User talk:Yrgh/Archive/Archive 01

Elizabeth Snyder

Hi there, your article is up for deletion discussion. Please feel free to join in via the link in the article Bwithh 05:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during November 21 2006 (UTC) to Pat Falken Smith

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Additionally, stop removing any and all links to soapcentral.com.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the links, now, and replacing them with two unrelated ones, unless you have a decent reason as to why Wikipedia should not link to soapcentral.com—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove this warning or my comments to you, please. I would like a response.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply. The above is a valid warning.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by disruption and bad-faith editing, for a period of 24 hours. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. --Slowking Man 09:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've unblocked you. In the future, keep in mind that removing the same content from lots of articles without an explanation (such as in the edit summary) is generally a Bad Thing, as is removing messages from your Talk page inquiring about said edits immediately after they're posted. --Slowking Man 22:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daytime TV ratings

I have nominated the article you started, "Daytime TV ratings," for deletion per Wikipedia policy (mainly Wikipedia not being a place for lists of statistics and nothing else). Please comment on the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daytime TV ratings. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your AFDs

All of the AFDs you made today were malformed, you failed to use the proper templates or follow the instructions. For one thing, none got added to the list - meaning no one else knows, except people who go to the article, that the article is up for deletion. I suggest you read the instructions and try again. --Golbez 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I'm sorry for calling you an asshole, but it was a long time ago. I didn't think you made good edits when you first started, but now I see that you are a valuable editor. Sorry. Juppiter 06:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y&R cast list

You keep changing Gloria Abbott's name back to Gloria Fisher, but she is referred to in the end credits as, and refers to herself as, "Gloria Abbott". Kogsquinge 07:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually was making changes to the character lists before I set up a proper Wiki account , trying to make things appear logical and succinct. (At the risk of sounding smug, a big chunk of the text that got ported from the old "Longtime characters of Y&R" page was mine.) What I was doing before the merge was including the maiden names of the women, which usually indicated which family they were really involved with; they should probably be sorted alphabetically by maiden name (minus the obvious exceptions--Nikki Newman, Jill Foster Abbott and Drucilla Winters) to make it a little easier to deal with. Bill Crawford 18:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soap Opera External Links

Regarding your changes to Soap Opera external links. I noticed you made these changes You deleted one listing but kept Soaps: Silly Suds or Social Conscience? listing up. That link above is obvious article/search engine spam, and not welcome in wikipedia. I also noticed you deleted SoapCentral.com not too long ago. This is also a relevant listing to Soap Operas IMO. (Beano33 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC));[reply]

Soap opera AfDs

Please tell me if you're going to create an AfD nomination for the articles you have tagged. If I don't see any nominations or a reply to this message in the next hour or so, I'm going to remove the tags you've placed on articles. J Di ^talk 13:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dune

I'd believe you when you say the Dune articles need references, except you tagged the 'Dune: House Corrino article, which is like one paragraph! And it's from the book the page is about! It looks like I'm not the only one who has issues with some of your edits, so don't take mine so personally. TAnthony

WHERE's the proof that I'm mad at you!? Vandalism? Says who? Page needs to be checked for accuracy.

I don't want to start a war, but it's obvious you looked on my recent contribution list and picked a few articles to tag. COME ON! The House Corrino article is one paragraph, why is it you picked that one and not one of the other dozen books that actually have something written in them? And the Hagal page? I'm sorry I said you were mad at me in the edit notes, but no one cares. TAnthony 21:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I really can't believe what a 2-year-old you are! But I am going to leave your notability tags alone because I didn't create these articles and there are plenty of people monitoring them that can argue the point. And by the way, Mentats and the Suk School are notable within the Dune universe, which itself is one of the most acclaimed sci-fi series in existence. If that much happenens at Genoa City University, maybe there should be an article. You seem to think the minutae of Daytime is important, why don't you stick to what you know? Clearly you know nothing about Dune, or about editing on Wikipedia for that matter TAnthony 23:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City of Villains

May I ask you why exactly you tagged the page with {{notability}}? The game is notable, and is actually a sequel of a game that is on its way to becoming a good article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the article on City of Heroes. Anyway, deletion is not required, as the game is notable (it has won awards/praise from various sources). Just because the article needs a re-write does not mean it should be deleted in the mean-time.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD's

I understand that you have tagged several articles for afd's. Those articles are suitable for deletion, but try to finish the deletion process. Here's the deletion process: link. Thanks!

