Misplaced Pages

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I've found the block.

Martha Jones

My memory seems to have failed me here, I was sure that it had been agreed she was not affiliated with Torchwood but it appears that's not the case. Please feel free to revert, although you may have to defend it with other editors. I'm not expressing an opinion either way. --Rodhullandemu 04:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuity

The only reason it's being removed is because the information is now redundant to what we have in the article. Sceptre 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Slow down there, tiger

As I have pointed out before with others, you need to use the discussion page for matter relating to the article. You are not going to get people to suddenly change their minds by forcing their versions out and offering a two-line edit summary. If anything, it pisses them off and makes them less willing to actually discuss the matter. I say this so folk won't get unduly crabby with you. - Arcayne () 20:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Those edits where you reintroduce edits repeatedly after it is reverted repeatedly. The fact that it is being reverted tells you two things: A) you are dealing with someone who is stubbornly unwilling to discuss their reasoning (or continue discussing it) and B) your repeated introduction indicates that you need to convince folk more. BOLD and IAR are all well and good, but not when they create bad blood. - Arcayne () 20:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite that?

Can you offer a specific citation that lists the missing worlds, ro reinforce this edit? - Arcayne () 15:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Crucible

Hello... FYI, we can't use italics for "Crucible" because we do not know if that is the name of the ship (as with the Valiant) or if instead (as is more likely) it refers to the type of ship (as with the TARDIS). --Ckatz_spy 06:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Donna Noble

Hi. Considering that in Doctor Who Confidential, it said that Catherine had filmed her last scenes and was leaving Doctor Who, surely Journey's End was her last episode? If she returns, we can just remove that field. ~~ 22:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Baman Series

Hi, I looked at Casino Royale (2006 film), and it appears you are correct, so I am re-adding the information. Thanks for the note! Gary King (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed your mind? Gary King (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Personally, and I'm sure with others, it isn't an entirely big deal and I'm sure a lot of articles use it on an article-by-article basis. Gary King (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Series

Being part of a series does not mean that it is in direct continuity with anything. Rob Zombie's Halloween is part of the Halloween film series. Just like Batman Begins and the Friday the 13th remake are part of the Batman film series and Friday the 13th film series, respectively. That is why the "preceded" and "followed by" sections are based on their chronological order of release, and not where they fall in the series. As Halloween III, by your definition for removal, would need to be removed from Halloween II and Halloween IV, as it has nothing to do with any other film in the Halloween film series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Superman Series

Hello. I don't agree with you, but I don't have the time nor the desire to deal with people like yourself. I regret even coming upon the article and editing it in the first place if it meant leading to the beginning of a possible edit war. I don't care enough about the subject to get into an edit war, but I think that this will probably be brought up again with someone else and you'll have to do a better job of presenting your case than you did with me. I'll just go back to editing Pearl Jam and Soundgarden articles. Good day.-5- (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people like yourself. People who will drag someone else into an argument no matter how wrong they are. I reverted them because I felt that they were bad edits and put it back to the way it should be. But don't worry, I'm done with this. I've gone beyond what I should have by even responding to you. Don't bother responding to me, you can go back to your superhero and sci-fi articles or whatever it is you work on.-5- (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Luke Smith

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Luke Smith, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 59.167.59.201 (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I Love Money

I think the table(s) should be formatted as it was before, simply because them combined seems mixed-up and confusing. I think we might need to talk about this on the talk page to get everybody's opinions to get a good consensus on how the table(s) should be formatted. If you do not want to do that, I'll gladly restore it right back to your format. What do you want to do? Sean9500 • Talk • Contributions 03:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds good. Sean9500 • Talk • Contributions 04:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Surreal Life

Anything that is a spin-off of a spin-off also constitutes being a spin-off of the root (original) program. So, yes, I Love New York, Flavor of Love Girls: Charm School and I Love Money are all spin-off's of The Surreal Life, since this whole cluster of series began with (and escalated from) Flavor Flav being on the show. This is why the All in the Family template includes Good Times and Checking In on it, even though they weren't direct spin-off's of AITF, they were spinoff's of its spinoff's, which still makes them related. Now, with that being said, I am going to revert the Surreal Life template back to the way it was if you've changed it.—The Real One Returns (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Batman Begins

I undid the IP because of the unreliable source they were using. The site appears to be someone's blog.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a violation if you're removing original research. Yep, I did further checking and it turns out that the page itself says nothing about Batman Begins. What the IP was doing was showing a page full of the villains that Oldman has played and using that to support the notion that that is what he is well known for (maybe true, but still OR and OR is to be removed on the spot).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I Love Money

When reverting vandalism, please make sure not to revert any good edits which may have been done since. When you reverted I Love Money, among the reverted edits was my addition of a protection template, which I added after semi-protecting the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Heroes (TV series). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 05:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To both of you, please stop the edit war; I've protected the page for twenty minutes just so you don't violate 3RR in your haste to revert each other. Ophois, while your revert was entirely appropriate given the lack of verification for the claim about Rose (and definitely not vandalism), please remember that you'd still be considered in violation of 3RR if you'd reverted again. It's easy to forget in the moment, but content disputes rarely exempt the 3RR rules. --Ckatz_spy 05:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Heroes and my odd placement of {{reflist}}

