User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:12, 15 June 2006 editDyslexic agnostic (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,529 edits Nice art!← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 06:38, 20 November 2023 edit undo187.184.166.230 (talk) →Recovery: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit
(344 intermediate revisions by 44 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			#REDIRECT ]
	<div class="usermessage">
	Attention!- We need more happiness aroud here. If you can make someone laugh, even a little, you've improved the Misplaced Pages community. Don't just be ], be forward. Congratulate people when they do a good job, no matter what it is. Too many people have left Misplaced Pages. Let's not let the rest go, too. If you ever feel stressed, or are at all worried about something, please leave a message for me at my talk page. I want to listen, I want to talk, but, most importantly, I want everybody to feel better!</div>

	{\| class="Talk-Notice"
	\|-
	\|]
	\|''']''' has been updated. A fact from the article ''']''', which ] recently created, has been featured in that section on the ]. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on ].
	\|}

			==Duplicate ]==
	]
			]Hello, this is a message from ]. A tag has been placed on ], by {{#ifeq:{{{nom}}}\|1\|] (] '''·''' ]),}} another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ] is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.<br><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ], please affix the template <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at ]. Feel free to contact the ] if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click ''' ] (]) 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

			==AfD nomination of Prophecy of Doom==
	] {{Babel-4\|en-3\|es\|la-1\|he-0}}
			]I have nominated ], an article you created, for ]. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. 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. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] (]) 18:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC) <!-- Template:Idw --> ] (]) 18:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
	Hi,

			==CfD nomination of ]==
	my name is Eddie Thursport, otherwise known as Armando E. Torre Puerto, for Thursport is the Anglicized vertion of my name and Eddie is the English version of my middle name ('dont care for Armand cuz of the way it sounds). Anglicize a name is the most correct way to call a foreighner without bothering him with mispronunciations. I also answer for Eddie the Bulldog, Eddster, Eddmaster, Ar-T, the wise scarecrow; T-man, the wise scarecrow. im also known as Eduardo Otaolaurruchi in some circles.
			I have nominated {{lc\|DCAU screenshots and pictures}} for renaming to {{lc\|DC animated universe images}}. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ]. Thank you. —]❤]☮]☺]☯ 02:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
	I'm from Merida, Yucatan, the region known in Mexico as the Twin Republic of Yucatan; for our people don't care about no Mexico. Hah, hah. Mexics are an acient culture that little or nothig has to do with Yucatan, we were not conquered by Hernan Cortez, but for one don Francisco de Montejo; and our ancesters didn't fight the Mexican independence war, nor write the Mexican Constitution... Therefore, we don't appreciate Mexico that much, just a little.

			== Recovery ==
	- T-man, the wise Scarecrow...] 00:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

			I am the owner of this account. Can I recover it? ] (]) 06:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)



	=My Main Contributions:=
	{\| class="Talk-Notice"
	\|-
	\|]
	\|''']''' has been updated. A fact from the article ''']''', which ] recently created, has been featured in that section on the ]. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on ].
	\|}

	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#] (Newman)

	Pages I created (mostly as stubs though, heh, heh :P):
	#]
	#''']'''
	#]
	#]

	=My Projects Under Development=
	<div class="usermessage">
	'''''Attention!'''''- I need your help, contributions and thoughts here.:
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	But rember, I'm the '''BOSS'''. Hah, hah! :P
	</div>

	=Links=
	=Tools=
	*Redirects: <nowiki>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=X&redirect=no</nowiki>
	]

	===Vandalism Control on this page:===
	*''']'''
	'''''']'''
	'''V1'''

	User page:
	#Dec 26 2005:
	#Jan 18 2006:

	User talk page:
	#Dec 25:
	#Dec 30:
	#Jan 18
	#Jan 18

	'''Obnoxious Edits'''

	User talk page:
	*'''MV1: ]'''

	===Observations for administrators acknowledgement:===

	'''V1'''
	#Bomb! (created by me)
	#B:TAS, feb 24:,
	#Characters apearing in JLU, feb 24:, ;
	#circe (created by me)

	=Messages=
	==List of villains==
	Don't worry about the edit conflict — I've fixed it, I think. You might want to double-check to make sure I got all the DC villains you were adding back in, though. —] (] • ]) 04:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

	Can you fix it one las time? i won't edit anymore tonight, your spelling changes on comic book character were right, and also, the new titles are ok too. but remember that i'n new and i don't have you editing skills, so when we edited at the same time, i freaked out. I'd still like to keep sequential art firs and then "or Comics". Secuential art is amore wide concept, remeber that you could put hyerogligpics* or villains there, if you find the pictures!--] 05:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

	:It's true that "sequential art" is a wider term than comics, but "comics" is the more widely ''recognized'' term. It's supported by the existence of ]. Right now all the villains in that section are from comics as traditionally understood (comic books or strips). More serious sequential art works are less likely to have "villains" in the conventional sense. Even McCloud calls his book ''Understanding Comics'', so I think that it's OK to have "comics" first and "sequential art" second. We can discuss it more widely on the talk page, as well, so that we can get other views. —] (] • ]) 05:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

	:Er... T-man? What's going on? I had fixed several DC Comics links (such as ], ], etc.), and in your latest edit you reverted back to a version before the changes (as well as moving the toy/action figures to the top of the list instead of where I'd put them (alphabetized under "toy"). I'll back off for the moment, but I'd like it if you can restore the edits I made, like I restored your recent edits lost in the last edit conflict. —] (] • ]) 05:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

	I dunno, ha, ha, i'm too tired, i worked several hours on the page, i can't think right, man. Try to fix it with out erasing my last aportations. Your changes, except the above mentiones are right.--] 05:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

	Klarion!!!!!!!!! that's the name!!--] 05:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
	You are on. i think i finally got it right, i just copied your last edition, but changed novels for literature. --] 05:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

	:Yeah, I'll take care of it if you want, and do my best to incorporate all your additions from the last round. Edit conflicts are a pain in the ass, even for experienced editors. —] (] • ]) 05:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

	::Never mind — you took care of it while I was typing those messages above! :) —] (] • ]) 05:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

	== Your message ==

	Hi, T-man. I left a response to your message on ]. —] 13:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)





	== Straw poll at ] ==

	Hey, T-man. Since ] keeps reverting ] back to the old, alphabetical format, I decided that we ought to hold a ] to make the consensus on what to do about the page clear. (I thought it was clear before, but apparently it's not clear enough for 213.114.215.199.) I'd appreciate your input on the straw poll — apparently we're supposed to discuss the poll for a week or so before we vote, which seems silly to me, but I want to do this by the book.) —] (] • ]) 01:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)



	== On the Batman edits ==

	It really is not done here to enforce your view of propriety by deleting texts on aspects of your favorite topics that you are uncomfortable with. It is also against the rules to take controversial information out of an article and relegate it to a less conspicuous place. Can we resolve this between the two of us? ] 22:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

	:Yucateco, eh? My Mexican friends refer to themselves as "Los hijos de la gran' chingada". We've all been screwed by the conquistadores, and one way that they have screwed us is that they hammered their twisted morality into our otherwise clean minds. Mas en Yucatan, donde los mayas si se querian entre ellos - los hombres querian y ensenaban a los muchachos asi como lo hicieron los griegos. And the Mayans were the ''highest'' culture Central America saw, more civilized than their Aztec and the Tlazcaltec neighbors. So now why do you have such a problem with hints of the same in Batman culture? And even if you do have a problem with that, why project it onto the article. Other people will see your deletion as the acme of uncool -- it is censorship, be honest. And ease up on the size argument, it is spurious in the extreme. Or, if you stick to that, take out something else since what you are doing is flagrantly against the rules but I do not want to go through the tedious process of RfC's and all that nonsense. You are clearly against the topic, you should not dump that on others. We have a duty to inform, period. Y un poco de orgullo en to propria historia, no? No te dejes colonizado! ] 22:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

