|
Wouldn't worry about this too much if I were you – see the various Claxson accounts here. 62.169.159.216 ( talk) 23:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal attack removed so I've edited my user page accordingly. For the record, this is what was on my user page:
I seem to have inadvertently got myself involved in some Wikipedia drama, causing Clackson101 to leave Wikipedia in a bit of a huff, due to my supposed unreasonableness and apparently rampant egomania. As Clackson101 has linked to this page without further explanation, I encourage you to read the discussion here and come to you own conclusions - that's assuming you're interested in this sort of nonsense, and I wouldn't blame you if you aren't.
Maccy69 ( talk) 18:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(Doctor_Who) For Exemple says 127 While http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_DVD_releases Says 128
Does this mean The other ones needs to be changed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(Doctor_Who) 198.103.152.52 ( talk) 18:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you please explain to me why Russell Tovey is listed with 'TBA' rather than his established (Surely I don't need to point you to the Voyage of the Damned page?) character name of 'Alonzo Frame'? Can you give me a reason why he wouldn't be playing the same character? Darkglasses ( talk) 00:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The claim that the characters theta and sigma happen to also be the Doctor's nickname is not original research as you claimed. It is a canon fact that you can verify easily by watching episodes four and five of "The Armageddon Factor". Many fans of the original series know this. Calling this original research is like saying that noting an original line of dialogue and its component sources (if there are any) should be discarded as original research. Just because some producer hasn't spelled out how something originated does not mean coincidences are invalid or connections should be discouraged when discovered. Otherwise, what is the point of having many eyes on a particular collaboration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealklein ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Pifeedback
Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com? ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 13:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
You forgot to sign your post. Dougweller ( talk) 20:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, ummm i made a edit on the rebel flesh, about the doctor being a Ganger, but you removed it. its on The Almost people that he is a ganger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.95 ( talk) 19:45, 22 May 2011
Hi Macy. Could you give your opionion on the RS Noticeboard here [1] if you have time as you'ce commented on this page before. Thanks. Mattun0211 ( talk) 02:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
On the off chance that someone reads this page, I thought I may as well leave a comment from my new account. I couldn't use this account even if I wanted to since I randomised the password and deleted my email address from it. So it's effectively dead. Amedee123 ( talk) 21:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
|
Wouldn't worry about this too much if I were you – see the various Claxson accounts here. 62.169.159.216 ( talk) 23:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal attack removed so I've edited my user page accordingly. For the record, this is what was on my user page:
I seem to have inadvertently got myself involved in some Wikipedia drama, causing Clackson101 to leave Wikipedia in a bit of a huff, due to my supposed unreasonableness and apparently rampant egomania. As Clackson101 has linked to this page without further explanation, I encourage you to read the discussion here and come to you own conclusions - that's assuming you're interested in this sort of nonsense, and I wouldn't blame you if you aren't.
Maccy69 ( talk) 18:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(Doctor_Who) For Exemple says 127 While http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_DVD_releases Says 128
Does this mean The other ones needs to be changed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(Doctor_Who) 198.103.152.52 ( talk) 18:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you please explain to me why Russell Tovey is listed with 'TBA' rather than his established (Surely I don't need to point you to the Voyage of the Damned page?) character name of 'Alonzo Frame'? Can you give me a reason why he wouldn't be playing the same character? Darkglasses ( talk) 00:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The claim that the characters theta and sigma happen to also be the Doctor's nickname is not original research as you claimed. It is a canon fact that you can verify easily by watching episodes four and five of "The Armageddon Factor". Many fans of the original series know this. Calling this original research is like saying that noting an original line of dialogue and its component sources (if there are any) should be discarded as original research. Just because some producer hasn't spelled out how something originated does not mean coincidences are invalid or connections should be discouraged when discovered. Otherwise, what is the point of having many eyes on a particular collaboration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealklein ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Pifeedback
Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com? ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 13:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
You forgot to sign your post. Dougweller ( talk) 20:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, ummm i made a edit on the rebel flesh, about the doctor being a Ganger, but you removed it. its on The Almost people that he is a ganger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.95 ( talk) 19:45, 22 May 2011
Hi Macy. Could you give your opionion on the RS Noticeboard here [1] if you have time as you'ce commented on this page before. Thanks. Mattun0211 ( talk) 02:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
On the off chance that someone reads this page, I thought I may as well leave a comment from my new account. I couldn't use this account even if I wanted to since I randomised the password and deleted my email address from it. So it's effectively dead. Amedee123 ( talk) 21:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)