Hello, CovenantD, and welcome to Wikipedia!

If you are responding to a message I left on your talk page, either respond there or copy my message here.

May latest project Category:Articles with unsourced statements
An excellent fair use summary can be found at Image:Vadersketch.jpg

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 15:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives
/Comics Archives 1 /Mediations Archives 1 /Misc. Archives 1

You added material to the 1st paragraph without a consensus recently at the passing of deadline. I am also updating the paragraph at the passing of deadline. Why the double standar? --Samuel Luo 05:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that there was a consensus for those three words and that you waited for one day before making the change. I simply don’t remember a straw poll for it, can you point that out to me? thanks --Samuel Luo 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CD. My suggestion would be to make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to get a 3rd party admin to help and add this helpful directory to your favourites for any future needs: [1]. I will be happy to 2nd your requests at any time. --Fire Star 火星 22:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a second to look through things -- Samir धर्म 06:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looked through the talk page and I sandboxed the changes. I'd prefer it if you guys reached a consensus on the opening paragraph in the next two days, and then we can unprotect for a definitive version. I see nothing egregious in leaving out the references for 48 hours, but you are more than welcome to ask another administrator if they are willing to unprotect to make the changes. Please note that by no means am I endorsing any particular version, including the version that appears on the protected page. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 06:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. Kudos on all your continued efforts to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic. -- Tenebrae 18:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello covenant, since im a rather new member and i cant post anything on the discussion page and since you are the neutral editor then id like to post here some comments so that you can read and perhaps publish on the discussion page in case you consider it appropriate. I am addressing all the editors in this post but specially the critics.

I personally dont agree my comments should be just linked to someones talk page because i believe they are important enough to be posted directly on the discussion page, please read them in case you havent so that you can notice why i think they are important. I and other falun gong practitioners are considering to restructure my coments a little bit, adding more of each others opinions and views on the matter, reorganize them, divide them into subsections so that it doesnt seem very long and posting them on the talk page as falun gongs point of view on the matter.

Concerning the central concepts, what are we talking about here? are we talking about what are the central concepts of falun dafa or what the critics think are the central concepts? critics are here to criticize right? not to tell us what falun gong is all about, we know what it is since we are practitioners, its the system we practice.

i suppose you are asking for the core principles of falun dafa and if you are asking about that then you should ask a practitioner of course. If you want to know what the critics think, because they have the right to express their opinion and help out in the making of the article just like us, then thats great but this would turn into a debate topic also, what falun gong establishes as its core principles and......well..how are they going to post what the critics think are the central concepts of falun gong on the article, are you planning to post something like "Well, the critics think Truth, Benevolence, Forbearance are not the central concepts or falun gong, they say the central concepts are (quoting them) deception, intolerance of critics, Xenophobic and homophobic statements, Li thinking he is a god among all humans" what's this all about? how can you establish that as Falun Gong central concepts? is this really neutral? is this even a neutralized discussion despite the difference of opinions? in this last post i dont see the critics holding back on offending us the falun gong practitioners, whos following the guidelines in here?. If you want to criticize falun gong then you should save it for the critics and controversy subsection which i believe should be made in to a daughter page, we should also have the right to reply on this critics like i did on my comments for example.

Im not saying some of the Falun gong practitioners havent made mistakes regarding the respect for the rules of this talk page but this quarrel between practitioners and critics is going to end up making the reader think you are not taking this project seriously. Remember that whatever you write is read by other people and that is not only the person who you are referring your reply to. Ive already explained what we practitioners of falun gong think about your critics, please read my "rather lengthy contribution" so that you can see our point of view regarding your critics. Please, follow the guidelines and lets hope we can make a good job on this one.

Andres

Hi, Covenant. I think I owe you an apology if you are hurt by the word "deceptive". I am not a native English speaker and sometimes I don't have the right vocabulary to describe what I see. Also I feel you did not intentionally scheme the confusion. So I apologize. Fnhddzs 02:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the warning because it doesnt seem purposeful, or I am mistaken.

I think you may have done this accidentally?

I think you have restored the wrong version? It seems as if you reverted to a vandalised version so it appeared that you'd inserted the text. I can't see any source that suggests he's gay? If I'm wrong, please re-revert it by all means! Fyver528 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll revert it for you. Perhaps you could provide the references :). Just so you know, I'm not infallable and this isn't a personal attack on you. Fyver528 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh voila, c'est complet ;) Fyver528 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're helpful unlike most, for instance the Neo Nazi "Atlantean" who went crazy at me for reverting his racist edits. Since then he's been visiting my userspace and leaving me lovely messages. I think he's a complete nutjob just a couple of examples;

[2] [3] ..

Im not black for a start, but he doesn't need to know that. Fyver528 20:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and his IP originated from Poland, so you wouldn't have thought he be into idolising Hitler considering how many of them were murdered by the Nazis :S. He needs to be taken under the mental health act or something. Or sent to AtlantisFyver528 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your archiving the talk page as it was surely needed. However, you archived a discussion that is still running, with comments only a few hours old. So I de-archived it and put it back on the page. I suggest that next time you archive the page you try not to archive discussions that are still running. Mcconn 16:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted you to know I rv'd the change made by User:Rorschach567 when he directed the phrase "freaking moron" at you. He doesn't appear to know WikiProject Comics style or the concept of civility. Let's keep an eye out. Hang in there, C.D.! -- Tenebrae 13:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call any individual a "freaking moron." Perhaps my language was a bit too colorful but I was just pointing out that it's pretty obvious that superheroes are fictional characters, another redundancy I try to get rid of when editting overlong intros.Rorschach567 14:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm apologize if you took it as a personal attack. I was simply making a point. The "freaking moron" was not supposed to be directed at you or any other user.

Until this morning, the term "fictional" was not in the exemplar page thus I did not feel an obligation to "dozens if not hundreds of editors" to use it. Although I disagree with this point and will continue to state my case, I'll abide by it because I understand the importance of reaching such matters by consensus.

However, I am offended at wholesale reverts of my work simply because of this one small point. If you have some problem with the rest of the edit, be it a WikiProject Comics style issue or not, I’d prefer you state the reason why on the edit summary, talk page or my talk page, instead of flushing the whole thing down the toilet on the basis one small point.

Thanks for your time and attention. Again, I am sorry if I offended you. Rorschach567 14:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind offer on helping on references. I will ask you if I have questions. Fnhddzs 15:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you were upset but you were not able to see what had happened. Part of the Talk page went missing. I have restored it. I did not expect my edit to remain. I was, in fact, going to self revert. However, I spent the whole day (10 hours) researching the whole article in depth, and sought to make it the most bland and NPOV article that I could. Alienus seemed to think it was not terrible but needed work and Pollinator also felt that way. I did not expect it to survive, but I was hoping that by showing that version, it would provide a direction to go that would help avoid these on-going edit wars. I completely emptied my mind of any POV and simply did a Joe Friday on it. Given that I spent 10 hours on it, I would appreciate it if you would take the time to read it over a bit more carefully rather than dismiss it in anger. Sure, I understand the anger -- it was well founded without having my comments to read -- but now that I explained it to you, I hope you will let that cool and reconsider the article itself. --Anon 64 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, help me be polite by being polite. I don't know what went wrong with that template didn't seem to be different form others I've used in the past.--T-man, the wise 01:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why focus on a tree when you can focus on the forrest. Take your battle to the project. You had a problem with stubs (although there is no policy against stubs), now I'm telling you I won't create stubs.

I'm just following WP common practices, you're just being an obatacle I don't know why.

Don't worry I'll do each one according to that page. Stubs encorage people to fill info, there is nothing wrong with that (according to WP).

I'm new here, so maybe I don't understand how everything works yet, but how many personal attacks does someone have to make before they get blocked? I have been cruising around some of the articles on Marvel Comics characters, and I see this one guy, "MrBigB," has (particularly in the Thanos article) been throwing around nothing but personal attacks. Even when he makes a legitimate revert, he manages to throw something in about the other guy - even if the edit was made in good faith. I looked on his talk page and he's been warned before. I would just let the admins take care of it, but nobody seems to care; his comments on the Thanos talk page in particular are really cluttering it up. I've only just barely created my account, so I don't really know how this stuff is supposed to work. Mr. Conky 21:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a simple answer for you; it's pretty subjective and dependent on the people involved. It usually has to be brought to the attention of an admin in order for somebody to be blocked, and if the behaviour stops after a warning then the process often stops at that stage. My guess is that nobody has reported MrBigB. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask. CovenantD 14:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Er -- the image I was talking about is this one. (someone's uploaded a different version now, it used to look like this ) It keeps getting dropped without explaination -- between anonymous IPs and people bickering about what belongs at the top of the page. The image without source information that was removed today is this image -- which I suspect you mistakenly believed was the image I re-inserted today.

Regarding the later image, can we just add "from Tim Burton's Batman (1989)"? The comic covers were clearly marked by the uploaders, but this one I'm less sure about -- it's obviously a screencap from the film, but I'm not sure if there is a process to undergo in updating, since it was improperly marked to begin with. ~CS 20:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenix section you removed, has returned. (I think you were right to remove it). If you remove it again, I encourage you to mention that anyone who disagrees with your actions, "should come to the talk." We should be able to handle it from there.--P-Chan 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to work on it. I also request to have a poll about changing the name to persecution. I am sorry I tend to get emotional when the organ harvesting allegations are confirmed by another source. I cannot cheat my heart. But regardless of my feeling, I am willing to work on the article lead section. Please feel free to advise since you seem to know more about what is a lead section. Thanks. Fnhddzs 20:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry Covenant. I am super busy these days. Could be better after August 4. Fnhddzs 04:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to cause another edit war, but what was wrong with the new image? It's better illustrated and is focused more on the Creeper. It also illustrates how he currently looks. --DrBat 16:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are my additions pov - the American military does and has abused many people throughout the world. HappyVR 18:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, thansk for finishign that RV today. I thought i'd gotten back to the correct edit, but I guess not. Second, thanks for the backups on reverting Adam Sandler out. ALl the other listings have decent cites, if not good, but the sandler thing's a name drop in a rumor that, in turn, is being cited as a source. blah. DaffyDuck619 may yet catch on. I hope.ThuranX 04:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you have one or not, but if you have a My Space page I'd love to add you on as a friend. (If you don't mind.) Here's a link to my page: viola. Artemisboy 23:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got sucked in through deleting one of the sub-articles. I'm not minded to walk away just yet, but thanks for the words. It's a bit of a mess, but then these things usually are. Steve block Talk 12:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd you remove the categories about him being an adulterer and promiscuous? He's been married twice, and both times he's cheated on his wife with another woman. Even if promiscuous doesn't apply, adulterer certainly does. --DrBat 02:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A declaration that the Black Panther is the greatest superhero ever? That would be POV. This is merely a primer for those unfamiliar with the Panther (and a handy checklist for those trying to complete their collection). Be a good sport and leave it, would you? Thanks. --ABCxyz 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion page for a compromise solution. -- ABCxyz 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elements are usually described as naturally occuring forces, wind, water, fire, etc. Lightning is a naturally occuring force, as testifed by anyone who ever saw a storm. Like fire, it is born from friction (the rubbing of two clouds creates lighting, as rubbing two sticks creates fire). The Mutant X TV series called electrical mutants "elementals" (see Elemental (Mutant X)), and their are lots of lightning powered heroes in the Fictional elementals categories. And see Elementals in fiction, lightning is on the list.

Well, this is an category about "Fictional elementals", and the Elementals in fiction lists lightning as an element.

In Supergirl during the angel arc, the Linda is told that the Earth Angels respresented the "Elements of Love, Light, and Fire", Strange Visitor (comics) was said to be linked to the energies of the Earth,Storm (comics) is described as wielding the elements of nature (and lightning is her biggest weapon). Almost every magic game (be it cards, or video games) from Magic the Gathering[4] to Final Fantasy, use lighting as an elemental force. In most works of fiction, lightning is considered an element (and we are discussing fictional characters who use fictional elemental powers here). And finally Fire (classical element) says lightning is an aspect of the fire element.

Given the category title, I read it as "Fictional characters on American television shows", not "Fictional Americans on television shows". Please hold off on reverting until we can sort this out. - TexasAndroid 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in a case like this, it's generally nice to give someone a chance to respond before you start wholesale reverting them. :( - TexasAndroid 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Looking at it a bit more, I think you've got it right. The cat is for Americans, not American TV. I guess either makes as much sense. The cat likely needs a rename, or at least an explanation at the top. I read the title as "Fiction American television characters" when it should be "Fiction American television characters". Heh. Your last comment just came through as I typed, and looks like you agree that the name is bad. So looks like my edits do need to be reverted. I would ask that you please be careful. There are a mix of other things I fixed at the same time in a few, and I would rather those not be reverted. But go ahead and revert the changes to this one cat. And Stargate was far from the only series I did it on, over the last two days. I'll do some reverts as well. I have the admin rollback button I can use to revert my own edits, though I'll similarly need to be careful which reverts to make. As for the cat name, let's clean up my mess first, then it looks like we are in agreement that a change needs to happen with the name of this, and I see several other categories with similar confusion. So clen-up first, then we can discuss a proposal to WP:CSD for renames. - TexasAndroid 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rollback button is great for this kind of thing. I'm already done. I just pulled up my contributions list for the last couple of days, and went through it one by one. If it was the cat in question, and only that, I just hit the Rollback button. So all the changes involving that cat have been reverted. I need to take care fo some other things offline first, but I'll pick up the discussion of renaming this and some similarly ambiguous categories on the talk page of Category:Fictional American television characters. That'll make it a little more public. If we can come up with a good new naming scheme, I can then write up the proposal for WP:CFD easily enough, as I hang out there a lot. - TexasAndroid 15:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are three issues being mixed up in this paragraph: Li’s position on how his followers should spread his teachings, the reason for his leaving the China Qigong Research Society and the critique from Chinese Buddhist Assoc. Each of these issues deserves its own paragraph, however, except the second point, on more relevant pages.

I do not totally agree with the deletion of this paragraph (see below). The second half of it talks about Li’s role as a savior. Perhaps in the future you want to provide clearer justification for removing passages to avoid reverts.--Samuel Luo 20:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• He teaches that his “great law" is boundless and judging mankind. [1] It is weeding out "the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world" in a process called "Fa-rectification." [2] Claiming to be the only one who is offering salvation to mankind,[3] Li promises to turn his disciples into gods if they follow the moral requirements of his Dafa and expose what he considers to be the evil regime in China. [4] ,[5]

This paragraph was written on Li’s page prior to the FG page debate, so no one is trying to sneak it in if that is what you mean. I agree that it should not be in the lead section. And I will expand this sentence “Claiming to be the only one who is offering salvation to mankind, Li promises to turn his disciples into gods if they follow the moral requirements of his Dafa.”--Samuel Luo 21:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sticking up for me, man. 161.38.222.14 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On it. Workign from Z back, you can work from a forward, we'll undo it fast.ThuranX 06:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got em all. Left Douglas Adams. by coincidence, he's right about that one. thanks for all that help.ThuranX 06:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've started rolling them back. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I must also warn *you* to stop reverting. Wahkeenah 16:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wah has clearly violated the 3RR by reverting you and I 4 times. I don't think this needs to be acted upon unless he does it again. I would like not to have to revert it again, because it would put me at 3 reverts, but I notice that you have only edited that section once since he has reverted. Bignole 16:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how do you take the edit now? He has changed it so that it now interpret what "others" believe. I'm not sure if this would still fall under a revert violation, but it seems to me that it is his way of trying to get around it. What do you think? Bignole

Ok, thanks. That is what I thought but I wasn't sure. I will be forced to report him then. I have asked Someguy to come in and make the changes because I don't wish to use up my third revert changing it back. Bignole 17:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I would let you know that he has finally reverted and removed his own stuff, but I had already filed the 3RR violation. I listed 5 links to his reverts, one included his weasly word usage. I think that the time had already passed and even now it is too late for him to try and make amends for the reverts, especially for constantly refering to you as a "sockpuppet". In case you wish to support the charge.

To the Captain Dip reference? Steve block Talk 17:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. I have issued a {{npa2}}. I advise taking future attacks to Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard, noting {{npa2}} has now been issued. You can bring them to me, but a quicker response may be had through the noticeboard. Steve block Talk 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies regarding the page, I was reverting a mesh between the allegories and trivia section. Do continue on with your referencing though.

Hey! If you need any help with the Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia in general, feel free to ask me on my talk page. I've been on Wikipedia for only a month, but oh well. Have fun! --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 05:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..., focusing on the Dark Phoenix character by an expert.

