User talk:ThuranX

Welcome!

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

NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM.

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

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

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

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

Two-Face dead

Now that Aaron Eckhart confirms Two-Face is dead, doesn't it make you feel like a bit of a waste? I mean, after all those conspiracy theories you and your Adam West/Tim Burton freaks were making over the "ambiguous" fate of Two-face, doesn't it seem like you just should've saved your time and gone with common sense? After all, you really thought Christopher Nolan would pull an unrealistic stunt like bringing Two-Face back to life? What, did you want a death certificate to go with the ending. A funeral wasn't enough? Geeky Randy (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Two-Face GA

I saw your topic about trying to get Two-Face to being a GA. I haven't edited the article much, but I really like Two-Face, so if there's anything I can do to help to improve the article let me know. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You funny man!

Regarding your comments on the AfD for Canyon of the Vaginas - you are too funny! :-D Ecoleetage (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Teen Titans

The One Year Later section of Teen Titans vol 3 in this article is too long. There is no need to summarize every arc in this ongoing series. You undid my edit, and i was just wondering why you feel it's important to keep all of that information. I see it as unnecessary and was simply trying to keep the article as a whole balanced and what i see as a reasonable length

As a side note, i don't think "in shambles" is informal language, but that doesn't really matter, you can use in disarray or anything else that seems more formal to you.

let me know what you think

Captaincanuck65 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Green Hulk vs. Red Hulk

I know it would be logical to say that who the writers want to win will win but can you give me your opinion on who would win a fight between the Red and Green Hulk and why? I would like it be an in-universe style. Thanks!! The K.O. King (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

... you're probably right. That doesn't mean I want to hear it right now. Maybe later. --Blechnic (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yo man, don't spazz yourself. If you'd given me a million bucks five minutes ago I would have wished for gold so it would have hurt more when I hit you with it.  ; Thanks for trying, though. --Blechnic (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"So leave it"

What is up with that? If the tank in the film says it than so be it and I accept I was in error. I don't remember it saying that and there wasn't any sort of citation that I could check at the time.I think it also said "Weapon Zero" which would mean that according to the various retcons of Marvel history that it is in fact the original serum. I'm just trying to get the contents of the article correct like everyone else and would appreciate people giving me the same understanding and civility that I try to offer (although admittedly I don't always get it right either). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Interferring

Hi TX,

Is SA "interferring" or is he just removing what he considers to be a personal attack? Let's face it, because SA is "on the nose" it seems that then it's open slather for comments that are unacceptable in articlespaces to be acceptable in projectspace. SA should be well within his rights to remove it, particularly as admins don't seem interested in backing up their CIVIL concerns....save were it comes to not blocking altmed advocates. Shot info (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must admit, I didn't expect you to respond at all. However I know of SA, and I've seen the personal attacks on him go on, and on and on, until he does something that all of a sudden makes people sit up and notice (for example, rvv Lugwids). Now that masks the actual personal attack unfortunately and I note that admins still aren't doing anything about it. O well. I guess the Community wants more civil pov pushers rather than slightly less than civil editors who provide good content. Sighhh Shot info (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reception sections

Hi there. You said that you "oppose the prosification... of RT stats as a lazy way to write a reactions/reception section" over at The Dark Knight article. As it happens, several of us have come up with an amendment to WP:MOSFILM, which can be viewed on the MOSFILM talk page. If you have any comments or suggestions, we'd like to hear them. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 19:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

While your contributions to the noticeboard are appreciated, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. The discussions at WP:FTN are by their nature controversial, and often become heated. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar

What the hell is with this "it"? There's something far more sinister at work here. I don't know what it is...but it goes deep. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't we get them at least to take a break. There have to be some guidelines on our side here. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not talk about that editor. Addressing that editor directly or indirectly is a violation of all =policies, according to that editor. In fact, do not address me either, for the same reason. I am NOT addressing anyone in this not-a-reply. (more to the point, he's already screaming policy till he's blue in the face. whatever, ignore him. I'm ignoring the entire thing now.) ThuranX (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I did like your last argument though. Gave me a laugh. But this DID NOT HAPPEN. I was never here. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for backing me up. That kind of attitude makes me more thankful for the kind of collaboration that can exist between you, me, Alientraveller, Steve, etc. Hopefully, this won't turn any uglier than it already is. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I know you don't want to talk about this, but sorry about the rude comments. :-( Originally I only wanted to tell "it" that he didn't have to write so much, but I wrote it quite rudely and screwed myself over. I guess "it" was quite angry at me, and that's why "it" said I was stupid. Acutally I laughed for quite a while when I read what he said, lol. I guess the Scholar and I are even, in regards to rude comments... Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 07:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What I think

Well, ThuranX, I have way too much time on my hands as I am a completely unbusy person, so I'll keep this short. I have been lurking the AN/I boards for the past month or so after I've finished with my vandal watch list, and I've never ever seen anyone not gain a soft-hearted supporter on there no matter how troublesome or black of heart, at least, not until now. (Feel free to archive this the minute I finish typing it, and answer back in the archives. ;) ) Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the soft-hearted supporter as often as not tends to be me, and I guess maybe I was a little lenient here. John Carter (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by Aunt Entropy's meaning. Am I breing called softhearted, or is she saying no one's being soft hearted to NYScholar? or that invariably someone arrives to 'go easy' on offenders? As to Jon, I think you've been adequately fair. You're outside this abit, and helping bring a responsible closure. not soft at all. ThuranX (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry about the confusion. From what I see on AN/I invariably even the most tenditious editor will gain a supporter. That was the first case where the claimant absolutely had no one to support him. That says something about the claimant right there. And I agree, JC did good, overall a wise decision. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Wayne

Yeah, I came across that article when it was linked in the Smallville article. It needs some major clean up. It's heavily unsourced, and contains a lot of misguided information that was fueld by fan rumors (like the bit about Adam Knight that I removed). I don't have a lot of time nowadays (working 70+ hours a week) because of my internship--I can barely find the time to clean up the character page I created--but if you want to work together to clean up that article that would be great. I know they mention the show briefly in the Smallville: Season 1 Companion book that I have. I'm sure there is more information on the web somewhere.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

One important thing is that we'll have to replace all those kryptonsite and batman-on-film sources (unless they are direct interviews), because they are fansites and not 100% reliable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Understandable. When I get a chance I'll skim through that book and grab whatever mentionings of Bruce Wayne there are....wait a minute...[goes to check Smallville (TV series)]...there is a brief mention of it at the Smallville page. Well, that helps out some. But I'll re-skim the book to see if there was anything I left out because it wasn't entirely relevant to the Smallville article. (Off to do a quick copy/paste job before I got to bed).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no "studies" per say. My internship (which is me counseling a bunch of substance abusing adolescents) and my full time job are all that I have this summer. But, rest is always a good thing and something I'm not getting enough of...speaking of which. I added that stuff and cut some other info (there is some contradictory things in there...hopefully we'll be able to piece it together)....and now I'm off to bed. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no policy on it. At worst it would be two articles that state the same information, requiring us to ditch one of them (er...that would end up being the Bruce Wayne article if that happens). Eventually, once we get enough we'll reword things to read better in this article and it won't matter that the same information is presented elsewhere.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Barefoot Bandit/Creepy Crawler at AN/I

Hi,

Ya, I'm not sure if barefoot guy and creepy are the same person; I don't remember at what point I came to think they were the same person and why, but I'm sure my reasoning was excellent at the time : ) They have some overlapping interest regarding editing comic pages, but that might be where it stops (my other explanation is that Creepy's interests changed over time, but given the 2008 reports I'm seeing that doesn't seem to be the case). Unfortunately there's now the unenviable task of sorting out who is creepy and who is barefoot guy, if they're different. I hate sockpuppets. WLU (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving assistance

