrim (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lelouch Lamperouge
I'm about to take it off my watchlist. Can I trust that you'll make sure the hypnotist cat isn't removed? And/or can you let me know if there's an edit war or discussion about it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't gotten back to me, but I've taken it off my watchlist anyway ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Please be mindfull of the three revert rule and don't undo others' edits repeatedly, such as you've been doing on September 3. Thanks, dvdrw 23:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lelouch-geass.jpg
I am reverting back to my edit which is better than your edit. --The Virginian (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For one thing, your descriptions may be longer but it doesn't make them better; less is more. Anyone who reads the descriptions and doesn't already know that is Lelouch's eye & Geass Sigil will not care if it Lelouch's eye & Geass Sigil. Another thing; I don't care how many times I have to, unless it is locked where I can't edit it I will continue to put back the far better edit. --The Virginian (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * With such a firm position, how do you expect to reach an agreement? You already have a 3RR waring on your talk page- if you continue to be dismissive and confrontational it's your account that will get locked, not the article. There are major flaws with both of your edits- yours makes the two rationales exactly the same- which is not useful-, and the point of the description is to be descriptive. His has the portion and source sections too small. You need to be more willing to compromise.Westrim (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't expect to reach an agreement. As for the 3RR it ain't there and I didn't bother to read like I don't bother to read anything Penguin had to say after my second comment here. I couldn't care less what Penguin has to say, especially with the horrible "description" he initially included. Thus he edits he made later I declined to read them, horrible job the first time, horrible job always. --The Virginian (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Code Lyoko
Stop redirecting the Teddygodzilla page to List of Code Lyoko episodes. Clearly, I'm in the middle of working on it. What you need is patience, man. And don't give me something like "YOU HAD ENOUGH TIME". How do you know I haven't been busy? What If I had to evacuate Hurricane Ike? As a matter of fact, My laptop charger decided to get fried, and I have a very small amount of time on a computer now. So my advice to you is to show some patience, or you will find me being a major asshole towards you. RhoLyokoWarrior (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC) See? I warned you not to piss me off, and you went ahead and did so. RhoLyokoWarrior (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just let him make the page, let him calm down a little, and then explain again that its not notable enough to stand on it's own. RhoLyoko, no matter how frustrated you get, it never helps to get so angry. Westrim (talk) 07:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page for 24 hours. Give him that much time to come up with something decent in his sandbox, and we'll go from there. I know your edits weren't vandalism as he claimed, but neither were his. It's just a content dispute, and I think a little breather is in order for all involved. Kafziel Complaint Department 02:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Peng ... RhoLyoko listed a Wikiquette complaint about you. I would recommend for a short period of time that you not follow him so closely.  If you do have to revert, make sure it's really vandalism and explain clearly in your revert summaries.  Don't stand out as being "the only one" ganging up on him (which is not the case, I know.  Only CSD his articles once, then let someone else AfD it, if they deserve it.  Keep smiling ...  BMW  (drive)  08:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Code Geass - Euphemia's resistance.
Lelouch's Geass evolved at the moment he issued the order to Euphemia to kill the Elevens. This is not in dispute. It became permanently active while Lelouch was talking thus the order Lelouch issued was a mistake and did not have driving intent like all his other orders. If you feel you can word this better in the Geass part of Lelouch's Abilities section, feel free to do so, but take note I have no stated anything as fact on the article that is not a fact. I say "it should be noted" (the special circumstances involving Euphemia's ability to resist); and I am absolutely correct: it should be noted. The current state of the page implies it is common or indeed has happened more than once for someone to resist Lelouch's Geass, and doesn't mention at all the special circumstances.

Please stop reverting edits without reading them. A page being on your watchlist does not make you its sole custodian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.250.126 (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice you've changed the offending detail, but it is no better now than before. The only person ever to display resistance has been Euphemia, and this is important enough that it should be noted next to the part saying "a victim may resist". I have added this, yet again, and will continue to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.250.126 (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The content I add is not original research. It is a statement of fact. It is just as possible the evolution of Lelouch's Geass permitted Euphemia to disobey (or delay her obedience) as Euphemia's overwhelming huggy love for all God's creatures. It isn't stated as fact either way, but no one ever disobeys/delays ever again, despite some commands that would be "repugnant" - Kururugi fired the FLEIJA despite his inhibitions about such a weapon due to his Geass command. Many characters have commited suicide due to the Geass, which you must admit would be a repugnant command to anyone.


 * Fact is, my addition to the rule on Geass isn't stating a fact, but making readers aware of important details surrounding a preceding statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.250.126 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The page will be edited. A source is not necessary: you've obviously seen the episode in question, you therefore are aware that my edit is correct. Or rather, that it should remain on the page. There is no evidence pointing to Euphemia having some unusual love of Elevens that helped her resist the Geass: stronger people than her have been taken in by it. Thus the only explanation is Lelouch's evolving Geass. I am not going to stop editing the article to reflect this: your insistence on removing it is nothing short of vandalism.


 * I'm getting tired of having to re-word my statements so you can understand. Everything necessary to justify the edit has been explained several times over. From this point forth I am going to ignore your trolling and continue to revert your vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.250.126 (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your complaint on my talk page reveals the issue - you want a source from the anime itself. That's very simple to resolve: episode 23 of the first season.


