User talk:King Vegita

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1 (to May 30^th, 2006)

Archive 2 (to Nov 11^th, 2007

[edit] Image:Brianmoore01.jpg

Hi did you take this pic?Geni 12:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fine just being slightly paranoid before adding it to a couple of pages.Geni 21:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Westroads Mall shooting

You added a POV tag to this article without explanation, but demanded that it not be removed before the issue is settled. Would you care to explain what the issue you have with it is? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Ok, if you want it call it vandalism, I guess I have to give you one of these:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Icestorm815, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Thanks for the humor, happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windfall Elimination Provision POV

The instance in Windfall Elimination Provision isn't POV, but using the term in biography articles seems to be emotive and involved, IMO. I think I'll leave "POV" out of the summaries in the future. --Oldak Quill 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refrain

You should actually refrain from making useless comments on my talk page if you dont wish to provoke me. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Also. I know its difficult but please stop vandalizing my userpage. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Alexander (politician)

This article has been brought before the community. Please join the discussion. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been keeping an eye on it but I wanted to let you finish first. I have some improvements I'd like to add myself. Don't know if they will help, but it's worth a try. Mstuczynski (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, although I looked for quality references before I contributed to the AfD, there are some experts on this who might be able to help you if you place a {{rescue}} template at the beginning of the page. Mstuczynski (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of omitted Bible verses

Read all of this before its closed. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And this. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox change

How bout no? Why dont you just steal the design from my page. It would look so much better. And you could just change the color, and all. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well. You werent clear on that. And no, I hate it. True opposition here, as it were. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight

At 0.999..., you brought up the WP:UNDUE policy in your edit summary. This policy specifically precludes giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints. For more details, please see WP:FRINGE. Among experts, there are no people who "believe" that 0.999... represents a real number other than 1. There are alternative number systems, but these are not called "real numbers", and these are best dealt with separately where the context is clearer. To weaken the statement is a disservice to the reader, since it implies that there is a controversy where there is none, and the article needs to be very clear on this point: 0.999... = 1. No ifs ands or buts: It's a fact. If you can find one expert on the real number system who has written in a peer-reviewed source that 0.999... is a real number other than 1, then it is legitimate to put such a statement in the article. However, at present, NPOV and its corollaries specifically demand presenting the facts as such. The fact is, like it or not, in the real number system 0.999... = 1, and this is universally agreed by all experts.

If you would like to argue your point, you may do so on the article talk page. silly rabbit (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan Third Parties Coalition

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Michigan Third Parties Coalition, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan Third Parties Coalition

This is notification that the article you created has been nominated. This is not a test, and this edit has been made by a bot. Good-day. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Michigan Third Parties Coalition

An editor has nominated Michigan Third Parties Coalition, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan Third Parties Coalition and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I didnt know a real bot handles this! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

While it is philisophically unclear whether or not you have vandalised the page User:David Schaich with [this edit]. It is clear you have vandalised THE FABRIC OF THE UNIVERSE. Such action could cause a tear in the very space-time continuum. If you continue to vandalise the fabric of the universe, stronger action may be taken against you up to and including your removal from time. It would be as though you never existed.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note

Did you note that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber 2 is an April fools joke BTW? Your oppose looked rather serious! Pedro : Chat 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: JSTOR

I thought there was a subscription based service that allowed individuals access but I may be wrong. I can't seem to find any information on it on JSTOR's web page. I'll keep looking and if I find out anything, I'll let you know. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For this brilliantly presented argument. James086^{Talk \| Email} 10:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Your comment in the oppose section of Sharkface 217's RFA seems to have a problem. You state that Sharkface self-nommed and then got co-nominators when he in fact was originally nominated by User:Hersfold and then co-nominated by User:The Transhumanist, User:Milk's Favorite Cookie, and then myself. You then go on to assume poor faith and accuse Sharkface and his co-nominators of sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry because of this. I don't understand how having multiple nominators can be interpreted as possible sock- or meat-puppet activity when two of the nominators are administrators and the other two are highly respected Wikipedians. If I'm missing something, could you please fill me in? Malinaccier (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. I was rather shocked to be accused of Sock/meat puppetry, but now it's done and over. Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Shark face 217 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "sock master"

KV, it will do you little good to spew vitriol against your critics. Calling me a "sock master" is not only silly, it will also erode your credibility very quickly. If you are willing to engage in reasonable debate, I'm at Talk:Hermetism. If you just want to WP:OWN your essay, Wikipedia article space isn't the right place for your text. --dab (𒁳) 07:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The anon's comments on ANI

I removed them because the anon is a sockpuppet evading a block, and for no other reason. Black Kite 22:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just about to log off (it's past midnight here) but if no-one else has looked at it by tomorrow, I'll give it a quick scan. Black Kite 23:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent moves

It really is a very bad idea to create a work group of a project, or put articles in that projects' "line of descent" or whatever you want to call making "subpages" of that project, without first getting that project's express consent in advance. Otherwise, they could, at least potentially, be deleted by that project. You might want to move them back and ask for the pages to be accepted by that project before, as it were, telling them that those pages are now "theirs". John Carter (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal

Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions. Go there and use it to create Portal:Hermeticism or Portal:Hermetic, whichever seems like the likely candidate for a broader sense of the project. Like I had said before, if this was done the first time, you would have gotten a lot less attention and disagreements and more work done. I'd do it myself but I have to leave for work. John Carter will delete the old portal, as noted on the talk page. You might want to rename the project was well. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Alexander (politician) (2nd nomination)

Another AfD has been created for Stewart Alexander (politician). You are the only other contributor to the article, the other already knows. Regards. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)