User talk:Ariel.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Re: Evangeline Lilly
All actors in Lost has this {{lostnav}} template in this page with the exception of this actress. I don't see this as being fair because all other performers on ABC's Lost has this Wikitemplate. I really don't have to put up with an edit war about this, but if you don't believe the reason why the LOSTNAV template has to be in this article, here are some references for example: Emilie de Ravin, Malcolm David Kelley, Daniel Dae Kim, all Lost performers have this template. It is extremely advisable that you check all Lost performer pages (like the aforementioned for examples) before you even attempt to remove the {{lostnav}} template. Hopefully I've stated a good reason why you need to put a template like I said even in an actors/actresses page. If you have a problem with that, you can either talk to me or Yamla. Thanks. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Then it should be removed from all the actors pages. 71.199.123.24 02:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- To recap: the ACTOR does not live on the lost island, only the character does. The actor does not get a lost nav on their page. Only the CHARACTER page gets it. Imagine if someone acted in 10 shows - does that mean they get a nav area for each one of the shows? No. They don't. They get links to their character page for each of the show, and on that page you put the nav. 71.199.123.24 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Aaaa...bring it to the attention of Yamla, since he pretty much watches over the pages. I'm not gonna do anything radical about the pages to protect my image, I'm gonna leave the "Lostnav" issue between you and Yamla. I'm not gonna interfere with this affair any further. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 02:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK. I'll leave a message for Yamla. Although he'll probably notice the message I left in the history log. Also: I have finished removing all the nav tags from the actor pages. 71.199.123.24 03:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Like I said, the reason why I want you and Yamla to discuss this (and any reasons why you MUST remove the Lostnav template from its respective pages) is because I'm really against removing templates from certain pages since that's a really radical move to make. Do whatever you think it's right, but keep in mind that there could be times when I might disagree with something because I consider it to be radical, and I just don't want to be the subject of an edit war under any circumstances. Also, I don't want the user to be in trouble for something he/she would never do. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have left a message for Yamla. You never said your opinion on the matter, just that you don't like radical changes. Basically I want to keep the distinction between the real and the fictional. 71.199.123.24 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Like I said, the reason why I want you and Yamla to discuss this (and any reasons why you MUST remove the Lostnav template from its respective pages) is because I'm really against removing templates from certain pages since that's a really radical move to make. Do whatever you think it's right, but keep in mind that there could be times when I might disagree with something because I consider it to be radical, and I just don't want to be the subject of an edit war under any circumstances. Also, I don't want the user to be in trouble for something he/she would never do. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK. I'll leave a message for Yamla. Although he'll probably notice the message I left in the history log. Also: I have finished removing all the nav tags from the actor pages. 71.199.123.24 03:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Aaaa...bring it to the attention of Yamla, since he pretty much watches over the pages. I'm not gonna do anything radical about the pages to protect my image, I'm gonna leave the "Lostnav" issue between you and Yamla. I'm not gonna interfere with this affair any further. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 02:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia Account
Have you ever thought about creating a Wikipedia Account? Just curious, that's all. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have actually - but I want the username Ariel, and that's taken User:Ariel. If not that one I can't think of a username........ 71.199.123.24 05:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not taken (that's why the link is red instead of blue). Feel free to sign up with the same (especially before someone else gets to it). -- joturner 05:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, it is taken, it's red because he hasen't created a user page. 71.199.123.24 06:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the log page for "Ariel" does not show that an account was created with that name... unlike, for example, my log page. If Wikipedia tells you that the name is taken, that is very odd. Perhaps you've seen a post by someone with a different user name who has changed his signature to "Ariel" ? --Eliyak T·C 15:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, it is taken, it's red because he hasen't created a user page. 71.199.123.24 06:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not taken (that's why the link is red instead of blue). Feel free to sign up with the same (especially before someone else gets to it). -- joturner 05:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Korban
Hello, Korbanot is being used in a sense that includes the complete set of Templeofferings -- meal-offerings (Mincha), wine-offerings, the first fruits on Shavuot, the water libation on Sukkot, etc. etc. FYI, doves weren't the only kinds of bird-offerings, see Leviticus 1:14. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- But the other kinds are not 'sacrifices' in terms of the english word. Saying usually makes it seem like humans were killed too. Maybe say something like animals were sacrifcied, and the other stuff was offered. Ariel. 01:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Coccidioidomycosis and dogs
