User talk:ThuranX

Welcome!

THIS IS MY USER TALK. IF YOU VANDALIZE IT, I WILL REVERT THE VANDALISM. AS MANY TIMES AS IT TAKES. HITTING MY TALK WITH 'CEASE AND DESIST' VANDALISM WARNINGS FOR UNDOING YOUR BAD INFO, OR YOUR OWN VANDALISM, WILL ALSO BE REVERTED.

NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM.

Hello, ThuranX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page

• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Faith-Based initiatives

A connection to Bill Gothard and/or Ted Suhl should be included because there is a pattern of state spending on faith-based initiatives. A search of Google news archives mentions a 1997 article which ties Gothard to Huckabee and a search of Gothard's site iblp.org reveals two mentions of Huckabee (google Huckabee site:iblp.org). The site mentions " Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas stated, “As a person who has actually been through the Basic Seminar, I am confident that these are some of the best programs available for instilling character into the lives of people.”" Gothard apparently does prison rehabilitation programs. Ted Suhl also runs a faith-based program which provides services to troubled youth. Google "Ted Suhl" Huckabee and the arktimes has a couple stories on the subject. Jmegill (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What timing

Take a look at the message I left on FTD's user page at the exact same time you were posting a message on mine.

Feel free to report him this time. I'm concerned that between how many times I've reported him and with the list I compiled on User:EJBanks's talk page, it will look like harassment from me. One problem is the question of what username we report as the puppetmaster. Records don't back far enough to confirm that he's Creepy Crawler based on IP numbers. That issue has prolonged the problem at least twice over the last . . . wow, two years. Doczilla (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This had slipped my mind: The bigger list of the person's history is at User_talk:Creepy_Crawler#Copy_of_previous_evidence_for_the_history. We'd compiled the list during one sock puppet case and then Wryspy copied it to CC's talk page so we'd be able to find it in the future.Doczilla (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'll just make the report later tonight myself. I've compiled the evidence with links spelling out the editing similarities. Doczilla (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's done.[1] I actually spotted this one almost two months ago [2] and wanted to let somebody bust him this time, but of course he came to our attention again. Next time, somebody else gets to report him, no matter what. Doczilla (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it has to be us, because we know his patterns. Frankly, if you look at all the big Sock cases, it's usually the same cluster of editors reporting, because they see the articles that are targeted daily, and they can spot the problems. We have to keep shooting him down ,and fast as possible. The faster the better, because it was found earlier that he farms a few socks at a time. catching him s close to his startup as possible means they can check the new accounts log too, and maybe nail his other new socks. I'm hoping we can get a long IP ban this time. As for why? He's a jerk? He's mentally unstable? Hes' just obsessive? He thinks it's funny? he really thinks he's helping? He's a kid? He's a she? I can't guess motives, but he's got to be stopped. ThuranX (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Scockpuppetry Accusation

I admit, I'm guilty of Sockpuppetry. I was changing the Marvel Films template because i beleive that The Incredible Hulk and The Punisher War Zone are sequels, But that's just my personel opinion, And as no one can change my opinion, Other Wikipedia editors opinions cannot be changed either. As was attempting to edit thr Template only in IP, But, I accidently did it as my user name as well. As for the change on the other user's talk page, They had given me a Vandel 1 template on my editor user page, And i wanted to apologize, Only i remembered i was in my IP, And so i came back as my user name to change it and apologize (i was originally trying to add a Sorry template on IP, But none had existed, And so, I changed as a Wikipedia editor user). If you believe i should be blocked from editing for attempting Sock Puppetry, Then i will leave Wikipedia, Permanetly, As well, And will only return to read article pages, But NOT TO EDIT THEM. Again, I'm Guilty, And i'm truly sorry for all of what i have done to Wikipedia, Which i believe is the greatest encyclopedia and website of all time. I reminder that this is an apology, And i have acknologed that Wikipedia Administrators shall be notified immediately. (NOTE: Please post this confession on my Sockpuppet accusation page). Sorry.--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad link?

Which link where? All I did was close out the survey, I can't find where I've linked to earth-Two on Talk:Kal-L. Which link do you mean? Hiding T 09:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm being dense. It was suggested the page be merged with Superman. I've closed that discussion saying there was clear opposition to merging with Superman. Why do I need to link to Earth Two, or where am I and not doing so? Do you mean Jc's bit just before mine at the end linking to the WikiProject discussion? Hiding T 16:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

link not working

your link here to an Earth Two discussion area, isn't working at all. can you set it to point to the correct place? thanks. ThuranX (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed (presuming that that was the link you were referring to...) - jc37 08:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

that was it! Thank you. couldn't find it browsing the archive, for some reason. appreciate it. ThuranX (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome : ) - jc37 09:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Breaches of WP:CIV

After the amount of mud-slinging I've had to put up with for the last few days, I am not prepared to tolerate your slurs that I am "bigoted" and "racist". So I must ask you to withdraw those remarks. If you agree to withdraw, the matter is finished as far as I'm concerned. If you will not withdraw those remarks, I will feel obliged to take the matter further. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You asserted that anyone reverting your edits must be an asian out to protect their favored stereotype. It's a racist, bigoted presumption. I reverted you because you're using YOUR opinions, not facts, to alter the article. ThuranX (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Where did I make such an assertion? I really have no idea what you're talking about.

