User talk:CovenantD

Welcome!

Hello, CovenantD, 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:Questions, 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!  RJFJR 15:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar award

I award this Comics Star to CovenantD for his great efforts on and contributions to comics related articles. You've showed up enough times in my watchlist by now to deserve this. Congrats! Kusonaga 16:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

FG intro

You added material to the 1st paragraph without a consensus recently at the passing of deadline. I am also updating the paragraph at the passing of deadline. Why the double standar? --Samuel Luo 05:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that there was a consensus for those three words and that you waited for one day before making the change. I simply don’t remember a straw poll for it, can you point that out to me? thanks --Samuel Luo 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Dial-an-admin!

Hi CD. My suggestion would be to make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to get a 3rd party admin to help and add this helpful directory to your favourites for any future needs: [1]. I will be happy to 2nd your requests at any time. --Fire Star 火星 22:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Covenant

Give me a second to look through things -- Samir धर्म 06:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Looked through the talk page and I sandboxed the changes. I'd prefer it if you guys reached a consensus on the opening paragraph in the next two days, and then we can unprotect for a definitive version. I see nothing egregious in leaving out the references for 48 hours, but you are more than welcome to ask another administrator if they are willing to unprotect to make the changes. Please note that by no means am I endorsing any particular version, including the version that appears on the protected page. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 06:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Green Lantern edit

Right on. Kudos on all your continued efforts to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic. -- Tenebrae 18:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

On the falun gong discussion page

Hello covenant, since im a rather new member and i cant post anything on the discussion page and since you are the neutral editor then id like to post here some comments so that you can read and perhaps publish on the discussion page in case you consider it appropriate. I am addressing all the editors in this post but specially the critics.

I personally dont agree my comments should be just linked to someones talk page because i believe they are important enough to be posted directly on the discussion page, please read them in case you havent so that you can notice why i think they are important. I and other falun gong practitioners are considering to restructure my coments a little bit, adding more of each others opinions and views on the matter, reorganize them, divide them into subsections so that it doesnt seem very long and posting them on the talk page as falun gongs point of view on the matter.

Concerning the central concepts, what are we talking about here? are we talking about what are the central concepts of falun dafa or what the critics think are the central concepts? critics are here to criticize right? not to tell us what falun gong is all about, we know what it is since we are practitioners, its the system we practice.

i suppose you are asking for the core principles of falun dafa and if you are asking about that then you should ask a practitioner of course. If you want to know what the critics think, because they have the right to express their opinion and help out in the making of the article just like us, then thats great but this would turn into a debate topic also, what falun gong establishes as its core principles and......well..how are they going to post what the critics think are the central concepts of falun gong on the article, are you planning to post something like "Well, the critics think Truth, Benevolence, Forbearance are not the central concepts or falun gong, they say the central concepts are (quoting them) deception, intolerance of critics, Xenophobic and homophobic statements, Li thinking he is a god among all humans" what's this all about? how can you establish that as Falun Gong central concepts? is this really neutral? is this even a neutralized discussion despite the difference of opinions? in this last post i dont see the critics holding back on offending us the falun gong practitioners, whos following the guidelines in here?. If you want to criticize falun gong then you should save it for the critics and controversy subsection which i believe should be made in to a daughter page, we should also have the right to reply on this critics like i did on my comments for example.

Im not saying some of the Falun gong practitioners havent made mistakes regarding the respect for the rules of this talk page but this quarrel between practitioners and critics is going to end up making the reader think you are not taking this project seriously. Remember that whatever you write is read by other people and that is not only the person who you are referring your reply to. Ive already explained what we practitioners of falun gong think about your critics, please read my "rather lengthy contribution" so that you can see our point of view regarding your critics. Please, follow the guidelines and lets hope we can make a good job on this one.

Andres

Apology

Hi, Covenant. I think I owe you an apology if you are hurt by the word "deceptive". I am not a native English speaker and sometimes I don't have the right vocabulary to describe what I see. Also I feel you did not intentionally scheme the confusion. So I apologize. Fnhddzs 02:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I have removed the warning because it doesnt seem purposeful, or I am mistaken.

I think you may have done this accidentally?

I think you have restored the wrong version? It seems as if you reverted to a vandalised version so it appeared that you'd inserted the text. I can't see any source that suggests he's gay? If I'm wrong, please re-revert it by all means! Fyver528 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'll revert it for you. Perhaps you could provide the references :). Just so you know, I'm not infallable and this isn't a personal attack on you. Fyver528 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh voila, c'est complet ;) Fyver528 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you're helpful unlike most, for instance the Neo Nazi "Atlantean" who went crazy at me for reverting his racist edits. Since then he's been visiting my userspace and leaving me lovely messages. I think he's a complete nutjob just a couple of examples;

[2] [3] ..

Im not black for a start, but he doesn't need to know that. Fyver528 20:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and his IP originated from Poland, so you wouldn't have thought he be into idolising Hitler considering how many of them were murdered by the Nazis :S. He needs to be taken under the mental health act or something. Or sent to AtlantisFyver528 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I appreciate your archiving the talk page as it was surely needed. However, you archived a discussion that is still running, with comments only a few hours old. So I de-archived it and put it back on the page. I suggest that next time you archive the page you try not to archive discussions that are still running. Mcconn 16:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Strange/"Fictional hero"

Just wanted you to know I rv'd the change made by User:Rorschach567 when he directed the phrase "freaking moron" at you. He doesn't appear to know WikiProject Comics style or the concept of civility. Let's keep an eye out. Hang in there, C.D.! -- Tenebrae 13:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not call any individual a "freaking moron." Perhaps my language was a bit too colorful but I was just pointing out that it's pretty obvious that superheroes are fictional characters, another redundancy I try to get rid of when editting overlong intros.Rorschach567 14:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm apologize if you took it as a personal attack. I was simply making a point. The "freaking moron" was not supposed to be directed at you or any other user.

Until this morning, the term "fictional" was not in the exemplar page thus I did not feel an obligation to "dozens if not hundreds of editors" to use it. Although I disagree with this point and will continue to state my case, I'll abide by it because I understand the importance of reaching such matters by consensus.

However, I am offended at wholesale reverts of my work simply because of this one small point. If you have some problem with the rest of the edit, be it a WikiProject Comics style issue or not, I’d prefer you state the reason why on the edit summary, talk page or my talk page, instead of flushing the whole thing down the toilet on the basis one small point.

Thanks for your time and attention. Again, I am sorry if I offended you. Rorschach567 14:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Research Into Health Benefits

Thanks for your kind offer on helping on references. I will ask you if I have questions. Fnhddzs 15:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual Agenda

I can see why you were upset but you were not able to see what had happened. Part of the Talk page went missing. I have restored it. I did not expect my edit to remain. I was, in fact, going to self revert. However, I spent the whole day (10 hours) researching the whole article in depth, and sought to make it the most bland and NPOV article that I could. Alienus seemed to think it was not terrible but needed work and Pollinator also felt that way. I did not expect it to survive, but I was hoping that by showing that version, it would provide a direction to go that would help avoid these on-going edit wars. I completely emptied my mind of any POV and simply did a Joe Friday on it. Given that I spent 10 hours on it, I would appreciate it if you would take the time to read it over a bit more carefully rather than dismiss it in anger. Sure, I understand the anger -- it was well founded without having my comments to read -- but now that I explained it to you, I hope you will let that cool and reconsider the article itself. --Anon 64 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, help me be polite by being polite. I don't know what went wrong with that template didn't seem to be different form others I've used in the past.--T-man, the wise 01:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why focus on a tree when you can focus on the forrest. Take your battle to the project. You had a problem with stubs (although there is no policy against stubs), now I'm telling you I won't create stubs.

I'm just following WP common practices, you're just being an obatacle I don't know why.

