User talk:U-Mos

???

U-Mos, I don’t know if this is your user talk page or not, but how the hell did you manage to get your User page and your talk page deleted from this???? - Bagel7^T's 01:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, oh I see. That makes a certain amount of sense I guess. - Bagel7^T's 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Help Request

I appear to have ruined the Music producer stubs / Record producer stubs categories yesterday while attempting to redirect the former to the latter (see my recent edit history). Needs fixing some way or another. U-Mos 15:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The page has to be otherwise blank in order to act as a redirect. If you've moved all the included information from the Music producer cat to the Record producer cat, blank the page, then add the redirect. Lara❤Love 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the assumption on the CfD page. Relata refero 18:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Romesh Dodangoda

A Proposed Deletion template has been added to the article Romesh Dodangoda, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. tomasz. 15:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The New Regime

A tag has been placed on The New Regime requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. скоморохъ ^ѧ 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Beijing Cocktail

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Beijing Cocktail, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of The Beijing Cocktail. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who citation

Hi; you say it was given later in the article. What number is it? —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to The Doctor's Daughter

You should not base your edits on other articles but rather the wp guidelines for the usage of copyrighted images. You should also consult WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, as to the problems with this approach. The wikimedia foundation aims are stated here, and may help you understand the issue with these images. I would also invite you to undo this edit. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Billie Piper

Please see my latest edit-summary, and the links I included in it. Please also do not continue to revert-war, but rather discuss per WP:BRD. My point is that we don't know she won't be in ep8, 9 or 10; or that her small cameos don't count as appearances. I know it's likely that what you say is true, but likely ain't enough. Sorry. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FFAF

Yes, sorry, I removed it for being unsourced, and then later read the source myself....I was tempted to put it back, but as you say, how to source it. Feel free to add it in again, I won't remove it. I don't really understand why official myspace pages aren't considered reliable....many bands now only use myspace rather than having another additional site. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

When reverted

When reverted, please take the time to head to the discussion page and seek discussion on the matter. Simply reverting again creates an environment that fosters edit-wars. I've removed the material you have added in as speculative and synthesis. Please use the discussion page in order to advocate re-adding it. I would also like you to wait until the discussion is concluded; ie, don't state your points and then revert the points back in. Thanks - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said in theory. But let's look at the cases in point: the "little shop" mentioned in a direct reference to two previous episodes. That's in no way speculation, it's a blatant reference. I don't fully understand what you mean by synthesis, but I assume it's along the lines of making very contrived links to previous events (such as the archaeologist-benefactor relationship point that you quite rightly removed). It certainly ain't that. Squareness gun: a weapon that has been seen in a previous story, given the name that Rose Tyler coined in that previous episode. Again, nothing wrong with that. I reverted under the assumation it was a mistake, as these points are blatantly notable. I will not revert a second time without discussion, but I would conversely invite you to explain exactly how these points are not relevant/notable. U-Mos (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to look at how you are using the word "referencing", U-Mos. In the episode, the Doctor did not say "remember when I said I like a little shop?", which would in fact reference something that happened before. However, he does not say that. The reference to the earlier situations is one we are making ourselves. That is the core of synthesis. We cannot connect those dots; we can however, cite (a reputable, reliable and verifiable) someone who connects those dots for us. It doesn't have to be "very" contrived. Anything where it the connection relies upon you - and not a citable source - to do the connecting is synthesis. It's a form of original research, and we aren't allowed as editors to contribute in that way.
If you would like me to explain more about some of the subtleties of synthesis after you read the WP:NOR bit on synthesis, please feel free to ask. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that wasn't sarcasm. It was me asking for a citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to re-examine your posts before posting them, U-Mos. Suggesting that controversy only would arrive if I chose to edit or assuming I am being difficult simply because I you don't like my position on policy. osting thusly is unfriendly and unprofessional. If you don't like editing with me, go somewhere else, as I am not going anywhere. I would appreciate more professionalism, please, as I am being nice, I would appreciate the same from you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say, I've seen four or five posts in which U-Mos has replied to you, one of which - at WT:WHO - where he agreed! Not only did I agree with him in all of them - and thus agree with you, Arcayne, at WT:WHO, but I thought they were perfectly civil and reasonable. I think you may be being a little over-sensitive. That said, telling another editor to "go somewhere else" because you're "not going anywhere" doesn't suggest great sensitivity - to others' feelings at any rate. The point of Wikipedia is that we all get along, and leaving a problem rather than fixing it is always going to be a less preferable option, not to mention a less professional one.

