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:

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)[reply]

...

Hello - can I ask what your problem is? I am a new user on Wikipedia, having only been on a handful of times. I'm sure I don't know all the rules and I'm trying to learn, but it seems like you have been extremely rude to me for no reason. How about trying to give advice rather than being rude? That would be helpful. I'm sorry if you're upset that I did several edits to the same entry rather than including them all in one - again, I am learning this process. I'm sure you weren't perfect the first few times you were on here as well.

As for your warnings - what have I truly done wrong? I've gotten into a debate with lesker at the Justice League talk pages because his/her edits are wrong. But hey - if you people want wrong information up, that's fine. I tried to clean up the dialogue between he/she and I so that it didn't bog down the talk page, and I get slapped with a "no edit talk page" warning from you. A little consideration, a little "Welcome to wikipedia, here's how you do things...." from you would have been appropriate. Not the rude treatment you are giving.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.100.108 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your response.

A couple of things though: (1) I removed the reference to Lesker as an "idiot" on the Justice League talk page right after I left it because I felt like that was over the top. So, I shouldn't be penalized for editing myself when I was already trying to do the right thing. (2) I understand that your warnings aren't personal...but at the same time, before you just start slapping things around right and left, could you not inquire as to why someone made a change? Supposedly this whole wikipedia thing is supposed to be a free exchange of ideas, but you are making it seem more like a prison, slapping warnings right and left instead of saying "hey, did you know you weren't supposed to do this..."? There is no encouragement to be part of the process this way.

Anyway - I'm not trying to engage you in an argument, but perhaps get you to see another point of view and realize that, as you constantly popped up on sites I was on, it appeared to be that you were stalking me and singling me out for a few mistakes as I'm trying to learn. Encouragement and questions rather than warnings and nastiness would be welcomed, and that would make wikipedia truly fulfill it's goals. No one wants the info in the entries to be wrong, but no one wants to work with tyrannical editors either (not saying you are one, but just making a point).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.100.108 (talk • contribs)

oh...and thanks for referring me to the items on your talk page regarding editing. I'll take a look at them. Thanks much.

Page moves

Please take a moment to review the requested moves guidelines. When a page is listed there, it should not be moved in the middle of that discussion. If there is consensus at the conclusion of the voting period, it will be moved accordingly. Please don't merge the requested move voting into previous discussion as it muddies things and makes it difficult to determine whether there is a consensus for a move. I know you don't like the current title of the SD abortion bill page, and I don't think it's the best one either, but please let the requested move process run its course. Jonathunder 21:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the page now would be premature; discussion is very much still ongoing. While that proceeds, you might want to check out the naming guidelines and policies linked to at requested moves. Jonathunder 22:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen (and facilitated) a large number of page move debates and my format of the page you refer to is very common. Often a page move is discussed in general terms, as here, and then a formal proposal is made and advertised on requested moves. When that happens, the pros and cons of that specific proposal are made under a new section. Let's just let this proceed. Jonathunder 22:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let the requested move discussion proceed. Moving the votes and the comments together with previous discussion greatly confuses things. I assure you, the way it is formatted is the usual way for a requested move discussion. See the instructions on WP:RM and please stop disrupting. Jonathunder 22:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to add comments in the right place, but please do not mix commentary with a complete reformat which disrupts the vote. Jonathunder 22:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fulan gong

One or two pictures is fine but there are six or seven up there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Luo (talk • contribs)