ThuranX, hi, would it be alright if I setup an archivebot for your page? It's currently over 170K, and some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. But I could set up a bot that would automatically archive threads that had been inactive for a certain amount of time (30 days?) and then you would have to worry about it anymore. Let me know, --Elonka 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your perspective - just wanted some balance... Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Batman Begins

Hi, please explain the reference's reliability at Wikipedia:Peer review/Batman Begins/archive2. Thanks. Gary King (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks Gary King (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

re:dethklok

Hopefully the article can stay like that ;). A couple more months, and that article would have likely been tagged for deletion by grim reaper :x or a deltionist. Thanks for the help. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  18:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not consider you a deletionist - I think your more on the lines of an exclusionist. A deletionist would have taken one look at the article, and taken it to AFD :p I posted some suggestions to re-improve the article back in may, but some novice editor bogged down the idea. Instead, I worked on the article in one of my sub pages until I felt I had trimmed out the dead weight. :p --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  18:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Freeze

I was deleting a couple of vandal edits. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia Reform School

Can't help but notice that there are quite a few editors in the corrective mentorship program, and it seems to be expanding greatly day by day. Is there a list of editors and their mentors somewhere to keep track? Or is it up to involved editors who've had to deal with these people in the past to follow up on these mentorships? Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue. VIllage Pump or Help Desk might know. ThuranX (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please don't continue to breach WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL at the discussion on the block of Traditional Unionist at ANI. Referring to other editors as "terroristic" is totally unacceptable and any repeat will result in sanctions being taken against you. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice ambiguous use of the apostrophe there. I never referred to the editors as terroristic, but to the idiotic content dispute. They've (Numerous editors) expanded the stupid irish conflict here to Wikipedia. It's asinine, and it should be locked down hard. Unfortunately, too many editors and admins have chosen sides, many long before WP ever hit a server, and they push it here. It's disgusting to give any bytes to soapboxing for folks supporting either side of that shit. Those two gamed 3RR, and they're being rewarded for it. It's plain and simple to see that. ThuranX (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

These comments/summaries were past civil.[1][2] Please improve your behavior, or your account access will be blocked. --Elonka 22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit, he insulted me for giving input, suggesting I'm some how an involved editor. Snide replies aren't needed. You had better be putting a civility warning on his page too. Further, get another admin from now on, given how many AN/I thread I'm on the opposite side of the fence from you at. ThuranX (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And as to the second, going in circles over and over is fucking stupid. there's no prohibition on Wikipedia about foul language, remember, WP:NOT#CENSORED. Calling things as I see them is not incivil. ThuranX (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for gross incivility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Elonka 23:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can give me diffs of where you feel that MastCell has violated WP:CIVIL, I will definitely take a look at them. --Elonka 23:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What? IO reply to your warning and you block me for it? After I oppposed you in the Zero G thread at AN/I??? You're an involved admin already involved in conflicts with Mastcell and others, and this is revenge for tellign you all to go elsewhere with your fights. This is a vendetta, plain and simple, and as for a diff, It's really clear that Mastcell is insulting me when he 'thanks' me then asks for "uninvolved" editors to also comment. I am uninvolved in that problem on Obama pages, but because i, an uninvolved editor, came in and didn't side with him, he insulted me. that you've only blocked me for three hours shows you know that the block is wrong. ThuranX (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Per request for unblock by offended party over apparent misunderstanding. John Carter (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)}}

This has nothing to do with any Zero G thread on ANI, as I'm not even sure what your position is on that one. This is about WP:CIVIL and how you have been violating it, not just with MastCell, but also in other locations. I would be willing to consider lifting the block, if you would be willing to promise to stop with the profanity, and to try and adopt a more professional style of communication. If this is acceptable, please put your agreement into your own words, thanks. --Elonka 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

To Elonka: I realize I may have jumped the gun here, and apologize. For what it's worth, I unblocked before your response above, based on MastCell's comments below. I realize I may be seen to have been out of line by doing so, and apologize for not having consulted you in advance, as I should. I do however think that the misunderstanding should be forgotten as what it was. John Carter (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock, John Carter. (ERB fan?) ThuranX (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay, by the way. I think I edited the block about 3 seconds before Elonka's response, and had to revise all the comments thereafter to take it into account. John Carter (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad form, John Carter. I was in the process of posting a more detailed message with diffs of multiple uncivil comments, but you unblocked without even a courtesy note to my talkpage, in a violation of WP:WHEEL. To be more specific, just over the last 8 hours, this is the kind of thing that ThuranX has been saying:

• "fucking stupid"[3][4]
• "bullshit"[5][6]
• "go to hell", "drop off the earth"[7]
• "tough shit"[8]
• "stupidity"[9]
• "sappy emotional crud"[10]

ThuranX, my warning stands. If you are uncivil again, I will re-block. --Elonka 00:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

{{having one of those non-unblock unblock problems, i think an IPBlock? ThuranX (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)}}

Try it now, I cleared the autoblock. Just fyi, the template to request an autoblock unblock is here. Dreadstar † 00:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the above thread, just thought I'd point out that WP:NOTCENSORED applies to article content and not editor behavior. That's covered by WP:CIV - and most of the comments Elonka specified above do violate that policy. Dreadstar † 01:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony Stark dated Vicki Vale?

Like heck.. :o) and if he did do you think DC noticed? Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, ThuranX. You have new messages at Jasynnash2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

On my way to hell...

Hey, I'm sorry, I think we misunderstood each other. I was being sincere when I thanked you for your input. I only wanted to encourage other involved editors to chime in as well, rather than hearing more from Workerbee74 et al. I sense that you interpreted this as me dismissing your input, when that was not what I meant at all. The trials of online communication. Anyhow, I of course regard you as uninvolved in that particular situation, and I appreciated you taking the time to comment. I'm sorry it came across otherwise - please trust me that it was a misunderstanding and possibly poor choice of italicization on my part, rather than dismissal of your input, which I value. Hope there are no hard feelings. Now I'm off to hell... MastCell ^Talk 23:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh shit... I just realized you were blocked, above. Look, this is all a huge misunderstanding - I absolutely did not mean my comment in the way you interpreted it, but I can understand why you read it that way. And no hard feelings - if I'd thought I was being snidely dismissed after uninvolved input was solicited, I'd be mad too. I support an immediate unblock, I apologize for my part in this misunderstanding, and I hope there are no hard feelings. MastCell ^Talk 23:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[11]. MastCell ^Talk 23:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Clearly, I misunderstood. Thank you for the offer to unblock, as well. Very gracious of you. ThuranX (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Double entry

Sorry about the double entry in Man-bat. I think its images are beautiful. I have my own Man-bat in the place of honour! Mig (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Insinuation

Read how you classified the "professor" and how you classified the "aisle jockey", then compare those classifications to how you want to define "series" and how I want to define "series". You basically referred to yourself as a professor and me as an aisle jockey. The insult is there, whether it was intentional or not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My good faith was in the fact that I figured the insult was not a purposeful attack on me, but maybe you carrying over your frustration from the incident with Elonka and her premature blocking of you. Either way, you pretty much lumped my argument in with the aisle jockey...lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't find any of this funny. I'm trying to get a solid distinction built here about what can and should constitute a series of films, not insult an editor who I regularly state I enjoy working with. However, it's seems you're no longer interested in such a collegial relationship on wikipedia. If that's the case, I wish you the best. ThuranX (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I was merely trying to explain how I interpreted the situation and you're getting pissed off about it. Look, I'm working 70+ hours a week right now, trying to get my internship hours down before I graduate, I don't really need this type of drama. For clarities sake, I took your metaphor as a insult to me because of you chose to use my side of the argument as a mirror for an aisle jockey. I understand that was not your intention, hence why I did ask for an apology after you stated that very thing. My response to you was to try and explain what I interpreted as an insult. Instead, you chose to take it all like I stabbed you in the back. I apologize for misreading your statement. Have a good day. I'm off to bed so that I can go work 10 hours tomorrow without falling asleep.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

new category.