Sorry, U-Mos, that wasn't really addressed at you :-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I wold concur with that reasoning, TT, but remember that civility and sensitivity is a two-way street. If U-Mos posts defensively (as if expecting me to take his head off), it sets a pall on interaction. I can agree with you while making it seem like you are a dolt for disagreeing, or qualify that agreement enough so that it comes across as less than ringing endorsement. From the last flare-up, I think its a little appropriate for everyone to either be more civil or to leave the article until they can find their happy place again. As I have not been confrontational, perhaps it would be nice if everyone adopted the same stance, as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I love editing with you; a bit of healthy disagreement does wonders for the heart. I apologise if I was defensive, but (whether intentional or not) I have found some of your posts to be rather confrontational and abrasive at times. I suggest we wipe the slate clean, as after all we are both trying to fight the good fight here. Until next week's Doctor Who, at least... U-Mos (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Deal. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, could I trouble you to begin indenting your posts? It helps preserve conversation flow by indicating htat you are responding to another person's post, either specifically or generally. Thanks in advance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I indent sometimes. I just think it starts getting a bit stupid when it's up to, like, 5 in a row. If I'm directly replying to a point I always do. I guess I'm yet to pick up on the finer points of that. U-Mos (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course, after a point (say, 7 indents) it does become tedious. When it gets to that point, I usually start with ":(←dent)" to signify that I am outdenting for sanity (and Great Justice). Indenting before then, or not indenting at all leaves folk (or so I am told) with the impression that you don't care what the person before said and you are essentially ignoring their post. Now, I think that is a bit thin-skinned interpretation, but there is a lot to be said for making conversational flo easy to follow. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) As well, I would ask that you maybe take a closer look at the non-continuity edits you are reverting in Forest.., as some of them are pretty useful edits. As far as the continuity bits are concerned, you might find it helpful to your argument to allow a comparison of articles, showing one with continuity points and others without. As well, it is extremely useful to help pare down the continuity sections to include only those bits which the article cannot do without (which is why my edit retained some points) and which are either trivial or weak representations of continuity. However, you are going to do what you will. I would point out that both of us are at our 3RR for the day, and neither of us seems at all willing to compromise. Perhaps the reverting is not going to accomplish the task in a 'who's-got-the-bigger-dick' revert competition. Perhaps it would be better to simply talk more and revert less. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, perhaps your message on my talk page would have been better received if you hadn't started off by calling my edits vandalism - we both know that they aren't - that they represent a difference of opinion and not some mindless puke about how the episode 'TEh sHiT' or whatever. Maybe take the time to realize that I know how to use language just as well as you and that if you want positive feedback from your posts, you need to provide it in the first place. This has come up before. I am not trying to be dismissive, but I simply do not deal well with folk who want - no, demand - respect whilst at the same time refusing to tender it themselves. Maybe think about that before you ever offer an edit summary like you did here again. If you are trying to garner my friendly cooperation, that is not the way to go about it. I would in fact suggest that it has precisely the opposite effect.

Secondly, I do not see anything which is "highly controversial" about this edit, and I would invite you to express what you find so gawd-awful about it, especially when you took my advice to actually read the edit and realized that you were removing good edits along with the continuity stuff. I will ask you again to take a good, hard look at the continuity bits that were removed (note that I did not remove all of them but only those that were not notable, were trivial or synthesis), and re-examine whether they are truly defensible or not. I assure you they are not.

This overriding hostility regarding me simply because I want to improve the article and bring them into line with the policies and guidelines that every other article in Wikipedia has to follow - it has to end before you are reported for your bad faith. I think you have many fine qualities as an editor (and yes, since you've watchlisted my contributions, you shouldn't be surprised that I've perused yours), but your protectionism of Doctor Who episode articles can easily be interpreted as ownership behavior, though I am sure you aren't aiming to leave that impression.

I ask you to take a breath, relax, and perhaps tolerate an edit you disagree with while you discuss the matter to conclusion in the relevant pages. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you cannot post politely and civilly on my talk page, you may not post there at all. Characterizing my posts as laughable was pretty much the deciding factor to essentially ban you from my tak page. When you apologize and/or adjust your temperament, you may ask for the privilege again, but until then, it might be best for you to respect my request, and stay away. Though unasked, I will not post on yours. I think we're done here. Thanks in advance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Forest of the Dead. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. This applies to both you and Arcayne MASEM 19:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Silence in the Library"

Thanks for that edit - I'd obviously messed up... trying to restore cast-names too! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this again

We have gotten off on the wrong foot enough times so as to make interaction toxically unpleasant and uncivil. Perhaps I have been too dismissive of your concerns, which I think arises not out of my assessment of your personality but instead of my own distaste with folk trying to remake Wikipedia into a fan-legitimization site. I am not necessarily claiming that you are one of these folk - or at least, I am not saying so as of this moment - and I am going to apologize for having suggested such in bad faith in the past. As you have seen, I tend to respond very dismissively to folk who folk who are uncivil, or who take things personally and attack me. We both know that your commentary and posts have been tinged (if not all-out immersed) with incivility and personal attacks; that is an observation, and not a recrimination or attack in return. I recognize your legitimacy to edit here, and do not consider you an sungle-purpose account with singular, disruptive interests. I do believe that you are here to improve the encyclopedia, and would ask that you extend me the same good faith belief as well. I am not here to destroy or undo the DH episodic articles; my defense of the images in IfD, if nothing else, should help to convince you that I want what is best not just for the article or wikiproject, but the encyclopedia as a whole. We are going to disagree, but that disagreement doesn't have to be the sort that results in us meeting in the middle of main street (or AN/I) at high noon to shoot it out.
I propose that we take a deep breath and try to reboot this interaction, and maybe try to bypass the bad faith interpretations of each other of the past, instead, trying to see the good in the others' edits and viewpoints. Towards that end, I lift the ban on you posting to my user talk page, and invite you to discuss (politely and professionally) any concerns or comments you wish to make with me. I would ask that we all try to follow the Golden Rule and treat each other in the manner in which we ourselves would like to be treated.
Note that I have contacted the other editor constituting this triangle of unpleasantness with a duplicate of this post, so as to garner input from both of you. I await your responses. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can see your point. It has always been my practice that when i make an edit (especially one that might cause dissent) I explain exactly why I made the edit, so as to invite discussion. It is not meant as an 'I'm right, fuck all y'all' flip-off whatsoever. If this misperception is consistently being considered, then perhaps I should address that by discussing first, which I also sometimes do. That said, there is a lot of benefit to the BRD model. I have to admit that it drives me absolutely, boot-to-the-face batshit when someone repeatedly reverts my inclusions, expecting edit summaries to smooth over what is assured dissent. I feel that if I am taking the time to edit something in, then someone should offer the courtesy of discussing the edit (which is almost never trivial or ill-advised) before reverting it. It just seems to me to represent basic respect. I know that such is in short supply in the internet, but the times I have encountered polite, reasoned dissent to my edits have been exceptionally pleasant for me. I hope you see what I mean.