 * The episode is the highest source. Lelouch, in episode 23, accidentally forces Euphemia to massacre the Elevens she loved so very much. Her ability to resist - that is, her ability to whine about it for a bit instead of snapping to attention and screaming yes, your Higness! like a good mind-slave - could only possibly be attributed to a malfunction of Lelouch's Geass. That she found the order distasteful can have nothing to do with it - I'm sure Schneizel didn't appreciate being enslaved to Zero and the countless nameless grunts he's forced to kill themselves wouldn't have been very happy about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.250.126 (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The current state is a reasonable compromise. I'll tidy it up a bit - no need for two bullet points to cover that aspect of his Geass's limitations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.250.126 (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jiraiyageninteam.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Jiraiyageninteam.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:HotTopicLogo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:HotTopicLogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Lelouch's Death Status
Zero Requiem (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)   =/ I can see from your past actions that your intentions are more than likely noble, but you are deleting -important proven cannon information- every time you revert or edit anything to do with Lelouch's updated Death status. He has been confirmed as being officially dead by the directors and the rest of the Code Geass staff in an interview from Oct 16th.

Although I have already accurately cited my source numerous times, I'd be happy to give you quotes from the magazine if you don't believe me.

Those of us who are trying to get the word out that his death has been made official would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from altering the proven cannon information regarding his death in the Geass wiki pages.

Otherwise, I'll have to assume that you're intentionally misleading people, and just keep re-editing those pages until the Second Coming. And that's no fun.


 * Did you NOT get the entire point of my posting this information in the first place? I didn't have an argument with you about citation just to post what is already known
 * The fact that his death is cannon now is IMPORTANT.
 * STOP ERASING IT. Zero Requiem (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Parts of Okouchi Interview Relevent to Lelouch's Death Status
The following are direct quotes from Continue vol.42:

-Some unresolved mysteries still remain.

Okouchi: From the very beginning, [I/we] never planned on explaining everything. In fact, if you ask me, I think we might have overdone the explanations. While it's undeniable that Lelouch's story has ended with a full stop, the other characters' stories are still on-going, and it's not like the world [of Code Geass] itself has come to an end either. [I/we] didn't want to end it by closing it up for good.

-Still, isn't it possible that defeating the wise ruler Schneizel, the person who was supposed to have brought order to the world, might lead to some [viewers] interpreting it as a Bad End?

Okouchi: That's true. There are probably a lot of people who think of it as a Bad End, a tragedy, considering the protagonist's, Lelouch's end as well. However, Lelouch says in the first episode: "Only those prepared to be shot are allowed to pull the trigger themselves." If you were to think of that as his pride, then I think his getting shot (killed) in the end was a logical end. Of course, I understand that not all of the viewers will accept this ending. There were people who wanted a happier ending, after all.

-Was there a dispute among the staff members regarding the ending?

Okouchi: No. It was decided fairly naturally. During the "Code Geass" script meetings, there are many cases in which there were a number of disputes, but there were barely any when it came to the scripts for (the previous series's) episode 25 and the final episode. I think everyone felt the same when it came to the end of the character that is Lelouch.

-Why were you so bold as to choose this ending when the viewers might see it as a Bad End?

Okouchi: Bold... yes, we were so bold as to chose this ending. Perhaps the show that is "Code Geass" ending up this way was decided the moment Director Taniguchi and I teamed up. I suppose you can call it our sense of aesthetics, or perhaps a part of our psychological makeup.

- His name is also now listed in the proceeding 'deceased' list of the magazine. Zero Requiem (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

WP 3RR
Hey man, what do i do? She's clearly breaking WP:3RR. That's like 5 in 2 hours. Even with taking it to the talk page she still reverted without us reaching consensus yet... 24.174.75.197 (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Code Geass
There is a section on this page related to one of your edits. -PatPeter 20:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Jeremiah Gottwald & Shirley Fenette article
Should I or should I not bring these two articles back? because there are people in the discussion bit that said them articles should come back. -SilentmanX(Talk) 23:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Code Geass articles
Why is that? because most of the characters have a part in this and have appeared more time in this, and most people discussed about it and agreed to it. Each characters have played a part in it and should have an article put in. Mostly its Jeremiah and Shirley. So is there a reason why they shouldn't have an articleon? -SilentmanX(Talk) 00:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Toonami Template
I didn't see the point in deleting everything without conveying first that you were going to do it or allowing me to contest your plans. Yes, I realize I didn't talk to anyone, but I was not aware that I needed to... RaidonMakoto (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Omnitrix image.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Omnitrix image.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Jutsu (Naruto) overhaul
See here. That said, have you more or less moved on from the Naruto articles? You appear to be busy with Code Geass, and seeing as the amount of vandalism to Naruto articles has been heavily reduced (compared to the heyday a year and a half ago when you could be an effective vandalism fighter merely by staying on the Naruto articles), it's not surprising that you've chosen to focus your energies elsewhere. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 17:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

From Kallen Kōzuki to Kallen Stadtfeld
SilentmanX brought up a proposal to rename the Kallen Kōzuki article to Kallen Stadtfeld. Since you were the one who previously moved it from the latter to the former, it would be great if you can drop by and participate in the discussion. Thanks. --Aeon17x (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Clfoxba.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Clfoxba.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - discussion at ANI
Hello, The Rogue Penguin. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is here. It should be wrapped up shortly, but you should have been notified. // roux   03:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting Tylerwade123's vandalism to my user page. While many of his edits are helpful, but he continues to not understand original research and to use categories (often self-created) where he clearly does not understand what the terms (refugee, amputee, aviator, etc.) mean. Any suggestions? Edward321 (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * AN/I if he refuses to stop, and there's always 3RR to discourage him. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 3RR and other warnings don't seem to be stoping his nick or his IPs.     Edward321 (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