Your new category is essentially a duplicate of the category Golden Age superheroes. Please consider reverting and MfD'ing the category. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. i understand yiour point, and i aprpeciate your open constructive way of discussing this. however, my goal with this category is to group all superheroes who are still currently being published. the golden age category contains dozens of superheroes, many of them no longer published. by grouping all suprhroes who have been published continuously since 1950, we can perhaps have a grouping which will be very relevant. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TABOO

Hi. Interested in your thoughts on this. Peter Damian (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC).

Chris Long (American football)

I do appreciate your input but I must disagree. If wikipedia is a democracy then you are right, However, if a so-called majority does not consensus build, which means taking the steps, then they have no consensus. I must repsectfully disagree. I think you maybem perhaps, think a disagreement should be settled by majority. I think you may know that this is not a democracy and what really is occuring is a few editors who want to WP:OWN an article are simply overwhelming good-faith edits.

One other note, did you read the quote on the WP:ANI page? Did it not say "Don't revert good faith edits"? What is yourview on that?72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to asked why should I be blocked for a disagreement? I said I disagreed. That's all. It seems like blocking someone should be for a violation of this rules. I have oly reverted twice. I think you may be a little senstive here. No one accused you of anyhting. I pointed out that you may be in error. That cannot be a reason for a block can it?72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:TE. It's ablockable breach of policy. ThuranX (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

72.0.36.36, you say "taking the steps" for building consensus, but what steps are you advocating? All I hear you doing is repeating the same things over and over about "majority" and "incivility" without taking any additional steps for building consensus or listening to anything that anyone has to say. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is a Jew?

Thanks. The article is a mess, and I normally stay away from it, but that stuff was so egregious I had to do something. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that removing the term "Jewish" in this context is delegitimizing their claim to being Jewish. In this context though it is a change to neutralize the issue.Ewawer (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking

No problem. I told him not to do it again, and gave him a final warning.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment of the week

		The Outlaw Halo Award
		In recognition of [this] comment. That made me laugh and, after reading the first sentence, I thought my boss had turned up, had started editing and would soon be on my talk page to yell at me, again. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC) (about the award)

If I did it correctly it should be a perma link. The other way to do it is this but that doesn't show the difference correctly. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No response

No response at AN3? Did you bother to look at the case? Four administrators, including myself, found no 3RR violation given that they are over the spread of three days and given who was reporting it. seicer | talk | contribs 16:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Dark Knight

The relationship between Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent is one of rivalry for the affections of Rachel Dawes, and as a consequence, Wayne needs Dent to replace Batman. "Stated in film" doesn't mean anything, because nothing is ever "stated" in films, there is simply dialogue between characters. The respect between Wayne and Dent is a component of the fact that Wayne wants to retire from being Batman so Rachel will agree to be with him, which is why he needs Dent to replace him in the public's eyes, which is why he threw the fundraiser. Bottom line: they were never friends. They are rivals for Rachel Dawes. Their relationship is a consequence of their rivalry, and the rivalry is one of the two central conflicts of the film. When you insist on describing the conflict as a "strained friendship", you insist on an incorrect description of the relationship and an incorrect summary of the film. EAE (Holla!) 22:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama Article

I agree with you regarding the recent censorship of criticism. What can be done about it? Beam 13:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Oh and NCM isn't an admin, I don't think so anyway. Beam 17:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cap

My edit summary got cut off, then when I went to insert a comma, I got a "file conflict" notice, so the progression of editing got confused. The full edit summary should have read, "Subbed 'the uniform's mask' for both 'Captain America's mask' (parallel construction, but word echo) or 'Steve Rogers' mask' (potentially confusing since it's part of the same uniform)."

But I can see your point that saying only "the uniform's mask" suggests it might not be real.

The clearest thing, word echo or no, is "Captain America's mask."

Sorry for any "file conflict" confusion! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Two-Face

The key to all this is keeping it as simple as possible. Remvoe as much plot info as possible and keep it as out-of-universe as possible. Also, Eckhart expressing interest in reprising the role is moot, because there are presently no plans for the next movie and well, it's just Eckhart saying what he'd like to happen. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That IGN link needs to go. All it is is a columnist speculating about what mgith happen in the next movie. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any mention of the character's fate, be it in The Dark Knight or Batman Forever or what have you, since that sort of thing is best dealt with in the plot summaries of the main articles. I feel more strongly about the Eckhart quote. I really think it should go since it doesn't tell us anything about the character. It's an actor saying "Gee, I hope I get to do the same role again", and that's not notable in of itself. Right now there's no movement on the next movie, so anything he says is simply wishful thinking. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:DFTT

You might try just ignoring people on, for instance, WT:FRINGE once it becomes abundantly clear that they are making no useful contributions towards building a consensus for whatever that thread used to be about. Just for my 2¢, I find that it improves the signal to noise ratio for discussions. Regards. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:ANI

I noticed this comment from you at WP:ANI: "What I see is a long slow edit warring and revert pattern on the part of LotLE. I see involved editors/admins protecting her, and blaming everyone else, instead of working to solve the problem and prevent further edit warring on the page." This has risen to the level of WP:RFAR and while I am reluctant to participate, and am no longer allowed to participate at Talk:Barack Obama, you are in a good position to do so on both pages and I urge you to do just that. There's something wrong. LotLE and his/her partner, Scjessey, just keep getting away with low-level edit warring and low-level baiting. Whenever anyone reacts to them by engaging in the same conduct, Wikidemo reports him/her. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Message to To Enric_Naval, Nsk92, ThuranX, Cast, L0b0t, Pete,Hurd, Annette46, Artene50 and, T-rex about cooperation to improve the AI-Wiki-page

As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks on a request from Hoary. I have written to them at their talkpages about cooperation to achieve an AI-Wiki-page that has general Wiki-consent, before publishing it again. Copies of these messages are on my talk page. Take a look at them. As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone.

(Anna Quist (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Revert including some of your comments in "minority views" name change subtopic

I removed some inflammatory language stream from the discussion page directed at you when I posted my reply. Since you named the editor who posted the personal attack in your comment, and the personal attack was a direct response to those comments by that editor, I felt I had to remove to the root the entire escalating comments to try to squelch it. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tautonym

I always feel like I'm repeating myself to an audience that isn't listening. I just can't wrap myself around why it is so bad to not want an editor to make things up or add information from references they don't understand to articles in an encyclopedia. Thanks for being one of a handful who realize Wikipedia does not benefit from bad and wrong articles. --Blechnic (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I edited out a critical link to your AN/I post. It would take me forever to find it, anyhow, this was about a comment you made on AN/I that my major concern is with the problems at DYK. --Blechnic (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Helping/not helping

I'm trying to make sure that my understanding of best-practices for handling fringe theories on Wikipedia are included no matter who comes out on top. I'm being as political as possible here. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Um...

Are you okay? This seemed uncharacteristically rude to me, especially considering that I was just riffing off an idea of yours that I thought was pretty good. Why are you being hostile towards me? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Simon LeVay

ThuranX, I have undone your recent edit to Simon LeVay and added a comment on the talk page about this. Your edit deprived LeVay of the opportunity to respond to Andrea James's misleading and in one case defamatory claims about him, and that's a very serious matter. Skoojal (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Citing Web of Science

Hi,

You just removed an edit I made to the Kenneth Zucker article, with as edit summary "citign a wikipedia page is a no no. Please fix to actual web of science citation". I would appreciate help in getting it right. WoS is a subscription-based service. I can provide the URL that I see when I search for citations for Zucker, but that certainly will not work for anybody who does not work at the same institution as I do and has the necessary password info. Posting that URL would be worse than useless, I guess. If this were a paper journal or magazine (also only accessible to those who happen to subscribe or are near a library that carries it), I think it would have been acceptable to cite Journal of so and so, vol 74, pp 43, 1745. So that's what I kind of did here. Let me know.

