User talk:Zythe/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Why ddi you move Forever Charmed (Charmed Episode) to just Forever charmed? Would've the title have been better with the (charmed ep) part? Malevious 15:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not really, the "Name {disambuation)" format should only be applied to articles where there are other uses of the name. For example, Doomsday (Doctor Who) compared with The Christmas Invasion.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
What about the alien in Day One?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps create List of Torchwood monsters and aliens and add it (shame it has no name, how about "Sex alien" as a description) along with the weevils?~ZytheTalk to me! 14:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you were the one who moved Liam Fitzpatrick to Liam Fitzpatrick (Suite Life), I think it should be moved to Liam Fitzpatrick (Suite Life of Zack and Cody) or something similar, because of Suite Life alone being to vauge and not the correct title of the show. What is your opinion? Malevious 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify why I reverted in case you missed it in the article history. We should try (insofar as the new series are concerned) to avoid references to "future" stories which are spoilery. The rationale is this: people who read down expect spoilers for the episode they are reading about; they may not want to be spoiled about episodes they haven't yet seen. We've been generally okay with the classic Doctor Who stuff because those are really old episodes but for the new series on (which includes Torchwood), we should keep in mind that not everyone has seen these at the same time. So, back references are okay, but forward references should be done in a non-spoiler way. Thanks. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Reality shifts POV
Hi, Zythe! Thanks for joining the discussion on the reality shifts page. I welcome a balanced POV for the topic, particularly regarding areas you view to be potentially slanted, such as coincidences being just that. Cynthia Sue Larson 22:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- It would seem that it is an article based on / connected to your website? My main problem with it is that it described reality shifts as factual things, much like the article on say, a tree would. The article should really explain that reality shifts are unproven, and very unscientific. It also very much comes across as a vanity page with insufficient referencing (inline references are best). I understand you're a metaphysics researcher? I do not doubt your qualification to write the article, and I would probably believe it a subject you may have personally helped to make prominent, notable, even invent. I'll look over it some more tomorrow when I'm less tired, but I think it could do with some work. Respectfully, ~ZytheTalk to me! 23:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC).
- Thank you; I greatly appreciate your assistance in creating an objective page for this topic. My interest in this topic is due to a large number of personal experiences with it, as well as surveys with people who report having also encountered reality shifts. I agree that more varied and more extensive references will prove most helpful here. There are fictional examples of reality shifts which are not yet mentioned here, which should also provide a more balanced report on the subject. Cynthia Sue Larson 02:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- House of M would be a fictional example, right? ~ZytheTalk to me! 12:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Clara was explicitly straight, either. After looking at her article, plus seeing the show myself, she does have homosexual moments with Foxxy. Disinclination 00:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'll leave it at "female" then! :) ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sexually ambiguous. Lol. Wait.. nevermind. I don't really know what ambiguous means. Curse the person who put that info in! Disinclination 00:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Eletrokinesis
I've dug up WP:V and WP:RS uses of the term Eletrokinesis in science and as a science-fiction super power going back at least 10 years, and placed one of each on the -kinesis talk page a couple of days ago.
Based on what you've said, this entitles it to Wikistatus as a real world and verifiable fictional concept.
perfectblue 16:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Gee, and I thought the "supercanine" line was cute[1] and keeping in tune with use of the word Superhuman when describing humanoid characters. Too bad you disagree. CovenantD 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Neologism? I feel superhuman describes it too, what with his ability to bend steel etc. But I can see where the problem lies in that and so just left it as "super".~ZytheTalk to me! 20:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- ...Damn. You're right. I started to put "superhuman" also, but went with an intra-species comparison instead. Shoulda gone with my first instinct. CovenantD 20:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Big Bads
No offense, but you might want to rethink this category before doing more work on it. All the time I see categories like this being added to fictional character articles, only to be removed via a WP:CFD. I believe Category:Dark Lords was one such category that was recently deleted. There are already other cats for "villains" and such, so I'm not sure what extra this is supposed to show. I understand that "Big Bad" is a major villain or foe, and not just any villain, but still. You have to ask yourself, will this really help anyone find an article, or is it just another possible category for the sake of categories? You also might want to check out the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. -- Ned Scott 13:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
LIVING
When you encounter an editor adding unsourced derogatory information about a living person, it's better to remove the information outright rather than to add a {fact} tag. Otherwise that info could sit in the article for weeks or longer. See WP:BLP. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoniverse
I see you have edited out my paragraph on the Whoniverse thread. Its a bit rich editing out a paragraph discussing the issue of alien techonology given the fact that that is the entire rationale behind Torchwood. I will not edit the paragraph back in, as I respect your right to edit the same, but you don't really seem to show much appreciation of what Doctor Who entails. Technology is absolutely fundaemental to Torchwood and yet you presume to edit out a paragraph contextualizing Earths position in regard to the rest of the universe. If yo are seriously a Doctor Who fan rather than a mere vandal, I would have to say- why?Rob 23:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- They were poor edits. Comparison of Daleks to Time Lords, with misspellings, bad links and too much depth on Army of Ghosts and other specific bits of information. The fact is all "technology" on the show is portrayed as "advanced", comparison and contrast is WP:OR. The entire "features" thing is just to summarize the nature of the fictional universe, quickly rattling off main points. Everything mentioned in your paragraph at that point in the article would make no sense to non fans (at this stage in the article, what is Torchwood? What are Daleks?) and completely spoils the logical flow of the article from idea to idea (in your most recent edit, the flow from discussion of order to God's place in the Whoniverse). It's just a really, really bad paragraph that adds nothing to the article.