And I don't know what you're talking about when you say you reverted me either. What reversion are you referring to? Gatoclass (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, my fault, sorry, I'll try to keep the bigots separate. I've got your anti-eastern European bigotry, and the anti-asian bigotry of an IP transposed. No, your comments, as linked from that AN/I, are defintiely bigoted assumptions that those who opposed your edits all lump into some vague anti-you category of eastern europeans, see "editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords". for example. it's lame. knock it off. You're making an ad hominem attack on all those opposing you, suggesting that all they are interested in is emotional outbursts, not rational thought, based on your presumptions about their origins. Finally, keep all of this at AN/I, not my talk page. Trying to do this in two places in hopes i'll say something in one you canleverage agaisnt the other to try a block request out on me isn't going to work. I will not reply here further, but ONLY at the AN/I. ThuranX (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In hopes you'll say something I can leverage against you? On the contrary. The reason I took it to your talk page was in the hope that we could resolve this quietly away from the spotlight. But plainly you are not interested. In which case, I guess I'm left with no choice. Gatoclass (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gatoclass is aware, assuming he has read his talk page, that I have inquired as to whether his statements and conduct fall under the umbrella of the Digwuren arbitration decision. One is entitled to their opinions, but not when they include presumptions of lack of integrity on the part of an entire community of editors. Gatoclass not offering an apology for his own conduct and then demanding apologies from those who would call Gatoclass to account for his conduct rather puts the nail in the coffin as far as any remediation based on assumptions of good faith. I am sorry for Gatoclass' preconceptions which have made him believe every disagreement with his position(s) is fueled by belligerence and not by editors acting in good faith. —PētersV (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright thing, I'll leave it to the inquiry to sort out this matter. thank you for the information, and if a statement is needed, please notify, be glad to provide. ThuranX (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Gatoclass where you are mentioned on is now open. --Termer (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Stalking?

Yeah sorry about that, I was experimenting with AWB and happened to use your contributions as a starting point. It didn't occur to me until after that it would start from your most recent edit and therefore be really obvious, so sorry if that was a bit weird. --carelesshx _talk 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Punisher & Hulk Reboots; Oh, now i get it

Sorry for me thinking The Incredible and The Punisher: War Zone were sequels. Now i understand that Hulk is a reboot because it's based on the 70's TV Show, Not the comics like the 2003 film, And that Punisher is a reboot because it's based on the second line of comics, Now the original like the 2004 film. But i still don't understand why you don't want to belive that Spider-Man 4 is official. If you still think i'm under a misunderstanding, Tell me on my User Talk Page. Thanks, And Sorry.--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

Your new message on my talk page has been considered Harassment, Which i noted at the top of the page is not permitted. You will recieve a block if you send me another message like that, So don't, You DID NOT have to be so harassing.--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

I'm going to permanetly be leaving Wikipedia, For good. Just thought you might want to post that on the Sock Puppet page, Because I'm not going to post it.--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Broken Wrist

thanks! Doczilla (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

note

you're invited to join the conversation. however, reverts will not withstand if the references are inaccurate, non-expert, and even false. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. It's at AN/I. you're playing games. Go back to AN/I. My talk page isn't the place for it. ThuranX (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! Indeed, one of my first few ones!

Someformofhuman Speak now! 00:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Punisher move

Hi,

You've moved the new Punisher film article, but you didn't move it over the article it was shifted from... The consensus version was Punisher: War Zone, no? Chris Cunningham (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hulk and Punisher reboots

Just one more question about the reboots. Are they reboots because the 2003 and 2004 films box office records did not meet the Studios' expectations?--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You must be kidding?

Hello ThuranX, I saw your comment on Huckabee; you had to be kidding. How can a guy become not only a member of a church, but a pastor that not only was created on specific racist doctrine and continued that position until well after the civil right movement not be relevant? Having grown up in the south and attended many (reads lots) of SB church meetings, I can tell you that it was segregated out of choice and in many communities till this day remains segregated.

I can understand when people are unaware of that past, but that does not excuse Huckabee's active participation in such an organization. His being a pastor in such a church says something when its history is known and discussed openly. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pull back on the high horse routine; I was purposely kidding as noted by the stupid little smiley face I put on my edit summary. I seldom use those things, but did in this case so that you would understand specifically that my tone was in jest. I won't make the mistake again. Have a good day. Oh, never threaten another editor. Act or keep the those type of inane threats to yourself. If you need to know where to report me, just ask and I will be happy to be of assistance. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a treat.