--Crusio (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that page! Cheers, --Crusio (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Editors

ThuranX, on the Simon LeVay talk page recently you made this comment: 'Its' a WP:NPA Violation, WP:BLP Violation, both against a wiki editor.' I find this to be one of the most shocking comments I have ever encountered during my time on Wikipedia. It appears to imply that Wikipedia editors are entitled to some kind of special treatment that other people are not, and even that their lives and reputations are of greater value than the lives and reputations of others. If you do not want to suggest such a thing, I suggest you strike that part of your comments (on the talk page, I've discussed some other comments by you that you might want to consider striking out). Skoojal (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hatless rewrite

I neither support it nor oppose it. There are some things that I see that are good in it. There are some things that I see that are bad in it. I just don't have an opinion. Is there some reason I should? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

years on Xmen films in infoboxes.

The years in the infoboxes are included on the Batman Begins, The Dark Knight (film), and James Bond movie pages. I came across the X-Men articles, and decided to add it. Simple as that, really. I thought I was making a positive contribution.

You said, "yet you're doing them multiple times without any edit summaries or explanatino". Well, they were reverted once by a unregistered user who didn't put anything in the edit summary, and once by another unregistered user who simply put "Unnecessary", which I don't think sufficed as a good explanation. You said "please stop" like I'm trying to make trouble or something. Remember, assume good faith. I hate these Wikipedia altercations over stupid things, so I'm not trying to make trouble. I see absolutely no problem with what I added. Please show me a policy that prohibits this, and I'll remove them from the X-Men articles and any other movie series I may come across.-5- (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

done yet? three notice bars? check first, then post.ThuranX (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I took a look and it doesn't say anything about including years, so I'll remove the edits I have made. I made a mistake, there was no harm intended.-5- (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, no need to be arrogant. I just wanted to correct my spelling mistakes.-5- (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I swear this is my last edit on your talk page. I went ahead and undid my edits. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding above, and I just want to thank you for your help.-5- (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments. I very much appreciate it.-5- (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No harm meant

I honestly do not know what you are talking about. I have never accused you, nor any other user, an "idiot". In fact, I am starting to suspect that you are the only one with "Clean hands". I logged off after issuing a general warning so I could go home. I'm trying to be fair here. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, sorry. Seriously, nothing bad intended towards you. Yes, Jokestress welcomed me to Wikipedia. But, as a matter of fact, I have been trying to stay neutral as you are doing, and do not necessarily agree with her ideas on gender. Read this essay for another reason I tend to log off when the Wiki gets warm. Now I have to get back to work. :-) Bearian (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

DC versus Marvel universes

Well, after that lame failure on your part, it will have to remain that way.... I reviewed your edit history and we really have no articles in common. I've never found anyone on Wikipedia with whom I edit fewer articles in common (zero is hard to beat). So I made a lame joke about DC versus Marvel universes, as I'm a mostly DC reader, in the edit summary of my post at AN/I. But you missed it.

The user making the accusation against you, as if being the associate of a fellow editor on Wikipedia is a crime, has made numerous accusations in the past week that are completely without foundation. And makes enough of these that he/she is guaranteed to get a rise out of someone. You were simply the the working victim at the time. I took the bait a bit in the beginning, also.

Take care and keep editing. --Blechnic (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll make sure I use super powers next time I have a subtle comment for you, though. --Blechnic (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry for stating that you have not assumed good faith in the past, at a prior comment that I had made at ANI. It was unwarranted and off-topic, and incorrect. Please accept my apologies, seicer | talk | contribs 05:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hulk infobox, etc.

A couple of quick points about the problems with the article Hulk (comics). The previous version does not show as one long paragraph, despite your claim in your edit summary. You deleted not just my cites, but the revisions that the cites were about. Ted Watson (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can go to "My Contributions" page or check my edit summaries on Hulk and Ulysses Bloodstone, you'll see that I complained about the line break deletions happening--automatically--almost every time I edited something on Saturday and Sunday, causing me a great deal of extra work to restore them. I am not doing anything I haven't done before (I have been working here since January '07), so simply ordering me not to do it can accomplish nothing. Also, as I said, nothing I could do--with the previous version of the infobox in an adjacent tab to go by--would restore the box. None of this was (is? this is the first Wiki-thing I've done today, so I don't yet know if this b******t is still happening) within my control. Furthermore, the GCD is used as a source on far too many occasions in Wiki for your objection to its use to be accepted by me, especially since you are not an administrator. On the other hand, I certainly do wish to apologize for my terseness in the posting above; I had been online for hours (not all of it here), and was tired and ready to get off the 'net. Ted Watson (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at your most recent version of the Hulk article and had a couple of complaints. The passage was significantly inaccurate. Not necessarily your fault (probably not, if I were to check previous versions, but your claim, "I restored all your edits," is far from the fact of the matter). The first pilot/TV movie for The Incredible Hulk (TV series) aired on November 4, 1977, while the first issue of the magazine under discussion bears a cover date of January 1977, and by definition of how comics/magazine distribution worked in those days was in stores in late 1976, maybe not fully a year before the pilot aired, but at the least very close. The mag therefore was not launched "following the debut of the eponymous television series" (emphasis mine, of course). As for the source relevant to what the b/w era Hulk stories were, just because you don't have a copy and can't read it for yourself does not mean it can't be cited as a source. I have therefore restored my edits (your claim, "I restored all your edits" being far from the truth of the matter) to that point, but revised to deal with some of your other stated concerns. Oh, yes: no problem with line breaks disappearing! Ted Watson (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am getting fed up with people responding to me by asking me questions that are covered in what they are replying to. I said, "I am not doing anything I haven't done before (I have been working here since January '07)." That eliminates the possibility that I was doing something specific to cause the problem on virtually every edit attempt for two consecutive days. I in fact use the default edit window, since you ask. I am having problems with little windows/boxes/whatever popping up related to a new scanner/printer that was just installed. Does it seem to you that that could somehow be causing this--which, I repeat, seems to have stopped while the little boxes have not, and didn't give me problems with edit windows I was working with on other sites? Just read your other posting. Those dates I cited prove that DeFalco is wrong, don't they? The fact of the matter is that the two titles represent two totally different formats, and just looking at the cover scans at the GCD would prove it. Speaking of the GCD, those cites have been up a long time, nobody else has disputed them, so you are outvoted! Ted Watson (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fact--The first nine issues of Rampaging Hulk bears no resemblance to the Hulk TV show than does the four-color book, which it does resemble (as the cover scans [authenticity, credibility, whatever not subject to site policies] show, the Avengers--original line-up and costumes--and the Sub-Mariner appear).

Fact--The first Hulk TV movie/pilot gives little idea of what a typical episode would be like, no doubt the reason that CBS ordered a second one, so Marvel wouldn't have too much to go one for a magazine that got into stores nearly, if not fully, a year before the initial telecasts.

Fact--There is a videotaped Canadian TV interview from the late 1970s now on Youtube about the series The Prisoner, wherein Patrick McGoohan says of his previous series, Danger Man, "We did 54 of those." There is absolutely no reasonable way in the universe to get that number.

Season 1 (half-hours in 1960-61, with the actor playing an American trouble-shooter for NATO): 39.

