User talk:Rlogan2

Hey! So you've made it to my talk page. Well wonderful! Now all that's left for you to do is to leave me a message and wait for a response. Don't worry, any inquiry as to an edit I have done will be answered by the end of the day THAT day. Wikipedia is like cocaine to me, so I'm on here all day, everyday.

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

This editor is a Journeyman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Beware! This user is a known talk page stalker.

Rlogan2 is burned out on, and tired of Wikipedia but will be back rarely to answer talk page inquiries, fix dummy mistakes, and for minor edits on my short watch list only!

Sarah Palin

Regarding this edit. Thank you for removing this, twice. But, it wasn't funny even the first time.WTucker (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DC sports

Hello, Rlogan2. You have new messages at Epicadam's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:ANI notice

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#user_removing_redlinks about your editing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks

Ok, I guess I'm going to have to follow up myself. I'm not particularly interested in your personal views about redlinks. There is a red links guide so please follow that at least. Frankly, red links are a necessary part of lists. If you don't think that the people listed at List of fashion designers are ever going to become articles, remove the names, not the red links part; if they do become articles, it's a huge hassle to find them again. Wikipedia:Most wanted articles is a huge project and depends on the red links. Otherwise, the others are arguable and I'll suggest that people discuss them on an article-by-article basis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok thats fine. i will follow what you have suggested and just go on about the day. if its needs to be removed well then fine. im not saying i'll remove them but i will see about adding them to a list of wanted articles as suggested..but really it looks sloppy to me..and i guess thats just my view on the situation..and as we know personal views cant be pushed into an article.you know now that im looking at my watchlist i notice that the userDiverseMentality does the exact same thing i do. he reverts knocks out redlinks too so i really dont see the problem but oh well i think its more of the fact that i took red links off of a page that someone really wanted to be a certain way but oh well... --EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet for My Valentine

What does that mean? Where did you find vandalism in my edition? Canniba loki 04:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i never said anything about vandalism...all i asked was what the issue of having the things there...because no one else sees why they were removed in the first place..thats it..not saying it was vandalism..but would love to see some kind of actual reason to why it was removed when other pages have the exact same thing going on..--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage deletion notice

See User:Lenerd/deadprez. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hey

I'm definitely NOT trying to start any edit wars. I just feel like the changes I made are better for the article. I even wanted to start a small discussion about the issue so we could quit the back-and-forth edits. XAvengedSevenfoldX (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)XAvengedSevenfoldX[reply]

Þēos ādihtung...

Ne hæfþ nānne mōdȝeþanc. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD process

Anyone can put an article up for deletion. The easiest way to do it is to use Twinkle which you can enable either through preferences or by installing the appropriate code on your appropriate user page. Read WP:BIO to make sure that he isn't in fact noable enough. Obviously also read WP:AFD. Twinkle is great, do look at it (unless you are wedded to IE). I could do it for you, but why not take the plunge? dougweller (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saved by the Bell

I don't understand what your problem is about having the E/I information to the article. It's true and cited, and the truth of the matter is that SBTB was pretty much picked up by NBC to meet the Children's Television Act of 1990 since it was an educational program disguised as a sitcom and designed to start the process of NBC moving away from entertainment-only cartoons to satisfy the FCC. They knew this when they syndicated it, and many stations air the show only for the E/I reason and because it's not some unproven program which wouldn't attract an audience even if lingerie models presented it.

It's one sentence. It's not a big deal and it should be added. You need to realize information like this will be added, and when it comes to children's programming and the educational content it claims to contain, that is an important issue for many, including parents and teachers. We're not here just to write prose on a subject, we touch on everything around it, so I feel that it should be included in the article. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 05:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Duel 2

Thanks for all your help with watching/editing wikipedia. I saw that you recently reverted 1, which seems sensible since adding a link to its "prequel" is arguably either redundant or incorrect. I just wanted to alert you to the fact that similar edits have been made to other challenge pages: 2, 3, 4, 5. I would revert these myself, but I wanted to get your opinion first. There is also some inconsistency with tense between articles? Thanks for all your helpful edits! Plastikspork (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nonsensical responses go nowhere...its funny when an anon user requests for me to waste my time on a talk page when they dont even sign up for an actual account. pass