	::Que seas poeta esta bien, y no te encuentro grosero, tal vez. . . autentico. Y lo de la historia no es de ser marica sino de ser hombre y no tener miedo de amar lo hermoso. No es cosa de espantar, ni a ti ni a nadie, pero que quieras tu de cortarle los huevos a Batman por que no te gustan, esto no es equitativo para los que tienen otra atitud. Es aquel mensaje tu ultima palabra? ] 23:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
	Nope, hice cambios q t deben parecer juto y q plasman mi punto de vista en toda la pagina. Tambien considero que hace justicia a los que estan de acuerdo contigo--] 03:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

	I didn't the see the need to alter my contributions -- besides, most of what I did was fix a lot of the spelling mistakes you made.

	gracias x eso, lastima que no estemos de acuerdo en nuestra perspectiva de batman--] 11:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)



	== DYK ==


	{\| class="Talk-Notice"
	\|-
	\|]
	\|''']''' has been updated. A fact from the article ''']''', which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the ]. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on ].
	\|} --] 18:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)



	== Just... ==

	Just helping out where ever I can. You need assisstance ? ] 01:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

	== Talk:Batman ==

	Could you respond to my actual points rather than re-editing your own points. Such practise is against Misplaced Pages policy. Also note, actual quotations are not needed, only references and citations. If you disagree with the text, read the work cited and see if it supports the view presented, and if it does not, then discuss that fact on the talk page. And please remember ] and ] when addressing people. ] ] 11:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

	== Back from (unscheduled) wikibreak ==

	Hey, T-man. I ended up being away from Misplaced Pages longer than I expected over Christmas. I ''think'' I'm back now (schedule's still a bit up in the air until the New Year). I missed your messages from earlier in the week. I'll take a look at the ''Doctor Who'' entries in the villains list, but if it's all the same to you I think I'll stay out of the business between you and dyslexic agnostic. It looks like something that might be better resolved between the two of you. Hope you don't mind. See you around the 'pedia! —] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	:I'm glad that you've come to an amicable solution. It's surprising how much can be achieved by simply ], even — ''especially'' — from the people who you have less-than-pleasant experiences with. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 03:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	== Strikethrough ==

	To have a line through a word or phrase, type <nowiki><s> where you want the line to start and </s></nowiki> where you want it to stop. So, to write "George W. Bush is a <s>blithering idiot</s> respected statesman," you would type <nowiki>"...is a <s>blithering idiot</s> respected statesman" </nowiki>. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
	:I see you figured it out while I was typing. Ah, well. See ya! —] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	== Re:banner ==

	Fine with me. Cheers, ]\|]<font color="green">]</font> 05:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

	==WAFE==

	See MY User page for more. ] 09:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

	User:Beckjord has formed or is forming a organization called '''W.A.F.E.''' which stands for
	'''Wikipedians After Fair Editing'''. This could be another war, or worse, a Wiki Civil War, since he is soliciting people to join him. ] 10:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

	== Advice as requested ==

	Hey, T-man. I'm honored and a bit surprised that you'd ask advice from me, as I've sometimes been less than polite myself — I've had to learn to assume good faith, just as you have.

	I'm sorry that you're getting frustrated by the changes dyslexic agnostic is making to your edits. I haven't gone deep into your contributions, but I had a look at ] and related pages, to get an idea of the content and manner of the debate. The best thing you've got going for you as a Misplaced Pages editor is your enthusiasm, and it would be a real shame to lose that. I don't know much about the DC Animated Universe (having watched only the occasional episode of ''Justice League'' or the old Bruce Timm ''Batman'' series), so I don't feel qualified to discuss the content of those edits. I do know a bit about the comics, though. I think that what may have happened in the earlier encounters with dyslexic agnostic is that he didn't recognize the worthwhile information you were adding because of your verbose style and occasionally weak English skills. Then, when you got upset and reacted badly, he decided that you were a problem editor and made it his mission to clean up after you. (This is just my interpretation of events, based on a fairly cursory look at edits on pages like ], and may not be the whole story.)

	It looks to me as if you're making a good-faith effort to mend fences with him, which is great. One bit of advice that I'll give you is that it's often not a good idea to try to use humor or sarcasm in situations like this, because a lot of humor depends on tone of voice and other contextual cues that are lost in writing. (That's why emoticons developed — silly as they are, they can serve a useful function. But, as Peter David would say, I digress.)

	I guess that if I were in your shoes I'd try to lay off making major changes to the pages dys. agn. is heavily involved in for a while (at least for a few days), to let things cool off. I know that's difficult and frustrating, especially if the pages have errors on them that need correcting. But if you come back in the new year and show a cooperative attitude, I think that dys. agn. and the other editors should recognize that you've got worthwhile contributions to make. You've already shown that you understand that your contributions need polishing by native speakers of English. I think that the next thing to focus on is ], which is especially important on well-established pages like ]. If a page has reached featured article status, it's probably a good idea to discuss major changes on the talk page before you make them. '''Be bold''' is better advice for pages in earlier stages of development than it is for featured articles.

	I've been going on for a while and not saying much. I guess the most important thing is not to give up hope — you've done a lot of good work on Misplaced Pages, and you recognize the areas where you need improvement. That's worth something. If you keep your temper and remain polite, you and dyslexic agnostic will work out your differences in time, and you'll be able to go back to editing the Batman pages. I hope this is helpful and not too long-winded — that's one of ''my'' failings as a writer!

	Best,
	] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

	:thanks, man!! that was exactly what I needed to hear! I'm lating you know a couple of things: first, I'm trying to drop the sarcasm; second, you were wrong, you were always very polite, and that's precisely why I personaly admire you so much. You really showed me better (from the begining, not just right now)!!

	:I hope you had a merry xmas ans happy new year!

	--] 07:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

	::I did, thanks. I'm feeling very fat and happy after the Christmas feasts (and all the leftovers)! I hope you had a good holiday too. We actually had a Mexican dinner of sorts on New Year's Eve (although it probably wasn't very authentic). My wife fried up ]s (which I understand originate in Arizona rather than Mexico), and we had them with salsa, guacamole and refried beans (frijoles refritos). It may not have been authentic, but it sure tasted good!

	::I'm glad that you found my advice helpful. I hope you won't mind if I give you a bit more. I happened to notice your recent comment on dyslexic agnostic's talk page, because I had just been communicating with him about some ''Doctor Who'' pages. I saw that you seemed to be quite upset with him. I haven't looked through your contributions and his to see exactly what made you so angry, but that really isn't important (or my business). What is important is that your comment was a violation of ], a very important policy. No matter how upset you are with another user, it's never a good idea to attack them (no matter how much you might want to). It makes you look worse in their eyes, and is unlikely to change their behavior or attitude towards you.

	::I know that when you get angry it's hard not to express it. But you should strive to ], ''especially'' with users who get under your skin.

	::Based on your comments a few days ago, it looked as if you and D.A. were beginning to find common ground and ways to work together amicably. It would be a shame to scupper that now with one post written in haste. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 08:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)











	== ] ==

	hi; I have multiple reasons for thinking that this article should be deleted, so I'd rather not directly do much editing, since I'm not sure I could do it in good faith. However, here are some general comments about getting such articles kept:

	* try to give examples of concern about the issue outside the specific group of fans.
	* for verifiability try to find mainstream media coverage of the issue, link to that;
	* try to cut down material to key important points, which make it clear that the issue is valuable
	* consider instead making a small paragraph in
	* for new items and ongoing stories, you might want to consider other projects such as wikinews.

	Altogether this means, show it isn't ] and make sure that people can ] that.

	I don't know enough about wikinews to tell you if this page would be suitable for them, so I don't want to directly suggest you put this article there, however, there are many wikis and there must be one which would be an appropriate host the article. I, personally, just don't think that it's right for wikipedia at the present moment. There has to be a balance between "Misplaced Pages is not paper": so we can include lots of stuff Britannica wouldn't and "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia": so we only aim to include stable, well discussed, verifiable information.