Season 2 (from here on [1964--1966], one-hour segments with a same-named character a Brit agent for UK intelligence): 24.

Season 3: 23.

Season 4 (aborted in favor of The Prisoner and not actually aired in UK until 1968): 2.

There is no reasonable, rationale way (in the given context--Seasons 1, 3 and 4 do add up to 54, but he--and you--can't justify leaving out Season 2) to get 54 out of those numbers, so McGoohan, who certainly ought to have known and therefore qualifies as "a reliable source," was wrong! Similarly, on the Wikiarticle The Green Hornet, there used to be a statement that Ron Fortier, who developed and initially wrote a comic book version of the character published by NOW Comics, claimed that trouble with the property's owner concerning his female version of the character Kato resulted in the comic being cancelled. The comics themselves document that this woman was quickly dropped and the book ran for another five years (until the company ceased operations, actually). Again, someone who has to be "a reliable source" was categorically wrong.

Fact--De Falco's name is no where on that magazine, and he was not a truly major player at Marvel at that time, so he isn't that good a source for this, anyway. The fact of the matter must be that he forgot the earlier non-TV format, and remembered only the earlier title simply because it was much more distinctive, and in fact was used by Marvel again many years later.

We should not have the article flatly state that this magazine was TV-influenced from the outset, DeFalco notwithstanding, since too much evidence works against that. You wrote, "Marvel may have chosen to get their side up and running sooner. I don't know why, and neither do you." What I know is that they didn't do any such thing, and Wiki shouldn't say otherwise just because DeFalco's memory failed him. Period. Ted Watson (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, because there is so much evidence contradicting the statement by DeFalco, who is not a good source for this particular information anyway, the encyclopedia should not flatly state that the magazine was launched as a tie-in to the TV show. I'm not suggesting that my original passage explicitly stating otherwise be restored, but have offered a compromise (I don't really like it, but I'm offering it and I will abide by it). I am going to enter such a neutral statement into the article, and I strongly recommend that you leave it. Furthermore, asserting that what I've said is unacceptable OR and/or synthesis that should be completely disregarded does not make the case that it is, and therefore does not so convince me. Citing precedents that "a reliable source" can be categorically wrong is neither OR or synthesis to the point at hand, and those cover scans with the Avengers and Sub-Mariner, whose presences are completely incompatible with the claim that even those early, b/w issues "targeted the television audience," is thoroughly objective evidence. Ted Watson (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OOPS! I just checked the article, and you did leave it neutral to this point. Sorry! Ted Watson (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what you are talking about. There's no mention of TV tie-in being from the beginning or as of #10, and what's there is cited. And I stand by my statement that your dismisal of my earlier posting here as all OR and/or synthesis is BS. Ted Watson (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me make this as clear as I can. The version of the passage under dispute between us that was up as of my previous posting (as yesterday, I haven't checked yet today) is not mine. It is neutral in that neither DeFalco's statement concerning Rampaging Hulk relevant to the Hulk TV series nor my contradicting one is there. If you honestly do not think that qualifies as neutral, think again. That aside: The OR and synthesis regs are about material to be put IN AN ARTICLE and nothing else. All that up above was FOR YOUR BENEFIT to show you how little weight the DeFalco statement should be given. Regardless of whether or not said evidence qualifies under Wiki regs to be actually placed into an article, you can still consider it to make a reasonable determination of how much weight to give DeFalco's statement here. The precedents show that it is quite plausible for a statement from an "inside" source to be totally inaccurate. But relevant to Rampaging Hulk/Hulk!, DeFalco, I have said, is not that anyway. GCD IS a citable source for fundamental information such as cover dates and physical format; I freely concede that it has much information that doesn't meet Wiki's requirements for inclusion, but there is also much that does. The covers (scans here and here) have objectively observable content that is highly, compellingly inconsistent with DeFalco's contention. Furthermore, I have here (you'll have to scroll way down to find the specific statement; the link wouldn't fine tune to the "Third Party Opinion - Initiated" line) a Wiki-administrative ruling, a precedent that when a magazine is the subject under discussion, the issues themselves are citable sources. Therefore, I have every right to cite the issues themselves, and specifically Warner's editorial in #1, as sources contradicting DeFalco anyway. For you to insist in the face of all this evidence to put DeFalco's at best dubious statement in the article as a flat fact is indefensible, and to the detriment of the encyclopedia. To summarize: While having seen something with my own two eyes is, I concede, not good enough to put said something in the encyclopedia, it is good enough to tell you that I know for a fact that a statement which you are trying to put into an article is inaccurate no matter how well cited it is, and you are wrong to completely dismiss me and evidence that corroborates me on the basis of Wiki admissability regs. All I'm trying to do is keep the inaccurate DeFalco statement out of the encyclopedia, not add one that categorically states that he is wrong. Ted Watson (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Barstar

Thanks for the barnstar, I greatly appreciate it. BW21.--BlackWatch21 01:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin

Hi sorry to bother you, but you probably should have reverted two versions of the article to remove the POINT disruption on the Franklin article. Thanks for any help. Alun (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Alun (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tucker Max

Hello. I'm not sure what to do about the Tucker Max article. I was hoping that you could help. McJeff filed an RfC about the controversy section, as to whether it should exist, but no one has responded to the RfC yet, and so McJeff has hinted at removing the RfC with the conclusion that the situation is settled: there is no controversy. And, as a bizarre twist, he claims that this is not his RfC but my "failed" RfC because no outside editors have commented yet. Even though he filed it, somehow it's my rfc, and my failure at that. i personally believe that no one wants to comment on mcjeff's RfC because the notes in the rfc are too convoluted. The first section of the RfC that any outside editor sees is a huge copy and paste mess from the same discussion page. Anyone could just scroll up to read it, but the anti-controversy folks decided to copy and paste this unnecessary and unwieldy diatribe into the top of the RfC. The result, unfortunately, is that the RfC has yielded no responses. I was wondering if you could offer any suggestions as to what to do? The summary of the situation is that I believe there should be a controversy section, and McJeff doesn't. I further believe that there was no consensus to remove the controversy section to begin with, and McJeff claims there was a consensus. McJeff further claims that Opie and Anthony are not notable nor reliable sources, and therefore have no place in the article, but I believe they are notable, and direct links to their media site with the interview in question is a reliable source Any comments? Thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Batman plot

Yeah, there was more than that changed. I had to go back several days. Someone changed Dent's fate to "death", and we had all agreed to leave it as "motionless" to remove any personal interpretations.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if they'd protect for a plot creep. If there was a high level of vandalism, or original research added, then probably.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hulk comic images

Sorry if I didn't make myself perfectly clear with uploading all those images. I wasn't trying to make a gallery. I just thought that, since the article is long and had very few images, peppering in some significant covers couldn't hurt. Sorry if I came off as immature or what have you. Belgium EO (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry again about not making myself clearer. I put that edit I reverted by mistake back. No hard feelings? Belgium EO (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't get why you keep taking them down. They're in accurate places, they don't look cluttered, they're sourced, what's wrong? Belgium EO (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Breathe

Inhale through the nose, hold it for a second, and exhale through the mouth. Repeat. And again. Feeling calmer? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Referring to what? ThuranX (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI. To me you seemed a little... belligerent? Of course, you may have it all under control - in which case; carry on. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all good, and everything is cool. ThuranX (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

'kay. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked a number of times for incivility. I really think you'd do well not to antagonize other editors with more incivility. IronDuke 00:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My Previous Block

I just wanted to leave a note about your previous comments on Jameson's request to unblock me before: I have created this in case you ever feel the need to comment on my behavior. I link this to you because of your previous concern. I have also sent you an email detailing more. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

RPA

14:37, 13 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (Undid revision 231610779 by ThuranX (talk) Don't replace your own personal attacks, even if they are not)