Hi CovenantD! I think you are a Dark Phoenix fan or an X-Men expert, so I beg you or someone you know to create an article which focus on the Dark Phoenix character with the intention of exclude it from the Dark Phoenix Saga article, so that Dark Phoenix initiate fans like me can know more about her. Thank you for your attention. User:Lord Hammu (Talk)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for disruption of Wikipedia; your comments at RfCU are completely inappropriate and border on personal attacks. If you continue when your block expires, you will be subject to further blocks and formal dispute resolution. Essjay (Talk) 19:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Essjay to think about this, but your block is up so there's little I can do. I don't think this was justified to be honest. Steve block Talk 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from request for checkuser)

• Samuel Luo (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tomananda (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 71.198.77.89 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Based on these edits,[5][6][7] I believe there is enough evidence to suggest either the presence of sockpuppets or somebody trying to create the appearance of one. CovenantD 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Is there an accusation of policy violation here, or is it possible the user forgot to log in? Thatcher131 04:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely at the diffs or at the IP address contribution history, you'll see that this IP editor changed the anon IP sig to two different user names. Both of the registered users, Tomananda and Samuel Luo, are very active on the Falun Gong-related articles and have participated in many different surveys and straw polls. If they are the same user, then as I understand it they are violating the policies against sockpuppets by participating twice and creating the illusion of being two separate people. I've just been drafted as "official" mediator for the Falun Gong article and the outcome of this will greatly impact my ability to weigh the facts presented by these two users. It's also not the first time that Samuel has been accused of running sockpuppets. CovenantD 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Got it. Here and here, the IP editor changes his sig to Samuel Luo; and here, the IP editor changes his sig to Tomananda. Both editors are heavily involved in Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles. Thatcher131 04:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my first checkuser report; thanks for the cleanup. CovenantD 04:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how long should I expect to wait? Progress on the entire set of articles is on hold pending the outcome of this checkuser. CovenantD 04:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. I'm here trying to create a better encyclopedia and this is the support I get? Hell of a turn off. CovenantD 10:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While there are about 1000 administrators on wikipedia, only 14 of them have checkuser permission and 99% of the cases here are answered by just two of them, so you may have to be patient. No article is so important that the sky will fall if it is stuck in the "wrong version" for a few more days. You can try a request for comment on the article to get some outside opinions if the usual editors can't agree. Thatcher131 11:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like this system is broken. Only 2 of the 14 people actually do the work? Time to replace some people. Or put some kind of disclaimer that this isn't very timely. Something to let people know not to expect results. CovenantD 11:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Declined I'll be damned if I'm going to put up with that kind of abuse. Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about judging it on it's merits rather than your personal feelings? CovenantD 19:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Declined, seconded in the strongest possible terms. And CovenantD blocked for 24 hours for disruption. Essjay (Talk) 19:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just coming into this, but that seems more than a little harsh. Can't wikipedia have operational disagreements without assuming it's personal attacks, resulting in blocks? Or is there something outside this discussion I'm not seeing? --Kickstart70-T-C 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cascade of abusive comments directed at the checkusers were more than enough justification for blocking for disruption; common sense says you don't come ask for help and then start taking swings at the people you're asking for help. By the way, just for future note by anyone watching, the reason that it takes a while to get a response is because we have to deal with things like this; if people were, you know, patient/pleasant/appreciative, then we might be a bit more inclined to run checks. As it stands, we gain very little but constant abuse from all sides for volunteering our time to do this. Essjay (Talk) 05:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else going to accept; it would be nice to see requests being upheld on the merit of the case rather than the behaviour of the applicant. Steve block Talk 19:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• CovenantD, Tomananda(a user name on wiki) and I share a house [8] and the same Comcast account, therefore our IP is the same. I believe this info answers your question. --Samuel Luo 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... Big editor people: I understand that you have a stressful job, but Covenant said like two sentences which were mildly harsh (and which may have had something to do with himself be under a little stress too). You may be the big hotshots on Wiki, but in the real world your just like anyone else. And as a fellow person in the real world I know that ignoring someone and then punishing them simply because he said a few harsh words like this isn't right. I don't believe in Covenant's allegations of sockpuppeting, but I do believe that he had the right to be heard by you. Besides, Covenant said nothing bad about you, but instead criticised the system (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either). All in all, this looks like an huge over reaction and a classic abuse of power. Mcconn 18:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contact me at sbharris@ix.netcom.com SBHarris 19:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Right this second I think that's undue escalation. Steve block Talk 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Escalation" happened the momment Essjay took it personally and blocked a non-administrator for complaining that WP wasn't working right. That's abuse of administrator-power, and there's just no excuse for it. NONE. Overlooking it, only allows it to continue. When I myself went to ArbCom about Essjay, the response was *yawn*-- "Too bad for you, but show us that this is habitual." Well, here we are. YOU can take it, or you can do something about it. If you want to ignore it and take it, I'll just go back on watch for the next time it happens. Good luck.SBHarris 20:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing there would not be merits to the case, but it is unlikely arb-com will take this case unless the steps in the dispute resolution process aren't taken first. The first step is to see whether Essjay is going to concede any fault in the block. Do you have a link to the arb-com case you mention? Steve block Talk 21:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been taken to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. I'm not satisfied with Essjay's response to me, so I've requested another admin take a look at it. Let's allow that to work before trying ArbCom. --Kickstart70-T-C 21:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As an admin I have reviewed it and find it questionable. However, I was awaiting a response from Essjay before going to WP:AN, since the block has expired. Since you have raised it there though, I will comment again. Steve block Talk 21:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My own case was brought June 19, and probably failed to make it to acceptance. My arguments kept getting refactored, questioned by other admins, and so on, and I think it finally got refactored into oblivion. I've asked JessieW, who is my personal champ at finding links, if he can locate it. Meanwhile, you can see some of what happened on my TALK page. Basically I was permablocked by Essjay somewhat reflexively, at the request of another editor, when I pointed out that some of what was happening in a personal bio of a living person, might have legal consequences. This was taken to mean that *I* was threatening to sue somebody myself, an idea patently ridiculous and not to be found in anything I wrote (I have no legal history, FYI). It took another admin with better sense to undue the damage, but not before I ended up having to email Jimbo and Brian and a bunch of other people. One of the ugly things I found out is that if you're blocked on Wikipedia, you really don't have any good recourse to defend yourself, because you're BLOCKED. I also found that WP:ANI and ArbCom are pretty toothless tigers when it comes to administator abuse of ordinary editors. Basically, THEY don't give a damn. Even editors who've put in huge amounts of time on WP making complex and good faith edits, are nobodies here, unless they have wiki-cop powers. Admins stand together, sort of like any group of cops do, and Wikipedia has no Department of Internal Affairs. The last time the admins warred among themselves was the pedophilia usertag wheelwar, and Jimbo hiself had to stop that. I haven't seen it happen over abuse of a ordinary editor, yet. So this kind of thing is what you see. And it happens ALL the time. I've simply started to keep track of it. For posterity, as it were. SBHarris 22:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins dispute each other's actions frequently, to be honest. The pedophile userbox issue was a huge escalation, and as I said at the time, I still think if people had discussed rather than acted, it wouldn't have gone so far. I'm not convinced admins do stand together. You're right about the hardships imposed by a block, granted, but the reasons for those hardships are that most blocks are issued to people who would abuse any work around. It makes it hard for people who are blocked for no good reason, yes. A few of us admins have listed ourselves in Category:Administrators open to recall and are investigating methods of reviewing admin actions, but so far it is a voluntary process. Anyway, I'll look at your case, and I'll keep an eye on this one. Steve block Talk 22:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my case: 00:27, 25 June 2006.Rejected. Said, what was my problem if I'd been unblocked? Hmmm. Recommended Legal Threats policy be made more specific (which might help admins who missed WP:AGF and WP:SENSE, one supposes). And that if I had a specific admin complaint I should've taken it to WP:ANI. Like anything ever happens there about that. In short, a big T.S. and the runaround. SBHarris 06:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, folks. CovenantD 14:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, want to voice my support for Covenant. Throughout this contentious process of editing in the Falun Gong article, he has shown a great deal of integrity. In fact, I have often thought they he should be designated an administrator because he clearly has an interest in mediating and an ability to see the big picture when dealing with controversial subject matter. As it turns out, I am technically not the same person as Samuel even though we are very close and share common values. But I can see that Covenant might think we are the same person because I sometimes forget to log in and then go back and log on to add my correct signature. Covenant: I would be perfectly happy to write any letter of support you need to administrators or committees in Wikipedia, so let me know if it comes to that. --Tomananda 20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should state that whilst what you said was borderline blockable, it was certainly inappropriate. Blocks can be issued by admins for a scale of reasons, and sometimes those reasons allow a dicretion call. Your comments wouldn't fall into my discretion zone, but it did fall in another admin's zone. I understand you were frustrated, but you need to try and damp down that frustration. The check user process is not the easiest one to understand, and it's a bit of a nuclear option. I appreciate apologies towards yourself have not been forthcoming, but that doesn't mean apologies from yourself don't have to be. I pretty much let my words, edits and actions speak for themselves, but clarify when they cause conflict, because I don't see any value in conflict on Wikipedia. I'm not saying you should apologise, but it may be something to consider. You may not have meant to cause offence to User:Mackensen, but the user did take offence none the less. Clearing up that misunderstanding might be something to consider. Steve block Talk 09:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to notify you that this has been created: [9]. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant, I just wanted to point out that Samuel's Personal Webpage appears in the Reference section of the Falun Dafa page? Could you remove the same from the "references" section? Thankyou. :) Dilip rajeev 07:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CovenantID,

As a way to move forward and leave behind the recent dispute with Essjay, I have proposed a statement to which both parties are invited to consider, and hopefuly accept. See User talk:Jossi/AMA Kickstart70/Moving forward. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of how AMA actually has no standing at all, and how they get a nose thumbed at them if they pretend to have any, this was good. As a demo of power politics, informative as well. SBHarris 22:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Mackensen and I were able to come to a good resolution on this. Unfortunately, the principle players here (CovenantD and Essjay) haven't responded yet. I have my doubts about Essjay, but maybe C.D? --Kickstart70-T-C 22:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the middle finger from you know who. You're not ArbCom. That's sort of like being a U.N. member without being on the Security Council. Perhaps even like being a Security Council rotating member. If the problem involves a permanent member, you're going to get the finger. "Where's your nuke ICBMs, baby?" This is the way the world works.SBHarris 23:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant: Just wondering if you were planning to return to your mediation role for the Falun Gong article any time soon. You may have noticed that a newly identified editor named Tony Sidaway just did 9 inappropriate deletion edits in the discussion section. Much of the discussion he deleted addresses the issue of including in the introduction material on Master Li's role in salvation and the Fa-rectification. As you know, this is a major stumbling block between the Falun Gong practitioner/editors and the non-FG editors. I think your presence as an impartial mediator can help get us back on track. --Tomananda 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain why you reverted my refactoring of this page? Thanks. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 23:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CovenantD, How does this 3RR thing work? In the Films that have been considered the greatest ever‎ page, he keeps putting bogus information in there. What's the procedure for this? Thanks. --Happylobster 03:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you aren't around so much at the moment. If you need to discuss anything I am emailable via my talk page. You're a very good contributor and it would be a shame to lose you. Steve block Talk 18:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on the talk page your removal of many entries. JoshuaZ 18:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you're removing info from this article - and if you have a legitimate reason could you please use the edit summary to say why as it shows to us as vandalism. Thanks - GIen 03:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is he not a sociopath?

He killed his daughter's foster family and brainwashed her so she could kill his son, and then almost disowned her when she couldn't do it. Does he have any redeeming qualities left? --DrBat 17:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to continue reverting my edits without telling me why or discussing it I will have to report you.

As you are refusing to use the talk page on this article, and keep reverting my edits, I will have to take this discussion here. I noticed multiple commments above from other people that you've been doing this same thing on other articles. This is not considered acceptable on wikipedia, and could even be considered as vandalism. We're meant to resolve disagreements on articles here through communication, not through reverting over and over until the other person gives up.

Of the text I removed from Westboro Baptist Church, much of it was entirely unsourced. Other parts of it were based on the utterly unreliable source "Addicted to Hate", which is an unpublished manuscript and which certainly violates WP:V. Quoting from WP:V, "1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it". The text I have removed should not be put back unless reliable sources can be found for it, and as of now there are none. --Xyzzyplugh 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious as to your reasons for removing the new info that was posted on the Radical Faerie page. Not complaining - I didn't really like what was added :) Just curious. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to revert the Westboro Baptist Church while refusing to discuss it on the talk page and ignoring my comments on your user page. I'm notifying you that if this continues, I will bring in an Admin or take this to Wikipedia:Third_opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, etc. Reverting over and over while refusing to discuss the issue is not acceptable behavior on wikipedia, and can eventually lead to an editor being blocked. Please respond here, on my talk page, or the talk page of Westboro Baptist Church, to the various points I've raised regarding the article. --Xyzzyplugh 04:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say -- this is very unsusual for ConvenantD. In the past he has always been very good about using edit summeries and communicating on talk pages. Unfortunatly, he doesn't have the email feature in Wikipedia setup, so I was unable to check in to ask about this strange change in posting style... ~CS 14:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so where exactly did the real names of Erg and Beautiful Dreamer come from since no where else, not even Marvel, uncannyxmen.net or the Marvel Appendix list their real names? Originalsinner 00:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the Moon" disambiguates sufficiently, and that term is already used in the second sentence of the article. Why is there a need to use "Earth's Moon" in the size comparison immage text? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 00:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please communicate more with other editors. In particular, please discuss your recent edits to Westboro Baptist Church on the talk page. At that page it is explained that the relevant passages which have been removed have unreliable sources. I also note that you are over WP:3RR on that page. Please do continue or you may be blocked for WP:3RR violation. Thank you. JoshuaZ 05:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding you were blocked for 6 hours because of your 3RR violations in Clock King, please use the time to think about your actions. You've been a very inconsiderate user. the purpose of wikipedia is to make well sourced informative articles, not un sourced uninformative articles that don't ilustrate the content. If you don't like the topic, go to an article about a topic you like and provide research, tables, infoboxes and images according to guideline. Thank you--The Judge 02:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...just now at Spider-Man. Your vigilance on POV and non-encyclopedic tone in Comics Project articles is, as always, appreciated! --Tenebrae 07:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please argue your case somewhere before deleting a (correct but perhaps to you surprising) disambig. link. Bob aka Linuxlad 13:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- JHunterJ 20:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, it has been a while, as you can see we are still there. --Samuel Luo 06:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine's promiscuity is not a point of view call; throughout the comic's existence, he's been shown to have no-strings, casual sex with many people, including hookers. He fits the definition perfectly. --Mister Six 11:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you actually are making 3RR violations, instead of reverting, just give me a heads-up about the situation, and I'll try to help. Beside the fact that I think you're a great editor, we usually agree on edits. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not will fully ignoring anybody. You confuse me with yourself. It wasn't very polite of you to write such lie. As well as reverting work without explaining yourself and disobey an administrator. I'm actually waiting for the comics project people to make up their minds, meanwhile improving the remaining infoboxes. Remember, the infobox is not oficial, but it isn't forbiden yet, that's what I'm waiting for. If you don't erase until a some sort of voting is made, I won't expand... I need the remaining to make further improvements.--The Judge 21:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're willing to help somebody who gain his blocking by reverting an editor, have his page full of 3RR complaints and likes to follow war over several articles... Nice. Tell me who you are with and I'll tell you who you are--The Judge 06:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really trying to understand your writing. No offnse intended, but is English your second language?--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you've made a completely pointless edit without bothering to explain yourself. I've restored Constantine's entry in the Crisis on Infinite Earths article, but there was simply no good reason for removing it in the first place. --Mister Six 23:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None that you saw, but as the contributing editor I wouldn't expect you to. CovenantD 23:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, get her. If you have a problem with a contribution it's better to amend or request clarification than to delete outright. All you had to do was add a citation request. While you're there, why not add citation requests for the rest of that article? --Mister Six 23:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another clear example of why I avoid interacting with most wikipedians. CovenantD 23:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...on List of characters appearing in Batman: The Animated Series.
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Naconkantari 23:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're one of my favorite editors, but you're kind of digging a hole for yourself in some of these situations. Let me or some of the other editors know when an editor is doing things like adding unnecessary infoboxes. Bring it to the attention of other editors at the WikiProject Comics Cleanup talk page. It is apparent that a lot of editors are against these edits as well. You're not alone in your feelings about this. But it seems like you're getting stressed out and you're not handling at as well as you normally would. I believe in you, your intentions, and your work. Please watch the reverts; I don't like seeing you blocked. Again, please let me know when you need help. I'm not going to guarantee that I will al so revert; you have said that you don't like to interact with other Wikipedians anymore, and I will be happy to mediate tense situations. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything Chris said, and although I'm still on a semi-wikibreak I'm happy to help out as well. From browsing through your reverts, they almost always seem to be appropriate ones, they just needed clarity in explainations. Those two new "list" articles about Batman the Animated Series are a huge mess. ~CS 06:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all that unreasonable to answer the question "Why". It'll take you a minute, max, and it is part of collaborating... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to explain my current philosophy about the Wikipedia community, but I have no faith that it won't be twisted by anybody with an agenda, a persecution complex and a loose grasp of logic. Given the accusations of sockpuppetry that are already a too-familiar refrain from those who disagree with me, I'm reluctant to go seeking others to support my edits, although I really do appreciate the offers. In response to the constructive comments here I'll include a few more edit summaries with my edits for the good people who deserve to know, but generally stay out of the fray of this dysfunctional system while continuing the work of improving the encyclopedia itself. Thank you for your support. CovenantD 19:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I've done anything to add to your feelings towards the community I apologise. I happen to think you are a good editor, for what it's worth. Steve block Talk 20:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, you are definitely one of the good ones, one that makes this whole project worthwhile. I didn't say anything at the time, but I really appreciated your support during the whole checkuser fiasco a while ago. CovenantD 20:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of the best editors working on comics-related articles on Wikipedia. I'd like to inite you to join the new WikiProject I've started: WikiProject Comics Cleanup. Similarly to how the WP:CMC collaboration works to elevate articles to Featured Article status, the primary goal of this new project is to coordinate group cleanup efforts on articles, copy editing, condensing, and providing citations where needed. The secondary goal is to remind good editors that there are other good editors who have the same goals.