He's back off his blocks and making comments on Talk:List_of_Cosmic_Era_factions where he still doesn't seem to understand original research (or the terms generic or special forces) and is compaining about our behavior. Edward321 (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gwen Grayson
An article that you have been involved in editing, Gwen Grayson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Gwen Grayson. Thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

seriously
stop, i have references and all thsat stuff that i added in, and the thing with the wordwide airings is on several other tv show articles Jeremie Belpois (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Seraphim &hearts;  10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an  edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * You have been blocked for making this partial revert. I instruct you to discuss disputed changes on the article's talk page or pursue methods of dispute resolution. Seraphim  &hearts;  09:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an  edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * You don't seem to be listening. You have been blocked for returning to the article where you had just been blocked for edit warring . Seraphim  &hearts;  21:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible return of blocked sockpuppeteer
User Rebelprince started editing 4 days after Tylerwade123 was indefinitely blocked. Though Rebelprince has remained civil and avoided edit warring, his talk page and edit history show he has common interests with Tylerwade123. Of more concern, Rebelprince has recently created a new category and started spamming it across some of the same articles Tylerwade has shown an interest in and added a talk page comment that engages in heavy praise of Tylerwade123. Edward321 (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rebelprince has also re-added the same list of categories (plus his new category) that Tylerwade admitted he had repeatedly tried to add to the  Lelouch_Lamperouge article. Edward321 (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I have added a SPI of Rebel Prince.  Edward321 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Nunnally lamperouge?
shouldnt we change the name to vi britannia since her name was never reffered to lamperouge, not even in ashford academy, and in all of R2, it was referred to "vi britannia"Haseo445 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

the issue did occur with lelouch aswell, since lelouch was more known as vi britania, someone already got an agreement in one of the discussions, i don't know if its in the the lelouch lamperouge artical or code geass characters.Haseo445 (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So what do you think?Haseo445 (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

very well, i would do it myself, but i'm just a noob at this stuff.Haseo445 (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So, do you mind telling me how i can change the name? i know i'm kinda of a bother right now, but i honestly dont know how.Haseo445 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

alright then, thanks alot.Haseo445 (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Signature
how do i change the color of my signature? i keep reading how to do it, but it doesnt really tell me.QueenofHearts (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Also on kallen
haseo445 made an excellent point on how we should revert the name to kouzuki. maybe you would want to look at that?QueenofHearts (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture description
sorry to bother you (again) but since you are the only one i know that might answer me and have a lot of experience, do you think you could tell me how to edit the picture description?Deathberry (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

code????Deathberry (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright thanx.Deathberry (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

the Smoke Monster
To be fair, you have been being very trivial in some of your edit's against some of my earlier revisions. As long as we narrow it down to the more proper heading, we are OK. Glad to see there are other fan's of the show that love it as much as I do. Whippletheduck (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem/reason I do that....is because the show in intentionally vague/misleading, and that means at times it is difficult for one to make a definitive statement regarding what is up or not up on the show. For example, back after it was revealed that Locke was the one in the coffin, I had a big debate against I forget whom, because he wanted it definitive that Locke committed suicide when I did not believe it, and in a PM exchange said I would never take Ben Linus at his word and said "He probably killed Locke himself and made it look like suicide".........Anyway, that is why I constantly use phrases like "seems to suggest", or stuff like that to ensure that I have some wiggle room. I also was a big proponent that Christian Shepherd could have been returned back to life. User BenSanders and I really had it out over this, but now with Locke having been returned to life, it is no longer that much a stretch to suggest it with christian now. thanks for the feedback/where you stand. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

