User talk:Ace Class Shadow/First archive

Welcome!

Hello, Ace Class Shadow/First archive, 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!  Kukini 23:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Accidental block

Hi! My apologies again that you got autoblocked—please have a look at Wikipedia:Autoblock if you want to know what happened. I hope that I have got you unblocked now, but let me know if you have any more problems. JeremyA 05:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Bear and bare

FYI: [1]. "To bear a resemblance" is meaning #6 in the first definition. No big deal, just letting you know. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah gees. I was definitely in the wrong there. Ace Class Shadow 00:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No biggie. It happens to all of us. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Its not Vandalism :)

Hi, it's not Vandalism when it YOUR own article! And at least I have a user profile. Qilinmon 16:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Ace Class Shadow 20:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Shadow Duelist"

Wasn't that a name used by 4Kids to refer to Titan? WhisperToMe 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly? I'm not sure, but officially his name is just "Titan". "Shadow Duelist" was just used for effect. Like..."The lovely" on talk shows. Ace Class Shadow 00:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikiproject

In an attempt to rebuild and strenghten the Yu-Gi-Oh! related Wikipedia communtiy, I am trying to re-start the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikiproject located here. Hope you join! Moe ε 23:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Takuya Kanbara

Regarding your comments in your edit summary, m:don't be a dick, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I've been editing this article today to try to get a better visual layout, waiting to get legitimate feedback and see what direction it should go in. These articles are currently undergoing renovation (see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update#Digimon Fontier). I understand if you strongly feel that there should be a caption, and if so then ok, I don't have a major issue with that. I'm sorry if you felt I was attacking you, that was not my intent. A great deal of times in Digimon articles people fill out parts of wikicode simply for the sake of filling it out, I thought that was the issue here. Now that I see you feel that it is a necessary explanation, I don't have an issue with that and I can even see your point. So next time just calm down. -- Ned Scott 23:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I see. Well, if anyone knows dickery, I guess it'd be you, right?. Keeping that in mind, I'll take your word for it when it comes to my own actions. Ace Class Shadow 23:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I have nothing against you. I welcome anyone who's willing to help improve these articles. In-fact, on that note, I'd like to extend an invitation to you to join WikiProject Digimon Systems Update. -- Ned Scott 00:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

==Welcome to VandalProof== Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the list of authorized users, and feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page if you have any questions. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please don't add insults to your edit summaries. For instance, in an edit on Joker (comics), you wrote (Yeah. I'm reverting edits by "67.171.226.128" on the basis that...well...the guy just doesn't know WTF he's talking about.) I am glad you made the edit you did, however there had to have been a better way to express why you were editing. --Chris Griswold 16:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But you'd got to admit, my summaries will be pretty boring if I take your advice. Ace Class Shadow 17:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure they're meant to be interesting. You could always end everything with the word "fart". That might work, while also making everyone happier. --Chris Griswold 17:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Another reminder to try to be a bit... nicer in your edit summaries. CovenantD 22:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Ultimate Thor

I know the initial move out wasn't particuarly tidy, but since I was editing via the section link rather than the whole-page edit, I just had to yank it out. I still had quite a bit to do thereafter and fixed it up during that :) - SoM 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well and good. Understood. Ace Class Shadow 03:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download

Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Me

I suppose I should thank you for your concern, but I would be more appreciative if you kept such "helpful" observations out of the edit summaries and consign them to my Talk page. - The One and Only 22:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It was a joke! All the "no"'s and such. Lighten up. Ace Class Shadow 22:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it more, you're right. It was inappropriate. I don't know what got into me. My most sincerniest of apologies. No joke. Ace Class Shadow 08:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You display a level of maturity here that should be applauded, yet you continually prove how IMMATURE you are with the "paragraph" edit summaries and biting of newcomers. No wonder you're despised on Rangerboard. - The One and Only 03:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Rangerboard? Hmmph. Well, that's...interesting. To be fair, I wouldn't say "despised". I doubt they remember me. Philip went to great pains to erase any trace of my membership. Thank him for me, would you? The Anti-Gnome 03:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Anger Management?