	If you do find mainstream sources, you might find that ] are useful in makeing it clear how each source supports each particular part of your article. ] 22:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

	:BTW; please don't remove the tag directly yourself; that's not considered a good idea. Instead vote against the deletion and answer queries on the deletion and discussion page. If you can persuade people then the deletion tag can be removed when the vote is closed after a few days. ] 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

	First off, please, don't take this as a personal attack. I have no desire to start an flame war with you over the Bat-Embargo. I believe you that all of the external links mention the Bat-Embargo (I've seen many a cranky post about it at World's Finest myself.) I'm certainly not denying the fact that the Bat-Embargo exists, or even that I find it annoying.

	What I don't agree with you is that the Bat-Embargo is important enough for it's own encyclopedia article. It's "neat" to have it, sure. Then again, I think it'd be "neat" to have an article on me (which I'm sure would promptly and rightfully be deleted.)

	Furthermore, there isn't a mention (in my quick read through) of the bat-embargo on ], on the ] article, nor on the ]. If you think these places deserve mention of the Bat-Embargo, please, edit them. I just don't think there is enough encyclopedia-worthy information to have it's own article. I think we're going to have to peacefully (hopefully) agree to disagree on this point. I think the two paragraphs we have on the JLU page suffice myself.

	I see you've voted on the AfD. Let's see what the consensus is again.--] 06:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

	Hi again; you have listed sources and they are sources that should be included in an article, but none of them are major media sources (think New York times / The Guardian / Reuters / Pravda etc) or major independent organisations (Human Rights Watch) . The best source seems to be the company producing the themselves. This means that the information will not have been investigated by specialists / jouralists / peer review etc. The problem with verifying this is that we would be unable to spot if the issue was made up or misrepresented (e.g for publicity reasions) ] 22:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

	If you think the bat-embargo is not a stub, please vote against its deletion. I do agree with you, but by using that tag, I was trying to imply that the article can be improved rather than ereared (merging is a trick to get erased, the people who proposed the deletion did it once)--] 15:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
	:My stub sorting is irrelevant to the AFD debate in my opinion. An article not being a stub is not a reason for it to not be deleted (or, indeed, to be deleted).
	:From ]:
	:You don't have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if:
	:* a nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.
	:* you agree with what has already been formed.
	:which I think applies here. I don't intend to vote either way on the topic for the time being. ] 21:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
	=== more advise, please ===

	thanks for the advise, but when you sais "consider not participating if..." were you talking about yourself or me? 'cause i actually did the current version of the article (without knowing there was a previous article that was deleted the same way this one will probably be).--] 22:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
	:I was referring to myself, apologies for the confusion. ] 18:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)





	== about Dislexic or rather not ==

	hi T-man. My advice to Dislexic is also advice to you. Don't let other people bother you too much; go and edit completely different things. If you find someone following you edit by edit, when you start working on articles you find using the random button, then that is ] and probably something can be done about it. Try to do some different stuff, like ].

	Put another way, I didn't mention you by name in my comments to him, and that really means I didn't mean to criticise you in any way. If you aren't getting on, then suggesting he goes in different directions will help you both. There isn't even any need to find out who's to blame; we can just put it down to unhappy accidents and move on. ] 22:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)~

	----

	Tell you what, mate. You can please stop it. The "facts" you're adding to the ] article are your own personal opinion. If I were to copyedit, what would I come up with? Oh, look, now the article is just identical to what it was before T-Man, was there with his diatribe. So I'll save me the trouble and just revert it. ] 08:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) comment earlier edited according to ] by me ]

	== Page moving ==

	T-Man, I'm very confused at the moment. Can you please explain what is going on with all the page moving. Why do we now have ] and ]? Have you familiarised yourself with ], because you have performed a cut and paste move, which breaks the page history, something that shouldn't be done since maintaining the page history is '''required''' as part of the licence under which Misplaced Pages is written. Please refrain from moving any more pages until you and me work out what has happened and how we fix it. Thanks. I need to know what pages have been moved where, and then I can merge all pages that should be merged back together. Don't try and do this yourself, it's something only an admin can do. ] ] 15:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Help''' I don't really need an apology, what I need is help. I need to know what you did, so I can fix it. What exactly did you move where, and where exactly did you cut and paste from and to. ] ] 18:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Page merging ==
	When you merge information from one article to another, you should indicate which article the information has been merged from so as to keep intact the edit history, which is important as it forms part of the licence under which Misplaced Pages is written. For more information please see ]. Please also note that when people are polling or attempting to build consensus it is best not to move pages relating to such discussion until there is consensus. I appreciate you acted in good faith but every wikipedian needs to learn when to act and when to hold fire. I would also appreciate it if you could moderate your language and tone on wikipedia, as I have mentioned before, we have policies on ] and ]. ] ] 18:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

	== discssion at Talk:Enemies of Batman ==

	could i persuade you to come to the disscusion at ]
	] 22:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
	i want to try and stop the edit war going farther than it has and breaking the 3rr rule ] hopefully a god conseus can be worked out kepping everybody happy ] 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

	:I have blocked him for 24 hours for personal attacks against you, I know you were trying to be civil and cooperative, but be warned: if you start behaving like he did, you will be blocked as well.--] 04:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

	::I have now blocked you for 24 hours. You were warned, but you engaged in the same disruptive behaviour I asked you not to.--] 05:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

	== ARBITRATION ==

	please respond at
	plese respond at
	06:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

	:Yes, please go here; there are already 4 votes to accept the case, so you might as well defend yourself.--] 00:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

	==Catwoman reference material==
	T-man, looks like you have found some good reference materials to add to Catwoman. I encourage you to implement some of that information there... perhaps providing that level of detail in ] is not the best idea. (See how friendly I am being to you?) ] 23:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)




	yes an reques for an advocate can be made here
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance
	neither me or shanel may advocate for you as we are third partys to this arbitration] 04:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

	::I know some of the advocates, and they are nice people, but I think that is true for all of them. I'm sure all will be equally happy to help :)--] 05:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Advocate Request ==

	I see that you have requested an advocate in the arbitration over ]. Are you willing to accept me as your advocate? ] 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

	:T-man, perhaps you should respond to the offer? The ArbCom case has opened, so unless you plan on defending yourself, you should really get an advocate now.--] 05:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

	==]==
	Hello,
	]]

	== Enemies of Batman ==

	Yeah, I can copyedit the article, which is what I'm trying to make my priority on Misplaced Pages right now anyway. I'm quite familiar with Batman's publication history, so I don't need additional sources. The important thing is that the History section is actually worked into a cohesive document abou the development of his rogues gallery, and not just a list of when each villain debuted. ]

	:The villains aren't necessarily representative of their era. In Killer Moth's case, it's ok to mention him in passing, and maybe mention his revamp as Charaxes in ], but we shouldn't try to stretch the analysis of the villains in order to highlight any perceived importance they might have. ] 07:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

	::That sort of description is best reserved for the list farther down on the page. In the context of the history section, it's unnecessary. If anything, it's probably more important that for a long time he was considered an "anti-Batman" due to his costume identity and use of gadgets. ] 07:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

	Cover dates on comics don't correspond to the actual dates they were released. This is because the date on a cover of a comic actually stands for how long it is allowed to sit on the stands. So when it says May, that means it stays on the stands until May. The day comics actually arrive at stores is earlier than the date listed on the cover. ] 08:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)



	== Appearances list ==

	While I have some reservations about it, I would suggest that you work on it and finish it in your userspace before you add it in. I would suggest something like ]. After it's done you can add it into the ] article. I'm suggesting this because it seems like it's incomplete, and the article should have a final version.--] 04:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
	:Heh, sorry. It's getting close to where I need to go pass out and sleep. I start acting like a dick when I get tired.--] 05:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Arbitration ==

	On the evidence page, you said, "POV on Gillespee's: He knows better than his last line." I'm trying to be civil and polite, but how in the world do you know what I'm thinking? I assume both Dyslexic ''and'' you were editting in good faith. Your comments to each other (on talk and user talk pages) certainly got out of hand from time to time, on the pages, I think ''both'' of you were just trying to make the best articles you could during the time in question. My opinion is that DA followed you around because your edits are often dang hard to understand and he wanted to keep Misplaced Pages good, not because he wanted annoy you.--] 01:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

	Thanks for the advice.--] 05:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Userfication done. You can reuse the article on other websites as long as it is specifically released under the ]. ] \| ] 06:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

	==Batman villains==
	I've been on wikibreak the 12th, I'll take a look at it soon. -] 05:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
	:You asked me to review the ] article. -]



	==Image copyright problem with Image:JokersReckoning.jpg==

	Thanks for uploading ]. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The ] is very careful about the images included in ] because of ] (see Misplaced Pages's ]).

