User talk:The Placebo Effect/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Your RFA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done, good luck with the tools... The Rambling Man 17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! I have faith that you'll be great! нмŵוτнτ 18:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome for the support! Here's a T-shirt to wear! :) Acalamari 18:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 18:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! --Hirohisat ^紅葉 19:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there! Congrats! :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 19:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! nice card too.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. I'm very glad to see that you were successful. Keep up the excellent work that got you into the position! Happy editing! :-) Lradrama 20:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the cabal Placebo. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 21:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

unblock

Can you unblock American Dad episode list. We've formed a compromise that you can see at the family guy episodes list page if so desired. thanks Grande13 22:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well all the same editors were also doing the family guy episode list. And a resolution has occured there over the same problem found at the American Dad Episode List. Basically the idea was to add a future list column instead of including them all in the current season, as that is what the debate was about. Grande13 23:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They were actually done communication through members pages. Initially there was a slight conflict with the simpsons if you were to check, and once that issue was resolved it led to the family guy and american dad issues being solved... A lot of different editors were involved if you care to look. Otherwise i dont know what else to say as I guess you could give it more time if you so desired. Grande13 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

to sum things up quickly it was sceptre on http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Scorpion0422 board that determined what we were going to doing, and that is being implemented throughout the articles. It was really a small issue that was just overblown, so whether that is enough for you to unprotect is your call. But it was basically just how to include unaired episodes without set dates. Grande13 00:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection of the Fellowship of Friends

Hi, I see that you protected the Fellowship of Friends page due to reverting and disputes - which were happening rapidly overthere. I would like to ask if you could please undo this edit which wasn't part of the ongoing reverting. One editor decided out of nowhere to get rid of the entire history section without even discussing it on the talk page. (You protected the page right after this mindless edit.) Thanks Aeuio 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

List of one-time characters from The Simpsons

The page meets notability standards, in my opinion. I just recently cleaned the page up and cut 90% of the cruft and added a lot of real world info. I think the page passes the WP:FICT guidelines. As well, many of the pages that redirect here were done so because of AFDs that the result was "redirect to List of one-time characters from The Simpsons‎". Several of the characters listed are major characters within the Simpsons universe, such as Frank Grimes, Hank Scorpio, Jacques and Leon Kompowsky. Major characters that don't have enough real world info to qualify for an individual page, but haven't appeared multiple times and thus don't belong on the recurring page. Anyway, thanks for the time, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Electron

Thanks for facilitating the article's deletion. However, I believe that you missed the deletion of Ang_Banyuhay which is also bundled with the AfD for the same reasons. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-10-22/Features_and_admins

Your article says four users were granted admin status, but then lists five. Whoops? shoy 13:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

Hi Placebo. Would you consider putting an "Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled" tag on the Ralph Nader article (as was done at Mexican-American War. It suffers from persistent edit wars mostly from unregistered and newly registered users. I think this tag would really help. Astruc 23:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Day of the Black Sun verifiability

I'm sorry, but I don't see how TV.com isn't a reliable source. Blue Mirage 16:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Placebo_Effect on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/Placebo-Effect Thanks. --The Placebo Effect 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit of talk page archive

Fair enough. It was, however, irritating to be corrected on a point that I was right on. --Choi9999 03:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be against consensus, buku...

I also believe he either has multiple accounts or other people working with him. An IP and someone else, because the same user also reverted a consensus decision to call Phantom Hourglass an action adventure game. -Sukecchi 15:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you're being wrong. How many bloody times must I repeat to you that people have been vanalizing my profile? Or was it you Suke? That would explain everything you know. Anyhow, Pokemon is an RPG. This site is not a free encyclopedia, it's a self contradicting load of articles.V-Dash 15:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 06:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

You either voted on the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

The second proposal, which seemed to fail had no voting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Victreebell?

I'd appreciate your input on a matter being discussed on Talk:Pokémon: Diamond and Pearl (anime). The issue at hand is whether or not Gardenia's Victreebell should be included in the article as one of Gardenia's Pokemon if it has not been seen. MelicansMatkin 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep vs speedy keep

Should Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Today's featured list be speedy?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

major editing blunder

This edit was a huge blunder. The featured page was moved to lists of mathematics topics, but in this edit you linked instead to list of mathematics topics (differing in that it says "list" instead of "lists") and that is a redirect page to a non-featured page. I've repaired the damage. Michael Hardy 02:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DOTEmerzon

Smells like V-Dash is up to some (more?) sockpuppeteering, judging by these few edits. It may be a bit early to tell, but what do you think? Haipa Doragon (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

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 . 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.