Don't worry I'll do each one according to that page. Stubs encorage people to fill info, there is nothing wrong with that (according to WP).

Question

I'm new here, so maybe I don't understand how everything works yet, but how many personal attacks does someone have to make before they get blocked? I have been cruising around some of the articles on Marvel Comics characters, and I see this one guy, "MrBigB," has (particularly in the Thanos article) been throwing around nothing but personal attacks. Even when he makes a legitimate revert, he manages to throw something in about the other guy - even if the edit was made in good faith. I looked on his talk page and he's been warned before. I would just let the admins take care of it, but nobody seems to care; his comments on the Thanos talk page in particular are really cluttering it up. I've only just barely created my account, so I don't really know how this stuff is supposed to work. Mr. Conky 21:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a simple answer for you; it's pretty subjective and dependent on the people involved. It usually has to be brought to the attention of an admin in order for somebody to be blocked, and if the behaviour stops after a warning then the process often stops at that stage. My guess is that nobody has reported MrBigB. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask. CovenantD 14:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Two-Face Image

Er -- the image I was talking about is this one. (someone's uploaded a different version now, it used to look like this ) It keeps getting dropped without explaination -- between anonymous IPs and people bickering about what belongs at the top of the page. The image without source information that was removed today is this image -- which I suspect you mistakenly believed was the image I re-inserted today.

Regarding the later image, can we just add "from Tim Burton's Batman (1989)"? The comic covers were clearly marked by the uploaders, but this one I'm less sure about -- it's obviously a screencap from the film, but I'm not sure if there is a process to undergo in updating, since it was improperly marked to begin with. ~CS 20:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

X-Men 3

The Phoenix section you removed, has returned. (I think you were right to remove it). If you remove it again, I encourage you to mention that anyone who disagrees with your actions, "should come to the talk." We should be able to handle it from there.--P-Chan 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Suppression of Falun Gong

Yes, I would like to work on it. I also request to have a poll about changing the name to persecution. I am sorry I tend to get emotional when the organ harvesting allegations are confirmed by another source. I cannot cheat my heart. But regardless of my feeling, I am willing to work on the article lead section. Please feel free to advise since you seem to know more about what is a lead section. Thanks. Fnhddzs 20:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry Covenant. I am super busy these days. Could be better after August 4. Fnhddzs 04:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Creeper

I'm not going to cause another edit war, but what was wrong with the new image? It's better illustrated and is focused more on the Creeper. It also illustrates how he currently looks. --DrBat 16:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Pov?

In what way are my additions pov - the American military does and has abused many people throughout the world. HappyVR 18:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Untitled Batman Begins sequel

First, thansk for finishign that RV today. I thought i'd gotten back to the correct edit, but I guess not. Second, thanks for the backups on reverting Adam Sandler out. ALl the other listings have decent cites, if not good, but the sandler thing's a name drop in a rumor that, in turn, is being cited as a source. blah. DaffyDuck619 may yet catch on. I hope.ThuranX 04:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey CD

Not sure if you have one or not, but if you have a My Space page I'd love to add you on as a friend. (If you don't mind.) Here's a link to my page: viola. Artemisboy 23:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong

I got sucked in through deleting one of the sub-articles. I'm not minded to walk away just yet, but thanks for the words. It's a bit of a mess, but then these things usually are. Steve block Talk 12:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyclops

Why'd you remove the categories about him being an adulterer and promiscuous? He's been married twice, and both times he's cheated on his wife with another woman. Even if promiscuous doesn't apply, adulterer certainly does. --DrBat 02:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

POV? I don't think so?

A declaration that the Black Panther is the greatest superhero ever? That would be POV. This is merely a primer for those unfamiliar with the Panther (and a handy checklist for those trying to complete their collection). Be a good sport and leave it, would you? Thanks. --ABCxyz 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Black Panther

See discussion page for a compromise solution. -- ABCxyz 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Lightning as Element

Elements are usually described as naturally occuring forces, wind, water, fire, etc. Lightning is a naturally occuring force, as testifed by anyone who ever saw a storm. Like fire, it is born from friction (the rubbing of two clouds creates lighting, as rubbing two sticks creates fire). The Mutant X TV series called electrical mutants "elementals" (see Elemental (Mutant X)), and their are lots of lightning powered heroes in the Fictional elementals categories. And see Elementals in fiction, lightning is on the list.

Well, this is an category about "Fictional elementals", and the Elementals in fiction lists lightning as an element.

In Supergirl during the angel arc, the Linda is told that the Earth Angels respresented the "Elements of Love, Light, and Fire", Strange Visitor (comics) was said to be linked to the energies of the Earth,Storm (comics) is described as wielding the elements of nature (and lightning is her biggest weapon). Almost every magic game (be it cards, or video games) from Magic the Gathering[4] to Final Fantasy, use lighting as an elemental force. In most works of fiction, lightning is considered an element (and we are discussing fictional characters who use fictional elemental powers here). And finally Fire (classical element) says lightning is an aspect of the fire element.

Fiction American television characters

Given the category title, I read it as "Fictional characters on American television shows", not "Fictional Americans on television shows". Please hold off on reverting until we can sort this out. - TexasAndroid 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, in a case like this, it's generally nice to give someone a chance to respond before you start wholesale reverting them. :( - TexasAndroid 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Looking at it a bit more, I think you've got it right. The cat is for Americans, not American TV. I guess either makes as much sense. The cat likely needs a rename, or at least an explanation at the top. I read the title as "Fiction American television characters" when it should be "Fiction American television characters". Heh. Your last comment just came through as I typed, and looks like you agree that the name is bad. So looks like my edits do need to be reverted. I would ask that you please be careful. There are a mix of other things I fixed at the same time in a few, and I would rather those not be reverted. But go ahead and revert the changes to this one cat. And Stargate was far from the only series I did it on, over the last two days. I'll do some reverts as well. I have the admin rollback button I can use to revert my own edits, though I'll similarly need to be careful which reverts to make. As for the cat name, let's clean up my mess first, then it looks like we are in agreement that a change needs to happen with the name of this, and I see several other categories with similar confusion. So clen-up first, then we can discuss a proposal to WP:CSD for renames. - TexasAndroid 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Rollback button is great for this kind of thing. I'm already done. I just pulled up my contributions list for the last couple of days, and went through it one by one. If it was the cat in question, and only that, I just hit the Rollback button. So all the changes involving that cat have been reverted. I need to take care fo some other things offline first, but I'll pick up the discussion of renaming this and some similarly ambiguous categories on the talk page of Category:Fictional American television characters. That'll make it a little more public. If we can come up with a good new naming scheme, I can then write up the proposal for WP:CFD easily enough, as I hang out there a lot. - TexasAndroid 15:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Li hongzhi page

Hi, there are three issues being mixed up in this paragraph: Li’s position on how his followers should spread his teachings, the reason for his leaving the China Qigong Research Society and the critique from Chinese Buddhist Assoc. Each of these issues deserves its own paragraph, however, except the second point, on more relevant pages.