I also understand that other users have complained at you...if you do have any problems or questions about Wikipedia, you can always ask me on my talk page. Thanks! Sr13 02:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raging Stallion

Hi, and thanks for your work on the article. For future reference, please be sure to follow every link you create that goes "live" to make sure it's pointing where it should. Eleven of the links in the list were pointing to other people's articles with the same name as the porn performer. I edited the links by adding "(porn star)" to the article name and piping the performer's name for the list by adding a " | ", as: [[foo (porn star)|foo]]. Anyway, just remember to check the links before you save the page. (If you want to see the changes I made, go here.) Thanks again.—Chidom ^talk 08:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vendetta?

Sorry, but your addition of tags to the Dune-related pages is starting to look like some sort of vendetta. Maybe you could discuss on the relevant discussion pages exactly what you find objectionable about the Frank Herbert and Duniverse articles? --SandChigger 09:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean a vendetta against Dune...but you probably know that. True, a lot of the articles need to be rewritten, and probably a few are unnecessary. Which parts of the Frank Herbert article are not credible? --SandChigger 09:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitization

Hi, I've noticed you capitalizing all words in section headings in many of your edits. I wanted to point out that this is incorrect Wikipedia policy for headings; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Wording. Only the first letter is to be capitalized, unless a proper noun is used (Name or Title). Also, you keep putting in soap opera title links with capital "the" and "to", but proper English has these articles and particples lowercase; if you look at the article totles themselves, they are correctly spelled One Life to Live, As the World Turns, etc. Finally, when alphabetizing titles, any "The" or "A" used at the beginning is ignored (which is why your B&B change was reverted). "As" is not an article/participle and so is considered the first word in the title. I hope I've ben of help, and thanks for your contributions! TheRhani 01:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

Please note that randomly tagging articles for WP:AFD is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please stop now before you are blocked for your disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hey, there! I notice you've recently tagged a large number of articles with {{afd}} -- please take a moment to complete each nomination, so that we can be assured that you have a rationale to begin the discussion. Mass-tagging like that may be considered disruptive, if performed without a good explanation. Thanks! Luna Santin 01:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please review our deletion policy to determine what articles should be nominated for deletion or speedy deletion. The full process of how to list an article for deletion can be found here. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? 01:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dune planets

(←Created page with 'STRONG DELETE: This "list" should be included as a section in the Dune main page TAnthony 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh')[reply]

The main Dune page is already long, this and other articles were purposely split off the main one. In the case of Dune planets, many minor Dune planet links redirect here, if you checked the "What links here". Why is List of One Life to Live characters deserving of its own article and this one isn't? Because you're crazy. TAnthony 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: PERSONALLY ATTACKED!

I've left the user in question a note. I'd prefer it if the both of you could work this out amicably. For your part, please try to calm down and work past what was probably just a frustrated comment. Luna Santin 02:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please calm down. Also, stop blanking portions of the talk page. Remember, it is not your talk page, it is the community's. Sr13 (T|C) 02:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that two wrongs don't make a right. Don't blame others for an offense when you have committed an offense. Just admit it, and move on.

Also, Juppiter has apologized about his blatant remark. TAnthony has only critiqued you. Please consider what you are doing before you talk about what others have done. Thank you. Sr13 (T|C) 02:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will notify TAnthony of the situation. Sr13 (T|C) 03:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THE NEXT TIME you want to refer to something someone else has said on my talk page, COPY IT rather than editing the original comment. I frankly couldn't care less about what names you have been called by someone else. NOT MY PROBLEM. --SandChigger 08:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy. But so is leaving unsigned comments. And generally trying to cause trouble. You should reread Sr13's comment above about cleaning up your own house before advising others on theirs. --SandChigger 09:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

