User talk:Copperchair: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →

Revision as of 02:49, 8 October 2005 editMarudubshinki (talk \| contribs)49,641 editsm Reverted edits by Copperchair to last version by Clawson← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:22, 8 October 2005 edit undoMarudubshinki (talk \| contribs)49,641 editsm Reverted edits by Copperchair to last version by MarudubshinkiNext edit →
(No difference)

Revision as of 03:22, 8 October 2005

Welcome!

Hello, Copperchair, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Misplaced Pages documentation, there's also Misplaced Pages:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 09:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome for real this time. I see you're into Star Wars in some way. In that case you might wish to look over the many Star wars stub articles needing expansion. There's plenty there, and plenty more arrive all the time. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them on my talk page. Welcome once again. I trust you enjoy your stay. --Longhair | Talk 09:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Afghan deaths

I already gave you a link to the ISAF page, on August 20, and you deleted it without saying a word. But here it is anyway:

This is from the official ISAF website: "KABUL, Afghanistan -- An international military soldier was killed yesterday and three others injured when their vehicle slid off the road east of the Afghan Capital's Bagrami District. The accident occurred at 1635 local time as the soldiers' 3-vehicle convoy was returning to their base. No other vehicles were involved."

That was dated August 7, 2005. Later, on August 10, from a Dutch news site: "BERLIN - A German soldier serving with international forces in Afghanistan was killed in a traffic accident, a Defence Ministry spokesman said Wednesday in Berlin.

Three other soldiers, two Germans and a Hungarian, suffered slight injuries when the vehicle travelling in a convoy overturned on Sunday near Kabul after the driver lost control in a deeply rutted road, the spokesman said. "

The Dutch story corresponds with the ISAF announcement. Here is an American website which takes note of the German death: It says, at the bottom of the page, "A German soldier stationed in Afghanistan was killed in a vehicle accident, the German Defense Ministry said Wednesday. " The news story is from August 11.

Here are the other 16 German deaths: March 6, 2002: 2 soldiers killed in accidental explosion. December 21, 2002: 7 soldiers killed in helicopter crash. May 29, 2003: 1 soldier killed in mine blast. June 7, 2003: 4 soldiers killed by car bomb. June 26, 2005: 2 soldiers die in accidental explosion. PBP 13:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism.

Cease your vandalism of the Star Wars articles. Continued disruptiion of the articles may get you blocked from Misplaced Pages. Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk)

More to the point, you might wish to familiarise yourself with Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. As I stated in a recent edit summary, consensus on the Talk page was to keep Wedge. It does not follow that, as you claimed in your reversion, "then you have to keep everyone else too."—chris.lawson (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not "messing" with your Talk page, as you put it. We've had this discussion before, and we'll continue to have it until you learn to abide by Misplaced Pages community standards. It is not considered acceptable to blank your Talk page in order to hide legitimate criticism. Furthermore, until you cease your disruption of the Star Wars articles to prove a point, you will continue to be warned here on your Talk page that you are in violation of this policy.--chris.lawson 13:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Also note that I am not accusing you of vandalism. I merely used Link's comment as a frame of reference to point out that you are disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, which is contrary to policy. If you will simply stop doing this, neither I nor anyone else will have reason to leave messages here. ¿Comprende Ud.?

When you start blanking your Talk page to remove this warning, you will be committing vandalism, and you will be warned against that at the appropriate time.--chris.lawson 13:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Apparently that time is now. Please do not blank your user Talk page, or anyone else's. Blanking Talk pages is considered unacceptable. Please create an archive instead; this is an acceptable alternative if you feel your Talk page has become too cluttered.

Also, I'll remind you again that edit summaries are intended to be a truthful, concise summary of the changes you've made to the page. "Sp." is not an appropriate edit summary when making changes other than spelling. You have a history of doing this, and you've been politely advised to change your behaviour before. Please heed the advice this time.--chris.lawson 02:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Your edits to the various Star Wars film articles are contrary to community consensus. Clearly, this does not matter to you. That's OK. I don't mind restoring your blanking ad infinitum. The more rope, the easier to hang yourself with, etc.--chris.lawson 03:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: quote on Revenge of the Sith

The period in the quote "So uncivilized" should lie within the quotation marks, because it is, in fact part of the quote. Periods only lie outside the quotation mark when they are not part of the original quote.