I do not totally agree with the deletion of this paragraph (see below). The second half of it talks about Li’s role as a savior. Perhaps in the future you want to provide clearer justification for removing passages to avoid reverts.--Samuel Luo 20:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• He teaches that his “great law" is boundless and judging mankind. [1] It is weeding out "the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world" in a process called "Fa-rectification." [2] Claiming to be the only one who is offering salvation to mankind,[3] Li promises to turn his disciples into gods if they follow the moral requirements of his Dafa and expose what he considers to be the evil regime in China. [4] ,[5]

This paragraph was written on Li’s page prior to the FG page debate, so no one is trying to sneak it in if that is what you mean. I agree that it should not be in the lead section. And I will expand this sentence “Claiming to be the only one who is offering salvation to mankind, Li promises to turn his disciples into gods if they follow the moral requirements of his Dafa.”--Samuel Luo 21:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Supernova

Thanks for sticking up for me, man. 161.38.222.14 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Whovians

On it. Workign from Z back, you can work from a forward, we'll undo it fast.ThuranX 06:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Got em all. Left Douglas Adams. by coincidence, he's right about that one. thanks for all that help.ThuranX 06:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've started rolling them back. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Superman Returns

Then I must also warn *you* to stop reverting. Wahkeenah 16:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Superman

Wah has clearly violated the 3RR by reverting you and I 4 times. I don't think this needs to be acted upon unless he does it again. I would like not to have to revert it again, because it would put me at 3 reverts, but I notice that you have only edited that section once since he has reverted. Bignole 16:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, how do you take the edit now? He has changed it so that it now interpret what "others" believe. I'm not sure if this would still fall under a revert violation, but it seems to me that it is his way of trying to get around it. What do you think? Bignole

Ok, thanks. That is what I thought but I wasn't sure. I will be forced to report him then. I have asked Someguy to come in and make the changes because I don't wish to use up my third revert changing it back. Bignole 17:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I would let you know that he has finally reverted and removed his own stuff, but I had already filed the 3RR violation. I listed 5 links to his reverts, one included his weasly word usage. I think that the time had already passed and even now it is too late for him to try and make amends for the reverts, especially for constantly refering to you as a "sockpuppet". In case you wish to support the charge.

Do you have a diff

To the Captain Dip reference? Steve block Talk 17:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ta. I have issued a {{npa2}}. I advise taking future attacks to Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard, noting {{npa2}} has now been issued. You can bring them to me, but a quicker response may be had through the noticeboard. Steve block Talk 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Superman Returns

Apologies regarding the page, I was reverting a mesh between the allegories and trivia section. Do continue on with your referencing though.

Oh ho! Welcome!

Hey! If you need any help with the Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia in general, feel free to ask me on my talk page. I've been on Wikipedia for only a month, but oh well. Have fun! --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 05:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Creation of a new page, focusing on the Dark Phoenix character by an expert

Hi CovenantD! I think you are a Dark Phoenix fan or an X-Men expert, so I beg you or someone you know to create an article which focus on the Dark Phoenix character with the intention of exclude it from the Dark Phoenix Saga article, so that Dark Phoenix initiate fans like me can know more about her. Thank you for your attention. User:Lord Hammu (Talk)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for disruption of Wikipedia; your comments at RfCU are completely inappropriate and border on personal attacks. If you continue when your block expires, you will be subject to further blocks and formal dispute resolution. Essjay (Talk) 19:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Essjay to think about this, but your block is up so there's little I can do. I don't think this was justified to be honest. Steve block Talk 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why this happened

(copied from request for checkuser)

• Samuel Luo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tomananda (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 71.198.77.89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Based on these edits,[5][6][7] I believe there is enough evidence to suggest either the presence of sockpuppets or somebody trying to create the appearance of one. CovenantD 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Is there an accusation of policy violation here, or is it possible the user forgot to log in? Thatcher131 04:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look closely at the diffs or at the IP address contribution history, you'll see that this IP editor changed the anon IP sig to two different user names. Both of the registered users, Tomananda and Samuel Luo, are very active on the Falun Gong-related articles and have participated in many different surveys and straw polls. If they are the same user, then as I understand it they are violating the policies against sockpuppets by participating twice and creating the illusion of being two separate people. I've just been drafted as "official" mediator for the Falun Gong article and the outcome of this will greatly impact my ability to weigh the facts presented by these two users. It's also not the first time that Samuel has been accused of running sockpuppets. CovenantD 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Got it. Here and here, the IP editor changes his sig to Samuel Luo; and here, the IP editor changes his sig to Tomananda. Both editors are heavily involved in Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles. Thatcher131 04:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's my first checkuser report; thanks for the cleanup. CovenantD 04:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, how long should I expect to wait? Progress on the entire set of articles is on hold pending the outcome of this checkuser. CovenantD 04:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I'm here trying to create a better encyclopedia and this is the support I get? Hell of a turn off. CovenantD 10:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

While there are about 1000 administrators on wikipedia, only 14 of them have checkuser permission and 99% of the cases here are answered by just two of them, so you may have to be patient. No article is so important that the sky will fall if it is stuck in the "wrong version" for a few more days. You can try a request for comment on the article to get some outside opinions if the usual editors can't agree. Thatcher131 11:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like this system is broken. Only 2 of the 14 people actually do the work? Time to replace some people. Or put some kind of disclaimer that this isn't very timely. Something to let people know not to expect results. CovenantD 11:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 Declined I'll be damned if I'm going to put up with that kind of abuse. Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

How about judging it on it's merits rather than your personal feelings? CovenantD 19:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 Declined, seconded in the strongest possible terms. And CovenantD blocked for 24 hours for disruption. Essjay (Talk) 19:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just coming into this, but that seems more than a little harsh. Can't wikipedia have operational disagreements without assuming it's personal attacks, resulting in blocks? Or is there something outside this discussion I'm not seeing? --Kickstart70-T-C 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the cascade of abusive comments directed at the checkusers were more than enough justification for blocking for disruption; common sense says you don't come ask for help and then start taking swings at the people you're asking for help. By the way, just for future note by anyone watching, the reason that it takes a while to get a response is because we have to deal with things like this; if people were, you know, patient/pleasant/appreciative, then we might be a bit more inclined to run checks. As it stands, we gain very little but constant abuse from all sides for volunteering our time to do this. Essjay (Talk) 05:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else going to accept; it would be nice to see requests being upheld on the merit of the case rather than the behaviour of the applicant. Steve block Talk 19:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• CovenantD, Tomananda(a user name on wiki) and I share a house [8] and the same Comcast account, therefore our IP is the same. I believe this info answers your question. --Samuel Luo 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow... Big editor people: I understand that you have a stressful job, but Covenant said like two sentences which were mildly harsh (and which may have had something to do with himself be under a little stress too). You may be the big hotshots on Wiki, but in the real world your just like anyone else. And as a fellow person in the real world I know that ignoring someone and then punishing them simply because he said a few harsh words like this isn't right. I don't believe in Covenant's allegations of sockpuppeting, but I do believe that he had the right to be heard by you. Besides, Covenant said nothing bad about you, but instead criticised the system (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either). All in all, this looks like an huge over reaction and a classic abuse of power. Mcconn 18:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you formally take the above to ArbCom