Comment: Maybe what you need is some anger management classes to calm you down! You jump down people's throats and don't read their comments. Maybe you should read the comments throughly and think about them before you answer. Also get your facts straight. And there's no need for your rudeness or your curse words. People are just expressing their opinions. Thanks. User:MgHoneyBee Apr.26,2006.

Hmm. Could you elaborate as to what this commenta is referring to, specifically?

Oh and perhaps explain why you signed a different user's name to your comment, Turtle. Nevermind. Sockpuppeteer. Hmph. Oughtta be a law. - Ace Class Shadow 02:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Turtle-Dude? What a lame line!!!! I was referring to all of your comments. Duh!!!! Can't you read? And that was a quick response. I guess you don't have a life so you have to spend your entire day on the computer responding to everyone's comments. Huh, do ya? Who's dense now!? It seems to be you!!!!!! Oh, by the way I'm not a dude!!!!! User:MgHoneyBee Apr. 26,2006.

I had no idea who you were. Went back to check. Suri Cruise thing, right, Mel? Anyway, I wasn't being serious. I apologize if i offended you, but all i really censored were "Retarded" and "Punk." The last line was a variant take on Dirty Harry. I have nothing against you, personally and I hope we can be friends or at least friendly. Afterall, we exist in the same community. Ace Class Shadow 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's be more civil in the future. User:MgHoneyBee Apr.27,2006.

Gladly, Ma'am. Ladies first. Ace Class Shadow 16:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, MgTurtle and MgHoneyBee are both me. I just use MgTurtle more since I changed my username. I don't know if you're allowed to have 2 usernames but if I can't can someone help me delete MgHoneyBee? Um, I just thought that you weren't reading people's comments close enough to understand where they were coming from, that's all. User:MgTurtle Apr.27,2006.

I understood "where you were coming from", I just happen to know that you did not read (m)any other people's comments. The Anti-Gnome 20:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I did read other people's comments. I just wanted to give my opinions about the whole thing that's all. And are you switching now? And how come you repsond so quickly? Just wondering. User:MgTurtle Apr.27,2006.

In order: Switching? I respond quickly because it's my own talk page. I'm directly informed by the site of new messages and changes (sometimes even my own). Although I generally try to answer questions and post replies on talk pages in a prept manner. Furthermore, such pages are listed on my watch list, which i view quite frequently. Vandals, for one, are discouraged by fast reverts and new members are encouraged by fast answers. The Anti-Gnome 20:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. User:MgTurtle Apr.27,2006.

What did you mean by "switching"? The Anti-Gnome 20:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Switching usernames. Unless you also have 2 usernames. User:MgTurtle Apr.27,2006. I changed my nickname. It shows up automatically when i sign stuff. If you check the link it's still to my userpage (a work in progress, I warn you). I notice you sign manually. Have you tried using four tildes (~)? The Anti-Gnome 23:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes but I don't like the time to be on my comments. I'm just stubborrn I guess. User:MgTurtle. Apr.27,2006.

But the time is listed. You list dates. How will hours hurt? The Anti-Gnome 01:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

But the time and date are 2 completely different things.I just don't like the time on there. I guess you can say that I'm weird but that's me. So what other pages have you commented on or what part of Wikipedia do you normally edit? Just wondering. I feel like there's nothing left to say about Suri that has not already been said even though there are new comments on her page including a new suggestion about what to do about the page. User:MgTurtle Apr.27,2006.

I see what you're saying, but, if this helps, the time isn't meant to met your area. It's universal and international, mention to give a clear indicater no matter where the reader is. Without a time and mention of a time zone (Like UTC, GMT, etc) your dates are subjective. You might as well just sign your username. It'd just as helpful as your current mode of signing, which, as I'm trying to point out, isn't very helpful at all. BTW, I think you forgot to sign just now. The Anti-Gnome 02:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the second conflict that I've gotten into but I got to say that you are more civil than my last conflict was. i mean that they just would not read my comments at all. Thanks for being civil. User:MgTurtle Apr.27,2006.

