Talk:List of Justice League episodes/Archive1

message: ...now that the pictures are done. Check out the revision I made to the Destroy series finale episode:
The Justice League reluctantly teams up with the Legion of Doom in anticipation of an omega-level threat. Darkseid at long last launches a full-scale invasion of Earth and while the combined League and Legion battle parademons across the planet. Meanwhile, Superman, Batman and Lex Luthor take on Darkseid atop the Daily Planet building. This episode was the finale to both the Justice League and Justice League Unlimited television series. It can be seen as a finale to the previous Dini/Timm animated Superman series as well, much as the previous season's JLU episode "Epilogue" can be seen as a finale to the stories of both the previous animated Batman and Batman: Beyond series. In the Epilogue Batman episode from Season 2, the basic final fate of both major Batman DCAU characters is explored, while here (and indirectly in the previous episode, "Alive") we see the possibly final fates of Superman's three major antagonists over the years and various series: Brainiac, Luthor, and Darkseid.
What do you guys think of something like that, kept *within* the confines of the table format on this page? A touch of the plot, a touch of the significance (if any) of the episode, perhaps a quick note on the larger role in the overall DCAU continuity? That basic seed (if some desire) can then be expanded out--on a seperate page--just as the episode Epilogue was done up over time. Limit each entry to about 200 odd words? rootology 23:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is all just a big maybe, I should add. I'd prefer to see everything in a slightly expanded summary on the one main page. Looks better, makes for easier reading, and less redundant pages. rootology 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Realistic expansion idea 

message: Was there some kind of consensus that I missed to moving all the episodes from both series to a seperate thread?  Seems really clunky and not easily accessed to me.  The JL summaries are of varying lengths as well while the JLU summaries are a tight 2 sentences.  Why exactly was this done?--Gillespee 18:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to move it back, do it. I'm not going to stop you moving it back, but that's not to say I won't move it back here. The point was to get the episodes to be more equal in length and summary. KramarDanIkabu (speak) 19:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd rather come to a consensus rather than have an edit duel.  Getting the summary lengths similar is a great idea, I'll help.  But, I think that they'd work better back in their respective threads.  Any other opinions?--Gillespee 06:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: Ok, in order to shot the hell up those people with the very respectable but wrong POV that there should not be an article per episode, I did a little research.
Relevant examples of articles about episodes
* List of Seinfeld episodes
* List of The Simpsons episodes
* List of episodes of Batman: The Animated Series
* List of South Park episodes
* List of Friends episodes
* List of Frasier episodes
* Clone High.
Even this gayass crap has articles per episodes (not that there is anything worng with being gay at all, it's just my very uneducated way of speaking, gayass is ok, the crap part is what makes these suck, of course if you happen to be straight there is a hihg probability of finding geyass things a little not so awesome, hehe...I should shot up...)
* List of Charmed episodes
* List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes
* List of Angel episodes
It's a shame how close minded people get so posesive about some pages not letting those take their natural course and evolve into better articles.--T-man, the wise 04:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "apology" is just as lame as the comments that got you blocked, and just as insulting (whether you see it or not). You also misrepresent my position on the "article per episode" issue; if you look back at the discussion on this talk page, you'll see that I agreed with you. So get over your persection issues and start working with people instead of against them and maybe, just maybe, you'll stop being blocked for disruptive behavior. CovenantD 15:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh sorry about your misreading your position. However you also misreaded me if you think, my comments were hate speech. And yes the apology was as lame as the comments. I was joking, but I suck at it, heheh. I'm a frustrated comedian :P--T-man, the wise 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I see nothing funny with homophobia, intolerance or prejudice. Dyslexic agnostic 08:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foot down 