A chocolate chip cookie

Yep, I noticed that. Anyway, I was about to give you this for stepping into that, but then the person gutted your page and everything escalated. Thanks. Doczilla (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like typing for long. VP makes vandal fighting pretty easy, though, except when any elaborate explanation is called for. The ribs are what's hurting most at this point. Thanks for your concern. Doczilla (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thinking . . . Doczilla (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ask for it. You did get an incivility block in 2007, but that's not an edit revert issue. You are an editor in good standing per the guidlines. I think as long as you make it clear that you plan to use it only for vandal fighting and not in any non-vandal edit disputes, you should be okay. It is a handy tool. It wouldn't hurt to ask. Doczilla (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

For fighting blatant vandalism would probably be best wording. Doczilla (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

There's been some more activity at Talk:Mitt Romney#Material regarding subject's religious affiliation. I'd very much appreciate your input. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm very sorry for all the disruptive edits i've caused to you and the Marvel films' pages. I was foolish to thibk Hulk and Punisher were sequels without reading their correct citations, And it was even worse when i attempted harassment to you. Again, Terribly sorry, And i promise to not use I.P. or the other sock accounts again. I know you do not want to do it any longer, But, Would you please mentor me on how to properly edit here on Wikipedia? Thank You! I know your working in good faith.--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

no prob

I rarely add to the noise side of the signal ratio, but I couldn't follow that thread anyway. Anyway... back to poker.... -- 03:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and Roger Rabbit page

Since your user and usertalk are on my watchlist (since tha vandalism mess eons ago)

What and when exactly did I vandalize? As for the Roger Rabbit page in question, seems good to me, but I'm no expert on what justifies the presence of an article. So like I suggested, would merging the Graphic Novel page with Who P-P-P-Plugged Roger Rabbit?? Because those pages certainly wouldn't have much to add to as both are out of print. After merging them, maybe retitle the pager Roger Rabbit Sequels and follow ups. Antiyonder (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, since that wasn't on YOUR talk pge, maybe I wasn't speakign to you? ThuranX (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but since I was part of the discussion, I figured you could be. That said, what do you think of my page merging idea? Antiyonder (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

it's a good one. cut the plot in half again and go for it. ThuranX (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you go about merging the pages and/or changing the title? All I've done up to now are just regular additions and deletions. Antiyonder (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To merge, you basically merge the content. That is, you manually transfer the relevant information over, by cutting and pasting or rewriting. TO redirect, there's abutton along the top to help with that. you erase all the content, hit the redirect button, and fill in the 'new' page. ThuranX (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The redirect button you're talking about, is it the one that says move? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiyonder (talk • contribs) 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, would you say that the Roger Rabbit/Baby Herman shorts would be appropriate for the page I'm suggesting as there is much that could be added to them either. Antiyonder (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

sounds good. ThuranX (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I redirected the Who PLugged Roger P-P-P-Plugged Roger Rabbit? page into a new title, Roger Rabbit Spin-offs. So now I figure I could manually as you said copy and paste the Graphic Novel section to the Spin-off page. Afterwards, how do I delete the Resurrection Of Doom page? Antiyonder (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't, just redirect it. ThuranX (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Figured it out, but thanks anyway. Since you particpated in editing some of the pages, would you be interested in checking out the merged pages? It's titled Roger Rabbit Spin-offs. I'm thinking of merging the article on the shortlived comic series as well.

As for the cartoon shorts, I'm think of making a seperate page for them titled Roger Rabbit shorts. Antiyonder (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Now find some critical response to the works, and include that for real-world context. ThuranX (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside from Critisim and Reception, what do you have in mind for Real World Context? I'll do what I can as these particular books are pretty obscure and might not have the same comments that the movie does. Antiyonder (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, any good book review, or documentary stuff, like the directors of the animations discussing the process, would be good. I realize there may be very little. In fact, if there's almost nothing, I'd suggest merging all of it to the main WFRR book and movie articles, with all followups to the movie's version of the story there, and all media follow ups to the book version there, if you knwo what I mean. A total lack of real World context might mean it all fails wikipedia's notability standards. Let's hold off on that conclusion for a while though, in favor of seeing what we can find. Finally, you're making a great effort to edit in the best spirit of Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I see with merging on the WFRR main page is that the summaries would have to be trimmed and thus would provide as much detail. Now normally I agree that plot summaries shouldn't be lengthy, but seeing as the novel and comic in question are highly obscure and might not see any republishing, I think the indepth reviews would be helpful. Also, I figured I'd merge the Roger Rabbit (comic book) and Roger Rabbit's Toontown into the spino-off page to add to it's validity. Still, I'll go on some forums to see if anyone could provide me with the info you're suggesting. Antiyonder (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd argue that obscurity is a sign of lacking notability. for example ,the entire article we started on COULD be summarized as 'In an adventure where Roger and Eddie confront the return of Judge Doom.'. That's the concept, really. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but don't regular encyclopedia's go into detail concerning obscure info at time? Anyway, I could use some help to acquire the info, so isn't there any of those notice features I could put up at the top of the page in the meantime? Anyway, thanks for your help thus far. Antiyonder (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing obscurity and non-notability. For example, Spring-Heeled Jack is an obscure character (historical AND fictional versions), but he certainly has some notability, given the numerous media reports of the time, and the lasting appeal to the niche who know about him, as well as his recurrent use in later fiction. And I'm not advocating a total deletion, but compressing the far less notable sequel and 'franchise' (i use the term loosely for this set of stories) into one section detailing attempted sequels and other media appearances would be giving the section due weight. I recommend, if you haven't read it, reading WP:UNDUE, which is a good set of ideas about balancing the apparent notability of a subject, or aspect thereof, with its fair proportion of coverage. For example, I think you'd agree, these later pieces are certainly less well known and less important to most of the public than the movie, and still lag behind the book and sequel novel. Likewise, they've received far less coverage. Combine that with WP:PLOT, and you begin to see that cutting the articles down in size, and simplifying hte plots, is not an unreal, or unfair, idea.