I don't think the apologies we have offered each other are a magic bullet that are going to clear up all our clear differences, but I think this (semi)personal talk could serve as a back-channel, to let us talk out potential wrinkles or obstacles to our interaction, so it doesn't get out of hand in article- or article discussion space. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who

I would add references but the thing is, they are nowhere to be found. I know that the cast names i put up are all true as i have seen it in the media before but not know where. I know the part of Paul O'Grady was true as i read it in a magazine when he was interviewed. But i know the cast list was all true.

Charlie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goku1st (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, i got the Paul O'Grady bit right that he plays himself. :)

Goku1st —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goku1st (talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Episode Ratings

Currently, since episode 3 of the new series, i've been putting up the unoffical ratings for each episode which i get from http://www.gallifreyone.com/ whch they get from BARB. Would you like me to keep putting these up in future? i know there are 2 more episodes to go, but there is still a series 5 in 2010 and 3 specials in 2009. Just thought i'd ask and let you know.

Goku1st —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goku1st (talk • contribs) 20:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody deleted it off Turn Left. I had put it up, then somebody deleted it a minute after :l And i cant see who it was as i dont have and never will have that power :l

Goku1st —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goku1st (talk • contribs) 20:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Jahoo

I'm so sorry, I only just realised what all that Jahoo reverts were about! That's dyslexia for you. I wasn't attempting to have an edits war over the matter :) steveking89 20:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Stolen Earth continuity section

I removed it because the information is now mostly redundant. For example, the bees, stolen planets, robotic hand, and crossover elements are already talked about. The rest borders on original research (e.g. the thing about previous Dalek encounters, H2O scooping). Sceptre ^(talk) 13:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And the continuity section on PiC has been removed, same reason (see the filming section). Sceptre ^(talk) 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Journey's End (Doctor Who)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) articles are written from a real worldperspecive... from a real world perspective... the trailer appeared as partof the episdoe... removing this tyoe of info because it is not incontinuity would be an in universe perspective and is prohibited.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Rosetti's poem

Thanks for providing the citation, which only left the notability issue remaining. You moved the info from continuity to a new section, Outside references, which was reverted. Before re-adding it, you should probably recognize that its reintroduction is meeting resistance and initiate discussion, as per WP:BRD, as simply reverting it back isn't going to resolve the issue, and is only going to serve to piss one or both of us off. I am willing to discuss as long as you are. Could you please use the discussion page to explain why the Rosetti poem is crucial to an understanding of this episode? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could please ease off the unpleasant asides regarding 3RR, please? It doesn't do anything to contribute to s a solution and, just like you, I tend to find them more attack-y and less conducive to polite interaction. We have been interacting well recently. Please don't ruin it now. Stay on target, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to come and let you know that I was unaware of the source's failure was a recent discovery. I never thought to check the source because - I never would have considered the possibility of the source being wrong, seeing as it came from you. My apologies for not checking and bringing the problem to your attention earlier. Don't bang your head, bud - I've saved you from the issue being caught at promotion time. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

cite that please

Regarding this edit, could you please cite that standardization? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Oxford English Dictionary (published in a university town well known to Arcayne) defines story as: "an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment; a storyline" - according to this definition, Arcayne's original rationale, that story implied a written work rather than a filmed work, is void. The reference is to a broad aspect of the overall plot of that adventure, rather than a production aspect specific to just that episode, so story is the natural word to use.

As to standardisation, I'm not sure, but in terms of basic common sense and taking words at their "official" definition, I'd say that U-Mos was spot on. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hence the expression, "Tell me a story, mummy." Meaning a verbal conveyance - if story implied print, then the mother would be bemused at such a request, having expected to be asked to tell her child a story.

Or daddy, of course - gender inclusivity rocks. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I remain unconvinced. His word choice in Wiki-en, in an article which has multiple media expressions was not as specific as necessary. In a film that is only a film, it is appropriate to use 'story', as there is no medium in comparison/contrast.In films based on tv series (X-Files, Sex in the City, etc.), the proper notation is to predicate the word 'story' by which medium it was presented in - ie., 'an ongoing story in the series of alien subversion was not continued or addressed in the movie.' In those articles with more than four different mediums (tv, film, radio, books, comics, etc.), the need for clarification of story usage - or substituting a media-specific word like broadcast or episode - is more concise and therefore desirable.

