User talk:Ophois

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] About someone Worse than Sylar

I want to remind you that Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball. And i think having an entry for an unseen(?) character with a few facts is not so good. I disagree with this kind of entry. do you believe we have to put it in the talk page before it remains in the main article or not?

Secondly, what about the characters shown on Suresh's map then? Can we also have an entry like "Tenths of other people with powers" because it was mentioned in the show? Friendly, Magioladitis 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how having an entry for a character mentioned on the show has to do with the crystal ball rule. But I understand your argument and think it should be discussed, but I think it should remain in the article until then, since I removed the speculation from the entry earlier today. Ophois 18:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation marks

Hello... actually, the format *is* to have quotation marks around the episode titles, even in the infobox. Episodes that do not have that formatting need to be fixed, and not the other way around. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, because I don't remember ever seeing a wikipedia page with quotes in that box. Only a few Heroes pages had the quotes, so I was making them uniform. Ophois 00:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heroes

Hey... you might want to read through this note I left on the Heroes project page. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the typo with the excess brackets. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify fairness of tone, which states: Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization -- when you start a sentence with "an Emmy award winning," or "an Emmy nominated" show, you are subtly applying a positive light to the show, when we are supposed to be taking a neutral stance on Wikipedia. Also, it gives favoritism to Emmys, which are not the only awards the out there, nor the only ones Heroes has been nominated for; the show has won several awards that were not Emmys.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hairspray (2007 film)

I know you did a lot of good work fixing the article today...but I sort of went and rewrote the whole thing, because it was in dire need of salvation. Apologies for not warning you sooner (I started the rewrite a few days ago). --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jena 6

Your edits in the past few minutes to the intro to the article are pretty good, showing balance and adherence to NPOV. Qworty 20:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just want to say, impressive job on the Jena Six page. 129.81.64.28 02:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reinserting the word "alleged". The beating is not in dispute. Some particular aspects of it, and the charges arising therefrom are in dispute, but the beating itself is clearly not in dispute. Every news article supports this, and the quotes from the teens also support this, when they said it was "just a schoolyard fight". They're clearly not disputing that it happened or not. Please stop reverting this, you are inserting the wrong word. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example of one of the six stating that? Ophois 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[1] "The DA is trying to use my son as a scapegoat for these ridiculous charges," Jones said. "He knows there's no proof showing that my son and those other kids were trying to kill that boy. It was a simple high school fight. How can you turn that into attempted murder?""

See, they're not disputing that the attack happened. They're disputing the charges. Now, please remove the "alleged" word. It's factually incorrect.

See also, the interview iwth Democracy Now: "AMY GOODMAN: Explain the lead-up to the fight and then how you understand the fight taking place, Marcus Jones.

MARCUS JONES: Well, my understanding of how the fight took place is Barker was telling some of the boys earlier that morning, calling them nigger and telling them about the fight that happened the previous weekend now. So the majority of the creation of the fight was due to Justin Barker's racial remarks. " ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

See also Snopes.com which is a reliable source, stating that the fight DID in fact happen.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't view the Chicago Tribune one. The Snopes has big mistakes in it, such as saying that the incident occurred during a fight at lunch. I'm not denying that the incident didn't happen. I'm stating that it is disputed that they were involved. A quote from one of the accused fathers doesn't mean that all were involved.Ophois 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You restored the rally section to an earlier version, however; I'd like to know how footnote 44 indicates Sharpton, Jackson and King III attended the rally when the article was retrieved on Sept. 17 and the rally occured on September 20? The reference provided says they were planning to attend, and while this might have been good and verifiable prior to the 20th, the reference does provide evidence that the 3 actually attended. I provided an updated reference after the rally occured, however; you removed it, I don't understand this rationale. Rather than restore, wouldn't it have been easier and an exercise in wikietiquette to simply repair whatever error you referred to, but failed to mention in your revert?--Ccson 06:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] also

Also, per our manual of style, please don't wikilink within an article to somewhere else within the article. It's self referential, and is not generally done. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

I don't know why you removed this:

Those are excellent suggestions, but that's not the way certain editors have been framing this racist garbage from The Jena Times. They want to incorporate the white-supremacist rantings of that newspaper as though everything it says is the stone-carved word of God. Qworty 03:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a personel attack. It's just a statement about what Qworty thinks of the source. I think you should put it back. futurebird 04:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please try to maintain civility

Qworty, you really need to drop your attitude.

This really wasn't helpful. I don't get the impression that Qworty has an "attitude." futurebird 12:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helix

Thanks for all of your help with the Helix page. I hope you don't mind I separated them by episode. Your help is appreciated! Thanks,Magkaz 04:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Jena 6

Just giving you a friendly heads up that you have reverted the Jena Six article, in whole or in part, 3 times within the last 24 hours. Please refrain from further reverts to avoid being blocked for edit warring, per WP:3RR. If you'd like to discuss your conerns for the article, please feel free to discuss it further on the article's talk page.