message: How about that for ending the debate? I petty your last comment CovenantD. I actually agreed to first expand the info in the list article before crating more, and to Rootology's clever proposal, plus proposed a sandbox. What else do you wnated from me? Gradually you went from the rational guy who first relized that if there are thuosands of episode articles creating JLU articles isnt such an uncongruent idea to (just because DA edit warred me blind erasing over 3 times each article, which came to have infoboxes and links that took me hours to create) become some sort of Newman (Seinfeld)-esque "sworn enemy". I'm just happen to be very opinionated, chatty and on vacations, but the negotiation has gone in your favor so far...what are you complaining about anyways?
However... There is a Wiki project on tv series beyond wikipedia... TV IV or something is called. And from my understanding it's a space just like wikipedia but about tv... If that works as I think it works I propose moving all JLU subpages there leaving a brief main episode linked to the one there (but of course, if so make the moving of Digi and Pokemon articles a  top priority, sorry but after this, those will be almost only relevant as media phenomenons to WP)So, answer your last comment while giving a kickass debate end, as certain charecter from another product of the idiotic box said: Screw you guys, I'm going home! (you can open your champagne now, Grisworld)--T-man, the wise 09:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly support a move from wikipedia to TV IV ... not just sup-episode pages, really, but T-Man himself! Seriously, they have a page for JLU , with undeveloped subarticles and everything! I am sure he will be loved and appeciated there for his ability to delve into the most detailed minutae.  I am not being sarcastic... this is a great idea. -- Dyslexic agnostic 06:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should make a consensus in a higher rank page to decide what to do with excesive tv series information on regular WP. Is there a TV series wikiproject? that'd be the apropiate place to take the discussion of this issue.--T-man, the wise 07:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: heh, I would hope you would know, you've listed your self as a partisipant. -- Ned Scott 09:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I told you to go to them with your concerns already, 'Sport. And the other day, I went to the List of Television Episodes project's talk page and asked editor to come here for comment. Ned Scott came here from there.--Chris Griswold 08:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you paying attention to what I wrote? My concern is why shold wikimedia have the same tv info twice. The time you went there you talked about a whole different issue. BTW, your portrati of me seems very unfear. I was not going to lie and say I agree (before knowing about TV IV) about not creating the episode articles, but I only reverted edits on the article done by a person I don't believe is editing seriously. Covenantd and you supported the stubs at the beginning of the issue, so it was kind of confusing what to do, but if such large consensus agrees on not liking the stubs I was not going to edit against it, and I didn't. My proposals evolved from creating all the stubs, to just the most importants, to create those as I develop one by one, to expand expand the episode info on this article first and finally I just voted to support rootology's proposal. But for know I'm deciding what to do, since I'm not even sure if wikipedia should contain more than one article per TV series anymore. The ploblem is that TV IV and wikipedia are not that linked. I think it's not legal to move info from here to there, but I dunno.--T-man, the wise 12:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't copy or move the pages to TV IV as the license they use is incompatible with Wikipedia's, as they do not allow commercial usage.  However, you are free to make whatever contributions you wish to do so at that project, T-Man, and that is probably the best place for the extended detail you would wish to add. Click here to sign up for an account there. Please, however, allow the consensus of Wikipedia editors here decide what content is kept here. Hiding Talk 20:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Screw You Guys I'm going home

message: Why was the T-man banned section removed from this page? Just curious why it appears that the Talk page is being cleaned up. rootology 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't really removed, just had some weird coding in front of the header. I've restored it. CovenantD 19:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sections from talk page removed 