Lastly, as TT has made a significant point of banning me from his user talk page, I would ask that he practice what he preach, and avoid littering my space with his posts, except in those situations where he is required to notify me.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

One final thing, U-Mos: Arcayne is, of course, blanking any comments I make to his/her talkpage - feel free to paste in anything and sign it yourself, if you think it's going to be useful to you. Good luck! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is always a good tactic for someone seeking admin-ship: asking folk to appropriate your comments and sign their own name. My above restrictions towards you appear to be fairly well justified. Please stay the hell away from me; you have nothing to say I find of any value. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You clearly said (incorrectly, despite your multiple degrees from Oxford who has, in fact, published at least one work of fiction before) that "story implies print". Since I have demonstrated that it doesn't, that would appear to be of value to you as it means that you, an Oxford graduate, no longer misunderstand a word in the English language. If you do not find that of value, you are stubborn and dim; if you do but are simply saying that you don't to maintain an image, you are even more stubborn and dim. ::Furthermore, you will kindly accept that I have not "banned you from my talkpage". I have simply said, in a coloured banner quite clearly printed at the top of the relevant page, that until you retract your original ban which came first, you may not post on my page.

And to be honest, if you carry on intentionally getting under my skin with comments like, "Get the Hell away from me" (and yes, there should be a capital h there, as my degree from Fairfax University tells me), I shall file an RfC on you. And while I'm sure you think you'll 'win' it hands down, I'm sure you won't enjoy it much, so would advise you to avoid that course of action. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 06:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I said that you didn't convince me by your dictionary demonstration. Now, you can continue trying to bait me, or you can go off an edit something. If I ask you to stay away from me - something you have been told to do by no less than six different editors and admins - maybe you should take the hint and do so, You are not interested in DR, as denoted by my former attempts to engage you in such. Frankly, I do not care if my dislike for you gets under your skin. I didn't ask for your love, and don't want it. If you wish to file an RfC on me, do so. Nothing I have ever said has made the slightest dent in your very large ego, so why would you expect it to magically happen now? Please stay away from me.

Oh, and by the way? "the hell" in the statement "Please stay the hell away from me" is is in fact the proper usage. Using the lower case denotes the descriptive sense of the word. Now, if I had said something like: "Go to Hell", the capitalization of the proper noun would have been appropriate. I don't even need an associate's degree to know that. I think we're done here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's been an explosion on my talk page... Anyway, back to the POINT. I changed episode back to story simply because that's how it is done across Wikipedia. I have never seen another SJA adventure referred to under its single episode. And if that should, than serial for the classic DWs should also use this. (And serial would also not have to refer to a TV broadcast) Not that I'm saying they should. Personally, I don't really mind, but I think when the linked article is on the whole "story" than the prose that links to it should refer to it in the same way. I mainly changed it simply for consistency's sake. U-Mos (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you link some examples of that, U-MOS?

As for the explosion, sorry about my part in that; I pretty much try to ignore the other user, but when he comes at me all specific-like, a response, though brief, is somewhat necessary. Feel free to delete the friction=y bits between me and TT at your whim. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In the continuity section of Turn Left (Doctor Who) is one, as well as being referred to as stories in The Sarah Jane Adventures page itself. I resent being asked to support all my decisions with articles that use a similar method, whereas you seem to think yours should be taken as read. U-Mos (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That was not my intent, U-Mos, and I apologize that you felt that way. In point of fact, every episodic article is indeed a story. So is every radio broadcast, or film, or comic book, or novel. The point is, we need to distinguish between these different stories, and the way we do that is to note what type of story it is. While you may think it is unambiguous, it is important to note that audio novels have been produced for SJA as well. Noting which medium the story appears in is the best way to educate the newcomer to the article subject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that. But when referring to the whole story, "story" is really the only option. Serial is used as generalisation in classic DW as they generally took over two episodes, but SJA is made up of two-parters. U-Mos (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I rather disagree with your interpretation. Should we get a Third Opinion on the subject? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You've had one. Your interpretation of the word is at odds with my opinion, U-Mos' opinion, others' opinion, and - vitally, the Oxford dictionary's opinion. 3-1, including the individual who added the word in the first place :-) ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 17:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What part of "stay away from me and my edits" was unclear to you? At least have a half-dozen admins who you have asked for advice have all suggested staying away. I am doing my best to simply ignore you, and I would strongly urge you to stay away, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean if I proposed green text in all Doctor Who articles, ordered every other WP:WHO editor to stay away from me, then I could claim no consensus opposing my plan exists because I'm ignoring everyone who has a differing point of view? Get real. I understand the advice totally, I simply have no intention of following it to this extent. You say "Shall we get a third opinion?" - you have had one. Just because you choose to ignore it because it suits you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's here, in atoms, bytes, bits, letters, words, punctuation and the odd gluon.

If you wish to ignore my comments, that is your privilege (though doing it in a deliberately ostentatious way is borderline) - but claiming that I haven't commented is just not on. And that's essentially what you're doing - asking for a third opinion when I have provided one is saying that my input doesn't affect the building of consensus. And you do know that's wrong, I'm sure. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 21:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I was under the assumption that through your many, many incarnations, you have at least at one point or another come across WP:3O. It seeks out opinion from a neutral third party. It's rather clear that you would be verifiably unable to act as such in this matter. Thanks for volunteering, though.