All that said, I've said before and I repeat, I'm not planning any AfD or merge actions. I think you're really improving the articles, and I want to see that continue. So, in that spirit, you keep asking, i'll keep answering. ThuranX (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Before I get back on that, I'm going to go with my other idea to merge the Cartoon shorts as they are are very small. As for the spin-off page, I was think you might be right about moving the novel to the movie page (Since there isn't much of a summary for that one), but I figure the Graphic Novel would be notable since it gives the movie's antagonist a backstory and touches up on some lose ends (Such as ownership of Maroon Cartoons). So what I think I might try is:

A. Move the Who P-P-P-Plugged Roger Rabbit novel to the WFRR article or move it to the Who Censored Roger Rabbit page. Which move would you deem appropriate? B. Merge the Graphic Novel & Roger Rabbit Toontown with the Roger Rabbit (comic book) section (Since apparently the GN lead into the comics).

I'm going to talk to the ones who put up the info on Resurrection Of Doom and see if they can provide me with the info you've suggested. I probably won't do anything major for a day or two aside, just to give myself time to sort things out. Antiyonder (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure offhand about A, but B certainly seems like a good idea. Let me review the pages and think. Finally, please, before moving anything more, post notes ont he relevant talk pages about your idea, and see what happens. ThuranX (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope I was okay in dealing with the Roger Rabbit Shorts then. Basically cause I read that one of the policies with page merging was "Be bold and do it yourself". If you want to check out that page it's Roger Rabbit Cartoon Shorts.

As for the comic page, here's Roger Rabbit (comic book) and Roger Rabbit's Toontown. Antiyonder (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. --Maniwar (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Roger Rabbit: The Resurrection of Doom

Thanks for helping Antiyonder with this. I hate that right now I can't offer enough help in response to a request like that. Doczilla (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A Thumbs up!

Thumbs up!

Re: On 16 Jan 2008, I got my first GA Article, Hulk (comics), after an extensive rewrite.

Good news. Doczilla (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Romero

Ah, somebody noticed that George Romero link! Thanks. It was interesting getting booed by so many people when Romero himself had no problem with the question. We got to talk about it the next day. I'm actually standing next to him in the picture that has been cropped down to just him for George_A._Romero. It's one of the few times I ever asked a celebrity to sign a photo for me. As for dressing like zombies, I'll admit I did that myself for a Zombie Walk connected to a horror film convention this past Halloween. Romero is very gracious and grateful to his fans. I suspect that he would generally avoid questions that might come across as putting them down. Doczilla (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hulk

Sorry - I had some problems "copy-pasting" the template. But if someday you need to use the ArticleHistory template, is "failed" and "listed". igordebraga ≠ 12:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention it. I just assumed the whole world was dancing for joy like me having heard the news of the live action Marvel universe. Alientraveller (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't think it might be a good idea to revise the Marvel films template? Already the X-Men, Spidey and F4 movies have their own templates, so it might be a good idea to revise it to focus on the Avengers. Alientraveller (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just the facts Ma'am.

Hello ThuranX, adding well documented statements of fact that directly contradict a candidates own current "Official Position" is healthy in a free and open forum like wikipedia. I don't see you being critical of editors who only make reference to un-encyclopedic sources such as a candidate own controlled web page or an un-referenced list of "official positions". According to your reasoning, the political positions section of each candidates page might as well be a direct link to their own web site or positions list from their own hard drive.

As for me I will continue to promote wikipedia as a free medium where by the lobbyests and special interests do not have a corrupting advantage over the rest of us. This is not in violation of any wiki rules and is in fact extactly what we are supposed to be encouraging in this free and open forum where the well referenced facts rule. As for you... Just the facts Ma'am Anappealtoheaven (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in addition to presumptions about my gender, and the likely intended insult, no. You're pushing a POV, and it's clear that you are. You are deliberately making statements that put other candidates in an intentionally bad light, like wording things do demonstrtate YOUR perception of hypocrisy just because a republican senator worked WITH a democrat to pass a bill. It's childish, spoiled behavior of the 'gotcha' style of journalism, and hardly the mark of a serious editor here. I suggest, again, that you stop that behavior and learn how to edit like a respectable editor here, using neutral wording and facts. ThuranX (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, I've responded on my talk page. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 17:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just responded again :) DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 17:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

...and again. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 18:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective criteria for episode notability

I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hulk

Um, a few sentences in the 80's hrough 90's need refs, but thats about it! RC-0722 (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This, "During his run, he established that Banner had suffered child abuse, an idea explored in the Crossroads of Eternity stories, which ran from issue #300 (Oct. 1984) to #313 (Nov. 1985). Mantlo showed the readers that abuse fostered a great deal of repressed anger within Banner, in turn causing his fragmented personality." and, "In the introduction to the Hulk trade paperback Beauty and the Behemoth, David said that his wife had recently left him, providing inspiration for the storyline." RC-0722 (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you need any help just let me know. :-) RC-0722 (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately

It is very messy because I generally have trouble referencing the sources..whatever I put the links next to is what I plan on trying to reference it to. Your help would be much appreciated to help me reference all the links on david george —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir Peter Scott

I would submit that you might wish to look at the website, sirpeterscott.com's subpages, "antisemitism.html" [4] and "zafarali.html" [5]. There you will perhaps develop understanding about the level of serious coverup of crimes that is going on here. 87.194.51.176 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert

Hello ThuranX!

