Please leave constructive compliments and critiques, allowing for a brief interlude to allow for a response. Any uncivil comments as well as subjects already dealt with will be removed per this editor's perrogative. Thank you. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. You recently left a warning message on my talk page, but then removed it shortly after. Was this a mistake on your part or are there some concerns you have about my edits? Please get back to me on my page. Thanks. Navarrete (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the name change; it was approved today. But from my History page:

1. 15:20, 2 April 2008 Netkinetic (Talk | contribs) m (1,971 bytes) (→Your Message: new section) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 04:24, 2 April 2008 Netkinetic (Talk | contribs) (1,583 bytes) (Undid revision 202724565 by Netkinetic (talk)) (undo)

Navarrete (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I welcomed him and answered his questions on his talk page. Take a look at the history on his talk page and his contribs. He claims he wants to use VP and counter vandalism yet his account is used for some vandalism (warnings on his talk page are being reverted). He claims in one of his edit comments that 'a family member' is doing the vandalism (from his account?). Not sure what to make of this. I try to AGF and not to bite when dealing with him but I'm not totally convinced he means no harm.Netkinetic(t/c/@) 00:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have blocked the address again (this time for three days). Unfortunately, I was offline when you made the report, so I couldn't have intervened until now; you'd have gotten a swifter response at administrators' noticeboard page. - Mike Rosoft 20:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] this is what you put back. Brian Boru is awesome 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The anon user has a history of edits like this, this, and this. As over a long period of time he has added vandalism referring to a certiain "Kyle" it is a safe bet it is the same user. What he added to lightening [2] was a basic nonsense edit. IrishGuy ^talk 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional information IrishGuy. I'm unsure why this has become Brian Boru's concern...I've explained the justification for the revert...the anon needs to simply add in the edit summary the reason for removing information from an article. The content wasn't obvious and there is not limitless time to research an anon's or editor's track record. Summarily removing information without an edit summary simply isn't recommended. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 19:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. At bare minimum, the anon could have simply written rvv. I don't know why this has become a bigger issue than it needs to be. Hopefully it is over now and nobody will hold bad feelings towards others. IrishGuy ^talk 19:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently commented on whether or not the image used in the infobox for Dick Grayson should be changed. An attempt is being made to see if a consensus has been reached. If you are still interested in this, please look in at the straw poll section of the articles talk page.

Thanks for your interest.

- J Greb 07:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reverted an edit made on the page Reticular formation by an anonymous user. Did you read the edit, or did you simply revert it because it was by an anonymous user? Niubrad 08:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This entry was edited as an anonomous user used a potential Double entendre in a sensitive article without a proper edit summary announcing intentions. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 05:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's good to know that someone is watching for double entendre's on the sensitive article about the reticular formation like a hawk. Higher Organisms, I get it! One who has a user name... Niubrad 10:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment. Looking forward to your future contributions. Regards! Netkinetic(t/c/@) 19:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism that took place on my user page. Much appreciated. =) -Panser Born- (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, sorry Tim w. 00:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that the title of the page would make the reasons for the redirect self-evident. 76.178.95.219 08:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making valid use of an edit summary will help to avoid confusion relating to the various X-Men franchises. Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't done with it yet when you flagged it for deletion. -Mike Payne 16:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From my talk page: "Mike, I've removed the tag as you've added a second link to an established Wikipedia page. However, if I may suggest, creating the link to a non-existent page Shameless (HBO special) isn't advised. Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 16:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
  • The link was to an HBO special performed by Louis C.K. but I really know nothing about it. If I created the page it would have only one sentence on it and I'm sure that would be flagged for deletion as well. What do you do in this case? Link to the nonexistent article, create the article with only one sentence, or just don't mention it at all? -Mike Payne 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps leaving it out of the disambiguation page at this time, until someone with an interest in that subject and information relating to it creates an article. Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 16:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I delinked it but left the mention of it. I figured this is a happy medium, and hopefully eventually it can point somewhere. :) -Mike Payne 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • From my talk: "::Good idea! :) Netkinetic(t/c/@) 16:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • How do I insert the wiktionary definition for the word "shameless"? Any idea? -Mike Payne 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive your tagging of the article was incorrect, see the talk page. Could you please remove it? // Liftarn

Per User:Wknight94: "rm speedy. Has a few references so this one deserves a chance (barely). Try WP:AFD instead" and has been deleted once previously via WP:PROD. Allowing this one a chance (barely). Netkinetic(t/c/@) 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Netkinetic,

Please review your premature flag for deletion on [Rototilt], and make your recommendations.