Contact me at sbharris@ix.netcom.com SBHarris 19:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Right this second I think that's undue escalation. Steve block Talk 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Escalation" happened the momment Essjay took it personally and blocked a non-administrator for complaining that WP wasn't working right. That's abuse of administrator-power, and there's just no excuse for it. NONE. Overlooking it, only allows it to continue. When I myself went to ArbCom about Essjay, the response was *yawn*-- "Too bad for you, but show us that this is habitual." Well, here we are. YOU can take it, or you can do something about it. If you want to ignore it and take it, I'll just go back on watch for the next time it happens. Good luck.SBHarris 20:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing there would not be merits to the case, but it is unlikely arb-com will take this case unless the steps in the dispute resolution process aren't taken first. The first step is to see whether Essjay is going to concede any fault in the block. Do you have a link to the arb-com case you mention? Steve block Talk 21:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been taken to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. I'm not satisfied with Essjay's response to me, so I've requested another admin take a look at it. Let's allow that to work before trying ArbCom. --Kickstart70-T-C 21:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• As an admin I have reviewed it and find it questionable. However, I was awaiting a response from Essjay before going to WP:AN, since the block has expired. Since you have raised it there though, I will comment again. Steve block Talk 21:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My own case was brought June 19, and probably failed to make it to acceptance. My arguments kept getting refactored, questioned by other admins, and so on, and I think it finally got refactored into oblivion. I've asked JessieW, who is my personal champ at finding links, if he can locate it. Meanwhile, you can see some of what happened on my TALK page. Basically I was permablocked by Essjay somewhat reflexively, at the request of another editor, when I pointed out that some of what was happening in a personal bio of a living person, might have legal consequences. This was taken to mean that *I* was threatening to sue somebody myself, an idea patently ridiculous and not to be found in anything I wrote (I have no legal history, FYI). It took another admin with better sense to undue the damage, but not before I ended up having to email Jimbo and Brian and a bunch of other people. One of the ugly things I found out is that if you're blocked on Wikipedia, you really don't have any good recourse to defend yourself, because you're BLOCKED. I also found that WP:ANI and ArbCom are pretty toothless tigers when it comes to administator abuse of ordinary editors. Basically, THEY don't give a damn. Even editors who've put in huge amounts of time on WP making complex and good faith edits, are nobodies here, unless they have wiki-cop powers. Admins stand together, sort of like any group of cops do, and Wikipedia has no Department of Internal Affairs. The last time the admins warred among themselves was the pedophilia usertag wheelwar, and Jimbo hiself had to stop that. I haven't seen it happen over abuse of a ordinary editor, yet. So this kind of thing is what you see. And it happens ALL the time. I've simply started to keep track of it. For posterity, as it were. SBHarris 22:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Admins dispute each other's actions frequently, to be honest. The pedophile userbox issue was a huge escalation, and as I said at the time, I still think if people had discussed rather than acted, it wouldn't have gone so far. I'm not convinced admins do stand together. You're right about the hardships imposed by a block, granted, but the reasons for those hardships are that most blocks are issued to people who would abuse any work around. It makes it hard for people who are blocked for no good reason, yes. A few of us admins have listed ourselves in Category:Administrators open to recall and are investigating methods of reviewing admin actions, but so far it is a voluntary process. Anyway, I'll look at your case, and I'll keep an eye on this one. Steve block Talk 22:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is my case: 00:27, 25 June 2006.Rejected. Said, what was my problem if I'd been unblocked? Hmmm. Recommended Legal Threats policy be made more specific (which might help admins who missed WP:AGF and WP:SENSE, one supposes). And that if I had a specific admin complaint I should've taken it to WP:ANI. Like anything ever happens there about that. In short, a big T.S. and the runaround. SBHarris 06:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, folks. CovenantD 14:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I, too, want to voice my support for Covenant. Throughout this contentious process of editing in the Falun Gong article, he has shown a great deal of integrity. In fact, I have often thought they he should be designated an administrator because he clearly has an interest in mediating and an ability to see the big picture when dealing with controversial subject matter. As it turns out, I am technically not the same person as Samuel even though we are very close and share common values. But I can see that Covenant might think we are the same person because I sometimes forget to log in and then go back and log on to add my correct signature. Covenant: I would be perfectly happy to write any letter of support you need to administrators or committees in Wikipedia, so let me know if it comes to that. --Tomananda 20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Irregardless

I think I should state that whilst what you said was borderline blockable, it was certainly inappropriate. Blocks can be issued by admins for a scale of reasons, and sometimes those reasons allow a dicretion call. Your comments wouldn't fall into my discretion zone, but it did fall in another admin's zone. I understand you were frustrated, but you need to try and damp down that frustration. The check user process is not the easiest one to understand, and it's a bit of a nuclear option. I appreciate apologies towards yourself have not been forthcoming, but that doesn't mean apologies from yourself don't have to be. I pretty much let my words, edits and actions speak for themselves, but clarify when they cause conflict, because I don't see any value in conflict on Wikipedia. I'm not saying you should apologise, but it may be something to consider. You may not have meant to cause offence to User:Mackensen, but the user did take offence none the less. Clearing up that misunderstanding might be something to consider. Steve block Talk 09:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

An AMA request has been made involving you

This is just to notify you that this has been created: [9]. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Covenant, I just wanted to point out that Samuel's Personal Webpage appears in the Reference section of the Falun Dafa page? Could you remove the same from the "references" section? Thankyou. :) Dilip rajeev 07:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

Dear CovenantID,

As a way to move forward and leave behind the recent dispute with Essjay, I have proposed a statement to which both parties are invited to consider, and hopefuly accept. See User talk:Jossi/AMA Kickstart70/Moving forward. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As an example of how AMA actually has no standing at all, and how they get a nose thumbed at them if they pretend to have any, this was good. As a demo of power politics, informative as well. SBHarris 22:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Mackensen and I were able to come to a good resolution on this. Unfortunately, the principle players here (CovenantD and Essjay) haven't responded yet. I have my doubts about Essjay, but maybe C.D? --Kickstart70-T-C 22:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You missed the middle finger from you know who. You're not ArbCom. That's sort of like being a U.N. member without being on the Security Council. Perhaps even like being a Security Council rotating member. If the problem involves a permanent member, you're going to get the finger. "Where's your nuke ICBMs, baby?" This is the way the world works.SBHarris 23:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you coming back to mediate?

Covenant: Just wondering if you were planning to return to your mediation role for the Falun Gong article any time soon. You may have noticed that a newly identified editor named Tony Sidaway just did 9 inappropriate deletion edits in the discussion section. Much of the discussion he deleted addresses the issue of including in the introduction material on Master Li's role in salvation and the Fa-rectification. As you know, this is a major stumbling block between the Falun Gong practitioner/editors and the non-FG editors. I think your presence as an impartial mediator can help get us back on track. --Tomananda 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

Would you please explain why you reverted my refactoring of this page? Thanks. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 23:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

DaffyDuck619 edit war thing

Hi CovenantD, How does this 3RR thing work? In the Films that have been considered the greatest ever‎ page, he keeps putting bogus information in there. What's the procedure for this? Thanks. --Happylobster 03:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Slowdown

I notice you aren't around so much at the moment. If you need to discuss anything I am emailable via my talk page. You're a very good contributor and it would be a shame to lose you. Steve block Talk 18:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

List of comic book superpowers

Please discuss on the talk page your removal of many entries. JoshuaZ 18:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography of Fantastic Four titles

I notice you're removing info from this article - and if you have a legitimate reason could you please use the edit summary to say why as it shows to us as vandalism. Thanks - GIen 03:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Deathstroke

How is he not a sociopath?

He killed his daughter's foster family and brainwashed her so she could kill his son, and then almost disowned her when she couldn't do it. Does he have any redeeming qualities left? --DrBat 17:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Raven article

If you are going to continue reverting my edits without telling me why or discussing it I will have to report you.

Westboro Baptist Church

As you are refusing to use the talk page on this article, and keep reverting my edits, I will have to take this discussion here. I noticed multiple commments above from other people that you've been doing this same thing on other articles. This is not considered acceptable on wikipedia, and could even be considered as vandalism. We're meant to resolve disagreements on articles here through communication, not through reverting over and over until the other person gives up.

