Trip the Light Fantastic

This user is a Capitalist. |} X This user does not believe in the existence of human races, except as a social construct. X This user believes in the separation of church and state. This user supports the European Union. {{User Wales included}} This user prefers cold weather. This user plays games on the Nintendo GameCube console. This user likes their Martinis shaken, not stirred.

You showed support for Gaming Collaboration of the week. This week Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week/current was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

Grumpy Troll (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC).

Hi, Trip. I just noticed your request for clarification about the move request at Lost. A previous proposal to have the TV show info located at Lost wasn't able to get a consensus for support. The current move request is to move the disambiguation content from Lost to Lost (disambiguation), and then to turn Lost into a redirect to Lost (TV series). The TV content wouldn't actually move, but typing "Lost" into the search box would get you there.

I hope that clears things up for you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To answer your remark at the Superpower EU page:

To quote you: "I can't BELIEVE...", "...which is disgusting in itself", "It's lucky I wasn't around for the vote for deletion because I would have absolutely ripped into the people making the debate.", "I would have seriously lowered the tone."

You don't think you're taking this a tad personally? And perhaps are being tiny bit biassed in your assessment of which articles are fit for WP and which aren't? (i.e. the one you wrote for and is about your favourite region is good, those written by others about other places are bad.) I helped save the Indian article because I was the one who demanded that this series be considered as a group. So if you have something to say about it, I'm right here. You may start lower the tone now. Kevlar67 19:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you're the one who lowered the tone by saying "get over yourself"... How very constructive. How was I supposed to react?

I simply don't see why on earth the articles were considered as a group. Each of the Potential Superpowers has it's own merits and disadvantages.

I personally hate the Japan, Russia etc; articles because they're obviously nationalism.

The India one is not so bad because of some media coverage, but nationalist aswell, I'd say. No-one seriously thinks that India will ever become a superpower to rival the United States.

The European Union and China are regularly discussed as being superpowers in the media and the EU and China regularly tell the US where to get off and do whatever they feel like with little or no repurcussions because of their immense power. These are the hallmarks of developing superpowers; clearly, and to delete these two articles would be supremely damaging to Wikipedia.

Therefore, why they should be lumped with a bunch of nationalist drivel is beyond me. Wikipedians cannot be expected to distinguish the pros and cons of each of these articles, and to lump them all together was a cynical attempt to confuse Wikipedians into getting rid of them all. Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, usually you should respond to my comments on my talk page, so that I get a message notification.

Yes they each have their own merits, but to have an article on the EU but not on India is supremely biased. There are plenty of references out there: especially on the India page now that it has been greatly improved. Simply consider the fact that India is a huge nation with a fast growing economy with a huge military.

We should simply cataloge the facts, and show all reasonably stated and backed points of view. We do not make value judgements and call other's people's views "nationalist drivel".

The articles on Russia and Japan deserved to be deleted because they already had sections on the page major powers and they didn't have any possible hope of comming up with enough facts to justify superpower status, not because Russian and Japanese nationalists are not allowed to express their views.

I personally think that India will be a superpower that can rival the US.

Stop treating the inclusion of India as a personal attack on you or Europe!! I have no problems with you, or with Europe. You just need to develop a thicker skin. In other words grow up and get over it. Kevlar67 21:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

/////////////

Further to your comments on my Talk Page:

Thanks for that little nugget.

You’re quite welcome.

To have an article on India just because there's one on the EU is supremely biased.

Why? Because Indians aren’t good enough to play in the same game as you?

Consider this: India is horribly over-populated. Officials are corrupt. Their nearest neighbout would love the chance to blow them to smithereens over Kashmir. It's economy only grows rapidly of the back of Western investment. It's economy is dwarfed by that of the EU and the US. It's military is dwarfed by that of the EU and US.