Thanks!

—The preceding comment was added by Nahicom (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, but I wasn't logged in earlier, so it didn't record my signature.

—The preceding comment was added by Nahicom (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, thought the strikeout was a mistake or someone's vandalism. My bad, I was on your talk page for an unrelated reason and just happened to see it and took it out... Sorry about that. :) I'm still somewhat new to wikipedia, although I am trying to be a good contributor. :) -Mike Payne 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my edit was to removed member of notable alumni who had been recently added, because after a thorough search on the interenet i could find nothing about this person. I moderate the UEA page a lot and this happens quite a bit, people just seem to get a thrill from adding themselves to the notable alumni list.--Jamesmh2006 10:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Netkinetic,

It can definitely be difficult to try and blend distinct styles into the overall mix of this website, though definitely worth the effort! I've noticed in your contributions a lot of activity attempting to maintain the integrity of various articles, which is commendable. Especially when never receiving credit (except a few comments from above). So I'll acknowledge it, since you were the first here to respond on my talk page.

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For Netkinetic's tireless efforts at combatting vandalism. Mister Fax 18:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(see top of page)--Jamesmh2006 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Old old news haha. No worries...peace bro. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 03:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :D El hombre de haha 04:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. Much appreciated! =) --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words; for me, it not only served no pleasure, it also seemed a little excessive. I could understand the debate over the Earth-S and Earth-X entries in the grids, but Earths-One, -Two, and -Three were much more definitive - if anything, I was expecting the removal of -S & -X, and probably the Earth-Three entries that only ever appeared in the modern era's Anti-Matter Earth (they were already there - I just added the disclaimer), not the removal of the entire page.

The link you sent was interesting. The comparisons made there were definitely function-comparisons, though far more broad (aside from the standard JLA/JSA ones) than the ones I was trying to show (mine generally co-existed in the same time period - even allowing for the generational gap between Earth-Two and Earth-One - even when being published by competing companies, for starters), but I could see the comparisons being made were even more functional like, "youthful female with wings on a team," or "the fire-based member of a team," etc., that required using characters from different time-periods as well.

Just out of curiosity, why is there no allowance made for a 'reasonable inference?' Not that I'm trying to re-argue the debate on this particular entry, but it didn't seem to me that what I was putting forth was exactly outlandish. Maybe it's just a matter of changing the term 'original research' (which implies a deliberative searching for information to back-up a theory) to 'original conclusions' or 'personal observations' (which probably better describes someone like me, who was simply trying to show what I came to conclude after reading comics for enjoyment purposes for over 30 years, with the evidence being, primarily, those same comics).

