Archives
User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 1 User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 2 User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 3 User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 4 User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 5 User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 6 User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 7 User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 8 User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 9
How to archive a talk page

Please don't remove other people's comments from Talk pages. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• My mistake. Just trying to make all that clear. - Someguy0830 21:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I was redoing everything because there it was done. Don't get me into a editing war. Everything was fine until you screwed it up. (One spoiler, constant numbering not by season, but by length of series episode numbers, trivia after the summary, et al.) It's the same way I've done it with Foster's Home for Imagainary Friends! NoseNuggets 8:32 US EST Jan 31 2006.

Not to be insulting, but that page was very poorly sectioned before I redid it. If you're going to make sections and episode numbers, you should use the formatting available. Just typing it out is bad style. I understand your wish to use your own style, but you need to use the same style seen in other articles. Take this to the talk page for that article. - Someguy0830 01:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Want to do something like that? There's a little place called sandbox my friend. Do what you want to do there. NoseNuggets 8:43 PM US EST Jan 31 2006.

Like I said, take this to the talk page for the article. The changes I made were in no way inappropriate or badly written. They merely formatted the page into a more specific article. Not a single bit of the content was changed. - Someguy0830 01:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I came up with a rather unusual compromise: Overall episode number (season-episode number for that season): {1. (1-1)} for The Life and Times of Juniper Lee on the episodes. I did a simular look for Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. NoseNuggets 9:35 PM US EST Jan 31 2006. (Updated 9:55 PM US EST Jan 31 2006.)

I can live with that. You spell "similar" like that, by the way. - Someguy0830 03:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

When an episode of a series has already premiered, we kinda like say that is has already premiered after that date, mmmmmkay? I was missing the premiere dates of every Juniper Lee episode. I had to go to tv.com and retrieve them. NoseNuggets 12:30 PM US EST Feb 1 2006. EDITED 12:59 PM US EST Feb 1 2006.

It sounds stupid when you talk like that. You're not Mr. Mackey from South Park. Also, premiere dates are unnecessary. This isn't a TV Guide. However, I see no reason to remove them. And for the last time, use the article's talk page, not mine. - Someguy0830 22:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that the Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episode titled "Imposter's Home for, Um…Make 'Em Up Pals" is called "Imposter's Home for Imaginary Friends" in Canada. Just that you know, I'm also the Foster's editor at tv.com, where that piece of trivia came from. NoseNuggets 1:36 AM US EDT Apr 17 2006.

I only reverted it once along with your trivia in the episode description, though I don't see how it is at all relevant. Might as well mention the Japanese, Finnish, etc while you're at it. They're all variations. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If you may have noticed on the "Star Wars" references on the Foster's episode page, and looked at "Blooooo" in particular, there was the case of "link piping" (shortening a full title into a more managable link) with Episode I and Episode IV. Needless to say, continuity matters. NoseNuggets 2:30 AM US EDT May 1 2006.

There's no need to shorten the link for no reason. It's two words. I fixed the other instances. On top of that, the page is getting far too trivia heavy. It needs to be cut down. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don not want an edit war between us. Maybe we should let an arbitrator settle this matter once and for all, okay? NoseNuggets 2:40 AM US EDT May 1 2006.

This is a fairly simple debate. There's no need to bring an arbitrator in for piped links, like you tried to do with that rating images thing a while back. If you can leave a link unpiped, you should. It saves space. Simple as that. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record (and it was a spelling error), a "giclee" is an piece of art styled like an animation cell. Examples can be found at this web site. NoseNuggets 5:19 AM US EDT May 13 2006.

You spelled it gelcee, so what was I supposed to think? – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 09:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 23% for major edits and 9% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear inpolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 04:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the words "the episodes" in the List of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends characters article is not neccessary. Just the title is enough IMHO. - NoseNuggets 1:47 PM US EST Feb 17 2006.

I removed the re-edit on the "Phone Home" reference on the Foster's Episode list pages. That fact was moved to the area where multiple references from movies are. NoseNuggets 1:53 AM US EST Feb 23 2006.

I don't care. I'm not the one who does the trivia. - Someguy0830 (Talk) 06:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to limit the links to any year listed to one per year on both the Foster's and Juniper Lee pages. In addition, after the first reference to Madame Foster and Mr. Herriman, I would like to call them "Mme. Foster" and "Mr. H." for the sake of clarity. Please let this not be an editing war between us, okay? Thanks NoseNuggets 2:18 AM US EST Feb 23 2006.

