User talk:CoolKatt number 99999/Archive 1

Hi CoolKatt number 99999/Archive 1, and

to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines.

1. Write from a neutral point of view
2. Be bold in editing pages
3. Use
   wikiquette
   .

Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the

.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me on

. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing 4 tildes like ~~~~. Always sign the talk page, never the articles.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing!

--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop linking this page in

]

I need you to stop removing the link, if you do not, I will report you as a vandal. To make it simple, I just plain don't like you. CoolKatt number 99999

I'm sorry you don't like me. I've just been trying to improve the Pokémon articles on Wikipedia. (I've written or rewritten

Magnemite, Pikachu, List of Pokémon items, Gengar

, and probably others I don't remember.) Sometimes articles just aren't worth saving, or don't merit their own articles for the subject, though.

Incidentally, why aren't you a member of

WP:PAC or WP:PCP? We could use your help on working on the Pokémon articles that are worth saving, which is most of them. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

In reply to the comment on my talk page

I don't need to ask for your authorization to edit the

Pokémon (anime)

article; the point of a wiki is that anyone can edit it, registered user or otherwise. I don't need your permission, and you don't need mine. Likewise, your user page is there for me to communicate with you, leaving notes like this one and the previous one. (If that's the subpage you're referring to; I haven't edited any other pages associated with your userspace, to my knowledge.)

Removing an inappropriate cross-namespace link is not vandalism; I suggest you read Wikipedia:Vandalism before making any further accusations.

If you're really convinced anything I've done is wrong, I invite you to ask an administrator for a third opinion. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks CoolKatt number 99999

Then we have a problem. I don't feel the link is appropriate, but you do. As soliciting outside opinions beats browbeating each other or revert warring, I've asked for outside opinion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Cross-namespace links and accusations of vandalism. I invite you to comment there; I'd hate for it to be one-sided. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

Please don't link from articles to your user namespace. Such links will be reverted, and you may face disciplinary action if you continue to add them.-gadfium 05:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I give up CoolKatt number 99999

. Thank you.

This is if you care about a fragment of code that some articles use that will soon have it replaced. -_oSpriteless

I have noticed on several talk pages that you have started discussions that would be more appropriate on a message board.

]

For a start, he will not be de-adminned. Only 8 people have ever been de-adminned in the history of Wikipedia. Secondly, about your dispute. A Man In Black got advice both from me and from the Village Pump on what to do and thay all agreed not to have the link. I understand your annoyance at your handiwork not being on Wikipedia but that is the nature of the Wiki - if the community decides that it doesn't belong here, then it doesn't and won't. --Celestianpower ^háblame 10:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't make him a bad admin. You had a disagreement with him over that article. He didn't abuse his admin powers therefore shouldn't by any stretch of the imagination be de-adminned. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have received this message because you have edited a Salt Lake City media article in the past. We have recently had an edit war regarding the wording and inclusion of a paragraph on the KTVX article. In hopes of resolving this I have put together an informal survey. If you are interested, please stop by Talk:KTVX and add a vote. Thanks, A 09:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it, sorry about that. -- Curps 21:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed your fictitious page on KNBU, and I agree that this could totaly happen, and would have long ago if the LDS Church didn't have KBYU for all of their religious programing. I would like to point out that the channel number prob would not work as there is a channel 3 in Idaho Falls, and I think that SLC is close enough to cause some interference between the two markets. It would also play "marry hobb"(sp?) with both 2 and 4's signal quite proper. If they were all ATSC this would be fine, but NTSC isn't the cleanest of protocols. </radio nerd> A 06:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stations you cite are not confirmed affiliates as of yet; no stations outside of the Tribune/CBS-owned stations have been confirmed as of yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhking (talk • contribs) Jan 25, 2006 (oops - sorry! Mhking 20:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Viacom was initially founded in 1971, but was reincorporated in 1985. Effective December 31, 2005, this corporate entity changed its name to CBS Corporation. The present firm known as Viacom beginning December 31, 2005 is a new spin-off company created during the CBS-Viacom split. --Micheal21 03:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]