Sorry about what you reverted here. The citations were appearing broken on my end and I was attempting to fix them. In the process of doing this, I inserted {{reflist}} in the subsection to test how they looked, but forgot to remove it. In the end, the problem was in the servers I assume because with your revert, the refs still look fine.--Rockfang (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Maya Herrera, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Dædαlus /_Improve 20:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As one more note, it is OR as it could be interpreted that the blood was actually a deeper red, and not black. It is this interpretation of slight variations in color that classifies it as original research.— Dædαlus /_Improve 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Tracy, Barbara, Niki, Jessica, and whoever else...

I don't want to get into an edit war, but I did revert your undoing of my edit. I don't actually care what it says, but we can't say that it is Tracy or Barbara; we don't know that. It could be Niki Sanders returned from the dead, it could be Tracy, it could be Barbara, or it could be a different person altogether. We don't know, so we can't make claims. Observations, however, are fair game.

Also keep in mind that, despite the fact that the doctor the other night said that they were triplets, Niki had a sister in Jessica. For all we know, there could be a whole slew of Ali Larter-portrayed characters on the show. She might as well be a frackin' Cylon. :D

Also, I have no problem with the sentence being reworded further; we just can't say "the woman in the vision was definitely Tracy or Barbara". EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Knox

Shouldn't we use the most common name? Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Has he ever been referred to as "Knox Washington"? If he has, then I guess it would be fine to have it as that. If not, then we should just have it as "Knox" or what it is now, IMO. Ophois (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well now it's Benjamin "Knox" Washington which sounds redundant. Would moving him to just "Knox" be fine? Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, similar to Sylar. Have the heading be Knox, but give full name in his section. Ophois (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in Heroes

This is to both of you... there is no reason to edit war over a minor detail. Both of you have exceeded the 3RR guideline; take it to the talk page. --Ckatz_spy 04:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Colt (Supernatural)

I copied form the main article because this is the only real information found there. I think the rest of the article has to be deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge Graphic Novel characters

Hi Ophois. Since you are working a lot with the Heroes' articles, I think you have to raise you opinion about this graphoc novel characters in Talk:List of characters in Heroes. Either the table stays or the characters. Having all these details for characters appearing in some pages of a graphic novel it's WP:Undue weight. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in Heroes

Please don't try to keep the article in disrepair without any sort of reason. Character lists are meant to describe the characters in general, not their entire involvement in the plot. Heroes Wiki is the place for that information. TTN (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

But you weren't giving their general information. You gave pretty much what was given in their first appearance, and then wiped every other detail, including things like their deaths. Ophois (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Their origins and personal details are all that matters. Deaths and the like are covered in the episode articles. TTN (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ishi explanation

I thought it was really, really silly to list that she heals thru kissing. I just re-watched the two scenes from "Our Father" though, and sure enough, both times she kisses to heal.

I still think it's silly (and I think the kiss has more to do with the character than the ability), but since the whole reason I removed it was because I thought it was bogus, don't look to me to remove it again. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

To be fair I stole this from User:Fvasconcellos.

Castiel

Hi. It's nice you are improving the Supernatural articles. In order to upload photos from flickr it's better to create an account in Misplaced Pages Commons and follow the instructions there.

I checked the first photo but since the owner (CWTV) states "All rights reserved", we are not allowed to upload it in Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages Commons (commons:COM:U) reads "Licenses with NC (non-commercial use only) or ND (no derivative works allowed to be created) are not OK here. If the image is not OK, consider asking the author to release their work under a free license such as CC-BY (Creative Commons Attribution license) or CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike)."

The second photo states "Some rights reserved" and we can upload it in Misplaced Pages but the person who upload it says it was taken from Misha Collins page and I am not sure about the real copyright status of the photo!

I think the best you can do is to upload a low-resolution screenshot of Castiel that you created yourself. Have a nice day. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Castielinfobox.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Castielinfobox.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Misplaced Pages can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You are currently in violation of 3RR. I would ask that you immediately revert your last undo in the Peter Petrelli article, and continue discussion. I've reported you for breaking 3RR, but I am willing to retract the complaint if you will self-revert and work within the article discussion to find a consensus. - Arcayne () 03:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for self-reverting. I will withdraw the complaint. In the future, understand that you and I have worked together well in the past; I don't want that to get messed up because we have a current disagreement. Talk to me, feller; my rep is that I am unreasonable, but that's all it is - a rep, not the truth. - Arcayne () 03:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your side and will drop it for now. However, I'm gonna submit to the Behind the Eclipse Q&A and try and get the source for the name. Ophois (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link for that? I will help you try to find a source, as well. I don't care what we put, so long as it isn't based on an interpretation of what someone said in an episode, or from a bad source. Drop me a line and let me know the link. :) - Arcayne () 03:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with your pasting