Wow. Unbelievable. Now I recall that I have had some dealings with this particular user in the past (hard to remember exact IP addresses). It seems the only way to deal with this person is to go to the talk page first before doing the revert. He/she won't extend you the same courtesy, but there is no need to stoop to a lower level (see talk page for Real World/Road Rules Challenge and The Real World). Let me know if/when you want to start a discussion on any issue and I will be happy to join. I'm sure Nightscream would join to see the revision history on Coral Smith and Roger Ebert and User talk:65.31.103.28 for example. Hopefully cooler calmer heads will prevail since no-one like an edit war. Plastikspork (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- I'm not incredibly familiar with the situation here, but looking at this diff, [1] the tone you took was somewhat uncivil. Remember that the whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit- including IP editors. Moreover, he seemed to be giving relatively sound advice. If you make a change or revert and someone disagrees with it, you should always take it to the talk page and discuss rather than reverting, whether that person is an anonymous editor or Jimbo Wales. This is one of our fundamental principles. l'aquatique || talk 10:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's your perrogative to answer what you want to and not answer what you don't want to, but please keep in mind that IP editors are a vital part of our encyclopedia and to selectively ignore posts from them for the sole reason that they are anonymous is pushing WP:CIVIL in a big way. l'aquatique || talk 20:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and let me know if you want me to weigh-in on any issue or help with anything. Best regards. Plastikspork (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 65.31.103.28 aka User:Cheers dude has now been blocked for sock-puppetry.

RE: House

Hi there,

I have User_talk:84.69.48.135#December_2008 blocked the IP for 24 hours for edit warring. Another editor has reverted the edit by the IP per this diff.

Hope this helps,

The Helpful One 22:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C.

You reverted my addition of relevant, referenced material that policy says should be included, with the rationale that the references could not be verified. I would like to ask if you have made any attempt at all to verify them? It would not be hard to find these reliable sources to be as easily referenced and available as any; I think your reverting is against policy; please find the sources and have the goodness to revert yourself. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have made an attempt to verify your sources. There is no 'Volume 103' of American Anthropologist, according to their own website. Please provide more information so the sources can be verified. Maralia (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June, 2001. http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/aa.2001.103.2.409 Here is the full text: www.ecohouse.umd.edu/CourseMaterials/399E.rdg_A%20River%20Runs%20Through%20Us.pdf

Re: IP user

Hey thanks for telling me. But just so you know, you can't block or unblock a user unless you are an administrator. The actual block is not connected to anything on the page. The reason the tag (or warning) is added to a talk page is to let the person know they have been blocked and to help alert other admins about repeat offenders. It doesn't actually do anything other than maybe add them to a category or something. It was a good revert and that IP user apparently thought he was unblocking him, but youcan't unblock someone like that. Just wanted to let you know. btw, thanks for the vandal reverts you do. Thingg^⊕^⊗ 23:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move war

FYI, some new has stepped in and started moving A Double Shot at Love with the ikki twins to various different choices of capitalizations and punctuations. I'm not sure why we can't just use the way it's written in the show's logo. I am trying to figure out if we need to start an RFC or something to prevent a "page move war". See User talk:MerriFunn, User talk:L'Aquatique, and User talk:Parsecboy. It seems MerriFunn is quite keen on moving the page, but for some reason has not joined the discussion on the main talk page (the last time I looked). I'm letting you know since you voiced an opinion on the matter. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call-out table order

I'm hoping we can come to a consensus about the order in the call-out table on A Double Shot at Love with the ikki twins, and started a new section on the talk page. Still no word from the user who moved the page. It seems we have consensus to move it back? Thanks for your help with maintaining this page! Plastikspork (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SmackDown

Your local affiliate is airing it, not The CW. Think of it like a syndicated show. My local Fox affiliate airs Two and a Half Men, but you don't see my adding Fox to the shows article. The CW stopped airing SmackDown in September. Same thing happened when the show was on UPN, in some markets there was no UPN affiliate and so the local Fox affiliate would air it instead. Please do not add CW back in as that is not true. TJ Spyke 03:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duggars

Somebody decided to move the facts off again because it's trivia. Why not make this just like reading a boring encyclopedia I guess... Angelicerin17 (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC) =sad at people[reply]

Airports in downtown

Sorry, I do not follow why there is an objection to removing airports (or any other facility) which is not located within the scope of an article name. Would you agree that the article "Bethesda" should not include the Smithsonian or Washington Monument? I appreciate that there is an attitude WP:BIAS towards tourism that claims that every place is a portal to every other place. That is, the only good "Paris" serves is a way of getting to say, Versailles and Chartres. Never mind that editors should have their hands full describing actual facilities (to say nothing of history) that is within the city itself.

It is not WP:TOPIC and should not require a whole lot of discussion anymore than the article on Bethesda describing the best way to get to or view, the Washington Monument. It simply doesn't belong there. Else, why have article boundaries at all? Student7 (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are just fine in metro articles BTW which is where most belong. Don't need to place them in cities or each hamlet. For example, should Bethesda, Chevy Chase, Gaithersburg, Triangle, etc. all have a section on Reagan? It's silly! People need to find enough to maintain their current article. If they get so bored they have to go outside it, might be a good opportunity for them to maintain the metro article which is often neglected. Student7 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRAVEL as well. Why else would anyone want to know (have to know? vital to know?) where a place's airport was? who really cares except a) a "booster" of the place and b) a traveler who really should be getting (and probably is getting) his/her info elsewhere. Most editors and articles are mercifully following the guidelines otherwise every place article in Wikipedia would sound like every other one that was nearby! That definitely is not happening.