And the point of that was...? I'm sorry for the comments, I had misread an edit summary. Konman72 08:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about it, as I'm not an administrator; what you'll probably want to do is take the issue to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and see what they have to say. If that fails, go to the Wikipedia:Mediation committee, and see what results. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 17:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TAnthony

Look, I'm sorry if I lost my cool, but I (and others) have repeatedly "played fair" with you and yet you continue your incorrect and misguided tagging. I have tried to be objective and indulge you, thinking that perhaps some articles you've tagged do need to be better sourced, etc. But you have tagged several articles that are clearly sourced, or stubs, or notable, which makes your opinion about such things questionable. I am not the only one who feels this way about some of your edits; if I was, I would shut up. Please realize that when you tag an article for AfD, you're requiring people to spend a lot of time "justifying" articles that are perfectly fine.

I would also ask that you take some of the advice left here; for example, one user above has informed you about not capitalizing all of the words in section headers and article names, and yet you've just created the History Of General Hospital (2000-Present) article and capitalized "of" in both the title and the header. You have repeatedly "corrected" articles with this type of thing. You cite "Wikipedia standards" in many of your tags but seem to repeatedly ignore some yourself.

I will not be "attacking" you anymore, but please try to be much more careful in your edits. TAnthony 00:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, I see you're still mad. Look, I'm sorry I called you an idiot, but you're acting like I ran over your dog! I tried to get my point across to you the regular way, but you continued with the tagging and I got frustrated. I admit I'm stubborn in that I stand by my opinions about some of your edits, but you're stubborn too because you won't listen to anyone else. I never said you didn't contribute a lot to Wikipedia or that every edit you make is bad. But on two different days you tagged many articles AfD or whatever, which was disruptive because the majority of these articles were fine, and your reasoning was unclear. Can we just get over this and move on? TAnthony 15:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior

You have been advised several times by myself and others to please follow Wikipedia conventions in your edits, and yet you continue to make edits that must immediately be reverted. I apologized for insulting you, and it was an honest apology. Unfortunately you didn't take the opportunity to accept my apology, and if you feel you're being railroaded off WP I don't really have any sympathy. I think you could've been a GREAT editor, but you continue to blow it big time.

Juppiter 05:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way.... You added a LOT of unproven rumors to Wikipedia, which is against the rules, and it was annoying for me to have to revert all that, so I called you an asshole. On further investigation, I realized that a lot of your edits were worthwhile and you were just inexperienced, and I made an honest apology for calling you an asshole much earlier. Now, your behavior has led me to believe that I was right the first time. This is my last word on the subject... I'm sorry we couldn't get along, and I'll continue to revert any edits you make that include unproven rumors. Juppiter 05:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Your peers, Juppiter and TAnthony have apologized for their actions, yet you run them down on the talk pages. Please assume good faith, which includes accepting their apologies as honest and truthful. Please correct yourself accordingly. Sr13 (T|C) 09:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Sr13

I'm sorry you have to feel discouraged about being a Wikipedian because of those personal attacks, but you should shape up yourself first.

Here are all of the policies that you broke:

You refuse to remain cool and civil after being told repeatedly by others (SandChigger, Juppiter, TAnthony, Luna Santin).

You have been blocked previously for disruption.

You have refused to take an apology as honest and truthful and retorted with a personal attack on his talk page (both here).

Juppiter has apologized here and warned you here.

You have been warned by others here.

TAnthony has apologized here.

So please, shape up. Thank you. Sr13 (T|C) 06:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yrgh, why are you still pursuing these attacks? The other editors have apologized and moved on, this issue seems to be resolved per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. You were definitely attacked, but it has stopped and these users clearly will not be harrassing you in the future. What kind of reprimand are you expecting for these users? They know they were wrong and other users have pointed that out to them. By perpetuating this, you are in essence committing your own attack. Please focus your energies on making sure your edits fall within Wikipedia guidelines, and let this issue go. TheRhani 01:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PEOPLE AGREE THAT THOSE USERS WERE RIGHT TO PERSONALLY ATTACK REPEATDELY. WOULDN'T U B ANGRY!?

