User talk:Zuchinni one

I'm a vision scientist and felt it was important to correct the content of this article. The way it was worded made it appear as if impossible colors were a well established phenomenon. While there are cases of synesthetes who see 'martian' colors, there is no conclusive evidence that a normal person will see them ... especially in the given paradigm.

Starcraft 2

Hey. I noticed that you introduced a section on Starcraft 2 regarding criticisms. Although the forum posts you link to do have fans exhibiting this sort of anger towards the beta, I'm afraid that this is not a Reliable source, and hence does not verify the statements you are trying to make. Although these statements may be true, until they appear in a reliable source they should not be used in the article. The interview is a reliable source, but it does not in any way show that he confirmed 'the community's worst fears'. Although I understand your good intentions, all possibly controversial facts need to be sourced. If you need any help at all leave a message here, or on my talk page. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not sure whether the poll on teamliquid currently on the main page could be considered reliable. However, it's fairly well put forth in Wikipedia guidelines that forums are not reliable sources. As to the interview, although it confirms numerous things such as numerous accounts would be required to play over multiple gateways, it does not provide a source for the origin of the fans' angst. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:criticism section

Thank you for your message. The fact that you have asked politely shows that you have much potential for Wikipedia work, which is encouraging. I think if you can handle such a debate this well you could admin in a year or two if you like.

On the matter of the section in question: you have not done anything wrong insofar as Wikipedia policy or guidelines are related yet, so the section can be added to the article, but there are a few things that you should do first. The initial step that I am imposing on all parties privy to the matter is discussion; in the absence of the ability to edit the page I am asking that those for and against the section reach consensus on the talk page for its inclusion or exclusion. Consensus is an important part of Wikipedia's procedure because it reflects the will of those who wish to add something and the will of those who wish it to remain out of the article. For now, the best advice I can give to discussion the matter politely with the other editors on the talk page to help determine if the section should be in the article at all.

To further you position, I will also state that any information added to the article needs to be sourced. In accordance with our reliable sources policy, you information must come from reliable third party sources (among other things, this means no forums), and in accordance with our policy on verifiability, the information must also be verifiable to all parties monitoring the article.

At the moment, my personal take is that there is not enough information to justify the inclusion of a full criticism section; however, I would be open to the idea of adding these points to the development section since they are properly issues that have arising during development. It may do you some good to petition for this path instead and see if consensus builds in favor of adding your info there. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza flotilla clash#Rename to 2010 Gaza flotilla incident

Comment. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I agree it is long. Just not sure how to fix it! I would say start a discussion on the talk page but not sure how long changes can stay in effect or if it would spiral into bickering. Personally, I think a paragraph on the background mentioning the Free Gaza Movement and other groups, number of boats, reasoning. Another paragraph saying some details + Israel says x while Free Gaza says y. Then a paragraph on deaths, injuries, evac of wounded and arrests, mention of criticism. Might sound like a lot but that can probably be done in less than a dozen lines.Cptnono (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone archived it. There should be a link at upper right. Looks like it is set to 24hrs without activity or when the page gets too long.Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This probably should stay in the lede. A small mention the international reaction (which is a very important part of the article) should likely be in the intro paragraph. But the controversy article shouldn't be linked - there should be an international response section, summarizing the response, and the the main article linked via {{main}}. Prodego ^talk 06:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What changes?

Could you be more specific? -- Kendrick7^talk 11:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it might be easier in the future if you just tagged whatever sentences you are upset about with {{dubious}} with a pipe to the relevant talk page section, rather than making vague allegations on my talk page. Thanks! -- Kendrick7^talk 11:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's weird. I only made changes to the lead in that edit! I'm honestly not sure how those other changes showed up or where they came from. I had some strange hiccups this morning too where WP let me stomp another user's edit without warning.[1][2] -- Kendrick7^talk 11:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, BTW. I'll have to complain over at the tech pump, maybe they know what is going on. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Map

Why exactly is the MAP OR or what is the issue with it? I removed the UK. Please explain.Bless sins (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging with me. Only if a country condemns "Israeli" actions (or Israeli violence) is it listed.

Also, NPOV argument doesn't hold, since other users are free modify the map, or add another one. (Also, in this case, no one has come out and supported Israel explicitly, not even the US).

Please continue to respond.Bless sins (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, will the map be perfect at all times? Absolutely not. There may be times when a map is not updated or incorrect, just as there may be times when an article is not updated or incorrect. BUt that is the nature of wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies...

...for singling you out for the AGF treatment. I popped over to the talk page of the user you mentioned, but saw that they'd been advised already about the 1RR restriction.

To be honest, I think the overall conduct at Talk:Gaza flotilla clash is extremely good, considering the highly-charged atmosphere this incident clash raid thing has generated in the wider world! And your response to my AGF comment is indicative of that, and is to be commended.

Best wishes, TFOWR^{is this too long?} 12:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)