This will also help prepare articles for Wikipedia 1.0 assessment, a project I am currently working on pulling together for WP:CMC. I'd really appreciate your membership, but I do understand if you find yourself to be too busy to participate. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought it worth pointing out that the reason for my recurrent edits to the 'Powers and Abilities' section of the Storm article is simply in the interests of accuracy. I posted a link at the bottom of the article's 'Talk' page that should clarify matters. Basically, the word 'all' is a straightforward inaccuracy.

As soon as you provide an inline reference that supports this I'll happily accept it. Until then, it looks like an unsupported claim. CovenantD 00:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men Unlimited Issue #1. As Xavier's dialogue explains, she's just been almost killed by a severe storm. If necessary I could upload scans of more of the issue, but this is most of what's relevant. If by 'inline' you mean 'online', I'm afraid I can't do better that comic scans.

They are true and are very notable and are starting to get on my nerves. A very small bit of me can understand the Whovians, but it has been confirmed on Dave The Barbarian that the title character is the HERO and a COWARD and King Throktar and Queen Glidia are his PARENTS. And they are all fictional.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.140.101 (talk • contribs)

203.25.140.101 is a suspected sockpuppet of banned user DaffyDuck619. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and makes the exact same edits as a duck, it's probably a duck. Banned editors are not allowed to make edits under an anon IP to evade the block. CovenantD 01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment that you believed this user to be a sockpuppet. I compared the edits and I have come to agree. I opened a case here. Feel free to add anything else. IrishGuy ^talk 01:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. CovenantD 01:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you find all the good Wikipedia drama. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:JackOfHearts I'm currently editing them. I'm not entirely sure how to post them, so I hope this works. I've edited the first one a bit. How is it? Sorry about the mislabelling, is this correct?

Poison Ivy Cover Image:CatAndIvy.JPG

How about these?

Future Mr Freeze

Image:VFMF.jpg

Harley Quinn

Image:HQuinade.jpg

The Joker

Image:TBJoker.jpg

The Penguin

Image:TBPenguin.jpg

The Kabuki Twins

Image:TBTPKabuki2.jpg

Catwoman

Image:TBCatwoman.gif

The only problem I have with them is that I can't edit the licensing to say that they were taken from the website with permission from the maintainer of the site (Zach Demeter).

You seem to be deliberately reverting the edits I made to Ben Parker and The Night Gwen Stacy Died even though they are constructive and there is nothing wrong with them. Explain in greater detail why you think they aren't neutral point of view or reliable, or stop editing them. 199.79.168.160 06:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is something wrong with them, which I've explained in the edit summaries. CovenantD 06:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're just saying "POV" or "not true" without saying why. 199.79.168.160 06:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quit misrepresenting my edit summaries. CovenantD 06:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not misrepresenting anything. My edit to The Night Gwen Stacy died simply pointed out the irony of a certain situation, which I've seen done in many other articles on this site, most of which are much more professional than that one. And my edit to Ben Parker simply reveals a noteworthy piece of information that can be confirmed by the Official Handbook, as I've mentioned three times already. 199.79.168.160 06:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What YOU THINK is ironic - that's the definition of POV. You have to provide anything resembling a citation for the Ben Parker claim. CovenantD 06:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally checking the handbook. And the situation I'm referring to is, by it's definition, ironic, it's not just my opinion. 199.79.168.160 07:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You finally provided the citation. If you make a claim, you have to provide proof, not some lame "It's in the handbook" line. CovenantD 07:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of my mottos for Wikipedia is "true until proven false". Sometimes that doesn't work, most of the time it does. And I removed the word 'ironic' from my edit to Gwen Stacy, though I added an explanation of the situation itself back in. 199.79.168.160 07:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the policies and guidelines. CovenantD 07:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "True until proven false" is exactly the opposite of how things are supposed to work here. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Titnas:Trouble in Tokyo 

Check the links for www.titansgo.net. It's a movie where a ninja attacks the Titan Tower and the Titans go to Tokyo. Don't put down but what the hell is it? Brian Boru is awesome 13:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why isn't that in the article? CovenantD 16:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction with that one :) I'm still weirded out by the mismatch copy info and license. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Based on edit history, I'm pretty sure it's a newbie with no understanding of applicable law and policy. CovenantD 22:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) to help editors in deciding the notability of comedy- and humor-related articles. You are an editor whom I respect and admire. I would appreciate any commentary you may be able to provide to help hammer it into shape. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions/comments/critiques on the merge? —Skope (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. I haven't been following it lately - I took a break from Wikipedia for a while and haven't gotten back up to speed yet. Give me a couple of days to look things over and I'll have an informed opinion for you. I have seen your name popping up a lot on my watchlist so I assume you've been plugging away at it. CovenantD 03:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. —Skope (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a debate about an image over at Talk:Two-Face#Straw_Poll. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. ThuranX 03:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put the utility belt images back, sicne I think that they're appropriate of a static, if variable, aspect of the suit. Shall chat on the talk page? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've edited a lot of articles that are one my watchlist. I appreciate your edits, but I hope you'll start using the edit summary box to describe the edits you've made in the future. Thanks! Brad T. Cordeiro 03:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CD. Just want you to know I've notify the Admin that blocked User:24.60.85.190 on Sept. 17, informing him at User talk:Steel1359 that he's back and linkspamming. Oy. Keep up the good vigilance. --Tenebrae 19:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add sources to unsourced information instead of removing it please as per the Wikipedia policy on this sort of thing: "Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible." Dhimwit

No. It is the responsibility of the editor that adds information to properly source it. The uncited tag was on those sections for several days and nobody was adding sources, so I removed them. CovenantD 22:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Your opinion is overridden by Wikipedia policy. Stop your vandalism please. Dhimwit

Please provide a link to this "policy." CovenantD 02:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, CovendantD is completely in the right on this one. If it can't be proved to be true, it doesn't belong in an article. If you want to re-add them, go find a source too. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry about that. I didn't realise the entire category had been deleted. Didn't mean anything by it.SMegatron 19:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Because it's been salted, it doesn't show up as a redlink so it's easy to be confused. CovenantD 19:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for understanding. SMegatron 19:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Миборовский 22:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CovenantD - you appear to be wasting a great deal of your own time fighting change purely for the sake of it. A good example is the image you replaced here, which is not even Thor. Do dopplegangers (irrespective of their nature) feature in place of the real character on entries? I think not. The image chosen (cover to Thor #334) is a nice, clean generic shot, which is needed (see above). The rationale "gonna call it vandalism" is rather telling as it indicates that you seem to have very little understanding of what the term is and how it applies to Wikipedia. See here for a refresher on the term vandalism and then how that applies to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Note the sentence re: undermining Wikipedia, which is what in fact is happening here. Also, I think you would be hard pressed to justify the constant reversions to past edits of minor characters such as Surtur, given that my updates provide new information and IMAGES. Useful items, yes?

Asgardian 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You wipe out categories, revert to badly formatted links, take away superhero boxes and return formatting for "appearances" that is different than any other comic book article. You often have too many images on a page and in places that are unattractive. Your edits have been reverted by other editors. So no, I disagree most strongly that you are improving the articles in question. CovenantD 03:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: category:Superhuman powers is a sub-category of Category:Fictional abilities. - jc37 07:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I noticed you have some experience dealing with The Bat Fan and his misguided categorization efforts. I just noticed Category:Comic Book characters pop up and I was hoping you'd have some pointers on how to approach the situation. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's "makeminemarvel" blog linkspammer is a pain in the arse - good work reverting his linkspam. --Charlesknight 00:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No relation to the above, but was your removal of the blog-based essay at Power Girl actually based upon Wikipedia policy or was it personal preference? I considered carefully before adding the link and I think it's worthwhile. I think attitudes towards blogs need to change as there is a lot of legitimate writing involved. (I'm not talking about link-spamming as discussed above, of course). 23skidoo 00:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was based on the Manual of Style for External links. The problem with blogs is that anybody can create one and say just about anything, so by themselves they are not in any way authoritative. CovenantD 02:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point in it being super strength in a way, but that doesnt explain everything. If you look at super leaping that would be having a version of super strength but with your legs and that is on the list so please explain the difference. The Fro

Personally I don't think there is a difference and that superbiting also does not belong as a separate power. CovenantD 01:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean super leaping, but if thats the case then if biting doesnt belong than neither does leaping. So i think that either you should take leaping off the list or put biting back on. The Fro

You're correct, I did mean super leaping. CovenantD 04:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is leaping going to go or can i put biting back on? The Fro

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.

Also, In this edit (and others) you are reverting Asgardian's edits with an edit summary of "(rv vandalism)". Please take a look at WP:Vandalism for what what vandalism is and isn't. Also note on that page "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia by driving away potential editors.". I can see that some of Asgardian's edits have a question mark over them, but Asgardian has only been an editor since 9th September. I think you should try and have a civil conversation with Asgardian on either your or Asgardian's talk page and work on improving the articles which you both obviously have a keen interest in. Please note WP:Civil and WP:Bite. Thanks. --Casper2k3 10:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. Some of your edits are now, as you can see, becoming questionable. Example: why revert Mephisto back to an older page? I found a great shot of his first appearance and tidied up the information, which is all still there. You also killed the link to Thor villains, which is odd as Thor has fought Mephisto three times in his own title (happy to cite the exact issues if you like). If that doesn't qualify him to be a Thor foe, I don't know what does. Let's keep the link - after all, it was you who first told me about them and their importance. Also, what's up with the A.Man? Surely you can't prefer that blackened partial shot? The cover with his first appearance is great! The list of his absorbing party tricks can only help new readers.

So, let's start again, and both be less territorial. I think a good place to start is the Thor page. It's getting changed far too often (check the last 24 hours) and we need consensus on things like images and some gaps in his history. Now I've got all the issues and could probably cite Thor's daily movements up until the time he disappeared, but it would be nice if we could all work together. Yours tips have helped as my edits have improved 100% in the past week in terms of layout etc. Anyway, that's it for tonight. Hope we can speak soon.

Regards

Asgardian 10:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I went quickly from article to article tweaking the blank spaces. Generally I replaced all two-spaces with one-spaces (per Wikipedia style) with a single replace command, but not always. I edited one page, followed a link on it to another article and just followed a chain of linked articles until I wandered back to comic articles, an odd little degrees of separation thing. Why? Well, hell, why not? I just found it odd (and now that you've weighed in, a little amusing) that anyone even noticed to wonder what I was doing. Wryspy 06:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they showed up so often on my watchlist. CovenantD 06:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must watch an awful lot of pages. Wryspy 06:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over 2700. CovenantD 06:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I cut mine back every once in a while so I don't get burned out. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About your following addition: "Li has become the subject of much controversy, ranging from his birthdate to status as a cult leader and allegations of profiteering." I think that having a whole section dedicated to Disputes, is quite enough and it also provides dedicated space to present all the information exactly. With this short addition I'm feeling like with a sensational title, whose only purpose is to get some attention, and then when you get to actually read the article you find that it's content is most mundane. Basically I'm asking if it would be OK with you to remove this last addition, because I feel that it's quite unnecessary. Please let me know what do you think and also please let me thank you in anticipation for your time and understanding. --HappyInGeneral 20:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to balance out the lead section, which should provide a brief overview of the contents of the article. I have no attachment to the wording, but some mention does need to be made above the Table of Contents. CovenantD 20:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I understand your motive, but do you see my point as well? Putting in a statement like that just leaves a lot of holes, interpretation, etc ... We should consider that people who read that page don't know much of what is Falun Gong. The article would still remain factual because there is quite visible from the contents table the Disputes section, which actually allows all the information be presented. In order to understand correctly a situation the whole picture should be shown.

One more thing: Thank You for your prompt response and for your willingness to talk, this is something that was not going too well for me lately on that page. Since you are watching 2700 pages on wikipedia I assume that you have a bigger amount of experience on wikipedia then me. Could you have for me maybe some suggestions about situations where the other editors prefer to revert without talking? --HappyInGeneral 21:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not attached to any form of wording, just that some mention be made of the controversial nature of Li. This is per Wikipedia guidelines for the lead section (see WP:LEAD).

I don't really have any advice for the Falun Gong articles, since most of the editors there are so entrenched in their beliefs one way or the other and every attempt at mediation has failed. Just make sure your own edits are NPOV and keep trying to communicate. CovenantD 21:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you input, much appreciated. I will now read WP:LEAD. --HappyInGeneral 21:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement was removed in a revert (which was not initiated by me). I did not put it back yet, because I do not agree with it fully, which maybe is also related to the fact that I did not have the time to read WP:LEAD yet, but which I will read eventually. Basically this note is just to inform how things are going. Best wishes. --HappyInGeneral 11:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it in the latest version, so no matter who reverts to what it should show up. Feel free to improve it. CovenantD 16:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, I hope that you agree with the following wording:

" According to Clearwisdom.net, a Falun Dafa website, Li Hongzhi is the recipient of several awards from state and congressional bodies in the U.S and is a two time Nobel Prize nominee [10][11].

After the onset of the Persecution of Falun Gong, several allegations were raised by the CCP against Li Hongzhi, ranging from changing his birth date to status as a cult leader and allegations of profiteering. " --HappyInGeneral 19:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm currently having some edit debates with other users on the Xorn article and would appreciate your opinions and comments on the Talk Page. WesleyDodds 12:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of a present tense guideline - I searched through the FAQs and didn't notice anything to that effect, but it's possible I missed something. In any case, you only seemed to take issue with my own edits within two paragraphs, and not the fact that the *entire article* is written in past tense, as it was when I found it. Either way, I don't think it's anything worth getting upset about. 74.98.190.136 14:05, 03 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The flurry of activity on that article attracted my attention, and I plan on going over it within a day or two. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I've got sort of an ADD-afflicted editing habit, I guess. Lots of small changes. Apologies for that - I'll hit the edit button less in the future. 74.98.190.136 14:52, 03 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left citation for the Justice League Unlimited episode Epilogue, though I'm not sure why it was need since the External Links The Watchtower page has proof that it's vaild. Now, do you have something against me personally, or do you think being a long time wikipedian makes you better than everyone? Lets see:

1. You put down a citation for every little thing. Can't you show a little faith, or would you need proof that Banana contains potassium or that H2O is Water?

2. You choice to delete every edit you disagree with. If the edit is recent, have you ever considered talking to the person about it. Then again I suppose someone like you can't be bothered with being civil.