Friend,

The pictures will let the reader know what Falun Gong practice is all about. They play a vital role in this regard. The CCP has used terrible mis-information in its attempt to salnder Falun Gong. It is really saddening to see innocent people dying each day for holding up freedom of belief. The Chinese goverment has cut off the Chinese society from all websites except state propoganda. Try a search "Dalai Lama" or "Falun Gong" on google.cn.. none of these websites ( including wikipedia will turn up).. The wikipedia article plays a vital role in bringing truth to the people and in bringing and end to this horrible Genocide... I am really sorry if I overwrote any edit of yours in edit conflicts.. there is A LOT of mis-information.. Rather than surface ojectivity we must give more importance to truth... This is an urgent situation we are faced with.. Innocent Humans are losing theirs lives in the most brutal and humiliating torture.. Turth is what matters most now.. I need your help in removing non-factual information from the article.. A lot of mis-information has been engineered by the CCP to slander Falun Gong.. we need to be careful about the sources we use. We cant have Chinese newspaper articles as authentic sources.. Those Newspapers have even calimed Falun Gong are FBI agents out to topple CCP!!! All teachings being available online, you must go through the teachigns first-hand to understand Falun Gong. Dilip rajeev 05:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for the asserted superiority of FLG over other styles of qigong

Greetings! These quotes are from Li Hongzhi's 1998 lecture: [1]

I put them here because I didn't want to clog up the talk page at FLG, but when the time is right we can move them there if you'd like. This is just from the first few pages of the lecture, but it is typical of his discursive style, one of his main themes is how superior what he is teaching is to anything that has gone on before, as you can see. This is a notable feature of his public speaking, but other schools claim it too (Tibetan Buddhism is perhaps the most famous example).

"Many of you present here haven’t studied the Fa in depth and have often treated it as ordinary qigong.* The spread of this Fa in China has resulted in up to 100 million people studying and practicing it. The number of people in regions outside of China is also quite large. Why is that so, and why is it that the education level of those who are learning this Fa is relatively high? Many are noted individuals in intellectual circles. In many regions of China as well as other places there are people of relatively high social standing who are practicing. Of course, when ordinary qigong was first introduced to the public in China, most of its practitioners were older people and people with illnesses. So people regarded it as a type of physical exercise and something to help keep them healthy. Of course, qigong did discuss some supernormal phenomena that aren’t easily seen in ordinary human society, and this gave qigong an air of mystery, but that’s all it was. Many people aren’t able to completely understand what qigong is about. Since the time Dafa was made public, I have unveiled some inexplicable phenomena in qigong as well as things that hadn’t been explained in the qigong community. But this isn’t the reason why so many people are studying Dafa. It’s because our Fa can truly enable people to Consummate, truly save people, and allow you to truly ascend to high levels in the process of cultivation. Whether it’s your realm of mind or the physical quality of your body, the Fa truly enables you to reach the standards of different levels. It absolutely can assume this role I just mentioned that many people are studying the Fa. People who are well educated are clearheaded and generally won’t learn something blindly. These people are usually rather steadfast once they learn the Fa because they know its preciousness. The book reveals many of Heaven’s secrets, and what’s more, its inner meaning is enormous. No matter how high a realm or how high a level you wish to achieve in cultivation, it is able to guide you. No one has ever taught this Fa to humankind before. If you didn’t study Dafa, you wouldn’t obtain this knowledge no matter how many books you read or how great your achievements in human society were. That’s because this isn’t something one can learn from books or can find in humankind’s knowledge. You could rummage through every book there is—ancient or modern, Eastern or Western—and you still wouldn’t be able to find it."

… "Consider this: In cultivation practice it used to be that a master would guide his disciple. When it was time for you to improve, he would tell you how to practice, how to improve, and what it’s like at each level and in each realm. But that could only be done on a small scale and with a small number of people. Today we have so many people—as many as 100 million people are learning. It’s impossible for me to teach everyone in person and show them every exercise movement. So to resolve this challenge, I’ve written into this book everything that I can give you and everything that can enable you to improve and transform yourselves—all these are compressed into this work of Fa. Not only will your improvement be guided by its principles: Behind the Fa there is powerful inner meaning. Its concepts are extraordinary, they are absolutely not everyday people’s theories. What we’re dealing with transcends the realm of everyday people. So teaching these things will affect life-forms that are beyond that of ordinary humans and the way other dimensions are. In other words, although the book(s) appears to be black ink on white paper, behind every word there are infinite dimensions at different levels, and behind the words even Buddhas, Daos,* and Gods of different dimensions are manifesting themselves."

