User talk:Lkinkade

Banksia

Thanks for the cleanup. Snottygobble 03:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disney and Pooh

Please stop splitting out Disney-related information on the Pooh characters. All of the Pooh-related articles are in a state that has been arrived at by consensus. The change you're making are major changes that desperately require consensus before being made. It is very important to discuss changes of this magnitude first before making them, because reversing them can be very difficult. Please contact me if you have any questions. Powers ^T 14:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've brought this up at the Administrator's noticeboard. You may want to comment there. Thanks. Powers ^T 14:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter for adminstrative intervention, and such a suggestion is premature and offensive. I undid most of your moves, Lkinkade, as I consider them hasty and not helpful to our goal of creating an encyclopedia. I would ask that all parties review WP:NPOV, and then engage in discussion on Talk:Winnie-the-Pooh on how we can best make these articles describe the full range of differences between the characters. Thanks. JBKramer 17:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. For clarification, I brought it up on AN/I just to get more eyes on it, and it has since turned into a discussion of my own apparent biases. AN/I wasn't the best place for it, I admit, but I didn't know where else to go to bring others' attention to what I saw as a problem. I'm quite open to a discussion on an appropriate, talk page, but the number of articles affected means we'll have to do some consolidation and notification, perhaps. Powers ^T 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not intend to intimidate, you did not choose your actions very wisely. There are editors all over the world, I suggest you wait a full day rather than 6 minutes to call out the big guns. Some of us have jobs and have limited ability to edit during the workday.Lkinkade 18:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and I apologize. I again reassure that I was not trying to "call out the big guns", as it were; I suppose I should have posted it on Talk:Winnie-the-Pooh and cross-posted to all of the affected articles, but that's not the route I chose. I can only ask forgiveness for what ought to have been a minor mistake. Powers ^T 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pooh articles

Thanks for the explanation. I had assumed that any discussion of this would have occurred on-Wiki, which may have been incorrect. I hope you understand why I found the sudden split alarming. I do disagree that the characters are so significantly different as to require separate articles -- or, more accurately, that either article would be so long as to require splitting. However, we should discuss this on Talk:Winnie-the-Pooh, where the discussion now seems to be. Powers ^T 19:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hello. Michael Slone (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, back! How are you? Lkinkade 11:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing okay. But I'm busy, busy, busy. By the way, I like your userpage. Michael Slone (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hi Lee, I talked to you a bit on IRC. Just wanted to let you know you can drop me a message or e-mail me if you ever need admin help with anything or just want to talk. Take care. Deco 02:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox needs sources

Dear Lkinkade:

You removed the {sources} tag that I placed on Equinox. While the article cites 6 references, collectively they do not support the substance of the article. Rather, they are directed at specific, peripheral matters: 3 deal with the question of balancing an egg on the equinox; 2 refer to specific holidays; 1 references equilux to a discussion group, which is not a WP:RS. I believe that the tag should be restored, so that those who work on the article will be encouraged to improve it by adding sources. Do you agree? Finell (Talk) 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Meetup

Thanks for coming out. If you get a chance, take a look at WP:CHIASSESS#Current_Top-importance_Candidates and vote.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Jedi Purge and Order 66

Best Lkinkade, the Great Jedi Purge is not self Order 66, Order 66 was but a part of the Great Jedi Purge. Tim Auke Kools (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2009 (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) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eeyore

Quiz question for you.

What was holding Eeyore’s tail in place?

TriviaCrack [iPhone game] wants Nail. I reckon Drawing-pin is better. But I also think Safety-pin is valid. Can you clarify? I’d like to see it explained in the article; but (I read the Talk) that might require “negotiation”. MBG02 (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]