User talk:Gillespee/Archive 1

hi

Maybe I owe you an explanation. I thought about making the Batembargo article because I read all this pages (the sources) and forums quoting Bruce Timm about it:

• DC Comics official site
• World's Finest
• The Watchtower
• dwaynemcduffie.com
• [http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/batembargosucks Anti-Bat-embargo Petitions]
• DrawingBoard.com
• Televition Without Pity

I though it be neat to have them all together in an article. If you go to dr. moon, hugo strange, aquaman, black manta, the batman, DCAU, teen titans, etc. articles (inside or outside wikipedia); you will see they all mention the Bat Embargo... But there isn't a good article talking about the general issue. You see what I'm trying to do? --T for Trouble-maker 05:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

ok, i respect your point

only one last thing: research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. thanks, i know you are not being a bully, don't worry, i find you a very polite person lately--T for Trouble-maker 07:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I found this...

Hi, check out this Wikipedia words:

• ...is nearly self-contained; includes and explains all essential terminology required in the article, such that someone could completely understand the subject without having to read many other articles.
• ...branches out; contains wikilinks and sources to other articles and outside materials that may add new meaning or background to the subject or give relevant, connected information, so readers may easily understand where they should go for more background or information.
• ...acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.
• ...is an appropriate length; article size is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including unnecessary detail or information that would be better suited for a child article ("subarticle")... (AND THAT'S WHAT THIS ARTICLE DOES!!!!!!! - T)
• ...reflects expert knowledge; fact-based and rooted in sound scholarly and logical principles.
• ...is well-documented; reputable sources are cited, especially those which are the most accessible and up-to-date. (in this case the ones with the producers word - T)
• ...includes informative, relevant images, each with an explanatory caption (...) to add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text(...)
• ...is engaging; uses varied sentence lengths and patterns; language is descriptive and colorful while still maintaining encyclopedic tone.

(from wikipedia:the perfect article) ... Just trying to make you change your mind about my bat-embargo page. Throw me a word if you want. Greetings--T for Trouble-maker 05:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Not leaving

Thanks for your supportive comment. I am back to stay, I hope! Dyslexic agnostic 18:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Enemies of batman

i would like to thankyou for backing me up whilst trying to mediate that dispute, im currently gaging a 3rd opnion on the subject as to what to do as mediation is looking incrisangly fruitless, however onnce again thatks for you help :-) Benon 04:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, here is proof that I am really trying to work with T-Man... see his message to me regarding Enemies of Batman, and my reply... Dyslexic agnostic 06:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that, but I really feel ofended by your last line, and I really think you can do better than that. Just answer this: When have you seen DA fixing my non native English speaker mistakes?

I'm specting an answer better than a link showing me DA doing better than a deletion.

I do have good faith in you, though. I just think you didn't think that part through. You always do what you believe is best for an article. But sometimes I think you worry more about who wrote that instead of what has been written, and sometimes, because of my undeveloped writting skills, I have a hard time trying to prove that you are not wrong... but I'm also right (too).

Sorry if I ofend you, but that's what I think of those lines there. --T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 03:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep checking for evidence, your opinion should be updated if you consider if necesary. No matters if it benefits me or DA. A jury never talks without seeing all the evidence. --T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 05:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Always. --T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 05:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you should socialize a little more... This page makes me look creepy. --T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 05:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dyslexic agnostic and T-man

I thought you should be aware of the latest developments: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence#Fourth asserion. Dyslexic agnostic 16:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I HAVE HAD IT WITH CONSTANT ATTACKS BY T-MAN. The arbitration is just a further opportunity to attack and attack and attack, a relentless illegible onslaught. PLEASE JUST MAKE IT STOP! Dyslexic agnostic 05:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your supportive comments. I will take a deep breath and ignore T-Man (and try to grin and bear his edits lol). Dyslexic agnostic 08:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As promised I am staying away from some of T-man's pages. I am going to continue to fix his poor grammar and spelling, and as such monitor his edits. I have checked carefully and determined that this is NOT a violation of wikistalking, as it is hardly disruptive to fix grammar and spelling. For authoity, see Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking, where is the two cases cited, "the action of 'following someone around' was not the only offense, but rather compounded the harm that the stalker was causing to the project".