But, that's all water under the bridge now. I can only content myself with knowing that I'm right, even if I can't demonstrate it to Wikipedia standards. Thanks again for the support. Starmiter 01:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify, the 'External Links' area for Multiverse (DC Comics) cannot have a link to the same info on a non-Wikipedia page, even if it could be presented with a disclaimer like, "An intriguing interpretation of the pre-Crisis DC Multiverse may be found here" kind of thing? And as for the removal of the Earth-One info from the Earth-Two chart, I had based it mainly on the fact the Flash entry mentioned both versions, and so the remaining entries seemed incomplete by comparison - just thought people would've liked "cliff-note" info-blurbs for comparison purposes without having to read each and every entry, which is rather time-consuming. I have no intention of formally opposing their removal because, frankly, it would be too much effort, and my track-record is already 0-for-2 (and this is on subject matter that I considered myself an expert on), so I'm going to be more careful about when to pick my battles. Thanks. Starmiter 01:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's probably too little, too late for the multiverse grid page, but I recently came across this site: http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/doveside/412/page4.html that goes even further than the comparisons I was trying to show. The part of this set of comparisons I found intriguing were the Earth-One/Earth-Two/Earth-Shazam match-ups (though I don't agree with Capt. Marvel, Jr., being linked with the Flash - more closely to Superboy who, like Supergirl, was introduced well after the Fawcett character). Also, I've been corresponding with Roy Thomas about the topic, and he recalls prior issues of Alter-Ego discussing the topics as well, though he is uncertain of the exact issues and cannot devote the time to research them. I'll still be digging through the back issues when I can get access to them, so perhaps I'll find enough to be able to re-introduce the grid and have it be kept this time (the irony here, of course, is that it's going to require a lot of 'original research time' to track down the back-up, which is why I think the term is a misnomer on the standards of 'no original research' and that 'original conclusions' would be a better term for the policy - I'm sure this distinction was probably debated ad infinitum back in the day, though). Anyway, just thought I'd share the info. Thanks. Starmiter 02:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I blocked the address (this time for a week). --Shirahadasha 05:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert of vandalism on my user page. :O) Flowerpotman talk|contribs 22:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. User has not vandalized since final warning. fishhead64 06:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, hi. Do you plan to have all superhuman cats. cfd'd? I don't see the meaning of only having the DC Comics super speed one gone, so you probably want all of them gone I presume? Could you explain to me why? Peace. ~I'm anonymous

Hey. You never answered back to me. How come? ~I'm anonymous

This discussion I deleted was not necessary anymore and it was certainly not vandalism. Digg was down for a couple of minutes and then it went back up without any change. It doesn't need to be discussed. 24.165.131.164 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jc37,

I've come to highly respect your opinion. You have shown support towards me quite often even in the face of adversity and also given me some frank reminders when necessary. I'm attempting to broker a different path towards communication with fellow editors and have diverted my energy towards other projects such as combatting of vandalism. There is a particular article, Huntress (Helena Wayne) that I believe objectively meets criteria similiar to Huntress (Helena Bertinelli) and Paula Brooks. All of these articles were split from the Huntress (comics) main article in October of 2006 or thereabouts, and all were allowed to exist and develop further for a few months. Following my insistence on a particular related article, the Wayne article was included and summarily changed to a redirect page based on WP:FICTION. Yet this same criteria is not applied to the above two articles. I find this incredulous while at the same moment wondering if the article would not have been contested had I not been connected to it. If so I regret my involvement. Mention has been made that there was a consensus, yet only two editors changed the article to a redirect (Steve Block and Lesfer) while others seem to be on the fence without a definitive stand. I would ask for direction from yourself as to how to proceed with the community towards reconsidering this article. It will be intrepreted as WP:OWN on my part as having created it. Truthfully, the entire PH along with picture and other contents could be changed at this point by others and I wouldn't object. However, I cannot reconcile an application of WP:FICTION in one article's case yet not in comparable articles. At this point in the project, I cannot expect to build consensus and I understand this is personal. However, I feel a principal is involved greater than one editor. Regards. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 01:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Lesfer#Helena Wayne for further information. I've asked him to discuss on the article's talk page. I ask you to not comment at the user's talk page, in the hopes of keeping the discussion united in one place (Talk:Huntress (comics)). I hope this helps. - jc37 05:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference to that talk page consideration, Jc37. I'm unsure if anything I say will be accepted in a manner that will solicit a positive response. It is apparent a few simply have no interest in dialogue beyond finger pointing. Of course I may be wrong. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 20:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sent me a message about my deletion being inappropriate. Perhaps I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia editing rules but I gave an explanation of why the section should be deleted on the "Left-wing politics" talk page under the subsection "Accuracy Dispute - Huge problems with the political violence section." A previous user commented in January 2007 about how the section is factually inaccurate and tagged it as such. It is now May 2007 and no one as responded to the original objections. Since I believe that content of the section (though not the section itself) to be egregiously misleading and poorly written I went on to delete it. -df 12 May 2007.

