User talk:InternetHero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wolverine

I'm sorry to keep reverting your edits but I don't think that YouTube video really bears the weight of such statements, either about the kinds of animals the wolverine is wiling to take on, or the reasons that those other animals may retreat from the battles. The video is about 5 seconds of a wolverine lunging at a wolf, interwoven with closeups of a wolverine and shots of two wolves (not a pack) circling something. The video ends before there's any resolution so we don't even find out how the argument ends (though I concede that the wolves don't seem too eager to stay with the fight). JohnInDC 03:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was meant to demonstrate the eye gouging attempt in co-herence with my past edit in respect to wolves and other such animals creating a strong message to stay clear or else serious predatory assets could be removed.
I've actually seen this video on a documentary and there were about 5-6 other wolves. I've also seen and another video and read that wolverines hide on tree branches for ambushing deer, but I don't suppose anything but resources available on the internet will be taken.
Maybe I can scan the book or something. InternetHero 02:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy of mind

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so you can't quote other Wikipedia articles as sources. Also, user talk pages are not for discussing article disputes. These discussions go on Talk:Philosophy of mind and nowhere else. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-27 23:04Z

Thank you. It seems I have lost the right to edit, so how would you consider I share my knowledge?


Publish a book or an article. If you're not qualified or capable, then try forums or blogs. There are almost an infinity of choices available these days. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll get started. Sorry for the trouble but I'm not useless. --User:InternetHero 16:01 - March 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

You have been repeatedly adding material for which no source is offered to Philosophy of mind. Wikipedia:Attribution is a core content policy on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so relies on previously published reliable sources for all of its content. The ability to cite sources for all proposed content is more important than either logic or getting it right. The disputed paragraph is being added without any sources cited, so the correct answer about whether or not to include it on Wikipedia is obvious - without reliable published sources, it does not belong in the article. Repeatedly adding the same material without trying to address this fundamental flaw with it is disruptive. Continuing to do so could result in a temporary loss of editing privileges here. Consider this a formal warning that your editing has been disruptive, and you are in danger of being blocked. GRBerry 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. InternetHero 02:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary on Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Please try to avoid "challenging" other users to edit wars as you did with your last edit summary on the above page. It is always best to assume good faith and be civil at all times. Thanks. -- Codeine 22:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya, you're righ, but I know somebody will change it. Nevertheless, Mozart created his music for all of us to enjoy. I do, however, beleive he would have wanted his 'real' picture.InternetHero 10:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I totally agree that infobox is very useful for studying and stuff. I used musical artist infobox for Mozart article (which was removed later), and it took me a while for adding all informations, cause i had to go through whole article to gather all informations. It's pretty neat to have it all on one place. I really don't see a reason why the composers should be an exception. Only valid explanation is that there's no proper infobox. But if we make a good one, I think there won't be a problem. Only we have to find out which data are most important to be in infobox. I was thinking of:

  • image and caption
  • birth name
  • also known as
  • born (date and place)
  • origin
  • died (date and place)
  • musical period
  • worked on (I'm not sure how to define this. things he/she composed. ex. symphonies, concertos, oratorios, etc.)
  • major instrument
  • other instruments
  • years active
  • influences
  • influenced
  • notable compositions
  • signature

What do you think? --Lošmi 14:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is finding a template that everyone will follow. Maybe putting a list of templates from a variety of people that an administrator can choose.InternetHero 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds ok. Only if there's one willing to do that. --Lošmi 22:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cree?

Back in April, you edited the article on the Cree, adding a mention of zygosity. Can you explain why you did this? DS 17:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to take it off. It was just non-sense. I do belive that Deganawida's vision is factual though as Balck people are beginning to be more and more impressive.InternetHero 01:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norse colonization of the Americas

[edit] Re:Contribution

Hi. I assume you are talking about Freydis and her battle against the Skraelings in Vinland. Well listening to what you said I guess that you have done nothing wrong. If you have got your sources and have not copied and pasted any infomation than you have not done anything wrong and they shouldn't be reverting your edits. I hope this helps. Kyriakos 00:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems I was. But, I plan to work on making them into my words which would actually be quite fun. It is nice to make a literary contribution to history as a whole. That is why I enlisted for Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. InternetHero 00:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing Issues