fair point to be sure....I would rather not post something that turns out later to have been 100% wrong. I posted something that at the time seemed a fair edit, and even though no one really said anything about it, I felt like a fool when the show proved me wrong later. I hear hwat you are saying though. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Size of the Hydra Island
I've been to Alcatraz Island, and the Hydra Island is considerably bigger then Alcatraz based on Lapidus's approach and landing on the island. Alcatraz is not that big a place. Whippletheduck (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ressurection (on LOST)
Are you really prepared to go to a 3R over this? I am. I'm not speculating anything when I remark that "Whether Ben was telling the truth to either Sun or Locke has yet to be revealed." is not speculating. Remember when you were being whining about me saying "At some point later in his life, Ethan would become a member of the Others"? Obviously, the last episode answered that question. I am sure by the end of the season we will get something definitive about Locke's return to life. Untill then, we got Ben's word which is proven to not be taken at his word on anything!!!Whippletheduck (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I understand that part, but this show is indeed a mystery show and guess what? In Mysteries, they rarely give you the entire answer right up front. Would you have been making a big deal when the Hatch was first found and not knowing what was in it? Pointing out the fact that Ben told two differing stories to two different people is notable, and noting that he may or may not be lying to both or neither is part of that above statement. I personally believe we are going to have some answers in upcoming episodes, sure. I would be disappointed if I found out the answer to EVERYTHING right now, I like the piecemeal answers we have been getting because it has been a huge reward to those of us that have watched every episode of LOST multiple times. In the mean time, I personally believe this: did you see the look on Ben's face when Lapidus and Sun revealed they had met Christian??? Perhaps Ben had already met Christian in the first arc of the story and believed he was dead and only "Ben the Special/Chosen one" was supposed to see him, and hearing that he appeared to those two was a shock to him. Ben was obviously already planning on killing Locke again (per Alex's interaction with him), and probably told Sun that story as part of the set up, knowing that if he killed Locke, he needed to put into as many people's heads doubt about Locke so that they would not come after him later. Now, if the next episode, Ben changes his story now that he has to follow Locke loyally (assuming he does), well, we got to wait and see now. More later. Whippletheduck (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Which I am absolutely not doing, I am noting a discrepancy with Locke's story (and the certainty that he is lying to one of them). I revereted that one edit you made about "rare cases" mostly to show you that I can play this same game-  You can't say that and then turn around and complain about what I am posting. If Locke TRUELY is the only person ever restored to life on the Island, then there is no "Rare Case" he is the ONLY case. Whippletheduck (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I was only doing it on principle as you were doing more or less the same thing to me. I actually have no other problem with that, I only edited it out to make a point so truth is it is fine to keep in. Your statement about Ben making the two conflicting statements deserves clarification, which my edit is doing. The fact is, we don't KNOW what Christian's status is.....I had set a parameter that if anyone whom was "not special" were to see and interact with Christian that I was going to go farther in declaring that Christian too was restored to life. however, because the Smoke Monster was in the area as well as the Whispers, I have to assume that something else is amiss, and don't know what it is and can't clarify it anymore. The fact that Ben was not too happy to hear that they saw Christian tells me that something else is up, but we the viewers are not privy to it. Yet. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact that Ben Linus lied to one of them (I think Sun but won't say it since it has yet to be confimred). I'm still deciding my course, part of me wants to escalate this so that when Ben more or less confirms what I have been saying I'll look again that I knew what I was talking about and you didn't but I have other things to do right now. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophes
Is that really the best you can do??? Whippletheduck (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ordnance at the Arrow Station in Lost
Since you are the one that has more or less started the edit war because you don't think my "Weapon System" comment should stand, and since I believe 100% that if I had initially posted "indicating weapons..." you would be editing it out for "weapon system", guess what? Until they show EXACTLY what is at the Arrow Station, neither of us will keep our comments until it is confirmed what the Ordnance is about. For the record, I believe the "ordnance" in question is some sort of chemical weapon delivery system, that may have had an initial benign use but was modified for offensive operations against the Hostiles. Specifically, that if used, all stations go "button down" and then the island is seeded with chemical weapons, destroying the Hostiles in the process. Can I prove anything that I just said? No, but I want it on record when they do reveal what I think it is going to be. In case you have not figured it out yet, LOST is not a "simple show" to watch, they don't do things on it for filler and everything has a purpose. If weapons were stored there, that suggests an armory of small arms IMHO. Saying a weapon system sounds more Dharma Like and probably more large scale as well. Whippletheduck (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Enchanced episode spells it out, huh?
Ok, then in using your theory there, we now HAVE to go on what was said in DEAD IS DEAD that Rousseau was indeed insane now, right? So if I go in and make edits using that, your not going to have a problem with it. Just so you know, if you are going to follow around and edit out things you don't like I'll do it to you too!! Whippletheduck (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said that......I think first off that a pregnant woman is not the most stable thing in the world....and a pregnant woman that has seen a monster made of smoke even more so...and a pregnant woman that has seen a monster made of smoke kill at least one close friend and see whatever happened in the Temple happened less stable....and when a person disappears in thin air (Jin) and you can see why one would suffer from mental distabillity. I think that Rousseau between all that and whatever changes took place to her comrades after going into the temple (for better or worse) and she thought they were the ones that had changed. Anyhow, too much to say and little time to say it. Gotta go continue this later. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So are we adopting a "If it does not DIRECTLY shown on the show, then it's speculation", is that the new mantra, because if it is I will scrutinize EVERY post you make and remove ANYTHING that cannot be 100% substained by the show- You are doing it to me, even on posts that are within the scope of the show. We are talking about a Mystery and in a mystery, we HAVE to go with the most updated information we have, and I don't think we are going to get specific 100% answers on everything right away. . We are talking abou Apples and oranges, we don't know what is at the Arrow save "ordnance", which I am 100% sure will some sort of rocket based chemical weapon delivery system, which is  probably be what the Other's will end up stealing some of these chemicals to use against the DI in the purge. Most of what I post is within the realm/scope of the discussion on the show. Your just pulling stuff I do off probably because I think your jealous. In some cases, you even put back in, reworded, stuff that I previously said just to get credit for it!!! Whippletheduck (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Speculation on your part
A lot of what you edit out and declare 'speculation' is in higher researched status then what I am editing out on your part. You can't call it speculation on my part and then do it on your part. Whippletheduck (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you have been pulling the Speculation card out on me on edits that I would argue are in the exact same spirit. You can't have this both way's. I have put out stuff that meets the standards and you call it speculation. Your doing the same thing on several of the things I have done, so no, you can't do it to me and then cry when I pull the same card on you. But I will call a truce for today as it is getting late. Whippletheduck (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My Chemical Weapons theory has just as much basis as your "Combat Supplies" or "Weapons" theory. I object to the word "weapons" because that sounds too small scale, like it is a reference to small arms. Since neither of us know what ist here, and since the only time we have seen the Arrow it was completely vacant and gutted with no sign of any Ordnance, weapons, weapon systems or combat supplies, then both of us are speculating. I'm ok with theories being pulled if they don't meet standards, but you better get used to it to. Whippletheduck (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a very broad term, ordnance. It can be a lot of things, and I maintain that when it is all said and done, it will be some sort of rocket based chemical weapon delivery system, a sort of "weapon of last resort to rid the Island of the Hostiles/Scorched earth" tactic that the Arrow came up with, and I am willing to be that the chemical payload cannisters will be the same ones that Benjamin Linus, in his role as a "workman" will steal bit-by-bit from the Arrow to the Other's, for that day in 1992 when the Purge takes place. Whippletheduck (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Other's 'Fake' camp
See there is a perfect example of what I was talking about. I post something that had eluded you, that aside from VERY minor tweaks was good enough to stand on it's own, and you go in and change it up enough to claim it as your own work/find. I edited out the speculation on your part just so you know. Whippletheduck (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but your the one that constantly does it to me on what is often VERY trivial stuff, and when I do it to you, you cry and whine about it claiming I am doing to you what you are not doing to me. You got REALLY agitated the other night when I was reverting SPECULATION on your part and you had a hard time with it. Either we give each other a fair berth and go out to 'improve' what the other said, or expect me to go in and revert any speculation on your part from here on out!!! Whippletheduck (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