Just noticed your welcome on 68.118.157.63's talk page. I thought you might want to know about the {{anon}} template - it's useful for welcoming IPs because it also encourages them to create an account. If you would like to use the anon template, you should generally write: {{subst:anon}} ~~~~ on their talk page. Happy editing! --Ali 04:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a regular {{welcome}} template to me! Anyway, if you already know, then I don't need to tell you. Sorry about that. --Ali 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that edit, i wasn't cautious enough with it. someone snuck in "poop or pee" and i didn't catch it

71.112.142.5 06:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:MajorDisaster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a fair use rationale to this image. I didn't know the source, though. --GentlemanGhost 04:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By their very nature, I think all WikiProjects lend themselves to groupthink. It's an occupational hazard, one might say. Interestingly, in my early days as a member of WikiProject Comics, I frequently found myself on the losing side of arguements, directly in conflict with some of the longer-established project members whom I respected. These days, I find the opposite is true. I guess I must have drank the Kool-Aid somewhere along the line. ;) --GentlemanGhost 04:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing something doesn't equal obsessive-compulsive. As the pros say, writing is rewriting. I just don't use the preview feature much. Yeah, I know we should, but you know how it is when you've been working on something only to get a message saying there's an edit conflict because somebody else edited the page while you were writing. Doczilla 03:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have gone offline and probably haven't seen discussion suggesting you post your report to another board, so I'm going to go ahead and remove it. I would cross-post it for you, but I see that two boards have been suggested, so I'll leave the decision of where to go up to you. For more information, see this page version from before the removal. Cheers! – Luna Santin (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that currently exists is presented as fact by the author. It has always been in dispute and that's what I was referencing. However, I'm waaaaaaaay too tired and disinterested in rounding up the membership and then sourcing the refutation. Let him have the historical conceit. Those of us who were there will continue to question the veracity. This is a bird's eye view about how history is created, out of half and untruths and exaggerations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.3.47 (talk • contribs) 07 08 2006.

Well the next time you'd care to sign your name and actually refer by name to the article in question, you may receive a response. Since you haven't developed such an advanced skillset as yet, I'll let you stew in your own juices.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 23:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crosses, yes, but crucifixes? I was under the impression that use of the cross with the Christ figure on it was much more limited, and that the only group regularly using it which would be appropriate for Jaime's region and ethnicity would be Catholic, as I understand it. Lucky number 49 05:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are some Protestant denominations of a more recent derrivage that also use crucifixes, but I'll check it out. Still, although it is logicaly Reye's is Catholic due to several biographical factors, until explicitly stated it is original research which is a no-no.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just 2¢ or so... (Looking out of curiosity over the header)

There is a short article at Crucifix that covers denominations that use them over plain crosses.

That being said, it sounds like a drawn conclusion that the Reyes are Catholic based on "religious wall decoration"+"ethnicity"+"setting". In that light it may be better to put off including the item until there is an explicit statement about the family's faith.