Unless you're referring to an edit conflict, I don't believe the label fits. I've stated before (in this very section of this very talk page), I have nothing against you, young lady. I'm simply trying to show you the way. Ha. The Anti-Gnome 02:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Young lady, I don't think that label fits either but whatever. Um, maybe a difference of opinions instead of a conflict. I know that you have nothing against me and I have nothing against you but it is sort of a conflict. User:MgTurtle Apr. 27,2006.

Hmm. Perhaps not. So, I take it you're not interested in using the automated signing feature? The Anti-Gnome 02:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not interested in it.I see that the article is now a reidirect. User:MgTurtle Apr.28,2006.

Yeah. Congrats. The Anti-Gnome 18:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So no comment on the redirect or the suggestion that was made by the Disco King? User:MgTurtle Apr. 29,2006.

Nah. I'm over it. The Anti-Gnome 02:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I got a question: why do you like Japanese anime? Just wondering since i don't really understand why people enjoy watching it. user:MgTurtle Apr.29,2006.

Why do you like wrestling? I never understood that, myself. The Anti-Gnome 02:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's entertaining and I enjoy it. I was wondering if you like Japanese anime for the entertainment or for the characters. User:MgTurtle Apr.30,2006.

Characters can be entertaining, but I think I understand what you're getting at. The way I see it, asking someone why they like Animé is like asking someone why they watch Toon Disney, Cartoon Network, Boomerang or Animation in general. It's a type of Animation. A perfect analogy would be "chocolate" or dairy products. Why do people like chocolate? Why do people like cheese, milk, et cetera.

Anyway, enough ranting. I happen to like a few shows that are made in that format. Certainly not all, but enough that I must admit I like the story, as well as the stories. I'm not scouting for new ones to check out, though. And I've found many to be clunkers, just like with U.S. pilots. I'm having a hard time getting into Eureka Seven for example. I first though "Giant Robots! Kickass!" and Adult Swim sure plays that factor up. Still, the feel of the show is just too...weird. Cultural differences, perhaps. The robot battles (that I've seen so far) are also kinda lame or at least taking a back seat to story development. Another one, Vandread is too weighed down by its own little messages, attempts to examine love, exaggerated gender differences (or attempted dispute of such), homosexual and lesbian [[under tones]] and a lot of other stuff that just turns me off. Yet, just like ES, it has "Mecha".

So, in the end, it's not so much that I like Animé, it's that I can appreciate things done in that style. Not all, but some. I bet you can, too. Did you know Voltron was an early form of Animé?

Oh and as for wrestling, I've watched it before, but the fakeness and soap opera-esq storylines turn me off, I guess. The Anti-Gnome 21:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I've known many people who have watched anime or cartoons just for the characters. That's why I ask. I know what you mean by the soap opera-esp storylines. I don't watch it as closely as I use to but I still occasionally watch it. I now watch Ultimate Fighting. I guess I'm just a violent girl. User:MgTurtle Apr.30, 2006.

Ah. Well, when is comes to the cartoons I watch, the characters are a factor, but I can usually get over their faults of he overall story is good. I have my beefs with Goku, but i love DB(Z/GT). I like Sailormoon, but Damien is my favorite character. So, I guess it's not always te characters, no. Though, in Eureka and Vandread's cases, the characters might be the reasons I don't like the shows (as of late), or at least major factors. Hope that helps. The Anti-Gnome 23:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Spidey

Good job on the invisible warning, let's hope that works to keep people from changing the character. Bignole 21:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The Anti-Gnome 21:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wingman :)

Hi, Ace. I just found out that I'm your wingman. I have no idea what that actually means, but I'm touched. lol Coronis 18:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha, Ha. I thought you'd be. It's kind of like a co-pilot of a plane, but applied to a social, (usually) ground based two-man team. The Anti-Gnome 21:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The new Flash

