User talk:JBK405

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, JBK405, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Possible

Great job on all the edits to the Kim Possible page! If you have any question, feel free to ask me in my talk page. Keep up the good work and have fun editing! =D Jumping cheese Contact 03:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel L. Jackson

Thanks for contributing to the article. I have heard Jackson say those lines, but I need you to please add a reference, since it appears to be a quotation. If you find an article online, just go ahead and paste the link in my talk page and I'll take care of it. Keep up the good work and welcome again. --Nehrams2020 06:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malcolm Reynolds

First, just wanted to thank you for going through the articles and getting rid of the fancruft that had accumulated-- I've been meaning to, but just haven't found the time. There's one edit though that I wanted to discuss with you. It's the change you made to Badger in the Malcolm Reynolds article -- This was changed to something that is no longer a synopsis of what was said in the commentary (which is the source listed at the end of the sentence). So either the ref should be deleted, or it needs to be reverted back. I think it should be the latter since the change was something a little more speculative/interpretive. I added the original with the ref, but it's been awhile so please correct me if in the commentary, Whedon does say Mal's arrogance was an impediment. Thanks! --plange 15:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've listened to the commentary on Serenity so I can't confirm if my edit matches with the commentary (Which I admit I should have done before changing the info), but I feel that my edit matches what was shown in the actual episode. Badger himself stated that he felt Mal thought he was better than other people, and he said that was why he didn't like dealing with Mal; and he once held the entire crew hostage at gunpoint. I should probably change the reference to the episode itself, not the commentary, but I think my edit still fits. JBK405 16:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If so, yep, change it to the episode. How about we include both statements? --plange 16:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for this. I can't believe I didn't notice that before! Well done- CattleGirl talk | e@ | review me! 01:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All Things Avatar

Hey man, we have a [Wikiproject] (I can't link it correctly for some reason) for Avatar. You seem to be pretty active you should consider joining. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 01:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taj Mahal/ Wan Shi Tong's Library

Why did you delete my connection between the library's arcitecture and the Taj Mahal??

-Robert 25

Don't get me wrong, I think it looks similar as well, but we need some kind of third-party source to put in such a comparison. We can't go just by our own eyes, if we did then people would go crazy with "I think this building looks like that building." We need some kind of official comparison between the two of them. JBK405 17:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fire birth right

I know i can't prove it, but in Zuko Alone, Ozai stated that Iroh had the birthright and asked it to be given to him. I'm pretty sure that when Ozai became Fire Lord, it was through some conspiracy that allowed him to become fire lord which is why it wasn't Iroh who was fire lord. Cnriaczoy42 23:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, Zuko Alone is the one episode that I haven't seen (Doesn't it always work out that way?), but I've managed to piece together what happened from reading both Wikipedia and other such internet sources. Unless I'm mistaken, Ozai first said that Iroh should be passed over because he had no heirs to continue the bloodline (Lu Ten had recently died), and after Azulon died it was said that it was his dying wish that Ozai be granted the throne (Although not everybody actually buys that story).

It certainly implies that preference is given to the elder child, just as it is with real nobility, but it's not an unswerveable event. The Fire Lord apparently has influence over who receives the title, since it was Azulon's "dying wish" that gave Ozai the title, and a persons history could effect the inheritence (Such as Iroh's lack of an heir and Zuko's lack of honor). I'm pretty sure that when Zuko was banished way back when he was stripped of his birthright, he's not allowed to even set foot in Fire Nation territory. JBK405 23:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

aggreed, but Azulon was angry at the thought of passing the birthright to Ozai. that is what makes everyone belive it was a conspiracy. that and Zuko's mom mentioning Azuong was in perfect health and her misterious disaperance. Cnriaczoy42 00:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oyah, I know he didn't actually wish that Ozai get the throne, but the official story is that he did, and that's what put Ozai on top, so it shows that the reigning Fire Lord has at least some say in who's next in line, it's not an automatic first-born thing.

Besides, everybody likes Azula more than Zuko anyway, Ozai would probably just kill him and give Azula the throne if it ever came down to chosing between the two of them. JBK405 00:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar spiritual sight

In the swamp, Aang had to use contact in order to locate Appa. He needed to physically touch the tree (the heart and basis of the swamp) in order to follow its roots to locate Appa and Momo. Likewise, Pathik had to physically touch Appa in order to follow his connection to Aang and locate him.

