→The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009: reply (yes, I know it is a bot I am replying to , but it is more a thank you and show of appreciation for the work of the many editors behind the news) |
→Unwelcome: new section |
||
Line 190: | Line 190: | ||
<!-- EdwardsBot 0008 --> |
<!-- EdwardsBot 0008 --> |
||
:Thank you for the update! Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]''</sup> 16:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC) |
:Thank you for the update! Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]''</sup> 16:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Unwelcome == |
|||
You are unwelcome on my talk page. Do not return. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 11:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:49, 25 November 2009
Welcome to my talk page! Please be sure to make all posts civil and constructive, as I will ignore or revert anything I deem to be bad faith, dishonest, or vandalism. For example, anyone who has ever referred to me as something other than my username or by some insulting play on my username is not welcome here, barring they apologized and made good faith amends. Also, let us try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Also, please do not refer to me here or elsewhere by my previous username as I changed names due to real-world off-wiki harassment that remains a concern. Due to the issues that caused my name change and other matters (such as the demands of college!) I may be slow in responding to messages and I may even stop editing for long stretches of time. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
To add to this article
I am not sure what was on the previous version of the article, but the following out of universe information can be added from "Resistance 2: Getting To Know Nathan Hale," PlayStation The Official Magazine 13 (November 2008): 62: the character is voiced by David Kaye. PTOM states that "The Resistance 2 story is all about Nathan Hale and his role in this great conflict." Ted Price, one of the game developers, adds, "Internally we wanted to know more about Hale, and focusing on him provided the opportunity to answer questions about him." Thus, I encourage someone to restore the article and add this information in a manner such as this:
Nathan Hale is the protagonist of the Playstation 3 games Resistance: Fall of Man and its sequel Resistance 2. He is voiced by David Kaye.[1]
Development
Ted Price, one of the game developers, adds, "Internally we wanted to know more about Hale, and focusing on him provided the opportunity to answer questions about him."[2]
Biography
Hale killed practically every chimera in England and then went to America to win again.
Reception
PTOM states that "The Resistance 2 story is all about Nathan Hale and his role in this great conflict."[3] Playstation Universe lists Hale among the top five Playstation 3 characters thus far.[4]
References
- ^ "Resistance 2: Getting To Know Nathan Hale," PlayStation The Official Magazine 13 (November 2008): 62.
- ^ "Resistance 2: Getting To Know Nathan Hale," PlayStation The Official Magazine 13 (November 2008): 62.
- ^ "Resistance 2: Getting To Know Nathan Hale," PlayStation The Official Magazine 13 (November 2008): 62.
- ^ Dave Wales, "Top five PlayStation 3 characters thus far," Playstation Universe (March 16th, 2008): http://www.psu.com/Top-five-PlayStation-3-characters-thus-far--a0003095-p0.php
Restoration
Nathaniel is a character in Jonathan Stroud's Bartimaeus Trilogy. Nathaniel is one of the main characters of this series. After coming of age as a magician when he was 12 years old, he was granted the new name of John Mandrake, and is known by this name to everyone but the title character, Bartimaeus and in the later part of Ptolemy's Gate to Kitty.
Attributes
Appearance
In The Amulet of Samarkand he is described as being small and scrawny with dark hair. His hair, as he increases in rank, becomes increasingly long, but during the gap between The Golem's Eye and Ptolemy's Gate he has opted for a crew cut in (politically advantageous) tribute to the soldiers fighting in America. He is further described as attractive, with "the scent of power [hanging] around him" and of medium height and slender build, his forehead prematurely lined (Ptolemy's Gate, U.S. Edition, pg. 21).
Personality
Nathaniel is, at first, a small, shy boy uncomfortable with anyone who is not Mrs. Underwood or Ms. Lutyens. He is very nervous and scared by Bartimaeus when he first summons the demon. As the books progress, and he becomes more and more proficient, he also becomes more confident, and possibly overconfident. He works fervently when motivated, as is shown when he furthers his education with incredible speed in The Amulet of Samarkand. Throughout the books he also shows signs of ambition to rise through the ranks of the government, a common goal among magicians. Bartimaeus compares him more than once to Simon Lovelace, as they share a similar mindset, and habitual tics, such as stroking back their hair.
Role in books
The Amulet of Samarkand
In The Amulet of Samarkand, Nathaniel starts off as a young boy who, at the age of five, had been given up by his parents to apprenticeship under a mediocre Whitehall magician named Arthur Underwood, the assistant minister of Internal Affairs. Underwood begins teaching the boy in magic, but Nathaniel, being inquisitive, decides to advance his education to higher levels without the knowledge of his tutor.