	The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Misplaced Pages is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are ], ], and ]. Find the appropriate template in ] and place it on the image page like this: <code><nowiki>{{TemplateName}}</nowiki></code>.

	Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from ]. -- ] 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
	==Image copyright problem with Image:Ruperthorne.jpg==

	Thanks for uploading ]. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The ] is very careful about the images included in ] because of ] (see Misplaced Pages's ]).

	The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Misplaced Pages is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are ], ], and ]. Find the appropriate template in ] and place it on the image page like this: <code><nowiki>{{TemplateName}}</nowiki></code>.

	Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from ]. -- ] 05:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

	== Evidence ==

	Hey, T-Man. Hope things are going OK for you and you're managing to ].

	I've just put up an section of my own at the ], which I think has the info you need in it. I tried to summarize my dealings with you and D.A. in a fair and neutral manner; I hope that neither of you is upset by my account. If you need any more info about the ''Doctor Who'' episode naming debate, let me know and I'll try to find it for you.

	Best, ] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Image copyright problem with Image:Thorne.jpg==

	Thanks for uploading ]. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The ] is very careful about the images included in ] because of ] (see Misplaced Pages's ]).

	The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Misplaced Pages is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are ], ], and ]. Find the appropriate template in ] and place it on the image page like this: <code><nowiki>{{TemplateName}}</nowiki></code>.

	Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from ]. -- ] 01:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


	== You are blocked ==

	I have blocked you for making personal attacks at a person's talk page. Namely, , . ] ] 10:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

	== Email ==

	Hey, I got your email, but when I replied it wouldn't go through. If you want me to reply, email me with your email address again.--] 04:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

	T-Man, wasn't Aquaman in just one single episode (Ultimen) while Shayera was gone? I hardly think that counts as filling in for her ''especially'' since that episode was an homage to Superfriends. There were a bunch of other heroes who appeared then too. And I remembering wrong?--] 05:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

	I like the idea of linking the characters maybe even describing the changes in their relationships, but I honestly think you're off the mark with Aquaman. It was one episode that was based of an old show, so they threw him in. I'd say, post that same thing on the talk page and we'll see what other people have to see. Consensus building, old chum!--] 05:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

	I can only remember Arthur in The Enemy Below, The Terror Beyond, Ultimatum (I've been calling it Ultimen) and then his swansong in Wake the Dead (not counting his STAS episode of course.) Which is too darn bad actually, I like his character a lot more than "I'll smash this" Hawkgirl.--] 06:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)



	==Block lengthened==
	I have lengthened it to one week because you continued to personally attack ] on your talk page. Do it again and I will lengthen the block to 1 month.--] 02:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC) (<u>modyfied</u> by T-man for peace purposes)--] 03:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC))
	:Your additional comments have been reverted, and block lengthened to 1 month. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> 02:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

	== Hi T-man ==

	I'm going to unprotect your page as you've been unblocked. You shouldn't delete the comments, rather, archive them. Deleting them just shows you have something to hide. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 03:17 ] <small>(])</small>

	got it
	--] 03:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

	:Thank you for the barnstar(s)! I'm flattered actually. :D--] 03:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

	::Just wondering, why are you archiving all your talk related to DA in that archive?--] 04:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

	:::Alright, but cwould you consider changing the name? It could be seen as inflammatory.--] 05:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

	::::Yes, getting rid of the "doesn't care for" would be a good idea.--] 05:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

	:::::It's not a good idea to modify people's comments on your talk page. It makes it look like you have something to hide, and it's just not polite.--] 01:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

	::::::It would be wrong of me to modify DA's comments. I know you don't want to be reminded of him, but if you keep trying to run away from all the bad things that have happened to you it won't help.--] 02:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::I'd rather not modify a comment I made.--] 03:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::Please don't modify my comments.--] 03:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Better?? you can do it yoursel and specify it, its cool, it my page, you are like a Queen here. You can even vandalize my page an I wouldn't mind!! hahahahah!! =P --] 03:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

	:::Well, alright, but don't do it with other people's comments.--] 03:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

	::You are the Best!!--] 04:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

	== "Bomb!" ==

	Hi - I deleted ] because it was listed by someone else on ], where it remained for more than five days without any objection to deletion. Regarding your request, here's the text of your last edit:

	(To see the text, check the hystory of this talk page or the link in observations)

	Exciting, huh? <small>] ]</small> 00:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (comment modified by --] 00:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC))


	:"Exciting" is a different word that "exiting" :P--] 00:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

	== Mentorship ==

	Hello. Per your arbitration ruling (]) you have been assigned three mentors: ], ], and ]. As a note, Titoxd speaks Spanish, and you may want his help if communication becomes a problem. The mentors are generally charged with both helping you to integrate into the community and communicate better, and also with enforcing any violations of your parole they may encounter. And while of course I expect this to be a success, be aware that they are not expected to give leniency, since by now you know what is expected of you. They may at any time impose a substantial ban, or abandon the mentorship altogether in favor of the 6-month ban passed by arbcom, if they deem it necessary. But they are here to help, both Misplaced Pages and you. Expect them to make comments here soonish. ]·] 07:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

	::just as a note, feel free to e-mail me or drop a note on my talk page as well if you need help with something, glad things turned out ok for you happy editing!] 01:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

	::Hey T-man, as you know I'm going to be one of your mentors. As Dmcdevit said, don't expect any leniency. Since you know what you need to do, I'm going to ask that one of your subpages, ]. Although you don't name the person, I can guess who this is aimed at. It is imflammatory and frankly, not a good way to start off your mentorship. All you need to do is ask me to delete it.--] 20:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

	::Alright, but please modify the headers.--] 04:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

	:::Thank you.--] 05:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)



	Hey, just checking to see how you're doing.--'''] ]''' 18:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	I noticed you created a new article, ]. There's already an article about this at ]. You might want to merge your content into the existing article, as appropriate, then redirect ] to the existing article. --] 22:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	* The article you created is at ]. The article that already exists is at ]. --] 22:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Stalking ==

	Well so far he's changed only one of your edits so far, so it isn't really stalking. But, you can't let it upset you if he does. You both edit comic-related articles, so you are bound to cross paths at some point. I also noticed that all your edits are automatically marked as minor - make sure to uncheck that box when they aren't ;)--'''] ]''' 01:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Use inuse ==

	If you are editing an article and deleting large portions or makeing substantial changes, and want other to know thatr this is the case rather than vandalism, please add the {{tl\|inuse}} template at the top of the page. Thanks. ] <small>] • ]</small> 04:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Batman ==