I don't really understand why you keep changing this. Not only has it been pointed out to you numerous times that your version is incorrect, but—and I don't mean to be rude—it's a really, really stupid edit war to continue to get into, seeing as how you are wrong. – Mipadi 04:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Manual of Style says that we should place a period inside the quotation marks when "the sense of finality conveyed by the period is part of the quotation", regardless of whether or not the period is part of the quotation. In this case, the period is both part of the quotation and provides a sense of finality, so that's two strikes against your continued reversions. Please stop.--chris.lawson 04:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Clawson

"Messing up" another users talk page is unacceptable. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --Cool Cat 23:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That' what I say, but you keep doing that to mine. Copperchair 23:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not "messing up" your talk page, and I'm certainly not blanking it. Kindly desist from your vandalism of my talk page, and remember to be civil and not make personal attacks. Also, it would be helpful if you would abide by the consensus reached on the Star Wars Talk pages, as your compliance with this consensus will cause the endless warnings from multiple editors to cease. Until you learn to abide by community consensus, the warnings will continue. If you don't like the warnings, cease the behaviour that is causing them. It's pretty simple.--chris.lawson 23:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 3 hours for blanking another user's talk page. I understand your anger over Clawson messing with your talk page, but blanking his is not the way to react. Please be more civil when your block expires. Ral315 W_S 23:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine

Copperchair, you keep reverting the fact that the pic of him at the bottom of the page is the original version of him. Please don't revert this, that is a fact that needs to be noted in order to distinguish between the various versions of the films. There is no legitimate reason to remove it. It's not like I'm asking you to put Ian McDiarmid's picture in its place, I'm asking you only to keep a few words in. The Wookieepedian 01:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Because I mentioned that he was played by Hayden Christensen there. The Wookieepedian 02:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair, in the case of Palpatine, his appearance has been the subject of debate by many on wikipedia, and his first appearance this way has been specifically stated in the article. With Anakin, there is no real reason to keep the original images in, other than for nastalgia or preference of the original or 1997 Special Edition versions. The Wookieepedian 02:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Working title italics

Why exactly does the working title of Revenge of the Sith not warrant being in italics? Titles are supposed to be italicized. – Mipadi 03:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that working titles were listed on those pages, but if you see that they are, you can feel free to italicize them. Titles, however, should be in italics. – Mipadi 03:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I read your response on Mipadi's Talk page. "Nobody has bothered to fix the other articles" is not an excuse for deliberately contravening the Manual of Style. Instead of reverting to the wrong version, why not fix all the others to make them consistent and meet house style guidelines?--chris.lawson 03:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Thanks to your ceaseless refusal to follow community consensus, you are now the subject of a Request for Comment. You may view your RfC here.--chris.lawson 14:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine

Because I mentioned that he was played by Hayden Christensen there. The Wookieepedian 02:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I've protected Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

I've protected the ESB article until some sort of consensus on how to credit Denis Lawson is established. This is an exceedingly silly edit war, and I'm sure some sort of decision agreeable to all can be made. (Discussion is ongoing here. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

As part of this dispute, you've broken the WP:3RR rule quite a few times. Please stop making reverts and enter into talk page discussions instead. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

...and you reverted Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope a sixth time. Please take advantage of this day off of editing articles to cool down and consider engaging people in conversation on talk pages, instead of reverting with increasingly-acrimonious edit comments. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a decision made on the Episode III talk page about leaving only the main characters and supporting cast, as stated in the end credits. I am just following it. Copperchair 07:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The proper thing to do in such a situation is bring the problem to the attention of other Wikipedians, not revert a half-dozen times. It's clear to me from looking at the RotS talk page that there is no such consensus, and opinions seem to differ about the importance of Denis Lawson's role in ESB (as well as the role of other actors in the other movies).

All that said, if you don't stop edit warring, this is gonna keep happening, as much as I hate to say it. I'm warning everyone who's violated the 3RR, but you kept reverting after I warned you. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

How can I disscuss it if I am blocked? Copperchair 10:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

When the block is up. However, if you're willing to give me your parole that you won't revert any articles, I'd be happy to lift the block; I don't want to block anyone. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to have to retract that offer by necessity; I'm going to bed. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars reverts

I'm just going to have to let the admins handle you. I see you won't give up, and I'm not getting into this crap again. The Wookieepedian 07:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Clawson has filed an RfC against you at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Copperchair. He posted a notice on your talk page before but it was along with an unrelated reversion so you may have missed it—in either case you've yet to respond to it so I thought I might make sure you knew. — Phil Welch 00:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to respond, but I am currently blocked. Copperchair 06:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to fix that. I didn't realize you hadn't replied on the RFC yet. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You're unblocked. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation

I am blocking you for 48 hours for your multiple 3RR violations and ignoring consensus. I have also blocked the Wookieepedian. Also, youve been unblocked for a while and you never commented at your RfC, so I won't let you hide behind that anymore. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

He did reply at his RFC, for what it's worth. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Guwah?

What, the cast listing or your being blocked? Anyway, I would definitely say there is already a consensus. Please drop it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)