T;

Very briefly: I reverted your change of text from <PA redacted> or whatever back to "whining." No comment on if it's a personal attack or not, just that if someone thinks it is probably best to let someone else replace your words. Alternately, sitck in a diff to show what was removed, so passers-by can check for themselves.

brenneman 04:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved from brenneman's talk page

I chose NOT to remove my supposed insults, because they were NOT such. Other editors seemed to have no problem with my comments. And IronDuke is acting like a child. Further, your edit summary that it's ok for any editor to redact others, and yes, that's exactly what you're saying, is guaranteed to cause more chaos here. You admit in that summary that you know it's not insults, yet you assist him in censoring me, and validate it with 'even if it's not an insult, don't defend your comments. Open license to cause trouble, and reinforces IronDuke's disruptive behaviors. ThuranX (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

End moved section

Calling someone out as an agitator is probably going to get you into trouble because of WP:NPA - whining is probably incivil in the context in which it was used, but need not be removed in the same way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Since Brenneman admitted there was no PA in his summary, i reverted his censorship. I regard such editing as a PA against me, and should it continue, I may have to bring this up at AN/I and wherever else myself. ThuranX (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your response appears to me to be totally out of proportion to the events that have occured. In particular, I feel that you've taken quite a hostile tone with me, despite me effort to be conciliatory and notify you on your talk page.

1. Having someone edit a bit of your text, and in particular a bit that adds very little to the sentance, is not a big deal. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly do not submit it." You don't own a bit of text, even one with your signature after it.
2. Eighty percent of the time when someone feels thay have been attacked, the transgressor doesn't agree with that view.
3. If it's not actually an attack, someone else will fix it up. See #2.

That you chose to revert there after I'd opened discussion on the topic here is not particularly encouraging. Finally, I note that despite me explicitly stating above that I was not commenting of if "whining" was an attack, you've repeatedly chosen to misinterpret my edit summary. I've certainly not gotten a good impression of you here
brenneman 06:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oooh. you got an impression of me. So what's it say about you that I edited it back and you're willing to start an edit war over my text? Out of proportion? YOu admitted it's NOT a personal attzack, but censored it cause someone who disagreed with my position said so. Extending that means there can be NO opposition because all opposition is personal attacking. Move on to a real problem. ThuranX (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As you are clearly incapable of any further civil debate at this time, I am taking your talk page off my watch list. Any further communication on this-non issue can be adressed to me talk page. - brenneman 06:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kathie Lee Gifford

Please review my edit again. The sweatshop material absolutely needs to be removed until there is a source for it. That's WP:BLP basics. Also, what legitimate source did I supposedly remove in favor of youtube? I moved the video link from msnbc up so that it referenced her statement instead of the supposed offense by many. I didn't remove any references. I'm confused. --Onorem♠Dil 14:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the article's talk page. I wasn't planning on leaving the youtube link. I was leaving it temporarily to try to remain out of the edit war while getting a conversation going. I don't care if the sweatshop mess was well known. Step one per BLP is to remove it, and only to replace it once you have the source. I have no issue with it now, but that's exactly the type of information that we don't just slap a tag on. --Onorem♠Dil 14:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Red Hulk-related

We need a full bio on the Red Hulk anyway. Rtkat3 (Rtkat3) 1:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. We have a summary. a full bio is what's already in the pages of the comics. We don't need every detail. ThuranX (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert on WP:AN/I

Hello ThuranX,
Just for your information : [12]
I have this page in my follow-up and I reverted this morning but IronDuke asked me "rudely" not to do it anymore. I think it is not wise to delete others'comments.
See you, Ceedjee (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Page protections

There's only been one IP edit to Batman (film series) and he reverted himself within minutes. It wasn't even blatant vandalism, from what I can tell. Protection is considered a last resort - if the vandalism does pick up seriously again, then we'll reprotect. Right now there's nowhere near enough activity to justify keeping the articles under lock and key. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Negro spiritual

I see this has been moved again. I take it consensus is against this, but I'm not in a position to deal with it at the moment. Do you want to take a look? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 15:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

yeah

i will just say that the next time you think about writing me you should think twice.honestly i could care less about what you think believe or even exist for. try again buddy but dont waste your time on me. have a horrible day —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlogan2 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Semen images

If you have time to participate and offer your honest opinions regarding the images in the semen article, we would appreciate it. Although one editor seems to have the view that having no image would be beneficial for the article, I don't think that he consciously has censorhsip in mind. Another editor things that four images of semen may be more than necessary -- he may be right about that. Atom (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Mr. Freeze

I left a response back at the talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking into the IP's edits right now...

...but there's no need for namecalling. It isn't 100% immediately obvious what's going on. Perhaps your report was lacking detail? At least consider other possiblities before acting out. --barneca (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fuck off. The reports were clear, KrakatoaKaite couldn't be bothered. Look at the history at AIV. reports filed both before and after mine were cleared. She ignored my report, as did the rest of AIV, till it went stagnant and then was tossed as stagnant, when, given he's struck twice today, right after his last block expires, shows he's not only still active but persistent. Go do your damn job or surrender your buttons. Blaming the witness, good tactic to lose all respect. ThuranX (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposals on Template talk:Sexual orientation

Hi, you've contributed to past discussions on the Template talk:Sexual orientation page and we are now in the process of noting which of several proposals might help resolve some current content disputes. Your opinion to offer Support, Oppose, and Comment could help us see if there is consensus to approve any of these proposals. It's been suggested to only offer a Support on the one proposal you most favor but it's obviously to each editor's discretion to decide what works for them. Banjeboi 23:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Groupsisxty

No, "The Shadow" and myself are not one-in-the-same. I have contributed to the discussion on the talk page in a civil manner, and have even sought outside help in the matter on the "List of New Religious Movements" talk page (ie I posted the RfC there myself). Thanks, and I especially like the Original Barnstar you were given for continuing to edit. -- Groupsisxty (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You weighed in previously on the talk page for the List of New Religious movements. I have a proposal at the end for a retitling of the section, and sourcing every item on there. Would you mind weighing in there for opposition or support? Thanks. Groupsisxty (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Spiritual (music)

Use of the phrase

So far, two editors have tried to add the phrase "Negro spiritual" to the article, you claimed that there was no "rationale". So I added the rationale; i.e., the references to black organizations which proudly reclaim this historic phrase. You deleted all evidence of this phrase from the references that I worked to find and format.

My choir director, a black man, always referred to these songs as "Negro spirituals". He was very proud of his black heritage and would never use the term as a racial slur. Also, if you review the references, the organizations using the phrase are black organizations. Can you explain omitting this material? Whatever404 (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Other edits

Where are these, quote, "ridiculous amounts of agenda pushing racially based alterations" that you're accusing me of? I hardly added any text to the article, other than the above-mentioned references. Most of what I did was to create sections and rearrange the existing material so that it flowed better. I worked for at least an hour on that article, and you just did a wholesale revert. You threw out all my work while calling me names. That did not feel good.

Seriously, please, rather than just calling "racism!" and stomping on my work, take a second to look at the size (in bytes) of my edits. You will see that the bulk of it is rearranging the material that was already there, adding section headers, adding an expansion-request template. Little stuff. You are within your rights to challenge and remove material, but please be a bit more selective in your edits. The article is far more navigable with those section headers, do you really need to delete them? Whatever404 (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussing WP:Fringe

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFringe_theories&diff=234435862&oldid=234402222

Please don't pull out WP:SOAP as soon as you revert my edit. It comes across that you're accusing me of bad faith and is provocative. If you feel that I'm editing without good faith, take it to WP:ANI and ask an uninvolved admin to warn me, or warn me yourself and explain your rationale. So far I have been scrupulously following policy and have been very careful to stay out of edit warring on any pages. (if you look at the page history you'll notice that I backed off as soon as I saw the reverts by other editors were getting out of hand).