Hi, ACS. I was just writing to suggest that maybe revealing the new Flash is not a good idea. I can understand both positions (for and against spoiling it), but I'm sort of disappointed that Wikipedia spoiled the surprise for me. You list the confirmation as Infinite Crisis #5, but that doesn't confirm anything. I'm guessing your real source is the Vs cards, but I haven't seen what they say. I know that on other pages (i.e. Infinite Crisis) the policy has been to not spoil plot details before they appear in canon, so I just wanted to throw my opinions out there. Hopefully you can empathize. --Rocketgoat 22:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I can, but consider it this way, Bart Allen's the new flash in Barry's suit. This would mean it was already revealed, but no one realized it. Going by that logic, it is canon, we just needed the games to confirm it. Sorry about the spoilers, but don't blame Wikipedia. That's totally shooting the messager, dude! I'll admit, I went a little nuts editing other articles. The effects of an Infinite Crisis, man. Friggin weird. I wonder what this means for Wally.

Oh! And the cards are linked in the talk page of the Bart Allen article. The and images are in Flashmedia, though. Lol! Is that ironic or what?! The Anti-Gnome 22:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Spider-Man 3

Quick question: why did you take offense to my edit, as shown in your edit summary (seen here). For some reason, my browser logged me out (thus why I wasn't logged in as IanManka. I don't see any way I am violating WP:NPOV by changing New York, NY to New York City (though, looking back, in the context of the article, it would have been wiser to change New York, NY to New York, New York), as I see both as without bias. If you feel differently, could you please explain yourself? If you wouldn't mind, please respond at my talk page. Thanks. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Personally, I don't agree with replying to the poster's talk page. It's a pain for the reader and really...kind of rude. You mention something on someone's talk page, you discuss it that. That's what the "watch this page" box and watchlists are for, amongst other things. The Anti-Gnome 04:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt reply. I understand your point of view now, and understand you view. As for "pointless edits," I think that that is what the "minor edit" checkbox is for. Users should be permitted to make said edits, provided they bring something to the article. Which is not to say that my edit was any more meaningful to the article. However, I do feel that unifying the city/state setup in the sentence is important. Would you mind if I changed the link to New York City, New York? Or, change Cleveland, Ohio to Cleveland, OH? I am not trying to edit a page to fit my point of view, I am only trying to make fairly uniform prose. Let me know what you think.

And as for replying to the poster's talk page ... and really...kind of rude, but I said, if you wouldn't mind. You had no obligation to respond on my talk page, but I thank you for doing so. Sorry for any inconvienences. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 04:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, don't really care. Do what you want. Good night and good luck. The Anti-Gnome 04:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

It popped up on my RC feed filter. :-) When an anon removes that much text from a userpage, more likely than not it's vandalism, so I pulled it up and hit revert :-) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 07:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ghetteaux here

hi there, this is Ghetteaux, posting without a login, so we can compare my isp with the vandal event logged at 6:49.

looks like my isp is: 74.238.7.182

the vandal's isp was: 75.4.53.186

I guess you should retract your accusation. no worries, though, I can see how you might have mistaken them for me. --Ghetteaux 10:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

can't bear to retract, i guess. but that was my prediction. --Ghetteaux 17:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The IP Addresses are fairly similar and the vandalism matches your MO. ACS (Wikipedian) 18:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"fairly similar;" ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha -- you might consider reading about IP addresses. --Ghetteaux 19:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You might consider working on your reputation. It's not good. You've made yourself the prime suspect. Furthermore, you might consider reading up. A user's IP can easily change and often does. However, similarities and core number often remain. Are we through? ACS (Wikipedian) 19:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

dude, you're awesome. i really don't know anything about you, except that you contribute to a batman page. but now i see that you post like you are in a comic book. keep up the drama, homie. --Ghetteaux 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The vandal ISP, 75.4.53.186, is in a block from 75.0.0.0 - 75.47.255.255 under the control of SBC Internet Services[2]. Ghetteaux's ISP, 74.238.7.182, is in a block from 74.224.0.0 - 74.255.255.255, under the control of BellSouth.net Inc.[3], an entirely different provider. This user can not have changed IPs unless he simultaneously changed internet service providers, a highly unlikely situation. Also, telling someone "you've made yourself the prime suspect" fails to assume good faith. BDAbramson T 20:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

BDA, thanx for keepin everything focused on the REAL. you are the ice cold mediator. --Ghetteaux 10:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Calm down.

