User talk:Vicenarian

OMG!!

Good lord, first Javert/Katerenka/whoever comes back and now you do?!? :D Welcome back buddy, you've been gone for FAR too long. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 22:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

On that note, what the hell went on with Javert. Is he a man,is he a women or both?...anyway BigV, nice to see you bck and hope ypu van get bck on with the adoption thingymabob VTomi (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Midnight Comet

dude, can u PLEASE tell me were midnight comet's hidden page is? (or at least tell me how i should go about finding it, as in, it's not just on wikipedia, but the whole net.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakkinx (talk • contribs) 03:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's since been deleted. –Katerenka ^☆ 03:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:TVS, Neutralhomer, request for mediation

Scrolling back a few months, you might remember me and the issues with Neutralhomer reverting edits in TV-related articles that hadn't been approved by WP:TVS. Neutralhomer reverted (yet another) type of edit as "vandalism", and stated unambiguously on my talk page that "If you are going to remove information, you MUST get consensus from WP:TVS first."[1]

He also (finally) explained why he did not respond to our request for mediation:[2] "I am not going to change my opinion and you don't have any form of consensus (mediation isn't consensus) and refuse to go to WP:TVS. So, mediation is just a pointless endeavor."

He views WP:TVS as a the gatekeeper for Wikipedia TV article changes, and does not acknowledge the overriding Wikipedia rules and guidelines. His recent statements seem to be all we need to make a case. With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Piano non troppo has refused to even go to AN to get consensus. He seems to be trying everything he can to "make a case" against me to, I guess get me blocked. This seems to be an editor concerned not with the rules, Wikiprojects, and consensus of Wikipedia, but removing information this user sites as unnecessary to them and taking revenge against anyone who reverts them. Clearly this user needs to calm down and get a Wiki-tude adjustment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, calling legitimate disputes over content "vandalism" as you did here is unnecessarily hostile, and I suggest that you may want to consider a "Wiki-tude adjustment" yourself. Assuming that a user is out to get you personally as opposed to simply disagreeing with your stance on an issue is directly contrary to the assumption of good faith, the fundamental spirit which the collaborative creation of something like Wikipedia requires. Please refrain from using my talk page for name calling in the future. With regards to the dispute in question, I suggesting the opening of a actual community-wide request for comment, one more widely visible than a thread on TVS, to determine the true consensus. Regards, The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 06:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack!

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE

what did i just do? regards--Orangesodakid 18:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

• Interview: Interview with John Blossom
• News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
• In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Guess who :) --Meaghan ^{guess who :)} 23:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)