At first I thought it was vandalism, but I'm going to assume it was intended in good faith, but you made an edit on the Supernatural page that included the text "as of 'Criss Angel is a Douchebag'." I'm going to assume that it copy and paste mistake and skip the vandalism warming, just be careful to review your work before publishing it. ---D--- (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oooo, that was an episode title wasn't it, let's clarify that then.---D--- (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Who vs. Whom

I've noticed that, at least a couple of times, when people have correctly replaced misuses of "whom" as a subject pronoun with "who", you have reverted those changes. "Whom" is an object pronoun, not a subject pronoun. Please see e.g. and for more about this. John Darrow (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Castiel (Supernatural)

The article looks quite a bit better now. You might be able to get User:Theleftorium to take another look at it, to avoid having to wait, if you ask them. One suggestion I would make if I was reviwing the article is to merge the first two sections into one, and cut it down by about three paragraphs, leaving only the most important parts. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

For merging, I did this ugly little edit to kind of show what I mean. The Character background section goes in chronological order, so the powers stuff could kinda just be mixed in chronologically as well. I also added the episode title to kinda increase the out of universe feel, although that may not be necessary. You may want to get input from Leftorium or whoever the next GA reviewer is since they may have their own ideas. Totally up to you. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Castielwings.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Castielwings.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruby and Bela Talbot

At a glance, Bela needs her lead expanded, and her references formatted (like with Castiel). For the lead, just kinda read through the article and for each section, add 2 or 3 sentences summarizing it in the lead section at the top. For the references, I recommend enabling the User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar in the gadgets section of your preferences. It makes refs pretty easy. Ruby needs a lead expansion, but her refs are looking good.

The amounts of plot and real world information are balanced well. There isn't a standard format for TV characters, so we kinda make stuff up as we go. I think saying

"In the beginning, not much is known about Ruby, a feisty blonde first seen in the season four episode "The Magnificent Seven"."

Instead of

In the beginning, not much is known about Ruby, a feisty blonde first seen in "The Magnificent Seven".

Would help ground the plot summary in the real world. Ruby appears over multiple seasons, so it would be good to say which season each of her episodes came from. Bela only appeared in one season, so I think the beginning of her plot summary should say that, then each sentence like "She next appears in "Red Sky at Morning"" could be like this: "She next appears in the episode "Red Sky at Morning"". This should be done each time an episode is named, and episodes should be named as often as possible. It looks like Bela's Character background's section's first paragraph needs its ep named, for instance.

Finally, I asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Television#Standard format_for fictional_characters about section naming. Again we don't have a standard naming system, but I think "Plot" would be a better section name than "Character background". That part is totally up to you, and won't effect a GA review. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in Heroes - Emile Danko

Hello. You have continually reverted my edits to the Emile Danko section of this page. In your last edit summary, you said something like 'trim it down, don't delete'. Please explain yourself. I have consistently removed information from that section that isn't relevant to Emile Danko which is what I regard as trimming, but you keep putting it back in. Would you mind enlightening me as to what your definition is? 82.37.50.162 (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

How exactly are the facts that he tried to make Parkman into a suicide bomber and has teamed up with Sylar not relevant to Danko? Ophois (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"After the President removes Danko from his position for what he did, he starts investigating Nathan's past and discovers that he can fly." - So? This is just Heroes plot. It doesn't tell us anything about Danko that hasn't already been said plainly.

I've now expanded this, as it allows him to take over the operation.

"prefers to take it to the extreme" - What does this even mean?

I agree, that can be removed.

"he knew she would end up killing an officer in the process, and a government auditor witnesses the murder, prompting the operation to get full funding" - Yes, this is relevant because it demonstrates his tactics, but do we really need this much detail here?

Trim then.

"and allows Sylar to acquire a shapeshifting ability in order to move around undetected" - This isn't about Danko, just more Heroes plot!

It's plot directly related to Danko and his motivations, showing just how far he's willing to go.

"Matt Parkman ruins the relationship to get revenge for the death of his girlfriend, Daphne" - We don't need to know why Parkman has done this here. The part about Daphne can be left out. 82.37.50.162 (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Then remove Daphne. Ophois (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural)

Do you have the DVDs? I think they have commentary for the episode that could be used to create a production section that would allow the article to be a GA. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, unfortunately I don't have any of the DVD's. Ophois (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Claude vs. Claude Rains