Of the text I removed from Westboro Baptist Church, much of it was entirely unsourced. Other parts of it were based on the utterly unreliable source "Addicted to Hate", which is an unpublished manuscript and which certainly violates WP:V. Quoting from WP:V, "1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it". The text I have removed should not be put back unless reliable sources can be found for it, and as of now there are none. --Xyzzyplugh 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Radical Faerie reversion

Just curious as to your reasons for removing the new info that was posted on the Radical Faerie page. Not complaining - I didn't really like what was added :) Just curious. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your refusal to communicate on Westboro Baptist Church

You continue to revert the Westboro Baptist Church while refusing to discuss it on the talk page and ignoring my comments on your user page. I'm notifying you that if this continues, I will bring in an Admin or take this to Wikipedia:Third_opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, etc. Reverting over and over while refusing to discuss the issue is not acceptable behavior on wikipedia, and can eventually lead to an editor being blocked. Please respond here, on my talk page, or the talk page of Westboro Baptist Church, to the various points I've raised regarding the article. --Xyzzyplugh 04:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say -- this is very unsusual for ConvenantD. In the past he has always been very good about using edit summeries and communicating on talk pages. Unfortunatly, he doesn't have the email feature in Wikipedia setup, so I was unable to check in to ask about this strange change in posting style... ~CS 14:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Morlocks

Ok, so where exactly did the real names of Erg and Beautiful Dreamer come from since no where else, not even Marvel, uncannyxmen.net or the Marvel Appendix list their real names? Originalsinner 00:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Earth's Moon" on Pluto

"the Moon" disambiguates sufficiently, and that term is already used in the second sentence of the article. Why is there a need to use "Earth's Moon" in the size comparison immage text? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 00:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Communication and 3RRV-Warning

Please communicate more with other editors. In particular, please discuss your recent edits to Westboro Baptist Church on the talk page. At that page it is explained that the relevant passages which have been removed have unreliable sources. I also note that you are over WP:3RR on that page. Please do continue or you may be blocked for WP:3RR violation. Thank you. JoshuaZ 05:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

From my understanding you were blocked for 6 hours because of your 3RR violations in Clock King, please use the time to think about your actions. You've been a very inconsiderate user. the purpose of wikipedia is to make well sourced informative articles, not un sourced uninformative articles that don't ilustrate the content. If you don't like the topic, go to an article about a topic you like and provide research, tables, infoboxes and images according to guideline. Thank you--The Judge 02:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good edits...

...just now at Spider-Man. Your vigilance on POV and non-encyclopedic tone in Comics Project articles is, as always, appreciated! --Tenebrae 07:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Black Lightning

Please argue your case somewhere before deleting a (correct but perhaps to you surprising) disambig. link. Bob aka Linuxlad 13:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Black Cat (comics)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- JHunterJ 20:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

good to see you back

hi, it has been a while, as you can see we are still there. --Samuel Luo 06:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

John Constantine POV

Constantine's promiscuity is not a point of view call; throughout the comic's existence, he's been shown to have no-strings, casual sex with many people, including hookers. He fits the definition perfectly. --Mister Six 11:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR help

Hey, if you actually are making 3RR violations, instead of reverting, just give me a heads-up about the situation, and I'll try to help. Beside the fact that I think you're a great editor, we usually agree on edits. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not will fully ignoring anybody. You confuse me with yourself. It wasn't very polite of you to write such lie. As well as reverting work without explaining yourself and disobey an administrator. I'm actually waiting for the comics project people to make up their minds, meanwhile improving the remaining infoboxes. Remember, the infobox is not oficial, but it isn't forbiden yet, that's what I'm waiting for. If you don't erase until a some sort of voting is made, I won't expand... I need the remaining to make further improvements.--The Judge 21:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're willing to help somebody who gain his blocking by reverting an editor, have his page full of 3RR complaints and likes to follow war over several articles... Nice. Tell me who you are with and I'll tell you who you are--The Judge 06:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm really trying to understand your writing. No offnse intended, but is English your second language?--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Crisis on Infinite Earths

Once again, you've made a completely pointless edit without bothering to explain yourself. I've restored Constantine's entry in the Crisis on Infinite Earths article, but there was simply no good reason for removing it in the first place. --Mister Six 23:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

None that you saw, but as the contributing editor I wouldn't expect you to. CovenantD 23:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, get her. If you have a problem with a contribution it's better to amend or request clarification than to delete outright. All you had to do was add a citation request. While you're there, why not add citation requests for the rest of that article? --Mister Six 23:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Another clear example of why I avoid interacting with most wikipedians. CovenantD 23:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR on List of characters appearing in Batman: The Animated Series

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Naconkantari 23:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey

You're one of my favorite editors, but you're kind of digging a hole for yourself in some of these situations. Let me or some of the other editors know when an editor is doing things like adding unnecessary infoboxes. Bring it to the attention of other editors at the WP:CMC talk page. It is apparent that a lot of editors are against these edits as well. You're not alone in your feelings about this. But it seems like you're getting stressed out and you're not handling at as well as you normally would. I believe in you, your intentions, and your work. Please watch the reverts; I don't like seeing you blocked. Again, please let me know when you need help. I'm not going to guarantee that I will al so revert; you have said that you don't like to interact with other Wikipedians anymore, and I will be happy to mediate tense situations. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything Chris said, and although I'm still on a semi-wikibreak I'm happy to help out as well. From browsing through your reverts, they almost always seem to be appropriate ones, they just needed clarity in explainations. Those two new "list" articles about Batman the Animated Series are a huge mess. ~CS 06:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not all that unreasonable to answer the question "Why". It'll take you a minute, max, and it is part of collaborating... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I could try to explain my current philosophy about the Wikipedia community, but I have no faith that it won't be twisted by anybody with an agenda, a persecution complex and a loose grasp of logic. Given the accusations of sockpuppetry that are already a too-familiar refrain from those who disagree with me, I'm reluctant to go seeking others to support my edits, although I really do appreciate the offers. In response to the constructive comments here I'll include a few more edit summaries with my edits for the good people who deserve to know, but generally stay out of the fray of this dysfunctional system while continuing the work of improving the encyclopedia itself. Thank you for your support. CovenantD 19:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If I've done anything to add to your feelings towards the community I apologise. I happen to think you are a good editor, for what it's worth. Steve block Talk 20:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve, you are definitely one of the good ones, one that makes this whole project worthwhile. I didn't say anything at the time, but I really appreciated your support during the whole checkuser fiasco a while ago. CovenantD 20:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Comics Cleanup

You are one of the best editors working on comics-related articles on Wikipedia. I'd like to inite you to join the new WikiProject I've started: WikiProject Comics Cleanup. Similarly to how the WP:CMC collaboration works to elevate articles to Featured Article status, the primary goal of this new project is to coordinate group cleanup efforts on articles, copy editing, condensing, and providing citations where needed. The secondary goal is to remind good editors that there are other good editors who have the same goals.

This will also help prepare articles for Wikipedia 1.0 assessment, a project I am currently working on pulling together for WP:CMC. I'd really appreciate your membership, but I do understand if you find yourself to be too busy to participate. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Storm edits

Just thought it worth pointing out that the reason for my recurrent edits to the 'Powers and Abilities' section of the Storm article is simply in the interests of accuracy. I posted a link at the bottom of the article's 'Talk' page that should clarify matters. Basically, the word 'all' is a straightforward inaccuracy.

As soon as you provide an inline reference that supports this I'll happily accept it. Until then, it looks like an unsupported claim. CovenantD 00:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

X-Men Unlimited Issue #1. As Xavier's dialogue explains, she's just been almost killed by a severe storm. If necessary I could upload scans of more of the issue, but this is most of what's relevant. If by 'inline' you mean 'online', I'm afraid I can't do better that comic scans.

Please stop reverting my edits

They are true and are very notable and are starting to get on my nerves. A very small bit of me can understand the Whovians, but it has been confirmed on Dave The Barbarian that the title character is the HERO and a COWARD and King Throktar and Queen Glidia are his PARENTS. And they are all fictional.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.140.101 (talk • contribs)

203.25.140.101 is a suspected sockpuppet of banned user DaffyDuck619. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and makes the exact same edits as a duck, it's probably a duck. Banned editors are not allowed to make edits under an anon IP to evade the block. CovenantD 01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw your comment that you believed this user to be a sockpuppet. I compared the edits and I have come to agree. I opened a case here. Feel free to add anything else. IrishGuy ^talk 01:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. CovenantD 01:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Man, you find all the good Wikipedia drama. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My Batman Pics

User talk:JackOfHearts I'm currently editing them. I'm not entirely sure how to post them, so I hope this works. I've edited the first one a bit. How is it? Sorry about the mislabelling, is this correct?