The ability to follow connections seems to be a Spiritual ability, given that Guru Pathik is a "spiritual expert" and Aang is the Spirit medium. As such, these should be mentioned in the "Spirit" section of Aang's page.

However, both those events are very different from what happened in "The Guru". Here, he saw Katara in danger at the same time as it was happening, with no contact or basis of connection to follow. He made the connection to her, spontaneously, on his own. Very different from following a pre-established connection using a physical starting point. While not truly telepathic it was the best word I could come up for it. I would dub it "limited spiritual sight" and reinstate it in Aang's article, as it is definitely something worth mentioning, albeit with a different wording and under the "Spirit" heading instead of "Medium" heading. Sage of Ice 02:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't actually know that he had to use contact with the tree in order to sense where Appa was, at the time he didn't really know how the thing worked, he was just making it up as he went along (As he has so often pointed out, there's nobody around to teach him this stufs. Well...okay, nobody until the Guru shows up). This might have just been a new form of what he (And Pathik) have done before.

But I'll grant that it's worth noting and should be kept in the article, since it isn't the exact same thing. However, I still don't think it belongs in either the Spirit or Medium sections. The Spirit and Medium sections both relate specifically to his Avatar status and abilities and, though being the spiritual bridge is certainly a help when using spirit abilities, this doesn't seem to solely be "Avatar stuff" (As Sokka so termed it in the Swamp); it might not have been the same, but others have performed similar feats. Maybe a new secion relating to non-Avatar mysticism, or something along those lines. JBK405 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Different topic, same show.
Flying Bisons. In the episode "Appa's Lost Days", the Fire Nation circus owner directly refers to Appa as a "Wind Buffalo". As such, in the world of Avatar: The Last Airbender, the Flying Bison can also be called a "Wind Buffalo". They may have the official name of Flying Bison in the franchise, thus why it's the section header, but in the story universe they are also known as the "Wind Buffalo", thus why it needs to be mentioned. This makes sense, if you ask me. Like in the real world, different nations have different names for certain animals.
Also, material that is supplemental to the actual episodic series needs to be mentioned and cited. This includes the DVD, the official site, and any interviews made by websites. All this stuff is supplemental and therefore can't just be stated. Stating it implies that it was established in the actual series. So this needs to be addressed when saying what hybridizes into the Flying Bison. Sage of Ice 08:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

True, it has been called a Wind Buffalo, but it's also been called a Sky Bison, Air Bison, Flying Buffalo, and others. If you're going to list alternative names then all the alternative names need to be listed, and when we're nearing ten variations we just can't list them all. Only listing one of the possibilities shows a user-oriented preference, and we can't do that.

But you're also right that we need to source the DVD's, I'll mark that. JBK405 23:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I shall mark the article section so that no superfluous names are added to the Flying Bison. Sage of Ice 00:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And I just added a "The creators say" bit to the Flying Bison section of the Air Nomads page. JBK405 00:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, so why did you remove that bit about the avatar cycle in the deserter episode. Regardless of what the legend is, it seems rather clear that his ability to learn fire bending before he learned earth bending contradicts the legend. The Avatar does not need to learn in any particular order. Is that why you removed it?

It's never been stated, or even implied, that the Avatar is incapable of learning the bending arts outside of the order, just that he's not supposed to (As Jeong Jeong himself states). Not only did he learn Firebending before even starting Earthbending, but Aang began learning Earthbending before he'd actually managed to master Waterbending, too. It's not worthy of note, except in the main article synopsis where it describes what Jeong Jeong said, because it doesn't contradict any given data. JBK405 07:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaborators (Battlestar Galactica)

Howdy! I've reverted an edit you made to Collaborators (Battlestar Galactica), please see the talk page. I think I've identified the error you may have made in reading the relevant text. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I did misread that, sorry. Thanks for reverting it. JBK405 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting new, unnecessary articles

See [1] for more. I seek your assistance in deciding the deletion of three new, unnecessary Avatar-related articles. Thank you. Y BCZ 17:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firebending styles

I recently noticed that you got into the middle of an edit war with the anonymous user 71.163.66.162 on the Firebender page. Well, I have been in one with them over the Styles section (which I recently edited, please see the history for his edits). The material quoted as coming from the “Lost Scroll” is completely wrong. Please refer to my comments on the articles talk page. I have a quoted passage from a martial arts book which refutes their info. Also, when I originally posted the book comment, the anonymous user “modified” the sentence pertaining to one of the styles because I disproved what they had originally written. Yet, they still continue to say their info came from the lost scrolls. I don’t believe them and that’s why I put up the {{Verify}} tag.