The best laugh of the tour I was led on (by another editor. Not really my idea) was Trenton claiming Newark airport and Hoboken claiming Laguardia! Ha! I once missed a plane in Newark (not far from Hoboken BTW) and had to get to Laguardia for a make-up flight. I was forced to take a helicopter to get there on time! When I submitted my travel expenses, my boss was definitely less than amused. I did not do it again. The point being, that Laguardia may not be far in miles, but it is far enought away in time and money to be nearly worthless as a backup airport to Hoboken or any other place in Jersey for someone in a hurry. Yet another good reason to put things that are not within the bounds of a place in an article. Saves having to rationalize each one.

Northern Vermonters use Burlington, 2 hours away, Manchester, 4 hours away, Albany, maybe 4 hours away and Hartford, just under 5 hours away. But why in the devil would anyone want to see that in 254 town articles in Vermont? None of them do, of course - as I have said - most articles follow the guidelines. Student7 (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Watchmen

You must be referring to the template that has only Rorschach as a character. That was some other user going off and blanking out every Watchmen related page but Rorschach's. I don't know why that version of the template hasn't reverted back to the current one --76.2.143.146 (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Song by Guru Josh Project

Hi

I notice what looks to be a bit of a sparring war between you and Termsandconditionsapply? Honestly, you don't need to revert ALL his edits, they actually seemed to be quite helpful. the least of which are the edits I made to move the 2008 picture to be with the 2008 section. Please can you discuss this without needlessly reverting all bold edits? I can understand restoring some information if required, but the information Termsandconditionsapply inserted were valid.

Hope to hear from you soon, Many thanks, δ²_(Talk) 17:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment on my talkpage. I agree with you. Cheers, :) Europe22 (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slumdog Millionaire

Goofs Section: Why you want to avoid listing an important goof in the story? its not a good excuse that its same as a trivia..

66.134.42.186 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Survivor: Tocantins

Re your message: With the edits only being done by a single IP, I think it is premature for protection to be applied. Protection is usually applied only when multiple IPs or accounts or repeatedly adding something and a block would not be effective. I left two warnings for the IP and it seems to have stopped them from re-adding of the material. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Love Money (Season 2). I don't know if you are interested by it appears this started after someone copied that page to create For the Love of Ray J, and the editors thought that it was about the same show. The other show, which is scheduled to premiere on the February 2nd as well, is being considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For The Love Of Ray J. I don't know if you have any interest in that show, but it seems like an important precedent might be set regarding the use of the VH1 blog as a source for future television shows. Plastikspork (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TB

Hello, Rlogan2. You have new messages at MattieTK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re:Vandal

Hey no problem man. I know you'd do the same for me if needed. By the way, I was talking with friends on facebook/reverting vandalism simultaneously too haha. GLaDOS (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degenerics

I've left him a message about COI & band notability - and gave him the option of sandboxing it to bring it up to standards - good catch :) Skier Dude (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Circus Starring: Britney Spears

Two ideas: first, apply for protection or semi-protection. Second, next time you post messages asking for help be sure to check it is going to an admin; last time I checked page protection wasn't something rollbackers could do. Ironholds (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; people keep assuming I'm an admin, I guess I should take it as a compliment of sorts. Sorry for being a bit snappy; twenty to three in the morning is not a time to get my best side, as it were! :) Ironholds (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend

God bless you! why i can't to colocate the picture in Megan Hauserman--Luisrafael7 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning on NWA.Rep

Okay, so the title was a joke. I noticed your user page mentioned me. To my great surprise, it was overwhelmingly positive. I was so touched that it almost brought tears to my eyes (no homo). I guess there are, in fact, editors that prefer to be silent and unidentified who appreciate my work. Knowing this, I feel like it made all the long hours, sleepless nights, emotionally-draining arguments, frustration, and stalker abuse...the blood, sweat, and tear throughout my time in Wikipedia worthwhile. Thank you so much!--NWA.Rep (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got nothing but respect for you, and the others mentioned. I think this Wiki thing though has evolved into people's everyday life, and that's not what it was meant to be, in my honest belief. It's kind of crazy to know how many hours one spends on this thing, almost being comparable to WoW. All the best, and NAMASTE.

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Rlogan2! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Rlogan2/sandbox

User:Rlogan2/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rlogan2/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Rlogan2/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]