And my problems with you are fairly well beyond consensus - you know this fairly well, as you aren't daft. Since you are not willing to be more civil towards me, my choices are few: I can respond and send you scurrying into a closet, weeping inconsolably, or I can take the higher road and largely ignore you. I am choosing the latter as I have no interest in feeding you. In short, I am choosing to treat you like a particularly ugly set of curtains in a friend's home, and ignore you. If this bothers you, be more polite and assume good faith more often. Until then, I urge you to move on and find someone else to play with. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, let me know if you want me to submit the 3O, U-MOS. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, the WP:3O system is not appropriate for this. "Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors." Two editors. This is a dispute between three editors - therefore, a more appropriate venue for outside deliberation could be the WikiProject Doctor Who talkpage. How's that sound? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 10:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In my many, many, many, two incarnations (accounts is the word in common English usage, I believe), I have indeed come across WP:3O. And I understand from the titling of it - and from the very first sentence on the page - that: "Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors. When two editors cannot agree, either editor may list a dispute here to seek a third opinion." This isn't actually a dispute between two editors. Now... story time.

Once upon a time, two editors have a disagreement. A third chips in and takes a side - both members of that side present active arguments; the one person on the other side also presents active arguments. He suggest getting a third opinion (a device used to help resolve a dispute between two evenly-matched editors). He has it pointed out that there are already three opinions, so getting a third is rather awkward, and he attempts to defend his position.

Just thought I'd sum that up nicely.

I'll sign this with all of my many, many, many incarnations if you like, too - I'll even cover my past usernames just to make you happy... ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢, Porcupine (talk · contribs · logs), Rambutan (talk · contribs · logs), Circuit Judge (talk · contribs · logs) 07:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that 3O is not the place for this. The WikiProject seems more appropriate. U-Mos (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's no problem at all. Would you like to initiate conversation there first, or shall I?Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:43, July 12, 2008 (UTC)

BTW, congratulations on making a userpage, U-Mos :-) ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done it. U-Mos (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who templates

Hi, there. I noticed you were restoring the template to the appropriate articles. Did you already finish, or do you need any help? Thanks! Take care,   user:j    (aka justen)   23:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hi there, thanks for your work in reverting the Doctor Who episode templates. It's much appreciated. I think I've reverted the rest of them, but if you have some more time, I'd appreciate your help in converting the dates to the hCalendar microformat as Pigsonthewing has begun on with this edit[1].

• Actually it appears that a both to do this is pending so it may not be a big issue. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image upload

I gave it a try and it worked, the image is at Image:Ffaf m&h packshot.jpg MBisanz ^talk 12:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Journey's End (Doctor Who). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I've got to do it, sorry. You deleted that text four times in 24 hours; it's not necessary, just slow down. Thanks! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 07:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

While TT should not have templated you (its seen as rude), you are finding yourself in a position I have foun d myself in before; consensus is against you, and no matter how mind-fuckingly stupid you feel that (or any) consensus to be, WP works through respecting the group opinion s of others. Were such a consensus to violate policy, you'd be in a position to seek an RfC or Mediation about the matter. As they consensus cites the source of the material, it might be better to back off the topic for the time being. Despite what Edokter says, consensus changes. As new material is published, evaluating the ep and the series, the consensus becomes open to change. Wait for it. Be patient. Don't back into the grinder. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Block Exemption request

{{82.110.109.171|{{blocked proxy}}: Rapidata Services|Spellcast}}

Are you sure you got the IP address right? The block of the IP address you wrote is a {{schoolblock}} which doesn't affect registered users. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a rangeblock. U-Mos, I don't know one way or another about the proxy itself, however, I'm granting you IP block exemption so you can edit despite this other block. Mangojuice^talk 13:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged. U-Mos (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Black Holes

"Throughout"? Throughout what? naerii 22:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

R from merge

Please don't remove Template:R from merge when you change redirects as you did to Alejandro Herrera article. These tags are useful for categorising redirects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible

Is it possible to talk about this on the talk page on the Lostprophets page or have someone reviewing it who is a bit more neatural, no harm ment with the comment but i don't see the reason for why it needs to be deleted. --This Feels Right (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at pages in her Category:Upcoming albums, they are all shorter, pluss this is how the Death Magnetic article started up, see here or the Chinese Democracy article, see here and that article didn't have any sources. my point either the rule is stupid or your not making yourself clear enough. --This Feels Right (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That section needs shorting, its twice as big as the other two sections put together, and what is wrong, all that info comes from reliable sources so it can't be innacurate. And again [2], which didn't have a release date. --This Feels Right (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever thought that "I Don't Know" is not a single at all, was just heavy plaid on radio. It has happened before you know. And most of the information your telling me IS NOT added TO THE lostprophets page, people don't know this. Maybe its a good idea to have a page where this is mentioned. Have you ever thought of that?????? --This Feels Right (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A song released to radio is called a promo single boy. --This Feels Right (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to know much more about Lostprophets than me, can you check if somethings missing to the Thefakesoundofprogress and Start Something articles?? Oh yeah, see Radio single..... --This Feels Right (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Offwiththeirheads.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Offwiththeirheads.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Two Pints..."

