User talk:Powergate92

NewYorkCity101

There is no harassment going on. The user admitted they were the same user as blocked IP 68.37.66.81 and the majority of their edits have been incorrect, against article or project consensus, bizzare attempts to blame his bad edits on a long-dead sockpuppet or taking action against accounts which have had no activity for a year, or just plain wrong and I have been warning accordingly to no avail. Since the AIV process has been pretty much rendered useless against basic tenuous editors it's harder to keep these kinds of editors to realize that this isn't a game. Also his questions on talk pages have been either incredibly inane requests any reasonable editor would dismiss or just odd (i.e. completely unneeded article splits). Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-free logos

I think I may have found the solution to our problems regarding non-free images. For example, if you take a look at File:Mctvbbs.svg you'll see that it it will never qualify for public domain until the copyrights expire. Since everybody who's been removing the images has been asking to sourced commentary, this is as likely as sourced as it will ever get. The link I provided was to a Canadian government trademark database listing when the logos were first used and how the logos are described by the copyright owner and by legal terms per the Canadian government. I'm hoping that something like this would work and I would like your opinion on this. If it does work, I encourage you to find an American counterpart to this service.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 22:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

All right. Is there something like this for the United States?  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

ONTv logo

If the original is copyrighted, then you can't just draw your own version and claim it to be the original logo. For one thing, it isn't the original logo - it's just your version of it - and secondly, if it's a replication of the original, it is still non-free because it's a derivative work of the original. Black Kite 17:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's been sent to PUI for discussion. Black Kite 18:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

AutoEd

Please stop using AutoEd to clean up the articles. It doesn't do anything to the pages and is only putting in spaces where they were not before. The pages do not need the cleanup you are performing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Stargate Universe

Seriously, STOP reverting the numbers back in. You're obviously well-intentioned, and I have no doubt you're only doing what you feel is right. However, this is becoming disruptive. I've no problem discussing this or with pointing you to the relevant recent discussions (there are lots) but if you insist on edit warring over it then that becomes a problem above and beyond the content issue. Editors have been blocked for insisting on doing what you're doing. Again, this is not a threat, but a plea for you to stop your actions before it becomes necessary. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

List

Most seasons are released in seperate volumes, and than later released in one complete box set.. The article sais that a Complete Box Set will be released later, while i'm gessing that Stargate Universe won't be one of the few shows in the world without a Complete season box set releases. --TIAYN (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And i'll do the same two you (WP:3RR). Powergate92, the writer of the article clearly stated this is not 100% sure. (Comment section) + that the information came from an interview, so they think it will might happen. And the article opens up with a "may", which means they aren't sure!!! --TIAYN (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm blocking you :D --TIAYN (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You have reverted me three times, and the source your using aren't even sure about the two volumes.... --TIAYN (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You have reverted me three times? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Stargate_Universe_episodes&action=history. And as i have said to you, your source is not even sure if the show is going to be released in two volumes. Your source opens up with a "may". And the writer, David Read sais:

Folks, please remember that this is yet to be confirmed. I placed a question mark in the title because it has yet to be verified — not because I wrote it in disbelief. Just keep it in mind, it is still early and there is no guarantee until a formal announcement is made.

--TIAYN (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin note Both of you, drop it and keep this on the article talk page. Honestly, I could easily block both of you right now for this behaviour. TIAYN, you should really know better given that you just had a block for the same revert issues a few weeks ago. As for Powergate92, you were edit warring earlier today at Stargate Universe and you are breaching the spirit of the 3RR rules at the list. Note that you do not have the right to revert three times; that is only a benchmark for the guideline, and it is not a target you should be aiming for. 3RR blocks come for violations of the spirit of the rules as much as they do for the technical details. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Consensus and ideas can change over time, especially when someone in that discussion has been banned.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

MOS:UNLINKDATES

Last I checked, this particular aspect of the manual of style was extremely disputed over its usage. Before you continue to use automated edits that are not labeled as automated to unlink the dates all over, I'd like you to show me that this particular aspect of the MOS is widely accepted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My edits were not automated. WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) is a Wikipedia guideline and I do not see any current discussion at WT:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) about it being "extremely disputed over its usage". Powergate92Talk 04:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There were two separate arbitration cases about it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you add the links for the "two separate arbitration cases about it"? Also if it's "extremely disputed over its usage" then why is it still part of WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)? Powergate92Talk 04:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what has come about of it or why it's not mentioned anywhere on that page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)