… "Before, when I discussed enlightening, I expounded on a heavenly secret nobody had disclosed: “Cultivation depends on oneself, while gong depends on one’s master.” For thousands of years people have thought that they themselves were cultivating and elevating. Actually, you can’t achieve anything cultivating [on your own]. Nothing can be resolved if you don’t have a master taking care of you. That is, the real issues are resolved by your master—they’re resolved by the factors behind the Fa. Your own enlightening is only about your continuing to cultivate after you overcome difficulties in your practice. That’s what we mean by “your own enlightening.” As for truly enlightening to something from the principles, if this Fa doesn’t let you know it, you can’t enlighten to it no matter how you try. So you have to meet one condition: You must genuinely practice cultivation."

… "Qigong exercises are for nothing more than healing illness and maintaining health, no matter how you perform them or how much some qigong masters boast about them. They definitely won’t lead you to a high and profound realm. In the past, it was absolutely impossible for anyone—whether he was in some cultivation circle or religious community—to know a Fa this profound and unfathomable. Ordinary qigong only teaches people how to heal themselves and keep healthy, for it doesn’t have Fa to guide people in cultivation. What I’m saying is, if you want to reach that realm and develop profound abilities, your realm of thought has to be up to par."

--Fire Star 19:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

Yeah, I may get to it in a few hours, I hope. My main concern will be reporting the controversies without it becoming a hatchet job. Cheers! --Fire Star 19:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentry (comics)

May I ask what your justification is for keeping an obscure Spider-Man enemy (not even an obscure enemy by himself, but part of an obscure five-man team) at the top of this article, over the Paul Jenkins character (currently featured in New Avengers, and previously featured in his own series [of sorts], having received a huge [if unsuccessful] marketing push from Marvel)? Sorry I didn't log in to make that edit, but that's no reason to revert it without comment. -leigh (φθόγγος) 23:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable enough policy (if strictly adhered to), but I don't see any mention of it on that page or the rest of the WikiProject. Can you be more specific? -leigh (φθόγγος) 23:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson

Thanks for chiming in with your comment. I know I'm not the only one who feels that Grayson is better than Nightwing. I don't know how else to say 'it's not that he's not 'Nightwing' in most people's heads, it's that he's also Robin!' -- Ipstenu 14:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Bullock

While I realize that you are probably right, I must ask - what disadvantage did the move cause? Luis Dantas 07:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titans

I can't remember exactly where the discussion was. However, I do think that a change that big should be discussed beforehand, specially since people accepted the previous move. --Andromeda 19:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Woman

I reverted twice (check the edit history) the bolland pic was reverted three times, go chew out DBrat! Qilinmon 01:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dagger

Thanks for letting me know. - Rudykog 06:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invader Zim

Hey, just want to know, are you a fan of Invader Zim? Cause if you are, I'll apologise for what I say next. First off, you jump right into the Invader Zim articles with (apparently) no idea about what the show is about, slap 'citation needed' stickers on everything that is established as a fact and is overwelmingly apparent to those who have seen in the episode or have listened to the commentry, reworded articles to make it sound like Jhonen Vasquez (the CREATOR of the show) is outright lying in his interviews and DVD comentries and ran off to complain on my user page about my putting dvd as opposed to DVD when I changed some of your edits back to normal (look up there, I even capitalised DVD for you). Admitedly, some of your changes did good, and you are probebly trying to help, but, you come off sounding as rude, as the person ... above me wll back up. I guess thats all I wanted to say, bye! Devilmaycare 16:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine, my appologies and I have to (grudgingly) accept your edits based on that rule. That said, you should at least make an effort to be a little nicer. While we are doing a job (of sorts), a little kindness can go a long way. Either way, we still have some work to do between us, not all episodes have a page yet so we should quuit arguing for the time being and work on those. Later Devilmaycare 16:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Categories

Sorry if I am causing you trouble, I am just attempting to create some interesting new ones. I will make any needed changes myself, what do you think should be changed? I am monitoring your contributions to try and figure it out, it seems you are busy also doing things besides me, you are an active upkeeper of comics.