You may have forgotten, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to make an article as informative as possible, not to assert authority by deleting or changing someones edit needlessly. You keep this up you might just alienate everyone from this site. 71.115.210.70

We should not need to guess and dig through external links to find your source. The purpose of Wikipedia is informative articles that cite reliable sources. And when someone adds an edit that seems very much like the sort of fan-fiction/speculation that editors often try to add, we delete it unless the editor can provide an explanation and a source. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What about assuming good faith? Sure what I typed seemed like fan speculation/fiction, but you or CovenantD could have talked to me on my discussion page first, what's wrong with that approach. I know this concept may surprise you, but running or contributing to a website requires taking chances. You don't always succeed by playing it safe. Please respond to everything I've said, so I know that you were paying attention to what I typed and not skimming it. 71.115.210.70

Why didn't you stop to talk about it before re-adding your six uncited paragraphs? When something that large and uncited about that subject matter is added to an article, it is rarely anything but fancruft. Had you been registered, I might have left a message for you, but I don't expect unregistered users to check their talk pages. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's how he handled and editing situation for Crisis On Infinite Earth's:

• • Once again, you've made a completely pointless edit without bothering to explain yourself. I've restored Constantine's entry in the Crisis on Infinite Earths article, but there was simply no good reason for removing it in the first place. --Mister Six 23:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None that you saw, but as the contributing editor I wouldn't expect you to. CovenantD 23:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, get her. If you have a problem with a contribution it's better to amend or request clarification than to delete outright. All you had to do was add a citation request. While you're there, why not add citation requests for the rest of that article? --Mister Six 23:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another clear example of why I avoid interacting with most wikipedians. CovenantD 23:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone on Wikipedia is a douchebag. I'm not; I just got my douchbag test results back. But I'll admit I was worried for a while. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• He doesn't interact, because he thinks he's a top wikipedian. He apparently see everyone but Chris and himself to be trash, therefore he doesn't need a reason to delete our contributions. And doing that, he's violationg the no personal attacks rule. I don't care if he's experiencing a tragedy in his home life either, there's no excuse for abusing authority. 71.115.210.70

Let it go. I don't get what your problem is with editors who have more experience than you. Assume good faith works both ways. Let it go. What does the sentence about home life have to do with anything? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not that he is more experienced, it's that he believe's that he is right in anything he does. Again, he demonstrates that he thinks very little of us newbie trashes. For instance, if you left an article without a source, he probably would look the other way. But, for newbies like me, we're judged as guilty. As for that home life line, people tend to pick on others because something is messing up their personal life. 71.115.210.70

This is all rather silly. CovenantD is a diligent editor who I have never observed to edit in a manor that was anything but constructive. If you have an issue with particular edits he has made, changed, or reverted raising these specific concerns in a polite manner would be a good idea. Ad hominem attacks on him or speculations about his "home life" or motivations are not constructive toward resolving content disputes.

I've noticed in the past that CovenantD is one of several editors who puts a great deal of work into the comic-book related entries on Wikipedia, attempting to keep them encyclopedic and remove speculation, original research, and fannish prose. This is extremely constructive toward keeping the comics-related articles at a high-quality, and his work is appreciated. However, this also tends to draw the ire of editors who do not understand that Wikipedia is not a fansite and strives for professional prose style and content. If any of the objections in the above discussion are related to this, I encourage you all to take a deep breath, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, and think carefully about your editing styles.

I assure you that neither ConvenatD nor the other editors who may be changing your edits are doing so out of malice or a sense of superiority. Furthermore, you'll find all editors are far more accommodating if you conduct yourselves in a civil and friendly manor, rather than assume bad-faith. ~CS 23:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And he could have talked with me on the discussion pages about requesting a source, but chose not to. Surely the rules apply to him to right? Again, I'm sorry for the harsh tone. However, I feel if he doesn't hear what I have to say, he'll probably delete anything else I do in the future even if it's to standards. 71.115.210.70

Additionally, CovenantD does call me on my shit; it makes me happy to know that if I make a mistake, he is often there to catch me. Also, he's one of those editors who cleaned up after those late-night article revamps I did with the tiny, scattered errors I carelessly left behind. For an example, here is him reverting an edit I made, and rightly so:[12]. If you want to make the tone of his edit summary an issue, I will point out that it is easier to take that tone when the person has a name you can use. Look, set this aside and move on or you will have a terrible time at Wikipedia. I've had diagreements with editors, but we've set those aside and later enjoyed working on other articles together. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize if I'm not being polite. Also, a person doesn't actually have to have a name on wikipedia, hence why they assign a number to those who don't register. I will try to end this on a good note, though. All I'm saying is that he could just as easily enforce the rules without deleting straight away.

I noticed for instance that you are giving someone a week to provide sources for a particular article before deleting. Why didn't either you or Covenant give me the same break at the beginning? This will be my last comment on the matter. And I'm not someone who enjoys causing trouble, but I'm working on being less passive. 71.115.210.70

A person doesn't have to create a username, but if they do, they not only get the benefit of the doubt, they're a lot more anonymous. Wikipedia didn'y assign that number to you; your computer and internet service provider did, and I pretty much know where you live because of it. The reason I gave someone a week to find sources was because the information was being added by several editors, the majority of which are registered; it was an ongoing problem with the article; it didn't seem like fan fiction/speculation; I had a pretty good idea where I might find the sources to add myself. Oh, and someone had just made a lot of accusations about such a thing; that played a role too. You need to work on being a little more passiove and assuming good faith. Nothing was done to spite you. And yes, in our effort to make around 65 edits a day (That's my average since the beginning of March), sometimes we do take shortcuts when making very routine edits, but we do leave edit summaries explaining what is asked for. But look, what you added was pretty lengthy, unencyclopedic in tone, and uncited, and it didn't seem that much different from the girl who created a whole new Robin character and then created an entry complete with character history and uploaded related images. And that was a situation in which a number of editors asked her politely to provide sources for this information before it was finally all removed. It took a lot of time and a lot of effort, and it was all patent fabrications. But she was registered. Look, I'm really not trying to be against you. I would much rather your energy go into working with me on something than to get stuck on this relatively minor incident. Watch the personal attacks and accusations, register so no one can track you to your house quite so easily, and join WP:CMC so you can go to work and gain people's respect and admiration for your incresingly amazing edits. That last sentence doesn't have to be hypothetical, and I hope it's actually a premonition of the future and that I will win the lottery tonight. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Two things to say:
• Keep it civil.
• Verifiability policy: Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
• Anyone wants to go back, reconsider their comments and strike anything they feel they said in haste, that's not a bad idea. Anyone who thinks they are in a dispute might want to read the dispute resolution policy. Steve block Talk 20:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I don't log in for a day or two and just look at how my talk page has grown! CovenantD 22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, regarding the section on your talk page titled "People to clean up after", it is not generally considered to be a good idea to maintain such a list of users on Wikipedia. They are felt to violate personal attack policies. I hope you will consider your usage of them. A discussion of a similar list and the feelings it created can be seen here, [13]. I'd appreciate your discretion here. Further discussion regarding this can be seen at User talk:Brian Boru is awesome. Steve block Talk 15:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is reserved for editors that consistently add the same info to the same articles over a period of days or weeks, all without discussion or providing a reason and in defiance of several other editors. I think a total of three people have made the list - I've removed the most recently listed editor. You can see from the page history how long it's been since that's been updated prior to today. CovenantD 22:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate why you do it, but it is considered a bad idea. Most web browsers allow you to set links in a favourites folder, and I have heard of people using that format. The format you use sials close to the personal attack policy and can cause disputes. It also creates a precedent for other people to point to. That said, it's your call. The Kelly Martin one I linked to above caused an enormous ruckus. 15:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Steve block Talk

Okay, because I respect your input, I'll remove it. CovenantD 17:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Are you still in dispute with User:Asgardian? Steve block Talk 17:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, yes. Feel like giving a third opinion on some Thor-related articles? :) CovenantD 17:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my listing of Etrigan, The Demon's appearance in The Batman Adventure Annual #2. Yes it's a comic, but it's set in the animated series continuum. Well, I put it in other media, because someone left info of his appearance in the Batman Beyond comics.

Nonetheless, I put the info back with a section called Other Version. I would appreciate a response.71.115.210.70

I reworded it a bit to clarify which continuity it fits in, but I'd say that you got it. CovenantD 22:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a request you may be interested in. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd noticed it also. Good job. CovenantD 17:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to CfD. You might want to go vote there. ThuranX 01:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_10#Category:Marvel_films. ThuranX 01:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now if we could only convince User:Batman Fan/User:Dr. McGrew to stop creating them... CovenantD 01:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't stop him. He's vandalism...he is the blight. He's...Batfan! '[echo, echo, echo...]'

ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headsup -- I've blocked User:Dr. McGrew and deleted his comic book, Marvel, and villain categories. I think the only one left that needs to be depopulated and deleted is Category:Disney actors. NawlinWiki 03:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that one should stay. It bridges the gap between several subcats and Category:Disney people. CovenantD 03:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're right about me knowing better, but I've successfully cited all articles mentioning the recasting of the characters with http://tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-Ausiello/default.aspx?posting={1FB5E5D6-7FD4-4987-B948-1CE8D8DA8781}. The speculation part, as I understand, was the return of Acrata—well, the thoroughly altered version of her—as a kind of WW substitute. *Sigh* I hate it when the league is a cockfest. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, I've changed them accordingly.NetK 02:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I also think it is the best approach with such characters. NetK 03:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification at WikiProject Middle-earth about the sockpuppet 201. Carcharoth 21:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per cfd notice board do not delete categories until voting is done. Then do what you like!!What's with the hate!!:Why all this DC Comics tv series in the deletion categories crap.Brian Boru is awesome 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't respond well to personal attacks. Would you like to try again? CovenantD 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack. Per cfd notice board do not delete while discussion is in progress. And besides I never attacked you.How was mine a personal attack besides?I never even commented on you just the categories. Lighten, up. Brian Boru is awesome 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What's with the hate!!" is an assumption and an attack on my motives. CovenantD 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, Brian's right, we shouldn't really empty categories before the discussion is through. That said, we comment on the content, not the user. "What's with the hate!!" is not in best keeping with civility policy, but I don't think it's worth either side getting over-steamed. I'm sure you two can resolve this without escalating it into something serious. Steve block Talk 12:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• And let's not forget the personal attack policy, It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks. Maybe a nice cup of tea and a sit down would be the best way to cool off. Let's not be so quick to personalise issues on either side here guys, okay? Steve block Talk 12:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian's got the timing wrong. I started removing inappropriate categories from articles, then realized how bad the situation was and switched to putting up the categories for deletion. NOT the reverse. So not only is his accusation offensive, it's flat-out wrong. CovenantD 16:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo dude besides I was only joking. Brian Boru is awesome 21:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Also you ever hear the term why the hating?Brian Boru is awesome 01:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned in the talk page that I would reduce the amount of extraneous info that is on the South Park page. Many people agree that the page is too long with lots of extraneous information. I am trying to clean the page up, so please don't erase my changes unless you really think I removed something valuable. WU03 02:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that yours got caught in that. I was trying to return the sections on censorship and the movie, since they were completely deleted and not just trimmed. CovenantD 02:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the backup on the Starman page. ThuranX 02:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. It's always nice to see a revamp that actually improves the article. CovenantD 02:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CovenantD,

I decided to leave these separate to avoid the "no consensus" that happened back in July when many of them were nominated together...

Good point; I've now separated them again. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviouly, because the word "fictional" is not needed there. There's already the word "characters" (in comics), which basically means that they are fictional. Besides, it's a subcategory of Category:Fictional Americans after all. -- Lancini87 16:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you understand that I created those Actors/Actresses who portrayed... subcatagories because the Batman actors and Superman actors catagories were getting severely large. So breaking them down became much more conveinent for the user. Besides, there's only an elite number of actors who have portrayed a particular iconic comic book character like Batman and Superman (so they should get extra focus). TMC1982 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop with the assumptions about my understanding or lack thereof. If you think these are worthy of recreation then you need to bring it up at Deletion Review. I didn't nominate them for deletion, I don't even think I voiced an opinion on them so don't blame me. CovenantD 05:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I worked really, really hard to make things organized and thorough. If you didn't even nominate or voice an opinion for the subcatagories, then don't private message me about my business! TMC1982 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care because you keep heavily editing anything relating to Batman that I have contributed to Wikipedia regardless of how relevant or useful it might be! You don't think that we need to see all of the various incarnations of the Batsuit for instance. I didn't even know that the catagory was up for deletion until practically the last minute (so even then, my point-of-view probably wouldn't have mattered much). TMC1982 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You should add things you edit to your watchlist so you're informed when they are changed. Since categories don't change that often, you should be able to spot them pretty easily. I'd also suggest you add the Comics Project talk page to you watchlist, because a lot of discussion about the very categories you tend to favor are frequent topics there (usually to be deleted). As far as the Batsuit, you should review the guidelines for fair use of images. CovenantD 05:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The images were in my mind, simply relating to each actors/films interpetation of Batman in live-action (from the 1960s TV series throught Batman Begins). It wasn't like I had to also add drawings of Batman to get my point across. TMC1982 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That comment only proves that you need to review what fair use means on Wikipedia. CovenantD 06:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only added like five photos relating to each of the five modern Batman films (at least, the "main" Batsuits) that have been released so far. How exactly is that too much for Wikipedia? TMC1982 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You may not have nomiated the Actors who portrayed... catagory for deletion, but you definately had the Batman locations catagory that I created deleted. What's wrong with a catagory for that? The Batcave is primarily idenfitied for being a place located within the Batman universe. So is Gotham City, Arkham Asylum, etc. It's not as different as the Daily Planet, Smallville, or Metropolis being most commonly associated with Superman. I might as well not bother contibuted anything Batman related to Wikipedia because you're just going to complain about it sooner or later anyway! TMC1982 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see any use in arguing old CfDs with you. The time for comment is well past. CovenantD 06:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find another excuse to criticized my article contributions as soon as I start another major expansion relation to comic books (it's only a matter of time). And if you don't want to get in a debate if me, you should've thought of that before you decided to get in my business with your PM yesterday! TMC1982 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you need to chill - you're taking this way to personally. If you'd rather not know when and why your edits are being reverted, fine. CovenantD 06:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does "no rerun channels" mean? Because you asked people to help clean up the Batman actors lists and because the Batman TV series article has been marked as being too long, I split Batman (TV): Guest appearances and episodes off into a separate article and added a lot of missing information over there. You just restored that stuff to the original article with the unclear edit summary "No rerun channels". What's that about? If you don't want people to weigh in on something, please either don't bring it up on the WikiProject Comics talk page or do say more about it. I put in a lot of work and, on the WP Comics talk page, asked for feedback but got none. Doczilla 21:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry - I reverted the wrong edits. I meant to only revert this one[14]. Again, I appologize. CovenantD 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I was SO confused. And I understand. That kind of thing happens easily enough. Thanks. Doczilla 21:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, i know i have still upset and anger what falungong distrub to my community, even so i still try to write more netral and balance, sorry if my english are not so better. and more rage when looking that story in the reference by epoch time. certainly i could not write this story because i still clouded with pain they do.Daimond 07:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on the header. The California version of the case was cited in a previous paragraph under Litigation. One problem with this article is that it has had a lot of related facts that were put in separate sections or subsections. I think the Supreme Court action should be right after the Calif. court cite. I do like the change in header as it is likely that any further Supreme Court stuff would be under Litigation, not Federal Legislation. --NThurston 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reorganized the article but reverted it first so your recent changes were lost. You'll need to put them in again. --Jagz 03:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is so not cool. CovenantD 04:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have your edits back in the article now. --Jagz 05:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) CovenantD 05:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those dab pages are comparison pages instead (like the Baltar page). They could all be turned into comparison pages.

And the Commander Adama (...) page would be hard to find to update considering we added another Commander Adama. They only refer to BSG characters anyways, and there are not that many of them, so ti doesnt' really bloat things. Zyxwvutsrqp 00:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You recently participated in a discussion on the possible deletion or merger of some Danny Phantom characters. While all the articles were kept, I noted that many of those commenting on the debate suggested merging some characters into a main list. Seeing this, I've compiled a list of some of the minor characters who may not need their own article, and would like the opinions of those who weighed in originally. You can participate in the discussion here. Ral315 (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invite. CovenantD 22:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Captain! Nice work on the Jason White (character) article. I kept trying to maintain true to the facts with it, keep out spec, et cetera, but it was just flodded with fans from the "he's Superman. Believe it!" troup. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to assist. It's now on my watchlist so I should be checking on it more often. CovenantD 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are of the people who have edited these templates, I'd like to request your input at Template_talk:Batman#Template_width so those of us who have been working on these templates can agree on how to standardize them. Doczilla 21:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Asgardian's justification for ignoring everything we're telling him about his edit warring: User_talk:Doczilla#Read Doczilla 02:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. He reverted Man Beast three times today. He can hit his fourth revision if he goes back before 10 a.m. his time tomorrow. Doczilla 02:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot all about this guy; I think I took Thor off my watchlist. Let me know if I can do anything. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did, in fact, revert yet again and was blocked for 24 hours for doing so. A few days ago, I made a list on the WikiProject Comics notice board of all the articles that I could find that were in dispute. Feel free to add to the list if there's any that I missed. --GentlemanGhost 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to disturb you with this. Recenlty I seem to have gotten into an editing war with Asgaridan over the Mjolnir article. I have tried to include elements of both the article he keeps posting and the other article that was there before to reach a compromise. Somethings he has mentioned such as the traditional story of Mjolnir's forging appearing in Thor after research I have discovered sucha s Thor Annual #11 to be true so I have attempted to include it with the other origin story given in the Thor "Ragnarok" storyline. I have pointed out the inconsistancies with the traditional version though. However, almost each time I check the article it has been reverted back to what he alone wants with from what I can tell little to no effort to include the other information people might finde relavent. He keeps saying he is making the article more "succinct" such as in the enchantment sections. I know the article is supposed to be to the point, some of the things such as the transformation enchantments have either changed over time or need further explanation to fully let the reader know what is goin on about them. I also understand that from what I've been told information from handbooks is not to be used which is why information about Mjolnir's weight is not allowed. My worry is that in trying to better the article I fear I may be somewhat blind to what is needed and what is not needed any more. I would appriciate it if you or someone else would look at it and seem what of it needs to be cleaned up and if a comproise with Asgardian can be reached. Thank You, seekquaze

Can you please keep an eye on the edits of Asgardian? He is making POV editor and disregarding formatting standards on The Gladiator and Abomination pages. Thank you. T-1000 18:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Captain. The List of speedsters article is having a little trouble. There is a dispute over the meaning of the term Speedster. I was hoping you might have some imput. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "What if Series" are apart of official Marvel Cannon and therefore the alternate realtiy version of Storm in the What If series is considered a host of the Phoenix Force. You cannot discount official cannon as with conflict of intrest issues with wikipedia's sourced articles policy. (63.249.112.84 02:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

CovenantD, I see that you a good contributor. However, I noticed you deleted an edit I made with regards to the Tok'ra. Specifically, the statment "meaning that they do not possess their evil tendencies of Universal domination." The article described the Tok'ra position but not why. My addition adds the why. There is nothing wrong with the composition of the sentence. It is factual, and it doesn't break any wiki guidlines. Please discuss before you delete other's work.