Don't go by nicknames. It only clarifies it for you. Use their full names. - Someguy0830 (Talk) 07:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Hunted (Ben 10 episode), but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! ~MDD4696 01:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually wrote the ones on TV.com, and they were put there after they were added here, but rewriting them won't be difficult. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs)

Oh, really? Is there any way you can show that? Then you wouldn't have to bother rewriting it... although, I think a more concise plot summary would be more beneficial to Wikipedia's readers. Thanks! ~MDD4696 02:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a way to show it directly without having access to TV.com's specific logs. The best I could show is that I've submitted recaps to the specific episode. It doesn't really matter, though. I can alter the wording to the point that it's different from the original. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put "A Lost Claus" as a seperate holiday special, okay by you? NoseNuggets 7:10 PM US EST Mar 10 2006.

It can be, but is it considered as a special or is it just a matter of timing? - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a holiday special, airing annually. NoseNuggets 7:52 PM US EST Mar 10 2006

I have been reading all of the Ben 10 episode synopsises and these are really well full into detail even into the latest episode. How do you do it? - SignalMan 21:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not that difficult. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, these are great. Just thought you should know that the months and years should probably not be linked, though (see WP:MOSDATE). Regards Rich Farmbrough 22:25 24 March 2006 (UTC).

I'll remove them if no one else beats be to it. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Someguy0830. I'd like to kindly ask you to stop using the {{-}} template everywhere. It was intended only to be used in the unusual case where the formatting of an article is severely screwed up because of floated images. For pages like Hunted (Ben 10 episode), the template is totally unnecessary. All it does it force the main text of the article below the infobox, which is against the established article style.

I'd also recommend that you limit your use of __TOC__. Again, it really is only meant for unique situations. There is a reason the Mediawiki defaults to no TOC for short pages: a TOC is only useful on articles with many sections! Otherwise it just takes up space and forces the user to scroll more than necessary.

In any case, keep up the good work! ~MDD4696 23:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. No problem. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

All through most of the pages on cartoon series that have ratings and episode lengths, they are listed and Foster's should not be an exception. I'm trying to standardize the pages as of right now for toons airing on CN, Disney Channel and Nick. Just to let you know about it, okay? I really don't need another edit war. NoseNuggets 11:30 US EST Mar 24 2006.

Very few shows list the ads as part of the length, because they're not. They are ads. They do not belong in the overall length of the show. When judging the time a certain show takes to air, you should act as if you are watching it on a DVD. Rating I suppse is ok, but should be added in a more sensible manner than TV Rating: on a single line. INclude it in the initial description. And finally, there's absolutely no need to include the current number of episodes aired. That sort of information goes in the episode guide. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

One little problem: There's a glitch in the box and it doesn't show in the box. NoseNuggets 2:11 AM US EST Mar 25 2006

It's no glitch. It's not in the box. It was removed by consensus. Too many shows do not use American rating systems. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I notice you've reverted a change I made to Template:Infobox Simpsons season episode list, replacing the dash with a hyphen and what not. I don't want to get into a revert war so I'm not going to change it back, but please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) for usage of dashes. Flowerparty■ 09:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I wasn't aware it made any difference. Switched. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 09:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, there's no need to worry about messing with the South Park episodes. I adjusted those to be independent. Only Simpsons episodes use that template now. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 10:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I noticed you'd changed the South Park ones. To be honest, I wouldn't have noticed the dash thing before I started editing here, but that's the kind of pedantry Wikipedia instills in you. :) Flowerparty■ 11:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reverting the vandalism to your userpage about a minute after it happened. - Acebrock

Thanks for taking care of it. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've had to revert some vandalism from the Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends character and episode list pages. Some stuff was non-existant. Can you report this as vandalism, please? Thanks in advance. NoseNuggets 6:21 US EDT May 20 2006

How about a list of references from "Dexter's Laboratory" and "The Powerpuff Girls" on the main page. Everyone knows that Craig McCracken worked on both series before Foster's, and there are plenty of references in the show. What do you think? NoseNuggets 12:11 AM US EST Mar 28 2006.