You removed an edit I'd made ("At one point, Claude refers to himself as "Claude Rains," although whether this is intended as a revelation of his real name, or merely as an ironic reference to actor Claude Rains (who played the title character in the classic film The Invisible Man) is open to debate.") and didn't cite a reason. I can't understand why you'd do this, especially considering the neutral tone of my edit versus the heated argument over the character's name. Note how my edit provides information without taking sides in the debate. As I stated on the talk page, which you should have visited before making the edit, "I'm neutral on the debate of whether the article lists "Rains" as Claude's last name. However, IF we do list the character as "Claude Rains," then it really should be noted in the article (and not just in the discussion) that this is a reference to the actor (either as irony on Claude's part or as tribute on the writers' part). I don't think this should be considered speculation -- unless somebody wants to make the ludicrous argument that the invisible man in Heroes has the same name as the actor who played the original Invisible Man just as a pure coincidence." It's one thing for you to think you're right, but to deny there's even a debate is not constructive. All I'm asking is that you consider your actions on Misplaced Pages before editing willy-nilly just because you feel personally justified -- or at the absolute least list your reasons for your edit. Minaker (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you looked at the edits I made, you would see that I added in that "Claude Rains" is just an alias he goes by and provided a source. And as an editor of Misplaced Pages, you should know that you can't add in speculation such as you did. You need a source if you want to say it's referencing the actor. Ophois (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how you completely ignore Wiki rules when it suits your fancy, but cite the rules when you think they're in your favor. I did look at the edits you made, and I observed that it wasn't enough to settle the debate. The edits I made provided information that took a neutral POV in the debate; merely acknowledging that there is a debate does not make information speculative. Minaker (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And what is your source for the existence of this "debate"? Sorry, but that's original research. Ophois (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, deleting the comments I made on this page is a practice in dishonesty and verifies your bad faith. Second of all, I do not say that the the character's name is in reference to the actor, I say that it COULD BE, and that there is open speculation to the effect. Third of all, to challenge me to find a source for the existence of a debate which you yourself have taken part in further illustrates your own bad faith, your prioritization of argument over resolution, and your failure to properly follow or even understand Misplaced Pages rules such as Misplaced Pages:disruptive editing and Misplaced Pages:gaming the system. 02:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the comments were never deleted... otherwise they'd be gone right now... Anyways, Misplaced Pages can't be cited as a source, so you're gonna have to find a reliable source on the web that proves existence of the debate. If you keep adding it, you're gonna keep getting warnings. Sorry. And this isn't edit warring. You're adding unsourced data and thus causing a disruption. Ophois (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't play games, there was a whole paragraph I had typed up that was here one moment and not the next. I suppose this was just a "glitch." But even assuming it was, which we both know to be untrue, yes, I understand that Misplaced Pages can't be cited as a source, but to repeat myself, you are now asking for a source for the existence of a debate that you yourself have taken part in. And you have the audacity to lecture me on causing a disruption? Absurd. By the way, an edit war is an edit war, regardless of whether you think you are in the right for engaging in it. Clearly you need to read up on Misplaced Pages:disruptive editing and Misplaced Pages:gaming the system -- although just between you and me, we both know that at this point, you're clearly being disruptive on purpose, so I'm not sure what good this will do. Minaker (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that this issue is under administrative review, I'd like to call a truce and let the gods of Misplaced Pages make their decision. I'll respect and abide by their judgment even if I don't agree with it. We may both think the other's in the wrong, but that's no reason for either of us to hold a Misplaced Pages grudge. Just my attempt at an olive branch here. Minaker (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review of Ruby(Supernatural)

Hi, I'm going to try and review your nominated article here, help me by giving your input! Rudy 23:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bela Talbot

Hey, my name's Hunter. I've conducted a GAN review of Bela Talbot. Nice work with the article! Please check it out and I'm sure it will be ready for a pass very soon! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 04:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

When are you coming back?

Maybe we can do another Supernatural GA. Ruby and Bela have passed, in case you missed it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm back now. Yeah, I saw that they passed. That's for your help on them. Anyways, I don't think I have time to do another article at the moment. Ophois (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, just drop me a line if want to do something. It would be cool to improve Sam and Dean sometime. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Monk (TV series)

I understand what you're saying (and don't get me wrong, I'm not angry about this). I understand why Sharona is not a main character anymore (heck, I have most of the episodes memorized). I just thought that since she was going to be in an episode (in fact, I think she's going to be in two or three episodes) that she should have that listed. Since it's so significant to the show, should her return be mentioned further down the page (in the recurring characters section, perhaps)? Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be mentioned in the section about her being replaced by Traylor Howard. Ophois (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

reverting Icarly Intruduction

To me the information was very informative and i think it should stay there to inform Misplaced Pages users what happened and why the interviews were removed off the internet.Misplaced Pages is made to inform and that section was doing what Misplaced Pages does.

Kathy Griffin

On her show Ophois the only guest stars are the ones that got a bumper for there names not everyone that we use on the show was guest starring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Money20002009 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Monknav

I never understood why they didn't make Dr. Kroger a main character. I mean, there are some episodes that the main characters don't even appear in... Anyway, just wanted to ask... if the character isn't listed in the credits, does that mean that they can't be listed on a navigation template? Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks! Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You deleted my contribuitions!

You deleted the "Universe" section of iCarly I made without any reason I want to talk about that. Please Reply.Skulduggery3 (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

KK!

Oh, okay!

but.. What is the sandbox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onecantsimplylolwz (talk • contribs) 17:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruby FA

Should be interesting. I don't know if the character has what it takes to be an FA, but we'll see how people feel (one oppose right now). I have a feeling that only Sam and Dean have enough info available to make it to FA. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Music of Supernatural

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Aramova (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the tag, not a valid criteria for music from a TV Series. I have removed a couple of mis-used speedy tags from the editor in question. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

iCarley episode numbering

Hey Ophois, do you think that the episode number format for List of iCarly episodes is settled down. I was going to retarget the episode redirects to individual episode entries via #ep... (a few are done already but some of those are broken, which is what drew me here). I usually take a look at the history to make sure things are stable before digging in, and your reversion popped up between peeks.