I don't think anyone agrees that they should have attacked you. And I am angry that they called you names, there is no place for that here, but it is over. I understand you're probably feeling singled out because a lot of people seem to be criticizing your edits (including me, and I don't mean to be difficult). Obviously they don't like you and you don't like them, so you should agree to disagree and move on. I don't think an Adminstrator will escalate this any further because the attacks have stopped and the violators have responded thoughtfully. Yes, they may seem a little condescending, but they have not been inappropriate in their responses and have made reasonable points about your own behavior. I think your Wikistress level will go way down if you can put this out of your mind! Good luck ... TheRhani 01:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

User:Centrx removed your complaint on the RFC talk page because it was not formatted correctly. You placed it on the RFC talk page, while it specifically says that is where you *do not* place grievances. You need to read WP:RFC and file a complaint under "user conduct" if you want to make a grievance about another editor. Please read the directions if you do decide to do this. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, you are not reading directions and filing your RFC correctly. This editor had to remove your grievance because it was not correctly formatted, again. Please read the entire page and follow directions. You're only making it more difficult than it has to be. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I don't know whether you're truly unaware as to how to file an RFC, or if you're just being difficult. Please follow directions on WP:RFC and file a complaint that way. I will not walk you through it as the directions are simple enough to understand. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay porn stars

As is very clearly stated in every section of the article, please do not wikilink names on the List of gay porn stars until articles for those porn stars have been created. You added links for Adam Faust, Antonio Vela, Arpad Miklos, and Zeb Atlas, none of whom have articles here. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk 19:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion notice

A tag has been placed on Morgan Shagwell, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Seraphimblade 04:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay porn stars (again)

Please don't delete the names listed as "a.k.a." for performers, as you did by deleting "Greg Grove" for "Matthew Rush". What resulted was "Matthew Rush" being listed under "G" as well as "M"; "Greg Grove" was properly listed under "G" as that is Matthew Rush's birth name.

Please also leave the link to the name that is the article of the title. Your change to Lukas Ridgeston was incorrect. The link should be to Lukas Ridgeston, which is the name of the article, not to Lucas Ridgeston, which redirects to the former.

Also, as I explained on my talk page, there should not be links on the list unless an article exists. Please add the links after you have written the article, not beforehand. The instructions on the page are very clear:

"PLEASE DON'T WIKILINK NAMES UNLESS THERE IS AN ARTICLE ON THE PERSON AS A PORNOGRAPHIC ACTOR." (emphasis added)

This is the second time I have made my request; if you continue to do this, I'll ask that you be blocked from editing. Thank you.—Chidom ^talk 08:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GayVN Awards

Please be more careful in your edits. I have removed the list of 2006 nominees that you added to this article; the article very clearly states:

"The award recipients are listed below." (emphasis added)

As I said in my edit summary, if you'd like to start a separate article for the nominees, feel free to do so. What wouldn't fit in the summary, however, is that I wouldn't advise it, as it most likely will be deleted under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The list of recipients should suffice.—Chidom ^talk 08:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Images

Please stop indiscriminately adding DVD images to article pages. Under Wikipedia:Fair use, the images should really only be there if the DVD in question is being discussed. I realize that's not always the case; adding additional images isn't appropriate. It's also very important to source any information you add to an article; I note that none of what you added to Gianfranco (porn star) includes sources. (My bad; I misread the differences screen.)

Please do spend some time reading the information to be found at the links at the top of this page before continuing to edit. It seems that I am not the only one having to undo your editing; you could yourself and everyone else a lot of work if you educated yourself a bit more. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk 08:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks

I'm looking at your edits to Tim Barnett (porn star), and there are some good ones. Thanks; I know you're trying to help and contribute. That's a Good Thing.

On the other hand, some of your edits aren't good ones:

Wikilinking Barnett's birth name (Bradford Wagner) is pointless. There won't be a separate article for tim Barnett under his birth name. (I created a redirect page for that name just in case someone searches for him that way; but it's not likely.)
Adding wikilinks in articles to non-existent articles creates two problems, one cosmetic, and one functional.