I believe that the writers of the Lost scroll would have consulted a martial arts expert just like the show would a culture expert. I highly doubt a martial arts master would describe their own style incorrectly. They practice it and know what parts of the body are used. I believe this user ‘thought they recognized’ a certain martial arts move and then wrongly cited their opinion as coming from the Lost Scroll book. Read my comments on the talk page and tell me what you think.

Also, I’m going to post a message on the avatar wikiproject to see if anyone actually has this Lost Scroll book and can verify the info. Even if it does, the information is horribly incorrect and should not be used on the Firebender page. (Ghostexorcist 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

My little eidt war was, essentially, me trying to loop-hole out of keeping that information in the article. It was improperly sourced and, as such, was grounds for deletion. However, the anonymous user now has all the proper references for his notes, so I've got no rule-supported reasons to delete them. The info might be wrong, and downright incomprehensible, but, as is Wikipedias long-standing policy, Wikipedia is based around verifiability, not truth. With an official source for the info, we have no legitimate reason to continue to delete it, much to my chagrin. Right now, I'm pursuing other means of getting the info removed, namely trying to determine if The Lost Scrolls are canon or not. I'd never heard of them before yesterday, so I have no idea what their background is, or their status with relation to the rest of the Avatar universe, and right now all my eggs are in the "It doesn't really count" basket. However, if it turns out that they're creator/publisher canon, we just have to grin and bear them. Wrong or no, they'd be legit.

Of course, if it turns out that The Lost Scrolls are not canon, or that the information is not actually in them, then we can just continue to delete these edits and report to the administrators if they keep coming back. JBK405 08:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hathor

Hi. I'm wondering if you know a source which states that the Stargate episode "Hathor" isn't canon. Thanks. Makgraf 23:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the source. I hadn't even thought it wasn't canon (Though I didn't particularly like the episode) until I saw the article here. JBK405 20:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No prob. If you ever do find a source there's a question about it on this page. Makgraf 07:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "You don't delete a persons entry on a Talk page"

afaik, you can delete obvious vandalism from a talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vstarre (talk • contribs) 16:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Farscape

Hi. Why have you been deleting large sections of the Farscape episode pages?QuizzicalBee 02:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Never mind, JBK405! It's been explained to me—no original research.QuizzicalBee 17:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boss Relief

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Boss Relief, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ... discospinster talk 18:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I created the article, and added the majority of its contents, but I'm not going to fight to keep it if the other Wikipedia members feel it needs to be deleted. JBK405 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks2

hay thanks for editing the section on firefly trivia i had made some changes previously but hadnt done any thing big just wanted to say good work, ure version is much better thanks Kobol 18:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'm always happy to lend a helping hand. JBK405 22:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Window of Opportunity

Hi. Any particular reason for reverting that bit of trivia about Fruit Loops?
—wwoods 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not very clear on what exactly it's referring to. It seems to be saying that they glued it to the spoon so that it would be Fruit Loops every time, not that they glued it so the individual pieces would be in the same position. JBK405 14:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Siege of the North (Battle) redirect

Hi there. I noticed you turned the article into a redirect and subsequently deleted the Afd notice. You're not supposed to remove deletion notices and you're not supposed to turn the article into a redirect while the Afd discussion is still going on. If you want to, you can vote for a redirect in the discussion. --Atlan (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you learn something new every day. Good to know. JBK405 14:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. It's not a big deal, I know you had the best of intentions. Happy editing! --Atlan (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh one more thing. I nominated the article for deletion instead of making it a redirect, because a redirect doesn't keep Jimblack from simply reverting the article. I think you'll agree that the article is totally redundant, so deletion seemed best to me. Just so you know.--Atlan (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psamtik image

