User talk:Tani unit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 21:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Personal attacks in edit summaries

Please do not make personal attacks on Wikipedia. When reverting vandalism on the Wikipedia page MySpace, you used the edit summary "rv - somebody ban this asshole". While you are welcome to revert vandalism on Wikipedia, please do not make personal attacks towards any user even if their own conduct is unacceptable. For more information on why you should not make personal attacks toward vandals, see Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. Thank you, Andrew_pmk | Talk 03:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

no problem, won't happen again Tani unit 11:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As an addendum to Andrew's polite request, it is also best not to place your opinions in the edit summary. When you edited a few words out of Shadow of the Colossus you remarked that they were "silly." The edit summary is better used to provide an acurate description of what you changed, rather than your opinion on what was changed, unless what you changed was vandalism or patent nonsense. It is also considered bad form to mark an edit as minor when it isn't (especially when you delete something). Please see How to edit a page (minor edits). On the other hand, the redundant bits you removed from Wander's character bio were a good idea! Keep up the good work, but please police your edit summaries so as to reduce the chance of offending someone—it could be that another user entered the text you removed because he thought it was important, and it's always hard to see someone else remove that text, even when it's not referred to as silly.  :) Cheers! —ZorkFox (Talk) 19:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

didn't realize that the word "silly" might be offensive, but i think you make a valid point never the less. i do sometimes get a bit personal in my commentary and will make sure to avoid that in the future entirely. as far as "minor edits" you're quite right, i should have checked the guidelines more thoroughly. thanks for bringing it to my attention. Tani unit 23:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Screw that. By reverting an edit, it's already implied that you think it's a bad edit. Why shouldn't he say so? Especially in that article, where bad edits run rampant. You ought to be thanking him for making those edits, not criticizing him for his summaries. Karwynn 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sora's Folktale

Do you, by chance, know which Midori has performed this song? Because I have already asked Aisle 12 about it but apparently he has trouble answering it... --Koveras 06:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately no, i have ran a search but could not find a last name(or is Midori a last name?) attached to it anywhere.

Japanese imported cd i have doesn't seem to list her as anything other then just "Midori", but then again, considerable portion of info there is in japanese. Of those listed on wikipedia, i think Midori Goto seems like the most likely candidate, but the name is by no means uncommon. The person who might answer with any degree of certainty runs the site at http://www.lizzard.net, she seems to have amassed a great deal of information on Escaflowne movie. I would inquire with her. Tani unit 11:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have also thought about Midori Goto, since it says in the article that "she dropped the surname" and is "usually referred to simply as 'Midori'", but I don't know whether she also sings... I'll try to get in contact with the admin of lizzard.net. --Koveras 14:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do let me know when and if she responds with some info. I myself would be interested to find out who exactly is this singer. Tani unit 00:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, Webmistress said that no family name has ever been officially credited, thus, no one knows the real identity of the performer. I guess, it stays a mystery forever... Unless someone gets in touch with Yoko Kanno. ^^ --Koveras 20:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dormin

Hey Unit, I was wondering, is the issue of the Dormin/Nimrod speculation information being added, finished? -- Psi edit 19:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently due to it not being a cited sourse, by guidelines it doesn't belong here, so the connections section is gone (at least for now).

So yeah, I guess it's finished for the time being. Tani unit 22:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow of the COlossus

Hey, thanks for all your work on this article, specifically policing it. I don't know why, but this article has more fan speculation than any article I've ever seen. Good work on trying to get rid of it, screw what the WikiBureaucrats say, don't let 'em bring you down! Karwynn 16:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow of the Colossus (2)

You seem to know a thing or two about the SotC article. I'm currently working on referencing everything, possibly up to FA standard, depending on how things go. Obviously, it's entirely up to you, but do you want to help? -- Steel 17:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Gladly. You guys seem to have everything in hand so far but I'll see what I can do.
Although, I'd have to ask you to point out facts you want sourced or sections you would like to address, in my talk page or article's page. I simply don't have the time right now to go through the whole article. But I'd happily work on something specific.
Tani unit 00:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to work on the Descriptions and Story sections (rewrite them and provide sources), but I've had trouble referencing the Connections to Ico section, and I think it's pretty key to the article. That's where I need the help. Thanks for helping! -- Steel 11:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assassin's Creed

In response to t he source of multiplatform news, here is one article: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/26/the-mystery-of-assassins-creeds-exclusivity/

Additionally, the hardware used to show the demo at E3 was an Xbox 360, and this information has been widely available since the release.

Maikero 08:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, wikipedia's content is based on verifiable fact. Now the first link is clearly nothing but a rumor that has yet to be confirmed by Ubi (and so far they denied it), while the second does not imply that 360 release will happen. For instance, it is possible that up to E3 the game was being developed multiplatform and 360 build was the most complete, so that is the build that was displayed (on it's native hardware) but shwon only for the sake of displaying the game at all. The game is currently licensed only to Sony which is what Ubi's site maintains. Until that changes that is what the article will say.