If you mean Bat Boy, I guess not, but it's a pretty obvious reference to me, as opposed to 'Bat Mutant' or 'Boy Bat'. After all, there is already Batgirl.

If you mean Bartman, I do agree for a disambig page. I was at a loss at what to do, to tell you the truth. It just links to a subsection of Bart Simpson, and I can't class the whole character as Batman-inspired. I am thinking perhaps to link the disambig to a redirect page titled [[Bartman (Simpsons) which redirects to the entry under Bart Simpson? I have experimented with putting Category tags under redirects, and it works perfectly! It's very useful for pages full of many characters and only one fits in a category. If I go back to Legend of Zelda pages I'll have a ball with that. Tyciol 06:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of speedsters, you're right in that fictional isn't really necessary. I suppose' speedsters' might have sufficed. The problem is, it's also a type of car, so I'd hope this would make it more distinctive. I thought about 'speedy heroes' but that would exclude a lot of villains, and they all belong in one category. What characterizes it is a character who is capable of running at extremely large landspeeds, independant and preferably without the ability of flight. Superman and Wonderwoman do have this distinctive trait despite flight, but even then I'm having difficulty getting it there. I may just revise it to characters whose main trait is their speed. There's still a great deal of them. For the most part, their name incorporates it. Others have shown some interest too, a bunch have been added to speedsters without me, like Cheetor. Tyciol 06:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Have you thought that perhaps I just happened to change my mind about the edit? Or that there are several other valid reasons for that? There's not need to be sarcastic. I'm not telling you how to edit pages, I expect the same courtesy. --Andromeda 21:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowcat

hey, i tried to add a source for that info that you tagged as "citation needed". I'm not sure i did it correctly, so it'd probably be worth taking a look. Amo 17:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May, 2006

Gidday. Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked and has been reverted. However, it was also deemed distructive and, as such, falls under the category of vandalism. Please don't remove content from Wikipedia as you did to the article Kal-L. Instead, please try in the future to make constructive edits rather than ruining the hard work of others. Regards, ACS (Wikipedian) 02:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absent editor

Greetings. I'm sorry that I have been away from the discussion at FLG for a while. I had a minor auto accident on Monday (for me, anyway, if not for the car!) and have been getting things together to get my classes covered and my bagnol repaired. I sound like a broken record, but I haven't given up and will try like heck to contribute more soon. --Fire Star 火星 07:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Corrigan

I noted on your user page that you want to work on the Jim Corrigan page. Considering I'm that page's creator and major contributer, I'm interested in what you were planning to contribute, and perhaps we could work together on this. Kusonaga 16:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, Covenant. You've been doing some really good work yourself. If I ever need help with anything, I won't hesitate to call. Kusonaga 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove anything

Why you are so angry? Fnhddzs 22:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC) CovenantD, look at the age carefully! It is so ugly with each subsections repeat twice! Fnhddzs 22:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said they are redundant in my comments! I am also surprised why the number of subsections seem less than before. But they were simply twice! Some errors must have happened. Fnhddzs

Well, I try not to get involved in the FLG debacle other than maintaining some basic netiquette (which is too often breached and a source of headaches). -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miborovsky, it was you who locked the page. Of course I first request you to do the favor to put a "protected" mark on it, which I think it is a basic netiquette. Should I ask some other admins? Sorry about stating this on CovenantD's page. Feel free to delete. Fnhddzs 02:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting the Falun Gong page

Could you please prove when you talked to Miborovsky? Since I did not find any on the talk pages. It is understoodable that you may communicate by emails or some other means though.