Sup. Thanks for doing work on the Window of Opportunity article, by the way, but that's a digression... you removed GVD_Hatshepsut.png from the Galactic Terran-Vasudan Alliance article. I put it there because it's a fair-use image that has now been orphaned after the mass deletion of Freespace ship articles, and it also happens to be quite an impressive one -- it'd be a shame to lose it. If you don't think it's appropriate to feature in the GTVA article, fair enough, but do you have any suggestions on where it would fit? --Kizor 20:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a great picture, I'm a FreeSpace nut myself, but it was in the "Structure of the GTVA" section, and it really didn't have anything to do with the text. I think it'd be a fine picture as long as it made sense in conext, maybe on a page or section about the GTVA military or the actual wars within the game. JBK405 22:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That would indeed be good, but a bit difficult, seeing as how we're down to five Freespace articles and falling to three. --Kizor 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of part of "Beneath the Surface (Stargate SG-1)"

Hey, just curious why you deleted the part about the Nintendo Zapper light-guns being used as props from this page. How is that not a relevant note or point of trivia in the same or similar way as the other notes on that page are? MrPumpernickel 01:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My thinking was pretty much along the lines of "How can you tell?" It might have simply been a similar looking prop, or an homage (I'm sure at least some of the SG-1 prop guys have kids who used to play Nintendo), it's not definitively known to be a Nintendo zapper, and I like to err on the side of caution (People already point to trivia sections, and TV show articles in general, as POV and conjecture filled nonsense). Unless, of course, it is certain, maybe described as such on an episode commentary or something like that, in which case my edit was completely unnecessary. If that's the case, just revert my edit, or let me know and I'll do it myself. JBK405 03:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I paused the DVD and looked closely, comparing to the real life copy I have at home. It's an exact match down to the grooves on the butt. The source is the actual episode in itself. As I see it there are two possibilities, either they got themselves a bunch of Zappers and repainted them or they made moulds and very exact replicas. The only thing that's off aside from the colors are the obvious lack of Nintendo logotypes on the on-screen guns. The question then is really how far one should take "reasonable doubt". I don't think of it as a rip off, it's quite likely a homage from the prop department if anything. MrPumpernickel 22:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're that sure then go ahead and add it back, I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. JBK405 03:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Notes"

Hi, if you wish you use the discussion tab to discuss the insertion of trivial notes. But please do not re-insert disputed content. Matthew 21:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Also please do not remove maintenance tags, not being integratable isn't a good enough reason to remove a cleanup tag. If it can't be integrated it probably isn't encyclopaedic. Matthew 23:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Most Stargate pages only have one single section; "Plot Synopsis." Production information, ongoing themes, and yes, occasionally fun facts, do not belong in the Plot Synopsis secion, but deserve to be on the page (Perhaps even more so than the Plot section, since they give info from outside the episode itself). I do not believe in having three seperate sections each with only one sentence, and I believe I heard somewhere else on Wiki that it's oficially frowned-upon, so one section for the non-Plot, yet important, info is necessary. It makes the Trivia tags unnecessary and detrimental, since pople often just delete instead of improving when told a section needs to go away, and thus lessens each page. JBK405 23:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am, however, more than willing to discuss this; this isn't an all-or-nothing situation.

These pages have been in a state of disrepair for a very long time, I don't know if you've noticed but hundreds of articles are being tagged for "notability" and/or redirected lately, see WP:EPISODE. It very much is an all or nothing situation, in the sense they require imminent cleanup. Matthew 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Then put a "Cleanup" tag on the pages, letting people kow we need to divide the trivia section into other relevent sections or re-write the info, or ask somebody to go through each page to remove the truly cruft info in the trivia sections (I've got time), but simply putting a "Trivia" tag doesn't fix the problem, all it will do is cut out a lot of what makes these pages more than just badly written trancsripts. JBK405 00:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried cleaning them up myself, I'm not prepared to edit war non-stop. So it's easier for me to tag, thus allowing other editors to take the "burden". Matthew 00:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation

Hi,

I noticed you moved the page There But For the Grace of God. I believe that the words "But" and "For" should not be capitalised by convention (Capitalise "All words, except articles (the, a, an), conjunctions (and, or, for, nor), and short prepositions (of, in, on) in headings and the titles of books, plays, lectures, musical compositions, etc." [2]). I realise that the DVD lists a different title, but Sci Fi's Stargate SG-1 website lists the words as uncapitalised (see the dropdown menu here), so I think we should follow the convention. Acegikmo1 02:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that on that page, the drop down menu lists "But" as capitalised. So, the DVD case and web-site have it capitalised. Regardless of correct writing form, capitalised would be the correct way of writing the title, since we're titling the articles as they're named, not how they should be named. JBK405 02:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jet

"For example, the episode "Lake Laogai" deals with the nefarious Long Feng, who brainwashes Jet and eventually kills him—not the usual stuff of children's shows."