Additionally, what do you make of IHate Violet → List of iCarly episodes#ep8? I've asked the author here: User talk:Jack Merridew#IHate Violet. -- ToE 11:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack identified the error at the source of his creation of that redirect, and it is now in the process of being deleted. (Still wondering about the ep numbering.) -- ToE 12:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Should be settled down. Someone just removed the series # for the episodes, so I reverted it. As for the redirects, the #ep is for when you use headers. The iCarly episode is in a table, so at the most you would be able to redirect to a season. As far as I know you wouldn't be able to do it to a specific episode in the table.Ophois (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It is done automatically for you via "{{ Episode list ...". Check out List of iCarly episodes#ep39 (14), for instance. Cool huh? The only problem is that the links are sensitive to episode number changes, but worse case they just target the head of the article when they break. -- ToE 12:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's awesome. Didn't know about that. Anyways, should be fine. You can put a hidden note in that column explaining not to change it if you want. Ophois (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The redirects have all been retargeted. I wouldn't worry too much about the impact a change in the numbering scheme would have on the redirects as they are easy enough to edit -- I just didn't want to retarget them while they were actively in flux. If you decide five minutes from now that you really want a two column arrangement, it won't perturb me. There is a lot of variation in numbering schemes used, but I haven't seen enough to say what the most common is or what is even considered correct. BTW, you should know that at the moment a reference in the EpisodeNumber parameter breaks the automatic #ep... formation, so I placed a couple of {{anchor}}s to handle List of iCarly episodes#epTV-Movie and List of iCarly episodes#ep40 (15) ("iGo to Japan" and "iDate a Bad Boy"). I brought this up at Template talk:Episode list#Broken #ep anchors with referenced EpisodeNumber. Bye. -- ToE 14:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Krrish

Please stop moving Rekha's name to the bottom of the cast credits. She is veteran and senior and must be credited first. Shahid • 12:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok this order is fine by me as he is the main protagonist and plays the title role. Shahid • 12:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Supernatural episodes

Hi Ophois, I've reverted your recent change at List of Supernatural episodes. Was there anything to that aside from formatting differences? The reason that I changed it back is because you made the season 1 table look different from all of the others. It looks like you updated and copied the table from Supernatural (season 1), which is a good idea content wise but... well, all of the tables on the List of article should look similar. Personally, I don't care which formatting they use as long as it's consistent, so if you're up to changing all of the tables then feel free.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The other tables won't be changed for a while, so yeah, it would be best to keep it the old way for now.Ophois (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

OK cool, I hate using undo.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω)

Musica in Supernatural

Hi I think than this will be of utility for complete the article --Mr-Ej (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, wiki policy is against lists of just music without related information, so I'm just gonna delete that article and integrate the score info into season articles. Ophois (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural FAC

Could you write a sentence under each source stating what you have done, so editors can read it. I know you might be new to the whole FAC process but we don't tend to strike other people's comments out of courtesy. So, write what you have done, especially explaining how you have cited the information now you have removed all those sources. Thanks. RB88 (T) 23:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural GA/FA

I haven't done an FA worthy version of those two sections I've been working on. Did you know that? In any case, I've been kinda watching your Season 1 FAC (although not that closely). I am still willing to get those two sections, and maybe more, of the article ready for FA. I've got a few other things I'm working on right now (want to help get Abraham Lincoln to FA?), but as the Supernatural article's FA or GA gets closer, I'll put in the time I have to.

I just wanted to tell you I'm still around, and hopefully keep the train a-rollin. As I think about it, maybe I should start formatting the references, and making sure they're FA ready. Not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's cool. I've been slowly trying to format the refs, so hopefully it will be done soon. Ophois (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural image

I assume you're referring to the two women--and that my computer just isn't loading some other image--if so, then you cannot use that image. That's a standard, living person image which means you'd have to get a free one. If you are getting a picture of an actor/actress in the real world then it must be free.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Check WikiCommons to see if one already exists (most likely going to be individual images). I think you can request a picture be taken on some WikiProject, but I'm not sure exactly what it's called.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you advertised the FAC on any of the TV project pages? If not, then you should. I'll try and give the real world info a scan over (don't want to spoil the episodes for myself), but glancing at the episode plot summaries I think you could probably add another line or so to each of them - if you want. You only have about 120 words (less on the majority of them) for a plot description. I've actually been meaning to add a bit more to the first few seasons of Smallville, given that it appears that the later ones require more like 150-200. Just a thought. Anyway, after I read through the production info, so long as I don't find anything dramatically confusing, I wouldn't have a problem supporting the article. Also, might I suggest changing the quote box to one of these? They tend to stand out better, which is good since your article doesn't have a lot of pictures and you can change their color (like a light shade of red) to keep with the color scheme of the page. Just a though.

