Legs of boe

Welcome!

Hello, Legs of boe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Spiderman

I'm sure you are the IP address that I informed earlier, so I guess I don't have to re-explain why no one that is apart of Spider-Man 3 has actually confirmed any of this information. Bignole 19:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Spider-Man 3 talk page to discuss this with other editors. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 20:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Other editors disagree with the inclusion of Mysterio; see talk page to discuss this, please. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 15:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to warn you that continued reverts will put you in violation of the 3 revert rule, and you will be subsequently blocked for 24 hours if you violate that rule. The best course of action is to take the discussion to the Talk page (where there is already an open section), instead of persisting in something that will get you blocked. It will be noted that because of a good issue that you pointed out, the "Matre'd" statement has been removed on the grounds that the source is no longer verifiable. But, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a rumormill, and as such, including information (even under a section labeled "rumors") would go against the guidelines for the article. Bignole 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

(I wrote this before I saw Bignole's recent comment.) I'm going to assume good faith on your edits regarding Mysterio. I'd like to inform you, however, that rumors have no place on Wikipedia. When new information is included in an article, that information must be verifiable. To verify the information, you need to cite accordingly. The citation must be a reliable source. The content you have tried to edit in is not encyclopedic content, despite being published by Empire magazine. You've quoted from the magazine in a previous edit, and the quotation shows that the information is just speculation and thus not verifiable. I highly suggest that you go to Talk:Spider-Man 3 and participate in the discussion so we can work this edit warring out. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I would like to inform you that you have reached your third revert, and thus if you choose to revert again you will have violated the 3 revert rule and I will be forced to report you. Please take this into consideration when making your next edit to the page. Trying to disguise your revert by adding more information and creating a section for it does not change what you are doing. Also, ignoring other editors request to go to the talk page is not going to help you either. Bignole 16:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Further Editing

Look, we are not trying to discourage you from editing, but we do need to keep a standard for pages. When it comes to adding information you need to look at the source you got it from, and determine if they are usually reliable, and then look at where your source got its information. If they just say "so and so...blah blah" then we can't include it....but if they say something like "Sam Raimi says......, or Bruce Campbell says...." then that is a reliable source. Also, if you are not sure about the source then just stop by the talk page and open a section for assistance in determining it's verifiability. Also, don't forget to sign all your comments with 4 tildes (~).Bignole 17:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I had originally reported you as a possible case of sockpuppetry (which you can read about here: WP:SOCK) because after your first two edits today trying to include Mysterio information, an anonymous IP address tried to include the same information after other editors had edited it out. Sometimes on Wikipedia, users try to use multiple accounts and/or IP addresses so they can make more changes, especially to avoid violating the three-revert rule policy. I've withdrawn the report, though, since you apologized and did not seem to be editing in bad faith. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 17:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know why that is. I complained on IMDB that somebody kept deleting it, so one of the other users said he would do it for me. Legs of boe 17:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boe

You're from IMDb, huh? I won't hold that against you. ;) Some editors on Wikipedia distrust IMDb because it's similar to Wikipedia in which anyone can add information, but the problem is that IMDb's information cannot be verifiable. A lot of films on IMDb have trivia pages with content of which we don't know the actual sources -- could be made up, you know? I used to frequent IMDb (lurking, really), but I find Wikipedia more authentic because I know where the information comes from, with citations and all. Also, one thing I'd like to mention -- talk pages shouldn't be used as a forum for general discussion. For example, for Spider-Man 3, people have commented on its talk page that the film was going to be so cool with Venom in it. That kind of edit doesn't contribute to improving the article, so it's not allowed if it's not related to editing the article at all. Just giving you a heads-up on that. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sandman

Hi, I reverted your edit because the only thing we know from the trailer so far is that the police have new evidence that Sandman killed Uncle Ben and share it with May and Peter Parker. This doesn't necessarily mean that this happened, and we shouldn't assume that the trailer tells the whole story. I know you meant well, but such details should be left ambiguous until more information comes out, like what the evidence the police have is. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, thats fine. Legs of boe 16:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boe

Ace Class Shadow

If you find you're having a problem with this guy being rude, go see User talk:ChrisGriswold. He's an editor and has been fairly receptive to the problems others have with Ace. Thanks. Reynoldsrapture 03:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3

