User talk:Prototime
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
Contents |
[edit] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
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)
You sure enjoy that AWB don't you. H2P 01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- All right, sorry about that. Thanks for pointing out the oversight. Prototime 03:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
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)
[edit] 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)