- I'd like to think the current version is of a relatively high quality for a young article. Vandal? Thanks. Wikipedia:Assume good faith, yeah? Cheers for that. I'm going to remove them again, and if you choose to put them back, we'll let the rest of WP:WHO come to a conclusion. ~ZytheTalk to me! 23:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Zythe- I should apologise if my last post appeared too confrontational. My only interest as a wikipedian is to get an accurate description of the Doctor Who universe in the article. With the utmost respect- as it stands, it is inadequate. I am more than happy to work with you to develop an article here. I like your work so far. If you are interested, let me know. Rob 00:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's okay. May I just add that I do not believe that addition is at all necessary - admin khaosworks (talk · contribs) had reverted it earlier. I think you may have broken WP:3RR. I think it's important to note that information regarding Torchwood's place in the universe and as opposed to a general one, belongs in Torchwood Institute which is adequately referred to later on as one of Earth's federal responses to the knowledge of an extraterrestrial presence. Similarly, specific information about the Daleks belongs in Dalek. :) ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Firstly- I don't claim to be an expert on Wikipedias three revert rule- if I get a slapped wrist, fine, I accept it with good grace. If you want to rework the general remarks about technology into a more generalized paragraph about the state of the universe then I am more than willing to accept that- I have been very impressed by your editing so far, and think you should be nominated for an admin in the near future. khaosoworks can do his stuff I'm sure I'll survive..... finally- how can one comprehend the Whovian universe without a reference to the dominant technological species? I am merely keen to try and describe in the article generally the state of the universe in the TV prog. I accept that more detailed information belongs in the specific articles but the previous article doesn't touch at all on Torchwoods raison'detre, which is the whole point of the series after all.....Rob 00:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not trying to be mean. Torchwood's raison d'être is totally irrelevant (and in fact, disputable in itself) to the article, actually. However, the Daleks themselves aren't. They are a very key feature of the universe, and should probably be mentioned in a paragraph detailing characterization of the universe or perhaps the well known and established factors. As khaosworks pointed out at Talk:Whoniverse, the article needs more grounding - trivia does the opposite. I myself am probably not as big a Doctor Who fan as yourself - only watched since The Christmas Invasion, but I do enjoy writing and can be quite nitpicky when it comes to flow and cohesive techniques employed. Perhaps an entire new section after features should be "Characterisation", explaining common themes across the Doctor Who chronology. Dunno. Don't put it in yet. I think this article could even be a good article if we're really good. ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting point, and I appreciate we have a difference of opinion here. Clearly the purpose of the article is to describe the fictional universe in which Doctor Who stories, plus spin offs are set. The possession of technology for me is the major backdrop for the large majority of the stories (indeed even the historicals have the Tardis present) and the possession of technology permits various races to destroy, dominate, conquer, or intervene or not. However, I take your point that it may well be better off being worked into a seperate section- once the "natural" aspects of the Whoniverse have been described then perhaps a separate section should be added as you mentioned. I would though suggest that a slightly more explicit reference to the Time War be added in the article, as you explain that they used to be able to travel but not why they became extinct- any non-fan would need at least a slight explanation of the historical backdrop. Rob 12:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
John Constantine
Just wondering… Why did you add a redundant category to the article? It's already listed as LGBT characters in comics. In addition, you added a cat you recently put up for an upmerge on CfD. — J Greb 02:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was anticipating I would lose the CfD, and the character is both LGBT in comics and fictional bisexuals (two subs of one parent).~ZytheTalk to me! 14:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Narcissists
I tend to agree with you that these aren't particularly useful. They all give a lengthy list of traits and state that all those characters have those traits, but I can see several that are borderline or that only have some of the traits (e.g. Catherine Tramell does not fail to plan ahead, Mr. Satan does not lack empathy, and Thomas Ripley is not of superficial charm and average intelligence). This doesn't sound like a solid definition at all. >Radiant< 16:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- And that goes for the other two related cats as well, of course. >Radiant< 09:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Adrienne Frost
I just thought that I would let you know that you never completed the move request. When you request a move, you are suppose to set up discussion on the talk page of the article. Go to WP:AFD to see how to do that. TJ Spyke 04:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, yeah I just thought it was really clear cut and didn't require discussion. Set it up. ~ZytheTalk to me! 15:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Gay V. Homo