Poison Ivy Cover Image:CatAndIvy.JPG

How about these?

Future Mr Freeze

Image:VFMF.jpg

Harley Quinn

Image:HQuinade.jpg

The Joker

Image:TBJoker.jpg

The Penguin

Image:TBPenguin.jpg

The Kabuki Twins

Image:TBTPKabuki2.jpg

Catwoman

Image:TBCatwoman.gif

The only problem I have with them is that I can't edit the licensing to say that they were taken from the website with permission from the maintainer of the site (Zach Demeter).

Explain yourself better or stop reverting my edits

You seem to be deliberately reverting the edits I made to Ben Parker and The Night Gwen Stacy Died even though they are constructive and there is nothing wrong with them. Explain in greater detail why you think they aren't neutral point of view or reliable, or stop editing them. 199.79.168.160 06:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There is something wrong with them, which I've explained in the edit summaries. CovenantD 06:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you're just saying "POV" or "not true" without saying why. 199.79.168.160 06:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Quit misrepresenting my edit summaries. CovenantD 06:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting anything. My edit to The Night Gwen Stacy died simply pointed out the irony of a certain situation, which I've seen done in many other articles on this site, most of which are much more professional than that one. And my edit to Ben Parker simply reveals a noteworthy piece of information that can be confirmed by the Official Handbook, as I've mentioned three times already. 199.79.168.160 06:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What YOU THINK is ironic - that's the definition of POV. You have to provide anything resembling a citation for the Ben Parker claim. CovenantD 06:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for finally checking the handbook. And the situation I'm referring to is, by it's definition, ironic, it's not just my opinion. 199.79.168.160 07:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You finally provided the citation. If you make a claim, you have to provide proof, not some lame "It's in the handbook" line. CovenantD 07:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

One of my mottos for Wikipedia is "true until proven false". Sometimes that doesn't work, most of the time it does. And I removed the word 'ironic' from my edit to Gwen Stacy, though I added an explanation of the situation itself back in. 199.79.168.160 07:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to read the policies and guidelines. CovenantD 07:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. "True until proven false" is exactly the opposite of how things are supposed to work here. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Teen Titnas:Trouble in Tokyo 

Check the links for www.titansgo.net. It's a movie where a ninja attacks the Titan Tower and the Titans go to Tokyo. Don't put down but what the hell is it? Brian Boru is awesome 13:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why isn't that in the article? CovenantD 16:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:TBCatwoman.gif

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction with that one :) I'm still weirded out by the mismatch copy info and license. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Based on edit history, I'm pretty sure it's a newbie with no understanding of applicable law and policy. CovenantD 22:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (comedy)

I've created Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) to help editors in deciding the notability of comedy- and humor-related articles. You are an editor whom I respect and admire. I would appreciate any commentary you may be able to provide to help hammer it into shape. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

SW Comics

Any suggestions/comments/critiques on the merge? —Skope (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oy. I haven't been following it lately - I took a break from Wikipedia for a while and haven't gotten back up to speed yet. Give me a couple of days to look things over and I'll have an informed opinion for you. I have seen your name popping up a lot on my watchlist so I assume you've been plugging away at it. CovenantD 03:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger that. —Skope (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Two-Face

There's a debate about an image over at Talk:Two-Face#Straw_Poll. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. ThuranX 03:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Batsuit Images

I put the utility belt images back, sicne I think that they're appropriate of a static, if variable, aspect of the suit. Shall chat on the talk page? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summary Boxes

Hi, you've edited a lot of articles that are one my watchlist. I appreciate your edits, but I hope you'll start using the edit summary box to describe the edits you've made in the future. Thanks! Brad T. Cordeiro 03:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked spammer back

Hi, CD. Just want you to know I've notify the Admin that blocked User:24.60.85.190 on Sept. 17, informing him at User talk:Steel1359 that he's back and linkspamming. Oy. Keep up the good vigilance. --Tenebrae 19:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Eric Cartman

Can you add sources to unsourced information instead of removing it please as per the Wikipedia policy on this sort of thing: "Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible." Dhimwit

No. It is the responsibility of the editor that adds information to properly source it. The uncited tag was on those sections for several days and nobody was adding sources, so I removed them. CovenantD 22:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Your opinion is overridden by Wikipedia policy. Stop your vandalism please. Dhimwit

Please provide a link to this "policy." CovenantD 02:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, CovendantD is completely in the right on this one. If it can't be proved to be true, it doesn't belong in an article. If you want to re-add them, go find a source too. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Uni Starscream

Hey, sorry about that. I didn't realise the entire category had been deleted. Didn't mean anything by it.SMegatron 19:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Because it's been salted, it doesn't show up as a redlink so it's easy to be confused. CovenantD 19:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for understanding. SMegatron 19:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back to the mess

-- Миборовский 22:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

From the Thor page

CovenantD - you appear to be wasting a great deal of your own time fighting change purely for the sake of it. A good example is the image you replaced here, which is not even Thor. Do dopplegangers (irrespective of their nature) feature in place of the real character on entries? I think not. The image chosen (cover to Thor #334) is a nice, clean generic shot, which is needed (see above). The rationale "gonna call it vandalism" is rather telling as it indicates that you seem to have very little understanding of what the term is and how it applies to Wikipedia. See here for a refresher on the term vandalism and then how that applies to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Note the sentence re: undermining Wikipedia, which is what in fact is happening here. Also, I think you would be hard pressed to justify the constant reversions to past edits of minor characters such as Surtur, given that my updates provide new information and IMAGES. Useful items, yes?

Asgardian 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You wipe out categories, revert to badly formatted links, take away superhero boxes and return formatting for "appearances" that is different than any other comic book article. You often have too many images on a page and in places that are unattractive. Your edits have been reverted by other editors. So no, I disagree most strongly that you are improving the articles in question. CovenantD 03:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Superhuman powers

FYI: category:Superhuman powers is a sub-category of Category:Fictional abilities. - jc37 07:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Another category by Bat Fan

Hey. I noticed you have some experience dealing with The Bat Fan and his misguided categorization efforts. I just noticed Category:Comic Book characters pop up and I was hoping you'd have some pointers on how to approach the situation. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Linkspammer

That's "makeminemarvel" blog linkspammer is a pain in the arse - good work reverting his linkspam. --Charlesknight 00:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"No blogs"

No relation to the above, but was your removal of the blog-based essay at Power Girl actually based upon Wikipedia policy or was it personal preference? I considered carefully before adding the link and I think it's worthwhile. I think attitudes towards blogs need to change as there is a lot of legitimate writing involved. (I'm not talking about link-spamming as discussed above, of course). 23skidoo 00:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It was based on the Manual of Style for External links. The problem with blogs is that anybody can create one and say just about anything, so by themselves they are not in any way authoritative. CovenantD 02:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Super biting

I do see your point in it being super strength in a way, but that doesnt explain everything. If you look at super leaping that would be having a version of super strength but with your legs and that is on the list so please explain the difference. The Fro

Personally I don't think there is a difference and that superbiting also does not belong as a separate power. CovenantD 01:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean super leaping, but if thats the case then if biting doesnt belong than neither does leaping. So i think that either you should take leaping off the list or put biting back on. The Fro

You're correct, I did mean super leaping. CovenantD 04:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So is leaping going to go or can i put biting back on? The Fro

3RR on Absorbing Man

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.