Mael-Num 20:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I strongly recommend you read, and perhaps reread, the standards for WP:verifiability. Many of the articles cited (perhaps even by you) could be termed blogs due to the formatting of the page, which seems to be the standard you are invoking here (other than the unspoken fact that you simply don't agree with what's being said). However, might I recommend you consider that Wikipedia's standard for verifiability is that it not be self-published, be properly sourced and cited, and/or be subject to a editorial oversight. My references pass muster in all of these cases. Mael-Num 20:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The part where you are getting the info from (and the basis of your argument) is a quote from a message board. If there are any blogs that are currently being cited, please tell me so that I can fix it. Ophois 20:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be having a bit of a reading comprehension problem. As I already said, I can only recommend you read and try to fully understand what WP's standards are, and why they exist.

As to blogs being cited, fully 2/3's of the articles cited could be called "blogs" because they are opinion pieces based loosely (and often incorrectly) on previously done investigative pieces; they offer up nothing in the area of reporting or much oversight because they are essentially opinion pieces that have a snippet of truth that WP editors want to use for their cites, and that's OK. Let's just not kid ourselves and pretend that a "blog" that happens to have been reprinted in the Tribune is somehow not a blog. Mael-Num 21:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, those are called editorials by columnists for newspapers or news sites. They aren't a blog that anyone can post to and that lists their "reliable source" (which you also call it) as a message board. Ophois 21:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Poe-tay-toe, poe-tot-oh. My source is a thrice-published article that quotes a resident of the town of Jena, LA. You're claiming it's merely a message board because what's being said conflicts with the POV you've slowly worked into this piece. Mael-Num 21:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read what you included? The whole basis of your "decoration" argument is a quote from here. The article you cited even states that. What do you find when you go there? It's a message board, and the quote taken from the said message board is from a user with five posts. Ophois 22:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Jena Six. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

TigerShark 23:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocked

I've had an extensive discussion with Mael-Num about the situation and he has agreed to make no more than one edit without starting a discussion on the reasons for the revert and discussions about the content being removed. I've unblocked you in anticipation that you would be willing to agree to such an agreement. Nick 16:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 141.166.224.40 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Nishkid64 (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you've already been unblocked; try and edit. --Haemo 00:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It should work now. You've been unblocked for hours, and there is no autoblock on this account.

Thanks. It works now. Earlier my block had been lifted off the username, but the block on the IP address remained.Ophois 02:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Someone Worse Than Sylar

Just looking over your talk page, it looks like you might have wanted to include some information on this alluded to character, but might not have been able to find a RS to cite. Just a heads up: I was thumbing through an advance copy of Saving the World:A Guide to Heroes I got a few weeks ago, and there is a chapter which reprints Nikki Stafford's blog entry regarding the finale episode of season 1. Page 167 pretty much sums up everything we know about this guy:

There's only one person in the world that she [Molly] can't find, and this person is even worse than Sylar. If she thinks about this person, the person will be able to see her. Here's our first setup for Season 2.

So, for what it's worth, that blog (and some others) have been reprinted in Saving the World, which would make them fair game as reliable sources as they've been published by ECW Press. Might be worth a look if you're in need of some good cites for any Heroes related articles. Please let me know if there's more info you might want from that chapter, or any others, in case you haven't picked this title up yet. Mael-Num 04:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. BelovedFreak 17:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure why that is. I asked for some help with the program-y stuff (to get rid of the colors), but simply edited out the filed in the template that needed changing or updating. It might be that the template that was adapted for usage in the Heroes Wikiproject for Heroes' characters didn't use actor. Maybe you know someone who can fix it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Were you meaning that I had to change portrayer to actor on each character page? I already did that. I also fixed the template. Thanks for following up, though. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i changed it from protrayer because its an awkward word, and the word actor is gender neutral and works better. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Then that seems the ideal opportunity to create an infobox that allows for that. Since my OS makes it difficult to make infoboxes, are you up for it? There's a shiny choco-chip cookie in it for you. :D - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electrobe

Be careful about reverting. You aren't doing anything that the community, at present, doesn't seem to support, but you can still be blocked for it. asyndeton talk 10:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And with this in mind I have warned User:Electrobe for edit warring, I do not wish to issue anymore, and would prefer to see discussion take place prior to any more edits/reversions. If you have any problems don't hesitate to give me a shout. ^Khukri 10:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

After talking to another admin, I've lifted my original block. You are involved in edit-wars at several articles and broke the three-revert-rule on Nathan Petrelli, Sylar and Niki Sanders. Consider this as a last warning, another revert will lead to an immediate reimplementation of the block. --Oxymoron⁸³ 11:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Company