Sounds like a good idea. Either there or the episode page will be fine. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I put all of the Dexter's / PPG references on the main page in a seperate story, and removed the references from the episode guide to do so. NoseNuggets 1:26 PM US EDT Apr 7 2006.

Heh, it wasn't a "mess" of QIF's accidentally. =) There's a reason we should avoid hiddenStructure though, please see Wikipedia:Don't use hiddenStructure. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read that. I don't see the overwhelming need to avoid the template. Most browsers are CSS-compatible and even your userpage states you use Firefox, which is compatible. It's easier to read and modify with the hiddenstructure than it is with qif after qif. However, I don't feel like getting into an edit war over it, so if you change it back I won't mess with it. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I use Firefox, yes, but disabled people can't. The software they use is unable to handle hiddenStructure and the rows of data marked as such are read aloud (the Lynx screenshots are meant to illustrate what's being read). Using Qif, this works fine (and Qif will also be easier to replace once MediaWiki has conditionals in software since you can just look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Qif to find the templates that need to be updated). I did revert, but I tried to clean it up a little (I got rid of the HTML comments and used a linebreak elsewhere to make things (hopefully) easier to follow). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I adjusted the template again. This time it uses the format I had in place before but with qifs replacing the hiddenstructures. It reads much easier and does the same thing as your version. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As long as nobody else minds, it's fine by me. =) You might want to check that {{!}} is protected though (and if not, request that it be protected). And I'll add it to my watchlist as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Added it to protection request page. It's protected. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. =) I wanted to pass on a bit of advice for moving a template away from hiddenStructure: in my experience, it's best to make the conversion from hiddenStructure the only change you make initially. In other words, leave style stuff alone (colors, size, etc), and attempt replicate the behavior of the template as you found it. After you've accomplished that, you can tweak styles in later edits, and if other editors have problems with your style changes you (or they) can safely revert back to your non-hiddenStructure version. I'm not saying you've done this, but it might be something to consider as you move forward. In any event, good luck! =) —Locke Cole • t • c 11:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Thanks. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for tinkering with the template-in-development; it's quite all right. But it still doesn't function properly; see User:John Reid/tvbtest. (In fact, your changes seem to have made it worse, but that's okay too.) The trouble is that links don't want to display in white, which is needed against the black background. I had just got the thing to the point of working properly in all cases except when a parameter consists of 2 or more links.

Feel free to experiment further. John Reid 23:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I knew I was forgetting something when I was editing that. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs)

Well, I'm down to the same problem you had. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did have most of the text showing white; you've kind of gone backwards from there. No harm though; do your "worst". Maybe you'll get a solution. I think the only way to do it with the tools available is to get into something really ugly, like multiple optional parameters or high-on-drugs CSS tricks. John Reid 05:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Getting the text to show white is easy enough. It's getting multiple links to do so that's difficult. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Dunno if you know this already or not, if you do, sorry. =) See User talk:John Reid/tvb. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed that, but I don't think it helps when trying to do multiple links in a row. Specifically, trying to convert an entire field to a specific color regradless of links. I imagine it's difficult or at least fairly annoying to do. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's one possible solution (but it'll mean getting some CSS added to MediaWiki:Common.css). First, copy User:Locke Cole/monobook.css into your monobook.css (you can skip the first line, the one that starts with 'pre'). Then go to User:Locke Cole/tvb (and User talk:Locke Cole/tvb) to see it working. =) You may need to hit refresh, or try going to this link and hitting refresh. Let me know what you think or if you have any problems. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That works pretty well. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not wanting to revert you on this again with out talking. Do you have a response to my comment about the performance issue of you changes. If you don't know what I am talking about it will need to go back. Unfortunate as I actually like some of the change you made. Not all but some or even most. Please talk so we can resolve this. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it until it can be figured out. What was the specific issue with the performance? The code changes I made were designed as such to only affect how the code looked. Everything else uses the same values as the previous code did. I checked through several pages using the template and couldn't find a single difference. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, lets not let this drop as some of your changes were good. I don't preport to understand the issue myself but I was debating the point with someone the templates talk page about 2 months ago. Purhaps you could have a look. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 19:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The talk page only debates the addition and subtraction of various fields. It doesn't have anything related to how the code is set up. The only major difference I can find is the use of "orig title" on the template page when the correct variable is "title_orig". The talk page has the correct variable. I'm still missing the style change that is made by altering the code. Is there a specific field that is somehow affected or ends up spacing differently other than the last two with the code difference? - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[1]? I'm sure it was just an error. Don't worry about it. Please try to use edit summaries. Thanks. --Pilot|guy 01:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. Must have edited the wrong revision. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That's better. Now it's fixed. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

