Misplaced Pages

User talk:TexasAndroid/Archive3: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:TexasAndroid Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:00, 11 July 2006 editTawker (talk | contribs)Administrators18,670 edits AVB← Previous edit Revision as of 14:02, 12 July 2006 edit undoPorky Pig (talk | contribs)99 edits AVBNext edit →
Line 60: Line 60:


No idea who set it to angry, I reset it to calm -- ] 22:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC) No idea who set it to angry, I reset it to calm -- ] 22:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

==]==
This all stems from a debate at ]. I do not have a problem with an administrator or editor advising me on my talk page about an issue with images; however, when an editor simply changes a user page without any discussion that is vandalism. I advised him to stop and he did not, so I reciprocated. Unfortunately, instead of remaining neutral you have chosen sides. This reflects poorly on your ability to be an impartial administrator, in fact it could be interpreted as . Cordially ] 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:02, 12 July 2006

Archived talk, 2005
Archived talk, First half, 2006


Encyclopedist

Hello, TexasAndroid. You seem to be the admin. who blocked Encyclopedist's account. When may he edit again? I find that I could collaborate with him on Latin American history projects - especially the article at Military history of Mexico. I am pretty sure that whatever he did isn't so bad, or that his work with articles overshadows it. I am currently working on Brazilian military history projects, so I am in no rush. Just asking a general question. OMEN 19:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is very unfortunate. Perhaps if I could contact him, I could get him to apologize. I wish I had some help - it's sad that this happened, considering that he was, I assume a good contributor. OMEN 03:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

tb2 warnings

Thanks for the heads up. I have jumped into said discussion. :) joshbuddy, talk 15:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to "Here is my attack"

Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire.εγκυκλοπαίδεια*14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Addendum: It is my wish to make it clear that I want to return to the encyclopedia, and I am asking that my block may be lifted so I can continue my work here. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*
Of course I apologize, to John Reid and to the WIkipedia Community. I said so even on his talk page. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*16:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I will never vandalize again. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*16:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I believe this account should have already been blocked as a sockpuppet. MyApology 17:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me so much

I am deeply sorry for the sins I have commited here. I hope my reëntry here will be sincerely welcomed. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would like 'all of my pages restored :-) Thank you. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Rakshasa (fiction)

How about putting it under Category:Public domain characters, or perhaps a new category : Category:Mythological characters in fiction (which could also include the numerous comic book characters based on mythology)? --Grammatical error 15:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you just proposed about creating a new category and subcategorising it under Category:Mythological characters. Also, there are many "mythological" characters in comic books (who will be put in multiple categories if this goes ahead, because of the obvious Category:Marvel Comics characters or whatever that will already be there) that it would be a useful category and quickly filled up. --Grammatical error 15:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow...that was quick work. There is also some stuff on the Asura (disambiguation page that could be cut and pasted into a new Asura (fiction article in the new category, leaving just the important mythological information and a link to the new fiction page.--Grammatical error 15:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

thank you

thx for pointing me to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tobias Conradi. Btw, you can call me Tobias, but I will not WP:CIV you. I know people in Germany that find it offensive to be called by plain family name. best Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Helen Betty Osborne

You did not complete the process of registering your copyright violation concerns regarding the article Helen Betty Osborne. So, I reverted your edit. I have reviewed the link you provided and found that just three paragraphs out of the article were copied from (or near copies of) the link. I have completely rewritten or removed the offending paragraphs. If you find any further parts of the article that you consider to be infringing on copyright, please identify those parts and we can deal with them. I would prefer not to have an entire article that is mostly original content deleted just becase a few small elements of it are in violation when we can easily correct such small problems. Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Meta-humans

What sort of DC meta-humans would fall under the umbrage of Mutation origin instead of Science origin, then? Ryulong 21:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I really have no idea. DC is not normally into the whole Mutant thing. There likely are a few, somewhere, but finding them might mean sifting through the pages of a lot of DC characters. :) You could also look through the history of the page and see who originally added that comment, and then see if they are still active on the project. If so, maybe they can give you an idea of what they had in mind. :) - TexasAndroid 21:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll check on that. Ryulong 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It appears that the first person who put that in used Fire (comics) as an example, but she got her powers from an external source (Pyroplasm, or some sort of accident), and was then had her minor fire-breathing powers magnified by a "meta-gene bomb". With this, I don't think there are really any DC characters who are considered "Mutation". Ryulong 21:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Better to remove the DC reference then, than to give incorrect examples. If anyone can come up with an appropriate example, it can be re-added easily enough. - TexasAndroid 21:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

AVB

No idea who set it to angry, I reset it to calm -- Tawker 22:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Netscott

This all stems from a debate at Category:Anti-Semitic people. I do not have a problem with an administrator or editor advising me on my talk page about an issue with images; however, when an editor simply changes a user page without any discussion that is vandalism. I advised him to stop and he did not, so I reciprocated. Unfortunately, instead of remaining neutral you have chosen sides. This reflects poorly on your ability to be an impartial administrator, in fact it could be interpreted as Administrator abuse. Cordially Porky Pig 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)