Is there any consensus for these changes? If I've missed the discussion, I do apologise, but could you post me a link to where it occurred? Rodhullandemu 12:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Zimmerman, just FYI

Hey, just letting you know that Dr. Zimmerman was in the episode. Dr. Suresh introduced him: "Dr. Zimmerman will show you the way" to the Shaws. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 23:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who Companions

I understand your concerns regarding the the inclusion of The Brigadeer in this article, but he is listed as the 3rd Doctors companion, so you would need to open a discussion in the talk page before making anymore changes. We canot have him listed as a companion in one section, but not in another, we need consistency. magnius (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Companion (Doctor Who). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. magnius (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your argument hinges on another wiki page, which itself could be wrong. A change like this needs to be discussed with other editors so that we may decide where the mistake lies, and change relevent pages. I you change one section on a page, but leave another, it leads to confusion and inconsistency. The consensus could be reached that he is a companion and that the other page is incorrect in saying that he isn't. I'm nt being difficult for the sakek o it, I am simply looking for widespread agreement, not your own personal POV. So rather than continuing an edit war, which just lead to us both being blocked, we need to open a discussion on the relevent talk pages. magnius (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Companion (Doctor Who). Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. magnius (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Incident discussion initiated

Hello. An incident complaint has been initiated at the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents wherein you have been named as being an involved participant. This is your notification of the aforementioned complaint. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Companion (Doctor Who). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Aitias // discussion 21:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

U-Mos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Claims against me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks by U-Mos have been hugely exaggerated and biased. I have reviewed the situation personally and find I made 5 reverts ([3][4][5][6][7]) yesterday (possibly 6 if my first edit is to be counted as a "revert" although it was not performed in that way), not the 8 claimed by Arcayne. I also misunderstood the 3RR rules, believing they applied only to the same area of an article not the page as a whole, so I felt myself only guilty of exceeding 3RR by one revert at the time. I have apologised for that, and for the single profanity I used in an edit summary (although this has again been exaggerated as "wildly swearing" and "dropping f-bombs", and although I understand this is unnaceptable in an edit summary so was the previous summary directed towards me ([8]), to which I reacted in a way I shouldn't have). I understand that I have broken the rules, and if seeing out the block is deemed necessary then so be it, but I am not a threat to the environment of Wikipedia at this time. My fault is simply allowing myself to be goaded and baited by another less than constructive editor. U-Mos (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You yourself have admitted to doing 5 reverts on a single page. Simple analysis of these reverts show that they are edit warring ("I'm right" isn't a legitimate excuse), which is precisely the reason for the 3 revert rule, and took place over a span of 3 hours. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In case any of the involved users are tempted to read this and use it against me in the future (I wouldn't put it past them), I'd like the clarify that I do not have any problems with the block given and understand its reasoning. I utilised an unblock request for no other reason other than wishing to have the situation assessed using the facts, rather than the exaggerated claims in the aforelinked section. U-Mos (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For my own edification, U-Mos, could you explain how you were guilty of reverting only five or six times, and not the eight I had reported? Also, I am unsure how I exaggerated the separate complaint in regards to your language. If you could specify how you feel I exaggerated these issues, I'd appreciate it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You and Phil both stated that I been repeatedly swearing, which as I only used the word in question once (and, admittedly, requoted it at a later stage) this was not really sufficient to justify Phil's rather uncalled for claims of my being a "complete nutter" and your own hugely impartial claims in this incident report. As for the number of reverts, what can I say other than the five I have linked to above were reverts, and the extra three you listed were not (your "first revert" was the first edit I made [9] and the other, which you counted as both your fourth and fifth reverts here, was an edit I made to the same page that was not a revert and had nothing to do with the three characters in question [10]). Simple as that. U-Mos (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I cannot control what Phil said and, for the record, I think he was out of line to say that. We are supposed to focus on the edits, and not the editor, until that editor's behavior becomes problematic enough that it needs addressing - in the appropriate forum (WQA, ANI, etc). I've been guilty of this before, as have you and practically everyone here in the wiki; the key is to learn from it and try to limit how often such happens. Again, I am not condoning what Phil did, any more than I did your behavior. You said you've figured out where your behavior went wonky, and that's great. I am a little worried that you've latched onto Tan's characterization that you were "goaded" into your behavior; it implies that you aren't in control of your actions. Anyone who cannot control their actions shouldn't be editing until they can. That's my personal call on the subject, though; your mileage may vary.

As for the number of reverts, the way I had counted them was the initial revert (noted by your #9) was a revert in that it removed the Brigadier as a Companion - a topic that had gone back and forth in earlier edits. You did not have to be involved in the earlier back and forth for the edit removing the character to be considered a revert; that said, an argument could be made for the converse. As for the link numbered #10, that was a separate revert based on another conflict - indeed separate from the issue of the Brigadier, but no less a revert. Reverts (for the purpose of determining 3RR) do not reflect whether the revert was in regards to a specific issue; it simply counts as a revert.