Also, In this edit (and others) you are reverting Asgardian's edits with an edit summary of "(rv vandalism)". Please take a look at WP:Vandalism for what what vandalism is and isn't. Also note on that page "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia by driving away potential editors.". I can see that some of Asgardian's edits have a question mark over them, but Asgardian has only been an editor since 9th September. I think you should try and have a civil conversation with Asgardian on either your or Asgardian's talk page and work on improving the articles which you both obviously have a keen interest in. Please note WP:Civil and WP:Bite. Thanks. --Casper2k3 10:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Good advice. Some of your edits are now, as you can see, becoming questionable. Example: why revert Mephisto back to an older page? I found a great shot of his first appearance and tidied up the information, which is all still there. You also killed the link to Thor villains, which is odd as Thor has fought Mephisto three times in his own title (happy to cite the exact issues if you like). If that doesn't qualify him to be a Thor foe, I don't know what does. Let's keep the link - after all, it was you who first told me about them and their importance. Also, what's up with the A.Man? Surely you can't prefer that blackened partial shot? The cover with his first appearance is great! The list of his absorbing party tricks can only help new readers.

So, let's start again, and both be less territorial. I think a good place to start is the Thor page. It's getting changed far too often (check the last 24 hours) and we need consensus on things like images and some gaps in his history. Now I've got all the issues and could probably cite Thor's daily movements up until the time he disappeared, but it would be nice if we could all work together. Yours tips have helped as my edits have improved 100% in the past week in terms of layout etc. Anyway, that's it for tonight. Hope we can speak soon.

Regards

Asgardian 10:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"No change" changes

Yep, I went quickly from article to article tweaking the blank spaces. Generally I replaced all two-spaces with one-spaces (per Wikipedia style) with a single replace command, but not always. I edited one page, followed a link on it to another article and just followed a chain of linked articles until I wandered back to comic articles, an odd little degrees of separation thing. Why? Well, hell, why not? I just found it odd (and now that you've weighed in, a little amusing) that anyone even noticed to wonder what I was doing. Wryspy 06:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, they showed up so often on my watchlist. CovenantD 06:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You must watch an awful lot of pages. Wryspy 06:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Over 2700. CovenantD 06:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Really? I cut mine back every once in a while so I don't get burned out. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi page

About your following addition: "Li has become the subject of much controversy, ranging from his birthdate to status as a cult leader and allegations of profiteering." I think that having a whole section dedicated to Disputes, is quite enough and it also provides dedicated space to present all the information exactly. With this short addition I'm feeling like with a sensational title, whose only purpose is to get some attention, and then when you get to actually read the article you find that it's content is most mundane. Basically I'm asking if it would be OK with you to remove this last addition, because I feel that it's quite unnecessary. Please let me know what do you think and also please let me thank you in anticipation for your time and understanding. --HappyInGeneral 20:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I was attempting to balance out the lead section, which should provide a brief overview of the contents of the article. I have no attachment to the wording, but some mention does need to be made above the Table of Contents. CovenantD 20:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand your motive, but do you see my point as well? Putting in a statement like that just leaves a lot of holes, interpretation, etc ... We should consider that people who read that page don't know much of what is Falun Gong. The article would still remain factual because there is quite visible from the contents table the Disputes section, which actually allows all the information be presented. In order to understand correctly a situation the whole picture should be shown.

One more thing: Thank You for your prompt response and for your willingness to talk, this is something that was not going too well for me lately on that page. Since you are watching 2700 pages on wikipedia I assume that you have a bigger amount of experience on wikipedia then me. Could you have for me maybe some suggestions about situations where the other editors prefer to revert without talking? --HappyInGeneral 21:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not attached to any form of wording, just that some mention be made of the controversial nature of Li. This is per Wikipedia guidelines for the lead section (see WP:LEAD).

I don't really have any advice for the Falun Gong articles, since most of the editors there are so entrenched in their beliefs one way or the other and every attempt at mediation has failed. Just make sure your own edits are NPOV and keep trying to communicate. CovenantD 21:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you input, much appreciated. I will now read WP:LEAD. --HappyInGeneral 21:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Your statement was removed in a revert (which was not initiated by me). I did not put it back yet, because I do not agree with it fully, which maybe is also related to the fact that I did not have the time to read WP:LEAD yet, but which I will read eventually. Basically this note is just to inform how things are going. Best wishes. --HappyInGeneral 11:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced it in the latest version, so no matter who reverts to what it should show up. Feel free to improve it. CovenantD 16:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, I hope that you agree with the following wording:

" According to Clearwisdom.net, a Falun Dafa website, Li Hongzhi is the recipient of several awards from state and congressional bodies in the U.S and is a two time Nobel Prize nominee [10][11].

After the onset of the Persecution of Falun Gong, several allegations were raised by the CCP against Li Hongzhi, ranging from changing his birth date to status as a cult leader and allegations of profiteering. " --HappyInGeneral 19:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Xorn

Hi, I'm currently having some edit debates with other users on the Xorn article and would appreciate your opinions and comments on the Talk Page. WesleyDodds 12:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Archangel edits

I wasn't aware of a present tense guideline - I searched through the FAQs and didn't notice anything to that effect, but it's possible I missed something. In any case, you only seemed to take issue with my own edits within two paragraphs, and not the fact that the *entire article* is written in past tense, as it was when I found it. Either way, I don't think it's anything worth getting upset about. 74.98.190.136 14:05, 03 October 2006 (UTC)

The flurry of activity on that article attracted my attention, and I plan on going over it within a day or two. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. I've got sort of an ADD-afflicted editing habit, I guess. Lots of small changes. Apologies for that - I'll hit the edit button less in the future. 74.98.190.136 14:52, 03 October 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD

I left citation for the Justice League Unlimited episode Epilogue, though I'm not sure why it was need since the External Links The Watchtower page has proof that it's vaild. Now, do you have something against me personally, or do you think being a long time wikipedian makes you better than everyone? Lets see:

1. You put down a citation for every little thing. Can't you show a little faith, or would you need proof that Banana contains potassium or that H2O is Water?

2. You choice to delete every edit you disagree with. If the edit is recent, have you ever considered talking to the person about it. Then again I suppose someone like you can't be bothered with being civil.

You may have forgotten, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to make an article as informative as possible, not to assert authority by deleting or changing someones edit needlessly. You keep this up you might just alienate everyone from this site. 71.115.210.70

We should not need to guess and dig through external links to find your source. The purpose of Wikipedia is informative articles that cite reliable sources. And when someone adds an edit that seems very much like the sort of fan-fiction/speculation that editors often try to add, we delete it unless the editor can provide an explanation and a source. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• What about assuming good faith? Sure what I typed seemed like fan speculation/fiction, but you or CovenantD could have talked to me on my discussion page first, what's wrong with that approach. I know this concept may surprise you, but running or contributing to a website requires taking chances. You don't always succeed by playing it safe. Please respond to everything I've said, so I know that you were paying attention to what I typed and not skimming it. 71.115.210.70

Why didn't you stop to talk about it before re-adding your six uncited paragraphs? When something that large and uncited about that subject matter is added to an article, it is rarely anything but fancruft. Had you been registered, I might have left a message for you, but I don't expect unregistered users to check their talk pages. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Here's how he handled and editing situation for Crisis On Infinite Earth's:

• • Once again, you've made a completely pointless edit without bothering to explain yourself. I've restored Constantine's entry in the Crisis on Infinite Earths article, but there was simply no good reason for removing it in the first place. --Mister Six 23:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

None that you saw, but as the contributing editor I wouldn't expect you to. CovenantD 23:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, get her. If you have a problem with a contribution it's better to amend or request clarification than to delete outright. All you had to do was add a citation request. While you're there, why not add citation requests for the rest of that article? --Mister Six 23:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Another clear example of why I avoid interacting with most wikipedians. CovenantD 23:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone on Wikipedia is a douchebag. I'm not; I just got my douchbag test results back. But I'll admit I was worried for a while. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• He doesn't interact, because he thinks he's a top wikipedian. He apparently see everyone but Chris and himself to be trash, therefore he doesn't need a reason to delete our contributions. And doing that, he's violationg the no personal attacks rule. I don't care if he's experiencing a tragedy in his home life either, there's no excuse for abusing authority. 71.115.210.70

Let it go. I don't get what your problem is with editors who have more experience than you. Assume good faith works both ways. Let it go. What does the sentence about home life have to do with anything? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's not that he is more experienced, it's that he believe's that he is right in anything he does. Again, he demonstrates that he thinks very little of us newbie trashes. For instance, if you left an article without a source, he probably would look the other way. But, for newbies like me, we're judged as guilty. As for that home life line, people tend to pick on others because something is messing up their personal life. 71.115.210.70

This is all rather silly. CovenantD is a diligent editor who I have never observed to edit in a manor that was anything but constructive. If you have an issue with particular edits he has made, changed, or reverted raising these specific concerns in a polite manner would be a good idea. Ad hominem attacks on him or speculations about his "home life" or motivations are not constructive toward resolving content disputes.