I have noticed that you and IanManka are starting to get embroiled in a rather silly little edit war on Spider-Man 3. Please remember to assume good faith; even more importantly, please do not accuse other editors of lying unless you have good reason to do so. Be polite.

You've been a good editor so far; I hope you continue. DS 21:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at the discussion. Or better yet, at the rest of this talk page and the bottom of his. I may not be calm, but you definitely don't have much of an idea as to what you're talking about. Keeping that in mind, I hope you can understand why I'm going to...effective disregard your little bit of "advice". Facts first, my friend. By the way, the edit summary was meant meant for the "liars" in question. If it doesn't make sense to others, I apologize, though getting on my case over it without even trying to find out what happened is a bit...foolish. I hope even you can understand that.

Oh and thanks for the backhanded compliment, I suppose. Ace Class Shadow 21:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Retraction requested

I disagree with your accusation that I vandalized Wedding Crashers. A good copy edit is not vandalism, even if several sentences of peripheral information gets deleted. On the first edit I gave a two line summary of my changes. The primary intent of my edits was to remove spoilers in the overly long character descriptions, such as Will Ferrell's character. Removing spoilers broadens the audience for the article. The opening of the article was very poorly written. For example, why list other members of the Frat Pack in the third sentence. When it comes to writing, less is often more, so deleting rambling or peripheral material is not vandalism. You may not agree with my changes, but please give me the respect of reviewing them individually rather than lazily reverting all of them. I would appreciate if you would retract your acusation of vandalism. Ghosts&empties 23:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Please. I pride myself on making the best edits for the article, even if said edits are manual, so don't even try to claim "laziness" on my part. As for your half hearted little rewrite, it reads like a child wrote it. I included the only thing of worth and reverted the mess. Furthermore, "a full-fled lout" is more a negatively bias comment than a summarize description. Thus, it's a violation of the NPOV policy. Run along and put this behind you. You were wrong. It happens. Ace Class Shadow 00:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Adult Swim

I've now semi-protected the article as you requested. This allows established users and administrators to continue to edit the article, but no new or anonymous users may do edit the article for now. If you wish to unprotect the article, you can contact me again, or place it under Wikipedia:Requests for unprotection. I will be watching the article myself for some time and unprotecting after sufficient time has passed, but if you feel it should be unprotected at any time before then, feel free to do either of the above mentioned methods. Thaniks. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Powerpuff Girls

You said I am: "°Incorrect about them not being superheroines. °Incorrect about their enemies not being villians (super or otherwise). °Incorrect about the notiblity of The Powerpuff Girls and articles related to them." But since the characters are fictitious, the first two do not apply, and it is a matter of the individual's opinion what they should be considered. And why do you care so much about the matter of the Powerpuff Girls? Some articles related to the Powerpuff Girls are notable; I can agree with that. Marcus 11:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't even, dude. "ince the characters are fictitious, the first two do not apply"? Do you even realize the outrught stupidity of that. The concept of a "villain" isn't exclusive to reality and certainly prominant in fiction.

In fact, your comment of "it is a matter of the individual's opinion what they should be considered" is actually backwards, in a sense. Villains outside of fiction are a matter of opinion. Villains in fiction are usually designed to fit the titles given to them. In other words, villains in fiction are designed to be such, and fit certain archetypes, stereotypes, et cetera. Villains of reality are usually labeled such unneutrally. For example, some might label our very own U.S. president a villain. However, since he's real, wasn't made to be one (and probably isn't such a bad guy intentionally, if at all), use of such a word in reference to him is POV.

Furthermore, I ask you to point out one real superheroine. Oh wait...they're all fictional. A superpowered human, no matter what their gender, isn't likely to exist now or anytime soon. Besidesm if your disagreement was with fiction in general, why only target the PPG (characters) and articles related to them? You could have taken it up with Wikipedia at large and its policies rather than wedging war with innocent little girls. No. You're biased, dude. I'm honestly sorry if you cannot see that. BTW, before I go, here are my examples of your bias, just in case you "missed" them: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Wait a minute. I just took another look at your talk page. The PPG stuff is most prominant, to be sure, but your bias extends to a lot of other articles. Dude, for your own good, turn back off this self-destructive path of yours. Believe me, I know a thing or two about it. Just because a character is on a children's cartoon (such as fairly oddparents, ppg, et cetera). I read your have aspergers. Dude, if it's inhabiting you from making sound editting decisions take a Wikibreak.