My apologies, but I'm afraid I must disagree to your edit to Xandir. As the Gay article states, "gay" is a slang term meaning a couple of things, such as "Happy", "Uncool", and of course, "Homosexual". Homosexual is the correct term, as it's definition is "One who is sexually attracted to the same gender", which is the exact case with Xandir. Though the term "Gay" may SEEM correct, it's really just slang, such as "Black" and "Fat". In the case of your edit, it should remain as Homosexual, since we are simply describing him. DSMeatte 20:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- It should say gay and link to homosexuality. Gay is the correct term for describing a person, as is black and not negro. Homosexual should be used to refer to acts or relationships. We are describing him, as gay. That's the correct terminology.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll admit you aren't entirely wrong. For readability of the article, the term "Gay" should be used, as it's the term most people use. but we are simply labeling his sexuality, hence why it should remain as "Homosexual". The same also applys to Black, as that is known slang as well, but the correct term is African-American. DSMeatte 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Black is the race, African-American is an ethnic group. But yeah, what I mean to say is...
According to the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington's Glossary for School Employees:
"Homosexual: Avoid this term; it is clinical, distancing and archaic. Sometimes appropriate in referring to behaviour (although same-sex is the preferred adj.). When referring to people, as opposed to behaviour, homosexual is considered derogatory and the terms gay and lesbian are preferred, at least in the Northwest [of the United States]."
- So, yeah... it's just a generally correct term, although you're right in that the meaning should be homosexual and not gay, as in gay culture to which the article relates. So as it is currently, it should be [[homosexuality|Gay]]. ~ZytheTalk to me! 20:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Leowyatt.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Leowyatt.jpg. 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. 09:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Charmed books
I've removed the Books link from the template, since this is more properly placed under Multimedia (and a link is now in that article). If you want, please write a slight summary under that section on Multimedia's article. Thanks! -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Invite and mild squee
Hey, I saw your edit to Bisexual community and would like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies. We'd be delighted to have you. Also, you live in England and see yourself in Andrew Van de Kamp? Truly we are of one mind! Hehe. Sorry, I'm working to make Andrew an FA, so when I saw you mention him on your userpage I got all excited. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Welcome!
 Hi, Zythe, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful:
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! |
Yeah, I agree there's a lot of good in Andrew that people can't beyond the sociopathic nihilism. :) No-one ever seems to remmeber what Justin said Andrew has told him after his parents kicked him out of the house: "He told me that I was the one who should be ashamed of my parents because they were too stupid to realise how great I was. That's the thing about Andrew: he doesn't take crap from anyone. How could you not love someone like that?" Indeed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies!
Hi, Zythe, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and intersex people. LGBT Studies covers people, culture, history, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful:
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! |
-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
revert
Sorry about second guessing you there, i haven't played all the games yet, so my knowledge can be lacking. Again, sorry DurinsBane87 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I created this article a very long time ago when I was a newbie; since then there's been a flood of AfDs on articles concerning minor or non-canon fictional topics. As you're the only other significant contributor to the article, I wanted to ask if you think we should change the article's title to The Queen's Curse (the name of the book), to avoid it getting nominated for deletion at some point in the future. Walton monarchist89 20:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I actually considered this the other day. Perhaps it should be changed to #redirect [[List of Charmed books]]<!--The Queen's Curse--> or perhaps you could tag it yourself with {{db-author}}.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've now replaced with a redirect to The Queen's Curse, which I've also linked to from List of Charmed books, so it's not an orphan. Thanks for your advice. Walton monarchist89 09:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:SHIELDlogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:SHIELDlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Torchwood team.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Torchwood team.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Stonecutterslogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Stonecutterslogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Brandon boyd.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Brandon boyd.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
 Issue III - February 1, 2007 | |
|
Announcement: If someone requests help or feedback on an article, please try your hardest to help them out if you are able. Thank you.
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. | |