This was written by the author and was not quoted by DiMartino. It is what he assumed when he saw the show and tried to use for an example. Therefore, Jet's fate has not been confirmed by the show or its creators. And I doubt the authors of sci-fi articles count as an official source.

[edit] Air Nomads

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Air Nomads are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Lucky number 49 22:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jet's death

Do you have a source from the expo we can put on the page to confirm Jet's death?Darth G 18:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't attend the expo, I don't know what was (Or wasn't) revealed. Sorry. JBK405 02:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

thanks for the help woth the avatar ting, i didn't really know that he was a character

[edit] Trivia sections

Please see WP:TRIVIA, simply renaming the section does not make the section any less disorganised (or any less trivial, really).

(and now it looks like I'll need to go through every page again, as it sees you renamed several "Production notes" prior to my first sweep.) Matthew 16:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point you to that exact same page. "Not all lists are trivia sections." "In this guideline, when we refer to a trivia section, we are referring to its content, not its section name." "A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information."

Also, look at Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Practical_steps, specifically step 4: When appropriate, create separate lists for specific types of entries, with restrictive names. Avoid very general names like "In popular culture" or "Miscellanea."

I remove pointless trivia notes (Character A blinked thirteen times in scene four), simple plot reiteration (In this episode, the character embarked on an adventure), and other such pointless minutae. I leave in information on the production of an episode, explanations as to an episodes theme or point, influences, effects, etc. Essentially, I take out trivia and leave in relevent information that relates to its creation and production (hence the title "production notes"). They are in focused lists, each list relating to a specific theme (Guest stars in an episode, references within the episode to other media, etc.) and comply not only with specific directions on how to handle trivia, but also with what Wikipedia is not; one of which is, quite prominently, articles on fiction which contain nothing but a plot summary. JBK405 16:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason why you can't rewrite them as prose, a disorganised list (which the guideline covers) is what these are. If you don't wish to take the task... let another editor do it. I could of simply removed these sections, but I tagged them instead. Matthew 16:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to another editor re-writing all these notes as sentence/paragraph entries, and would in fact applaud that, but that's not quite the point; whether its in prose, list, or God-awful 1337, they're still not trivia sections if they're focused, relevent, sourced, and accurate. Place a tag in each section saying it needs to be re-written, say it needs cleanup or more sources or something else along those lines, but the fact is that just being a list section does not make it a Trivia section and, though I don't want to be a jerk about it, I'll continue to remove Trivia tags whenever they do not apply. JBK405 16:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They clearly are trivia sections (from the guideline itself: "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list.", this is what they are.) I'll continue to re-tag them if I have to (believe me it's actually much easier for me.) Perhaps we could use a better tag, but as it stands the {{trivia}} tag accomplishes the purpose well as these can be written as prose (they would also be better as prose). Matthew 17:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Except these aren't disorganized and unselective lists. Unless we've got two different definitions of "disorganized and unselective" (Which actually might explain our inability to come to a consensus), most of these sections don't fit. The Production notes sections I make each contain subsections relating to the content of each and every note, and the entries are grouped accordingly. While they could be arranged better (Perhaps "Guest stars" arranged in order of appearances, or "References to other media" in whatever order the media was originally released), the lists each have a specific point and requirements for inclusion. I don't see how they're unselective ("Unselective" might be a list just called "Facts" or "Important notes" or other such titles, which have no real control over what is included have no organising theme). JBK405 17:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess we have different definitions. I came across a better tag that you may find more suitable, {{Prose}}. I'm willing to go through and changes the trivia tags to the prose tag if you agree that this is a more suitable tag. Please reply on my talk page, thanks. Matthew 13:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Another thing you should remember if you're going to retitle sections "Production notes" is that they should be about the production of the episode, simply renaming a section does not make something un-trivial. Even so, on further thought these are still disorganised lists as they have no defined purpose (other than a collection of notes related to production). You could maybe give them organisation with sub-headings. Matthew 13:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh...their defined purpose is to inform the reader of what occured during the production of these episodes, same as with every other article on Wikipedia. I honestly do not see what you mean when you say they're disorganised, each section (and thus each list) addresses a specific subject, is arranged chronologically/alphabetically/priority-ly (hey, people make up words all the time) as required, and I'd like to point out that the Wikipedia:Lists#Organization gives those exact instructions. Maybe I'm mssing something here, I acknowledge that my brilliance does not necessarily eclipse every other person on the planet, but as far as I can see I've taken every step described in Wikipedia guidelines on handling trivia. If I am missing your point, spell it out, because right now I can't see it. JBK405 03:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi! Please remember that a section titled "Production" should contain sourced production information (and if you want to play the "props" card (lol!) add some sources and establish notability.) Also you wanted to know what a disorganised list it? Well it would be something under the title "notes", "trivia" or even "production information", these lists lack a defined purpose in that variant information can be placed under them. For example: viewing figures could be placed under notes/trivia and continuity issues could be placed under notes/trivia, both different types of information. Really any list can will be disorganised without a defined purpose. Matthew 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toph's Metalbending

I never heard them mention in the show that she bends the earth fragments in the metal, as opposed to bending the metal itself.

Because from all the dialog, my understanding is that Metal itself IS earth, only refined. I don't see how refining it turns it into something not of the earth. (Crystalbending, anyone?)

What I know is that Metal is more unyielding than regular earth, because it's been refined, and it takes a much stronger person to manipulate it.

I know, the whole slamming around in the box thing, but she can SEE while standing on metal now, which tells me that she can feel through the metal just as she could with earth. (Why she could not before was probably because she never thought of the possibility of bending metal.)

Toph is a very unique case, here. It could just very well be that I am wrong and waaay of course, but I don't see how that means taking out what I wrote, seeing as how what I'm speculating could be right. -(Ofunniku 07:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Sorry to have to slam on the breaks so hard, but I need to call your attention to your last sentence: "what I'm speculating could be right"

Speculation, no matter how reasonable, logical, or probable, is a no-no on Wikipedia; you need a source, whether it be dialogue from the show, an interview with the creators, or anything else. You need support. I believe the official Wikipedia Slogan is "Verifiability, not truth."

Sorry. JBK405 13:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That would render the current description of Toph's Metalbending as speculation as well, wouldn't it? I don't see a source linked to that, so as far as I can tell, that's specualtion too. Ofunniku 18:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's also unsourced then yes, it should also be deleted, but that you'll have to take up with whoever wrote that in the first place; I didn't participate much in the writing of that section (My contributions mainly consisted of repeatedly removing references to "magnetism"). JBK405 22:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks. I just didn't think that melting down an ore would change it's properties in a way that would render earthbenders unable to manipulate it. I'll go figure out who I should take this up with before I put it on Toph's sections. Ofunniku 08:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be on the Talk pages for either Toph herself, or Earthbending in general, that way people who edit either of the two will see it (Also, you might want to re-read what's already been written there, since that might cover what you're talking about). All the best. JBK405 22:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Frowned upon"

I've been wondering, you said "Deleting without first asking for a source is frowned upon". Who frowns upon it? You? (lol). Perhaps you should read Wikipedia's sourcing policies, original research does not seem anymore acceptable because you frown upon it. Matthew 07:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Pointing to the two edits made where I stated that, I'd quite like to point out that those weren't original research, they had sources, those sources just weren't stated in the article. I added back info you'd deleted with a source. I am well aquanited with what is and isn't acceptable on Wikipedia, including sourcing and what contitues a reliable source, and missing a source does not automatically make it original research, it's simply unsourced. It is not against the rules to delete any information missing a source, which is why I specifically said "frowned upon" and not "illegal," but the very point of the [[fact]] and [[cn]] tags is so that, if information has a source that simply isn't presented, it lets somebody know that it's necessary.

You are very much allowed to delete non-sourced info the very second you see it, but that does not mean you should. Hence, "frowned upon." JBK405 22:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You're very much allowed to tag information as well, but that doesn't mean you should do that either… policy is actually on the side of the removers. Matthew 22:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I delete things that have been tagged for unnecessarily long periods of time, and delete anything which makes particularly grand or illogical claims even if they have a "fact" tag: tags are not a permanent solution. However, they exist, serve a function, and if there's reason to believe that a source exists there's no reason to remove any chance of ever getting a source. JBK405 22:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to request a citation on the talk page, but don't restore stuff that has been disputed for not having a source. Matthew 22:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But that's the thing, it hasn't been disputed. Nobody has yet asked for a source, or indicated that they felt one was necessary, to delete something before even asking for a source doesn't give somebody a chance to find one unless they go through histories specifically looking for recent deletions. Fact tags let people know something needs to be improved. JBK405 03:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

i really think that we should continue with the production notes for season three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luedhup2 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Matthew 22:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The source for that being the title of the episode is the episode itself, a primary source, and I provided a source on the page for the definition of the word. Both are acceptable sources and are presented accurately. This is not a citing issue. JBK405 22:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Having rewatched the episode again today I'm quite sure that there's nothing in the episode stating: "The title of this episode refers to the definition of the word avatar."
WP:V: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." The material has been challenged, so provide a source.
WP:NOR: "Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts." Rocket science? I think not.
Now go add your source! Matthew 22:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] important

please see Talk:List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes. The Placebo Effect 04:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're about ten seconds late, I'd already written a reply when I saw your note here. JBK405 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You get my E-Mail? The Placebo Effect 04:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What e-mail? To what address? JBK405 04:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jasmine

Please see Jasmine's discussion page to clarify your position on Jasmine's classification --172.215.182.241 22:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Day of Black Sun

THANK YOU!! I used to revert those, but i gave up because they kept coming, and its SO nice to see someone else view them as tedious. THANK YOU! Rau J16 06:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The things i declared trivia

On Avatar: The Last Airbender's episode pages, I deemed certain bullets and sections as trivia, and I removed them as such. Now, I removed them because Wikipedia defines trivia as a list of miscellaneous facts, which is all the list was, a list of facts about events from the individual episode. These lists were not, and are, not needed. Now, I know that WP:TRIVIA states that the trivia should try to be merged with the rest of the article, but seeing as the only other place to put them was in the plot, I could not do that. The plot is already overwritten and hard to read on most of the pages, making it near impossible to integrate the trivia into it. I thought that this should be discussed before it escalates into an edit war. Rau J16 16:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

And a valid point, too, but you misunderstand what trivia technically is (an honest mistake). "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." Most of what you deleted, though in list format, was exactly what Wikipedia requires in an article about fiction, since it explained the episodes in relation to the real-world. "Zuko blinked thirty seven times in this episode" is trivia since all it does is just state a fact of the episode, just plot summary in extraordinary detail, but "In an interview with Nick Maganzine, the creators chose to have Zuko blink thirty seven times because, in a previous episode, it was stated that 37 is the Avatar equivalent of 42" is not trivia because it explains the real-world development of the show (And no, I don't actually expect planned blinking, it was just the first thing that came to my mind and, believe it or not, there have been people who feel the need to add to the articles the number of time the characters hve blinked).

Not all lists, even bullet-point lists, are trivia. "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list," and "A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information within the article." Each articles used to have just one single large section (often called just "Trivia" or "Notes") and they were split into smaller, focused lists. If this info, relevent though it may be, was all in just one giant list it could be considered trivia, but these lists are divided into narrow and focused roles. Episode guest stars, translations of chinese text, references to other media, etc. By the rules of Wikipedia, they don't count as trivia. JBK405 (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

While i understand, and partially agree with your point, i still find those sections excessive, and if you will notice, i did not remove everything and just leave the plot, i left translations and the awards that certain episodes won. But, you were right to revert those edits. Rau J16 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you didn't just slice out everything, and that you did create a new section for material you left ("Awards" and whatnot), I just think you were still a little too hasty. I agree with many of your edits, and I have to point out that I didn't just revert your edits, but rather re-added material that was valid and left out much which wasn't, but I still believe that a lot of what you did delete didn't count as trivia. JBK405 (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Holocaust denial

I agree with your decision to remove the "missing rubble" section on that article. I have indeed heard the question raised why not much rubble remains, but I cannot immediately recall if it was from a denier of any notability. None the less, for your information, the reason why there is little rubble around some of the crematoria at Birkenau is because it was removed by Polish investigators so they could conduct forensic analysis. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh certainly, I am of course aware of verifiability. When I say "raised the issue" in terms of this point, my sentiment is that I haven't heard it from any denier of notability, rather, probably just from some random person offering their idle speculation on a web forum and of course that definitely has no place in this article. Thus as you will be aware, if the reason for the rubble were included in this (or related) articles then obviously it would just be presented as a cited fact, as it isn't challenged by anyone of notability. I just wrote to say that I agree with your decision to remove that section, and figured that you might be interested to know the actual reason for the absence of much rubble around the Birkenau crematoria. :) Regards, WilliamH (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)