OnLilith (disambiguation) you recently went through and changed all the links so that the name of the article would be hidden. That's not how disambiguation pages work. The Wikipedia manual of style says that we show the full article names and that those are linked and that no other links are provided. I reverted it. If you made this mistake elsewhere you should probably go undo it before substantial new edits are made to the wrong version, as cleanup will be that much more complicated later. DreamGuy 20:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, SomeGuy, check the Nickelodeon article.

That's Nicklodeon's logo. What's your point? The image used is the logo from the beginning credits. No one's going to make another. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually update the Nickoldeon article.

Alright, you've completely lost me now. What do you mean "update it"? I'm only going to say this one more time. This is what the logo looks like. You can't just make another. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean check the Nick article, not the logo.

Again, what are you talking about? If you have a point to make, then make it. Don't just vaguely point at an unrelated article and hope that people will understand you. Also, there are at least six different articles with "Nickelodeon" in the name. Be specific. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugh....the Nick article is missing who owns it (is the channel).

Then finds out who owns it and add it. Why are you asking me? For that matter, why are you asking here? Ask on that article's talk page. Someone there is sure to know. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually,MTV Networks(Viacom) owns Nick. Actually,it's in Nick's edit page.

There. I repaired the problem for you. Any further problems of this nature should go on the articles talk page or a user talk page. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry,but no one often responds to my posts. Also,can you make some infoboxes?

I could, but again, this is where you need to be specific. For what articles and for what purpose?

Um,instead,update the KISS(band picture)&That's So Raven(picture).

There. I fixed them so they display properly. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Also,can you udpate the posts I made (don't do anything to Codename:Kids Next Door, please?)

Please don't do the excessively long word thing. Also, what posts? - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugh,maybe you can update infoboxes(any one you want,okay?) Thanks!

I'm not going to do it randomly for no reason. Just use the ones I've fixed as an example and correct any that need it yourself. Also, register on Wikipedia. It's easier to use to go by a nickname than an IP address. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh...need some help, someguy0830? Arukun14 07:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it's covered now. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Um,SomeGuy can you put band logos at Band Infoboxes. Also,can you put logos in any infobox?

No. I don't have their logos, nor do I know what they look like. If you register on Wikipedia, you could do it. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Search Google?

Images on Google are generally not fair use, so no. Like I said, register and you can do it. I'm not going to, since I am in no way an expert of any kind on music, bands, and the like. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Um,I posted something's Game Boy Advance SP's talk page. See-Talk:Game Boy Advance SP

Use of images is limited in most cases. What you propose won't happen. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 14:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way,can you do a infobox fix(on N-Gage?)

There, it's fixed. Look, one part of edting here is figuring out how to solve problems on your own. Read various articles, learn the different formats for images, templates, etc, and you'll be able to edit without needing help. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way,I request a article for Invincible(2006 film)&iQue Ltd.

Then make an account and you can start it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha,ha,ha. Well,I did! I am now VG Cats Tipe 2!

I was thinking about seperating the Halloween and Easter episodes of The Life and Times of Juniper Lee into a Holiday Specials section on the episode list page similar to what was done with Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Opinion, please. NoseNuggets 6:21 PM US EDT Apr 14 2006

There's a difference betweeen specials and good timing. It should only be marketed as such if it's a special event. This airs on a regular time. You could probably consider the Halloween one as a special, but not today's. It's just how they timed it. Actual specials are very rare, and holiday-themed episodes are not always a part of that category. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The episode aired today (April 14) at 10 AM US ET/PT and repeats at 9:30 PM ET/PT tonight and again at 12:30 PM ET/PT Easter Sunday. And there was a different opening than the usual one, ergo, it would be considered an Easter Special. NoseNuggets 7:02 PM US EDT Apr 14, 2006.