I've noticed in the past that CovenantD is one of several editors who puts a great deal of work into the comic-book related entries on Wikipedia, attempting to keep them encyclopedic and remove speculation, original research, and fannish prose. This is extremely constructive toward keeping the comics-related articles at a high-quality, and his work is appreciated. However, this also tends to draw the ire of editors who do not understand that Wikipedia is not a fansite and strives for professional prose style and content. If any of the objections in the above discussion are related to this, I encourage you all to take a deep breath, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, and think carefully about your editing styles.

I assure you that neither ConvenatD nor the other editors who may be changing your edits are doing so out of malice or a sense of superiority. Furthermore, you'll find all editors are far more accommodating if you conduct yourselves in a civil and friendly manor, rather than assume bad-faith. ~CS 23:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• And he could have talked with me on the discussion pages about requesting a source, but chose not to. Surely the rules apply to him to right? Again, I'm sorry for the harsh tone. However, I feel if he doesn't hear what I have to say, he'll probably delete anything else I do in the future even if it's to standards. 71.115.210.70

Additionally, CovenantD does call me on my shit; it makes me happy to know that if I make a mistake, he is often there to catch me. Also, he's one of those editors who cleaned up after those late-night article revamps I did with the tiny, scattered errors I carelessly left behind. For an example, here is him reverting an edit I made, and rightly so:[12]. If you want to make the tone of his edit summary an issue, I will point out that it is easier to take that tone when the person has a name you can use. Look, set this aside and move on or you will have a terrible time at Wikipedia. I've had diagreements with editors, but we've set those aside and later enjoyed working on other articles together. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• I apologize if I'm not being polite. Also, a person doesn't actually have to have a name on wikipedia, hence why they assign a number to those who don't register. I will try to end this on a good note, though. All I'm saying is that he could just as easily enforce the rules without deleting straight away.

I noticed for instance that you are giving someone a week to provide sources for a particular article before deleting. Why didn't either you or Covenant give me the same break at the beginning? This will be my last comment on the matter. And I'm not someone who enjoys causing trouble, but I'm working on being less passive. 71.115.210.70

A person doesn't have to create a username, but if they do, they not only get the benefit of the doubt, they're a lot more anonymous. Wikipedia didn'y assign that number to you; your computer and internet service provider did, and I pretty much know where you live because of it. The reason I gave someone a week to find sources was because the information was being added by several editors, the majority of which are registered; it was an ongoing problem with the article; it didn't seem like fan fiction/speculation; I had a pretty good idea where I might find the sources to add myself. Oh, and someone had just made a lot of accusations about such a thing; that played a role too. You need to work on being a little more passiove and assuming good faith. Nothing was done to spite you. And yes, in our effort to make around 65 edits a day (That's my average since the beginning of March), sometimes we do take shortcuts when making very routine edits, but we do leave edit summaries explaining what is asked for. But look, what you added was pretty lengthy, unencyclopedic in tone, and uncited, and it didn't seem that much different from the girl who created a whole new Robin character and then created an entry complete with character history and uploaded related images. And that was a situation in which a number of editors asked her politely to provide sources for this information before it was finally all removed. It took a lot of time and a lot of effort, and it was all patent fabrications. But she was registered. Look, I'm really not trying to be against you. I would much rather your energy go into working with me on something than to get stuck on this relatively minor incident. Watch the personal attacks and accusations, register so no one can track you to your house quite so easily, and join WP:CMC so you can go to work and gain people's respect and admiration for your incresingly amazing edits. That last sentence doesn't have to be hypothetical, and I hope it's actually a premonition of the future and that I will win the lottery tonight. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Two things to say:
• Keep it civil.
• Verifiability policy: Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
• Anyone wants to go back, reconsider their comments and strike anything they feel they said in haste, that's not a bad idea. Anyone who thinks they are in a dispute might want to read the dispute resolution policy. Steve block Talk 20:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I don't log in for a day or two and just look at how my talk page has grown! CovenantD 22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

People to clean up after

Okay, regarding the section on your talk page titled "People to clean up after", it is not generally considered to be a good idea to maintain such a list of users on Wikipedia. They are felt to violate personal attack policies. I hope you will consider your usage of them. A discussion of a similar list and the feelings it created can be seen here, [13]. I'd appreciate your discretion here. Further discussion regarding this can be seen at User talk:Brian Boru is awesome. Steve block Talk 15:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That is reserved for editors that consistently add the same info to the same articles over a period of days or weeks, all without discussion or providing a reason and in defiance of several other editors. I think a total of three people have made the list - I've removed the most recently listed editor. You can see from the page history how long it's been since that's been updated prior to today. CovenantD 22:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate why you do it, but it is considered a bad idea. Most web browsers allow you to set links in a favourites folder, and I have heard of people using that format. The format you use sials close to the personal attack policy and can cause disputes. It also creates a precedent for other people to point to. That said, it's your call. The Kelly Martin one I linked to above caused an enormous ruckus. 15:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Steve block Talk

Okay, because I respect your input, I'll remove it. CovenantD 17:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Are you still in dispute with User:Asgardian? Steve block Talk 17:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oy, yes. Feel like giving a third opinion on some Thor-related articles? :) CovenantD 17:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Question: Covenant (Not a flame)

You removed my listing of Etrigan, The Demon's appearance in The Batman Adventure Annual #2. Yes it's a comic, but it's set in the animated series continuum. Well, I put it in other media, because someone left info of his appearance in the Batman Beyond comics.

Nonetheless, I put the info back with a section called Other Version. I would appreciate a response.71.115.210.70

I reworded it a bit to clarify which continuity it fits in, but I'd say that you got it. CovenantD 22:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request

I made a request you may be interested in. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd noticed it also. Good job. CovenantD 17:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The new cateogry Marvel Films

I added it to CfD. You might want to go vote there. ThuranX 01:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_10#Category:Marvel_films. ThuranX 01:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Now if we could only convince User:Batman Fan/User:Dr. McGrew to stop creating them... CovenantD 01:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We can't stop him. He's vandalism...he is the blight. He's...Batfan! '[echo, echo, echo...]'

ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup -- I've blocked User:Dr. McGrew and deleted his comic book, Marvel, and villain categories. I think the only one left that needs to be depopulated and deleted is Category:Disney actors. NawlinWiki 03:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that one should stay. It bridges the gap between several subcats and Category:Disney people. CovenantD 03:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, Capt.

I'm not sure if you're right about me knowing better, but I've successfully cited all articles mentioning the recasting of the characters with http://tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-Ausiello/default.aspx?posting={1FB5E5D6-7FD4-4987-B948-1CE8D8DA8781}. The speculation part, as I understand, was the return of Acrata—well, the thoroughly altered version of her—as a kind of WW substitute. *Sigh* I hate it when the league is a cockfest. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the notification at WikiProject Middle-earth about the sockpuppet 201. Carcharoth 21:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unified discussion

Moved several related discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject comics/Disambiguation discussion. (Feel free to revert if you wish.) - jc37 19:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)