In any case, this brings us to Legends of the Dark Knight (TNBA). If I say anything on that page, I will be accused of stalking. But you just finished explaining to T-man that episode pages for TV shows are controversial and in your and my opinion not warranted. Where there are two pages like this there shuld be some disambiguation, but I don't think in this case the TV show page is warranted. I leave it to you to decide what to do. Thanks. Dyslexic agnostic 18:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

JLU

I did some further changes, to explain differences between JL and JLU lineups.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 08:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

IC

The MoS is a generally tangled mess that, honestly, is unfollowable. And redlinks are a major organizational form on Wikipedia - they keep the "most requested article" lists accurate. Phil Sandifer 23:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing

I'm not using the evidence page as a talk page. I'm editing until it's final reading clearly recreate the facts in order. Improving links and stuff. You have to understand that if I wrote something wrong now because I don't remeber better, it doesn't mean DA is any less of the ilustrated vandal and ignorant of the pages he edits in such authoritary fashion. By censoring info, he is slowing the process of its evolving.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 07:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Directive board

I can write this if you want:

The seven founding members on JLU consist of the League's members during the original Justice League seasons. It appears that most of the founding members have higher rank and more responsibilities than new members. Hawkgirl left the League after the events in the Starcrossed storyline, but then returned to the League in the Wake the Dead episode. Aquaman seemed to be filling her protagonic spot during the time. He had somewhat of a higher rank on "Ultimatim" by sitting in Hawkgirl's chair on the "big 7"'s board and being part of the big decitions. Not even Mr. Terrific (who is clearly important now) has been shown sitting there with the "big 7". The Question and Superman mentioned the exclusivity of that board. This relates to the fact that, in comics, Aquaman is part of the big 7 instead of HG. Aquaman was also the 2nd. candidate to fill in when superman dissapeared on "Here After". In season three Martian Manhunter left the League on a journey to better understand humanity; Mr. Terrific has taken over his monitor duties.

But since I always think of pleasing your taste, I leave it like this

The seven founding members on JLU consist of the League's members during the original Justice League seasons. It appears that most of the founding members have higher rank and more responsibilities than new members. Hawkgirl left the League after the events in the Starcrossed storyline, but then returned to the League in the Wake the Dead episode. Aquaman seemed to be filling her high rank spot during the time. In season three Martian Manhunter left the League on a journey to better understand humanity; Mr. Terrific has taken over his monitor duties.

But im sure you'll agree that GArrow has been playing somewhat of a linking role that no one else has (he has appeared almost as much as the big 7) and you can use your magic to fit. Again the idea is to mark briefly differences between JLU an JL characters. That's why I didn't expand more the Aquaman part.

--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 05:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, part of his high rank was to make tribute to superfriends. However, nobody else has sitted on the board. Not even for one day. Next time I should start bigger so that reductions leave the stuffI care about hahah :P. I think mor of concensus when erasing rather than when adding. Remember wikipedia asks people to be bold. Was aquaman only on one episode?? Some presence he had. I guess casting did a hell of a good job with him. Maybe is just the octopus scene over and over at the start that made me think of him as more frequent... The weirdest part is that I think they stated showing that scene after the Aqua embargo--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, his exclution was hard to swallow. I still hate they killed shayera on comics, though. I love her too, but seeng a minor in the place of a big shot kinda makes one go against her. They shoul have killed kendra haha--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 06:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey!!!

Oh, c'mon, you can do better thatn that! You know I was counting on you!--T-man, the wise 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, funny just as Dyslexic Agnostic, how funny. I've already busted in the past and I forgot it. I won't address or talk about you either, for you are the same person.--T-man, the wise 03:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

T-man thinks you are my sock puppet now? Poor guy is really losing it. I would feel sorry if he hadn't brought it on himself, and if his comments weren't so [1] shameful. Dyslexic agnostic 08:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)