Hey, hope you've been doing well. I wanted to drop a line on your talk page to discuss Spider-Man 3. I realize that you have been trying to expand the article, and I assume good faith about what you've tried to contribute. As far as I can tell, though, it seems like we've reverted at every step. I apologize about the fact that we run a "tight ship" when it comes to that particular article. I've been watching the page since this past summer, and believe me when I say we've seen a lot of edits that mean well (like yours) and a lot of edits that are just plain vandalizing. I'm glad you asked on the Spider-Man 3 talk page about whether it was OK to use the Venom images in the article or not; that's the right step. When I first started editing, I found out about LatinoReview.com reporting that Heath Ledger was the Joker, I asked on the talk page of The Dark Knight about adding it. I found out that LatinoReview.com was not a reliable source for verifying the information from a fellow editor, so these are things that you and I learn along the way.

My suggestion to you is to not worry about images so much right now on Wikipedia, as you learn the tricks of the trade. Images are tricky to use even for veteran editors (and I'm not even sure if I've put in mine correctly at The Fountain, which I've been revamping in the last week). The point of Wikipedia is to have encyclopedic content that can be verified (as in checked) by any other editors by citing reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't perfect; though—there's probably a lot of accurate information out there that doesn't have a citation attached, but probably just as much inaccurate information as well. I noticed that you haven't edited your user page at all. That is your own space where you can either write about yourself or just have links. Take a look at my user page (but you don't have to have all the crap there like I do). I have links to things that I might want to access at the drop of a hat, instead of digging through Help pages. So you can just mess around on it and type aspects of a Wikipedia article using Wikipedia:Cheatsheet. Do you know how to add a comment on another user's talk page to ask a question? If you don't, just comment here ('cause I'll have your talk page on my watchlist) and I'll help you understand how to do it. It's an important step for getting in touch with other editors so you can learn even more. Hope you can understand why we're so anal at Spider-Man 3, and how it's probably not the best place for a new person to start based on that fact. Remember, if you have any questions, drop a comment here, and I'll respond. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 07:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Legs, you know we can't have that footage or those pictures up legally, even on the talk page. Because SONY wants them removed, putting them on the talk page to try and circumvent SONY's request is still illegal and a violation of their copyrights. If you would like to share them, I'd say just leave a note on YOUR talk page, or YOUR userpage indicating that you have them if someone wants them. That way Wikipedia cannot be held accountable for displaying illegal content. Sorry dude, I just don't want anyone catching any heat for it. Bignole 15:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So, I'm allowed to tell people to go to my user page, if they want pictures of Venom??? Legs of boe 15:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boe

I would say you leave a message on your user page indicating that if they want them to "contact you" you will give them the images for their personal use, but we can't legally "publically display" them. This is still the same after the clips from last night, because the image of Venom was a quick image with only his mouth open and the camera already ontop of him. I've tried to slow it down and go frame by frame, and it's so quick you can't get a clean shot of it. Someone has already tried to put a Venom image from the ComicCon footage up, and claim it to be from the FOX clips, but it wasn't. Bignole 16:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Message from Ace

Hey Legs of Boe. I recently have been trying to defend you, and I received a message from Ace Class Shadow. This is what he wrote:

"Look. dude, just lay off it. Not for my sake, but Boe's. He's clearly not too bright and all this stuff is confusing him. Trying to add your notion that I attacked him is only making it worse. So please, for Boe, let this go. He's just a newbie, and trying trying to use him for little agenda is really uncool, not to mention unfair to him"

Thought you should know. Thanks. Reynoldsrapture 20:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Hello. It's Ace. I'd like to apologize to you for any perceived offense. I'm also sorry you were dragged into this whole thing Rey has against me. Let me just say, it's not your fault; none of it. You asked a question and were answered appropriately. We all handled ourselves well, I think. At least, before he showed up. It's unfortunate one of your first experiences had to be marred this way. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry too Legs. But if you look back on every single post I've written, never have I insulted you or commented on your brainpower. Sorry you are in the middle of this whole mess, a mess I'm trying to prevent in the future by neutering the attack dogs on Wikipedia. Reynoldsrapture 01:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Guys

I know undersdtand I was NOT attacked personally, and I will hold grudges agains NONE of you. By the way, I have updated my user page. Legs of boe 10:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boe

They Keep Killing Suzie

See the BBC press release here. That's the full title now. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh blimey, I'm sorry. I hadn't noticed that. It's a bit of a reavealing title isn't it? However, I'm still confused. Because, the latest issue of DWM has said that the title is "They keep killing".