message: Take a look at how Stargate: SG1 does their episode summaries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stargate_SG-1_episodes
It can very, very easily argued that a given SG1 episde trumps any given JL/JLU episode content wise. I think we're more than good.
...now for that insane idea in the back of my head to build up the DCAU article to F.A. worthiness... rootology 23:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "What you talkin about, Willy?" - Gary Coltrane as Gernold Darmond in Diff'rent Strikes --Chris Griswold 10:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, It's been a while since last time I watched an episode. I think, the character is named "willy" in the Spanish tranlstion, though.--T-man, the wise 04:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't make things up. There is no such thing as "Spanish." --Chris Griswold 05:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha! Well, just simply what I said. Go look at how Stargate SG1 breaks down their shows. I don't think we need to ever push expansion again beyond what we have for this article itself. rootology 14:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Go for it. CovenantD 02:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, do your thing.  I'm all about this being succinct..I think the major story arcs (Cadmus, the Legion) can be explored on another page (whatever that would be) and that will eventually include a lot of the plot details that could in theory merit expansion here.  The summaries that most articles have are great.  Darquis 18:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't go for it. You can movethe info to a subarticle, but don't just erase it. --T-man, the wise 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actually, we don't need to expand. At all... 

message: In rereading some of the summaries posted in this article, I've noticed a bit of a disparity in what information is presented within them.  Some of the sumamries reveal the endings to the specific storylines (Twilight and Secret Society, for example), whereas others do not (Fury, Legends, Injustice for All).  Personally, I think episode summaries can do without the endings being included.  I don't know if this would mean that spoiler tags are no longer necessary.  Darquis 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I also perfectly agree that the episodes should be more uniform, and like you, I like the summaries short in this page. When more info is gathered it means that the episode subarticle should be made. I guess we're on the same page, but if editors want me to expand here before creating episode articles, there isn't much I can do for our mutual uniformity+shortness ideal.--T-man, the wise 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Gillespee has pretty much summed up the purpose of Wikipedia. CovenantD 01:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to what, may I ask?--T-man, the wise 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess I disagree, but oddly enough, if the summaries were expanded to full pages I'd expect the endings to be there.Darquis 18:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What to Include

message: From your own mouth:
*No, the consensus is against you. The people who edited those articles are not editing this article; the people who are do not agree with you. You want to spout off about how editors should share, but you're not. Why can't you just add all the information you want to add to the current page as CovenantD suggests, and then when it gets too big, split it into seasons? You will still get your way, and we will get ours. I'm offering you a compromise. Please be reasonable and take it. --Chris Griswold 06:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Here is the consensus I was following

message: Please, reply to my comment above here.--T-man, the wise 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments:

message: We comment on the content, not the user.  Anyone breaching Wikipedia policies on personal attacks is subject to the blocking policy.  I hope that is clear. Hiding Talk 09:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I am not commenting on T-man for the sake of attacking him or trying to make him feel bad. I honestly try to make my comments show T-man that he is affecting the article in a negative way and that he can change that.  I'm not here to bully anyone or waste my time.  There is a difference between attacks and addressing a user by name.  I'll definitely try to tone it down some more, as it can be hard at times.. but if we can't address the issue here then we can't solve the problem. -- Ned Scott 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err... afecting negatively? check this article before and after I came, most of the changes were made by me. And yes as crazy as it sounds  I doubt he has any clue about what he's talking about is an attack and it should stay scratched. We all make mistakes.--T-man, the wise 23:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying you haven't done anything good, but that doesn't give you a free license to behave like this. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like what? not pretending to like senseless unfear argumentum ad hominem sensoreship when I talk here or following the consensus previously established here (as I just proved above) in the article?--T-man, the wise 05:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Step into my shoes for a while I'm being restricted by people goign against the conventions and they don't even get any real work done. Seriously, would it have been so hard to fill the some credits info? The consensus was especially against stubs, none of the 3 last subpages I edited las was left as a stub, they were fully developed. And recently they don't even analyze my work, just undo whatever I do. Could you imagine how frustrating it is? I mean, I undestand people getting this defensive in huge articles like batman, but here a bunch of people are taking decitions against guidelines in a page they didn't even contributed to. Don't think I'm enjoying myself.--T-man, the wise 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No personal attacks