Also, the sentence fragment "They provide much valuable intelligence" is NOT gramatically correct. I substituted "much valuable" with "substantial amount of valuable" which doesn't change the meaning and is gramatically correct.

Thank You FrankWilliams 18:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He played basketball in 901 episode Mr. Garrison's Fancy New Vagina!Sidik iz PTU 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, was there a particular reason when you reverted the Hercules (Marvel Comics) article, that you didn't include the es:Hércules (historietas) language link that I had included before Asgardian's edit? Grey Shadow | Talk 02:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An oversight. Apologies. CovenantD 02:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Cheers! Grey Shadow | Talk 02:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Getting a bit annoyed with the nonsense, huh? I can sympathize. It's getting really old. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least there's more than one of us keeping an eye on it :) CovenantD 05:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason you removed the link to fermium.org from X-Men [15]? Hogfat 22:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You left the following coment after you deleted my edit to this episode. (you mean aside from the green skin, the super powers, and his Martian origin?)

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say by that comment. Firstly when on earth he disguises himself in a human shape, (no green skin). Not sure what the rest of the comment has to do with anything. My edit was factual as the episode clearly left the Oreo biscuit for those in the know. Other viewers not familiar with this piece of trivia would have gone away from the episode with no real clue to the reference. With the upcoming episode JUSTICE which appears to introduce the bigginings of the Justice Leage (JLA) this seems the perfect place to reference the introduction of another character from the DC universe. Can you please explain why you felt the need to remove this edit?

Mobile 01 01:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring the the POV opening phrase, "One of the most well-known traits..." His addiction to Oreos is a miniscule trait compared to the others (green skin, super powers, Martian origin), and probably not well known by the general public. If you're going to make a claim like that, find a reference to back it up. CovenantD 01:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a quote from the OREO Wiki Page and not me making a claim, if you don't like the statement then you better go delete it from the Oreo wiki page too. The reason it was used here was because it is exactly what the Oreo clue was all about. The statement was about explaining the Oreo clue, and not about explaining Martian Manhunter. If you didn't like the wording then you could have changed it and not just reverted the edit. The Note is still very relevant to the episode and should be re-inserted or modified for better wording if you see fit. Mobile 01 01:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Comment Removed. Was advised by another user that this was not appropriate. Mobile 01

This from an editor that's been registered for less than a day. CovenantD 06:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed his edit, and actually yours too. I removed his because it was an "allusion" to the character that he was noting and it was determined that all "allusions", though interesting to read, hold no notability and are original research. This is why the List of Smallville allusions page was deleted. We should probably go through the other seasons and pick out all "in-universe" trivia that might be there. I took your wording out because it wasn't appropriate to have (an interview stated that...) in the middle of the plot. I'm not sure if that information would be necessary for the episode, but if so maybe it could be a "note", and explain it as "the character, though not identified on the show, was identified in interviews as being another DC comics character, Martian..." or something like that. Bignole 13:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Bignole. I didn't really think it belonged anyway, but was trying to find a compromise with a brand new editor who was insisting on some mention. I at least wanted it to be something sourced, relevant and not reeking of OR. CovenantD 10:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't agree that my edit was an allusion, it was just a simple statement attempting to explain what the Oreo was all about. However the way you Bignole have it now works well and should keep everyone happy. Blanket Deletion of someones work is not the right way to go and I think that the final result is probably what should have been attempted by CovenantD in the first place. Looking up this TALK page I see that quite a few other editors have mentioned this to CovenantD before. Mobile 01 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People often get upset when their badly worded edits get deleted. I'm used to it. CovenantD 10:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I reworded all of it and Mobile seems to be happier. What Mobile, and that Anon below need to realize is that what you wrote and what he wrote are not the same thing. I took what you both wrote and morphed it together to be a more comprehensive, and encyclopedic statement. The Anon below (the one you are having a Kid Lantern discussion with) believes it is the responsibility of everyone to make every comment encyclopedic, even if that comment doesn't belong in the first place. Bignole 12:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the person to contribute the Kid Lantern article to the Waly West page. Would it be more appropriate as trivia/note? Sure it's not world shattering info but it's still encyclopedia material. I believe that all info on articles are improtant whether they're big or small.

My Kid Lantern artcile, take a look at it:

Issue 3 of the miniseries Flash & Green Lantern: The Brave And The Bold has Flash, Kid Flash and Green Lantern in pursuit of Mirror Master and Black Hand. In an attempt to steal Flash's speed, it is Kid Flash who loses his powers. To help out, Green Lantern creates a temporary Power Ring for Wally to use, dubbing him Kid Lantern (With a costume, identical to Hal's. Wally's head piece resembles his Kid Flash uniform).

Yes it's minor information, but does it contain the following?:

• Vandalisim
• Original Research
• POV

No it does not.

And I'm not so much upset about the deletion, but your reasoning. In all of your time on wikipedia, do you ever help make someones eidt more appropriate? By that I mean things like moving it somewhere else on the article, fixing/adjusting, anything other than deleting?

Keep in mind, following the rules doesn't mean always having to dump on other wikipedian or using them as stepping stones.

I hope this came off as civil. 71.115.231.16 08:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A single-story plot element should not be given undue weight in any article about a character that has as much history as Wally West does. By your own admission it did not have any lasting effect on his character and it was not a recurring identity; there is nothing that makes it noteworthy enough to have it's own section, especially when more lasting events, such as his time with the Teen Titans, are barely mentioned. At best, and this is stretching it, I could see it as a single sentence in a greatly expanded Kid Flash section. CovenantD 08:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I would like for you to comment and to think about what I'm saying. That being that you DON'T ALWAY need to delete an edit to follow the rules. You can actually help the other wikpedians to organize there edits? Is there a reason why you prefer deleting first and foremost.

Again I hope I'm being civil, but it would be nice if you repsond to everything I said and not skimming through it to make yourself out to be a saint. 71.115.231.16 09:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, why haven't you answer my question? 71.115.231.16 10:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's offensively worded, starts from a false premise, and is designed to place me on the defensive. No thanks. CovenantD 10:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is it offensively worded? I'll reword it to fit your opinion. Maybe I was out of line with that saint crack, but aside from it I believe it to be pretty civil.

To help you understand my comment, someone a few months ago left information that Legion Of Super Heroes member Ferro Lad. Someone editing demand citation, and since I believe in helping others I did a page check to provide the source for that person. I just want to know why you can't do the same. 71.115.231.16 10:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You assume that I don't - that's the false premise I refered to earlier. CovenantD 10:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have helped someone before with their edits? That's all I was looking for in the first place. And I never wanted to offend you, but when you choose to make cryptic/vague statements with someone than letting them know what's on your mind then you're inviting people to make assumptions about you.

Kind of like how Steve Ditko doesn't comment on his Spider-Man work, so people are left with specualations without facts. Fact is I'm only asking you this question so there will be less conflict between us. 71.115.231.16 10:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm on another computer, but I'll respond later when I get on my regular computer to prove it's me.

You reversed an edit saying that the Justice Guild of America is only the Justice Society. It does indeed have a bit of the JLA in it. The paragraph stating it:

• “It’s funny how things work out: at first, we were still kinda disappointed that we couldn’t use the ‘real’ JSA, but we’ve come to realize that the story actually works better this way. The ‘Green Lantern,’ ‘Flash,’ and ‘Black Canary’ doppelgangers are fairly close to the originals, but the ‘Wildcat’ clone is almost a Batman / Wildcat hybrid and the ‘Atom’ character has quite a bit of classic ‘Superman’ in him as well. So, in effect, we’re not just spoofing / paying homage to the JSA, but also to the Fox-era Silver Age JLA, too…sweet![16]

You aren't trying to get back at me just because of our little debate on the Kid Lantern comments are you? 71.115.231.16 10:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I was not aware of that quote from a creator of the episode (athough, in my defense, both Batman and Superman were members of the JSA pre-Crisis). I'll reinsert that line along with the citation. And no, this was not personal - I hadn't even realized it was the same editor. CovenantD 02:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it's already done. BTW, if the citation had been there the first time I would have known the validity of the edit. No big, just something to keep in mind when editing stuff about influences and inspirations. Those are often the source of speculation. CovenantD 02:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On TV.com, I submitted the episodes and their descriptions. I figured since I submitted it, it would be mine. So I am sorry if I have done anything wrong but I am just letting you know that I wrote those on TV.com so its my work.--Patrickrox11 13:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Patrickrox11[reply]

Ah. In that case, I don't know. What kind of licensing does TV.com have, and did you post it here or there first? CovenantD 13:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, someone posted Driven to Tears/Rule of Dumb here first. Then, I received descriptions to Born to be Wild/Best Frenemies and summarised them and posted them in both places. I thought that it would be fine since it was my summary. The same thing happened to The Pink Purlonier/Squidwood. I am going to revert them if it presents such a problem.--Patrickrox11 15:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Patrickrox11[reply]

I have a question regarding one of your recent edits on the Colonial Blackbird page: could you please explain why you are such a strong adherent of the view that all fictional works should be documented in the present tense? I recognise it as a valid viewpoint, but I think that past tense documentation is equally descriptive, and sometimes works better: to take a specific example from the Battlestar Galactica pages, it might be confusing to say that Saul Tigh is married to his late wife, Ellen Tigh. Judicious use of the past tense (and, occasionally, the pluperfect tense) helps to make the sequence of events in a fictional work more clear. When one watches an episode, one is watching it "in the present tense". But what about flashbacks? And what of books that are written in the past tense? I'm curious to sound you out on this, not start a war over it! :-) Sullivan.t.j 19:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem - I understand it's not well understood. The primary reason I do so is because Wiki guidelines call for fiction to be written about in the present tense. I deal primarily with comics and Sci-Fi articles, so I've followed several discussions about verb tense over the last few months. The basics have been encapsulated [[17]]:

Present tense

In order to differentiate between real historical events and the events described in a fictional work, it is appropriate to use the present tense. This is not to say that the article must be devoid of other tenses; rather, the discussion of a fictional occurrence should be anchored in the moment in which the event takes place. When discussing a specific story, for instance a later issue of Runaways, it is appropriate to write that the characters in that series "ran away" because their running away is backstory to issues whose stories take place after the events of the first storyline.

For reference, see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics.

It is a tricky process, and I won't claim to get it right all the time (converting an entire article, complete with flashbacks can be problematic), but generally I think your basic thinking is in line with this. Does this answer your question? CovenantD 22:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --- yes, that does answer my question. As you might have guessed, my concern was that "indiscriminate present tense-ing" could be detrimental to clarity, and I observed a few instances where I thought that the past tense would have been more appropriate. It seems to me that the general idea is quite sensible: one simply needs to take care to use the past tense for events that are in the past in the fictional universe (the prime example being flashbacks). Perhaps we could link to those style guides more prominently on project pages? Sullivan.t.j 23:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that I've made some changes that are better left in the past tense - after a few paragraphs, it gets more and more difficult to get the context right (one of the reasons I tend to do sections or small articles). I'm sure the various Project participants would be open to anything that clarifies the guidelines. Feel free to be bold or raise it on the appropriate talk pages. You might want to consult with User:ChrisGriswold; he's been very active in hashing out the particulars for the Comics Project and is a joy to work with. CovenantD 23:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In light of our recent discussion, I feel the need to ask you again. Don't you think you're overdoing the shoot first, never ask questions.

I think it's safe to safe the one thing to really be behind our disagreement is The Neutral Point Of View Policy.

I'm not not accusing you of this, so if I'm wrong let me know, rather than ignore this altogther and back up your statement. I thank you for not deleting my JSA contribution, but I still think from your comments you want it deleted. And as you can see in the link, I provided notablity for it.

When you say it's not notable, do you mean: A. That it's not of world shattering improtance. B. That it's not important at all.

Are you sure the info isn't noteworthy, because that seems to be violating the NPOV rule? How's about you talk about it and what I've said on the JSA discussion page with some other wikipedians?

It's reasoning like this that I've always thought you've deleted my stuff out of malicious intent. 71.115.231.16 05:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I choose not to get personal on Wikipedia and try to keep the focus of my discussions on the articles themselves. I will say that I tend to focus on recent edits to articles with an eye to keeping them as encyclopedic as possible. In comics, this usually translates to removing speculation, fannish contributions, unverified claims and deviations from the standards that Wikipedia and the Comics Project have agreed upon. I've spent literally hundreds of hours reading policies, guidelines, essays and discussions about them. Often it means trying to maintain a balance in articles that doesn't tilt to the recent at the expense of the past, or give too much detail about any one story unless that story had far-reaching implications. That is where we are conflicting. When I say it's not notable, I mean that it's not of world shattering importance. I'm a comic book fan - it's ALL important, just some bits moreso than others :) Some editors think it's a personal vendetta, but most of the time my edit goes unchallenged. I have thousands of articles on my watchlist; this means that I often end up editing the same set of articles as other editors, especially if they are making the same kinds of edits. (I've just noticed a bunch of Alpha Flight member category additions I have to go clean up, for example.) It also means that I don't always remember who did which edit, especially if it's an IP address. I engaged for several months in some unofficial mediation on a very controversial set of articles and earned the respect of pretty much everyone involved for my neutrality. While some of the Comics Project editors may not care for my personal style, enough of them agree with my edits that I'm fairly confident in them. And I'm always willing to be convinced that I'm wrong as long as it's not made personal. CovenantD 06:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the revert. A most extraordinary piece of trolling!--Poetlister 17:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Some people make it relatively easy when they use an account for nothing but stirring up trouble. CovenantD 21:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, see [18]. Thanks for the note though, I appreciate it :) Take care, Snoutwood (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whiel I'm greateful for your defense of my reverts of the vandal, Chris Griswold isn't particularly interested in the reasons I do things, he's interested in excuses for confrontations. If I can offer advice, don't get in the way of things he does to me, it's jsut putting a bullseye on your own back. ThuranX 06:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that your also reverting the article that the anon keeps changing. Never having done a 3RR on a user before, I don't know what to do. Any help to stop the changes continuing would be helpful. Thanks Grey Shadow | Talk 07:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's also hitting Hulk and Wonder Woman, for what it's worth. Obviously I don't bother with 3RR reports, but I can create one for you to submit if you'd like. It's just a matter of grabbing diffs. CovenantD 10:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism? I feel superhuman describes it too, what with his ability to bend steel etc. But I can see where the problem lies in that and so just left it as "super".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Damn. You're right. I started to put "superhuman" also, but went with an intra-species comparison instead. Shoulda gone with my first instinct. CovenantD 20:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted back your changes to Heroes (TV series) because Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections does not recommend the deletion of Trivia sections. What it is recommends is moving the information to an apppropriate section. Problem is, I created the Trivia section because it was not appropriate for the Goldmember cast connection observation to be in the Production notes section, and I couldn't think of a better section to put it in to right now. In such a case, a Trivia section is permissible. However, I would not object to you deleting the Trivia section entirely along with the Goldmember thing. Primogen 06:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I chose to revert because I didn't want to just remove the info, but if you have no objects... CovenantD 06:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved to User talk:Quarl
• Moved to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

A request for a peer review of New Universe has been made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/New Universe. I'd appreciate your comments on the article, hopefully it will kickstart the comics project's peer review process. To comment, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible. Steve block Talk 22:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your use of {{Marvel Universe}}. It's terrific. It'll save a lot of time. --Tenebrae 17:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the equivalent for {{DC Universe}}. Thanks go to Chris Griswold for creating them several months ago. CovenantD 18:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your most recent revert of Asgardian's edits to the Super-Skrull article was premature. I noticed that Asgardian seemed to be focused on removing the material I recently added (the explanation for the Super-Skrull's disappearance, his contracting cancer from time spent in the Van Allen belts rather than his augmentation beam, and information on his Captain Hero identity), so I put a section outlining my reasons for adding that material here in the article's talk page, and asked Asgardian to read it via his/her talk page. Asgardian responded by re-editing the article with shorter versions of said material, which was an option I brought up in my statement. The pertinent information is still presented, and I am satisfied with that. Asgardian has reverted the page to his most recent edit, and I think that version should stand. -- Pennyforth 16:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CovenantD, you reverted the following entry "After the onset of the persecution of Falun Gong, several allegations were raised by the CCP against Li Hongzhi, ranging from changing his birth date to status as a cult leader and allegations of profiteering." saying that "After the onset draws a connection between the two that is OR". Please tell me what is OR, and also where is OR present in the Wikipedia policy. Plus I would be curios what is incorect about saying that the allegations started after the persecution? Thx. --HappyInGeneral 12:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OR is an abreviation for Original Research. The policy can be found here. Basically, by mentioning these two pieces of information in the same sentence, you are trying to establish a relation between them. CovenantD 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the abbreviation, I was lot for a moment. Also, do you think that this statement is not true? --HappyInGeneral 12:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I think it true or not is irrelevant. That's the entire point of the policies on Original Research and Verifiability - to eliminate personal bias and stick to what's been reported in outside Reliable Sources. (Although I personally wouldn't be surprised by actions of any government to keep themselves in power.) CovenantD 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...at Thor (Marvel Comics), Awesome Android and elsewhere. It gets very frustrating sometimes when some other contributors can't be bothered to read up on basic guidelines or grammar/punctuation. This part of the encyclopedia would be a childish joke without people like you, Chris Griswold, Steve Block, and others. THANK YOU for your good work. --Tenebrae 05:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thanks :) CovenantD 06:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what can I say? That includes when I let my frustration get the better of me with vandals! Yo're right to be diligent about that — though I'll tell you, being polite with these joy-riders doesn't seem to work.