Cosmetically, it fills the page with red links and makes it ugly.
Functionally, it creates a possible future problem. Let's say that there's someone named "Bardo Banger" in a cast list for a porn film, and the name is linked, even though there's no article for Bardo yet. Then someone comes along and writes an article about a totally different "Bardo Banger" (who happens to be—let's say—the new Prime Minister of Bahoola-hoolaland). Prime Minister Banger isn't going to enjoy having his name included in porn flick cast lists; people reading the porn film article probably aren't looking for info about Prime Minister Banger when they follow a linked name from the article, either.

So, as on the List of gay porn stars page, wait until after an article has been created before creating links
Make sure the link points where it's supposed to; test links after you've created them; if they're not right, fix them or delete them.

You created a wikilink to "Who's Your Daddy?" In the Aaron Austin article. In the article, "Who's Your Daddy?" refers to a film that Austin worked on. Linking it, however, only points toward a disambiguation page; his film isn't listed there, and it's not likely to get an article here, so it shouldn't be linked.

Other things you did are good, but easier to accomplish:

For images, use the format [[Image:Name of image.jpg|thumb|image caption]]

All links to images should begin with the word "Image:"
Actually use the word "thumb"—it sizes the image according to each individual user's preferences (if they've set one; otherwise it defaults to 250px)
A "thumb" automatically displays to the right of the page, so there's that much less coding to type

Finally, it's always a good idea, if you're not 100% sure that you should be making an edit, to ask a question about it on the article's talk page.

Thanks.—Chidom ^talk 10:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re new version of your user page

Look, no one hates you. Thinking of it that way is just playing some kind of persecution game, trying to tell yourself that you're completely blameless in all this. People have just become frustrated by your behavior, that's all. The solution is obvious if you calm down and think about it.

As for what you are terming "personal attacks", well, so someone got angry and called you a name, or criticized you...so what? Nobody's perfect, not them and not you. Whenever anybody criticizes you, the first thing you should do is examine your own behavior in the matter and consider whether there is any validity to the criticism, not overreact and blow things completely out of proportion. In your zeal to defend yourself, you're violating more WP guidelines (like not signing comments, proper RFC procedures) than the people you think are "attacking" you.

Everyone has something to contribute here. Why not focus instead on what you can do to help improve Wikipedia? --SandChigger 10:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Please don't delete unused parameters (or "fields") from the templates if they could or would be used later. Deleting the "death" filed, for example, means that information can't easily be updated in the future. It doesn't bother anything to leave them there empty. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk 11:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of General Hospital (1963-1969)

I have closed the discussion and moved it to the title that does not have the "O" capitalized. If I find that you create any more forks or revert this article or any others to "Of," I will block you for 24 hours so you can get acquainted with Wikipedia guidelines, which it has been obvious you either have not been reading, or just disregarding. Please do not argue with me and just take this as a warning to get acquainted with guidelines. Thank you. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove block warnings from your talk page. "Hiding evidence" like this is not acceptable under Wikipedia conventions. Remember you don't even own your talk page, as Wikipedia is something everyone can edit. If you remove this notice again, I will have to block you for 24 hours. You have been warned about your behavior over and over again, and your removal of this notice will confirm, to me, that you know you will need to be blocked by ignoring such behavior. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The change you just made

The change you just made to the archiving stuff at the top of your talk page will make Werdnabot archive sections that are twenty days old, not twenty hours. J Di ^talk 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This comment was left on a user page. Comments for users are meant to be left on talk pages. Please also stop writing comments in capitals, as it looks like shouting. Thanks. J Di ^talk 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I've blocked you for 48 hours, due to my warnings to you on other subjects, and most recently for your edits to Illuminati and Michael A. Newton, which I think you know you copied from another website. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 16:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Drawn Together

Please explain why you reverted my edit. [1] Putting an end date of November 15, 2006 suggests that the show is completely over, which it is not. The show's status is in doubt right now, but it has not been officially cancelled, and even if it had been, there are still shows left to air.Raymondluxuryacht 17:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]