User talk:Kraftlos

Archives

Archive 1 (Account creation to June 2008)

Archive 2 (June 2008 - Late October 2008)

Archive 3 (Late October 2008 - ???)

Helpful Links
Citing Sources: Wikipedia:Citing_sources
WP Good Article Criteria: WP:Good Article
Anime banner template: Template:Anime
Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy

Please remember to create an appropriately descriptive heading for your post and please sign with --~~~. Thanks!

---

Celebrate!

I just hit 3,000 edits! YAY for me! --Kraftlos (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Elfen Lied

I actually had rolled back edits from three different editors at once on Elfen Lied so I'm unable to determine which edit was yours (and the IP address on the account making the undo edit is yet a fourth user). Unfortunately, when you reverted the edit, you restored everything, not just your edit.

To try to address your edit. The first edits were poor grammar choices and not really content addition, so I'll rule out that user being you.

That leaves me with: 70.72.151.132

Diferences between media

Lucy was changed in that she laughs and enjoys dismembering her victims in the manga, while in the anime her expression is completely neutral while killing.

Not necessarily incorrect, but this section is already completely unreferenced. To add something like this in, it would be better to cite the chapter and page in the manga and compare it to the specific episode and scene in the anime. If you add this back in, I don't think it necessarily hurts the section, but this section is going to need a major overhaul soon and it would be helpful to have references.

And 99.231.178.153

Plot section

the final scene strongly hints that she survives this and returns to Kohta.

This is speculation and would need to be referenced to a reliable independent source to be included on the page. This is what I was referring to as speculation. Someone tries to add something like this to this paragraph literally every other week (or to the List of Elfen Lied characters).

If you have further questions, feel free to ask. And please consider getting a username, it is much easier and more direct than remaining anonymous. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated Yu Ominae section

I was able to get some stuff to make a reception section. None on the character's origin as he was made in the '80s. Not much info available, even in Japanese sites. That's the best I can do. Ominae (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Chaotic articles categories

Hi, please take a look at my suggestion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_8#Chaotic_articles_categories. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. It looks like the cat's got deleted anyway. Next time I'll try not to flood the page with uncontroversial CFD's. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Request For Rollback

Hiya. I've fulfilled your request. Please review WP:RBK or ask me if you need any help with the tool. Pedro :  Chat  12:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My userpage

Thanks for reverting the vandalism :) Matt (Talk) 06:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Studies

Explanation was provided for the second attempt at this edit, so it's not clear why it was classified as vandalism. The deleted (and now restored) paragraphs are highly misleading, in that they inflate a minor disagreement within one edition of one academic journal to the status of a major debate in the field, which it is not. They then go on to state the the Birmingham Centre for Cultural Studies was closed in 2002. This is demonstrably false - the Centre had been dissolved into the Department of Cultural Studies many years previously to that department having closed, and the department had not exercised influence in the field for many years. The claim that the London Consortium somehow represents current cultural studies is again demonstrably false and amounts to thinly-veiled advertising for one academic institution. Without these paragraphs, the entry concludes with a non-controversial and largely instructive account of the current state of the field. JMPG1971 (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Selected text was appropriately referenced and didn't resemble an advertisement, if you think there were POV problems, then you can note that on the page or make edits to the text. You cannot simply delete sourced content that has been on the page for months without explaining your edits. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fangæ. I have updated the name of the real sockpuppeteer, so I ask that you update the user pages according and maybe even move the page to the correct name.

Thanks, 10:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times

Hello, I am wondering why (specifically) my edits to the NYTimes article were removed. I read the article on Fox News, and in the introductory overview paragraph was a statement that read to the effect of "Fox News has been accused by observers and critics of having a conservative bias." I figured that it would only be fair to point out media outlets that had a liberal bias. I chose the NYTimes, as it has been criticized in the past for having a liberal bias. I put an analogous statement in the NYTimes overview section that stated that a study had been done by UCLA that determined that the NYTimes did in FACT have a liberal bias. I provided a source and a link to that source, whereas the Fox News statement did NOT have either. I fugured this would certainly be acceptable, but it was not. My edits were removed with merely a statement that said that my edits were "not constructive." What is the logic behind this? I'm getting the strong feeling that wikipedia itself has a liberal bias, and I am simply being given the runaround by being handed off to you. Please get back me ASAP. Thank you,

CaptainNicodemus (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a discussion regarding this issue at Talk:The New York Times#Labeled as "liberal" in lede. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I made that edit while on vandalism patrol, so I'll grant that I didn't give very much thought, the idea that this is some sort of revenge for comments on the Fox News page kind of bothers me. As I recall the source that you use didn't appear to be very solid and the tone didn't seem to fit the rest of the article. This really should have been introduced on the talkpage, but it appears that's happened now. Anyway, I don't mind the idea of adding a section on bias, so long as it can be supported by reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Is a peer reviewed study by UCLA reliable enough? That's what my source was. The charge of conservative bias in the Fox News article has NO source at all, yet THAT is acceptable?? You have an uphill battle if you're trying to convince me that wikipedia has no liberal bias. You guys accept any sort of comment as long as it's anti-conservative, yet you refuse to accept a perfectly legitimate study that is "anti"-liberal. The charge of Fox News being conservative is allowed to stay in the article, yet it has NO credible source to back it up. My charge of The New York Times being liberal has an academic study to back it up, yet when I post it, all of a sudden people start arguing that it's not acceptable, their methods at UCLA are biased etc, and my comment is removed. All this, while NO ONE dares to question the liberal thinktank Media Matters, which is the source of most of the anti-conservative "facts" in wikipedia's articles. I would be convinced that wikipedia was not liberally biased if you allowed me to put my comment about the NYTimes being accused of being liberal in its opening paragraph, just the way that the Fox News article accuses Fox News of being conservative in ITS opening paragraph. Without this, I have no choice but to tell everyone I know that wikipedia is a biased source that is a joke, rather than a credible source. Please get back to me ASAP. CaptainNicodemus (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the fox news story you should probably flag it or edit it to conform to a neutral point of view, and if you think your source is good, I'd just try again on the NYT article. I'm not a regular contributer to either article so this isnt really a good place to address these questions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at Fox News and think I might be able to clear things up a bit. The statement in the lead of Fox News is not unsourced, it's just not cited at that point. The lead section of a Wikipedia article serves as a summary of the rest of the article. The two sentences you are referring to are a summary of the article's section "Allegations of political bias". Also, your addition to The New York Times has not been reverted because of the source being unreliable, but because "this highly disputed study is not significant enough for the intro". Note that the user didn't say, that the study was too unreliable to be included in the article at all. I suggest you put your addition back in, but as a separate section. Please also note, that the grand majority of Wikipedia articles have major issues. The few articles without issues (such as being biased) can be found at Wikipedia:Featured articles. These are the only articles usable as precedent. If no featured article on a comparable topic can be found, editors have to fall back to the guidelines, in this case Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I hope this was helpful. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

---

2008 SLA Northern offensive

Why did you undone all of my edits that I made in the last 15 days on the article? You also removed a bunch of references I added and a lot of referenced text. What's your problem buddy? And please don't give me that story that my edit was unconstructive, I even added another reference in my last edit before you reverted me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.236.45 (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)