Anyway, you're right. Not being Asgardian, I won't erase what your posted. If you want to remove it, that's fine, but I'll leave it otherwise. I'd just hate to let trolls use it as ammunition!

With respect as always, TenaciousCovendantD..., --Tenebrae 02:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say Silverstone was British, as you wrongly claim. I said she was British-American. There is a difference which you ignored, deliberately or by not paying attention (I don't know which). British Americans are Americans whose ancestry stems, either wholly or in part, from one or more of the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom.

Silverstone was born in the USA to two British parents and is entitled to UK citizenship and a passport (if she doesn't already hold both). This means she is British-American - if not, how could anyone be?! This resource is full of so-called "Irish-Americans" who have an Irish antecedant from centuries ago, or an Irish-sounding name, or are Irish-Catholic (what the hell is that?), or have green eyes, or like Guinness, or once holidayed in Cork, so kindly explain why a woman with 100% British parentage and the right to live, work and die in the UK cannot be called British-American? 86.17.247.135 12:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

PS Steve-O (of Jackass fame) was born in London and lived there until he was 20. He has a British passport and birth certificate. He has the right to come and go from the UK as he pleases (indeed, often does, especially to find a packet of his favourite Monster Munch crisps). So is he British? 86.17.247.135 12:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen what's been going on with the Season 1 page? First they removed all the Wikia links in the headers per the MOS of linking. Ok, but then they violate of MOS by puting an "external link" section in every episode section. When I move it to the bottom, per the MOS of External links, they revert me saying "reasoning invalidated". Any thoughts on this? Bignole 22:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CD. When you get a chance, would you mind looking at my Dec. 10 response to User:Asgardian at the bottom of Talk:Awesome Android (comics)? It concerns his latest reversion, which you changed back to the article as it was. I'd like your input and opinion on my post, since I mention your fix in it. Thanks very much, --Tenebrae 07:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much kinder than I could be to him at this point. I don't expect much more of a response than his "guidelines be damned, I know what's best" attitude, but at least you tried. Hope you have better luck than I (and many others) have had. CovenantD 07:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He reverted again. I've asked admin Steve Block for help. See here. What a thing, huh? --Tenebrae 10:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, CD. If you choose to lend your support to a request for Admin help regarding Asgardian, please see this to Admin Noticeboard entry. Thanks-- Tenebrae 21:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steve_block has protected the Awesome Android page, after I notified him and User:ChrisGriswold about User:Asgardian's return to disallowed reverts. Asgardian apparently has no intention of changing his behavior. Thanks for your dilligence. --Tenebrae 16:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by violating the 3RR policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. While I understand your reasons for the reverts at Films considered the greatest ever, there is no good reason to violate the 3RR policy. You could have easily waited for another editor to revert the page. Bad behavior on the part of one editor does not justify bad behavior in response. -- Samuel Wantman 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the incident, I'd agree with CD - the user is question was trying to use user comments from IMDB as a source - I'd remove that on sight as well. --Charlesknight 09:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same admin that blocked handles the review request? I thought this was a way to get a second set of eyes to look at the situation.

Samuel, if you watch that article, then you know that I've tried many times to explain to Daffy what a "reliable source" is by Wikipedia standards. If the face of his continual additions, what he was doing was simply vandalism. CovenantD 15:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted on Samuel's talk page that Daffy has been indefblocked per ANI, and requested that your block be lifted. Syrthiss 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response at User talk:Syrthiss -- Samuel Wantman 06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Call on me for support the next time, before the fourth revert. -- Samuel Wantman 06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anon has been indefinitely blocked. Be on the lookout for new sockpuppets. -- Samuel Wantman 21:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the Mr Burns talk page to your reason why a list about Mr Burns state of mind isn't necessary. Thought I'd give you a heads up in case you wanted to check it out. takethemud 09:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)takethemud[reply]

I'm curious if there is anything, aside from following him around, that can be done with regard to his ignoring of the Comics Project convention with volume numbers, he's still insisting DC titles be followed by (series #), and the overall Wiki convention with dates, he's adding -st, -nd, -rd, and -th in his edits.

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 23:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So...

Asgardian is incorrect on several points. #1 I have not violated 3RR.

• You are one off, then, as you are making blind reverts.

Asgardian 23:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. 2 His new image has been endorsed by no other editors - in fact, at least one has stated a different preference.

• Who? I and two others expressed a preference for another image.

Asgardian 23:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. 3 He is the one who initially changed the image before discussion had played out.

Yes, I changed the image, which is perfectly reasonable and a bold edit. THREE posters are against the Quesada image. If a majority come out against the current image, then that can be changed, but it is clear that other options ARE required. It rather belligerent to state that the new image "failed" when all you can offer is your own opinion. Again, I changed the image - reasonable - AFTER supporting two other views. Again, AFTER.

Asgardian 23:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. 4 If we're going to go into histories, Asgardian has a long list of complaints about his "my way or the highway" edits scattered all across the Comics Project pages, including at least one at the Admin's noticeboard in which a ban for this user was proposed. CovenantD 23:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• A childish and immature comment. That issue was resolved and we moved on. It is no more relevant to the discussion at hand that your recent 24hr ban. The issue is the Avengers image, and your unwillingness to wait for more comments on the new image.

Asgardian 23:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down you two! This discussion is not productive. You should be moving forward, not rehashing the past. State what each of your concerns are, state what policies and guidelines are relevant, and propose alternatives that you are willing to consider. Also, get other people involved in the discussion. I see several covers posted on the article (which BTW seems like it might be a WP:Fair use violation), so would you both be agreeable with using one of those? -- Samuel Wantman 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

1. They are not blind reverts, they are restoring the image that was in place until a consensus can be reached.
2. ChrisGriswold expressed a preference for Avengers #4 BEFORE you changed the image.
3. I don't care for the image that's been there for months(?) either, but the one you used is even worse because of the advertising banner across the top. It's completely irrelevant to the Avengers and unnecessary when other images are available. As you called your new image a "road test," I stated why it didn't work in the edit summary that reverted it.
4. You are the one who started commenting on histories and actively sought out an admin who you thought might be amenable to your complaints about me, presumably based on the 24 hour ban you now say is irrelevant. And I see no "resolution" to the proposed ban for you, just a petering out of the discussion. CovenantD 00:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to know that I am watching how this all plays out, and I don't think you need to fan the fire. -- Samuel Wantman 01:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the clear-up man, was still debating the possible deletion of the section in Invader Zim DVD Collection. 72.49.106.99 06:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems you're in a bit of a disagreement with Asgardian over this article. Can I sugggest talking with him instead of just reverting over and over? FrozenPurpleCube 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with him has been attempted by many different editors across many different articles over the last several months. See this archive on the Admin's noticeboard for a decent summary of those attempts. CovenantD 18:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before he erases it, you might want to see the discussion at User talk:Asgardian#Response to your posting --Tenebrae 04:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CovenantD! If you have not noticed recently your page has become a nasty vandal target. May I suggest requesting an administrator to protect it? Sorry that a bunch of trolls have been coming your way lately. Seems like VoAbot II is taking care of it just fine but if the bot misses anything, I'll keep your page on my watchlist!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up on something.

Earlier in the month you downed a DCWW derived image for Shazam and cited "fair use reasons." I was wondering what exactly they were?

The reason I ask is I've run across a few, both from the DCWW and from the later Secret Files. I had downed on on the Lords of Chaos and Order article, but it was put back up. I'd like to have a solid grounding on why there's a problem with these before I go and down it again. Also, is it just the DCWW specific images, or is it any image in that format, ie are the Secret Files ones good to use?

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 07:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna refer you to ChrisGriswold; I seem to recall he had a much better handle on the specific reasons why Who's Who images were deemed unacceptable under fair use. I know it was discussed on the Comics Project talk page, but without going through the archives I couldn't even tell you when. If Chris doesn't have an answer, let me know and I'll look it up. CovenantD 09:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd contributed to a discussion on the Mr Burns talk page about whether a page was necessary for his "state of mind." I recently went through that section and tried to condense it into a more coherent paragraph form so that it would fit better in the article and eliminate the need for any other pages. I haven't posted it in the article yet, but I put it on the talk page so others could give input. If you want to check it out and give input, you know where to find it. I figured as somebody who was interested enough in the subject to post to the talk page, you'd be a good person to alert to this.... takethemud 17:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)takethemud[reply]

Kewl. Thanks for the heads-up. CovenantD 18:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably old news, but concerning how I referred to Wiccan thinking he was the 'daughter' of the Scarlet Witch at his talk page[19]; yes, it was just a mistake/typo. I honestly didn't mean anything homophobic about it, like trying to say 'he's a girl because he's gay' or something. [20] [21] --DrBat 00:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that was the case, but thanks for clarifying. CovenantD 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary: "fixing AfD tag - You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress."

Hello. I'm well within my "rights" to remove a broken tag if you do not take the time to do it properly, remember you want to AfD the X-Men article, isn't my job to fix your mistake.

Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Please_do_not_take_it_personally states "You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones).

There are, however, a few restrictions upon how you may edit an article:

• You must not blank the article (unless it is a copyright infringement).
• You must not modify or remove the AFD notice."

You listed [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) ({{{1}}} nomination)|this article's entry]] for deletion and placed that tag on Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) - so yes I must remove the tag till you (or some kind sole) take the time to AfD the correct page. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, the AfDx template wasn't working properly so myself and another editor had to hack in the correct links. It seems to be pointing to the correct AfD discussion now. CovenantD 01:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, since he's thumbed his nose at the talk page suggestion, hit 3 reverts, and is throwing an empty protect tag, has the annom hit the need for a block warning? — J Greb 04:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice? Give 'em a {{subst:3RR}} warning and wait for them to revert again then take it to the 3RR Noticeboard, or bring it directly to the attention of Steve Block and/or Chris Griswold. CovenantD 04:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given him a template:3RR4. Note that since this is a content dispute, not simple vandalism, you're technically in violation of 3RR as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, so I am. I hadn't realized I'd tried to maintain the consensed upon image earlier today. It really sucks that we've got to tolerate this crappy, cramped image because of some anon who absolutely refuses to discuss it. CovenantD 05:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's apparently stopped, which is the important thing. BTW - I wasn't saying I was going to block you. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's stopped because his prefered image is still up - I stopped when I thought I'd hit 3 reverts. And thanks for the head's up and benefit of the doubt. CovenantD 06:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, he'd either stopped on his own or in response to the warning I posted on his page (before your last revert). Anonymous editors who don't seem to be "getting it" might not be aware of the 3RR rule, so you should try directly talking to them (on their talk page) rather than revert war with them. The first step in any dispute is always try talking with the other user. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be to hasty on that. Another annom with a slightly different ISPA just flipped it again. Looking at the dearth of changes stemming from the annoms, I'm tempted to as for an admin to lock the page sans an Infobox image. — J Greb 20:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the previous image and semi-protected the page. I'll leave it to Rick to decide if he wants to block the anons. -- Samuel Wantman 20:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This gives me no pleasure, but I've had to block you for violating WP:3RR at Avengers (comics). I've got to treat all the same. Look, you know I think you're a bloody good editor, but in situations like this try and build a team, and report the troublesome party or the issue at WP:AN or WP:ANI. And seriously, if an article has the wrong image for a couple of days, it doesn't matter hugely. Sorry about this, and otherwise hope you have a happy new year. Steve block Talk 08:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, looking above it looks like tyhe issue is dealt with. But seriously, an admin can't block one violater of the 3RR without blocking another. Sorry about all this, and I wish I'd read a little bit more into it prior to coming in, because I can't expunge block logs. Feel like a heel now. Happy new year. Steve block Talk 08:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you take out pictures out of the Elias Bogan article? (RossF18 08:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

They were poor quality pics (too much detail, multiple panels, no clear image of the protagonist) and there were too many (fair use guidelines say to use as few a possible to illustrate the point). Find a decent shot of the character in question, without a lot of other distractions. CovenantD 08:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has been labled as a sock-puppet and blocked by Gwernol (talk · contribs · blocks · protects · deletions · moves). I'm not sure what you want me to do. Since Gwernol is already on top of this, you should speak with him. I would not want to step on his toes. If there is something specific, provide links and describe the problem. -- Samuel Wantman 20:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwernol blocked EJBanks after I left you and Steve a note, so there's really nothing left to do at this time. If (when?) I spot another clone, may I bring it to your attention BEFORE it gets out of hand again? CovenantD 20:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it is most effective to use an admin who has a history with the user, in this case Gwernol. If I were to step in at a later date, I'd have to review everthing that he did. Go to him first. -- Samuel Wantman 20:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CovenantD. What did you find objectionable within the Civil War section of Wiccan (comics)? It wasn't immediately apparent to me. --GentlemanGhost 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it starts in the middle of the third paragraph, with the sentence "The young heroes become the prisoners and victims of the sadistic Warden." It gets worse from there, with lots of subjective adjectives like atrocity, fortunately, abominable and daring. And the entire turn to the Dark Side phrasing, complete with wikilink, is OR at best. Basically, the entire tone way too subjective and assumes too much about the motivations and feelings of the characters involved. Hope that helps. CovenantD 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I took a whack at it. --GentlemanGhost 21:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bother you with this, but since you know more about wikipedia's standards and rules more than myself and seem to know many of the key editor better I submit this to you judgment. As you might know for the last several months a struggle of sorts has gone on between two different versions of the article between a poster named Asgardian and various other Wikipedia contributers including Covenant D. Namely between what was accepted by the Wikipedia editors and rules and what Asgardian himself thought the article should be composed of without anythought to anyone else's contribution. After several attemts to combine the articles, meet Wikipedia standards, insistance on teh part of several of the editors, etc. an article with a photo seemed to be made that was accepted. Asgardian himself sometimes made changes to his own version after being told numerous times certain changes had to be made or certain facts that were truthful had to be included. Around the beginning of December an article was set-up that I thought finally all parties agreed upon with minute changes now and then to make sure it was the best possible. However, at the end of December Asgardian started reverting it back to his article. I admit he seems to have finally met many of Wikipedia's standards and the article may be acceptable to Wikipedia. However, there is still some information I believe should be included that his does not. In this I have several times reverted the article to the other version that is not his. The version I thought everybody agree upon. I admit part of me gets infuriated at times with what seems to be Asgardian's attitude of his way and only his way. If it would be possible, could you and maybe one or two of the other Wikipedia editors review each article and deem what is best for the mjolnir comics article. I fear my lack of knowledge about Wikipedia standards and personal views may be interfering with my judgment. If Asgardian's article meets your approval or if you deem it best to combine the article, or whatever version of the article you and the other editors think is best I will accept. Thank you Seekquaze

Thanks. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Covenant, it's been a while. I hope all is well for you. I read your message that you are on a wiki break, so I will understand if you don't respond. Over the past couple weeks myself and another user, jsw663, have been engaged in an endless dispute over whether we should lable the Chinese government's actions against Falun Gong a "persecution" or a "suppression". Here is the link. The discussion has reached the point where I'm clear that neither of us will "give in". I know that you haven't been active on the Falun Gong pages for a long time, and I'm not requesting that you start (although that would be nice), but I've always respected your opinion and considered it very neutral. Right now there are no neutral users involved in editing these pages. So I was wondering if you could take some time to read through the discussion and write a post with your judgement on the matter. It doesn't have to be long. I will respect your opinion, no matter which side it falls on. I've also sent similar posts to users armedblowfish, and Ed_Poor. Hopefully we can get a best 2 out of 3.