I was browsing over at Wikiquette Alerts, and found that an editor has brought an alert against you Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:ThuranX. I have reviewed some of his claims, and I see his side of the issue. I didn't want to write anything over there until I had a chance to see your side, because what little I could tease out from some of the edits, there may have been a claim to precipitate what you were writing. Feel free to respond over at the site, and, if possible, include some diffs for others to check out. Peace! LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:New York City at night HDR.jpg in Gotham City

Dear heavens, man, what is up?

If a section described a connection between Gotham City and New York City, then a picture of New York City is suitable. Any picture chosen would depend on a user's opinion - no one would just randomly insert one! Also, please note that I did not claim that the picture resembled Gotham in the article or the image's description, I simply stated that as the reason for my choosing that specific picture in my edit summary. Any person choosing any picture will have one reason or another for choosing it: that reason should not matter as long as the picture is appropriate. And, again, I simply inserted a picture of New York into a section discussing New York.

If you feel uncomfortable with the picture there, I'm sure people won't mind you discussing it on the talk page. Please do not remove it again. Anrie (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Really your intimidation tactics are really poor and reflect your own heavy handed neo-con POV :-)

Good luck. I have been fair and balanced with all of the facts and references used. Anappealtoheaven (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hulk template...

I need a few extra eye looking at {{Hulk}} with regard to added character articles.

Thanks, - J Greb (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Joker

I don't know anything about how the film will go, but I was thinking that it's highly unlikely that the Joker wouldn't be killed but instead end up in Arkham Asylum. Marketing will definitely be difficult to do for the Joker now because you notice how they've barely covered the rise of Two-Face? Seems like they've wanted to treat it as an added bonus. They may have to show off Eckhart a little more to imply what he'll become. I assume Two-Face will be the main antagonist in a third film while the Joker will be tucked away. Would Nolan really keep using the Joker, though? There doesn't appear to be any attempted character development -- he comes in, causes hell, and goes out, while Batman is tortured like usual and has to deal with his friend/foe Harvey Dent becoming a new threat. I was reading on UGO earlier, In the last few minutes of the Dark Knight bank heist, The Joker's parting words to the audience were "Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stranger." We regret that we'll never know how strange Heath Ledger could become. Definitely going to be one of the little ironies EW mentioned. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And I grinned at the Raul Julia reference; definitely didn't go over my head. I'm curious, though, as to how Gilliam will address Ledger's death in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. I'm not sure how major of a role Ledger had in that film, since the premise seems centered on the other two actors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

David Gest

Wow, nice rewrite on this article! I've been struggling alone to remove the fannisms and revert all the vandalism from anon users. I really appreciate your work on this article. Please check it out every so often, as I believe the fan version is being rewritten by David Gest's agent (seriously). He will probably attempt to undo your work as he has mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.29.196 (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield

I am really sorry if you interpreted my comments toward you as sarcastic. That defiantly was not my intention, and I assure you that there was no hostility directed toward you. my only goal was to clean up the page, and you reverted without any explanation on the talk page, so I did my best to post on the talk page how I understood the situation, and my reasons for reverting back. if anything was considered sarcastic...well that just shows the fallacies of an electronic medium...it forces the reader to make too many assumptions about what the message said (it suddenly occurs to me i did write "that is what a talk page is for"...and I would probably have taken that as biting sarcasm rather than humor that we are talking about cleaning up a talk page...please understand I didn't think that one through). I want to work together, and I appreciate you explaining your actions. I agree that posts should be deleted immediately if not constructive...and I understand why it is probably a bad idea to do it later. I am also unfamiliar with the how an when of an non-automated archive system, if you could just give me some pointers on that I would appreciate it. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Coffeepusher (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

as noted in the discussion board, I re read my comment and it does come off as really sarcastic. I am not shure what I did wrong in typing it, but I will be mindfull in the future.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

re:User:Pablofan

I reverted vandalism to your user page by this editor, and then, after reverting more vandalism elsewhere by this editor, reported him to AiV. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Posthumous"

What exactly is your beef with the The Dark Knight (film) being categorized as a posthumous work? It's very much a posthumous work for Ledger. The Crow (film) is a posthumous work, correctly listed in that category; Queen of the Damned (film) is a posthumous work, correctly listed in that category... Hell, Bad Santa is in that, and only on the basis of John Ritter's unfortunate passing, and he only had a small role in that one. Please stop removing that very appropriate category, or if you really think it should be removed, explain your reasoning on the talk page, because your edit summaries aren't really doing it. EAE (Holla!) 06:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't enough. I've actually gone to that category page and asked for discussion about a stronger inclusion consideration. Until such time as strong consensus for including any movie where anyone died during or after the production but before release is established, leave it off and stop adding it. Movies are so collaborative, and of such prolonged production that asserting that it's any one person's work is a specious claim. A book is written by one or two people, and most often cannot be finished without the other (The Tolkien family may in some cases be an exception, in other cases, clearly not). Same with a solo album - with 'that voice', the album's done. I even find the idea of taking 25 year old recordings and caliming it's a 'posthumous' work a shady situation, because the artist consciously chose to NOT release the recordings, meaning his self-editing process said 'I am not comfortable with some aspect of this recording being publicized', be it technical, emotional, financial or personal, although Financial, like withholding to get early termination of a contract, may be a legit reason to suggest PW, because the artist might have released later under a favorable contract, citation of motivation woukld be needed for inclusion. ThuranX (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost every film is a posthumous work for somebody somewhere in the cast or crew. Consider how very long it takes for those many, many names to go by in the end credits. Doczilla (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