Different opening does not mean it's a special. It just means they adjusted the intro to fit the theme. Almost every episode of the first season of Justice League Unlimited did something similar. Would you consider each and every one a special? Of course not. Specials are a rarity and are advertised as such. The advertisments of this episode just call it "a new episode." - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please. I linked the Easter Bunny in the Juniper Lee episode list title of "Juniper Lee Meets The Easter Bunny", and re-edited the whole thing. Thanks. NoseNuggets 7:39 PM US EDT Apr 14 2006

Shouldn't be wikilinking in the title. Do it in the description. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs)

The new sections you have added in Code Lyoko make it more confusing (no offense). If a user wants to find out about the Theme Song for the show, for instance, they must completely browse the article and find the "Other media" section. There is no reference to the theme song in the main article. Additionally, the average user looking for information may not know that the title of the song is "A World Without Danger."(Lord Zoner 03:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

Not every article mentions the name of the opening theme (Neon Genesis Evangelion). Second, you should not be using parentheses inside a title. It's mentioned as the theme song in its description. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and don't know everything. But what I do know is the article was easier to navigate the way it was.(Lord Zoner 03:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

It'll be fine. There's a "See Also" link to it.– Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I caught you in the midst of your edits and complained. You know what you're doing.(Lord Zoner 03:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

Well, Someguy0380, you claim on your userpage you try to always do the right thing, no matter what. I think deleting the link to Code: WIKI was the wrong thing to do. 1) It hurt my feelings, 2) it is a good site for Code Lyoko fans to edit, they might fix it, and 3) it just wasn't nice. You told me I was a liar and I was offended by this sort of talking. If you always try to do the right thing, maybe you should allow my link to be put on the Code Lyoko page or at least don't remove it. KFan II 22:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It was the right thing to do. You just can't see through your own bias. Look, I'm only going to say this once. Your personal feelings on whether or not your page belongs aren't part of the equation. Your site is factually inaccurate. If it links to the page, people will look at it and think "Wait a minute, this isn't what Wikipedia says." Now, once they think that, they're left to decide which one is right. That makes a bunch of possible people who've been misinformed and try to drag that misinformation here, and I'm not willing to put up with that. It doesn't belong. Period. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't always right. KFan II 22:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's right in this case. Your site has almost as much fanon information as it does canon information. That's bad. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Its Angie's fault. KFan II 22:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. Angie tends to write mostly accurate information, except in a few cases. She may have a bigger problem of doing so on your site, but I doubt it. A lot of it is directly your fault. It's easy to check. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for spotting that. I've updated my bot. Cheers, CmdrObot 22:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this is Gandalf1992, an editor and guardian at Code Wiki. I don't agree with KFAN II on most things and I don't like some of his responses to other users. But now you're on his criminal list. He has written an article about you here. I suggest you comment about it, for it is unjust, or edit it to make it just. Just to let you know, your pal, GANDALF1992

I've known about that for a while. It does not concern me. If KFan wants to act that way, it's fine by me. It's just one more reason why his wiki will never be included here. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi this is fairygirl, and i was wondering, how come on the Code Lyoko page you deleted the Tech Links site, because although you said that you don't need two fan sites, this one is in English, so i thought that it was fairer to include two options for more cultures. fairygirl

Codelyoko.net is an English site, so that's one reason. Two, Tech Links is a forum. It doesn't add anything. Three, Wikipedia's external link policy allows just one fansite. The only reason there's two currently is because they are related, Finally, your site has downloadable episodes. That is copyrighted material that cannot be advertised on Wikipedia. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did you create that infobox btw? - The DJ 11:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't create it. I just edited it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hiya! Just figured I'd stop by and say thanks for helping with the page! You can probably guess I watch over it like a mother hen *cluck cluck*.

~Kylu (u|t) 06:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I greatly appreciate your help. – User:Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) :-)