Thanks, Mcconn 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing you to ask you for your help with the comment you placed on the Bella (film) page. I am the producer of "Bella" and i am sorry if i added information to this page that i was not supposed to add. After I discovered this website that had information about our film, I added links to articles and reviews about the film. All of these articles and reviews are from credible 3rd party sources and can be verified by clicking on the link. Please advise me if i did something wrong or if i need to do something better. Thanks. Seanwolfington 02:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are Template: Justice League and Template:Justice Society of America. Besides on toher templates like Template: Avengers, it was put on for most of them. Besides Justice League Unlimited has 2 templates. Besides read Wikipedia:Template namespace. Besides most templates have their templates on the article it's on. Brian Boru is awesome 20:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean. CovenantD 20:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mind telling me why you deleted the information concerning Thunderstrike? I provided a source for crying outloud. It was from Tom Defalco himself. 71.115.231.16 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being badly placed and disrupting the flow of the article, the "source" is a message board, by definition not a reliable source. CovenantD 20:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen messageboard posts used as source before, so why is it so bad when I use them. You and Tenebrae have something against me? I'm mean it seems like you're looking through all edits I've made. 71.115.231.16 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ever hear the phrase that two wrongs don't make a right? Just because others have used inappropriate sources is not a reason to add more. And I really couldn't care less about checking your edits or your feelings of persecution - I am checking the articles on my watchlist and haven't bothered to notice which anon IP is making the edits. CovenantD 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying that two wrongs make a right, but no ones told me of forums not counting for source.

You mentioned on the Green Arrow site that Kryptonsite.com doesn't count for reliable source either. What websites do you consider reliable? 71.115.231.16 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can review what Wikipedia has to say about citing reliable sources at WP:CITE and WP:RS. CovenantD 21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to leave a source, what I need to know are which websites consider appropriate sources? 71.115.231.16 22:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a match going on.Favi4et 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for your support during this whole Death Hawk thing. I find your own editing to be exemplary, IMHO, and when I see your name on an article, I always know you've made it better, more factual, and and more encyclopedic. Continued good Wiki'ing! -- Tenebrae 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just calling it like I saw it, but thank you. Not sure how much time I'm going to have for WP in the near future and it's nice to know that my efforts are appreciated when I am around. CovenantD 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Metropolis

--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the books, otherwise you are just perpetuating fallacies. Case in point - Magneto was just Magnus in those days. The supervillain status came later...

203.46.189.91 02:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop assuming what I have and have not read. Magnus was an alias that he used at some point. From the article Magneto- "Xavier later remembers meeting Magneto, at the time using the alias "Magnus"<ref>''Uncanny X-Men'' #161</ref>, while working at a psychiatric hospital near Haifa." CovenantD 02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize this had been discussed and this category was agreed for deletion. He WAS a Batman actor and it seemed to me that it should be there. I don't understand why it's not, but I won't revert it again. :) -Mike Payne 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a category for not necessarily "Batman actors", that have ever been associated with Batman, but specifically actors who have PLAYED Batman himself? This list would be much shorter, George Reeves, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, George Clooney, Christian Bale, and only others who have portrayed the caped crime-fighter himself. Do you know if there is one? -Mike Payne 17:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know of one - one used to exist, but it got caught up in the mass deletion of Batman-related character cats. I'd suggest raising the issue at WikiProject Comics and seeing if there's support for one before trying to recreate it. (I'd personally support it, because it is a pretty career-defining role, with the understanding that shouldn't lead to "category creep.") CovenantD 17:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this one of those things where you are going to take the registered users side just because they are registered? Do you even know where this frustration is coming from? I'm considered a vandal, even though I bothered to defend my actions on the discussion page? While the registered user did not attempt at all to defend themselves and instead tried to get me banned outright from helping this site? Do you see where that frustration comes from? Wouldn't you consider someone trying to get you banned from helping this site just as dispicable as throwing a few barbs in a discussion post? I hope so!

BTW I am being considered a vandal, even though all I am doing is trying to make the page better. I'm not typing things that are not true, I'm not putting up dirty words. I am just trying to delete a reference to the Columbine Massacre in the opening paragraph of a Simpsons bio page at this website. I find it foolish, distasteful and inaccurate (the verification provided comes frome a website that anybody can edit and absolutely no secondary info came up with a google search) Jesus wept, but it's true. That's all.

You make some mighty big assumptions there, thinly veiled as questions. I won't dignify them with any response other than to say this is about your personal attack and not about the edits that you claim sparked your frustration. CovenantD 08:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So they were. My apologies. :) Arcayne 13:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not currently active, then somebody is using your ID, and to post garbage, yet. If it is you, then change your indicated status. Specifically, the International Hero note/link on the Lone Ranger article at the second cartoon TV series did lead to the opening page of that site, and there is nothing said right there about that program at all, and no more anywhere else in that site than is already in the Wik. article, so leave it off. I have already taken an identical one off the line about the Topps comic book version. Please.

Could you provide a diff? I thought all I did was revert some anon IP's uncited changes from Dan to Andy - you know, the same anon edits you've been fighting there and at Green Hornet. CovenantD 21:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history at Lone Ranger indicates only you did anything there since I removed the inappropriate footnote--like link from the reference to the 1980s cartoon show, but it was back up (I took it off again), therefore you or somebody using your ID put it back up. If that doesn't "provide a diff" then I don't know what that means. And you are listed as "currently inactive" when you are obviously not. Do SOMETHING about that.Ted Watson 22:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the recent Trivia additions were too much but, with them gone, is that tag really necessary? There are only three trivia items there once all that other stuff is out, and they seem pretty well confined. (Oops. The excess trivia's been added right back in and the tag removed. Looks like someone can't take a hint. Good luck -) JohnInDC 04:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current guidelines state that all trivia should be worked into the article or removed. I don't have any attachment to either solution ;) CovenantD 04:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for asking, but as you stated guidelines state that all trivia should be worked into the article or removed. So why does it seems like you prefer deletion over working it into the articles? Because, I'm pretty sure deletion is suppose to be a last resort. 71.115.236.185 04:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both movies are still moving, but slowly, yes. ThuranX 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea what the bold (top) after the pages listed on the "My Contributions" page are? -Mike Payne 04:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a while to figure out what you were referring to. That indicates that yours is the last edit to that particular page. It's very handy to tell at a glance if somebody has edited the page after you did. CovenantD 04:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would nominate an article for 'speedy" that is several seconds old? Are you afraid of the premise or lack of references? I have all the references available, I just need time to insert them into the article. You should clarify your position. Prester John 09:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside your inflamatory question about my motives...

I already explained that - Lack of content. When I looked at it, there was NOTHING there except an intro that was completely unacceptable as an article. If you need time to build something, create it in a sandbox off of your user page until ready for prime-time. CovenantD 09:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I assume from that comment you are in favour of this article being fully fleshed out and fully referenced. Prester John 11:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. I held off voicing an opinion on the AfD page until I saw where you were headed with it. As of right now, I think you're stretching to prove a point of some kind by stringing together a bunch of newspaper headlines. I don't know what that point is and don't really care, but the article fails all kinds of Original Research guidelines. You'll have to show some connection that is clearly demonstrated in your references, otherwise it's just a random collection of news articles. CovenantD 11:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry man, i'm using the autowiki thing for the first time and i mixed up the fields. --EXV // + @ 22:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I thought I was getting a "kid with a new toy" vibe from the edits. I was actually starting to get a bit jealous ;) Any chance you can use that wonder tool to revert those lines without messing up the other stuff you did? CovenantD 22:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to remove that tag, it was an accident. DietLimeCola 05:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand - it happens. CovenantD 05:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Support Our Scouts Act. I removed the scouting for all link because their website has been down. Please add it back only if it comes back. --evrik ^(talk) 15:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And did you see what happpened next? Somebody removed a link with the opposite viewpoint, to acheive "balance." After looking through the history I saw that it was not the first time the article had gone through that cycle. Given that Mar 1 is less than TWO days away, it seemed better to have a note attached to one than nothing at all. Sorry if you disagree. CovenantD 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see you don´t agree that the Homosexual agenda article does not have a worldwide view on the subject. I wrote on the talk page of the article my arguments to state the opposite. Please, write your arguments on the talk page so we can reach an agreement on this. A.Z. 19:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was mistake on my part - I only intended to return the category. CovenantD 19:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally posted at User talk:Power level (Dragon Ball)
While the amount of effort you put into Wikipedia is admirable, I think you need to slow down and find out a bit more about guidelines and policies. I see you making a lot of changes that don't fit into them, such as treating fictional characters as real people.[22] I'm also really disturbed by the way you treat your talk page, constantly blanking warnings and giving false edit summaries that you are somehow archiving them. I had to do quite a bit of digging to find out how often you've been warned for 3RR and civility violations - in itself a disturbing trend. I can only conclude that you don't really know how to deal with your talk page or you are intentionally trying to hide such warnings (your continual removal of links to what archives that do exist would support this idea). So just slow down, read up on policies and guidelines, and ask questions before you simply revert somebody else's edits. CovenantD 20:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ARCHIVE. You're not required to have an archive, but it is recommended. There's no policy or rule that enforces it upon Wikipedians. Also, what warnings/comments are you talkin' about that I continuously remove? More than a week ago doesn't count, ya know. Besides, it's all archived in my history page so ya shouldn't bother to even care or give a damn about my history. And, finally, regarding Vegeta: he became a superhero, hence, I'm not treating him like a friend like you said I did. He and Piccolo Jr. are alien "supervillains" no longer. See current categories for further information. Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the guidelines on talk page archiving, but it appears that you'd rather engage in Wikilawyering than listen to some helpful advice. Furthermore, it's only your opinion that a warning older than a week "doesn't count." I "give a damn" because I see you making lots of mistakes and wanted to find out how long you've been an editor, what kind of comments have been left for you and how you responded to them. Now I have firsthand knowledge of how you interact with other editors. As for your rationalization for the edits to Piccolo, there is nothing in the link you provided that addresses how you justify your treatment of him in violation of writing about fiction guidelines. CovenantD 21:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are aware of the guidelines, though. Someguy0830 explained to me indirectly why Vegeta is still a Dragon Ball supervillain and I saw his point by reading his edit summary. I hate trying to wikilawyer my way into things. Some people are just so DENSE nowadays though. One thing I never do is bring up original research because I hate that! I always show or reveal proof to everything I add to fictional characters that I'm familiar with but not in a lawyering way. So, there ya have it! I am → Power level (Dragon Ball) 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• i found the image at mavel.com and they didn't have the artist or the comic book listed, and i also didn;t know which licencing tag to use so i hust used the comicpanelGman124 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally posted at User talk:Power level (Dragon Ball)
Several redirects you created have been nominated for deletion. CovenantD 00:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and what's your point? I'm not the first to do so. I was actually creating a bunch of redirects for the Dragon Ball related articles, not just the Power level (Dragon Ball) article. Besides, There already where several shortcut boxes before I even began them. Power level (Dragon Ball) 00:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer yet another editor to the phrase "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Look at the first sentence of the Project page about shortcuts. "Shortcuts in Wikipedia are a specialized type of redirection page that can be used to get to a Wikipedia project reference page" more quickly. (emphasis mine) CovenantD 00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if this editor is causing trouble. He has a history of incivility, disruption, and sockpuppetry. Oh, and he made an attack account. see also User:Dragonball1986--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw a message you left on his talk page. He's been hiding warnings? I noticed how difficult it was to go through his archives. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? Should we have this deletion process reviewed? It looks like this is only one of many he has been deciding with little explanation. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think so. I'm tired seeing drek being retained at the expense of guidelines and common sense. CovenantD 20:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in looking over the closing admins talk page, I see a disturbing series of indications that s/he bases the decision simply on consensus, without regard to guidelines and policy. CovenantD 21:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please detail at Talk:Backmasking why you find that section in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR.

Also, it would be helpful if you archived your talk page, as it is extremely long.

Thanks, Λυδαcιτγ 03:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is any of this[23] a personal attack on my part? I didn't call the IP user any names at all. Power level (Dragon Ball) 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You're the one who's acting moronic...' is a clear comment on the person and not the content. CovenantD 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no! I said he was "acting moronic", never said he "is/was moronic" himself. Get it? You're readily confusing the two. Also, don't be a dick is not a personal attack either. It's actually a rule on Wikipedia. Should I request outside assistance to handle this matter? If anything, my comment seemed more or less immature, but, I did not clearly call the disruptive IP user "moronic". It's the same as saying to another user "Don't be a dick about it" - clearly, "Don't" is placed there to warn the user to not be a dick in this case. Anyways, it seems we're gettin' nowhere with this. Shall I? Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well? Shall I request outside assistance? Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what? I'm not interested in your attempts to excuse it. The warning stands. Oh, and "Don't be a dick" is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. CovenantD 04:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then. I see your point. You want me to stop leaving immature comments, is that it? Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. CovenantD 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I really thin an admin needs to come in and semi-protect the short list this annom is hitting:

These seem standards

• Darkseid (looks relatively minor... one image size and and a power quibble)
• Hyperion (Marvel Comics) (looks like s/he wants it stuck at the Feb 5th edit)
• Thing (comics) (not really sure with this, but the character is in active use by Marvel. It feels like s/he wants to hold on to chunk of the early Feb version.)
• Odin (comics) (looks like it may be an older version s/he can't quite get to. Hard to tell though since a lot of the edits are sans edit comments.)

These seem new for this sweep

• Hulk (comics) (Like the Thing but the fact the the Merge survey hasn't been officially closed may be an issue as well.)
• Black Panther (comics)

Though BP looks like a hich-up, almost no change.

A semi would at least force the annom to either stop or actually log in so we could see who it is.

It's odd, Basique seems to think it's might be DCincarnate, but that would put him in an revert war with himself.

Hope that helps — J Greb 06:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's with Basique. Ever since I just resized some images in the Darkseid and Thanos articles, he exaggeratedly told me that "I will contest any change you make that damages the integrity of a Wikipedia article". Apparently, he seems to think of me as some sort of menace.

User:DCincarnate

You two have an interesting relationship. If you'd like a 3rd opinion on any specific article, let me know and I'll give my best unbiased opinion. CovenantD 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you have two times erase my written. i give background in 2004 they have painting exhibit and later the conection betwen falun gong and the resident are become tense cause they activity and finnaly oppose that what they not told and twisted reality. And some of them ask what kind proof that glodok are object vital? and i brought the proof the evidance to make sure what i said have base.

Falungong have several painting exhibit in Chandra building (Glodok) 2004[24], the conection become tense and oppose the falungong folowers activity in the area after they distrub and threatend the Chinatown Residents lifes. They activity not only make open the wound of the chinatown residents in pogrom jakarta riots of May 1998[25], and make they fear that falungong left them with the time bomb of the pogrom into the area and they future generation. They ask the goverment and the goverment make the Glodok area as Objek vital to be guard from any kind distrubing activity such falungong activity. Image:StandingIMAGE0002.JPG

None of the citations you include provide any evidence for your claims. CovenantD 12:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes i give fact in the first citation certainly backup with they story about resident who acept they view after they explaint. and second citation are give view how wounded trhe chinatown and what they try to recover. the third are view and answerd from indonesia matter when the resident ask protecition the document payment show the written thw answer by goverment.

i am sorry i forgot again add my signDaimond 12:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From November 26th-28th, 2004, a three-day art exhibition entitled "Uncompromising Courage," was held in a hall on the second floor of a building in Jakarta's Chinatown in Indonesia. The whole event went smoothly.