While "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS" is really funny, and a good point even, and the theoretical objection that "people die before their work sees the light of day" is valid, I am not seeing how that applies to arguably the star of a film ("anti-star" if you prefer), and if not the star, then the co-star. I assume the book and album comparisons intended to draw the distinction between a collective work like a film and individual or nearly-individual works like books and albums. That's true. However, "posthumous" just means the work was released after the death of one of its contributors. I would even support the inclusion of ANY work released after the death of ANY of its contributors (after all, it's posthumous for that one (notable) person, even if s/he was just a key grip); or at least a further subdivision of the category into "posthumous works by [directors|actors|writers|...]". I can assure you that people exist who would be interested in one place grouping all works which were produced in whole or in part by a person who did not see their work released. EAE (Holla!) 07:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Big deal. We also have people who exist who want to see categories of actor by pubic grooming choices, politicians by show size, machines by percentage of parts which were anodized. Just because a potential category exists, that doesn't make it notable. In fact, posthumous works overall seems highly NON-Notable. What level of participation makes it 'their work'? If a scriptwriter's draft is turned over to another scriptwriter, and later discarded, is their contribution to the film, limited and discredited though it be, still enough to meet the collective work standard of 'posthumous'? The cut off levels for collective actions is way to arbitrary. Tolkien's got a handful of works listed, though he should really have maybe The Silmarillion, since many of the others were his son's expansions of his background notes. When Christopher Tolkien expanded 14 pages of dad's notes into a 400 page tome, whose work is it really? This category isn't clearly defined. ThuranX (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User pushing a POV

What's the latest news with our old friend, User:Anappealtoheaven ? DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 22:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Creepy

Here he is again.[6] Doczilla (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Heroes talkpage

How is this format cleaner? the boxes are big and take up a lot of space. what policy is being broken by having small boxes? I dont think I am breaking any policy. Also, I am glad you heard the news, because yes, if you look over the talkpage, several users in the heroes wikiproject have made significant changes in reference to the Lost page. Several users have commented that they have made changes based on the format of the lost page because it is a feature article and similar to heroes. now, it is no longer news to you, "oh wikipedia, high and mighty"--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a matter of personal opinion to me. You have stated no policy to me. And you referenced other editors?? Who? Only me, you and collectarian are involved.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. we seem to be having a misunderstanding. When i stated "sounds like a matter of personal opinion" i was referring to your comments The tiny boxes down the side and the jammed up bars at the top are sloppy. Collectonian's adjustments are neater. I was referring to the statement in the bold as a matter of opinion, not your issue with me being uncivil. so, sorry for that misunderstanding. I certainly do not think that me being a fan of the show gives my opinion more weight than anybody elses. I am sorry you feel that way for me, but I don't. User Collectonian and I have already discussed this issue and have come to a resolve. He agreed with me that the talkpage needed more cleanup and he disagreed with me about using the small boxes...so we both reformatted so that it looks much better. I guess you were a third wheel in the conversation that he and I were having. You can look at user: Collectonian's page to see the history of our discussion. We both worked on the talkpage and agree that it looks cleaner. I was simply stating that if you like Coillectonians changes, it was fine, but you liking his changes was a matter of opinion not a policy. Myself and collectonian were in the middle of our edits when you enter the discussion. we worked together to make the talkpage look neater and more organized, rather than arguing or edit warring about it. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Next time if you think two editors are edit warring, you should check their talkpage before making off-hand comments or jumping to conclusion. also, if you saw an edit war between us, rather than revert the edits to the version you like best, bring the issue to the talkpage or user talkpage or wait for a user to violate the 3RR and comment on that. thanks...enjoy your night--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting weird. Everytime I say something, you seem to misinterpret what I am saying and put words into my mouth. When did I insult the whole idea of consensus? I never did that, and I am sorry if you feel that way. I wasn’t calling you a third wheel out of disrespect, and I am just saying you caused more trouble than help. We weren’t edit warring. It may have appeared that way, but it was a very civil discussion. When I reverted his edit the second time, he asked me to revert it, but this time explain why I did it, which I did. We were never edit warring. You just jumped in the middle of something and caused more confusion than anything. And yes, disputes involving the talk should probably stay on the talkpage but it doesn’t have to. Policy? No. Also, I agree with my attitude getting worse towards you, and I can say the same about your attitude towards me. I do not know you age or personal information, but you have this funny habit of telling people what they should do, rather than working with someone. You commonly state you need to in your comments towards me. I am an adult and do not need to be told what I need to do...especially from another user who I know nothing about. We are all a community and wikipedia is designed for several users to work together. No one should tell someone "what he or she need to do." You telling me You need to decide whether picking fights or writing encyclopedic articles is why you're here is inappropriate to say the less. I don’t need to do anything. I am not sure, but perhaps, and I repeat perhaps, you are trying to intimidate me, and you are not comfortable with someone challenging you. That may not be the case, but at least I didn’t start that sentence off with, you need to stop intimidating people who challenge you. Agreed? Also, in the future, it would be fantastic if you could not put words in my mouth or assume things about me without asking. Once again, I apologize for this whole ordeal--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy Does a TV Commercial

