| Revision as of 05:39, 13 November 2007 editRealsanpaku (talk | contribs)25 edits →Sockpuppetry case← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:46, 13 November 2007 edit undoRealsanpaku (talk | contribs)25 edits →Socks.Next edit → | ||
| Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
| :It occurs to me that that might not come across the right way; I'm not calling you guy, but rather the user who posted above you on my talk page, who literally is a homosexual. ] ] 05:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | :It occurs to me that that might not come across the right way; I'm not calling you guy, but rather the user who posted above you on my talk page, who literally is a homosexual. ] ] 05:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| YOU are the sock, and stop sending me threatening emails or I will report you to the police.] 05:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:46, 13 November 2007
 | This user values third opinions and occasionally provides one. |
 | Caveat This user reserves the right to be more fun than you. |
| File:Skull logo.jpg | CruftEater™ Local 665 Eating cruft since 2007 |
| Howdy! Click here to leave a new message. Rude messages will be deleted at my whim. |
|---|
What was archivedPreity Zinta FAHi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC) The QuizYou might be interested in this --andreasegde 15:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC) I think DreamGuy needs to be reminded of the ArbCom's restrictionsHey, I am trying to think of how to do this without antagonizing DG further, but I think he needs to be reminded of the restrictions from the ArbCom. Despite Colin's misrepresentation of the results of the arbitration, there were edit restrictions placed on DG and I think one could make a very strong case that he is not adhering to them. I considered reporting to WP:AN/AE, but he hasn't done anything egregious enough that I felt right about blowing him in... but he's really not adhering to the edit restrictions placed on him, and I'm not sure what to do. --Jaysweet 19:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Post at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement Fred Bauder 20:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Deathly HallowsI didn't quite understand your point on the Wikiproject page. Do you mean a user page to save the current format? Alientraveller 22:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Blair WitchYes, the release date for Blair Witch comes from the Variety website. See . Blair opened in limited release on July 14th and expanded on the 30th. All Hallow's Wraith 04:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Tim Kring on G4Tv.Hey. You seem like a logical guy, so i'm here to ask for some help. Tim Kring, the creator of Heroes, stated on G4's "Heroes Postshow" last night during an interview that "Heroes: Origins" is postponed due to the writers strike and not canceled. I'm doing my best to try to find a transcript or a video of that interview so we can add it as a source here on Misplaced Pages. I need your help to try to find that source. Can you please do that? The Postshow reairs on G4 tonight at 7pm EST, if that helps any. Thanks. dposse 14:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Scroll boxRemember the question you posed to me on the talk page of 300 about the References section using a scroll box? There's precedent set outside the TfD that I showed you -- WP:CITE#Scrolling lists. Just thought I'd show you to refer back to down the road if you see the illegitimate scroll boxes around Misplaced Pages. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC) The crteria for parody movie pagesHi! I just wanted to ask something: whatis the criteria for parody movies on Misplaced Pages? I KNOW that character/movie pages can't be edited to say "this character/movie was spoofed in..." However, what about the pages abou the parody movie itself? Can we point out which characters are being spoofed in the parody movie page? For example, in the "Spaceballs"movie, can we put of which character Dark Helmet, President Skroob or Lone Star are spoofs of? Or which specific scenes or characters are spoofed in "Epic Movie"? Also, you say that spoofs are a matter of opinion. In that case, how can you decide what is or isn't a spoof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustinaldo (talk • contribs) 13:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC) White HouseJust wondered if your interested here - we could use your input. Thanks, Happyme22 15:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protect on Peter PetrelliWas there a reason you removed the {{semi-protect}} from the Peter Petrelli article? It is semi-protected, I asked and they granted. Finally, some peace. Padillah 20:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC) DreamGuyI think everyone who might have notfied him was banned from his talk page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC) MVI think your statement of leaving the article as is is quite eroneous. I added pertinent and cited material. User: El Greco only retort to this addition was "there's got to be a better way to integrate into the article than