I am willing to look into this problem, but I need a link to this article before I can do so. Will you please provide me with one? Thanks. Captain panda 01:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. The orignal issue was about Freydis and my honorable attempt to add flavour to the account of her voyage to Vinland, but it now seems that the issue is regarding my valuable contribution to the 'Norse colonization of the Americas'. The administrtor has told me to revert the edits in my own words, but I think he has failed to realize that I have tried to do so from the very start in order to merge the existing information. I have nevertheless tried to proceed further, but it seems not good enough. I think you'd agree that it looks nothing like the original information, which I pretty much copied from 'Canadian History for Dummies' only because I thought that is what I was supposed to do. Anyway, I've tried very hard to show my resolution in this matter but to no avail. I would have to ask if my contributions are worthless, because I think they aren't. If you see that they aren't useful, I will take your opinion into consideration. Here the link: [1] Thank you for your time. It is greatly appreciated as I feel I have done nothing wrong besides learn how to be a better contributer. I wish not to fight at all, my friend. InternetHero 01:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
a cut-and-paste should be avoided just for general principles, but a good faith mistake is easily corrected without prejudice to the editor. The main thing in contributing is to keep your cool (admittedly it can be trying, and I am no paragon of patience)--tones are impossible to discern on the 'net, and inevitably the harshest interpretation is the one taken. If your information is from a competent source (usu. but not always a published work) and you have correctly re-written the information in your own words, you're good to go. Occasionally you will run into an editor who takes a proprietary attitude to an article (I have been guilty of that a few times), but if you remain civil and explain your edits, things usu. work out without having to take the edits to any type of wiki arbitration. Normally, a concise and civil explanation in the edit summary box does the trick--be sure you do this. If not, discuss the change and make your case on the article's talk page. Again, civility is the key--don't let yourself be goaded into replying in kind. Always take the time to explain you're trying to improve the article--this gets lost in discussions of specifics. From what I can see, your contributions should be okay now. Good luck and keep contributing--the more you do, the more you learn.--Buckboard 05:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
It was actually a copyright issue. Thanks for your time, though. I'll take your advice for future reference. InternetHero 18:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

I've blocked you for 24 hours for non-compliance with copyright policy in the face of warnings. I've posted a request for review of the block at WP:ANI#InternetHero. If you want to add something there you can write it here and I'll add it (or a notice of it) to the ANI thread. (You can still edit your own talk page.) You can also request a review by using the 'unblock' template. I actually instated the block a couple of hours ago. I should have notified you with a message here immediately but failed to do so. I regret that. Haukur 12:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok.
"Unauthorized commercial publication or exploitation of text, images or content of this website is specifically prohibited. Anyone wishing to use any of these files or images for commercial use, publication, or any purpose other than fair use as defined by law, must request and receive prior written permission from the Smithsonian Institution. Permission for such use is granted on a case-by-case basis at the sole discretion of Smithsonian's Office of Product Development and Licensing. A usage fee may be assessed depending on the type and nature of the proposed use." [2]So this isn't GDFL-compatible, right? Well, its from anoter article, but I'm not going to say where. --InternetHero 18:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contribution

I agree with CaptainPanda that it would have been helpful to have a wikilink such as Norse colonization of the Americas or Freydís Eiríksdóttir. Looking over the edits you have done and comparing them with the original page there is an issue with copyright and how far you can go to edit the original text. The copyright status of the original page is certainly dubious with regards to Wikipedia "for non-commercial use", in many peoples eyes wikipedia is a commercial entity. I do think Haukur was right to remove the "offending text". I think that you should try to rewrite the text and possibly put it in a before putting it into the article. I have several sandboxes that i use. Wikipedia is about building a WP:CONSENSUS ad in this case the consensus seems to be against you. Whilst administrators are by no means infallible they do have the best intentions and copyright violations are very serious. I see now that you have now been blocked. I think it is sad that you have been blocked because you seem to have the best of intentions but the reasoning is there at the [[ANI. I hope that this block does not dissuade you from editing in the future. I agree with Buckboards sentiments and i hope that you learn from this experience. Good luck in the future and i will be happy to help with any further questions/problems. Woodym555 19:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'll use your suggestion about the sandbox. InternetHero 18:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Law Law

Major Native American Victories

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

Nominal Native American Victories

[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]

Major European Victories [47][48] <---- N/A = Mixed-breed Indians [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]

Nominal European Victories [55][56][57] [58][59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64][65] [66] [67] [68] [69] <---- N/A = British cowards.

Neutral

[70] [71] [72][73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] <--- N/A = Procters' an idiot.