1) A temporary camp would not include 'permanent' style huts with bamboo support struts, a temporary camp is designed to move. Even after they abandoned that camp, they wold have 'removed' temporary structures, instead they left them up. 2) Kate never saw that camp, all she knew was that the fake beard that Tom was wearing was fake. 3) I'm not the one that does what you do, go thru all your edits and rewriting them as if they were my own.  I will never object to grammar, spelling, or punctuation of course.  But when you rewrite stuff which MAYBE you are doing to make it look better, but probably are not, no I don't believe you.  You make too big of a deal about stuff that I do, and when I do it to you you scream a lot more then I do about it.  Whippletheduck (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rukiaep49.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Rukiaep49.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternate handle?
Hey Someguy, I just wanted to pop in to see if you've ever gone by the handle "Atamasama" or "Atama" elsewhere on the internet, since I knew a guy that used one of those as well as one very close to your Someguy one. Thanks! 98.212.158.221 (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the quick reply. Sorry to bother you, then.  :)  98.212.158.221 (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Shunshunrikka.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Shunshunrikka.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Request
An editor using 2 different IPs has been repeatedly editing Athrun Zala, adding claims that director Fukuda has made certain statements about the character, but their only source is a couple Youtube videos. So far they've added this 6 times, but don't seem to be understanding the concept or reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Double Edit
Funny it seems you and I more or less were going to write the same thing about Richard Alpert, I'm going to call it a night as I need to re-watch this episode anyhow. At Zap2it.com, they are claimed that Ben Linus was killed by Sayid and that did not pan out ,so perhaps the same will be with Daniel. Whippletheduck (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we now have Daniel claim about variables, and while normally we should take dialogue on the show to help advance plots and theories about the show, we also have the classic "science vs faith" debate, where while scientifically, everything Daniel said should be true, we have the claim Eloise made to Desmond so long ago about how the universe more or less "straightens everything out" in the end. Anyhow, just thought I would note that I was trying to edit Richard Alperts page and as I posted it said a double edit was in process. Whippletheduck (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

glad to see more or less, we have the same commitment to the show and want to see good article edits done to promote that. I still don't know what to think, I can't help but think that it is not possible to change the past, despite what Daniel said, as I think assuming Eloise knew what she was doing when she shot him, she knew it had to happen. Or that the universe made it happen, in this case, Eloise could not risk Richard being killed and shot Daniel, and somehow....well I dunno. TTYL Whippletheduck (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thought I'd share something with you
I posted this on a message board fan site of Lost 2 years ago. Thought you might get a kick out of it....

""And I think that perhaps Ben never has seen Jacob, that he went into see Jacob alone, only to find nothing there, and came out and said whatever he wanted/needed in order to keep his position as Leader, or perhaps Ben went into Jacob's cabin to see him, was told something he did not want to hear, and came out and said something different to what he was supposed to do. And Richard and the Other's all bought it. ""Whippletheduck (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Trims to Mythology of Lost
I was trying to trim off some fat on the Mythology and other pages, just so you know. The stuffw ith Mikhail for example, should be on his page, not on the MYTHOLOGY page, which I was trying to trim down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletheduck (talk • contribs) 01:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Gundam Seed Destiny
There is a proposal to merge the Gundam Seed and Gundam Seed Destiny articles. If you have an opinion, feel free to voice it in the discussion. Edward321 (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Gama trail.jpg
File:Gama trail.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Gama trail.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Should Oldham's "station" be classified a Dharma Station?
Im doing a season 3 and season 5 marathon over the past week, mostly to add to certain stations edits I have been doing. Anyway, in the season 5 episode "He's our you", do you think Oldham (the guy living in the teepee)) where Sayid is "interrogated" in, do you think there is enough there to classify it as a DI station? Obviously, they thought enough of him and his work to grant him essential autonomy out wherever his 'area' was and Roger knew of him, suggesting Oldhams work was known to the rest of the DI.  It would not have to be very long, just one good paragraph similar ot the TEMPEST but still.  Do you think it's a good add? Whippletheduck (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

certainly it deserves some sort of mention? Although hopefully we might get a better look at it in season 6. It certainly seems to be their interogation station, for lack of a better word, but fine with me to keep mum on it untill next season. Whippletheduck (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to add that if in next season, there is more usage of Mr Oldham.......doing a "station ?: Oldham's Station" and giving a summary of what Oldham seems to be doing there maybe coming. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Other's abillity to 'teleport/make journeys that don't seem feasible
First off I was not trying to be 'antagonistic' towards you, but taking each on it's own merit....

TOM was in NYC the very day the freighter left. For one, as I am watching season 3, I don't really see where tom had the opportunity to make the visit to Michael in NYC....unless it was AFTER the Submarine was destroyed, that is the only time where we get even a few episodes without him in it. I am doing a season 3 marathon as we speak and I really don't see how he found the time to do it. From the time we saw him playing with Jack, there was a 4 episode gap, which in theory was about 3.5 days (Sayid said from the time they and Kate left to the time they found the FLAME it was 2 1/2 days of traveling.). Maybe there is a week at the most, where Tom's wherabouts can't be accounted for. It just does not add up. And deserves mention.

Yes, the Other's have shown extreme stealth but the way Harper did it, no I am sorry but that was supernatural and deserves to be mentioned as well. Especially when you consider the usage of the whispers in that scene.