Look, population size, economy size, and military size are things that we can measure. You are appealing to emotion, not logic, because you somehow see Europe as inherently superior to India, although I don’t know why. For example, define over-populated and state why this applies to India and is more of a hindrance to that nation that to other densely-populated countries (like Europe). Prove that corruption prevents superpower status (think about the Soviet Union). Tell me why economic growth based on foreign investment is somehow less important than other kinds. Tell me how having a regional rival prevents superpower status. To quote WP main article on India: India is the fourth largest economy in the world in terms of purchasing power parity... That means it’s bigger than any of the EU nations, and it’s also growing faster than any of them. Imagine the difference 5,15, 20, or 50 years from now. I concede that right now the EU could dwarf India’s economy if it were a nation, but it’s not! That’s why the articles are about potential superpowers. Europe would potentially be a superpower if all member-states united their resources behind a common set of geopolitical goals, but as yet that hasn’t happened. Likewise, if India’s economy continues to grow faster it potentially develop a truly global reach in economics and geopolitics.

The thing about being a superpower is not being good, it's about being outstanding.

Again with the value statements! Oy! Actually it’s about being big and powerful, not about being good. The Soviets were never very good at running their economy or society but they were so big and powerful that the world feared and respected them anyway.

We have done, it went up for deletion.

Which is why I rescued them.

We do on my talk page when you make comments like : Now you can lower the tone.

Because you called me out! You threatened to take a pound of flesh out of whoever started the debate. I was letting know I was right here, so you would know where to go. Remeber who said it was a good thing they weren't around for the debate because they were bragging about how how much they would have lowered the debate!

You do realise you just agreed with me there until you start ranting on about the rights of Russian and Japanese nationalists, for some reason. So close, yet so far.

Except that I know that one could come up concrete evidence of India's “emerging” status. India is a fast-growing nation is both population and economy, and this is easy to see by looking at widely-availibly population and economic stats. If anything Japan and Russia are more like the EU states: they are all formerly powerful and fully industrialised nations that are now facing population decline and slow-growing economies.

The media doesn't. Everyone in charge doesn't. I don't even think India's leaders think it can. The US practially controls half the world. India controls... India. It has no Sphere of Influence.

What is Europe’s sphere of influence? NATO? I think the US would disagree with you there! And keep in mind this is about potential. India has more people. That means more potential taxpayers and soldiers and inventors and businessmen than Europe could ever have.

I treated the inclusion of India with Europe in the VfD as unfair and unjust.

Unjust!!?!?!? It’s a freaking internet encyclopaedia man! Lighten up! Get a new hobby. See the world and realise there are more important thing that turning a tiff on the internet into a personal crusade.

I was almost starting to think you were sensible, thoughtful and manevolant.

Did you mean malevolent? Because that’s the opposite of sensible and thoughtful.Regardless, perhaps it isn’t the best manners to tell someone to “grow up”. But I simply become agitated and annoyed when people try to use WP as a place to engage in personal grandstanding. There are literaly thousands of debate forums and blogs on the internet where you can herald the coming glory of the United Europe, and denounce the heathen Indians. However here if we were to ignore the facts and simply proclaim Europe to be a superpower and not even mention India, it would be a stupid mistake and simply undermine the reputation and good work done here. Kevlar67 00:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Woah. I just came to ask you a question and stumbled upon your entire argument with Kevlar. Anyway, that's a different story. On Talk:Superpower you stated that the India Emerging Superpowers Section really bugs you. Although half of that feeling may be based on what you have said above, I want to ask you a simply question. What is it that bugs you about that article? As I consider myself as the primary contributor to the article I will be happy to fix any problems with it. It is really well sourced now and makes use of inotes so as to not distract the reader. It contains a heap of information both for and against the rise of India. If you reckon there is anything wrong with it can you list the problems on my talk page and I will see to it that the problems are dealt with. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, don't just say that India is filth compared to Europe and that it is a disgrace to place India alongside Europe (those were my assumptions of your Point of View based on your discussion with Kevlar). Because I think it's pointless to compare a united democracy with a political entity that still stands on the world stage as a collection of different nations. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. So your issue is not with the article but the fact that you don't believe India is going to become a superpower. I guess I can't do anything about that, you can add your ideas to both the China and India pages if you can source them. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Is up for Afd. This is your chance to save the articles. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The crusade has begun, see the Emerging Superpowers articles talk pages, Guinnog and another IP user seem to be coming to the decision that we should delete Emerging Superpowers - European Union, Emerging Superpowers - People's Republic of China and Emerging Superpowers - India. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a somewhat heated discussion at Talk:Great power, Please take a look. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