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I got caught up with other stuff and didn't get a chance to read it. I still have it on my watchlist, and I do still plan to review it. It'll just give you more time to fine tune the article for the next FAC. Sometimes, if an article doesn't get enough voices (even if 2 people show up and support it), Raul won't promote it because it's not a true indication of what the community thinks of the article. Anyway, I will review it and we can renominate it again in a couple of weeks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the main page needs quite a bit of work. Just looking at it, it appears to be overly separated into multiple sections, and contains a lot of trivial info that could probably be sizably trimmed down. Plus, it's probably best to go to GAC, instead of FAC. I've personally always had trouble believing that any show could pass the "comprehensive" criteria of FAC when it's actively broadcasting new episodes. There is a lot still going on, and it's kind of hard to say you've covered everything that needs to be covered for the subject. GAC doesn't require that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

At 5 seasons, you could probably trim that whole summary section down to a simple series overview. You have the season pages to take care of the season summaries. There is probably a bunch of extraneous plot detail used on the recurring elements. At 105kb of article, that can be trimmed down a bit to allow the real world info on those elements to be the bulk of the info (e.g., do we need all that backstory on the colt handgun? just knowing who uses it, and for it is probably enough). Just things like that. The page needs some tidying up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Nathan"/Sylar

Sorry, but saying that something in a preview clip is a spoiler because the episode hasn't aired is like saying posting something in a movie trailer is a spoiler because the movie's not out...it other words, it makes no sense and everybody knows posting things in a trailer is perfectly acceptable. Kiwisoup (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Cigarette Smoking Man"

First i've added some more critic and fan reaction to the character (all from Entertainment Weekly) and gave it a little clean up. But still, can you take a look on the grammar, being that you are better writer than me. Thanks for your help so far :D. --TIAYN (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Can it become a GA now? --TIAYN (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the "Cigarette Smoking Man" article in your spare time. It's really appreciated! :) --TIAYN (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean with this "everything in the plot section needs to be cited to the individual episodes". --TIAYN (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... Fixed, is their anymore problems with the article? --TIAYN (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The other reviewer of the "Cigarette Smoking Man" is now retired.... I ges that means you'll take over GA duties on the article... right? --TIAYN (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

He posted it on his user page on October 17 saying he is retired from wikipedia. --TIAYN (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Supernatural

I think it will have to wait for a bit. If you check out the page, someone has requested you hold off on the nomination for a bit due to the backlog. I'd suggest waiting about a week. Cheers, The Flash 00:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural (season 1)

I've removed the second FAC nomination for now. Please wait for a couple weeks before re-submitting. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Krrish Post-GA Review

My comments can be found here. Mspraveen (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Breaking references

You are adding broken references to Supernatural (season 2). Please go back and fix them. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural Images etc.

Well, first off the second image is a non-free image so deciding between a non-free and a free should be easy. :D But, at the same time neither image is really necessary. The page doesn't talk about the actors really. I've never understood why some people feel like they have to have an image there (which, I know wasn't your initial doing, but what someone basically requested at the FAC). That's my onion. FLC doesn't say you have to have an image there to be featured.

On some other minor notes, glancing at the page: I'd probably move the viewership numbers behind the airdates. In theory, it's a chronological thing. It gets made (which dictates ep number, writer, director), then it gets aired, and then we get viewership. That's just my thoughts on that. You could also simply the Ep # and Series # columns into a single "Ep #" column that sports two numbers (e.g., 25(3)) as the "series #" is still an "episode number" and the average reader can probably look at two columns and easily understand that you're continue to count the overall number of the episode with its place within that respective seasons. IDK, just a way to be more efficient.

In the Nielsen rating stuff, "TV season" can be cut. I recently cut that from Smallville's pages because I realized it's redundant to "Season premiere" and "Season finale". We basically tell the reader when the show premieres and ends, and then follow it up with a column that tells them the same thing again. The same with "Originally aired" in the DVD box. Since it's directly below the other, we don't need to repeat that information, because we literally just stated it. Personally, I would also drop "Ratings". The main problem with that figure is that it's a percentage to a number we don't have. 3.14 million is something the reader can understand, but trying to understand 1.4% of households without knowing how many households were watching TV is kind of hard. If you don't know that number, you might assume that it means 1.4% of ALL households in the US, which isn't true. It's largely irrelevant when trying to understand how well the show did. The viewership is really all you need, and the rankings so we know how it compared to other shows on TV.

Sorry if I gave you more than you requested, just sharing all thoughts.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Title card. That's a random promotional image, easily replacable by any other promotional image which makes it less significant.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense. There are other Supernatural title cards. I can give you 3 more.