• Thanks for removing me from the Category:User Templates, I hadn't spotted that! EvocativeIntrigue 12:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you made some minor changes on my user page. I'm not sure exactly what you did, but the userboxes were acting a little funny, so I'm glad someone did that. Thanks. :) --Matterbug 23:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Church is the only one actually confirmed. There are pictures of him dressed as Sandman, and there are photos of the armored truck with piles of sand inside of it, and a mold of sand leaning against the wall during a shoot. Sandman is the only one that the official website has confirmed. Bignole 02:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that after reading through. Earlier edit summaries threw me off. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the official site used to say that. But, now it's redirected all S3 info to the teaser site and the teaser site is virtually blank, with the exception of the screensaver. Bignole 02:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you saw that. I messaged the person that added that theory and told them they should find the link to Franco's statement to make it more concrete. When I was reading it and went back and checked out Ned on the Hobgoblin page I saw that he was also a reporter or sorts, which would explain Topher having a camera (not to dismiss Eddie, just provide another theory). Bignole 22:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have saved and blown up the picture, you can't make out a single word in that bottom right corner. It's a guess that that is what is there. I know everyone wants it to be there, but you cannot tell me that you actually read "Eddie Brock" on that line. I give you that the last word does like a bit like it could say BROCK, but you can't make out any actual letters. Bignole 22:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you and I have been editing and protecting this page for awhile and you know that it isn't that I think that he isn't in the movie, it's just that I want to make sure that everything on this page is as close to 100% accurate as it can be. Thanks for making it more of a speculatory comment. Bignole 22:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Sam wants to keep it under wraps for as long as possible, let everyone stew over all the rumors right now. There are several pictures of Topher and his name tag, but all the pictures that are close you never see the nametag. They are going to good lengths to keep it out of camera sight. Like that link that the anonymous user poster. You can't see his name tag in those pictures, and when you do it isn't facing you so that you could even make it out. I think Raimi wants all of it to be a secret, and I think that he is going to try and limit what the public actually sees, maybe do most of the "black suite" and other stuff on soundstages and such. From the pictures though, it really makes me think that it's the symbiote (or something of a similar nature) that he is wearing, because in the pics he looks like he is on drugs. He has the drained look about him, like the black costume is like a drug to him and it's all he really cares about. Bignole 22:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to sort out the inconsistancy, templates displaying residency in other counries do have flags, so why does {{User:AU res}} have to be different, is it because Australia is a different place. Someone changes it becuase they consideered the flag as excluding immigrants, so I felt like being precise and creating a template for them, so I feel/am ignored by the function being reguagrded as indifferent.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(

"Just because other templates use a similar fallacy doesn't mean this one should." Why? Because Australia is a different place or something, this is inconsistant.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(

"use the current flag" Okay the image may not be fair use but with your second reason, you are ignoring me, Are there any aboriginal wikipedians (that you know of)? My mother's partner deals with aborigines for work and tells me what they tend to think of things like this. Some even disagree with Australia day simply becuase is signifies colonisation, a shameful aspect of Aboriginal history.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(

"I gave two specific reasons" I don't understand, what does this sentence mean. If you a wordering how you are ignoring me, I did write specific reasons for changing that flag. I may have to bring this up somwher else.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(

Of cousre not all Australians are aborigines, most aren't. By not all majoritys can rule all of the time, if you go back a few generations, all "Australians" except Aborigines are foreigners. So today, Australianess is a fine line, just becuase someone was born (and grew up) in Australia, or generations of their family were, doesen't mean they fall into either category, they may have be born overseas to "Australian parents" or they might be born in Australia but their ((great)grand)parents were all immigrants, there are many variables,for instance, I am native to Australia and so is my father, my grandparents were and are all immigrants, the is why I see two versions of the same template with different images as having different functions, I hope this is clear.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(

I think you have ignored me again, the two templates do not take the fine line into account, so a neither/nor template is needed (I'm Australian and my father is the only person in my ancestery that was born and grew up here), it's a fallicy.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(

"Say a person has lived in Australia for a year. Does the fact that they've only lived there a short time mean there are living there any less than someone who has been living there for 10 years? Or 20 years? Or was born there? Does a period of time somehow preclude them from claiming that they've living in Australia? No. They are all still living there." This maybe a "fact" of an immigrant of a *particular* generation, but I was reffering to numbers of generation, not specific periods of time. Less than which number of generation somehow preclude that they're "Australian?" Up to those people to decide, they might no find themsleves fit into either of the categories. So, "speaking" of this stuff, where to you ("Someguy") live and what is your background?Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)

"As for my background, since you asked, it's half American and half British. My family has resided in America for two generations. Regardless, were it one or five, we would still be Americans by virtue of the fact that we are citizens of this nation, and are residency here would not be contigent on whatever period of time we had been here." Have you ever been to Australia, and/or hand anything to do with Australian wikipedians (other than me), do you know any Australians? UK/US centricism is a pet peeve of mine so this helps me.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)