message: There is already a page talking about Justice League. There is no need for such redundance on any episode list. I want to take it off. This page should be as summarized as possible.--T-man, the wise 06:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles are supposed to have intros.. so.. no. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, compared to the giant intro on the Batman enemies page, which I believe you started, this one is short and to the point.  The three short paragraphs are a useful introduction.--Gillespee 16:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, and you're focusing on my person again. Even worst, don't forget about the content. The intro in enemies of batman, didn't talk about batman, that's why it got approved against your wishes. Same way here if there should be an intro here, it should be about the episodes, not the series.--T-man, the wise 18:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: He was talking about the article, not you. --Chris Griswold 19:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, he was trying to prove incoherence on my part. I like intros, it was the content I didn't like. But I changed my mind.--T-man, the wise 23:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: I just finished filling the tables. In case you forgot it. Before me this page was a plane copy-paste of the episode synopsis you can find anywhere on internet...
It was I who design and did mos of this work:
# The tables
# The images (I also categorized each one)
# Added all the credits, airdate and episode number info.
# Created / reformated Epilogue, For the man who has everything and Destroyer complete with cast, plot, images, trivia and infobox if missing.
#Created the format that will be used when the subarticles finally develope.
#Put most of the annoying yapping you can read above through all this talk page :P
I basically took the page from this to THIS. And that was the plan all along. I apreciate the cooperation and work from the enthusiastic editors that helped. User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow|T-man, the wise]] 20:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst your work is admirable, please don't attack other users and please read WP:OWN. Hiding Talk 21:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I just took it back. Thanks for the the admirable thing, I really needed that break, man.--T-man, the wise 22:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tables finished

message: This is too small (150px) The pixles look too big compared to the size of the picture. (It's particularly notable in Aquaman's face)
::section removed by  for violating fair use rules
This is too big and it's way it was before, I don't mind it but I agree it could be seen as too lage. (200px)
::section removed by  for violating fair use rules
This makes the pixels look fairly good and is not that big. (170px)
::section removed by  for violating fair use rules
:While there isn't yet a guideline on image size, if you look at a lot of the other lists of episodes you'll see that these images are.. very large, so it would help for consistency. List of South Park episodes takes it farther, using a width of 100px (which is small, but mostly still works considering South Park's simple drawing style). I don't really see much more detail between 150 and 200. It's also a good idea to consider the whole Wikipedia:fair use guidelines and policy, in that we're using these screenshots to identify episodes, not to see what's written on the desk behind Batman.  But since I don't feel strongly about it, and I'm at about my limit for Wikipedia conflicts right now, I'll go with the flow. -- Ned Scott 01:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is not to spot the eyelashes of the characters, but to avoid the pixels being proportionally bigger to the image (like a 90s videogame). 200px is good to the effect and to the fair use thing ( the full size would be unfair, but 200px is still a fifth of that). And as you said, there is no WP polocy of convention backing you up. However I'll wait to hear the mayority.--T-man, the wise 01:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand this. I do not notice a.. pixelation on smaller images... -- Ned Scott 01:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your answer: It's hard to explain. When you reduce a big picture, there is going to be pixelation. It means the pixels are going to look bigger than the features or details of the image. when you take a small part of a big picture that doesn't happen unless you amplify it. The problem is not the fact that by reducing the size of the pic we don't get to apreciate the details of the backgrout (I don't care for that either), it's the way pixels start showing in curve and diagonal lines and contours. I just looks bad. Experiment with photoshop a little until you realize how it works. I'm and Architect I know all that because I have to draw and print several pespective drawings when I present a building proposal. Big pictures printed in small pages look awful. at 200pk there is pixelation, but it's not that big a deal in context.--T-man, the wise 11:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, lines seem very smooth on the screenshots when viewed on my monitor. They don't look bad at all. Maybe you need a new monitor.. -- Ned Scott 11:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tman, are you talking about jpeg artifacts? I just went back to look at articles I used to work on and noticed the reduction--they look fine on my 19" LCD flatscreen on 1280 wide resolution at the small scale Ned put in. For what its worth I like the smaller size too as it will encourage more succint summaries. :) rootology (T) 01:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 200px was an arbitrary number I picked when the pics started being added. There was no reason behind it other than pleasant viewing. CovenantD 14:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also talking about pleasant viewing, and I do agree 200px is pleasant.--T-man, the wise 22:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, I didn't do that. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.--T-man, the wise 05:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image queuing --Chris Griswold 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Chris, can you quote this criteria making the images inapropiate. I was just using those to make my point graphic while the discussion is still on--T-man, the wise 10:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image queuing --Chris Griswold 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair Use