-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, don't worry so much about blocking. I once got kicked for five minutes from a chat room for using a word describing gas release. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Okay, that's good. What about Circeus? He's the most active commentator at WP:FLC. Perhaps he could be the director and I could be the list promoter, because there are several users that promote lists and I don't want to discourage them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Day of Black Sun, Part 2: The Eclipse protection

this page is protected although it you (i think it was you :) ) have tagged it as protected. Cheers Ziphon 03:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Lists apply?

The following answers are awaiting your reply on Wikipedia talk:Contents. There are also other replies that you may want to consider.

• The problem that I see with these pages is that they try to act as both an article and a table of contents. The problem I have with them being articles is that articles are not supposed to be formated to look fancy like these are. Also, like was mentioned earlier, their is no way for these pages to become featured lists because there is no way that they can be referenced. Being, it appears, the only person to move this article in the move log, I still support the move of this and the related pages. The Placebo Effect 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There are many other lists of lists on Wikipedia, such as those for mathematics. How do these lists of lists differ from those on math? Aren't those like tables of contents too? The Transhumanist    22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, it remains to be seen if they can be referenced or not. "Topic" is a subject, "basic topic" is a subject, and membership in those subjects should be pretty easy to source. The Transhumanist    03:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would prefer to see them kept in mainspace. Think about what such lists are for. They are formatted as navigational devices for the reader of Wikipedia, quite possible the new and unfamiliar reader of Wikipedia, and they are also devices to highlight ways to browse content. Given that, directing readers into the project-space (where different rules apply) is nothing but confusing. Navigational structures can be part of the article space. The argument that they are "not articles" and therefore don't belong in article-space is nonsense: redirects, disambig pages and all the other lists "aren't articles" either by that logic, yet we're not going to move all the disambig pages to Wikipedia space. -- phoebe/(talk) 21:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a flawed argument. It is completley IMPOSSIBLE to move all redirects to project space. And secondly, I would support making a Disambiguation namespace to move DB pages out of article space and defluff our article count a little bit. Now this list doesn't belong in article space in my opinion. These pages are very much like portals, and if the first page in this series is a portal, then wither they all should be in article space, or portal space. The Placebo Effect 06:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not flawed at all. Tables of contents are every bit as much a part of the books they belong to as the rest of the content of those books. The main consideration here I think is that cross-namespace links, especially from article space to the Wikipedia namespace are discouraged if not blatantly disallowed. And lists need to be able to be linked to from the main namespace. That's really where they belong, with the articles they support. The Transhumanist    22:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Tables of contents are not included in the article pages of a book. they are always in the roman numeral numbered pages, seperate. And how do portals fall into the no cross-namespace links rule? BTW, could you show me a link to this rule because I have not seen it. The Placebo Effect 04:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
        • But they are included in the book. The main namespace is the encyclopedia, while the Wikipedia namespace is the community which supports it. The Transhumanist    20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Also, these aren't exactly tables of contents. Tables of contents are "tables" for the specific reason that they tabulate page numbers alongside chapter and heading names. These pages don't do that. These are lists, not tables. So we need to be clear why these lists should be treated differently from other lists, because we may be setting up a precedent here. These are lists of lists. There are many other lists of lists on Wikipedia. The guideline Wikipedia:Lists covers lists and lists of lists. Why exactly are you making an exception to that guideline for these lists, and how does that not apply to other lists? The Transhumanist    22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please reply at Wikipedia talk:Contents. Thank you. The Transhumanist    22:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Western Air Temple

As you appear to have a connection to this article I am notifying you of my move to delete it through AfD until time gives actual sources on the episodes existence. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Western Air Temple if you would like to give your opinion. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Signature

I don't have any preference whether it has two hyphens, but you should watch the discussion on WP:VPR in case other people start complaining. Also, it may be worth editing MediaWiki:Signature-ip to match; this is the format for anonymous users. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Avitar...

I will check sorry if i'm wrong and thanks for the links Cordially, Mptc 03:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to state it is 14 to 6 in favor of adding it... (people not posts) so the consensus is with me Cordially, Mptc 04:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot only say that only members that count are the ones in the avitar wikiproject (as of which i am not a member but should be) and wikipedia has no policy against having such plot available and as an encylopedia it is our duty.

the hary potter example was irrelevent... said newspaper had no way to know weather or not that the leaked version was accurate or not... but for now i have changed my mind until the point that it is eather confirmed or disproved weather or not it has aired in the UK until that time i guess i was wrong and i'm sorry for now.