	Dude, what ''are'' you doing? A little explanation, even discussion, before you start major edits would be appreciated. ] 04:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	'''''Batman''''' was a featured article at one point, indicating a high degree of quality already. You raised the idea of more summarizing (it already had quite a bit) once, way back at the end of February, and nobody even replied. And what "lacks organization" tags are you talking about? There wasn't anything like that anywhere on the article when you started. You're not even following ] for the new articles you're creating. ] 05:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	Looking at the talk page for the list of JLU episodes, I'm disturbed to see that even though most other editors agreed that splitting the article wasn't necessary you tried to do it anyway. It pretty much ruins any expectation that you're going to follow consensus on these kinds of decisions and makes reverting them much a much easier decision. I'd suggest that when other editors weigh in on an issue that you either debate your reasons or go along with consensus. Otherwise you're just going to find more and more people ignoring ''you''. ] 17:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	No harm. The ironic thing is that I agree with your reasonings for the JL episodes, I just don't agree with the way you're going about it. ] 01:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	Take it slow. If eventually Misplaced Pages will contain everything, then it will happen eventually :-) No need to rush it and piss people off. ] 01:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	Maybe they just don't have your vision. ] 01:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


	== Disagreement ==
	So at this point, what do we disagree on? I think you should proceed with your JL episode listings. I do not think you should split up the Batman article. Anything else? --] 04:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


	== Response ==
	Just to respond to the message you left on my user talk page, T-Man:

	''Yeah, if you know so mush how come you are missing that the animated Batman is already defined until his last days while regular Batman has not a defined future. He also started operating before superman in the animated version and had a relationship whith wonder woman while in regular continuity Superman has that relationship and started first.--T-man, the wise 08:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)''

	Sincere apologies if my earlier comment seemed a bit patronising, and I certainly don't mean to be rude or anything like that. Thing is, though, interesting though this information is and certainly worthy of comment, I still don't think it's worth making a whole new page devoted to the animated Batman over, as it's information that could probably be summed up in the section of the page devoted to Batman in general.--] 11:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	How about "Batman in other media"? There's already an article for it, just expand the section that deals with the animated version. ] 16:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)



	== In case you didn't see the response on my talk page: ==

	"Nope. If only you could come up with a way of avoid mixing cannonical Batman with overall batman, I'm good. I mean the article can be overall, ok. But I feel the cannonic part should be more concrete" - T-Man

	:I understand that. But right now, consensus is against such edits. What I would suggest to you in this instance is to propose exactly what it is you want to do with the page. This means cut out all emotion (this is partially what is not preventing some people from agreeing with you), reasoning out evenly and clearly what it is you want to do, and why. Separate the individual changes you want to make from each other. Designate them "Proposed Change 1", etc. That way, people won't dismiss all your edits outright, but will have to consider your ideas individually. Right now, you are righting thick blocks of text that take some extra work to read through. Just pace yourself and present your arguments separately and clearly. I do think you face a lot of opposition on the majority of your Batman edits, though, and it may be in your best interest to concede those edits that consensus deems unnecessary or disruptive. --] 05:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	See the vandalism box on my userpage? That's what it is for. I reverted you because it would defeat it's purpose to redirect it to my userpage ;)--'''] ]''' 03:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:No, he was redesigning my userpage.--'''] ]''' 04:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Animated Series Batman ==

	You need to review ]. This is the appropriate way to propose a merge, and currently a majority of editors on the Talk Page are asking for a merge. There is a Dispute Merge tag you can use if you want, but please stop removing the tag entirely. I am going to re-add it, and if you remove it again, I will be forced to contact an administrator. ] 03:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:I don't have any ill will towards you as a person. My concerns are with the article and its acceptability according to Misplaced Pages guidlines. Yes, you asked me to look at the article, but all I can give is an honest opinion of it one I have reviewed it, and that opinion stands. Please do not construe different viewpoints as hostility. This also concerns other editors debating the issue. Please review ]. ] 04:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	You were basically given time by everyone to edit by there being no immediate merger action. But still, that doesn't mean we can't ask for a merge. A number of editors agree on a merge, and placing a merger tag on the article is perfectly acceptable, per the guidelines I linked to. Once again, I remind you that you can add a Merge Disputed tag. But you can't discount our opinions. I'm sorry if I come across as "cold" and I certainly don't mean to harm you, but right now you are getting riled up and are saying things that can be construed as personal attacks. Take a break and calm down, this is nothing to get messed up about. ] 05:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Personal attacks ==

	From the Animated Series Batman talk page - <br>
	:Are you here because you can't minle in real life? You should be ashamed of calling yourselves editors, look at all that whinning you've written... <br>
	:You are just censoring because some jackasses did the same to you<br>
	Those could certainly be taken as ] Listen to what people are telling you and stop. ] 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	== The Lost Years ==

	Actually, I know next to nothing about the Lost Years. If it was covered in comics, I've never been big into the animated comics, much prefering the animated shows. It was 90% about Nightwing, so I figured that'd be the way to do it.--] 00:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Sockpuppets, and other things ==

	Ok, I see that you've accused another editor of being DA sockpuppet. To be blunt, you are being paranoid and disruptive. Just because someone makes edits you don't like, it doesn't mean that they are sockpuppets. If you really feel strongly about it, you can always make a request at ]. I also see that you've made personal attacks (again). Given the terms of your probation, and the fact that I recently blocked you for personal attacks, I would hope that you'd know better. This is the last time that I will be giving you a final warning; next time I will just block you. You know what is expected of you.--'''] ]''' 04:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Umm, the section on this page called "Personal attacks"--'''] ]''' 05:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

	::If you would still like to be blocked for awhile I could do that. Also, while I am supposed to be there for you as a mentor, it doesn't necessarily mean I have to be on your side. After all, you can't mentor someone by agreeing with everything that they do.--'''] ]''' 05:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::T-Man, if you honestly do think I'm a puppet, please request the RFCU. I endorse and encourage it. I'm not sure why you're accusing me of this now since you never mentioned it before. Please, clear the air and request it.--] 05:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::I'll only block you at your request. You shouldn't feel embarassed to ask for help - if you don't want other people to see you can always email. Since I am your mentor, I ''encourage'' you to bug me for help. It's great that you've recognized where you've gone wrong, and I hope you continue to learn from your mistakes.--'''] ]''' 05:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::Add my usual email address to MSN.--'''] ]''' 05:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Removing tags ==

	I removed stuff here, because i don't care for it. It only leads to more arguing.--] 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

	::Will you please stop what you're doing and listen? No, content disputes are not vandalism, but when you remove messages from your talk pages it makes it harder to know what's going on. The whole point of me blocking you was to give you some time to cool off and think about what you were doing. Despite consensus not to do so, you've been creating articles for episodes and removing the merge tag from ]. While being bold is encouraged, ignoring the concerns of your fellow editors is not. Niether is being uncivil or rude to them. You've gone back to the same behaviour you exhibited before your block; it seems being blocked as no effect on you. Please do not make me block you again.--'''] ]''' 19:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Blocked ==

	doesn't have any possible explanation. As a result, I've blocked you for 72 hours again, per ]. Please be advised that even if you disagree with editors, trying to tell them that they need to learn to read is particularily offensive. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 21:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
	=== E-mail reply===
	While I do agree that the other incident was more severe, you keep attacking users. This is your third block in the last few weeks for this, so in any case, they should be of escalating length. Usually, a third block for the same "offense" is 72 hours, so I followed that guideline.

	The problem is that you are under personal attack parole: "If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week." The comments you are making are not helpful in any case, and since you went in front of the ] already, you need to be extra careful.

	You are right in that content disputes are not vandalism, but removing warnings is. Other editors asking for a merge and you insisting on removing a tag isn't vandalism, but it is extremely improper anyway.

	Also, other editors are not under any obligation to edit a page if they believe it should not exist - actually, why should they? Wouldn't it be wasted effort on their part? That doesn't mean that they think your work is inferior or that you are inferior, it just means that they think it is unnecessary. Also, demanding that the merge is invalid because a certain deadline you gave them hasn't passed isn't particularly effective either.

