User talk:Prototime: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:28, 11 October 2011

Welcome to my talk page! Please post new talk topics at the bottom of the page and use headlines. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Thank you.
Start a new talk topic | Read archived discussions

Grammar

Your grammar rocks, I just want to say. =) When I joined Wiki a few months ago I didn't expect to have to correct edits more than I do add new information. What's worse is people adding in new info that I agree with, but they leave out a comma or mispunctuate! So their good deed just kind of.. got tarnished. ..Anyway, I'm saying this here as a random compliment for your edits to the Toph article. I tweaked a minor thing or two, but I didn't want to make the impression that what you had done was wrong and unappreciated. --Crisu 01:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the compliment! I agree with your frustration at the lack of appropriate grammar that is present on numerous Wikipedia pages and do what I can to fix them up (though I wouldn't quite call myself an expert on the subject). This seems especially apparent on many Avatar: The Last Airbender pages, and I wanted to spruce up the Toph page at its creation so it makes things easier for its long future of edits. You made some great edits as well... now, hopefully we can maintain the quality of the page! At any rate though, thanks again for the compliment! Prototime 19:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely certain how to respond to the recent 'original research' claims. I am noticing it and getting rather annoyed by its presence, but I've never been a good debater. As far as his defense, I'll agree that the first sentence he cited is a little wordy. The second one, though.. I don't know; it just sounds unfair to accuse it. Should we have to add "it is speculated that" to all these statements in order for them to be acceptable? It's unfortunate there probably won't be a Toph episode until another week; else we'd get our new information and be able to settle this. ...If I had to choose, I'll agree to his changing the tag to "notverified," because "originalresearch" just looks so offending (though I really want no tags at all). --Crisu 21:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the claims are ridiculous. Even if the first statement he cited could be construed as (weak) conjecture (the second one obviously is not conjecture), the argument being presented is not strong enough to warrant a tag on the page, unless he can provide ample more evidence (that we're apparantly blind to). I posted a rebuttal on the discussion page. If nothing else, you may want to just endorse my comments... maybe enough people disagreeing with him will make him back down. Prototime 23:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a random note, I'm glad you're using the "seismic sense" term I coined. ^_^ It's a neat-sounding phrase. --Crisu 05:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase fits quite nicely. Though I must say that this argument is beginning to wear on my nerves... Prototime 03:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made a good point today about the number of conjectures we've been presented with so far. Since it's not the majority of the article but a few sentences, this process probably would have went more smoothly if they had just removed them and then discussed about it. But oh well; I think it's coming to an end hopefully. --Crisu 06:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting really petty now... those minor little things are not deserving a tag on the page. I don't understand why they just don't fix the problem themselves. There shouldn't be any doubt as to what information came from where; there's only one source! It isn't possible to list any others at this point!

I'm about *this* close to removing the unnecessary tag. This debate is really getting old (and pointless) quick. Prototime 02:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm about ready to kill the tag myself, too. It has just about lost all its meaning. We've discussed this issue to the point that I'm sure we all understand that we all want to make this article accurate and doubt-free. Any other serious editor would now notice the huge talk page about it, too. (Heh, I'm suddenly tempted to write an APA citation for the TV episode itself on the article, so I can fulfill the tag's request.) --Crisu 02:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. It's great that you went ahead and removed the tag. It seems this debate can finally be laid to rest. Prototime 21:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah. I hope I did it discreetly enough. And I think I did it with fair reason. If they still want to talk, they can; let's just leave the article looking pretty and tagless. --Crisu 22:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject

Yeah I'll gladly help clean up the Avatar page. I have all the episodes downloaded, so I have the references. The only thing I need to do is get up to speed on wiki use. H2P 00:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to delete this message after you read it. I wanted to draw your attention to the talk page of the series main page. I'm discussing adding character pictures to the page and I want to get a green light from you and Redsparta. H2P 05:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sure enjoy that AWB don't you. H2P 01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no problem. How many times you think we're going to change those links? This feels like at least the second and third. H2P 01:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was gonna ask you about changing the creatures page, but it looks like you already renamed it. H2P 01:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HA HA, whoops. Can't belive I just now saw that. I used that guys signature to figure out the coding for mine and like an idiot didn't change the names. Wow I'm dumb. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 05:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're changing the names again?

I saw that the major characters page changed its name again or there was some sort of redirect or something. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 01:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WikiProject Avatar: The Last Airbender

No problem; working on this sort of stuff is an enjoyable break from my other WikiProject work ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:KingBumi.png

Thanks for uploading Image:KingBumi.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and pasting articles

Please don't do this. The GFDL requires that all edits be attributed to an editor. If you cut and paste to move an article, the editing history is not preserved. Please request that an administrator preform the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves to rename the article Uncle Iroh, esspecially if a consensus already exists to move the article. Kevin_b_er 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, sorry about that. Thanks for pointing out the oversight. Prototime 03:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dispute on Avatar episodes

Not a problem at all, the RfC approach would be the best way to handle this. Good thought.--Fyre2387 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Father's Wish

I have commented on the sock puppet case about this. Are there any other IP addresses or accounts left over? Please comment on the case. Thanks, Iolakana|^T 13:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into the Father's Wish sockpuppet case and I don't believe that we're looking at the same user. I have posted my reasons on the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Father's Wish page. Neil916 00:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Category:Alumni of the University of Central Florida Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 17. I have proposed a new name for this category. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for peer review

The article Clinical psychology has just been listed for peer review. You are invited to lend your editing eyes to see if it needs any modifications, great or small, before it is submitted to the Featured Article review. Then head on over to the peer review page and add your comments, if you are so inspired. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Control

The following is the script for Shadow the Hedgehog (taken from GameFaqs.com):

SONIC: Those black creatures just warped the Comet down to the surface using Chaos Control!

