User talk:Caswin

Welcome!

Hello, Caswin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! --Flockmeal 02:43, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Kim Possible[edit]

Thanxs for the extensive contributions to Kim Possible: A Sitch in Time. The page looks much better now! If you have any question, feel free to ask me in my talk page. Keep up the good work and have fun editing! =D Jumping cheese 07:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion page (also called the "talk page") works the same way as the rest of Wikipedia. Simply click "edit this page" to edit the talk page. After your comment, sign it with four ~ (which gives a time stamp and your name). I hope this makes sense! Remember, feel free to ask me any other questions. =D Jumping cheese 07:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JL Episodes[edit]

I appreciate summarizing as much as the next guy, but is there a particular reason you're hacking the ends off of JLU episodes?--Gillespee 05:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JL Episodes[edit]

I appreciate summarizing as much as the next guy, but is there a particular reason you're hacking the ends off of JLU episodes?--Gillespee 05:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, it was something better first brought up in discussion (The boards have never been kind to me). It just doesn't seem like the brief episode synopses featured here should cover not only the premise but the ending and resolution.Caswin 17:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Two things: One, make sure your contributions have content before you hit the save button. Two, if you ever put a nasty note in your edit summary like you did on that last one, you'll be taking a time-out. - Lucky 6.9 02:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, there was technically content, albeit maybe not enough to warrant an article (I cite the entries on "Hotel" and "Texas" as precedent.). Second, no offense, but if you consider a frank, somewhat snippy request "nasty", you might want to brace yourself before you move on to the rest of the Internet. Caswin 02:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...this thing on? I can never tell with this system. Anyway. If you can read this, I still fail to see the supposed flame. I assume we're going by "the act of sending or posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting, usually in the social context of a discussion board on the Internet". Well, naturally, this was on the Internet, and more or less on a discussion board. However, what I don't see is "deliberately hostile and insulting" content. If you'll forgive me - assuming, again, that you can even read this - if this is "extremely patient", I would hate to see otherwise. Caswin 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 2007[edit]

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Judgement Day (The New Batman Adventures). If you continue to do so, it may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. _→AzaToth 03:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Same-sex marriage[edit]

Hello Caswin,

Just thought I'd let you know why I've reverted your edit in Same-sex marriage:

'much': 'some' seems more NPOV to me. Significant parts of the Holiness Code are still being kept today, to varying degrees.
'homosexuality itself': 'contemporary homosexuality' is more accurate, as the way in which it is expressed today is different from the way in which it was expressed during Biblical times.
'they nevertheless tolerate it' is grammatically incorrect (disagreement in number), and I see no reason to remove the part about recognising them.
'same-sex couples should have the same freedom to marry each other': couples do not marry each other; people do.

If you don't agree, please say so. :-) René van Buuren 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel like I may as well at least explain my reasoning. "Much" was on the grounds of the numerous laws that no Christian I've heard of (not to say none do) follows - for example, the aforementioned ban on pork. In the case of "contemporary", I wasn't talking about the exact expression of homosexuality, insofar as the article didn't sound that way, either - not limiting it to just temple practices or contemporary ones, but to the subject itself. And on looking over it again, my removal of "recognize" was, I'm forced to admit, the result of misreading the sentence. Caswin 02:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think it would be better if this discussion were on the article talk page, not here. A.Z. 02:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]