22 majors (Indians) 22 minors (Indians) Total: 44

8 majors (Euro) 15 minors (Euro) Total: 23

[edit] re: timeline of important inventions

You don't seem to understand, the entire list is indeed unreferenced, even the ones with references on.

The problem is that by adding them to the list the editor is making the claim that these are important inventions. But in the absence of a cite that that is so, that is Original research.

So basically almost none of the list are referenced right; and it's not a small thing. For example is a blue LED really an important invention? What are blue leds used for anyway? Microcredits- should they be here? Hybrid cars? Should any of the inventions be here? Where do we draw the line? It shouldn't be the editors call on this, it should be from elsewhere.WolfKeeper 22:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say. "So basically almost none of the list are referenced right, and it's not a small thing." This really doesn't make any sense. The category holder for the wrong-doing here isn't the references at all; It's a matter of [consensus|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CONSENSUS]. The references portray the proper information viable to write on Wikipedia. I think the article may need a "cleanup" instead of reference problems? What do you think? I won't revert your edit, as I haven't contributed there, but I will take it up in the talk page. Good day fellow, Internet Hero. InternetHero 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart‎

You've been revert-warring on the above page re. the image for a long, long time, and are doing so against the clear consensus on the talk page. Please - reconsider your next revert as you're in great danger of being blocked for revert-warring - Alison ❤ 05:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to see for myself. I can't sondly believe that Wikipedia is based on a mere consensus rather than verifiable sources. I am pretty sure that the neutral point of view act overrides the consensus. I may be wrong, but I have to see for myself. Good day. InternetHero 05:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In your case, there appears to be doubt as to the veracity of your sources, and therein lies the problem. How and ever, coming back day after day and revert-warring is not the way to move forward here; it's just being disruptive - Alison ❤ 05:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As you suggested, I am blocking you briefly. Thanks. I have no doubt that you are making your contributions in good faith, but edit warring is not the way forward. Alison put it very well on the talk page: no-one should be out to win or lose. Wikipedia works by building consensus, and if you will not accept this then I encourage you to consider whether contributing at Wikipedia is the best use of your talents. If you want to publish an article about Mozart that meets entirely with your approval, then I suggest you get your own web space and put a modified copy of the article there. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, RobertG. I just know that I can find people to support me, but it is out of a mere quantative level, rather than a qualative one. Anyway, I hope I can find some other way to hold Leopold's reference in correspondence. If he like the Croce painting so much, he would have made the same remark - no? InternetHero 06:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
In this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart&diff=169654720&oldid=168415356 on Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart you deleted one previous contributions by me and one by yourself and inserted a number of new comments into a previous contribution by yourself. This is absolutely unacceptable. Don't do that! Antandrus has kindly restored the previous comments. Michael Bednarek 02:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I did it as a favour to you. It seemed very childish from both of us, so I was acting out of good faith. Nevertheless, I am sorry. Sincerely, InternetHero 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice Special:Contributions/InternetZero. Whoever that is, s/he is very welcome here. But I should be grateful if both of you would please read the official Wikipedia policy about what is called meatpuppetry. Best wishes. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

O.K., but I think he's acting on his own; we're friends but he's also into music. Like I said before though, anyone who is agreeing with my doing so because they believe it themselves 100%. I am very honorable and my teachers/friends share the same interests, and, luckily for me, they feel EXACTLY the same way. Indeed, it was my teacher Mr. John Dominic who had a copy of the Bologna-Mozart in his classroom. Please believe me when I say that I'd never try to manipulate Mozart in any way, post-humurously or not. There is only just few people who I respect as much as Mozart, and, who I would do ABSOLUTELY anything for. InternetHero 01:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bologna Mozart

I have been looking at your comments and associated discussion over the choice of image for the top of the article, IMHO its not worth edit waring over. I'll ask the question is the picture worthy of an article in its own right, are there enough sources to assert notability, do the discussion surrounding its detail warrant separate discussion, is its ownership of note. Afterall we are writing an encyclopedia and other famous paintings are subjects of articles like. Mona Lisa, The Scream, anyway its just a thought. Gnangarra 04:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome

Please note that this is not a licence to start suggesting people who disagree with you are unreasonable and uneducated, that would be a good way to get blocked. ;) 86.44.6.14 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy VII

You have been active in a dispute regarding evidence to prove the sentience of Cait Sith in the computer game Final Fantasy VII. A poll has been set up in order to find consensus of editors of the page regarding the evidence. Please post your opinions on the talk page. Cait's Sentence Poll. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)