User talk:Order 66

User:Ruggles

Order 66, have you noticed that we have reverted Ruggles's edits 10 times. Why don't you leave a message on his talk page and tell him about Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources, and how to make more constructive edits. You don't have to do it. I can do it instead, after I talk to an administrator. Marcus 16:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding rubbish to 24 Pages

please stop adding rubbish such as red herring to geal ortega and other 24 pages. It is considered nonsence and therofe vandalism.This s a warning another revert will be in violation of the 3rr rule and you will be reported.--Lucy-marie 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how it's vandalism

Firstly please sign comments with the 4 ~

The succession boxes are there for the sake of succession boxes and addd littl eor no value or even reduce the value of the page. It is also no notable for the page and the trivia section could be seen as advertising Television without pity. If you believe that these are highly valuable to te article and add significantly to its quality please explain how they do.

Also I found other succession boxes such as Kim Bauers love intrest which are clearly no notable at all. If we are to allow this user box we may aswell allow that one and add hundreds of user boxes to tv character pages even for the most minor of characters. I even found a succession box on the page list of 24 minor characters which is clearly not a welcome addition.--Lucy-marie 17:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how can you call it vandalism? It just categories the people on the show. Gael was a red herring. They believed him to be a double agent working against CTU when he wasn't. That clearly defines him as a red herring.

As for the Graham page, I made that page. I was the first to create that page, so I think I have a little more authority on that page than you do.

Thirdly, those succession boxes have been there for a long time, so what gives you the authority to say that it's vandalism. If anyone else is the world agreed with you, they would've been gone already. Order_66

I see what you are saying but regardless of how long they have been there unless you can justify them they do not belong. Just because you create a page gives you no more authority than any other user on this encyclopedia. The only people with more authority are Administrators. The use of succession boxes must be used apropriatly or people could justifably put down any succession box they like and say oh but its part oof the show and its the truth, but it still dosent make it encyclopedic. If you can justify them they can stay if not they do not belong here. I could add catagories for every minor character in 24 that i wanted like a succession box of Jack Bauers kills but that would be pointless and uncyclopedic which is just what these succession boxes are regardless of how true they are. It is like the recently delete nonsence template of Jack Bauers love intrests that was considered "useless" by the admin who delted It. So unless it is justified it dosen't belong.--Lucy-marie 01:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me state my thoughts more clearly: The boxes aren't talking about small, stupid little things. Gael being a red herring had a major effect on the plot. Gael was not working against CTU, he was in a major plan launched by Jack and Tony. Now see, what you're saying is true: we don't want it to get too ridiculous, but the how are the boxes that are there now ridiculous? If we have a succession box showing when Tony was in charge of CTU, and show who followed and preceded him, how is that vandalism? It helps people get the order of the many villians and characters straight, and otherwise they'd have to go through a million pages just to learn what the succesion box shows. I mean, 24 has so many different villians every season. So wouldn't be easier to go to the Logan page and look at the succesion box to see what who was the villian that preceded and/or followed him instea dof going through every villian's page?. Like in Season 5, for example, near the end of the season there were 4 antagonists working at once: Henderson, Bierko, Graham, and Logan. Somebody may ask: well, who's working with whom? That's what the boxes are for. The boxes position each of those villians in the best order as possible. Graham's succes box is 24's last villian (along but seperate from Christopher Henderson.) Can you deny the verifiability in that claim? Graham wasn't working directly with Henderson, but they had similar motives. Especially when it comes to the CTU directors. They change so many times over the course of one season, it gets confusing. As for Graham, well, as you stated, if it's equal authority, than you have no more authority over me than I do over you, so I could just as easily report you for vandalizing the page. I haven't insulted you, your intelligence, nor am i going around saying Gael is gay or something like that, I'm just doing what I feel is right, just like you are.Order_66

We both have difering opinions on these issues but REd Herring is an interpretation and could be argued against like i have been doing, but the CTU directorship cannot be argued against as there is clear line of successionthat is easy to work out. With the redherring and others it is a matter of opinion who is the main villan and who is a red herring we could argue nina was the first red herring but that would not be practical. So unless it is Tangable and not subject to interpritation such as presidents on The West Wing or presidents on Commander In Cheif. So red herring is not hard and fast but subject to ambiguity. So unless it is hard and fast it is in my opinion unencyclopedic. Im sorry if you found me rude or offensive during or discussions.--Lucy-marie 16:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, I know arguments sometimes get out of hand. I'm sorry too if it seemed like I was rude throughout any of this. You know, I do see your point. The only one I will say though: isn't Graham's succession box encyclopedic? He was the last villain introduced in season 5, just like Mandy was the last villain introduced in Season 4.

I've really lost the energy to argue anymore, so m going to drop the issue. But thanks for your candor throughout all this. It's good to know that at least some people care for the quality of wikipedia's pages when so many others just come in to spam it. Order_66

Thanks glad you noticed I had good intentions.--Lucy-marie 12:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Rossler

See my thread in the minor 24 characters' discussion page. --T smitts 19:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Rossler plays a role. Except for the odd civilian or government worker, nearly every character on 24 plays a role. The question is how big was that role really in the long term? Same goes for Theo Stoller and Collete Stenger. Yes they all gave Jack and CTU information that brought them a bit closer to stopping the terrorists, but throughout 24's run there have been countless characters who showed up, gave the heroes some critical information, then went away never to be seen again.

They include people like Jason Park (confessed about Second Wave's planned attack on L.A. at the start of Day 2), Raymond O'Hara (confessed to Jack that Peter Kingsley was the mastermind of Day 2's events), Kalil Hasan (confessed that Heller was a target), Joe Prado (gave up the location of one of Marwan's hideouts), and Lee Jong (gave up another of Marwan's hideouts). If we added every one of them, the list would become ridiculously long.

Conversely, there are some characters who appeared briefly, yet whose actions significantly affected plot and major characters and whose consequences were longer lasting. Examples include:

Mitch Anderson shot down Air Force One, taking President Keeler out of the equation and elevating Logan to office, which indirectly set up season 5 as well since Logan being in office would lead to Jack being forced to fake his death as well as putting Logan in a key position for the Sentox nerve gas conspiracy. Anderson's attack also allowed Marwan to access the nuclear football, which increased the stakes for the rest of season 4.
Haas assassinated David Palmer, a major character during the first four seasons of 24. The assassination is a catalyst for much of what happens throughout the day.
Ostroff unleashed nerve gas into CTU, killing several people, including two major characters Edgar Stiles and Lynn McGill. This would also lead to CTU being absorbed by Homeland Security for the rest of the day and introducing us to Karen Hayes.

There simply isn't room for every single one or two-episode character who came in, did their part, and either were killed off or went away.--T smitts 23:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Erica Vasquez (Jamey's mother) was removed from the list long ago. Like her, Rossler's involvement in the story was essentially confined to a single episode.--T smitts 00:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]