If peole are so certain it's multilatform then what's the hurry, wait for the announcement and then change the article accordingly. Until such announcement I will have to revert any edits concerning other platforms as being confirmed for release. I am not a ps3 fan or 360 hater, far from that. I simly want the article to reflect the current state of fact on the matter. Mentioning rumors from sources such as oneup is okay, but they are not confirmed release info, they are rumors. Tani unit 17:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but from the talk pages and from the list of articles you've started, it seems that you think you are some master of Assassin's Creed's article just because you started it? (previos unsigned comment was added by user Mosenmori)

Exaclty what gave you that idea? Honestly, I have no idea what are you talking about. I haven't edited that article in months and the only controversies I was involved in with that article were about people adding multiple release platforms before they were confirmed. All of that was resolved a long time ago. Tani unit 21:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edits

Removing redundancies is necessary; see Tony1's redundancy guide. — Deckiller 20:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not just removing (seeming) redunduncy, you're lowering the overall quality of the article with questionable grammar and sentence structures. Tani unit 20:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Which is the point of those inline queries. — Deckiller 20:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not talking about those, I am reffering to specific instances when you substituted or taken out word from the text. Those are very questionable improvements, as Ryu Kaze seems to agree. Tani unit 20:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you give a specific example? -- Steel 20:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shadow_of_the_Colossus&diff=66732998&oldid=66732825

Reverted by me are some of the edits in question. Tani unit 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the diff. Which particular rephrasing did you not like? -- Steel 20:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
In all honesty I don't think I like a single one of them. They seem pointless and imo grammatically, the words he has taken out belong there.Tani unit 20:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It would seem I may have come across as being hostile in this particular situation and I apologize for that. But I still believe that most of the word substituions were unnecessary and in no way improved the grammar or prose of the article. Tani unit 20:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Remember, Deckiller made the edits he did to improve the encycopedia, not take a stab at you. A friendly discussion is always better than reverting on sight. -- Steel 20:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I will keep that in mind. I gather you think the edits in question were an improvement though? I'm not looking to start an argument, just want to hear opinions. Tani unit 20:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did. If you can say exactly the same thing in fewer words, do it. -- Steel 20:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give examples then. For instance, what's the point of replacing "location" with "area"? Shrine of Worship is a location, not an area. Or "colossi's environmental changes" vs "how the colossi react to environmental changes" drastically changes the whole meaning of the sentence. I realize that shortening the sentences is a good idea, but a lot of the edits that were made were of this nature. Tani unit 21:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I did go crazy on a couple of the redundancies; namely, removing usage of "located" in one sentence. Perhaps that can be changed to "dwells" or "lives"? I've never played this game, so I'm not sure. Ryu redid some of the other ones. — Deckiller 20:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that both of us got overzealous. Hopefully you guys won't hold a grudge. Tani unit 21:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No problems here. The idea of having someome unfamiliar with the text is that they'll notice prose errors that the others don't. However, this also leads to problems, because if the unfamiliar editor knows next to nothing about the article as a whole or the content, things like this happen. — Deckiller 21:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Glad we have worked that out. Seeing unfamilair editors doing massive edits sometimes sets off "well-intended vandalism" alarms in my head. If after this incident you are not completely turned off to the idea of proofreading the article, it could still work. Steel, Ryu, I and a few others who are constantly editing the article have played the game so spotting any inconsistencies afterwords would not be a problem.

It's a bit of extra work, but I for one wouldn't mind doing it. Tani unit 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help out during the FA nomination (that way, we'll know if needs work based on Tony1's comments). — Deckiller 21:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Help

That discussion is really confusing. I take it we're discussing whether or not this thing called SHODAN is a reference to some martial art? If so, yeah, that needs to be sourced. Especially as the instruction manual says it stands for something else and the game has nothing to do with martial arts (as I understand it). And that THX-1138 thing isn't definite either (To be honest that whole trivia section should go). See WP:OR, "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following ... It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms". That's pretty much what that SHODAN thing is about.
I've never played this game so I may have missed something, but that's my take on it. If you could confirm this is correct I'll post it on the talk page. -- Steel 21:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll post something on the talk page. -- Steel 21:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Remember, they have to prove that it is a reference to the martial art rank. You don't have to prove that it's not. -- Steel 21:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Medsci.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Medsci.gif. 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. 07:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hypocrisy

You dare claim that one must cite, but your list of edited articles doesn't have "cite this" next to the name on the Von Braun article. Where is your citiation?! You could be making up this fact! I have no faith in your articles! I demand a 2005-or-newer link from Looking Glass Studios directly stating that the VB was named after the rocket scientist!

(Damn, that came off a bit harsher than I'd like... granted, demanding citations for things like the VB is as inane as anything, but came off harsh.)

Scumbag 02:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Join us in the "Terminator" Article discussion page...please...

If you are still a member of Wikipedia, please join user:TomTheHand and myself in a discussion of which terms should apply to the Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 Infiltration Unit in its various forms.

To be as neutral as possible, I will relate the views of TomTheHand as well as my own, as accurately as posible:

Tom believes that the term "Android" should apply to all of the incarnations of the Model 101, from Endoskeleton all the way up to the gestalts of flesh-and-blood and the combat chassis played by Arnold in the movies. He furthermore believes that the term "cyborg" does not apply to any of the Terminator's forms.

Thanos777 -myself -thinks that the Terminator is worthy of multiple appelations depending on which configuration (read: Type/Series) the Model 101 is configured as.

That is to say, I believe that the "Base" Model 101, just the endoskeleton with no cosmetic enhancements, is best defined as either a Humanoid Robot, Anthropomorphic Robot, or simply a Robot.

When the Model 101 is outfitted as a Type/Series 600, the endoskeleton covered by rubber skin, I believe that the Terminator is then most correctly classified as an "android."

And finally, when the Model 101 is equipped as a Type/Series 800/850, the endoskeleton with the living flesh-and-blood covering, I believe that the most correct term for the creatre is "cyborg."

Again, I respectfully ask you to come back to the "Terminator" Article and lend your input; those of us who are there in the Article's discussion page are engaging in a lot of back-and-forth regarding the different terms and the disagreements as to when they should be used.

Hope to "see" you there soon!!!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/n/User_talk%7ETani_unit_64f4.html"