The above disease is listed on the List of dog diseases, and I tried to tag all the articles listed there. In many cases, these articles hadn't been tagged at all yet, so I figured having the articles receive a quality assessment by whomever ultimately would be useful in general. For articles of perhaps "B" quality or higher, I also tried to ensure that the article itself specifically mentioned the canine aspect, however, for comparatively short articles, there wouldn't necessarily be enough information on the article to indicate which species of animals, human and non-human, were effected. I do have to acknowledge that I personally don't know based on the info available to me how common a disease it is among canines, because we don't have anything anywhere about that, so if it is a comparatively rare disorder among canines I would have no objection to the tag being removed. However, I do hope to be giving quality assessment rankings to all the articles I have tagged, if nothing else to make any subsequent rankings by other projects I bit easier and to let the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team have an indication of the current quality ranking of as many articles as possible. Unfortunately, I don't really know which other projects would consider the article within their scope, so the only one I could reasonably put down was the dogs banner, given that disease being listed on the list of dog diseases. I hope that answers your question, and, if you know more than I do about the subject (which wouldn't be hard in this case) and can say that it has only a minor connection to canines, I wouldn't have any objections to the banner's removal. Badbilltucker 14:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is an inactive Disease project and an active Medicine project. The latter project does assessments as well. Unfortunately, I am not personally at all sure of the scope of the latter project, being involved in actually none of the scientific projects, so I can't be sure whether they would consider it within their scope or not. So far as I can tell, those are the only other ones which even might claim the article to be within their scope. I understand your reservations about tagging diseases by the species affected. Generally, however, so far as I have seen, we try to make sure that any given article on a disease or fungus or whatever includes information on all the species affected and how they are affected. As I am virtually certain there is no current project relating to veterinary medicine (not that I would mind seeing one) this may be the only way to ensure that such content is ever introduced. Badbilltucker 23:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blogs as sources
- Regarding your re-addition to Coccidioidomycosis - I'm not randomly removing the link because I'm passing judgement on the blog in question, but Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources says that "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or comments on blogs, should not be used as sources." I'd like to have a conversation - let me know what you think. Thanks. -- MarcoTolo 03:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I put blog in quote in my edit summary because it's barely that, rather it's a medical analysis of the show. If you read a bunch of his reviews of the show you'll understand what I mean. A blog is someones personal thoughts - yes that's in there as a review, but also in there is scientific medical analysis of how realistic the medicine on the show is. I think it's an excellent source. Ariel. 04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the WP:RS guideline and the WP:V policy both seem to be clear: on-line or otherwise self-published sources are acceptable as primary sources (i.e. in an article about the Polite Dissent website itself), but are not acceptable as secondary sources (as in this case). Again, I'm not trying to "pass judgement" on the site -- I suspect the author is probably right -- but as I see it, the citation guidelines say "No can do" on this kind of usage. -- MarcoTolo 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Barring any further comments, I'm pulling the citation per above. -- MarcoTolo 02:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't reply because I don't know what to say - I completely disagree with you on this, and reading the guidelines only makes me more sure you are wrong about this. This is a doctor reporting standard medical knowledge, it's not personal stuff, there is no agenda, it's not even remotely contraversial. I don't understand why you think there is anything wrong with linking to someone giving very simple medical information about a show - and the stuff he says is very easy to verify. Not to mention we are talking about a TV show, which doesn't really need such super verification anyway! I think you are making a mistake and blindly applying guidelines without thinking about them. Ariel. 03:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, perhaps I'm not being clear - I'll try to be a little more logical in explaining my position. First of all, I'd appreciate it if you would let me know how you think I'm misinterpreting the reference/citation sections of WP:RS and WP:V. Please note that I'm not trying to be confrontational in asking - while I think I've considered the guidelines carefully, I'm under no delusion that I'm perfect.
- Again, I having nothing against the blog in question - I had never seen it before looking at your link . I also don't suspect you (or the blog) have an agenda. I do, however, think that references need a bit more "authority" behind them than "some doctor named Scott says so". And yes, the author's comments are pretty easy to investigate - what I'm saying is that Wikipedia should link to those reliable and authoritative sources directly. This gets around the problem nicely, which, after all, is why we have a guideline for this stuff in the first place. Citing reliable sources also allows for more specific, more nuanced referencing. As an example, the author's comments about coccidioidomycosis not having a neurological component are generally true: To be more correct, you would have to note that neuro symptoms in coccidioidomycosis infection is uncommon, but not unknown (here are a couple of PubMed refs I dug up in about three minutes: PubMed, PubMed), but then you might as well cite peer-reviewed journal articles themselves.
- I hope I've been a little clearer - let me know, eh? -- MarcoTolo 03:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't reply because I don't know what to say - I completely disagree with you on this, and reading the guidelines only makes me more sure you are wrong about this. This is a doctor reporting standard medical knowledge, it's not personal stuff, there is no agenda, it's not even remotely contraversial. I don't understand why you think there is anything wrong with linking to someone giving very simple medical information about a show - and the stuff he says is very easy to verify. Not to mention we are talking about a TV show, which doesn't really need such super verification anyway! I think you are making a mistake and blindly applying guidelines without thinking about them. Ariel. 03:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Barring any further comments, I'm pulling the citation per above. -- MarcoTolo 02:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the WP:RS guideline and the WP:V policy both seem to be clear: on-line or otherwise self-published sources are acceptable as primary sources (i.e. in an article about the Polite Dissent website itself), but are not acceptable as secondary sources (as in this case). Again, I'm not trying to "pass judgement" on the site -- I suspect the author is probably right -- but as I see it, the citation guidelines say "No can do" on this kind of usage. -- MarcoTolo 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