First off, I waited until the discussion had died down so that there would be less likelihood of stirring up the same edit war that was touched off last time. I let the issue rest (and went out of town) for a few weeks, which is why I haven't been back.

Second, the change that I made had been discussed, and I correctly referred you to the discussion logs, rather than the active discussion page, since there is lots of positive discussion about the change.

Do you have a particular issue with the wording or just that I made the change without having an active discussion on the talk page and instead referred to a log?

HatlessAtless (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight disambiguation

Hi, ThuranX. There's been a little more discussion about the disambiguation page The Dark Knight at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#The Dark Knight. Since you expressed an opinion on the talk page, you might like to join the discussion there and explain whether you think the film is or isn't the primary topic for the phrase "The Dark Knight". Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, ThuranX. You have new messages at Jasynnash2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit Summary?

Just saw this "just fucking leave it; some editors have to be superior, let them.". I'm thinking we've had somesort of misunderstanding and want to apologise for any part I may have played in that. Obviously, I don't know if you have a history with the editor that originally changed it or not but, can only assure you that when I changed it back to a more "readable" version it wasn't out of any feelings of superiority (I mean it is quite obvious to me that you know more about most comic books than I ever could). I really was just trying to help. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For working hard at reviewing numerous BLP edits from a new user, and taking a great deal of time to check each diff despite the tedious nature of the task, I award you The Barnstar of Diligence. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to reply on my talk, but I didn't think it went far enough. I hope this helps! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ThuranX (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain America

I read your response and I suppose I have to concede when you put it the way you did. However, I think this issue will definitely be worthy of reexamination upon the release of First Avenger: Captain America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.232.14 (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(On Disneysuit's Admin noticeboard page)

Just so you know: I haven't been hired by Disney to watch Disney-related pages ;) I have yet to graduate from college to get a job! :) In case you were wondering ;) By the way, I was looking at your contributions: wow, you're really good! Hope to work with you in the future, BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 19:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thor (film)

Hey bro, long time since I've hit you up - hope all is well. Just wanted to ask what you think of this for a starting point to when the film eventually gets made. I would do this in the live-action section of the Thor article but Asgardian had stated he didn't want anything but facts in the article so I thought I'd start compiling something now before the long task of putting the development together has to start later. Edit at your pleasure =) -- Harish (Talk) - 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Regarding your comments on User talk:Sherurcij: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had your talk page on my watchlist since we had that dispute about the passage relevant to the Rampaging Hulk/Hulk magazine in Hulk (comics), and had almost removed it as that seems resolved. Very glad I hadn't yet, as, after reading your posting referred to above by Mayalld, I'd like to say that I feel his/her response here is an inappropriate reaction (admitting that all I know about the situation being discussed was what was said right there, but on the other hand Mayalld doesn't seem to have had any interest in the incident itself). That some editors (or even some administrators) would behave in a manner detrimental to the encyclopedia is perfectly possible and even plausible (in fact, I have encountered such several times in my more than a year and a half working on Wiki), and it should not be condoned or even tolerated. The first step in dealing with misconduct to the detriment of the encyclopedia is by definition pointing it out. That so many people respond to such a posting by crying "Uncivility" (although in this case you were certainly civil and polite about it, hence Mayalld didn't make that charge) and "No Personal Attacks" is itself detrimental to the encyclopedia. Their refusal to so much as acknowledge the existence of the original misbehavior being discussed or, worse, reported to an incident board (the regs used to actually contain an acknowledgement that reporting bad faith behavior was an option, albeit without giving any instructions whatsoever as to how to do so, but since I myself on 6 May 2008 included a link to that in an update to such an incident board report that was being dismissed out of hand, the passage has been rewritten to remove it, and I'll never believe that that was a coincidence) and to fault those who would attempt to draw attention to it only encourages those people and others like them to engage in further such misconduct. These are the only "users" who would be "deterred" by dealing with such "attacks" on their own terms, and they need to be deterred. This severely harms Wikipedia's worth and credibility as an information source which, given the fairly poor reputation it already has due to being wide open to the most blatant (as well as more subtle) forms of vandalism from unregistered and anonymous IPs, it cannot stand. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the comment of support. best to ya. ThuranX (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the admin actions (and I make no comment on them here), your message went beyond criticism of the action into an attack on the person taking the action, and that just isn't on. We all (me included) get riled by something from time to time, and lose our rag, but it doesn't make it right. Mayalld (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin actions are the admin's actions; commenting on them inherently comments on the admin, he further set himself up by his imperious arrogance in choosing to disregard the community. As such, his choice of actions and his conduct in general reflect wholely on the person. ThuranX (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Thank you. Furthermore, Mayalld's new comments ignoring the bulk of mine by definition corroborate them. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So say the actions were bad. Don't say the person taking that action was bad. No matter how much you believe that the actions were wrong, accept that the admin took them in good faith, in the belief that they were for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Leaping to an assumption of bad faith, and calling him arrogant for stating his position, isn't going to make things better. Mayalld (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hulk september

• I did not understand.In the pages of Hercules and Thor there is a comparisson with the Hulk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.58.52 (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I mean;there is a in-universe comparisson between Hercules and Hulk,and also betewen Thor and Hulk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.58.52 (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• A question:WHERE ANY WRITER OF THOR SAYD IN AN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION THAT HE IS STRONGER THAN HULK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.58.52 (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the same issue Thor defeats Hulk with ONE ligthining bolt.I really DON'T understand.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.58.52 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the Hercules and Thor's bios based on the same principle you stated when talking(189.87.58.52 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC).

• The time factor is irrelevant for Hulk in the last decade stood toe to toe with a ten times stronger than normal warrior madness Thor and broke the armour of Onslaugth,a feat Thor didn't get to acomplish.Those ways Hulk demonstrating He is stil stronger.

• The writer's factor is irrelevant because no writer ever demonstrated that Thor is physically stronger than the Hulk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.58.52 (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, In Universe isn't reliable source material for real world discussion, like a summary of the powers. Instead, you'll note that much of that section is suitably sources to secondary sources. Please read up on that. ThuranX (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Im not better than you.You are pretty much better.But,please:Dont's erase realiable sources like the Beyonder's evaluation of Hulk in an official publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.58.52 (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem totally incapable of listening to anyone about anything. It's NOT acceptable, we've explained way too many times, and you don't listen. Expect that your edits will be reverted until you stop and listen, or till we have the page locked down. ThuranX (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• There are subjective and personal evaluations of me from you.But the brute facts i understood and agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.58.52 (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you for the correction to Iron Man correction

For some reason that MIT thing bothered me. It is all fiction and I needed to be shown the light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Real-heroes-are-made (talk • contribs) 21:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Non free use

I have reviewed the policy. The image does not comply with all 10 or so guidelines. Please do not revert and put the non-free use image back. There are plenty of pictures of him so people can see how he looks like. You can also mention that he was on the cover if you like. Thank you. We don't have to cheat in order to make Wikipedia have more information. 903M (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

too late. Already reverted. Bring it to talk. Your deceptive assertion that it had not FUr makes me loathe to play the AGF game with you. ThuranX (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What is FUr? The image itself says it is not free use, not me. 903M (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use rationale. If you're not familair with that, then you should not be making image use determinations. ThuranX (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

FU also stands for Fuck You. I reviewed the 10 criteria that images must meet. Meeting 9 is not enough. It doesn't meet all 10. Not having it doesn't make the article bad. 903M (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, with that personal attack, i'll be disregarding you from now on. ThuranX (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