- J Greb 05:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per my above comment, I agree completely. It is original research, pure and simple, hence why I removed it until verified. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem, I'll keep this in mind. Thanks. Lucky number 49 06:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Dick_Grayson/Archive01#Skills.2FAbilities and Talk:Dick_Grayson/Archive02#.22Second_to_Batman.22_Insult_or_compliment.3F. It's been gone over a couple times, and this was the result. Just FYI. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 02:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No big :) I figure if I can save everyone time with a rehash and just go straight into the new shizney, we'll all have less ulcer. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but as long as you believe you are working to the betterment of the encyclopedia, and as long as you don't edit war and are prepared to accept you are wrong and to discuss issues, then ignoring all rules is a useful policy. I may be misunderstanding your message, but it is not a blank cheque to act as you will. I think perhaps you misread my whole comment to Tenebrae, which noted that the manual of style is at conflict with the comics exemplars, and in fact supercedes it. This allows the invocation of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I'm glad to see you still find my contributions amusing and follow them with such zeal. The most amusing thing for me is that I actually liked your Earth two article and recall asking you to concentrate your arguments on the merits of the article, rather than the wiki-lawyering to which you descended and which failed to help your cause. Maybe in the future you'll bear that in mind and concentrate on what improves articles to our featured article status rather than the ins and outs of policies. Best wishes, Steve block Talk 10:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And by the way, if you do wish to quote me, it's preferable that you quote the whole of what I said. Your partial quotes on my talk page obscure and in some instances contradict my actual meaning. Cheers. Steve block Talk 13:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I say, you have misinterpreted me. And by golly, I hadn't realised you'd followed my edits to that great a degree. Still, if you are happy to assert your own meaning of my words over what I actually said and what I meant, then good luck to you. Thank you for striving to help me grow as a person. As the header says, all the best. Steve block Talk 13:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting...misinterpreted yet without explanation on what points were misinterpreted. Wikilawyer wikispeak, me think? :) Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you've seen the series and remember what happened, otherwise I am just wasting my time. During the original last two episodes, many assertions were made, such as that human personalities complement each other, each mind is only a small part of the possiblities, the implication that by others we can grow and learn. Then the rest of the episodes consisted of lots of bouncing of ideas off the different personalities, exploration of why they thought what they thought, the scenarios that Shinji was put thru, and finally his realization that his self-esteem was the main thing keeping him from forming proper relationships. The beginning of episode 26 describes how it shows the effect of the Instrumentality project on ONE INDIVIDUAL ONLY, because of time. The implication is that everyone else is going thru the same process. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Shinji's evolution is unique to himself; it has a kind of inevitability, as evidenced by Asuka's (or the Asuka-replica who is in his mind, at the very least) disgust at how long it takes him to realize what he finally realizes. If the Project failed, it failed by design.

But eh, what do I care if the Wikipedia articles on NGE are contradicting and misleading. I won't change it back, don't worry. 74.61.41.118 06:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! An article which you have edited, Tropical cyclones in popular culture, has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to voice your opinion in the deletion debate. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template you created, Template:KyleRayner, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take another look at this... — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts in saving the article Network Security from vandalism. Given the popularity of the topic, the article has been attacked many times. I am pleased to see how collaborative editing of WP is helping! Raanoo 10:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jla135.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the merge discussion within Talk:Natalee_Holloway/Archive_2#Merge_proposal from December 2007. Could you please provide me a link to any of the "multiple notable events" regarding Joran that do not have to do with the Holloway case? Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 05:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on my talk page, but I'd encourage you to initiate a discussion on Talk:Natalee Holloway before reverting a consensus merge/redirect. Consensus can change, but that can only be determined by discussion. - auburnpilot talk 05:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: to "their" heroes - they aren't my heroes? are they your heroes?

For some reason, that wording really amused me. Thanks. Doczilla (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Netkinetic. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Netkinetic. I completely agree and glad that you support his inclusion. Thanks! --CmdrClow (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 06:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm unsure why he removed that content. We'll help him further with future edits. Thanks! Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 06:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I answered a comment on a talk page and you removed my answer. It was a serious answer and my use of mild 'language' does not negate the validity and potential helpfulness of my comment informing readers that the graph in question was using a logarithmic scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.245.199 (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't provide me your user name (or number, as the case may be) and you don't provide a link to the page...well mind-reading is not presently in my skillset. Regards!Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 06:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The joke is getting old. Humor is great sometimes, but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 06:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You're bitching that I made an edit and retracted it a minute later? Get a life, lone star.

Wikipedia can try to be a serious encyclopedia all it likes. Considering I haven't signed up or made any agreement with what my contribution will be, I will edit any way I please. Don't like it? Ban me. Don't like that I'll have a new one in five minutes? Ban my ISP or set up some account creation. Won't do all of that? Then shut up, as wikipedia will not be taken seriously academically until these changes occur.