Anyway, I'm serious and correct about your bias. Your wrong in several cases and it'll kill your reputation if you don't realize your mistakes and try to change, man. Contact me if you have any questions as to how to improve, or just need someone to talk to. Believe it or not, I'm actually quite a good listener. ACS (Wikipedian) 17:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're such a good listener, listen to this. Do you call the Powerpuff Girls innocent? I have some things that counter this. They beat up a clown (who had turned into a mime) even after he was back to normal. They look vicious when they're fighting at times. They only care about themselves and seem cruel. So my conclusion is, they are not innocent. Therefore your comment is not helpful at all. Marcus 15:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You're just not getting it, dude. Why are you trying to be so argumentitive? You're wrong here, biased and on a downward spiral. I'm trying to help you up, but you've gotta help yourself here, too. Will you at least admit all this powerpuff girls stuff likes bad on your part? ACS (Wikipedian) 19:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, if you fail to give me your reasoning or a response to my last post, your edits will be reverted. And I don't think you deserve to be an admin, at the rate you're going. Marcus 21:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What? Look, dude, everyone but you seems to agree that the Powerpuff Girls are the following: Superheroines, notible, consistantly battling villains and the stars of a notible video game.

As for being an administrator, I never asked to be such a thing. WTF are you talking about, dude?

Finally, threaten to revert my edits all you like. You're in the wrong, and if Wikipedians must fight with you to make sure the corect data is displayed, you're likely to be blocked. I've already explained why you're wrong and I doubt I can be any clearer about what you should do if you desire to change. Should you come to your senses and decide to make constructive edits again, I don't think we'll have a problem, but if you insist on continuing your vendetta against the Powerpuff Girls, It won't end well. ACS (Wikipedian) 21:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: ACS apology

ACS, it's totally okay. I made a mistake (I should have read the discussion page more thoroughly), so I handled it, no prob. But I truly appreciate the sentiment, thanks alot:) Coronis 22:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

ACS edits

you're edit comments are hilarious. i know people seem to hate you (god, look at this discussion page), but you're usually right. Exvicious 08:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think. ACS (Wikipedian) 16:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ryan Seacrest

The majority of your talk-page comments there regarding your removal of my edits are essentially insults directed at me. I made it very clear that I was aware the WAY the section was written may not be ideal, and encouraged others to make edits to improve it. But you in no way jusitified why you feel the section, en toto, is not valid. You say that it's gossip that belongs in a fanzine; I disagree. Perhaps you have a lack of understanding as to exactly WHY it is important and encyclopedic to discuss a famous person's sexuality, including rumours about it. I suggest you aquaint yourself with the history of the persecution of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people - particularly in the United States, and with a special eye to the practices of "old Hollywood" in relation to masking gay stars' true identity.

It would be one thing, indeed, if people were simply making gay jokes. Teri Hatcher, on the other hand, is implicitly stating (by USING HUMOR) that Ryan Seacrest is a homosexual. She has consistantly stated that she feels he misled her into thinking there might be romantic potential between the two of them in order to mislead the press, even so far as to set up their "kiss" for the papparazzi to photograph.

Documenting the history of gay people in the entertainment industry is vital to the history of GLBT people, because it speaks to our increasing voice in the world. Documenting the allegations that certain celebrities are gay and denying it, or closeted, is equally vital to demonstrating the longstanding history of homophobia - particularly in Hollywood - that has caused countless GLBT people to deny their identity. Rock Hudson. Robert Reed. Sheila James. Countless others.

There is nothing un-encyclopedic about documenting an ongoing insinuation by the media - particularly by people who *HAVE HAD A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP OF SOME KIND* with the subject - that a person is hiding their sexual identity...PROVIDING that it is made clear in the text that the allegations were ongoing, notable, but contested and/or unproven.