You had made mistakes by assuming I deleted things arbitrarily and being very angry at me (Samuel already apologized on that [2]). Just please stay really cool. Fnhddzs 02:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I think your request happened when you were angry by mistake. Fnhddzs 03:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Falun Gong

Do you think stating persecution of Falun gong is a POV or tries to make the page like a pro- Falun Gong article? I think it is cruel, bold and how to say, silly that people are numb to the persecution that truly exist. From today on, I will try to send you the articles from media reports if your answer is yes. I understand you may not believe what Falun Gong side says. There is a lawyer named Gao, Zhisheng in China [3][4][5]. He published three open-letters to China leaders about stopping the persecution of Falun Gong. He is not a Falun Gong practitioner. I am amazed by his courage. Attorneys were not allowed to defend for Falun Gong practitioners. I think few people can finish reading his letter without tears. Here is the text of the third letter. [6] As you could imagine, this attorney is harrassed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Fnhddzs 03:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC) From your friend, with tears in heart. Fnhddzs 03:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for requesting the protection. --Samuel Luo 08:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India Basher

No, sorry, I didn't check, but then who would have guessed Gwernol would have added this simultaneously[7][8] to two Log pages, May 26 & May 27? --Lambiam ^Talk 01:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Style

Check Wikipedia: Summary style, it was also done on Superman. And it got awarded. I had this project for a while, I even tryied to discuss it early on the discussion page. Besides I'm getting rid of the tags claiming that the article lacks organization for once.--T-man, the wise 04:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right it WAS a featured article. Because I got no answer I did it. That's lack of interest, if it were a bat idea somebody would have said don't do it. Again, check the Superman article. We're trying to keep a format. The negative tag was arond the characters section. --T-man, the wise 05:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish inhabited category

I'd like to point out a few things about Kurdistan from the article itself.

the exact borders of Kurdistan are hard to define.
According to Encyclopædia Britannica, Kurdistan is a mountainous region of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, inhabited predominantly by Kurds including 27-28 million people in a 190,000 km2 (74,000 sq. mi) area
Encyclopaedia of Islam, it includes a 390,000 km2 area.
Others estimate as many as 40 million Kurds live in Kurdistan, which covers an area as big as France.

Hence why I do not believe a valid criteria can't exist. Listify, maybe... What do you think?

--Cat out 21:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think any and all such cats are inherently flawed. I'm not attached to it the way others seem to be, though, so it's not worth it to me to try to sway others to my viewpoint. I've laid out my reasons, and if others are too blinded by their own political beliefs to see how unencyclopidic (sp?) it is, then I'll leave them to wallow in their perspective. :-) CovenantD 01:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True I guess however if something is unencyclopedic, effort should be made to get rid of it right? --Cat out 15:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry, I't wasn't my intention to make my comment PA like. I read too many Mr. T jokes on the net.--T-man, the wise 01:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose?

Eventually Wikipedia is going to include every single piece of information about everything. I hate when people slow the process, saying that this or that don't deserve space.--T-man, the wise 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it pisses people of? do they want to know LESS?? And have huge trivia articles?

Thanks! And the more the merrier. My vision is still lacking of several elements, whatever you can aport will be apreciated. I'm buiding something, but many aspects can be logically out of my sight.

I'm changing artickes that I see as lacking of concept. They're becoming disambiguations. Bluring the line between directories, lists, and files or vice versa. I'm trying to find the trunk and then the branches and roots. There should be a series of articles about aspects of batman and a main one defining Batman, I think the article is trying to cover it all and comming short.--T-man, the wise 02:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did it to provoke some discussion that is all. --Yueyuen 02:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)--Yueyuen 02:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Agenda

I'm unsure whether or not you looked at the article homosexual agenda which discusses the usage of this word along with its conontation. It will enlighten you to the fact that the term isn't really that POV - I hope :). Chooserr 04:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad move.

You see, we were getting along just fine, and then you go mess it up. Sure, we didn't necessarily agree, but we were communicating and cooperating, up until the point where you decided to try to get me blocked on a fictitious WP:3RR violation. Your refusal to assume good faith is going to make it harder for me to assume good faith when dealing with you. Now, very little distinction exists in my mind between you and people like User:Chooserr. That's unfortunate. Al 21:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batwoman

No is problem :) -- Ipstenu 16:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of comic....