• Yawn*

Not that I disagree... but...

Iron Man (comics)

War Machine

Batman

Blue Beetle (Ted Kord)

It seems to be a standing practice if the character owns it, or works for it in costume.

- J Greb (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I can see it for suppoting charicters like Perry White, Lucius Fox, or JJJ. But it is just too big a stretch when applied to main charicters, and the same goes for "Executive branch of the United States". - J Greb (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm looking for people to help me out with the creation of this article, care to lend a hand? --CmdrClow (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for backing me up there. Though he usually edits in good faith, I don't really like the behaviour of this editor and some of the things he says. Particularly, on several occasions, I've asked him to leave an edit summary when he reverts a good faith edit with WP:UNDO yet he fails to do this completely. I have watchlisted this user. What you think he should improve on? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I trust you have already watchlisted this editor? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising your concerns. - J Greb (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently encountered someone who you have had some problems with. Would like to speak with you about it, is that possible?BGMNYC (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well...hmmmm...if it is a problem with the admin who blocked you, or the editors who suspected and had confirmed that you are a sockpuppeteer...then no...haven't had the "some" problems with. Buh buy.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 02:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeser1, would you please cool down and give Netkinetic a break? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not familiar with the situation (and you are decidedly not), butt out. Jumping into a thread for no reason to rag on me with someone who harasses and stalks me is not doing you, me, or even him any good. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Good luck, Netkinetic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Since he persists in vandalizing my page I'm removing his slanderous comments above. Hopefully he'll bother someone else from here on out.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he reverting your messages? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're the wrong user. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, Mr. Boru has a serious case of following editors he doesn't like around.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 06:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I'm not sure if you noticed, but when you reverted a vandal's edit here, it says you reverted my edit, but it was the vandal's edit that was reverted. I'm thinking you're running a version of VP that is 1.36 or lower. Might want to update? DiverseMentality (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, Will make sure I leave edit summary in future! 220.245.107.141 (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Netkinetic,

I am not sure what the warning was about but it has been twice reverted by 'Brian Boru is awesome'. I am just trying to find out what is going on. I am fairly new at this. I sent you an email via the Email This User option in the Toolbox.

Canberra User (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your 03:23, April 6, 2008 revert to Mitchell gives the wrong edit as being reverted. Not a major issue since the right edit was reverted. Just mentioning it in case the revert tool you are using is not functioning properly. VMS Mosaic (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed someone else also mentioned a similar revert problem on your talk page today. VMS Mosaic (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is and I have mentioned it at the VP website while awaiting a response. Suffice it to say, the vandalism on the page in question was reverted and I've since manually informed each vandal with a warning rather than using VP. Whether or not it says "reverted edit of [fill in the name]" is determined by the VP interface, not by myself.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 20:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have recently updated the Earth-Two article with information form the upcoming JSA Annual #1 by Geoff Johns. I am attempting to upload the image from the articles and I was wondering if you could help me.

The article is located at:

http://www.comicbloc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63414

Any help or guidance you can give would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

JeffCapo (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Jeff, you have to determine if that is a fair use image prior to uploading as Wikipedia has policies on this. I'd recommend you contact editor J Greb who is more experienced in such matters. Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 04:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been posting warnings after your comments, but they are also included in the box, like User talk:74.230.134.150. Even if I hit "new section" at top, it still happens. Can this be fixed? Spencer^T♦C 01:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope your best bet would be to contact the admin behind VP.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Spencer^T♦C 10:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but I read you comment on the talk page and was a little confused. You clearly state Opposed which would not be in support to move the page to GL (Alan Scott), but your position seems to be that he is known predominantly as GL, which seems to be in support of the move. I just wanted to clarify. Thanks! -Sharp962 (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Nomsportsmaster.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Iru (food)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. A12n (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MajorDisaster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. 2pou (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Aquaria (planet) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Aquaria (planet) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Virgon and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Virgon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Aerelon and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Aerelon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]