It would still help me to know if you ever been to Australia, if you have had anything to do with Australian wikipedians (other than me), if you know any Australians?Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)

"You're pointlessly splitting hairs with these forks, which in no way differentiate between the two as I've illustrated above." Let me explain, if you were a Canadian wikipedian, you had a template on your userpage and foreign wikipedian, having never had anything to with Canada or Canadian persons, not knowing much about the nation or its society and culture made a similar edit to a template against your will (on an asumption of that society and culture that you felt was wrong)?Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)

"It also dictates that identifying oneself as a citizen of the country would mean showing said country's flag would be appropriate." I'm afraind it is not that simple (in all countries). It might be in the US, it might be in Canada but here in Australia, it is ture that many for white "Autralians," this flag does signify Australianess, but not all Aussies, especially not Aboriginal people. So if you do not have any links with Oz, then what you are stating about this is an outsiders assumption about our society and culture, based on how it is elsewhere. Please contact Longhair . But whether it is fair use not not isn't an assumption at all I would have to agree.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(

"I happen to know that there are at least five different accepted versions of the Australian flag." That suggests you do have links with Australia.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)

Hi Someguy0830, See Category:User templates for the guideline on omitting "User" in the pipe. Rfrisbie^talk 04:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To add a userbox to this category, add the code below to the template. Then pipe the category link to omit the "User" part of the pagename, e.g., "[[Category:User templates|Dog owner]]" for {{User:UBX/Dog owner}}.

Cool. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 05:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. ISD 20:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up my userpage! -doodlepoodle

You often say that Wikipedia is not the place for general discussion about the topic at hand. I agree with you, and yet when I point this out to users, you delete my comments. Why so? KFan II 22:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that spacing (refering specifically to the {{Code Lyoko}} template here) meant to make the template itself more readable, or only the source code? Because the extra line break after the begining of the cell causes the content to wrap inside a <p> tag, which adds extra whitespace in the final result: compare with and without. I'd prefer a version that does not have the unnecessary whitespace, personally. Circeus 21:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't actually noticed before. I changed it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the catagory. They exist as a cut-and-paste way to insert the userboxes, since using them as a template seem to be against the rules now =( --mboverload@ 06:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in and supporting me in this case Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-16_the_remarks_of_Fnarf999. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 19:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Someguy. Is it this comment that you mean I should read and follow? "You misunderstood. I meant I'd use the info to correct any innacuracies in the Scientology article. And are you saying that the 'inner workings' of the church can't be discussed neurtrally? Because all I'm concerned with is completeness." That is Inshaneee's comment, on my discussion page, near its end. As you stated in Village Pump. Is that the comment you meant, a comment that I should Fax to some (unknown party) certain confidential documents? I'm trying to be sure I understand what you are saying, okay? Terryeo 23:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply on my user page and I appricate that you did not invite me to do anything illegal. I'm perfectly willing to talk with you about what I know. The discussion which started this was my responding to someone's question on Talk:Scientology, I placed two links and specified a lecture (both links have been in the articles, the lecture has been quoted in the article) and that prompted InShaneee to ban me for 24 hours for reasons he specified. I have not opposed any published information on any page. There is simply nothing to oppose, nor would it be Wikipedic to oppose. If a piece of information is published, it can be included in Wikipedia, per WP:V and I don't oppose that happening. Quite the opposite, really. I work toward "broadly published" being presented as being broadly published. I'm following the Wikipedia Policies and guidelines. Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health has sold millions of copies, its broadly published. The amount of Dianetics and Scientology books, lectures with transcripts, Policy Letters and Bulletins, etc. is large. Scientology defines and uses a vocabularly. For example, unless a person understand what is meant by MEST and Thetan, it would be impossible to understand most of the Scientology books, lectures and publications. When it comes to unpublished, confidential Scientology materials, the situation is more critical. Certain terms have certain meanings. Without understanding what the author meant by certain terms, it isn't possible to understand the book, article, lecture or bulletin. I don't really know how to respond further to you, the subject is large and misunderstandings are possible. Did you have a particular area you meant to ask about?Terryeo 03:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks fo fxing that. I think I see what I did wrong. Cheers, 11:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)  :) Dlohcierekim 11:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I've noticed that you've been active on the Userbox deletion page, either strongly FOR or AGAINST the use of the new T2 for deleting userboxes. I have noticed that most of the community is strong in their opinions on this issue; for that reason, I created my own proposal which attempts to create a middle ground for the two groups, and finally get this debate settled once and for all. I welcome your input into the proposal, as well as your (non-binding) vote on the straw poll. Thanks! // ^The True _Sora 01:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Your changes to the infobox pope were contrary to the agreed design chosen by users. I have returned it to the format agreed. Don't unilaterally change a design chosen by the community to a design you want. The community overwhelmingly decided it did not want a closed box for that template, and repeated that choice later. Don't replace a community-based design with your own. That is not how Wikipedia operates. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 08:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)}

