| Revision as of 15:28, 9 January 2007 editJohn Reaves (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,487 edits →Keep Up: my two cents. Sanders - don't flip out because this isn't on your talk page← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:38, 9 January 2007 edit undoRenamed user abcedarium (talk | contribs)15,068 edits →Keep UpNext edit → | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| :Then you clearly haven't followed what happened. If you had, you would know that I was trying to keep the correct spelling of 'defence', and Reaves and Han were trying to revert it to 'defense'. Take your whining to them, and stop annoying me by scolding me for something I quite obviously have not done. ] 15:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | :Then you clearly haven't followed what happened. If you had, you would know that I was trying to keep the correct spelling of 'defence', and Reaves and Han were trying to revert it to 'defense'. Take your whining to them, and stop annoying me by scolding me for something I quite obviously have not done. ] 15:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::(My two cents) -I wasn't trying to revert it, I did it once. I mistakenly reverted the spelling without looking (though an edit summary other than "Blind American Idiot" would have helped) and Han got caught up in it. This essentially stems from his lack of edit summaries (something like 30% for non-major edits last I checked). ] 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | ::(My two cents) -I wasn't trying to revert it, I did it once. I mistakenly reverted the spelling without looking (though an edit summary other than "Blind American Idiot" would have helped) and Han got caught up in it. This essentially stems from his lack of edit summaries (something like 30% for non-major edits last I checked). ] 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::"This policy does not apply to self-reverts, correcting simple vandalism, reverting the edits of a banned or blocked user, or other specific scenarios listed in the Exceptions section below". Repeated changes to an unacceptable spelling, despite warnings to the contrary, is, in my book, vandalism. ] 15:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:38, 9 January 2007
| This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 20 days are automatically archived to User talk:Milo H Minderbinder/Archive/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
Shannon and Boone
whats your problem? i have nothing to do with the 17 or 16 or whatever episodes you re talking about. and i dont get it whats the problem of stating that shannon's one of the central characters in the episode. spoiled brat probably...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozas (talk • contribs)
Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward
Hello
Hi, could I please ask you to kindly stay the hell out of my business on Lostpedia, and that includes not going around to see what pages I may have created or edits I may have done. Thank you. --SilvaStorm
Re: LOST episode article titles
No, I saw that, and am confused as to why some articles for episodes of other TV shows have (**** episode) in the parenthesis, when Lost just has (Lost). If you ask me, it looks bad, and needs to be more specific. --SilvaStorm
- Well I'm not the only one - someone important - Elonka - also agrees with my moves, so you should talk to her about this as well. --SilvaStorm
- I'm sure there are a lot of other users who would beg to differ. --SilvaStorm
Kudos and salutations
Hi Milo,
I know we've had some disagreements in the past, but after reading some of the ongoing controversies you've gotten drawn into, I wanted to drop you a note to say how impressed I am with your quick-study on Misplaced Pages policy; and how you've been brave enough to jump into the fray of discussing such policy, even under (to put it mildly) stressful conditions. So kudos, Milo: here's hoping you stick 'round to help improve Misplaced Pages with your perspective.
Best, Leflyman 06:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. On an unrelated note, I finally came across an old guideline which I think explains the past controversy we had over edits to an AfD discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Maintenance. I think the guideline has been orphaned, or at least not been noticed in quite a while, and could do with some review/updating. (It still uses outdated terminology of "VfD", the prior name for "AfD".) --Leflyman 23:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Desperate Housewives
I saw an edit you made on the Desperate Housewives page asking why it said there were 24 episodes on season 2. I'm not the one who added that, but I do know the answer--the 2-hour season 2 finale was divided into 2 episodes on the DVD, so there were the 23 episodes plus that extra hour. And you asked if they announced how many season 3 episodes there will be. There will be 24 episodes total. Season 3 will also have a 2-hour season finale. Just thought I'd let ya know about that :-) Cheater1908 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like you to know...
...that you have an awesome username. That's really all. Thanks for your time. Axem Titanium 03:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh Holiest art Thou
I would just like to express my gratitude to you for being a level-headed and sensible individual. It seems that we have some childish and immature contributers amongst us, and I just felt the need to show you praise for being a calm and logical individual. You have certainly displayed a great level of common sense and have made it easier for me during our mutual discussions. Anticrash talk 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Up
Be a little more observant please. Actually work out what as been going on before you take the sanctimonious attitude. Michaelsanders 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Then you clearly haven't followed what happened. If you had, you would know that I was trying to keep the correct spelling of 'defence', and Reaves and Han were trying to revert it to 'defense'. Take your whining to them, and stop annoying me by scolding me for something I quite obviously have not done. Michaelsanders 15:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- (My two cents) -I wasn't trying to revert it, I did it once. I mistakenly reverted the spelling without looking (though an edit summary other than "Blind American Idiot" would have helped) and Han got caught up in it. This essentially stems from his lack of edit summaries (something like 30% for non-major edits last I checked). John Reaves 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- "This policy does not apply to self-reverts, correcting simple vandalism, reverting the edits of a banned or blocked user, or other specific scenarios listed in the Exceptions section below". Repeated changes to an unacceptable spelling, despite warnings to the contrary, is, in my book, vandalism. Michaelsanders 15:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- (My two cents) -I wasn't trying to revert it, I did it once. I mistakenly reverted the spelling without looking (though an edit summary other than "Blind American Idiot" would have helped) and Han got caught up in it. This essentially stems from his lack of edit summaries (something like 30% for non-major edits last I checked). John Reaves 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)