	Mi lengua materna es el español, y aunque nunca he tenido problemas, creo que ya se cual es el problema. El problema es que el sarcasmo que usas no se puede distinguir de un insulto solo leyendo un poco de texto. Usas mucho sarcasmo, y realmente no deberías hacerlo, ya que sólo hace que te veas mal. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
	: ] says, "Be bold, '''but don't be reckless!''' Be bold works when you're doing a change no one minds about, but when there's active opposition to a change, Be bold doesn't work. You have to reach ] if you want your change to stick; otherwise, you're liable to have your edits reverted, like it happened, and everything culminates in an endless edit war. Blaming others for not getting consensus for your changes isn't necessarily a wise (or even convincing) approach to take, as the change was unilateral to begin with, and there were editors who didn't want the articles to begin with. Also, every article has to stand on its own, so having articles for every ] episode does not necessarily mean that you can have episodes articles on anything. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 00:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


	==Note on your recent edit to ]==
	You should be aware that the statement "A: only administrators merge" is not true. The act of merging together articles is not something only an administrator does. Also note that the last step in a merge is to redirect. Check out ] ] 02:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Advice on "Animated Series Batman" ==

	: ''Hi, I just made this article, ] '''' My premise was: there is a Batman: the Animated Series page (like there is a Veronica Mars page), but there is no info about the character (like there is a Veronica Mars (character) page). '''' To me it's all about what's been done with symilar situations. If I was to start from 0 again, how would you recomend me to create the article? Which info should i focus on. Which sections should I create. What are the guidelines I should follow? Thanks for your time. --] 10:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)''

	I'm not sure I could muster enough chutzpah for a username with the word "wise" in it, but I must give you credit for the wisdom of asking advice. I'm not interested enough in ] to wade into the thick of this active discussion, but I'll make a few points.

	* Always remember to link to an article that you're discussing. (I had to add the link to ] in your post.) But thank you for ''not'' linking it in the topic heading, as so many people do. (It makes edit summaries for section edits very messy, which is one of many reasons why it's against WP policy.)

	* ] (aka ]) is an overall guideline on fictional-character articles, although it doesn't really say much about content or cover your situation (multiple articles on a single character in various genres and instances).

	* The name of your article is a bit of a problem. When you moved it from ] (which is not unreasonable) to ], you justified it based on similar titles, like ] and ]. None of these are in keeping with the general naming convention of placing the key concept ("Batman") and parenthesizing the qualifier (which is what you did originally, of course). I see that all of these variations have been either deleted or redirected to ], as they should. One problem with "Batman (animated)" is that it's not clear whether you're talking about the series or the character, but since the show title, sourced through IMDb, can be (and is) given as '']'', this leaves your original title as a decent choice. The real problem is the concern over whether there should ''be'' a separate character article.

	* As you have discovered, many Misplaced Pages editors find too much detail on fictional characters to be ]. This doesn't mean it isn't accurate; it simply means that these editors believe huge tracts of data on these subjects are more suited to fan websites than Misplaced Pages. I'm on the fence about this myself. My position has been to ruthlessly delete material that has no ], which is a requirement for ''any'' information in Misplaced Pages articles, even about real-world people, events, and other subjects. This gets rid of a lot of fancruft. What remains evokes a variation of that oh-so-common argument, the content dispute. It seems you're already getting good advice on this. If you cannot get a consensus of active editors to agree with your content, I'm afraid you just have to live with not having the material in Misplaced Pages, at least for now. (Things change over time, so it might be revisited in the future.)

	You mention ], presumably because you have observed that I've done some editing on articles about '']'', a topic I ''am'' interested in. However, much of my editing has been to remove unsourced speculation, correct basic style and content problems, establish and encourage sourcing, and even nominate for deletion articles I think go way over the line (see ). From my point of view, the best way to fend off the "deletionists" is to meticulously source everything you write, using formal citations. (See ] for an example of how to do this. ] has more information on proper sourcing.) It will undermine arguments about fannish writing, although it won't resolve by itself the basic challenge of convincing others that the material is Misplaced Pages-worthy. Anyway, I hope you find this information useful. ~ ] ] 17:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Err.... ==

	? I guess you are re-arranging things. Try to use an edit summary that reflects that. --]]]] <sup>(<font color="green"><i>]</i></font>)</sup> 20:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	Okay, what you are doing is completely acceptable, and I don't think you really need any assistance from me at this point. However, if you have any questions or need some guidance, just let me know. As aforementioned, kindly use edit summaries that reflect your work. Happy editing, --]] 02:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	Looking at the talk page, I'm not sure about that. I would recommend you follow what the others on the talk page want and try to come to a resolution. Remember this is a community and you ought to consider the input of others. --]] 15:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	== sandboxs ==

	]I have set that up for you, all you need to do is go into the history of the page select the version you want and then click edit, copy it and paste it into your sandbox, when your done with it or want it deleted just add <nowiki>{{db-owner}}</nowiki> to the page. happy editing ] 21:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Here's where you went wrong ==

	Here's where you went wrong on the JLU episode thing: you talked to the comics project people when you needed to talk to the ]. Drum up support there for your JLU project. They are more likely to buy the arguments you are making, since they're based on the work they have done. Get some support, direct it to the JLU page, and get to work. You do that, and I will work on it with you. I apologize for last night; I was very tired. --] 02:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	== JLU ==

	== Blocked again ==

	I've blocked Dyslexic Agnostic and reblocked you for edit warring on ]. This is not a 3RR block, but rather a disruption and incivility block (your edit summaries don't help much). If I feel forced to block you again, I'll also ban you from the page, per ]. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 06:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	I'm getting sick and tiered of being ignored, I'm being stalked and I'm furious. You can't stop ignoring the evidence. You are my mentors, you are not suposed to be necesarely at my side but your job is to help me, and you are not doing it by far. Start investigating the stalking, please.--] 19:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	...Besides I was not edit warring. I was still working when he irrupted. And this time my work wasn't even adding info. I was following guidelines:

	*I created a category to put every ] pick on the wikipedia. Meking those easier to find to use in multiple relevent cases.
	*I modified the list formatting it like a table as guidelines indicate.
	*I created articles only for the most significant episodes this time, ading episode infoboxes, putting those into a category, and fixing links.
	*At the time of the irruption I was adding the Images I found.
	*While mine was hardwork the other user was just mocking my efforts, I ask editors to put his good faith in question. (not the same as plainly aplying the so poorly understood "Asume good faith" resource)

	t-man please drop the stalking thing, seriosly per what ive previsoly said no one is stalking you and there is no ] ] 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


	C'mon man, I seriouly feel ofended by your comment. It's all about odds and logic people. Think statistically:

	*'''Can you telme a single page I've ever created NOT modified/eraded/undone/revert/redirect by DA just minutes after?''' The logic is, and be careful, most people doesn't seem to have the brains to get this (which is why I'm getting so exponentially angry), DA wouldn't be able to do such thing without monitoring me.

