Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Strong atheism. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! John254 20:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Heroes (TV series)
As stated in my edit summary, a person's age cannot be said to be "Not applicable". Secondly, "sparks a romantic relationship" is grammatically unsound - people don't "spark" a relationship. Factors and circumstances do. Please address these concerns before you revert again. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Your edits are in violation of WP:MOS when it comes to headers. In addition, "origination" is not the word you think it means (it's not even good English in this context); Salaryman and Cam whore are not split words or capitalized respectively; Nathan has to be older than Peter; Peter's power has been confirmed by a reference. Keep this up without explanation and I will assume that your are purposely being disruptive and I will block you accordingly. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- When you do not reply to overtures on your talk page, and simply revert back to your own edits without explanation despite the reasons given to you in edit summaries, then it becomes very difficult to assume good faith. If you can edit the article, you can edit your own talk page, so I don't see what the difficulty is. I don't apologize for the warning: at least it got your attention. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Your recent edits to Heroes (TV Series)
Help Desk question
Of all the things you have noted in your response on my talk page, I can only see two that there appear to be actual disputes about. One is Peter's powers: note that I am not the one who initially changed it from "Flight, possible precognition" (or variations thereof) to "Power mimicry", but I do agree with the change, for the simple reason that it is cited and verifiable, and from a reliable source, established on screen yet or no. However, this is something that should be discussed on the article talk page.
The other thing that can be disputed is Nathan's age — >30 is just as valid as "Unknown". We know he's older than Peter, and Peter is 30. How is that invalid? And as for your own research that shows he is 41, unless you can provide a citation, that's original research. But again, this is something that can be further discussed on the article talk page.
Finally, as to your complaint that your edit was reverted 2 seconds after you posted it, I'm not sure which edit you're talking about (or how you even known it was re-edited two seconds after, since Wikipedia only counts in terms of minutes), so I can't comment about that. You should bring up the two things I've mentioned on the article talk page if you want to discuss them further with other editors of the article. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.