User talk:Victis Omega

T-600G
I'm not seeing any sources -- not one -- for what's in this article, and some of them, frankly, look like they were made up out of whole cloth. What's the source? --Calton | Talk 03:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Join us in the "Terminator" Article discussion page...please...
If you are still a member of Wikipedia, please join user:TomTheHand and myself in a discussion of which terms should apply to the Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 Infiltration Unit in its various forms.

To be as neutral as possible, I will relate the views of TomTheHand as well as my own, as accurately as posible:

Tom believes that the term "Android" should apply to all of the incarnations of the Model 101, from Endoskeleton all the way up to the gestalts of flesh-and-blood and the combat chassis played by Arnold in the movies. He furthermore believes that the term "cyborg" does not apply to any of the Terminator's forms.

Thanos777 -myself -thinks that the Terminator is worthy of multiple appelations depending on which configuration (read: Type/Series) the Model 101 is configured as.

That is to say, I believe that the "Base" Model 101, just the endoskeleton with no cosmetic enhancements, is best defined as either a Humanoid Robot, Anthropomorphic Robot, or simply a Robot.

When the Model 101 is outfitted as a Type/Series 600, the endoskeleton covered by rubber skin, I believe that the Terminator is then most correctly classified as an "android."

And finally, when the Model 101 is equipped as a Type/Series 800/850, the endoskeleton with the living flesh-and-blood covering, I believe that the most correct term for the creatre is "cyborg."

Again, I respectfully ask you to come back to the "Terminator" Article and lend your input; those of us who are there in the Article's discussion page are engaging in a lot of back-and-forth regarding the different terms and the disagreements as to when they should be used.

Hope to "see" you there soon!!!

Tregowith
Looking over Tregowith's talk page, I see a pattern: He censors or deletes article after article on the flimsiest of pretense, then doesn't reply to people who ask him why he did it. Then he censors their complaint. He definitely is abusing administrative privileges...if I sign this comment, he'll probably delete it before you can read it. Something's gotta be done about this, the guy is a vandal by another name. How did he get to be an administrator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.201.56 (talk • contribs)