1, 2, 3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKSarang (talk • contribs) 22:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

He's leaving messages on the image file's talk page, so you should probably venture over there and to the Smallville title card image talk page as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's fan art, and even if it wasn't it isn't supported by any critical commentary. It's merely decorative.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural

Hey dude.. if you gonna change stuff on supernatural pages put the creature that they confront in each episode at the pages supernatural (season_*)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Woth (talk • contribs) 19:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Supernatural (TV series)

Can you look at this edit to Talk:Supernatural (TV series)? I'm concerned that JKSarang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) copied this discussion from another talk page to the article's, and I want to make sure it was copied verbatim. —C.Fred (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Smallville revert

Why did you revert it the max is 100 MB? --JKSarang 08:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it looks better the other way. Ophois (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not it doesn't it's actually loosing pixels if you shrink it. that's why read the Image policy, it says 100MB is the limit and this image is 150KB so there's nothing wrong with it. Could you revert it back? --JKSarang 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And what is visually appealing about a giant empty space above the cast in the photo...? Just because there is a limit doesn't mean you have to try to achieve that limit. The image is shrunk down when implemented, so it doesn't matter how big the actual file is for that reason. Having the actual file be smaller is better fair use. Ophois (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the big space? "Just because there is a limit doesn't mean you have to try to achieve that limit." Are you serious? This is the reason. The only reason you resize images is because orginally it's over 100MB. Better fair use what does that mean? It's not necessary to resize it because it's not over 100MB. --JKSarang 08:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Then go ahead because according to Misplaced Pages's rules 100MB is acceptable whether free or non-free. --JKSarang 08:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Pilot"

You might as well create a sandbox for this page, The Pilot (Supernatural), being that its underconstruction and you have not worked on it for ages.. Just a tip --TIAYN (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Here, i've merged the content into this page User:Ophois/Sandbox. --TIAYN (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural (various issues)

Do you know what's wrong with the Supernatural Season 2 infobox overlapping with the text? I can't find what's wrong, it could use fixing because it looks ... not good. Also, the episode counting on the List of Supernatural episodes page would look better if divided into the categories "Series #" and "Season #", as I edited yesterday. Why did you revert that? Is there some kind of general agreement not to do that? They did this category thing on the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer page. It's much clearer that way, would be better if we changed that. My last issue is the capitalization in some episode titles. There's a typeset rule that says prepositions are not to be written capitalized (See: http://www.writersblock.ca/tips/monthtip/tipmar98.htm). So for example, the title "Born Under a Bad Sign" should be "Born under a Bad Sign". Cooperson 20:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that resolves my issues. Just thought I'd ask. Cooperson 21:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Smallville characters

Justice League (Smallville) isn't GA, so it wouldn't pass until that went through the GA process. The thought's crossed my mind, and I think there's a brief discussion about it on one of the Smallville talk pages. I guess as soon as I get around to running that through the GAC, I'll probably nominate for GAT as well. Right now I'm busy trying to find time for my sandbox project, and coming up with valid reasons of reliability for some of the EL sources at Friday the 13th (2009 film).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, every article has to be good article? Didn't know that. That will complicate things for Supernatural, lol. Anyways, also I added Blu-ray releases to the List of Smallville episodes. I found that season 5 and 6 were also released on HD DVD compatible with all regions, but can't think of a good way to integrate it. Ωphois 13:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Every article that's related to the topic. Since "Justice League (Smallville)" is a character page, it would have to be GA (or at least have the GA actively being under review) to be considered. Yeah, I appreciate that stuff for Smallville. There isn't really a way to include the HD stuff in a table. We'll probably have to bring a few sentences of prose down to the beginning of the section, and then just include another statement about the HD-DVD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural (TV series)

I've reverted the move. I'm going to put a message on the mover's page suggesting that he discuss the move if he feels it's necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

History of Family Guy

I have editit the page...tell me if it looks better and if i can make it better.--Pedro J. 01:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

I'd probably stay away from it. It looks like a personal blog, and MediaBlvd Mag isn't exactly the New York Post. It just comes across as sketchy, and probably wouldn't hold up well to scrutiny.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

FLC

Can you review the family guy cast that is on FLC i saw that you reviewed the season 4 and.. no hard feelings for the merge thing, you where right all along..just need some time and pepole that are smarter than me to tell me things and be able to think better.--Pedro J. 23:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I will follow up with this quest do you now a lot about editing(enough to say your better than me)?--Pedro J. 23:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me follow up with this quest would you help me to get FG to FA i made it to GA and it is on PR but it needs help and god nows i cant do it alone.--Pedro J. 23:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:List of Supernatural episodes

Dropped some comments. The Flash 01:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Note that the above block is largely for your engagement in recent edit-warring at iCarly; however, this, this and this are also concerning (and that last is certainly not vandalism). I think during your time off, you should re-read WP:BRD, the definition of vandalism at WP:VANDAL, and WP:STATUSQUO, to familiarise yourself with how we expect editors to conduct themselves and treat the good-faith edits of other editors. EyeSerene 10:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What "edit warring" are you talking about? On iCarly, I reverted text that that was pointless in having. We did not edit war, as shown in the history. As for the demon article, how is that edit warring? I thought he was vandalizing the article, as he removed information without giving a reason, and when he did explain, I disagreed and asked him to use discussion page.Ωphois 10:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And in your above explanation, please list the edits in the correct order. You have listed them in the incorrect order, which makes it appear that I reverted on the grounds of vandalism the second time. I did so the first time, when he just erased the info without giving an explanation. Ωphois 10:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And I don't see why you listed VANDAL, BRD, and STATUSQUO at me. None of that applies. As I already explained, you looked at the Demon edits in the wrong order, and I was not reverting my edits back in, I was reverting unnecessary edits out, so BRD and STATUSQUO applies to the other editors. Ωphois 10:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