Both of the issues were in dispute, and adding in contentious material contributes to a destabilizing of the article, which is why we have 3RR and protective blocking in the first place. I know you know this, and I am not covering this ground to serve as a lecture to you. I am stating such to explain why I considered them reverts. You were using the discussion page, but your editing the material back in while discussion was ongoing was not helping the situation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Link #10: I see and have seen no evidence of contention on that issue, and certainly did not check its history before making the edit; it was quite simply a case of seeing something I felt was wrong and hitting the edit button to change it. Plus it was made before the talk page section was started. U-Mos (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Hi there. Today I made some serious corrections to the above article by deleting large amounts of unsubstantiated OR that had been tagged for a while. Another editor immediately mass-reverted my corrections. You agreed with her, and suggested I should seek consensus for my corrections if I wanted them to stand. Please could you clarify why you thought reinstating large amounts of unsubstantiated OR was in Wikipedia's best interests, or why you think such corrections require a consensus in advance? Thanks Wdford (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It just burns me that Zara blatantly breaks the 3RR rule to consistently reinstate unsubstantiated OR, but her version gets to stand and I am automatically in the wrong. This looks wrong to me. Wdford (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Betrayed

Hello. Your recent edits seem to show me that you haven't grasped the idea behind moving pages. When a page is moved, all of it's history is taken along with it, which can be vital information needed for later reference. Lostprophets' fourth studio album should have been moved to The Betrayed or The Betrayed (album); instead of just creating a new page. Then we could see that the page has been redirected to Lostprophets before, for failing notability.

The main issue is with the fact you moved The Betrayed to The Betrayed (film), with seemingly no effort to cover your tracks (fix links). The pages that linked to The Betrayed as a film, now link to the Lostprophets album, this needs to be patched up. Now The Betrayed (film) is practically orphaned. Also, I understand you're still working on the page, but I'll just remind you that it must be reliably sourced, considering it has been removed and merged to the Lostprophets page multiple times, as people have not been able to provide notability through the necessary means; such as track listing, title, release date, etc. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Righteo. Fair enough. Sorry if i sounded a little blunt. I'll try and pitch in and help you out. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nav boxes

Nav boxes and infobox chronologies are intended for ease of navigation only. Thus, only articles that actually exist are included. The single may well be sourced, but until an article exists, it is not added to nav boxes or chronologies. See Wikipedia:Navigation templates and Template:Infobox_Single#Chronology for more information. Cheers, Nouse4aname (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Generally, with singles they are only notable after having been released, as they need to chart to satisfy WP:NSONGS, which is why singles generally don't get pages until they are released (though they are often created a week or two in advance). Nouse4aname (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Pokemon Diamond Exclusives.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pokemon Diamond Exclusives.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ost (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Pokemon Pearl Exclusives.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pokemon Pearl Exclusives.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ost (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sway" not "Sway..."

The is song "Sway" (not "Sway...") I even have my own copy of Start Something CD, on the track listing it says "Sway" not "Sway..." but on the USA edition it says "Sway..."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wooblz! (talk • contribs) 20:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Make a Move

Please stop changing Make a Move to Wake Up (Make a Move), we all know that it was re-named later, and I wrote on the page it has been...—Preceding unsigned comment added by HiMyNameIsTom (talk • contribs) 09:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not experimenting, you are, I'm just telling the truth!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by HiMyNameIsTom (talk • contribs) 09:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert issues

per Raymond Salvatore Harmon wiki entry

As you have been warned multiple times here on your talk page please consider the content of what you are doing before you undo an existing edit. The original post cites no references and was thus deleted. If you continue to undo my deletion of it without adding a verifiable reference to it I will have to report you.

Instead of adding text to the wiki you need to be discussing questionable edits on the articles talk page. Simply undoing an edit without changing the exiting problem isn't helping anyone. Please discuss any issues on a articles talk page before simply undoing someone else change to a previous edit.

Again, the reference in question lacks any non biased references. The existing entry does not imply that the video is "official" and does not say so in any way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Creatcher (talk • contribs) 19:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have just read your changes to the pages entry and your comments in regards to my previous comment. While you take issue with the term used in the article "released" and have changed it to "uploaded to youtube." the fact remains that the video was released into the public on that date. "uploading to youtube" is releasing a film for public consumption.

If you read the article on the talk page of any bio of a living person it clearly states:

"Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous."

Without a source of reference the statement that "Eventually it was discovered that the video was made without the permission of Banksy or Yorke. Yorke requested that the video be removed from YouTube, as Harmon had been claiming that it was an official video. " without reference is potentially libel.

I have also noticed your having marked the article for deletion out of spite.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Creatcher (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In the guidelines for the biography of a living person one does not need references for material that is not potentially libel. If the matter is a matter of contention then references need to be made in order to make them verifiable. So far no reference has been provided that states that the video was not "released" or for that matter that proves the video was unofficial.

So far you have only shown your own opinion on the subject of the video without referencing any sources. Make edits based on personal opinion is counter to Wikipedia policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Creatcher (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Curious why you are continuing to update a wiki article that you have nominated for deletion? It doesn't make much sense to say it isn't notable enough to be there or is in such bad shape it isn't worthy of a wiki article but to still make edits to it so it justifies your viewpoint. Odd. Creatcher (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

+++

Hello, in regards to your last change to Raymond Salvatore Harmon. Actually, anyone can claim to youtube that they are the copyright holder and youtube does not ask for any form of identification - it just pulls the clip right away. The only time youtube does ask for identification is if the person who posted the clip claims they are not violating copyright. Then youtube sends a request to the person who made the claim for legal arbitration. They are given a timeframe to provide youtube with proof of a legal injunction barring the poster from use of the offending material. If they claimant does not meet the required time frame the clip will be reinstated.