Cordially, Mptc 04:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

About V-Dash

It is almost certain that this person is a troll. Perhaps if he roams elsewhere, you can simply pass on this warning and just revert him silently? If there are nobody to talk with him, he'll probably stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegalStar (talk • contribs) 06:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations and such

Just a reminder: you don't even need to tell people that it's a consensus on the Wikiproject for Avatar. It's more simple than that. People can't cite a copyright violation. Thus they can't cite sources for Day of Black Sun information. Simple policy is on our side. And I'm pretty sure this isn't a time that WP:IAR applies ;) Hope that helps some! :) 春Harukaze風 15:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk deletion

From the proposals village pump:

• I don't see any valid reason to delete the talk page of an existing article. Can you expand on why you think it would ever be neccesary? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment

As the proponent of the ongoing debate, I send you this with trepidation, but I am sending to everyone who should have an interest (non-selectively to avoid WP:CANVASS).

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Avatar chapters

(moved form user page) hi i didnt know about that avatarchapters is seen as illegal sowi bout that im new to this so this is the best way i know to reply.. sori if im ruining your page but should i create a different article(a new article about avatarchapters and what its about. im not advertising it, but i think fans should know i dont know so im askin for advice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virangadippita (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Features_and_Admins

What's the status with Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Features_and_Admins? Gimmetrow 00:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine if someone else wants to do it. I'm rather busy with other projects too. Gimmetrow 22:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD experiment

Now that my project is fully up and running, I though you might want to consider the four main benefits of my method over the one that you seem to be supporting:

1. There is a set of orphaned articles for persons who do not have any featured lists of their own or persons that would like to take responsibility for more. Anyone can nominate such orphans. This benefits WP by getting people involved in list articles that might not have active editors to update them or defend them against vandalism. Please consider adopting one of our orphans.
2. Each list will be encouraged to respond to commentary and feedback during the candidacy period, which will hopefully improve the quality of the articles.
3. Articles without pictures will be encouraged to find them. E.g., List of Harry Potter films cast members had no image before its nominator added an image for this experiment. This type of thing, of course, improves the project.
4. Articles are encouraged to add relevant projects to their talk page. This alerts other project to articles that they would likely have an interest in and would be able to either improve or protect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how WP:OWN is relevant to a reminder that my method encourages improvement of the project. If you want to give glory to someone for doing something that doesn't improve the project go ahead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A nomintator for WP:LOTD should be willing to bear the same level of responsibility as a nominator for WP:GAC, WP:FLC or WP:FAC. There is nothing wrong with noting that one should take responsibility for an article that one nominates. It is not OWN. It is NORMAL and standard procedure at WP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as bureaucracy goes. Any nominee may ignore all feedback. Feedback is only to help. It is not required to be acted upon. Mandatory voting has been removed from my idea. Only those who want to help the project determine its best work have to contribute. I estimate that if 60 people each contributed their opinion on the best 5 articles once a month that would be sufficient voting. You make it sound like we will be voting each day. Only those interested in helping the project need vote. Those who see such contribution as needless bureaucracy can ignore this responsibility as well. It is going to be very tough to get 60 voters with competing proposals. However, both things perceived as bureaucracy are ignorable responsibilities. Thus, with all the benefits to the project and all bureaucracy responsibilities being ignorable, I just thought I would remind people of the benefits to my proposal now that it is up and running.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Above you see the way my proposal improves the project. I am attempting to improve the project. How would either of those methods improve the project?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really. This is an attempt to improve and select the best of the FLs. Changing FLs is not a solution. Regardless of how much we improve the FL process, lists will never be perfect and a procedure like the one I am proposing will help the best to be improved. Also, This process will by its competitive nature augment the improvement of lists and generate more interest in creating good lists by getting many people (a goal of more than 60) involved every month. I don't think the answer is let's choose a process that does not improve the project and claim the problem is elsewhere with a process that seems to be working well. Let's design a new process which complements things that are working well already.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You are forgetting that articles get edited after being promoted (sometimes vandalistically if that is a word) and that requirements change over time. Look at the inline citation issue as an example. Furthermore, take a look at a list that needs to be updated just to stay high quality. E.g., an orphan like List of current world boxing champions must have someone active to keep its FL qualities. For these three reasons that have nothing to do with the effectiveness of the WP:FLC process, we need a process where people will take responsibility for articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you miss my point that there are three reasons why nominator accountability would be helpful only one of which has to do with changing standards.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I run WP:CHICAGO and the fact that an article has a {{ChicagoWikiProject}} tag does not mean we will assume daily responsibility for its maintenance and oversight. Adding projects helps (as my method does), but it is not the answer. Again, the answer to ongoing editing is to have WP:FLRC as a last ditch effort to save articles. However, we can get people to assume responsibility before it is too late with the method I propose.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 20:10