Nice much-needed clean-up. My kudos! -- Tenebrae 16:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he's not referred to as "Bolivar" Trask in the film or in the credits, and the film states no connection between him and the Sentinels, which in any case are only seen in the Danger Room and don't exist within the film's internal reality. You might want to adjust or delete the Trivia edit. Don't worry, I'm touching anything — I've done enough fixing and now I'm tired! :- ) Happy Wiki'ing! -- Tenebrae 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute tag on X-Men: The Last Stand

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Facto 00:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed you catagorized my user status last week. Thanks! Teke 03:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You are surprised at just how much hatred some people hold for a little box with text in it.

Today you removed a little box with text in it from the article listed here.

Why? Jason Palpatine 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"A little box with text" is a userbox phrase, for one thing. Second, a list of episodes for a TV show is not the TV show itself. The Infobox Television is meant for use in the main article only. You're just repeating the same information twice by adding it to every sub-article. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I think "A little box with text" is any little box with text. Secondly -- oh? -- Jason Palpatine 21:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

An infobox is hardly little, which is why I object to the use of the phrase. Also, you don't go repeating the film infobox in every article for 2001: A Space Odyssey, do you? – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You, who does not believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, thank-you for the insight. If it's alright with you, we will leave the B10 sub-article sans-infobox. -- Jason Palpatine 13:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed your recent edits to this article. The sizing of the pictures I have found to be a slight problem. Forget the differences in opinion about proper size 300 too big:200 too small -- the problem is in a different area. the sizing of the pictures is done by width instead of height. When you set ALL the images to the same size, the ones in the trivia section with different aspect ratios looked terrible. Is there any way to go about formatting image px size to height instead of width?

BTW: thank you for your intrest in the article. Your edits are appreciated. Makes me feel good to know it's being read. -- Jason Palpatine 13:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Bart Simpson (Treehose of Horror II), you discovered America in 1942.

Friend, please consider what I said earlier. The 3 images in the information section are all sifferent aspect ratios. Andy Panda is 1946 theater aspect. Homer in Hell is square and roughly only 150px in size. The Pigs be Pigs picture is drawn in very wide aspect. When they are sized to be all the same WIDTH, the hights are squished and the results look terrible. I am trying to make them the SAME HEIGHT -- which in photography is the more comon standard. Please keep this in mind. I appreciate your interest in the article -- but sizing different aspect ration images to the same width just looks too gaudy.

I am copying this over to the article's talk page. Jason Palpatine 22:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

All I want to say -- again -- is thank you. -- Jason Palpatine 14:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it better if we just retitled the Cartoon Cartoon info box as simply "Cartoon Network Original Programs (including Cartoon Cartoons)" and have all the shows listed? This way, we settle the arguments of Ben 10, IGPX and Megas XLR as non-Cartoon Cartoons and also make those who want to put IGPX and Megas XLR onto the list, and include spinoffs where listed (like "I Am Weasel" with "Cow and Chicken" as well as the splitiing of "Grim and Evil" into "The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy" and "Evil Con Carne"). That's a fair compromise, isn't it? NoseNuggets 10:19 PM US EDT JUne 3 2006.

Little explaination: I am the author of this song. Basically, it's a parody from the french singer' Jean-Jacques Goldman song "envole-moi" (fly me up).

I wonder why this guy translated it and put it on the wiki page. Could he believe it was the actual theme? - From a french "lyokofan".

Thank you for clarifying that. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the Naruto article today :). ~MDD4696 21:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Innersakura.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)