As an aside - it has been suggested (in various radiohead forums and a few blogs and smaller UK press) that Thom Yorke is not actually the person who made the copyright claim to youtube. Possibly an offended fan or potentially even Harmon himself in order to make it look like Yorke made the claim. Who knows?Creatcher (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Heroes Verifiable Information

I see you have reverted back Edokters edits, which I have supported. Verifiable Information is the most important thing on Wikipedia. I have presented verifiable information showing that we are using episode numbers from NBC and calling them Production Codes. Yet no one has presented any verifiable information supporting Production Codes. I do not wish to get into an edit war over this. I believe enough has been said. But as it stands because you are editing away verifiable information the page no longer meets the requirements for a featured list. If the situation does not change I will bring it to the Admins in charge of the featured lists attention. Please reconsider editing away verifiable information unless better information is provided to support your edits. Thank You —  MateyAhoy  02:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification

I have nominated List of Heroes episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —  MateyAhoy  19:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Hynes / Samantha Janus

I've left a comment regarding these moves with the admin responsible. In future, if you're reverting me then please drop me a line, especially when it's something obviously controversial, and double so when you're repeating the actions of a blocked sockpuppet. While you're at it, have another read of WP:COMMONNAME: that an actress is better known under a name that she's used for less than a tenth of her career is unlikely. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Master (Doctor Who)

Thanks for fixing the bit about the governor. Can't believe I kept that error in there!--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who companions

You're making up rules here. See Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)#Future Companions (2) for the discusssion. You are editing repeatedly against consensus without discussion, and that is not constructive. U-Mos (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Umos, I am using the same reasoning as has also been used at Iron Chef America by the editor Drmargi regarding the new Iron Chef Garces. According to his edits, WP:CRYSTAL has been invoked as justification to prevent a character or actor from appearing in a Wikipedia article until such time as said character or actor has actually appeared on screen. By that reasoning, the same should apply to any Companion characters that accompany the Eleventh Doctor on the Doctor Who series. The Eleventh Doctor is justified as he has appeared onscreen in "The End of Time part 2", but the character Amy Pond and the actress Karen Gillian has not actually appeared in any actual Doctor Who story on screen, and will not until the new series begins in Spring 2010. Please advise, or please go revert the changes made by editor Dmargi on the Iron Chef America page and provide him the same justification you provided me. Erpbridge (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Where We Belong on the chart

Sorry. I thought I was seeing a repetition of the spurious #24 ranking. I did return to the article to repair my damage after I saw your post at AfD, but you've already done it for me. Thank you. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Storm Is Coming

Hello I'm no trying to be a dick, but how do you know it storm is coming is not the official name? it even says it on thir myspace page, i'm not trying to piss you off i'm just asking because i'm confused because someone told me that's what it's called and others say it's just a hidden track on the last song off The Betrayed (Japanese only).
-Wooblz!

Thanks for the help =)
-Wooblz!

List of Dr Who eps

Sorry, didn't get far enough back in the history on the rv I did there. Etrigan (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I smiled when I saw your edit to...

...Flesh and Stone, but I do feel compelled to remind you of WP:NSA ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

re your message to me Kalbmkms (talk)

the modification i did was my first modification, i have only been a user for 2 days i have not got used to it yet.

sorry

Kalbmkms (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cold Blood (Doctor Who)

I think you need to read the Wikipedia manual yourself. It states "Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community. When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral." The points I raised were valid and were similar to what others have written. I have been editing of Wikipedia since its creation and I have never just deleted a section without first talking to the editor BEFORE I deleted the article. Have nice day. (Deej30 (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC))

First of all, you missed my point all together. You didn't contact me on my user talk page first, instead you deleted my entry and entered a summary edit as an after thought. You should have communicated with me via the user talk page before you took action. That way we could have worked out our differences. I was, and am, more than willing to make adjustments and accommodations with any editor in the spirit of cooperation and community. That is how I deal with edits I don't agree with and that's how I expect other editors to treat my edits. Thank you (Deej30 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC))

First of all, dude, if there was an "edit war" it was because you started it, not me, so don't go around implying that I'm an instigator. I appreciate that you edit Doctor Who pages, but if you look at several pages in the classic series you'll see my name as well (in fact I created serveral episode pages), so I am not some random fan who came up with a novel idea. Secondly, there is no contract, technically, but you are under the guidelines of the Wikipedia manual which states that out of the spirit of cooperation you should have contacted me on my talk page before you deleted my edit, which you didn't. If you are going to start throwing rules and and guidlines in to other editors faces then I suggest that you actually read them first. Thirdly, let it go, man! I'm sure you have something else better to do with your time than to try to justify your actions to me. My entry is gone and I'm not going to fight it. You WIN! I don't care anymore about edit, and if you think I do, then again you missed my point. The point that I was making all along is that if Wikipedia is to be a "Community of Knowledge" then we need to treat others in the fashion of a community. Unless an entry is blatantly false, there should be a proper line of communication between the editors on their talk page before deletion, so we can attempt to settle our differences and make the article the best it can be. Take care, enjoy your weekend and have a nice life (Deej30 (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC))

• No. You (Deej30) were bold (good). U-Mos reverted you (also good). Ideally, what would have happened next is a discussion. Instead you (Deej30) reverted (bad). Another editor then reverted you. Fortunately you only reverted back to your preferred version twice, and I'll acknowledge that you are now discussing the matter. But your suggestion that anyone other than yourself was responsible for this is incorrect. TFOWR^propaganda 15:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)