The allegations in this case are ongoing and notable. I am sorry if you don't understand WHY they are notable, but they are, and I can't do a better job of explaining. In closing, I fully appreciate your responses, but I'm not going to tolerate personal attacks. Temper yourself, and temper your response to be courteous, if not kind. I don't need to like you, but I need to feel like you are following wiki-policy in terms of how you deal with other users. For your reference, and in fact linked from your own user page: [Writers rules of engagement]. Pacian 19:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Feh. Don't get your breefs in a bunch. You could have written it properly to begin with. And the caps aren't necessary. Even heard of italics?

Now. Let's see. You're fuming over...the Ryan Seacrest thing. Okay. Now, you feel Teri Hatcher—Not Kathy Graffin, the comedian you also mentioned in your little section, who is known for calling Clay Aikin gay, as well, but not based on stereotypes and rumors, just like Ryan—would know. You make fairly good points here. Shame you had not done so in the article. It was unencyclopedic the way you wrote and mentioning Griffin as well as Tom Cruise hurts your cause, rather than help it. I really don't care much, either way, but for a person who wants this to be taken seriously (and seemed to have a vested interest edging toward negative bias), you certainly seemed to half-ass it at first. None of what I'm saying to you now or then is meant as a "Personal attack" either. Look beyond your sensitivity for a moment. The section, to me, said "Well, two celebrities are saying/inferring he's gay. they'd know". I thought I made that point clear. If you want to write something better focusing on Teri and how "shew would know", go ahead. I'm not inclined to stop you, and I'm definitely not ignorant. I just don't want the reader getting the wrong message from an article. ACS (Wikipedian) 19:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

No hay problema. :) Wahkeenah 17:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on having both the "Sumofpi" and "Sumofpi2" userboxes on your page simulateously. That was quite a feat, and you deserve some accolades for it. --Cyde Weys 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh...thanks. ACS (Wikipedian) 20:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ghosts&empties

Well, in A Mighty Wind, he piped Plenty O'Toole into the Annette O'Toole [4]. That is clearly vandalism. In Jennifer Coolidge he added something about MILF [5]. In Lord William Beresford, he also piped Plenty O'Toole into another person of the same last name [6]. From the looks of histalk page, it looks like he's been at it for a while. --rogerd 02:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Tone it down a bit, Ace

This is 71.115.212.229. If you're wondering why I'm under a different number, it's because I'm using a different computer. I recently read you're response to my edit on the Teen Titans' Cyborg page:

(→Justice League Pilot Promo - What would that even mean? Cyborgirl? Cygirl? Cyborg sex change? Gees. Don't be so literal about this, it makes Wikipedis look stupid.)

You make it seem like I committed vandalisim. I refered to Natasha as a Female Cyborg, because that's what Bruce Timm refered to her as on the Justice League Season One Set. I apologize about not being as perfect and as flawless as you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.236.171 (talk • contribs)

Apology accepted. Believe me, I was toning it down. The entry wasn't informative enough. I wasn't mad at you then, though. If one could call Batgirl a female version of Robin, but that comment alone isn't a great description. A better description, from the limited knowledge you had to go on would be: "She is described as a "female Cyborg". What this commet meant was not verified." Just saying "they have a female version of cyborg" isn't bad, per se, but does leave something to be desired. And I did not imply vandalism. "Reverted edits by" implies vandalism. The constructive criticism I gave, combined with the fact that I didn't outright remove the section should indicate that I acknowledge your work. Oh and BTW, this was...what? Two weeks ago? ACS (Wikipedian) 21:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't view it until yesterday, hence why I responded now. I know you aren't implying vandalism, but the way your tone was, you might as well implied it. You could have just said Please try to be more specific next time as opposed to What would that even mean? Cyborgirl? Cygirl? Cyborg sex change? Sometimes I think you like it when someone makes a mistake/error on wikipedia just so you can rub it in their faces. Now, when I correct someone's mistake (misspelling, leaving out a punctuation mark, etc) I don't crap on them.