User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive Oct 2007

User_talk:Azumanga1: Mmbabies

You are NOT an "mmbaby", but there is a vandal named Mmbabies who has been using almost 200 IPs to vandalise Wikipedia pages, including death threats, which is a big no-no at Wikipedia. We already have a page all about him that you can see here.

It is Wiki policy to remove all comments by banned members, especially those who were Community Banned, regardless of the merits of the comments. And, by what I have saw, the comments he has left behind were nonsense.

If I accidentally removed any good content that was supposed to be there, I apologise.

I apologise if I have offended you. -- azumanga 03:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for explaining. I had suspected that it was a user of that name, but I wasn't sure and decided to address you on that matter, though I probably should have also checked for a user of that name. I apologize as well, for any discomfort that I caused you in my original comment to you on this matter. Flyer22 11:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supercouple

But Battlestar Galactica has been confirmed to end in 2008. I thought I would just put 2003-2008 just to save convenience. Flowerkiller1692 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, we'll just wait until 2008. It won't be a problem to change it then, of course. But again, great add. Flyer22 08:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi, I noticed you haven't really been tagging a lot of your edits as minor like they should be. Any edit you make that doesn't substantially add to or change the context of an article should be marked as minor by ticking the box above the "save page" button (I'm sure you've noticed it). See WP:MINOR for any other clarification. Thanks! •97198 talk 06:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so used to typing the words "Tiny edits" in the edit summary when I make minor edits...that although I have noticed that box tagged as minor, I've never really paid much attention to it. Of course, I'll use it from now on, as it seems to help other editors identify my edits better. I felt that the edit summary was sufficient enough on matters such as alerting other editors to one's edits, but, sure, I'll use that box. Flyer22 07:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks, it does make it immediately useful for other editors looking at changes, especially on their watchlist, and plus, the simple tick of a box will save you a little time from typing "tiny edits"! •97198 talk 07:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing out loud. So true. Flyer22 07:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like your "tiny edits" even if use the minor edit box. Some editors try and get away with things by using that minor edit box and make major changes, so when I see your "tiny edit" I know it's a comma or a grammatical or spelling change and not something huge that's changed under the guise of a "minor edit." CelticGreen 17:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, in any case, I still mainly type "Tiny edits" when making minor edits here at Wikipedia, but now I do that while using the minor edit box. Flyer22 21:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not to sound like I'm stalking your edits or anything, but it's nice to see you've warmed to the button! •97198 talk 12:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for move

I thought I'd asked you this before, or seen it here before, but doesn't look like it. How do I request a page move from the general section rather than just ask a particular admin? IrishLass0128 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Requested moves, it shows you how. I know which article you want moved at the moment. I responded to you on its talk page about it, and if you'd rather have me request the move of that article, I'll do it. Flyer22

If you could, that would be great.IrishLass0128 16:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wes

No he's not spoilers don't count here on Wikipedia--KingMorpheus 17:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know that spoilers don't count on Wikipedia. So are you saying that Wes really isn't Richie, or that we can't say that he's Richie yet?

Wait, I'll ask this on your talk page. We definitely need to fix that article that was just updated by a random Wikipedia editor then to change mention of Richie being Wes. Flyer22 17:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that Wes really isn't Richie, or that we can't say that he's Richie yet. Considering Richie has a tat.--KingMorpheus 18:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Flyer22 19:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess the egg is really on my face now lol--KingMorpheus 16:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were right that we shouldn't state that Wes is Richie Novak until it was revealed on the show, of course. At the start of the Wes and Richie spoilers, a lot of people were confused on that subject, and I understand why you didn't think that Wes was Richie at the start (I mean, I didn't know what to think on the matter either at one point). However, if you mean that you still felt Wes wasn't Richie in these latest two weeks, then, yes, egg really is on your face now. LOL.

You know...we're going to have to do something about that alias soon. It certainly isn't notable enough to warrant its own article, not unless he keeps living under that identity as well and it really impacts the show more so or just as much as him with his birth name. Flyer22 20:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]