Yeah, it's a bit spoilery. The latest DWM probably went to press before the BBC announcement. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Venom pics

Please read the above warning. Legs, you cannot continue to add leaked Venom pics or links to these pics on the Spider Man 3 talk page. Please refrain from reverting the removal of said pics. What you do on your own user page is your business, but do not advertise these pictures on the main article/talk page. I would just like to warn you that continued reverts will put you in violation of the 3 revert rule, and you will be subsequently blocked for 24 hours if you violate that rule. Veracious Rey 20:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been told that I can NOT post the pictures on the Spiderman 3 talk page, however, I CAN tell people to look at my user page for pictures. Legs of boe 16:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boe

You are wrong on both accounts. Posting links is the same as posting pics, unless you plan on discussing how those links would improve the Spider man 3 article. Second, you are not supposed to self promote your user page. Doing so does not improve Wikipedia in the least. By the way Legs, if you want to comment on messages someone has left you, post your message on their talk page. Not your own. Veracious Rey 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In case you don't know how to do this, click on the user name, then click on the "discussion" tab at the top like you would do for the Spider-Man 3 talk page. When you have the user talk page present, you can create a new section for your comment by clicking the + sign between "edit this page" and "history". You can fill in the Subject/headline box with a subject, then write your comment in the main text box. Of course, you should write four tildes (~) at the end of your comment, which will insert your user name and the date that you left the comment. Then you can save the page and see your comment on the other user's talk page. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 19:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-promotion

Unlike what Bignole has said, it is not OK to peddle your own user page on talk pages, including the one for Spider-Man 3. Your last comment on the talk page did not attempt any kind of contribution to the film article, as you showed off poster links (already linked in the Lead Poster section) and pointed people to your user page. Furthermore, your user page violates WP:UP standards. "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian." Your unrelated content is an example of: "Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to 'entertainment' rather than 'writing an encyclopedia,' particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project". Please do not promote your user page anymore, and if you do present links to new Spider-Man 3 information, please make a suggestion on how to implement the information into the article instead of using the talk page as a general discussion update. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that you could do it on article talk pages. I'm sorry that I did not illustrate that better. You cannot campaign on article pages for things you have done. What I meant was that if someone comes to your USER page and sees that you have left a message detailing that you have images of "so and so" then that is fine, but you cannot go to article pages and announce that you do. I'm sorry that I didn't clearly state that, and because of that you were reprimanded by other users. Bignole 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misunderstood!

I misunderstod what bignole told me, so I apologise. I got it wrong, it will not happen again, and I am sorry.

And, I'm guessing you guys have looked at my user page now anyway, after the discussion about it? Well, I just want to ask, am I allowed to keep it as it is? I mean, from one of the coments above, it sounds like I can't, but I'm just asking to be on the safe side.... Legs of boe 19:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, user pages shouldn't contain content that have no relation to Wikipedia. For example, having your own blog on the user page would be discouraged unless the blog was Wikipedia-related, such as observations about how articles are written and how editors get along in contributing. I would suggest that you create your own website outside of Wikipedia to have links to these images and also add whatever non-Wikipedia content you wish. I don't believe we're that strict about content if other parts of our user page are strongly Wikipedia-oriented. For example, my user page has links to other Wikipedia pages, but I don't think I'd be contested if I had a list of my Top Ten favorite films on it in addition to the existing content. Hope you understand the example. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 19:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive

It is very disruptive to claim that a source exists when it doesn't. Phil Sandifer 01:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

But the source DID exist!

It does not appear to have ever been on Outpost Gallifrey. Phil Sandifer 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It was there, but by the looks of things, it has been removed Legs of boe 14:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)legs_of_boe

Exiting Worlds (Torchwood)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Exiting Worlds (Torchwood), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. — Edokter • Talk • 12:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Exiting Worlds (Torchwood)

Exiting Worlds (Torchwood), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Exiting Worlds (Torchwood) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exiting Worlds (Torchwood) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Exiting Worlds (Torchwood) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Edokter • Talk • 20:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)