When the visitors learned the truth, they expressed that they would tell their friends and relatives about all of this.Daimond 12:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown that there was an art exhibit in 2004. You have shown that there were riots in 1998. You have provided nothing that shows a connection between the two. CovenantD 12:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

indonesia matter have give connection cause they activity 2006 open the old wound falun gong speak that they pamflet not injury any one, but many victim progrom 1998 who still a life of the porgom are live in the area so there conection they open the old wound and not only that they left them with time bom to recreate one so the resident ask the goverment protection, but before that they already talk to falun gong folower and the falun gong folower are headrock so where the compassion they said? and the banner are proof how finnaly they feeling after the falungong activity who given no choice to defend they life. Daimond 12:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a citation that supports that claim. CovenantD 12:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The report cited another article that claimed that the protest was broken up because traders in the area resented Falun Gong political action disrupting business activities. It also suggested that locals were annoyed with Falun Gong practitioners distributing leaflets, saying that they distributed a leaflet that threatened the locals, thus causing their attack. This group reportedly hopes that the government will take action to prevent Falun Gong practitioners from "disturbing the life of the area." Daimond 12:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read both of the citations that you have provided several times and neither of them say anything like that. If you have another citation, please provide it. CovenantD 12:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did the document payment as result they ask not give you something. this not only for falungong but other activity such falungong activity, so no organization not falun gong not any would create other progrom.Daimond 13:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read about reliable sources for why something you scanned in yourself is not acceptable. CovenantD 13:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so mean my scan are not accepted, hmm i must look in this but http://www.dki.go.id/jakbar still a mess. so mean i must wait again to publish this isn't it until that web site be right again hiks hiksDaimond 13:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you understand. When you have a reliable source, feel free to add it. CovenantD 13:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, until the time i would wait this artikel until the dki web not so messy like now i hope the data i seen that time not missing or erase.Daimond 13:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coven i forgot that mean i still alow add painting exhibit by falun gong in 2004? there a clear harmony link isn't it. this still falun gong out side china?.Daimond 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This requires some discretion. Because Clear Harmony is a Falun Gong website, we can use it to report events that happen but not reactions. Because they have bias, they would not be considered a reliable source for what people said or did. CovenantD 14:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thought I had. You know I think you're tops! (And I did put a general message on the Comics Noticeboard.) It's always great to see your edits and comments. When I see your name on my watchlist, I know I don't need to check it out -- I automatically know you've made the article better.--Tenebrae 04:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<blush> CovenantD 06:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My contribution regarding the similarity between the Superhuman registration act and the cards therein with those of City of Heroes/Villains is valid. Please do not remove it in the future. Warwolf 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then find a citation for it. As it was written, it was Original Research. CovenantD 06:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the head's up, but I don't think I can change my name. It's not like my account is being hacked or something. WikiNew 13:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's kinda silly but i change the trivia section, into interesting facts, which mean it is no longer a trivia and never meant to be, don't follow guidelines by the book, thats all i am saying, now that it's no longer a trivia it's no longer a trivia, funny aint it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaotaoquan (talk • contribs)

Any idea why adding the unsigned tag never seems to work correctly? Instead of putting their user info it says worthless information... -Mike Payne 00:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it. :) -Mike Payne

Where on the Arbitration case should I leave it? Which page? Please, thank you.--Asdfg12345 11:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant D, I've struck out the sentence but will not delete it unless you feel you can remove your rebuttal section. Jsw663 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asdfg, I'm not sure which is the most appropriate place - I've never been involved in an arbitration before :) Maybe the Evidence talk page, or ask a clerk where it should go.

Jsw663, I'd like to know why you distorted my record so badly before I consider removing my rebuttal. Simply striking it out doesn't answer that.

- CovenantD 18:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were part of the pro-FG camp bent on ensuring the anti-FG users would be banned from Wikipedia to allow the pro-FG camp to enforce their POV version of FG-related articles on Wiki. I forgot that you were a mediator and had done pretty well in some past cases and was actually one of those who wanted to preserve the fragile balance on FG-related pages, and it is this oversight and misunderstanding that led me to reach the wrong conclusions. I apologize absolutely, and have made this clear on the ArbCom evidence page. But I hope you can see how one can get the wrong impression by merely reading this talk page, so don't blame me for an unexplained 'personal attack' because I did not realize your intentions by reading more into the background of your block. After all, the block was approved by two admins, not one. Jsw663 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Repeated from ArbCom Evidence talk page) I did not have a preconceived idea of whether you had a pro-FG bias. I did say that just by a quick look at your talk page WITHOUT looking at any other pages, that one can only conclude that since you got banned right after Samuel and Tomananda were established to be different people, that you were reacting to it (why would they 'decline' your POV-pushing otherwise - TWO admins?)

As long as I do not continue to hold those previous assumptions, I fail to see how that is just an 'excuse' and not an apology, or why you should take such an adverse reaction to an accusation that I have already struck out AND apologized for. I merely tried to explain why I did what I did, but I have changed these misconceptions since. If this is not a sincere apology, please tell me what is, because I am not aware of a mediator who does not accept an apology in the form I have made already. I am willing to learn, so please instruct what is a 'proper apology' according to you that can ensure you will 'forgive' me. Seriously, tell me.

Moreover, I don't see why I can't be entitled to defend my views, PROVIDING I am not so stubborn that I am not willing to compromise. My edit history tells the tale of one who is more than willing to compromise on content, not just on FG-related pages. However, I cannot give way to just a few exceptions, such as Olaf's 15 rules. And you are using this assumption to try to smear my record and say I am a bigot? I suggest you revise your views also. Reconciliation has to be mutual, after all. Jsw663 21:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you perpetuate falsehoods about the block I received and show evidence of not having actually read the relevant section on my talk page. Your timeline is wrong (the revelation about Tomananda and Samuel came out afterwards), the number of admins involved in it is wrong and your account of admin reaction is wrong. Show me ONE place where an admin said I was POV pushing - ONE. On the contrary, the first reaction was from an admin stating that, in his view, the block was undeserved.

But I'm done with this. It's not worth the stress. Now that this has finally made it to ArbCom I have little doubt that many of the editors on both sides will be sanctioned for their actions. That may actually allow these articles to become more than a platform to praise or condemn Falun Gong and it's founder. CovenantD 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cov D, perhaps you misunderstand. I was merely explaining WHY I PREVIOUSLY held the MISTAKEN view that you were biased. I am also saying that I NOW NO LONGER hold such a view. This is why I apologized in the first place; if I didn't change my view I wouldn't have bothered apologizing, right?

This is also why I don't understand why you view my apology as just an 'excuse' that you cannot forgive, or that I am some kind of POV-bigot. You accuse me of not reading your page properly yet you don't seem to understand my point here. I am CHANGING my view, NOT 'perpetuating falsehood', because I no longer hold such a mistaken view. Can you see the difference?

I have no desire to get into an argument with you either. Wikipedia is too full of arguments already as I am sure every mediator is aware of. But I do place setting the record straight as a high priority. After all, I don't want you and I to have a negative attitude of each other simply because of a misunderstanding. Hope you can see the difference. Jsw663 16:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced in [26] even admins can make mistakes without reading the wider context. You accuse me of making a false first impression of you and I have duly changed it after reading more, and realizing my mistake. You, however, continue to hold a grudge against me based on the 'first impression' you had of me about my mistaken perception. This is not a threat, but just a hope that you can be more tolerant and forgiving of those who made a mistake against you but corrected themselves subsequently. After all, WP:Wikiquette requires all to assume good faith about others initially AND to forgive and forget - can you do the same for me? Jsw663 20:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm almost done with the citations (though I need to clean them up and put them in proper format). Then I'm going to upload audio samples of the messages discussed and link to them. Then I'll go for a Wikipedia:Peer review, and go from there. Λυδαcιτγ 03:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Nolan talk page. By the way I don't appreciate threats.annoynmous 05:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a threat; it was a warning. CovenantD 05:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Celebrity Deathmatch

Thank you. CovenantD 06:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, I'll take a look at her page later, right now I'm heading off to bed. Cyberia23 06:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed the cover to JSA All-Stars #7, but like the cover used for Terrific's main pic, the header isn't there. But it is a cover. mikesmash

Dude, I have JSA All-Stars #7. The name of the publication is on the cover. Therefore what you are showing is either a cropped version or promo art. Either way, the source info is missing. CovenantD 18:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apology for the inadvertent misuse of WP:Point, as I wasn't intending to imply outright disruption as indicated in WP:Point. I restated my arguments accordingly on the category talk page. ... Kenosis 00:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, darn, there goes the reply I just spent 10 minutes writing :) Apology accepted. CovenantD 00:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So. You want to move Toomuchtrivia over Trivia? Just want to make sure I got that right. Let me know. That won't be a problem. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete. I learned something new. :) When admins move an article over an existing article, it asks if you want to delete the destination article first. It doesn't do that for templates. That's. Odd. :) Oh well. Makes the move easier. Let me know if you need any other help. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for Wiki not being a plot summarist, but surely you have to have a little plot summary when the companies have released specific information from which to draw a conclusion? (I'm referrign to the Zombies/Army of Darkness article). SaliereTheFish 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the presence of a plot summary per se, it was the fact that that summary was told through the images. At that point the article is essentially serving the same function as the comics and becomes competition, a violation of fair use. If you can write up one that doesn't depend on the pics, feel free. CovenantD 22:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking in on Thanos. --Basique 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watchlist :) CovenantD 23:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for contacting me. Semi-protection is currently not necessary for X-Men. When the disruption comes from a single user, it can either be an edit war (which would require full protection) or disruption when the user persists in making unilateral changes disregarding consensus against them (and in this case the user shall be warned against such behavior and reported to WP:AIV upon failure to comply). Best regards, Húsönd 02:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at it. CovenantD 02:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake already corrected. My apologies.Arcayne 15:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apoligies.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 01:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I was in the middle of deleting the trivia section while you were adding the tag. It resulted in an edit conflict, but it's all taken care of now. I've also added a "needs sources" tag. Cheers!--Vbd (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Nice to see the Trivia section go away. CovenantD 07:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You call that a personal attack? I said that I was NOT listing reasons. What I did say is that I wish more people - including you - would read and understand the words used. How is that a personal attack? Perhaps you didn't read the actual words. Try this: I wish people would READ THE WORDS and then take the ACTUAL WORDS instead of taking their own pre-reading desire as the meaning behind the words. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your issue. Are you happy now that all the claims have been sourced? Now, they are neither contentious (never were) nor unsourced. Don't worry, Be happy now. :-) VigilancePrime 20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title you gave this section is proof enough of the personal attacks. CovenantD 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Thank you. --Mardavich 05:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out three reverts that weren't to remove vandalism and POV insertions? CovenantD 05:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about simple vandalism here, simple vandalism is swear words or deliberate defacing of the page, none of which applies to your reverts, almost all of your reverts have been related to content dispute, your POV vs somebody else's. So please respect WP:3rr, and stop undoing other people's edits repeatedly. --Mardavich 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for alerting me to the Tigra link problem on the Orion (comic book) page. I was hoping you could help with a dispute I am having with user Basique, in which he has redirected the Orion (comic book) article with Orion (comics), under the pretense of merging, but has only actually merged a sentence. If you wouldn't mind, could you take a look at the article pre-merge, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orion_%28comic_book%29&oldid=114251935, the current Orion (comics) article, and then cast your vote on the Orion (comics) talk page for a merge or don't merge? I would like to get a better feeling of the consensus, rather than myself, the person I had a dispute with, and one other person.

Well, I already expressed an opinion about the merge, so I'm not exactly uninvolved myself.

"Merge - While your attention to the publication history of Orion and the New Gods is appreciated, I have to agree with J Greb. Publication history should be a part of the characters' article. Likewise, the Tales of the New Gods backup stories should be part of their article."

A comparison could be made with a character like Silver Surfer, who also was introduced as a supporting character and went on to appear in many different titles before receiving a self-titled comic. I think the information is better presented as part of a comprehensive publication history of the character. CovenantD 17:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule at the page 300 (film). Please note that reverting what you consider to be NPOV violations or vandalism (other than obvious simple vandalism) is not exempt from the 3RR. Please feel free to continue editing when the block expires, but please consider discussing your edits rather than just blandly reverting. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that: "You're just creating more of a mess that some admin is going to have to try to sort out".Netkinetic(t/c/@) 03:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is nice to see you back to posting instead of just lurking, that bit of gloating seem to be uncalled for NetK. — J Greb 04:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Essjay, Strife, Sandstein...several admins have had to sort out blocks related to his actions. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 05:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! In December of 2006, you participated in the discussion for the 2nd deletion nomination of Ultimate X-Men (story arcs). After two months of rewriting, reorganizing, and referencing, the article is now undergoing a WikiProject Comics peer review. Your editorial opinion would be most welcome to help us improve the article to A-class status. Thanks for your time! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 06:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[27] - regarding this edit, can you please also provide the link to the related policy? Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 21:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's under the general fair use policy - every long term Wikipedian should familiarize themselves with it. I'm shocked that you need me to point you to it. CovenantD 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll read it and please don't be shocked, since I have other things to do as well. Also I'm trying to get up with speed with these policies, but as you might know there are many ... --HappyInGeneral 23:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Comics endearments has been nominated — unfortunately, I believe — for deletion. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at the article and adding a comment, pro or con, at its "Articles for Deletion" discussion, then the article can at least be assured of a fair and knowledgeable hearing by editors familiar with the context. Thanks --Tenebrae 05:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for a 3RR violation on Mjolnir (comics), and I have blocked you for 1 week, as you seem to be a repeat offender. Please take the time off to reconsider your options - you can come back with a determination to play by the rules and become a productive and collaborative contributor, or you can continue to violate the rules and become blocked for progressively longer periods. It's you choice, and I hope you make the right one. Thanks, Crum375 03:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, your Talk page is very large, you may want to archive it once you come back. Crum375 04:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant, if you return, please take a look at Backmasking. I think I've addressed many of your objections. Λυδαcιτγ 00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CovenantD. As one of the arbitrators dealing with the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong case, I have just finished reviewing all the archives of the page Talk:Falun Gong. I have a couple of things to say, and something to ask. First, I want to commend you on your efforts in helping to write a neutral article there. I was struck by your hard work and even-handedness, and I believe your contributions to that article have been considerable. Second, I came across your checkuser request and your subsequent block by Essjay. You were ill-treated there and your block was wholly unwarranted. I am sorry for that. Third, since you seem to have been a neutral editor with considerable experience with the issues and editors involved, I would be pleased if you could share your views concerning the proposed final decision, particularly the proposed remedies. You can do so either at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Proposed decision, or privately via email here. Thanks and regards, Paul August ☎ 18:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a Request for Comment initiated at Talk:Whizzer#Request for comment over style and content issues between two versions of Whizzer, one by Tenebrae, the other by Asgardian.

You're a regular and diligent contributor to WikiProject Comics and so might be a knowledgeable and disinterested party who could add an informed opinion. --Tenebrae 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:ArachneJC.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the distant past:

   * 20:38, 23 March 2007 Crum375 (Talk | contribs) blocked "CovenantD (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Repeat offender, 3RR violation on Mjolnir (comics))
   * 13:33, 11 March 2007 Stifle (Talk | contribs) blocked "CovenantD (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation at 300 (film) - last block set wrongly)
   * 13:33, 11 March 2007 Stifle (Talk | contribs) unblocked CovenantD (contribs) (unblock to fix)
   * 13:32, 11 March 2007 Stifle (Talk | contribs) blocked "CovenantD (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation at 300 (film))
   * 01:55, 1 January 2007 Steve block (Talk | contribs) unblocked CovenantD (contribs) (Issue already dealt with, mea culpa)
   * 01:50, 1 January 2007 Steve block (Talk | contribs) blocked "CovenantD (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (violation of 3RR at Avengers (comics))
   * 18:55, 11 December 2006 Sam (Talk | contribs) blocked "CovenantD (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (violation of 3rr)
   * 18:42, 5 September 2006 Where (Talk | contribs) blocked "CovenantD (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 hours (violation of 3rr)
   * 12:48, 22 July 2006 Essjay (Talk | contribs) blocked "CovenantD (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Disruption: incivility and borderline personal attacks at RFCU)

• After a lengthy history of "Disruption: incivility and borderline personal attacks", I'd watch who you call an @$$. Although at least you are well qualified to speak on what makes an @$$ apparently. Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've adjusted the length of his block based on new evidence, would you care to update the ArbCom page to reflect that? CovenantD (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

And just thought I'd mention: Long time no see. - jc37 07:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you might be interested in helping me with an article I'm working on for the comic book website Project Fanboy

I've created the article here on my sandbox and was wondering if you'd be so kind as to give it a look and let me know what you think. (whether the site is notable enough for an article or not yet) All the best, Millennium Cowboy (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Academic views on Falun Gong. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic views on Falun Gong (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? We need as many people as we can get in this, since the 4-6 participants from previous discussions on this matter was felt by some to be insufficient. It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've started a consensus discussion here, and would appreciate your input. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you give your thoughts in this discussion I've started? Thanks. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Planet Oa.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2014 (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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at an article you have edited, to which you may wish to add your input: Talk:American Flagg!#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Takron-Galtos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takron-Galtos until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sun-Eater has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication this passes GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]