Glad to see you agree with Jacob, obviously, there are no coincidences on this show but still, I'm putting it back in, it does not damage the article at all. feel free to 'make it your own' in you want though. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, the time lines do not match up for you. For example, Ben claims Jack had been on the island for 69 days when he shows him the tape of the Red Sox winning the world series. That puts that date at November 29th.......At that point I think it had only been 1, 2 days at the most since Jack had been captured. If we are to take Michael at his word, it took him "over a week" to return to New York City. pushing into december now. Farraday/Miles/Charlotte/Lapidus arrive on the island on December 21st...... so no, there is no way that unless there is another way on/off the island that we dont' know about, there is no way Tom could have called Michael while still in NYC just days before he was going to reach the Island. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see....if Oceanic Flight 815 crashed on September 14th 2004....and if (and we are taking a big risk about Ben Linus, but he qualified his time stamp he gave of it being 69 days/November whatever it was and THEN stated that A) George W Bush was re-elected;B)Christopher Reeve died (i think that was mid october and the red sox winning). The fact is, that Jacob and Harper are confirmed being able to make mysterious journeying acts, and Tom apparently was able to as well, if he TRUELY was in NYC less then a week before Lapidus would fly the science team over to the Island), then that is a pretty big notice, if Tom was able to go to NYC to get Michael to agree to the mission and then come back in time to lead that attack on the 815 camp which cost him his life. Facts are, there is enough there to suggest that they can make 'mysteroius' traveling and it's going in. Should note to you that we are close to a 3R warning which is on my side and the fact that you took the part about Harper and put it in the article tells me you know at least part ofw hat I am saying withstands scrutiny. Whippletheduck (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I said ,that Tom was there when the Sub was destroyed. And the only window of oppotunity where Tom's whereabous can't be accounted for is after the Other's leave the Barracks, from then to about the time Ben and Locke go to see Jacob is the only time Tom feasibly could have gone to visit Michael and get him to do what they needed. That was the only window of opportunity that they had. Whippletheduck (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll drop the Tom stuff for now, untill the show/producers give a better accounting of his timeline. Now, when i rewatch MEET KEVIN JOHNSON, if I can see something that timestamps exactly when that flashback took place, I'll deal with it then. But Jacob's part is going back into the article. Whippletheduck (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Storm Hawks characters page
Before you change it back, I think we need to open a forum to discuss it... Magus732 (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case, I suggest you change the rest of the article to comply with that line of logic, because I do not agree, and will not do it for you... Magus732 (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you not notice that I undid that revision? That's for a reason; those kinds of word/phrasing edits should be discussed before they're set in stone, so to speak... when I said "open a forum", I meant create a discussion on the article's talk page... until that's done, I think we should agree not to make those kinds of edits again just yet... deal? Magus732 (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the first time, before I reverted, I changed the word from quarrels to bolts... check the history... Magus732 (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's right... I changed my mind before I actually changed the words, which is why I reverted... Magus732 (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow Up on previous discussion on timelines/what happened when
I am watching season 4 of lost. I don't know what kind of DVD player you may have, but in the scene where Charlotte is having her flashback to that dig site she was on in Tunisia, when she picks up the paper to see the Oceanic Flight 815, it is November 29, 2004. My own DVD player allows me to pause and then zoom in and out and was able to see it quite clearly.

Assuming that Tunisia is on the same clock that things happened under, where it makes the same news cycle that other things would get, that means that assuming it all happened around the same time, that within a day or two of it being found, most if not all the off island stuff had to happen to make the flights out to Fiji and from there the voyage to the island. In Tunisia, they are not going to be that into that story, sure it will make the headlines if NOTHING else is going on in the news, but at the same time, I imagine after a day or two it will not be a 'top story' sort of news anymore.

If we are to believe that, then Michael Dawson saw that news story and then went to see Tom in that penthouse. During that time, the recruitment process for the Science team was taking place it would seem, both the stuff we see in Season 4 as well as at least the flashbacks that Miles had when he is first approached by Naomi, that whole 'ghostbusting' thing he does for that man and his son; as well as the near abduction from Bramm that takes place. Michael similarly was on a tight schedule but assuming they made all the arrangments for him, and you lose a day flying west, but he could have been on the freighter within a few days it would seem is reasonable. Something else of note, albeit nothing I am going to mention, we know that time shifts can happen as you pass to/from the Island. Just wanted to mention that perhaps Naomi LEFT the freighter on the morning of december 21st freighter time....but when she passed thru the barrier, while she would have never known it, arrived on the island on December 17th, if we are to believe the "3 day" comment that Naomi made that she had been on the Island prior to her death. And then, on the evening of the 21st, is when the Science crew actually leaves the freighter for the Island.

Note that I am not actually putting any of this into any article yet, as I am still scratching my head as I ponder this, but was just speculating and wanted to see what you thought of all this. Whippletheduck (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well like I said, I was more or less trying to make conversation on this subject. There are some things about it that, well, for example, when Bram abducts Miles he says 'We have to TRY' to talk Miles out of going on the freighter, implying that perhaps Bram already KNOWS that Miles WILL go to the Freighter, the Island, maybe even back in time if Bram turns out to be...well, he is working for Ilyanna and she directly is working for Jacob, which is very significant. So in some cases, it may well have been that it was indeed destiny that brought them there.

What is also significant, is that Anthony Cooper (Locke's dad) already KNEW that they had found the wreckage of 815, confirmed to Sawyer that the plane had already been found at the bottom of the ocean in that same speech before Sawyer gets his revenge. Assuming of course Cooper even ind death was finally not lying (and the guy was a con), but if so, there was not a lot of time there, maybe Tom was sent back via some other way to the US, both to ensure Michael comes back to the Island as well as to abduct Mr Cooper and bring him back to the Island, perhaps on one of the last runs the Submarine made.