I've responded on my talk page - not sure if you prefer to carry out threaded conversations here, there, or bouncing back and forth. The gist is that I haven't yet had the time to incorporate the references into article content, and that I don't have a particular preference on whether the article remains redirected until that task is complete. JavaTenor (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

More David Gest trouble

• • • ThuranX, the same anonymous poster that has been vandalizing the David Gest page, hit it again. I reverted it back to your good article rewrite, but I think he will keep deleting your work. Can anything be done to protect the wiki article from this nonsense? Also, I noticed that anonymous poster 75.64.177.142 has been warned to stop on his talk page by several admins. What's next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swilli88 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job

Good work on the Hulk page. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC).

Re: ref tagging question

Thanks for answering my question :-) . I was going to suggest to delete it anyways, I just put it there because I assumed it would be answered quicker. Thanks again. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 06:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Universal Studios Number 1 Fan

I have recently had been acused of being a vandal from USN1F when all i did was tell him that he should'nt keep on saying Incredible Hulk and Punisher: War Zone are sequels since they are confirmed reboots (He had recently posted them as sequels on his main user page, which prompted me to message him). Since he has done the same thing to you and other users in the past with sock puppet accounts (and of course recieved a block) do you think he should be on watch? if he continues to be a vandal again i think it would be fair to give him a block longer then the previous one. I'm inviting you to join me to make sure he'll stop being a nusiance whatever it takes. Give me a message if you want to watch him with me, i'm not trying to make fun of you or anything, i'm on your side. Thanks.--Michael 4 Movies (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you look a lot more like a sock of USN1F. I'm taking this to WP:SOCK later tonight. ThuranX (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

!--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bucky

Heya, ThuranX. An edit war is brewing at Bucky, a page on which you've edited, so I'm posting a neutral notice that you may want to comment at Talk:Bucky. Hope all is well with you. Best regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood Chicago

Though you might find this amusing -- at IGN Boards, hollywoodchicago.com is being peddled, and one of the other users said in response, "You were already banned once, stop pimping that stupid site out, no one cares." Thought I'd share. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

re: huckabee 44/54

Check the List of Governors of Arkansas. Orval Faubus (what a name) was 44. Huckabee just had another one of those things where sounds came out of his mouth, but they weren't sensible when he said 44. If you look, the Huckabee article already has quotes from him about the frequency of such incidents. ThuranX (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, derogatory and uncalled for remarks aside, it appears the numbering system has been corrected to how Governor Huckabee understands it. However, if your original remarks were directed towards the OTHER former governor from Hope Arkansas, or perhaps towards yourself in your apparent ignorance of the correct numbering system, then I'm inclined to agree. --Mactographer (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal attack? You mean the one based upon yours? "That's like saying he hit me back first." Get a grip, pal. Report whatever you like, just remember I'll be reporting the reason for your report. --Mactographer (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Campaign logo on Mike Huckabee

You still have not even tried to discuss why the campaign logo should be removed. The logo is one image that identifies with a campaign and is perfectly acceptable as encyclopic content. It is the main image used on the campaign wikipedia page. There has been no logical reason presented as to why it should not be included. If you have other opinions please discuss them before reverting again with out a discussion or else I will report it to a Wikipedia administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtr10 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion you cite (Talk:Mike_Huckabee/Archive_2#inclusion_of_campaign_logos) is far from a resolution or conclusion. And the original point started by User:Anastrophe. in that discussion and the point of most in the discussion is that it should be more uniformed for the candidates, not to promote one candidate over another and in this particular case you are singling out Huckabee. You even agreed with Anastrophe's point in the discussion that one page should not have a logo while another one doesn't. If you want to bring this back up for discussion, that is perfectly fine with me, but as is there is no consensus in that discussion. As we both know neither one of us are a dictator, so please follow Wikipedia policy and do not revert again with out a discussion. I have no real care as to the logo, I just want to be fair. For you to single out Huckabee's page seems borderline vandalism. Rtr10 (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet 1996 film

Hello ThuranX. Just thought that I would let you know that User:Pfistermeister is back at work on this page adding the unsourced items and continuing the rant on the talk page. I can't revert again without breaking the 3RR. User:AndyJones has a thread about this editor on the ANI board here [7]. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 09:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Clear

Thanks, just stuff to pick up along the way. I've learned that typing {{tl|Future film}} can procure {{Future film}}, and typing [[The Incredible Hulk (film)|]] (note | symbol) will procure The Incredible Hulk, trimming the word(s) in parentheses. Figured I'd share these, too. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Arkansas Governors