They apply to everybody. Reversion is for dealing with vandalism, not for winning content disputes, and three reverts is not an entitlement; the spirit of WP:3RR applies as much as the letter. If you can't see that your recent edits at both iCarly and Hero (2009 TV series) (note that I could have listed additional diffs) constitute edit/revert warring, I think further blocks may be likely in the future. EyeSerene 11:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already explained the edits to the Demon article, and you have not listed any iCarly edits that are edit warring. As for Hero, I did not realize that I made that many reverts. I had just woken up, as shown by the lapse in the edit time, and made the reverts. I would have stopped at three, but you did not give a chance, you just blocked me out of nowhere without giving any warning at all. From what I can tell, nobody reported me or anything, so it was not an urgent matter. If you felt I was inappropriate in my actions, then why didn't you just give a simple message on my talk space? And again, you say that they apply to everyone, yet the other user was neither blocked nor even warned. Ωphois 11:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) OK, let's take this diff by diff:

• From history of Hero (2009 TV series):
  • You remove an image which was later rv'd back. Then: your first revert at 10:01; you were reverted back at 10:04; your second revert at 10:11; reverted back at 10:12. I have no doubt that, had I not blocked you at 10:15, you would have reverted again. This is a textbook preventative block, and justification in itself for my actions (and I have sanctioned the other editor too).
• From history of Demon (Supernatural):
  • You make two reverts (, ) of another editor without attempting to discuss their content changes with them; they apparently give up after your second. I accept that the first might be mistaken for vandalism, but only if one fails to assume good faith. There was no excuse for the second; inviting discussion in an edit-summary while you're reverting is hardly sufficient.
• From history of iCarly:
  • Again we see a pattern of you reaching for the revert tool rather than discussing or improving edits. This was unnecessary - although the edit isn't brilliant, there is at least an attempt at sourcing. You could have helped to look for better sources rather than dismissing it out of hand. Again, although not a particularly good edit, this could perhaps have been improved (or at least discussed) rather than dismissed.

I hadn't actually intended to block you while I was looking at the iCarly history, but on investigating the background I became quite disturbed by your apparent quickness to revert out of hand edits you don't like. We are trying to buld a collaborative encyclopedia, and part of that is educating and supporting weaker editors, not putting them off by belittling and removing their efforts. You've been here a while, been previously blocked for edit-warring, and should be well aware of our editing policies; saying you weren't warned first isn't convincing.EyeSerene 14:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I was blocked for edit warring a year ago, so I know not to go past three reverts. Had you not blocked me, I would still not have made another revert. For the demon article, he made a bold edit that removed content, and I reverted it and asked for discussion, which from my understanding is the BRD and status quo policies. For iCarly, that is just a quote from the creator about his opinion, which I feel didn't belong. I don't see why I should be blocked for these cases. Looking back, I agree that I should have tried more for disussion on the Hero picture. I had already tried that with another user on the same picture, and he just kept disregarding what I said until another user deleted the image for lack of fair use. Despite this, Colleen reuploaded the image, and I explained to Colleen that the image offers nothing in my edit summary, but Colleen just kept putting it off as vandalism. She did the same thing for the deletion tag that I placed on the image (which had been deleted preivously for the same reason). And you said that I would have kept reverting, but you did not mention anything on my talk page, or use any warning that is meant to defer edit warring. You just blocked me. I will try to use discussion more in the future. Currently I have nominated two articles for FAC and FLC, and would like to work on them today. Can you please reconsider the block? Ωphois 14:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

{{]}}

{{unblock|1=Can someone please review the block? Ωphois 23:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)}}

See ANI block review thread.--chaser (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry on behalf of the admin corps that we did not respond to your unblock request soon enough to shave some time off this block. That said, hopefully this has been a learning experience in that it will help you remember, better than any warning would have, how stringent the edit-warring guideline can be appropriately interpreted (although I disagree with EyeSerene about the warning, I have no quibbles with blocking for 3 or even two reverts each across several articles). One thing you might try is holding yourself to 1RR as a personal standard. Once you've made one revert, drop a message on the article talk page and the user talk page of the person you're in a dispute with and try to resolve it. There's no more harm in the article being stuck in m:The Wrong Version for a few days because of self-restraint than if the same happens because you're blocked or the article gets protected. Plus, if an admin intervenes, you come off as being much more reasonable. Just a thought.--chaser (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A Talk

I have seen your history Ophois and you've never edited Korean/Asian articles. So why do you continue to illustrate such harsh actions do you have a grudge against someone or something? Colleen16 (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Misplaced Pages without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Colleen16 (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)