SHADOW: That's why you needed the Chaos Emeralds...

BLACK DOOM: *laugh* Precisely. The Comet's velocity isn't powerful enough to pass through another planet's atmosphere. The Emeralds amplify the space-time control powers of Chaos Control. We need them to charge to full power. It's the perfect plan. That's why I needed the professor to help me.

Doom is only concerned with explaining why he needed all 7 Emeralds - to amplify Chaos Control to full power. Using his explaination to say Chaos Emeralds are not needed is original research. Also there is a large amount of evidence saying specifically that a Chaos Emerald is used to induce Chaos Control (including the official Japanese site Sonic Channel, look at the paragraph in the Chaos Control article for more).

As for Shadow's use of Chaos Control in Last Way, Black Doom merely floated away with Shadow hot on his tail (saying that anything happened during Last Way to change that is equally as speculative as saying nothing changed it, if not more speculative), and it has been shown on several occassions that the power of the Chaos Emeralds can be tapped into without being in direct physical contact with them (Black Doom never touched the Emeralds to do a fully powered Chaos Control to warp down the Black Comet, Perfect Chaos had the Emeralds floating around its head as it finished draining their power, Shadow didn't use Chaos Control on Prison Island in SA2 to save Rouge until he finally got into the room where she and the Emeralds were trapped in, but still didn't touch them when he did, so if he didn't need an Emerald since the beginning why would Sonic Team continue to say he does in more recent bios and cutscenes?) Cigraphix (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of List of Avatar:The Last Airbender major secondary characters

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of Avatar:The Last Airbender major secondary characters, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of Avatar:The Last Airbender major secondary characters is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of Avatar:The Last Airbender major secondary characters, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DSM-IV Proposal

Would you consider adding any input to our proposal regarding the DSM-IV. Input is being collected on our talk page. Thanks! Mindsite (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of List of creatures of Avatar: The Last Airbender

I have nominated List of creatures of Avatar: The Last Airbender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject University of Central Florida

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Central Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Central Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thank you and Go Knights!

--Scpmarlins (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Thank you for your efforts to revert vandalism. However, please refrain from insulting the vandals, as this will only fuel the negative attention that they desire. Thank you. A8 UDI 22:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Prototime! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/* Team Dark */

There's only one reason why I keep editing the Sonic Hero's page....that is because what I'm saying is true. It has all the information in the Sonic Wiki and in the Sonic Hero's instruction booklet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.135.147 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 February 2011

The Sonic Wiki is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. And after looking through the manual, I do not see this "leadership" status clarified anywhere; your belief about who is the team "leader" seems to be based on your own inferences from reading the short team descriptions. For example, just because Rouge played an important role in forming Team Dark does not mean that she then became its "leader." If I'm missing something in the manual that makes explicit these character's leadership roles, then by all means add the material back in and provide the page citation to the manual. Otherwise, the information constitutes your own analysis and synthesis of the material and should not be included in the article. –[[::User:Prototime|Prototime]] (talk · contribs) 19:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Case law as reliable sources

Hello:

Thank you for the question. It appears you have a misunderstanding about what is meant by the citation requirement for reliable sourcing. The issue is not whether the case law you point to is reliable or not-- but whether the citation directly discusses the subject of the article. In the article The Star Chamber the section contains an interpretation of the film's depiction of events, and then cites court cases to support the claims-- but has no actual source for the interpretation. That is why it's Original Research -- it's presenting a novel interpretation.

Remember, the mantra for Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth," as noted at Verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion is...whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

What the section is doing, would be construed as a "Synthesis" -- creating an argument that, "The movie says X about the law, but these court cases say Y, and thus the movie is Z."

So stated at Reliable sources and original research:

Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position—called original synthesis, or original SYN—is prohibited by the NOR policy.

Hope that clarifies why the section you added was Original Research. If you can find a published article which directly discusses The Star Chamber and the legal issues that the section raises, those would be appropriate to cite. --HidariMigi (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: I had initially assumed that you were the original editor of the section, and had replied as such. In reviewing the edit log, I see that while you had edited the section in January, it was actually originated by an anon IP in December 2008. Sorry about the assumption. I've edited the above to correct that. --HidariMigi (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved article discussion and replied at Talk:The Star Chamber#RE:_Legal_accuracy --HidariMigi (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Why did you recently send me a message about some kind of warning?, recently I haven't edited anything except for some extra information on a Ratchet and Clank character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.135.147 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The warning I posted on the talk page associated with your IP address concerns several inappropriate edits that a user of that IP address made back in February to the Sonic Heroes page. Presumably you are not the same person as that editor; Wikipedia simply shows that you and this previous editor as using the IP address (which is not uncommon on Wikipedia), so you may safely ignore the warning message I posted back on February 17, 2011 as it was not directed to you personally. –[[::User:Prototime|Prototime]] (talk · contribs) 05:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Widener Law Ranking

Hey - U.S. News changed its ranking format in the 2012 edition of Best Law Schools. It gives a numerical value to the first 150 or so schools and considers everything else 2nd Tier. The 3rd and 4th Tiers have been banished. 98.235.125.61 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to changing it back? I don't want to piss anybody off! Thanks!!! 98.235.125.61 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the info. Do you have a link to your source info? I haven't been able to find anything to corroborate that, but admittingly I haven't searched too thoroughly either. Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get you an article...it shook up a lot of law school blogs this summer. 98.235.125.61 (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article re: U.S. News and World Report Law School Rankings: http://www.constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=216:us-news-hello-unemployment-goodbye-ttt&catid=42:news&Itemid=71

and

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/03/the-u-s-news-law-school-rankings-are-out/

Thanks! 98.235.125.61 (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]