Oh my goodness...you reverted my edit so fast, you didnt even give me a chance to finish. my goodness! I made my edit at 19:58 and you made your edit at 19:58. wow! I didnt even get to complete the changes i was doing. you should slow down. i was restructuring all the sections, but i got reverted right when i started.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right. good advice. i will do that next time...thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supernatural edit war

I've been following it, but have grown weary of trying to stop it. I suggest lodging a complaint at WP:AIAV. You can ask to have the page protected and then only registered editors can change it. Of course, all the vandal has to do then is register, but so far he's not seen fit to do so. Good luck. Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As a reminder, make sure to sign and time-stamp warnings left on talk pages. This is almost essential for administrators to evaluate when a user was last warned and if he's vanalized since the last warning. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP appears to be justified in removing the cast, because they aren't the stars. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? The characters are listed under "supporting." JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIV

Hello. Actually, I am not an admin. Sorry about any confusion. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 05:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure. While his edits are not appropriate, they aren't really vandalism either. But he is ignoring your warnings. It is difficult to say. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 05:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supernatural (TV series)

Hello I have noted a report to WP:AIV regarding this page. In my opinion the edits are not vandalism but content dispute. Whilst I appreciate that another editors opinion on what goes where can be frustrating it is important that all editors remember that the talk page of the article can be used to discuss, and as importantly that there is a three revert rule that needs to be followed. I would suggest that you are both likely to be in breach of that rule and that you both decide to walk away from the page for 24 hours at this time. Cheers. --VS ^talk 06:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Listen, we need to resolve this dispute on the Supernatural page. I think that we should bring in a moderator to settle this once and for all. (BTW: reporting me for "edit warring" was really lame considering that you were just as guilty as me). I also hardly think that my edits were againt group consensus (only your own), as I have seen many comments that agree with me, including comments about 2 inches above this one. Its not really something that can be compromised about, either they are stars or they are not, and we need to find a solution to this. (ShadowX81 (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

I'm fine with bringing in a moderator. BTW, I wasn't reporting you for 3RR. If I had specifically wanted to do that, I would have reported you to the report page. I was merely asking for assistance with the issue, either to work out the problem or if that admin saw what you were doing as disruptive editing. And you were going against group concensus, as shown in the discussion page and the edit history of the article. As for the person on this page who you say agrees with you, he is an admin who doesn't watch the show and who, as shown in his comments on this page, based his statement on our compromise that Lauren Cohan and Katie Cassidy go under the Supporting Characters category. Ophois (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just gave a glance at the discussion page, and found 2 people in the discussion who agree with me. You seemed to be the only person in the discussion on your side. Ok, how are we going to resolve this thing? (ShadowX81 (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

The only thing I can think of is to bring in a moderator. No offense, but you have it stuck in your head that the actual series shows is irrelevant and that the only thing that matters is what a TV station says. BTW, the CW doesn't update its cast lists. If you look at the Smallville cast list, it still has the list up from Season 6. The station just finished airing Season 7. Ophois (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The tv station is part of the reason. First of all, the CW's stie in regards to Supernatural is much better updated than Smallville, just a look at the main show page reveals that. Second of all, Jared and Jenson are listed as starring in every single episode. Katie and Lauren are listed only in thost which they appear. Third, Kripke himself stated that they were not stars, but merely recurring. Fourth, they are clearly main charachters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowX81 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The main show page that has Cohan and Cassidy included in the cast photo, you mean? As for Smallville, that photo used works for Season 7, so its understandable why they didn't change it. As for the interview you keep referencing, have you even read it? Nowhere in it does he state that they are not stars. He merely calls them "recurring regulars". Keyword there, "regulars". They're not main characters like Sam and Dean, but they are still stars of the show. Ophois (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for adding all those minor caracers on Supernatural. That must have been alot of work. Good job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.12.106.149 (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

You have violated the three-revert rule on Supernatural (TV series). Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Report made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] you are blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Supernatural (TV series). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

- Revolving Bugbear 14:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, you may want to save an admin some time and remove the template. Mww113 (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|I may be mistaken, but I think my block is supposed to be removed by now. According to my block log, I was blocked for 48 hours at "10:33, 18 May 2008". Right now, it's 10:54, 20 May 2008. Also, I'm 99.99% sure that the block page that comes up when you try to edit a page said that the block was to expire at the time I just mentioned, but now it says something completely different. Thanks}}

You are correct. You should not be blocked. If you are, please follow the instructions below: Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

1. If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
   Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
   If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
2. Try to edit the Sandbox.
3. If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-ip|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.
4. Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I've found the block.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of #917735 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Rjd0060 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)