	{\| class="wikitable"
	\|+Table of pages I Created
	\|-
	!<nowiki>#</nowiki>
	!Article <br> in question
	!Nature <br> of the vandalism
	!# of times he insisted
	!# of editors in between
	!Evidence
	!Comment
	\|-
	\|1
	\|#Bomb!
	\|
	\| -
	\|<!--# of editors in between-->
	\|
	\|Not even comics related, discovered through my contribs
	\|-
	\|2
	\|]
	\|actually ok, but by editing stuff he ignores about just because I edited there, he messed concepts a little wrong
	\| -
	\|<!--# of editors in between-->
	\|
	\| -
	\|-
	\|3
	\|]
	\|same as the Jokers, only he messed concepts a worst as a result of not being a fan of series in question (admittedly) and only editting because I did it first.
	\| -
	\|One. Edited a day after me.
	\|
	\|Actually a smart way to mess with me.
	\|-
	\|4
	\|]
	\|Erased info he didn't domain at all.
	\| -
	\|None, edited straight after me
	\|
	\|Other user backed me up by re-adding it.
	\|-
	\|5
	\|]
	\|An ok edit, but the summary: (some '''badly''' needed copyedit) is mean onpurpose
	\| -
	\|none, he edited straight after me
	\|
	\| -
	\|-
	\|6
	\|Bat-Embargo
	\|Added the merge tag that destroyed the article
	\|<!--# of times he insisted-->
	\|<!--# of editors in between-->
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|7
	\|Animated Series Batman
	\|<!--Nature <br> of the vandalism-->
	\|<!--# of times he insisted-->
	\|<!--# of editors in between-->
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|8
	\|Silver Age Batman
	\|merged the article
	\|<!--# of times he insisted-->
	\|<!--# of editors in between-->
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|9
	\|Golden Age Batman
	\|merged the article
	\|<!--# of times he insisted-->
	\|<!--# of editors in between-->
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|10
	\|Gay Batman (or whatever the name was)
	\|merged the article
	\|<!--# of times he insisted-->
	\|<!--# of editors in between-->
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|11-61
	\|50 links comming soon
	\|Over 50 articles I created for the ] were unilateraly redirected '''MORE THAN 4 TIMES EACH''' (I repeat Over 50, Over 50, Over 50,Over 50,Over 50,Over 50,Over 50,Over 50,Over 50,Over 50,Over 50,Over 50, '''Over freaking 50 articles!!!''' get it?!! ) by no other than DA, that means all that massive vandalism (as it was mindless)
	\|about from 2 to 4 each in average = 150 times
	\|none, he deited the 50 articles 4 times straight after me each one.
	\|*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*

	*
	\|was NOT supported by anyone else. Even people unsure about the project didn't do anything like him. when i created links to fix those after each time he turned all those into redirets he mocked me saying that he'll also use them to erase it again'''
	\|}

	get it???? not stalking?... well it freaking goes on...


	*'''Can you tell me a single page DA has ever created, modified/undone/revert/redirect by me just minutes after?''' Like about 97% of those if there are. Since I don't monitore any one odds are I won't be edithing more than 1 or 2 pages created by the same guy. Even more, the posibilities of the edits being against the creators (redirecting/reverting/erasing) more than more than once (if so) are the same of a thunder falling twice on the same tree.

	***The only articles DA created, something about limited series, I ever modified (a 100 years ago '''before''' the ])the were erased by somebody else. And I didn't erase any of his work. Besides DA invited me over for some weird reason.

	*'''How many pages that I edit have not been modified/undone/revert/redirect by DA just minutes after?'''The logic is, and be careful, most people doesn't seem to have the brains to get this (which is why I'm getting so exponentially angry), DA wouldn't be able to do such thing without monitoring me.

	{\| class="wikitable"
	\|+Table of pages where he edits mindlessly after and against me
	\|-
	!<nowiki>#</nowiki>
	!Article in question
	!Nature of the vandalism
	!# of times he insisted
	!# of editors editing between
	!Evidence
	!Comment
	\|-
	\|1
	\|]
	\|<!--Nature <br> of the vandalism-->
	\|<!--# of times he insisted-->
	\|<!--# of editors in between-->
	\|:,
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|2
	\|]
	\|Erased info he didn't domain admittedly
	\|<!--# of times he insisted-->
	\|<!--# of editors in between-->
	\|,
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|3
	\|]
	\|...after some productive edits with linking, guedelines aplications, formating lists in tables, adding existing images, categorizing and styling encouraged by WP, he improved the page by: ...reverting.
	\|8-ish
	\|5 times straight after me.
	\|
	\|Yah, that's good faith. (no, seriously, we can't believe otherwise, so let's assume it is not vandalism which is synomim of bad faith editing)
	\|-
	\|4
	\|]
	\|Re-Added a cleanup tag even though it was from when the article had another format
	\|<!--# of times he insisted-->
	\|<!--# of editors in between-->
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|That was annoying and uncalled for
	\|-
	\|5
	\|]
	\|erased 6 paragraphs I added as introduction
	\|more than 10
	\|<!--# of editors in between-->
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|Other users backed me until he gave up
	\|-
	\|6
	\|]
	\|Added the merge tag that destroyed it
	\|<!--# of times he insisted-->
	\|<!--# of editors in between-->
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|Totally in spite
	\|-
	\|7
	\|]
	\|Redirectes split articles
	\|<!--# of times he insisted-->
	\|<!--# of editors in between-->
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|This is where you can understand ho DA is nothing but a stalker and a prankster. '''He was the user behind ]'s article spitting, YET he undid Batman's only because I made it'''
	\|-
	\|<!--#-->
	\|<!--Article <br> in question-->
	\|<!--Nature <br> of the vandalism-->
	\|<!--# of times he insisted-->
	\|<!--# of editors in between-->
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|<!--#-->
	\|<!--Article <br> in question-->
	\|<!--Nature <br> of the vandalism-->
	\|<!--# of times he insisted-->
	\|<!--# of editors in between-->
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|}



	*'''How many pages that DA edits have been modified/undone/revert/redirect by me?''' (very few, since I don't check his contribs) Same odds of a thunder falling twice on the same tree.

	***Long before the probation, on ] I spoted him bullying another user I identified myself with and comitted the huge mistake of playing hero by supporting his edits (wich is no crime, actually DA person aside, we are all supposed to do the same thing in this kind of cases as long as we are not viciously monitoring the bully, that's what admins are for, they are the law enforcers, not us).

	*'''How many times have I complained about him to an editor (unknown or known to DA it's the same) without him posting minutes after?''' The logic is, and be careful, most people doesn't seem to have the brains to get this (which is why I'm getting so exponentially angry), DA wouldn't be able to do such thing without monitoring me. Same odds of a thunder falling twice on the same tree.

	{\| class="wikitable"
	\|+Table of pages where he edits mindlessly after and against me
	\|-
	!<nowiki>#</nowiki>
	!User
	!Evidence
	!Previous relationship with da
	\|-
	\|1
	\|Bennon
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|2
	\|Chaoswork
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|3
	\|Cleared as filed
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|4
	\|josiah rowe
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|5
	\|Shanel
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|<!--#-->
	\|<!--Article <br> in question-->
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|<!--#-->
	\|<!--Article <br> in question-->
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|}
	#

	*'''The dude is following my every step to then bother me'''. If anyone thinks this is wrong, he needs to investigate further.

	{\| class="wikitable"
	\|+Table of pages where he edits mindlessly after and against me
	\|-
	!<nowiki>#</nowiki>
	!What DA adtitted
	!Evidence
	!Comment
	\|-
	\|1
	\|Admitting Monitorin
	\|
	\|An unauthorized monitoring activity bacomes stalking when it disturbs, harass and upsets the stalkee. Monitoring and helping a grateful friend is encouraged, but here as the monitor was '''not asked to do such thing by anyone''', has '''no real superior skills''' and insists even when the monitoree clearly and openly '''HATES''' him and the nature of his edits, he becomes a wikistalker taking away the freedom of another editor. DA's reverts of my edits often get un-reverted by reasonable users (], ], ], ]), making him unqualified as a stalker... Sorry, I meant monitor.
	\|-
	\|2
	\|Admitting Ignorance
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|3
	\|He puts wrong facts in articles, just to erase my edits.
	\|* He made up a nonexisting concept in Limited series, "metaseries" <!--Evidence-->
	* He sumarized a paragraph I made, mixing and messing dates and facts in the process in ]... 4 times getting it wrong... yah', "useful" monitoring he says.
	* He has he habit of following me like a perfect ] adding ] to word to make links, changing some words and eliminating sentences. In ] he erased In other media info, a user rescued later, and in ] he changed the word ] for versions, an minor example of how he always get things wrong. The only two words fitting are branches or ramifications.
	\|Does anyone finds this whole "monitoring" usefull in anyway?
	\|-
	\|4
	\|Admitting he is mocking
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|5
	\|Moking
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|He mocks especially in summaries.
	\|-
	\|6
	\|Vandalizing this page
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|<!--Comment-->
	\|-
	\|7
	\|Posting in this page
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|I've asked the ill man-kid-girl-whatever to stop posting here, as I don't post in his talk page since before the arbitration ended. Before that he knew that my most common reaction to his posting was unleashing my anger by "attacking" him, he used that to mock and provocate and get me in trouble. I'm still finishing to comprehend the concept of attack, I'm very emotional. ''Lame''', synical and '''fake''' comments here and in other users page like ''"T-man and me buds?"'' or ''"Buds again?"'' BOTHER THE HELL OUT OF ME and he has enough intelligence to know and use that because '''I've told him and other users so''' LOTS of times... How ever the stalker keeps posting them
	\|8
	\|'''Poor monitoring'''
	\|<!--Evidence-->
	\|He sucks ashes even as a monitor...
	* His poor monitoring got us in problems for the arbitration in the first place... Not even my big crappy and stupid attacking mouth, It was his reverts over mine that got Bennon and Shanel's attention.
	* His edits get as much or more complaints, as per previous point.
	* He is not that much more skilled than me
	* He ignores most of the topics
	*He deletes stuff other people added and read after him (not only me, but several users). I say: cut the middleman, WP wasn't made to have "LESS" information.
	* He is lazy, he is ignorant (as proved above) of the topics he edits over me, instead of investigating and fix the little mistake he migh find, he erases the whole thing.
	* He is not an administrator with authority. Why bother anyway?