you have too be diplomatic.The argument is what have too go in the article.Don't dispurce from the objective.Don't forget what the objective is--Ruber chiken 16:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

the debate is if EU is a superpower or not?Or rather what have to go in the article?You what that EU have a section in the article,or you whant to prouve them that the EU is a superpower?The dibate should evolve round the isue that it is too power full to be compered with india and china and so it deservers mentioning in the article.That some consider it to be a superpower alredy,is a fact too,it will be mensioned too.If we try to prove each other ideologies it will go on and on with out and.--Ruber chiken 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No you said Has the European Union accreud enough state-like characteristics to fulfil the dictionary definition of a superpower?.You are trying to prouve them that EU is a superpower,this is no compromise.The objectives are to prouve them that thers a basys for including, a EU section and a multipolar section.If you try to prouve your point ,we are still here in 1000 years.--Ruber chiken 17:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No ,the only contry wher a nuclaier reactor is been bilt from years is finland,it's an exeption.The fusion reactor,is not the first,is experimental,and don't produce any energy yet,the reaction is not self sestained(in 100 years maybe).Well you could have mencioned the renuables,the EU has a good proportion(more then 50%) of the worlds windmills.--Ruber chiken 03:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

LIke i sead,the fusion reactor is an experiment,it don't work,and it wasn't the first tocamak,the problems are so many,that don't expect any functioning desing any time soon.From what i no, the germans whant to go out,and for the britich,thers discussions.The only contry wher thers actuly a new reactor been bild,is finland.I see that your a nucleair enthusiast,but if all the planette shift to nucleair,thers simply not enouph expoitable uraniom ores,it's fossil fuel.Surgenerators,are a diferent kind of technology,from what is been used now,and they are not working properly.For the future,you have to compare nucleair energy of 2050,with the renewables of 2050,not the nucleair of 2050 with the renewables of 2000.--Ruber chiken 15:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant,your noleg on nucleair,not on EU.You sentence,on energy had a mistake every two words.--Ruber chiken 15:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You cheeky sod ruber.What this mean exacly--Ruber chiken 15:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well,yes,i mean it like that(i'm smiling).I don't what to pis you off,so i'm not editing it,but ther are important mistakes in what you wrote.I can't just do nothing,so i'm discussing it here.--Ruber chiken 16:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I WAS SARCASTIC.WELL I SEE THAT YOU ARE A LITEL BIT PARANOID,SO IN THE FUTURE,I WIIL NOT DO IT AGAIN.--Ruber chiken 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I admit that my coment was a littel bit harch.--Ruber chiken 19:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• [1]
• ITER

Hi, I really don't want to stir things up, but wouldn't it make sense to move Eu as an emerging superpower to EU debade or EU superpower controversy. Don't worry, this is just a suggestion and I won't start a debate about so a simple yes or no will suffice ;-). Kein Grund sich sorgen zu machen! Regards, Signature^brendel 02:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see this. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support of the new upcoming International Relations WikiProject. Please see Talk:Superpower and vote... Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