903M was simply saying that the initials 'FU' have several meanings, and it could have been construed that you were swearing at them and that's why they asked you to clarify what you were saying. Then they clarified that this ambiguity is why they asked. You did not hyperlink to any policy so you can see why they wouldn't understand your abbreviation, as quite a new user. They are aware of image policy IMHO (of course a lot of people interpret it in various different ways) but as a newcomer they wouldn't know some acronyms other people might use as abbreviations, without a wikilink to the term. I've been here 3 years and I wasn't sure what you meant until you explained it, simply because I haven't seen it written as 'FUr' before (which doesn't mean I don't know the 'rules'. This particular strand of the argument is just a breakdown in communication, not a personal attack on either side, although I appreciate no-one has been perfect in the debate. ThuranX could have used a hyperlink or written out what he meant in full, 903M could have explained why they weren't sure what you meant in a less ambiguous and more subtle way, and ThuranX, you could have not accused her on her talk page of 'constant lying'. I'm just saying this as 903M's adopter and hope you will both make up and accept or WP:AGF that it was a simple misunderstanding. Sticky Parkin 04:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Having explained it, the only reasonable interpretation of his phrasing is 'fuck you', not 'oh, i thought that meant 'fuck you'. the R should've been capitalized, but I typo'd, and given his reaction, I left it that way, for others to see it as a typo of FUR, rather than edit it and leave him looking somehow more ignorant. however, his 'FU means Fuck You' response was clearly an attack on me, especially coupled with his abject refusal to actually talk about his edits. As for AGF, after 'fuck you', I don't AGF about a user. he knew full well what he was saying. And now I've committed a Personal attack by a TYPO? As for 903M, He/She/They/It are lying. and they know it. As 903M's adopter, you're doing a great job of recklessly defending Him/Her, instead of pointing out that per Bold, Revert, Discuss, 903M should've come to the talk page sooner, doubly so after being asked to use talk, triply so after I started a thread on the talk. Instead, 903M broke 3RR. I offered a chance to back away from 3RR, and was rewarded with an AN/I thread about my patience. No more AGF for 903M. This is absurd misbehavior. Get your Padawan under control. Link included for you. ThuranX (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Xidan

After you !voted, I found an source published by an official Beijing government site. That may not change your !vote, but just wanted you to be aware. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh...

Uh...tell me you're not really getting upset because I put a comment above yours. I was responding to Bignole, not you. How is that "insulting" you? Anakinjmt (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, get insulted easily? Did you see what I did? I dented mine twice, leaving yours dented once. It's clear the way I had it that you were not responding to me. This is something that happens ALL the time. If you don't believe me, check out the Main Page talk with the topic September 11. This is something that happens a lot. I hope you have not changed it again, because that would put you dangerously close to 3RR, if you haven't already. I am well aware of indenting, thank you very much. The way I had it originally made it clear that if he wanted to respond to me, he'd indent after me, and if he wanted to respond to you, he'd indent after you. Clearly, you get insulted easily because how you could see that was "disrespecting you" is beyond me. I have placed it back AND added to it. I suggest keeping a cool head, because let me tell you, right now, I don't feel like you're being civil to me. Anakinjmt (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to try to be civil once more, but I want you to know that any comment you direct towards me, whether here, on my talk page, or another talk page, that I deem to be uncivil will result in me notifying an admin. I just want to give you a fair warning about it, something I know has happened to me before and it helped me cool down. The simple fact is, the way the comments were last before your removal of your own comment (which I don't think you needed to remove) made it clear the order of things. You appear to take offense easily. That is something I would encourage you work on. I am not interested in getting into a feud with someone. I like to think I'm a generally likable guy who if someone gets mad at me I try to resolve the issue. Your impression may be different, for which I am truly sorry if that's what you think. Looking over your talk page, it does appear that you tend to get riled up fairly easy. I know for a fact I used to be that way. The problem is, when you get riled up, it is very easy to forget about things like being civil, no personal attacks, and assuming good faith. I guarantee you, had your initial edit summary been more civil, I would have brought things to you first, where we could have calmly debated things instead of getting frustrated at each other, which I know happened to me and it appears it happened to you as well. So let me just encourage you to allow yourself to calm down before reacting to something you don't particularly care for. You do that, and I'm certain you not only won't get frustrated so easily but that any disagreements you have with an editor will remain civil and respectable. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Launching attacks

You claimed you were attacked. By reporting to 3RR, if you don't also report yourself, you could be doing something that a rational person could interpret as an attack. Let's stop editing the picture for a while and seek to resolve the matter in a day or two.

However, if you report to the 3RR board, you must also report yourself if you are making an accurate report. 903M (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Late?

You say it is late and you are going to sign off. In the spirit of cooperation, I am going to jointly stop editing the Henry Ford article, talk page or other boards.

Think hard about non-free use and trying very hard to avoid it in favor of free use. That should be the main discussion. 903M (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

logging off.

Sick of this idiotic bullshit. 903M shouldn't open the door if she won't step through. ThuranX (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Earl's List

I see from this article that you were the final user in the talks about deleting the Earl's list page. I am contributor at My Name is Earl Wiki, and I used that page to update some of the information there. I am not asking for a page restore, I was just wondering if it would be possible to have the contents of the page to use for reference in helping with the ongoing production of Earl Wiki. Any help you can offer in this respect would be very much appreciated. SignorSimon (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry Ford

I am seeking the best and most scholarly Henry Ford article, one that strictly follows all WP policy. I don't seek to fight you.

Also, let's try to resolve this. Certainly don't violate 3RR. In fact, you're the one who told me about it so you know it. Let's be colleagues! 903M (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be colleagues with you. You have been hostile, insulting, attacked me personally, and filed an AN/I against me for a false 3RR. If you think for one minute I want anything but for you to leave the Henry Ford page, and me, alone, then you are sorely mistaken. ThuranX (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing in Wikipedia is acceptance that one become colleagues of Wikipedia editors. Violation of copyright is a serious legal and unlawful action. You appear to look at this as a fight. I merely want to protect Wikipedia and make it scholarly. If it becomes clear that this is not a non-free use image, then I have no objections to its use on copyright grounds.

In the mean time, please observe the rules prohibiting removal of the tag. It is unpredictable what will happen if you remain hostile, but please don't try to test this. Please do not remove the copyright tag per the tag's instructions. It could conceivably result in disciplinary action. 903M (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That tag is for images, not for obstructionist tactics. That is clear, and you know it. However, your desire to escalate this to the level of a fist fight is clear. I've been kind enough to simply ignore you when you insulted me, to warn you when you hit 3RR, and you continue to be a complete WP:DICK. Read that essay. Your POINT-y behavior and continued misbehavior is a significant problem, and if you really push this, this will wind up back at AN/I. Having already failed to prove me in the wrong, and having already been chastised there, I can assure you that the second time around, things will go more poorly for you than the first time. ThuranX (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please have some patience. Violating copyright is very serious. Let's try to resolve this. If it is determined that the image is not copyrighted, then I am not opposed to it! 903M (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me be clear. I am not interested in working with you anymore, nor are the half dozen others speaking out against your edits. You'r throwing a temper tantrum on Wikipedia, and it's led you to violate 3RR. You should be grateful that I didn't further revert your pointy edit nad nail you for five reverts, I'm quite sure you'd take the bait. Now knock it off. ThuranX (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Weatherman/Terrorism RfC

Hi! This is a form notice sent to several editors who have contributed recently at the Bill Ayers page or talk page (sent in accordance with WP:CANVASS). A proposal has been made near the bottom of Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC concerning the Bill Ayers article in connection with use of the word "terrorism" and discussion of it in the article. Other proposals have been made concerning similar articles, and a large amount of information about sources on this topic are available on the page. Please take a look and consider supporting or opposing some of the proposals. Thanks. -- Noroton (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)