	'''Who the hell is he to monitore me, then'''
	\|}


	*'''He has even admitted not watching the tv animated series he edits to harass me'''. Nobody edits several things one doesn't know about always only reverting after the same user. Same odds of a thunder falling twice on the same tree.

	*I kept my part of the agreement by not talking to him, but he keeps posting here, tempting me to attack him (as he knows it works) and harassing me.

	*Am I talking french here? howcome I repeat this logic over and over and it doesn't seem to pass through anyones ears. What are the odds. Odds and logic. I don't even talk to the guy. I don't post in his talk pages or reply when he addres me somewhere else. If anyone states that it is not wikistalking after reading this, I'm very sorry, that I talk French and nobody told me.

	*I'm sorry, but anyone who undestood what I said that has been going on for more than 4 month, would also understan how outraged, and furious with a system that doesn't seem to work at all. '''I do not intent to ofend anyone''', I'm just very angry at people ignoring something so horrible. DO SOMETHING, ALREADY!

	--] 02:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

	Uh, and wikistalkers, stalker, killes, rapist and obsesive people are as real as a wikistalkers, vandals and people doing stuff in bad faith, sorry to burst your bubble.--] 02:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I as well monitor everything you do. I sometimes monitor the actions of people that conduct what is essentially vandalism and harrassment of other users. And I, too, have reverted your edits, and I would have done more had DA not gotten there first. I think you have good intentions, but you need to get in control of yourself, or you will not accomplish much here. --] 04:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

	::Yeah, but it is different, you do it respectfully, although I do think monitoring is sick and disrespectful and an invetion of añyones freedom and I don't do it, I think you have not crossed the line so far. Yor rv have been re-ading tags, and merging stuff you were highly involved since the bigining as well. But don't worry, if you ever get as ill I'll start bitching on your ass and make sure youre punished as as well, hehe. Right now I respect your work and your opinion. When we talk DA, we're talking about somebody that vandalized (erasing and stuff) my page more thatn once. You're nowhere near, I actually appreciate you, man.--] 05:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

	:First of all, we are not ignoring you. As you know we are only human; we don't have the time to always respond to you imediately. Second of all, we are not going to investigate Dyslexic agnostic. Given your claims you've provided little or no evidence. If he is really stalking your contributions, shouldn't it be alot easier to find diffs suppoting this? Furthermore, Dyslexic agnostic's edits were not bad edits or done to spite you. He cleaned up the grammar and prose, and generally made the articles better. As for the individual episodes, that was edit-warring on his part, and you both were blocked for it. However, you have been asked more than once, by both myself, Titoxd, and other editors to stop making these pages. Yet, even after being blocked several times, you have resumed the same behaviour after your blocks have expired. Finally, you are engaging in personal attacks again. Comments like "If anyone thinks this is wrong, it means the person has the brains of a ]" do not help your case. Please, take the time to read over what you write ''before'' you post it. Remember that you are on your fourth block; one more and you may be banned for up to year. If, when you block expires, you continue to behave in the same manner that you have, you may also be banned form editing certain articles.--'''] ]''' 04:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)



	::Shanel, you realize I been asking for help to investigate the issue for some weeks now and this is the first time you address it. You never even answer. I don't know what's going on in your mind if you don't throw me a clue once in a while, and you're supposed to mentor me. If you don't want to investigate (or even speak your opinion about the 200 edits over and right after mine by a single person, therefore encouraging him to violate my freedom) which is ok, at least you can direct me to the the experts in the matter. I have no doubt the way DA monitores me is an invasion of my freedom and anyone dadicating time to it would figure out for sure.
	AN IMPORTANT OBSERVATION, howcome, if you are not investigating it, get to state he is not stalking... you said it, you didn't investigate. I'm sorry but I had to call the attention, I know I said crazy stuff, but it seem to be working as the firework I needed.

	Because you adviced me to, I'll erase the ] thing, which is not offending anyone that didn't investigate the situation. Since there nobody has claimed to investigate fairly the issue I didn address the issue to anyone.

	'''over 50, more than 3 times'''!! Nothing but erasing and mocking!!! Dammit!--] 05:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

	Every thing reducesto this phrace of yourself '''As for the individual episodes, that was edit-warring on his part, and you both were blocked for it'''. Everery single episode is that, you said it, not me. Tell him not to monitore me and you'll se how all the problems I give will be "magically redices". He likes to throw sparks were there is gas or friction.--] 05:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


	Ok, this is too, much. I can't take it anymore, I need a two week forced yet voluntary vacation. Block me until the 30th., please. I really need it, I've asked for this before. I just want to upload a picture for my talk page and I'm done.--] 05:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

	* Look, I know I probably shouldn't be talking here, and I don't want to further aggravate the situation, but I just wanted to say sorry for my part in our conflicts, T-Man. I do disagree with the JLU individual episodes, but I do agree that you can make valuable contributions to wikipedia. I hope you have a nice break, and when you get back, I really would like to get along better. Eddie, you are right and it's not like it isn't obvious: '''I do monitor your edits'''. But I don't do it out of spite or to aggravate, but rather because I know in your excitement and exuberance you get carried away. Plus many of your interests in comics overlap directly into my areas of interest: your recent attempt to split ] six ways from Sunday is an example of that. I guess my point is I see myself as kind of a fixer rather than a creator of a lot of new content; both kinds are needed here, so let's work together. But I will try to exercise some restraint and let ] or Benon or Shanel step in when needed. Take care of yourself. ] 00:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

	** wow... I see my comments above angered you, and I am sorry for that. This was not my intention. You are clearly focused, with your extensive comments and tables, on proving me to be your mortal enemy. I am sure you will assume this next comment to be sarcastic, but it's not: I have nothing against you, and only mean well. I'll try to stay off this page and out of your way for the next couple of weeks. I also hope you don't delete these comments, so that others can see that I am being sincere in trying to make amends. Hoping we can be friends again like before, ] 06:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

	*** By the way, I like the artwork. Great job! ] 06:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:38, 20 November 2023

Redirect to:

User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

Duplicate Image:LOGO2-TAOBR.gif

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:LOGO2-TAOBR.gif, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:LOGO2-TAOBR.gif is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:LOGO2-TAOBR.gif, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Prophecy of Doom

I have nominated Prophecy of Doom, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prophecy of Doom. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC) TTN (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:DCAU screenshots and pictures

Recovery

I am the owner of this account. Can I recover it? 187.184.166.230 (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)