message: This are Featured lists (WP:FL) that can be followed as templates: 
*List of Planetes episodes: The subarticles are sort of chained like a sequense of articles. This series is equivalent (or at least closer as an example) in plot content. Every episode article is a stub, yet its nicely set up to look good while it awaits its expansion. Most Justice League episode synopsis were at least once expanded and then unecesarely summarized by deletionist users but even if we can't recover most of the expanded synopsis Planetes sets a good example of how to do nice looking stubs
*List of Oh My Goddess episodes:This one is basically the same. It's interesting to see how the list also includes the tv movies and spin-offs done. Some EppSA are stubs with the initial synopsis and some are fully developed.
*List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes: Opposite to Planetes, there is a lot of content in most episode articles, yet it has a je ne sais quoi that make them look incomplete.
*And of course, we know List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes and List of Stargate episodes.
--T-man, the wise 22:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care about any of that. This is article is not the same thing as those ones. --Chris Griswold 09:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has to comment just because you ask for it. This is not your article. Please stop insulting people and being sarcastic. --Chris Griswold 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other neat examples to follow

message: Cool, oh, wise T-man! Let's make this article kickass like those! We are going to make this article the next on WP:FL! --T-man, the wise 23:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has to comment just because you ask for it. This is not your article. Please stop insulting people and being sarcastic. --Chris Griswold 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This was really inappropriate. Please try to behave. --Chris Griswold 10:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like insulting me in section headers?  Oh, and don't say that you put the comments back when Ned had to restore his own comments. --Chris Griswold 10:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you brought that upon yourself when you put that best guy ever thing. Actually, its very inapropiate to have headers about people. Talk pages should only focus on the ontent of the article--T-man, the wise 11:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right: Don't make section heads about people, T-Man. It's innapropriate. You only complain about these things when they're pointed at you, but it's always after you've done the same thing yourself. I didn't bring it on myself; you made a section head about me. Don't do it again. --Chris Griswold 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, you're not helping your own argument. If you just toned it down a little and were a little more respectful of other people then I doubt we'd be having this whole discussion. -- Ned Scott 10:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is nothing that says we cannot have a consensus that disagrees with whatever WP guideline you think supports your minority viewpoint. --Chris Griswold 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Mayority has freedom to do stupid things. Mayority, start wars, elect stupid presidents, aloud Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson or N'Sync to be rich, watch Pokemon, crucified Christ, aloud the jewish genocide, pollute the world, etc. All for the sake of democracy. Thank God for the mayority.--T-man, the wise 23:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's a good thing that going against the majority always works.  I could cite all kinds of cases to prove that doing whatever you want in spite of the majority opinion can be bad too, but the truth is that neither, used as a blanket statement, is at all accurate.  Sometimes "majority rules" works great, others not so much. Darquis 23:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What WP convention are we going against in not allowing individual articles right now?Darquis 23:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. None if it's a temporal thing while the synopsis are expanded in the article, as the first consensus. The Wikipedia:Wikiproject TV episodes, clearly states there is nothing wrong with episode subarticles, it actually encourages it. The centralized discussion, Covenandt cited, states that *it's better* to expand the episodes info in an organized way. It even proposes a season subarticles expansion we all agreed was stupid, in this case.--T-man, the wise 23:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing what you mean (probably cuz the link you posted was bad and I'm looking on my own), but I definitely don't remember the season subarticle being turned down though..hell, you quoted the consensus that it was a good idea.  I still prefer that it be built in namespace first, that way you don't create articles that consensus is agaisnt while still contributing to a the project and having the ability to show us your proposed changes.Darquis 23:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of comments 