The timelines on the show are extremely tight, that is for sure. those 100 days from the crash to the moving of the Island were certainly not lax times, there must have been serious movements going on. Whippletheduck (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that.
On the Code Lyoko page I thought I reverted it to your edits. Sorry if you thought I didn't.--Lamborghini man (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Paging Doctor Fate to the morgue...
Eh? Fate is muerte? When did this happen? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, okay then. :)
 * But...wasn't Grundy dead to begin with? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * More meat for the meat eaters? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  02:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for Joseph 10
I have retagged the article for AFD, as the CSD tags were misused. Please use G1 tags for articles lacking information to identify the subject. The first sentence clearly says it is a TV show. Thank you,  Zoo Fari  00:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

MataNui44
I've been dealing with an IP incarnation of MataNui44, who keeps demanding that you be "punished" for 3RR (see my talk page and FisherQueen's talkpage for the whole wearisome discourse). Since we're not about punishment and I'm not interested in abetting a vendetta or second-guessing other admins' actions, I offer some advice. Stay away from repeated reversion of unsourced material or OR. I've seen this happen before, and it makes it harder for us to deal with disruptive users, edit warriors and POV-pushers. Report it and stop. Somebody will deal with it, and the article can live in the wrong version for a while without harm. Really, it's not worth all the words that have been expended on half a dozen talk pages.  Acroterion  (talk)  12:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe MataNui44 and ip user 76.95.66.209 are the same person. It looks pretty convincing to me. First it was Mata then, out of nowhere,76.95.66.209. I do believe its the same person --Lamborghini man (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless, the same applies to you. Please do not repeatedly revert anything other than clear-cut vandalism or BLP violations - it just makes it harder to sort out. The IP was blocked principally for egregious assumption of bad faith and broad-based attacks on everybody they've interacted with. While I am reasonably sure it's the same person, I was not willing to block solely on that basis.   Acroterion  (talk)  13:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I won't.--Lamborghini man (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been following the ordeal. I refrained from involving myself since he was digging his own grave, so to speak. When he retrns next month he'll probably immediately revert, so I'll just send a report to the edit warring noticeboard. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 16:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI; it is unlikely to surprise you.  Acroterion  (talk)  12:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Cosplay
Hello, Thank you for your edit contributions. Regarding to cosplay page, Reference 7 www.cosplaymagic.com is also a cosplay costume store, a commercial store. If it can show up in the reference, why cosplayful.com can't. I think the www.cosplaymagic.com link should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharleneWills (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I don't quite know how to edit internal link yet,I'm sorry for all the troubles that I caused to you. I'll read instructions more thoroughly then do it. Thank you for you reminding.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharleneWills (talk • contribs) 18:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to your message
This is a response to the message you sent me. To tell you the truth, someone had already added something on it that said no-include, and I wasn't sure what to do with it. Before I could even remember, I removed it by accident. I had a busy day and couldn't remember anything. Thank you for reminding me of it, and I hope to hear a response from you soon. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * noinclude tags are designed to keep specific content, such as those interwiki links, restricted to that specific page. That way, the links don't show up on the pages the page in question is transcluded on. I did not know that. That might actually help in my situation. It just depends I guess. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Sapphire rating
Hey, I noticed that you've been looking over some of the Green Lantern articles lately. One of the biggest projects I've been working on is getting the Star Sapphire article to B-Class. I signed it up for review a while ago, but no one has gotten around to it.

I went through the checklist myself, and I think it meets all the criteria. I did update it, but I was wondering if you would be able to go through it and see if you agree? Hooliganb (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comic Con updates regarding LOST
Dominic Monhagan/Charlie Pace was at the live press conference. When asked if he was coming back, he stated "Why else would I be here?", which is not really an answer, but........

They confirmed that the episode where it showed a lot Richard was NOT a Richard-centric episode, that he will have one in season 6, which will explain things.

I submitted my question about the Sickness and whether A) Was Rousseu just mistaken about the Sickness or did something else happen; B) Did Rousseau have additional contacts with the Other's prior to Ben taking Alex; some other things, but they did not get to them. it was practically overflowed, so I did not get the burning question I have been wanting for a while now. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Tone is a matter of opinion
Hello someguy/The Rogue Penguin, I think you may have misunderstood my point in the discussion of the "Lelouch is dead" section of the Lelouch Lamperouge entry. I was not saying the status of the character is "alive" or "dead" I was merely pointing out (as ANN did earlier this year) that Sunrise made a statement which suggests that the status of this character is unknown (not dead or alive!).

I know what your personal feeling are on this having read many of your posts on the adult swim message board so I know where you're coming from on this.

And I agree with most of what you posted over there.

However, the facts remain as they are. The (?) in the article is placed there to indicate a (perhaps) or a (maybe) if you read Japanese then you know this (its the same in English as well). Brackets [] are what are used when an editor/writer adds something not said by the person they're interviewing.

As in the ANN article about this very subject.

ANN article

Note that the portion [a major character development happened] is in brackets added by ANN. Had the Sunrise quote stated "Like we have said before, Lelouch died, but Geass Cannot" then that would be a concrete statement. But that's not what Sunrise said. They said "Like we have said before, Lelouch MAY have died (?), but Geass Cannot" There is a difference in meaning there and that is incontrovertable.

Thus the Animedia article states that he "may" have died, not that he "did" die. That is a point of contradiction to what Okouchi said in the October issue of Continue (#42).

Also, Taniguichi does not state anywhere in the Newtype Interview (November 2008) that the Tone, Feeling, Mood, or whatever you wanna call it was up to the viewer to decide, he said the ENDING was for the viewer to decide, period.

Only Okouchi stated that it could be a "good" or "bad" ending based on a person's perspective and that was in Continue not Newtype. In fact, Taniguichi doesn't really say a whole lot about the ending other than it was left up to the audience to decide for themselves what happens.

Here is the Newtype Article;

  

I'd also like to know why these three references were removed from the source links in the wiki article. Other than Zero_Requiem's addition of the word "Tone" or "Feeling" or the like I see nothing wrong with the article as I had left it (last edit on August 3rd). I'd like to leave the article with what was said by Okouchi and Taniguichi (and perhaps Sunrise as well) intact without him/her coming in and changing it simply because he/she has a problem with this statement. The rest of the article states Lelouch died, and as I said before, he's dead no argument there. The argument is over what Taniguichi and Sunrise have stated, and the proof is in the links I provided. This should be a simple matter but Zero_Requiem (in particular) seems to have a problem with this for some reason. Taniguichi's statements do NOT change the status of Lelouch being dead, they simply state that the ending is up to the viewer to decide and that for him the show was over. That is a fact, so what's the problem? Although Sunrise's statement certainly puts it in question (no doubt just in case they want to garner some more cash from this show). Sunrise is a valid and reliable source (as I said already) and so their statement might should be added to the article. Since you closed the discussion on the article I had to take it here.

As a side note, hope to see you on the [asmb] soon. :) Tetragrammaton (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your quick reply The Rogue Penguin. I take what you said as meaning that I may remove the "Tone" addition by Zero_Requiem from the article since it changes the meaning of what Taniguichi said in the Newtype article. I will NOT add the Sunrise article as per your request since you feel it is not relevant.  However, I will say I find that regretable since it is clear what Sunrise meant and the writer of the article (interviewer) clearly added the (?) to indicate they were not sure whether the preceeding statement was correct.  But I respect you so I'll respect your opinion on the Sunrise statement.Tetragrammaton (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you ever feel like you're repeating yourself?


 * The tone of the ending is a matter of a opinion, the tone of this article is not.
 * "" and "[ ]" are interchangeable, both are used to mean the same thing. Argument invalid.
 * I personally have no problem with source links, give the readers all they want.
 * I already outlined why it is necessary to specify 'tone' at the end of the last discussion. So why don't we just consult that instead of spamming up Penguin's discussion page? :)

Zero Requiem (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, we've got to come to an agreement about leaving 'tone' in or else the edit wars are not going to end. It has to stay in or it changes the meaning of the statement to something not canon. Zero Requiem (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. It is a big deal. Leaving it out changes the meaning of the statement to something not canon. If it's not a big deal to you, then leave it in. Zero Requiem (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. It is a big deal. Leaving it out changes the meaning of the statement to something not canon. If it's not a big deal to you, then leave it in. Zero Requiem (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am aware of that, but your final word on the matter is what ends this dispute. That's what stops the annoying edit wars. Leaving 'tone' out changes the meaning of the statement from 'let the viewer decide whether it's happy or sad' to 'let the viewer decide what happened' -which as I'm sure you know, simply isn't true. I cannot accept leaving it out as a compromise. Leave it in, or we re-word it completely. Zero Requiem (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It does hurt, and the detail is absolutely needed in order for the message not to come across deadly-wrong. You suggest it's not a big deal to you, but you seem to be eagerly defending its removal. Can you give me one good reason it should be removed? Zero Requiem (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think (hope) that I've written a decent compromise to this. I eliminated the "tone" which is opinion, and added "but did not indicate Lelouch was alive."  Therefore the statement is true, he DID NOT say Lelouch was alive in the Newtype Interview so the statement is now accurate and the concern of Zero_Requiem has been addressed in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV rules.Tetragrammaton (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Whogasm
I have nominated Whogasm, 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/Whogasm. 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. Otterathome (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy and Pasting template
Ok thank you for that information and helping out the template. But please don't make it sound like I did it more than once. Because I only did it once. It was moved more than once. I moved it for the sole purpose for changing the name but instead it only lead to redirection. And ever since I moved it I tried to fix it so I copied and pasted it thinking that would help not reading the instruction not to at that time. And then of course I had to realize that didn't fix anything either. But thanks for the information I appreciate it. By the way I still have an redirection problem on both sides so where do I go to contact an administrator. Captain Virtue (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Global Dynamics
An article which you have worked on. Ikip (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

marabounta deletion ? why
i haven't even finshed on it an you deleted it i am new by the way to editing have i violated thee rules? Voxsar 07:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

my sources are not from internet but from the code lyoko episode video itself, what I write i reviewed from the episode directly am currently downloading all the episodes an was trying to do the same edit for all of the episodes in time, i don't think it is fair (i wasn't referring to your edit o my page), see House MD episodes (which i based my style of editing for this article Marabounta) have there own page for each episode, The resources i have taken come from the video it self is that OK or is it a violation too

The difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia is that the dictionary will contain a simple explanation an brief description of an entity but the encyclopedia will contain more vast information about it what's your opinion

i will not edit an code lyoko episodes if you don't want me too! just say the word! thank you Voxsar 08:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

conversion crystals
I think a shorter version would be best.

Several Sinestro Corps members used to be trapped there, but were released before their conversions were complete :
 * Karu-Sil (of Sector 2815): She is captured after the Sinestro Corps War and encased in a crystal.
 * Kiriazis (of Sector 1771): She is captured after the Sinestro Corps War and shown encased in a crystal. Queen Aga'po explains why Kiriazis is a good candidate for conversion.
 * Kryb (of Sector 3599): After being defeated by Miri Riam and a group of Green Lanterns, Miri took her back to Zamaron for rehabilitation. Miri later escorts Kryb back to the world she kept her "children".
 * Sinestro (of Sector 1417): While tryng to free the others, Sinestro faces Carol Ferris. She briefly encases him inside of a conversion crystal, but he frees himself after being shown a memory of his former lover: Arin Sur.

What do you think of this version?--Marhawkman (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. *scurries off to implement*--Marhawkman (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Questions, comments, snide remarks?(on the modified version)--Marhawkman (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your reworded version. :)--Marhawkman (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

MataNui44 possibility?
I'm beginning to think that User:Everyman21 is another one of MataNui44's socks. I may be wrong, but it's a possibility. This whole Code Lyoko thing is starting all over again. And it's similar to the MataNui situation.--Lamborghini man (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. tedder (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm templating a regular, please see my reply to your RFPP request and know the 3RR warning was given to treat all three reverters faily. tedder (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Code Geass characters
We are currently discussing on whether we should merge the Code Geass characters into the character page. Would you mind joining in, you used to edit Code Geass quite frequently. I personally oppose the merge, but then that's just my opinion. We're discussing this on Talk:List of Code Geass characters - Plau (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)