I'm trying to understand the numbering of the governors listed at List_of_Governors_of_Arkansas#Governors_of_Arkansas, but it just doesn't make sense to me. I see that you've been involved in discussions over that very issue. I see bits and pieces but haven't spotted one that will answer why some governors are counted and others are not. Doczilla (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least the number means something. He's not the 44th governor. (I thought that was Faubus.) He's the 44th elected governor. Thanks. Doczilla (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find a compromise on that page. One problem is that the state of Arkansas itself publishes contradictory numbers. I just looked up a few. Some contradict Mike, but some back him up. ([8] vs. [9], both from the Arkansas government website, among many others) The only compromise which I think would fit both sets of numbers would be to state "44th elected governor" for Mike with similar remarks for the others. I've worked on that page 4 times in the last couple of hours. The latter 3 aren't all reverts, but I'm still not going to touch it again soon in case anyone thinks they are. Doczilla (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry to have let you down, somewhat. I suppose I should have asked for your help before it got uncivil there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You need some appreciation

I always knew you were a good editor dude, but the sheer magnitude of your dedication to fictional (comics, movies etc..) works is staggering:

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your assiduous hard-work on comic book and cinematic related subject matter I award you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar Wisdom89 (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Neil Peart

Not sure what your editorial priorities currently are, but if weren't already aware, I nominated Neil Peart for GA a few weeks back. I guess this is going to be my next "project". Who would have thought? : ) Anyway, if you're interested in giving me a hand, you're more than welcome. If you're swamped, that's cool. References seem to be the biggest hurdle. Cheers dude. Wisdom89 (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

DD film

Three comics films have GA status (Batman Begins, Batman Returns, and Spider-Man (film), and one is FA (300 (film). The superhero films are more relevant, but the 300 article is FA. We should refer to all of them for examples. Doczilla (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, wrong week to ask me, friend! :) I'd be happy to help, but I've a bit to accomplish in real life in the next few days. My recent edits are in violation of my attempt to be {{busy}}. :-P Ask me next week, and I can make a concentrated effort to help out. What are you looking to do with the article -- FA, GA, or just make it reasonable? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note... there is an article on the deirector's cut of the fil as well... That should likely get merged into the final article. - J Greb (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Furniture merge comment

Hi ThuranX, thanks for your comment in my Talk Page related to my opinion about a merge on the WikiArticle about "Furniture".
I was not aware of the fact that the 'merge tag template' should be in the article for that issue to be considered active, even though I've actually checked the timestamps. I hope now I can improve a bit my editing skills thanks to your advise.
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla's RfA

.: Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :.

File:Godzilla(01)reverse.jpg

Thanks for !voting! Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!" Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. I am deeply grateful.

ThuranX Thank you for casting the 55th yea vote and for staying on top of the whole thing.

     "The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." - Michael Althsuler

McT

This is bogus, all of my good work is being put into question becasue everyone wants to believe that their is some sort of hoax surrounding one of the topics I wrote about, which is not true. And as for Ruffo di Calabria, he is a famous WWI ace that commanded the most famous italian squadron- and hardly an insignificant figure. People made an issue out of something that shouldn't have been an issue at all- and I get pretty upset, as would anyone, when all of my work and false accusations of a hoax,and sock puppets are put out there= my track record proved quality work. ther are a number of topics that administrators purposely want to pick on becaus they still want to believe in a hoax that is not true. I will not waste my time going to the library, researching, and building up great articles, so people can destroy all of my hard work in 2 seconds. compare to half of the irrelevant articles out there, nothing I have done should be picked on- period. Admioniostrators don't treat good editors with respect, and they will not get respect in return for doing that, with all of their false accusationsMctrain (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for some support- I appreciate that. If you want to label the page "Talarico di Capace family". I would have no problem with that either- but there is great fashion info in that article that would be very useful to many people intersted in Pucci and 60's style etc. Also, there is no reason for artist Julian Gilbert to have his images removed, right now they are flagged for removal, if you open up the image page of each. The Joel Gilbert group has rights over all images and they were the ones who posted if you check. The gilbert article does not deserve to be picked on. Thank you.Mctrain (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you, I placed a proper tag on the imagesMctrain (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo troubles

I apologise for the protection of the Kosovo page. Hopefully the worst is behind us now, and the page will not be so susceptible to endless revisions. If you ever need help, just ask. Regards, Rudget. 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing the point

"Those editors who don't learn from BCB's first taggings of their first uploads, and who continue to violate GFDL and copyright and fair use by rampant uploading without FUR and linking aren't big losses to the project..." - I agree, but that is not what the page is about. Read it more closely and, well, I'm putting the rest of my comment on the MfD page. Carcharoth (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mctrain

This talk of the article being a hoax is a lie. Someone placed Vitus' name into a fake article about Sacred Skull order and then everything that was also attached to vitus got destroyed believing that it was a hoax- it all went through the grinder- but that is bullshit- there is no hoax with anything attached to the vitus person except that his name was unfairly put into that bogus society article. Go to www.avoision.com and punch in what people said about him when he took on his title- those are the pople that looked to make trouble withthe guy on wikipdeia- now if anyone writes about any topic related to this guy they are labled as a hoaxer- but every peice of work I have written on is verifiable by the sources given and is truthful- Why should anyone put up with this constant accusation of hoaxing- there is no hoax, except for people placing the guy's name into a bogus Sacred Skull order article- why should eveything else be destroyed too- This is bullshit- and I'm sick and tired of that!!!!