message: ===Comments===
This section is totally unecessary and I believe contrary to the spirit of cooperation.  Who cares who did what?  I think you need to read WP:OWN again.--Gillespee 00:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On contraire: I'm encouraging people to cooperate the most by rewarding those who worked hard. Actually when you took credit for [my work here you gave me the idea. That was cheap on your part. You love to take off info, but when you saw the oportunity to take credit for something already done you did. The right thing to do was simply put "recovered lost info Chriswold deleted" on the summary.--T-man, the wise 00:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What on Earth are you talking about? We don't give out awards for just tweaking articles and improving them. I spent hours hunting down little screen caps, resizing, editing out crap like jpg artifacts, resizing, realigning, etc., and I added the Static Shock stuff. The only credit I want is seeing a nice page when it's all done... which, FYI, it sort of is... rootology (T) 01:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This has been removed three times now. Please do not re-add it. It is very much in bad faith. Send barnstars to the people you think deserve them, starting with yourself. --Chris Griswold 00:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful, T-Man If someone removes that again, you can't re-add it, or you will violate the 3RR --Chris Griswold 02:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. Just realized how many reverts you've done over the last day. For your information, your 3RR notice is located here. --Chris Griswold 04:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed it again. If T-man wants to make this list then he should do it on his user pages. -- Ned Scott 02:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... that makes it a consensus. A consensus of jealous editors who don't actually contribute, but a consensus at least. Now I agree that the section can be removed. I proved my point, you are just jealous that you don't know how to contribute, we can continue to use this page to continue with the sad mingling.--T-man, the wise 03:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't you asking for my help right now? -- Ned Scott 04:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't be cynical, as I said you did some recovery work recovering with what I completed and  Grisworld erased, let's say by accident. That was nice, but dont take anymore credit than that.--T-man, the wise 04:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The '''''*Unoficial*''''' Significant Contributions Recognition Section

message: This section is totally unecessary and I believe contrary to the spirit of cooperation.  Who cares who did what?  I think you need to read WP:OWN again.--Gillespee 00:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On contraire: I'm encouraging people to cooperate the most by rewarding those who worked hard. Actually when you took credit for [my work here you gave me the idea. That was cheap on your part. You love to take off info, but when you saw the oportunity to take credit for something already done you did. The right thing to do was simply put "recovered lost info Chriswold deleted" on the summary.--T-man, the wise 00:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What on Earth are you talking about? We don't give out awards for just tweaking articles and improving them. I spent hours hunting down little screen caps, resizing, editing out crap like jpg artifacts, resizing, realigning, etc., and I added the Static Shock stuff. The only credit I want is seeing a nice page when it's all done... which, FYI, it sort of is... rootology (T) 01:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This has been removed three times now. Please do not re-add it. It is very much in bad faith. Send barnstars to the people you think deserve them, starting with yourself. --Chris Griswold 00:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful, T-Man If someone removes that again, you can't re-add it, or you will violate the 3RR --Chris Griswold 02:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. Just realized how many reverts you've done over the last day. For your information, your 3RR notice is located here. --Chris Griswold 04:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed it again. If T-man wants to make this list then he should do it on his user pages. -- Ned Scott 02:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... that makes it a consensus. A consensus of jealous editors who don't actually contribute, but a consensus at least. Now I agree that the section can be removed. I proved my point, you are just jealous that you don't know how to contribute, we can continue to use this page to continue with the sad mingling.--T-man, the wise 03:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't you asking for my help right now? -- Ned Scott 04:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't be cynical, as I said you did some recovery work recovering with what I completed and  Grisworld erased, let's say by accident. That was nice, but dont take anymore credit than that.--T-man, the wise 04:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments