User talk:Super Knuckles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Just so you know
We have 3 different official sonic sites, and each states different bits of info. We can't play favoritism and selectively note only one source and use that over another. Also I reverted your edit because of grammar, not the actual information.--Neofcon (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If you don't like my grammar then rewrite the sentence as it should be. User:Super Knuckles 01:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not about liking it. It's about presentation.--Neofcon (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, I was just trying to improve the article with this "new" info. User:Super Knuckles 01:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Though I will admit, I did revert the whole thing, sorry.--Neofcon (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response (hopefully in the right section this time)
Thank you, Super Knuckles. And I did realize that you were looking to restore, moderate, and even compromise on the article. Afterwards, I realize I should have said something other than "guys"! Publik (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re division
Sorry but the Re division did exist as such, because it was made mainly from warriors that came from Heliopolis whose patron god was Re. Egyptzo (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it was called P're, that is the same as Re, even if the meaning is the same the original meaning is P're. User:Super Knuckles 18:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be no documents supporting your claim. Most modern scolars call it Re, although it is indeed sometimes but rarely called P're. Even the article about Ramesses II calls it Re! Egyptzo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats because most people don't know that P're also means Re, but the article as redirect link from P're to Re, so I don't see what your problem is. In fact the Seth division should also be called Sutekh. User:Super Knuckles 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
So why not write something that is more commonly used. So are you going to call, for example Shoshenk - Ššnk because it is like that written in hyroglyphs or Ramesses- Ramss because of the same reason. Egyptzo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of the Delta
Thank you, I will try to do my best. Cheers! Egyptzo (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of Kadesh
Hi, Super Knuckles. I knew that it was Egyptzo, rather than yourself, who had added the content (again). Sorry if the sequence of edits made it appear that I was addressing anything you had done. I didn't revert it (again) for the same reason as yourself - it would just get added back in and start an edit war. Thanks for trying to take some steps to change it into original wording. I'm not sure it should be in there at all, since it is speculation on the part of the original author, but it has been "published", so is therefore legitimate by ikipedia standards, as much as I may think it goes beyond the original sources. Cheers. Publik (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Can you give me a summary of the issues to speed things up for me and cut through the rhetoric? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't have any summaries on the Battle, but I'm starting to read my sources and as they make it clear there are aspects where there is controversy, (eg a lot of people disagree with Breasted), that all should be brought in. Maybe I should mirror it on a page I can add to my userspace and edit it there and people can look at it? It isn't just a question of one version vs another I think, it's using good sources for the whole article too.Doug Weller (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Sorry, but Wikipedia is very clear about removing copyvio content. It'll be a better article anyway.Doug Weller (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Kadesh: 3RR reminder
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Kadesh. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Woody (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Vote on Battle of Kadesh Version
Thanks. I'll keep an eye out for it. Publik (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll definitely be voting for your version. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New version Battle of Kadesh
What tags did I take away? Yes, the battle section is far too short, but I didn't see any way to get rid of stuff that was copyright without going back to a version that had none of it. We can quickly put back some stuff, eg the table of Hittite allies, and anything that had a reference to something other than historynet. The Healy book looked interesting, I was searching it earlier today. But we need to show where different sources disagree, does he do that?Doug Weller (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The book you got is mentioned here, which has a ton of resources most hard to get: http://history.memphis.edu/pbrand/handout_Ramesside_Military.pdf Why did you mention Hyksos and Fifteenth Dynasty?Doug Weller (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Ah, Wikilinks. I didn't remove any, I don't know what happened. Don't tag anything obvious, that is don't overtag, it makes it hard to read.Doug Weller (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- See WP:MOSLINKDoug Weller (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'm not quite sure how Wikipedia works in terms of "new messages", but for the sake of making sure you know I replied, I've added some comments to my own discussion page. Publik (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Yikes! Looks like the Battle of Kadesh article has been severely cut. I wonder if it makes sense now. However, I don't have time to focus on it as I have a full time job. Maybe 1 or 2 edits at the most. Leoboudv (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Healy's book is a great source on the battle. It is accurate and cautious at the same time. Unfortunately, I visit my alma mater UBC only 2 or 3 times a year and have plenty of other articles to copy from. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- You get notified of new messages up at the top of pages you look at.Doug Weller (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Sega project invitation
|
||
Dear Super Knuckles, we think you would make a great member of The Sega Project!!!. Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks a lot, I will gladly join you. Super Knuckles (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sega Newsletter
The Sega Project Newsletter | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|