An editor has nominated the article Hylian Wars for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hylian Wars. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Hylian Wars during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you deleted a short (but important) spoiler from the 24 main page, yet added a comprehensive spoiler (with MUCH more detail) on the 24 season 6 page. I deleted the season 6 spoiler (hasn't aired yet!!) and readded an earlier more vague description of the season on the main page. Kermitmorningstar 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, nor am I going to complain about your crass cultural commentary, but I simply need to inform you that you are quite hypocritical with your "(Deleted S6 spoiler. No need for such a big spoiler to be there. It's hard to avoid.)" comment on the 24 main page history, and then to allow a much larger and gratituitous spoiler of your own. I've seen the episode, I know what are and are not spoilers, and whether US or UK viewers have seen it is irrelevant. Take your politics elsewhere, and don't post blatant copyright violations in advance of the official airing of the episode. Leave the discussion of anti-UK bias to the people at Fox, not with the whole Wikipedia community. Kermitmorningstar 00:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. You didn't write the information. However, there are still spoilers involved that should be removed simply due to the nature of the information. The information was obtained illegally, whether or not it is widely available. The information should not be posted on Wikipedia until after airing, whether in the US, UK, or wherever. Can we just agree together to revert it back to the 100174532 version, before the spoilers? My concern is that this information is not OFFICIALLY public anywhere yet, and I'm sure that Fox would dispute any fair use exception to their copyrights in advance of a broadcast, most notably because it may impact their advertising revenue. Finally, I was not making a comment about "how UK viewers feel," nor was I commenting upon when it should be released, save for after the broadcast. As far as I'm concerned, waiting a week for UK viewers, or later for everyone else is fine. It wasn't a stance based in any way upon US viewership, and please do not vent any frustrations upon the United States as a whole upon me in such a public medium. Kermitmorningstar 00:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 1 week for your disruption to 24 (season 6). Any further disruption of this kind will end up with longer blocks, and immediately this time. Please read WP:POINT and WP:C and WP:NOT before you come back. Comments like this will not be tolerated on wiki. Take your free-speech advocacy to another wiki or forum. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Block has been upgraded to indefinate for use of troll socks and proxies for the purpose of trolling. Sock was User:Monkeybreath, which has also been blocked. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Trip the Light Fantastic (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is absolutey ridiculous.

Royalguard11 has been terribly heavy handed, riding roughshod over the blocking policy as such:

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure. - I had clearly left the 24 Season Six article, making my final statements and moving on. Blocking me for a week, therefore, is not to prevent any further ocurrances (which there are none) but as a punishment. Which infuriated me.

Also see - Block duration varies by situation, and a block may be lifted if the editor agrees to stop the damaging behavior. - I'd just said it was over.

Also had not reached the three revert rule.

Also the other user was reverting my input and nothing happened.

The article itself was already blocked; I was involved in no other article problems and the incident was isolated.

Caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith. - Clearly I was acting in what I thought was for the good of Wikipedia. Even if others did not agree with it.

A block for disruption on a dynamic IP is usually up to 24 hours. Static IPs and logged-in users: start at 24 hours, increase gradually if it starts again. 24 Hours? Hahahaha try a week's block for reverting an article twice.

I was accused of copy vio. Wrong; the information in the article was somebeody elses. I was simply standing up for the rights of other users. Therefore, also, there was no consensus in the article.

Blocks may be damaging when consensus proves elusive.

Blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block - Years of no trouble and a week's block and accusations of sockpuppetry?

Short term or cool-down blocks, e.g. if a user is angry about something controversial, blocking that user will rarely cool him or her down Yes, I was angry about a controversiality on the 24 page. Now I'm furious.

Also the sheer force of language used by the "take your freedom of speech elsewhere" Excuse me?

Accusing me of controlling another sockpuppet for months when I clearly had only just threatened to vandalise. This was clearly an attempt to try to strengthen his weak case for the upcoming struggle.

I will be filing a request for comment on this administrator also, when (eventually) unblocked.

Clearly he hasn't even read the blocking policy and has a power bent.

Note: I've been on Wikipedia a year longer than he has! The ignorant little... Suffice to say, if this block request is denied, I'll assume Wikipedia has failed me and start to fail Wikipedia back.

Decline reason:

In case you haven't learned from your two years on Wikipedia, note that wikilawyering, lying, misinformation, threats, and self-glorification only serve to sink your case. Block upheld. -- ²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:40 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:HyruleMap.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The file File:Superpowermap.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)