Heya, thanks for the offer. Right now I'm going through every link, making sure they all point appropriately to the final page of a true comic book hero.

One thing that's kind of a pain (but needs to be done) is fixing all the links here, below the "List of powers in superhero fiction (redirect page)" line.

I don't have much more time to edit tonight, but I'll get what I can done :) Thanks! --Kickstart70-T-C 01:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, I didn't want to do those either :) --Kickstart70-T-C 01:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic scream to physical, eh?

I moved it out of there since it's really a type of energy. I won't argue about the change, but I'm curious about the rationale. :) --Kickstart70-T-C 05:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about pyrokinesis, etc. My thought is to split it between propelled energy of any type (sound, fire, electrical, etc.) in Energy, and then propelled physical (super strength, throwing ice, or anything else that's actually left behind in physical form) in Physical. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant, Could you kindly find out why the main-page is kept locked for so long? It is not reflecting the content changes in the sub-pages. Thankyou. Dilip rajeev 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. :) Dilip rajeev 19:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant, Could you please ask tomanda to stop reverting to a messy version. I have been asking him to specifically point out what has been deleted/removed and if I have introduce the content to appropriate sub pages. I have also requested him to edit/improve the intros.. The sole reason he insists on keeping a messy version is the fact that lies and unsourced stuff can only exist in such a version.. while it would be almost impossible to do so on a neat page... that terribly vandalized version has stayed under the pretext of "discussion" for so long.. In my opinion, if some focused discussion is to really happen we must add/discuss content on appropriate subpages and discuss intro paragraphs and related material in the main page. Dilip rajeev 08:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making money from FAlun Gong

I deleted the last two paragraphs of the “making money from Falun Gong” section to avoid an edit war. If you compare the section from an earlier version [9] to the version before my deletion [10] you will see that statements from FG critics are deleted leaving only FG rebuttal. I didn’t want to reintroduce those statements for it might provoke another revert war. The deletion also makes the article shorter.--Samuel Luo 18:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Providence Mayor's "gay agenda"

When I pointed out to the gentleman in the story that he had been mentioned, he asked me not to identify him publically. I'll see if I can convince him to comment here, or at least to give me more info to pass on. I can say that the story I heard was almost identical to the way Cicilline told it, which is how I recognized it so quickly.--Sar e kOfVulcan 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kurdish inhabited regions (again)

Hey, I'd like to notify you that the category will probably be kept per perhaps some politicaly motivated keep votes unlike Category:Hispanic inhabited regions which will be deleted. --Cat out 13:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that the discrepancy happened. Just shows that logic is lacking somewhere... ;-) CovenantD 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Now what should we do with the category? Since it is very hard to get anything related to the kurds deleted... --Cat out 20:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FG intro

hi, I just reverted the intro back to a earlier version where no new changes was made. Let' be fair to all, the version you reverted to have many new changes that had no consesus. --Samuel Luo 17:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. But always consider context. I'm complaining that there has been a lot writting but no editing, and that's easy to realize. It was just bad motivational speech. Don't be so touchy.--T-man, the wise 19:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you know what a wikiproject is? I turned it into one, not the zetaguy. You want it to be one. It doesn't bother me that much as I thing it's going to bother the others thas like to talk about works they don't even contribute with, since they don't like it as an article, I think as a whole project it's going to be 10 times worst. If you're so confident in the merger, stop arguing and edit a little to prepare the article for it. You won't be able to just stuff all that into another article. And don't put words in my mouth I can speak for myself... Well kinda :P--T-man, the wise 22:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, thank you!

I was a bit taken aback by User:71.115.236.171, and when I ventured to his Talk page, I saw your comment to him. That was wonderfully nice of you. Best regards, -- Tenebrae 23:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I do apologize for that, but he kept erasing my info without even talking with me about it, like I said, he could have retitled my contribution. 71.115.236.171

...