that)". What kind of a statement is that? The onus is on him to come up with a better way of presenting the material not me for introducing it. If what I have added breaks any policy please let me know. If not then it should stand. Thank You 206.125.176.3 14:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Re: Darth Maul imageWe both know that the image is not a screen capture from the DVD. I would prefer that you fix the licensing of the image or overwrite an actual screen capture image from one of the DVDs, please. I wanted to give you an opportunity to fix it before having the image deleted, which I think would harm the article (and likely cause you some trouble for incorrectly licensing the image), I think a couple of days should be enough to get the job done, right? Let me know if you have any difficulties with this. - Arcayne () 10:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
NightcrawlerI think your edit, as a whole, was poorly intended, and was made so as to be difficult to rollback. Accordingly, I did not go through with a fine-toothed comb. If you want to return some of the tags that were more sensible, though, go for it. I agree with you about the Legion bit, for example. Phil Sandifer 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Nightcrawler (comics)Per your comment, I've copied your message to Talk:Nightcrawler (comics) and replied there. Happy editing. Steve block Talk 20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
ANI notice
RFCUYour error: DreamGuy, not Dreamguy. Here are the previous cases. Relata refero 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Peter Petrelli editsExcuse me sir if some of my comments, which were intended principally in jest, were "impolite," but you ought to apply such standards to yourself before calling others out. You seriously seem to be taking a far too authoritarian line with the articles you edit, trouncing and ridiculing the ideas of others, and maintaining that your interpretation of television episodes (of all things) is sacred and definitive. I will concede that a wikipedia article should not have over-the-top fan theories and the like--that is indeed not its purpose. But the discussion page of all things should be relatively free ground for discussion and debate of what we all glean from the episodes themselves, as well as other official media. Even when something appears on the show, it cannot always be fully explained, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the article, so long as the editor points out the ambiguity. Perhaps those sorts of things are more appropriate for the articles on the episodes themselves. But please do not accuse others of being impolite or sniping other editors or whatever when you don't appear to hold yourself to that ideal standard. I'm not out to make any enemies. As you suggested, I am indeed new to editing articles and do it infrequently. However, when I looked at the Peter Petrelli discussion page, I saw what looked like two editors berating everyone else and trying to control everything. I felt like backing up the other side, and if my comments were a bit much--sorry, but I felt they were justified. Thank you, and good day. Scwatson 14:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Moving forwardI am copying this same message to both Arcayne and DreamGuy. The time now is to move on. There is no proof that DreamGuy has committed any blockable offenses, so let's assume good faith and try to get a consensus going. Regarding the accusations of sockpuppetry, since the RFCU was denied we will never know for sure. I propose we stay agnostic about whether it occurred, and never speak of it again (unless suspicions arise anew). DreamGuy, if you were falsely accused, I apologize. If you indeed were editing anonymously, consider this a mulligan: go forth and sin no more :) Regarding Jack the Ripper, I would like to get an RfC going. The problem we have is that there are not enough editors to have a true consensus. If Arcayne says, "I think X," and DreamGuy says, "I think Y," then we are at an impasse without a 3rd (or 4th or 5th) opinion. Does this sound okay for now? --Jaysweet 17:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC) The Whitechapel MurdersDreamguy has deleted my separate article on the Whitechapel Murders with the full approval of a supine admin. So it seems we are not allowed to mention the Whitechapel Murders anywhere on the wikipedia - neither in the Ripper article or elsewhere - only the 'canonical five'. Is Dreamguy thus the 'owner' of all articles on Jack the Ripper on the wikipedia? Colin4C 19:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Arcayne for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not deleteRealsanpaku 05:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Socks.It looks pretty good to me, though I'm no expert. The only thing that might be wrong (and I stress might), is that perhaps User:Sixstring1965 should be listed as the puppeteer and Realsanpaku be listed with the other puppets? But I'm really not sure about that. Should probably be fine as it is. Oh, and what can I say? Gay guys think I'm awesome. haha faithless () 05:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
|
||||||||||