You are again missing my point. An article that is above the standards to be demoted can still have problems and be improved. That is what is possible with my method. Why are you against an idea that improves the project?—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 20:38

So you would rather have an LOTD that does nothing to improve the project even if all the bureaucracy that improves the project is optional?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 20:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:FLRC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:FLC, WP:FAC all have feedback and commenting that are as extensive except they are not optional. This is an attempt to improve the project with optional bureaucracy instead of mandatory. In my WP:LOTD, if a few people give you a comment, you can ignore it. If you ignore it you will retain your WP:FL rating and may even still be among the top 30 nominees.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

O.K. so I think you are saying it is a bad thing to have an optional feature that improves the project if I am understanding you correctly. To be honest there is no other mechanism to compel people to respond to feedback before it becomes a borderline demotion. I think it is a good thing to add something to compel accountability before things get that bad.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:Jimmy-wales-frankfurt2005-alih01.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Jimmy-wales-frankfurt2005-alih01.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Jimmy-wales-frankfurt2005-alih01.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Jimmy-wales-frankfurt2005-alih01.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am placebo_effect on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/the-placebo-effect. Thanks. --The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost

I see here, that you wish to take time off for the better of your education. Could I ask, whether I could do it? Thanks in advance. Best, — Rudget _{contributions} 19:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :) — Rudget _{contributions} 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the last "post" was delivered on the 26th, are the two I'm covering F&A's on, be delivered on the 3rd and 10th? If so, that's all I need to know! Thanks once again. — Rudget _{contributions} 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

...

Cox guide is about the same thing as TV guid,e jsut better dude...--Cody6 (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

List of David Jones stores

Please userfy the content of this article which you just deleted (wrongly, I believe) to my userpage. I want to add the meaningful bits of it to the existing article or else develop it into a usable article. Please reply here. JRG (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost, featured content

Hi, Placebo; I see you're on a break so I don't expect to hear from you quickly, but if you get a chance, can you fill me in on how the process of feeding new content to The Signpost works? Do you always do that? Even on break? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Placebo, thanks. Raul has asked that I help out, so I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything. Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Delegation SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

article protection

Hi. just a question about the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict? could you please tell me, what are some of the current open issues which continue to require this article to be edit-protected? I'm not questioning the protection, I'm just asking what the issues are, just so that maybe i can hopefully help to resolve them. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 18:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing Help

First off, no I do not need help with how to edit, I need help with something a little bit different. I would like you to clear something up for me; Is it true that an article about a fictional character should not have the bulk of the article residing in the story of what happens to the character? In other words, isn't it against the MoS to put the story/history of a fictional character in their article as that would make the article a biography, which it should not be (since it is fictional)? If so, then I have a problem. I have recently been editing the Aang article, and no matter how many times I shrink or remove the history section, someone always edit it back (in fact, what happens is that one user recreates it for some reason, and then every other user starts adding on again, as if I never posted an argument, which I did on the talk page). Do you have any advice? Oh, and by the way, it is these types of sections (history, relationships, etc.) that are keeping the article from being promoted to GA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! That is just what I needed to see. By the way, I would gladly let you adopt me. Just one thing though, I cannot be as active on weekdays since I have school. If you want my full schedule to see when I will be available, just ask (though you probably will not need it). Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 17:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What is going on?

Is it that someone is writing about a TV episode that has not been broadcast and you want to stop it? I am not trying to fight with you. I am mostly interested in referenced information, not secrecy.Congolese (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think being hacked is more interesting than the plot. I'd like to see a mention that it was hacked in the article. I tend to like references so, no references, no article. Some write without references. I have no qualms about writing about a TV episode before it's released if I can find a reference.Congolese (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I'd like to see an edit in the article saying that it has been hacked and use the fan sites (hacked video) as a reference? Congolese (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You know my opinion. I like references. I am intrigued about the leaked TV episode, the fact that it was leaked, not what happened in the episode. Congolese (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Original research isn't permitted but using a brain is ok. You could report that the episode is available on the internet (reference:website video). You could also report that the episode has not been broadcast yet (reference:TV schedule or list of episodes or fan site list of episodes broadcasted). Good luck, I am working on another article now. Congolese (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Just in case you did not see my response on my talk page, I'll tell you here: (For the question of whether you can use my userpage stuff) No problem. Just keep in mind I took this from somebody else who had another person design it for them. They won't mind though. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 17:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Avatar: The Last Airbender/season 1

I've just come across it on RC patrol. While I think it would've been nice to tell me (as I suggested the merge months ago), I also like how the page is turning out :) Will ^(talk) 22:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

With what I can. I've never watched ATLA (though I know a passionate fan of it). Will ^(talk) 22:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4