However, at the age of eleven, in his master's house, Nathaniel is publicly humiliated by a greedy and ambitious young magician named Simon Lovelace. In a fit of juvenile fury, Nathaniel hatches a plan for vengeance. He sets several mites (a weak kind of imp) on Lovelace, but Lovelace is powerful and stops the mites, then proceeds to beat Nathaniel as punishment.
Later, after much research and preparation, Nathaniel summons Bartimaeus, a 5,000-year-old djinni, to exact his revenge on Lovelace. Mrs. Underwood - Nathaniel's master's wife - inadvertently reveals Nathaniel's true name to Bartimaeus. This vastly limits Nathaniel's control over the djinni, because spells can be cast on people when their true name is known (hence the practice of assigning names).
In the end, Nathaniel earns the respect of the majority of the other magicians including Rupert Devereaux, the Prime Minister. He is accepted as a magician in the government.
The Golem's Eye
Nathaniel summons Bartimaeus again, facing off against the Resistance and sinister magicians.
The second book picks up almost three years later and features Nathaniel as a junior magician working his way up the government ranks. He is described as one of the governments' rising young stars. In this book, Kitty Jones is introduced as an important character. She is a part of the Resistance movement, which seeks to end the oppressive rule of the magicians. Nathaniel is tasked by his superiors to crush the Resistance movement and capture the members. His task is complicated when a seemingly invulnerable clay golem starts to make random attacks on London. Much to the displeasure of Bartimaeus, Nathaniel recalls the djinni to aid him in uncovering the origins of the golem, and to save his own skin.
During the course of the book Nathaniel is almost fired from his post and executed for treason. By the end of the book however he has come back to favor when Duvall's conspiracy comes to light.
Ptolemy's Gate
In Ptolemy's Gate, Nathaniel has risen to the ruling Council and is arguably the most powerful magician in the government. He stands against a force of hybrid magicians with spirits trapped inside them, led by Nouda. Romantic feelings are hinted at in the book at various points between Kitty and himself. Nathaniel summons Bartimaeus into his body to help fight the Hybrids with Gladstone's staff, and destroys most of them, leaving only Nouda alive. However, during this fight, Nathaniel is seriously injured and he loses strength quickly, even with Bartimaeus' assistance. When Nathaniel and Bartimaeus confront Nouda, Nathaniel dismisses Bartimaeus which saves Baritmaeus just prior to the staff being destroyed killing both Nouda and Nathaniel. Bartimaeus returned to the Other Place, but is known to have survived; according to his "journal", he was summoned by a female magician with a stutter afterwards. Kitty, in the end, goes visit her old friend Jakob before she begins to travel around the world in a new life.
Trivia
- Nathaniel's chosen magician name, John Mandrake, may be a reference to the popular comic strip and real life magician, Mandrake the Magician
- Nathaniel's birthday is on November 26, as confirmed by the author.
External links
References
RFA Thanks
References
Archives
Hey A Nobody, I see that you want to make your archives more user-friendly, ever consider putting a search field in the list, just replace {{archives}} with {{archives|search=yes}}. It will at least make your sorting of them easier, and only takes one edit. I have it on my talk page if you want to see an example, and how it works. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I will check out your talk page in a second. I might try a few things over the next few days. Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009
- Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser begins
- Bulgarian award: Bulgarian Wikipedia gets a prestigious award
- Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Several candidates standing
- In the news: German lawsuit, Jimbo interview and more
- Sister projects: Wiktionary interview
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Battles of Macrohistorical Importance
Dude, please don't get caught in the trap I did. I ordered a book on airborne warfare from these publishers, only to find they were reprints of wikipedia articles, complete with citation tags and other such wiki-related ephemera. I wasted a lot of money on it. Skinny87 (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- While I haven't ordered any of these books, I can second why Skinny says - they're just collections of articles assembled by a bot. Note that a reasonable large Wikipedia article is 10-20 pages when printed, so the book isn't even likely to include many articles. You could do the same for less on your home printer using Wikipedia's book generating feature (see Help:Books if you're not familiar with this). Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate the heads up here and to I think Fram as well who also pointed out who these publishers are. Is it actually legal for them to do that? On another note, though, for as much as I am online, I really do still enjoy reading, especially when bathing or when a passenger in a car and I have long thought it would be neat if Wikipedia put out some print copies of their more fascinating articles in the manner of how this site recently published a compilation book of their best lists. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's legal. See GFDL#Commercial_redistribution. It was almost intended.--chaser (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate the heads up here and to I think Fram as well who also pointed out who these publishers are. Is it actually legal for them to do that? On another note, though, for as much as I am online, I really do still enjoy reading, especially when bathing or when a passenger in a car and I have long thought it would be neat if Wikipedia put out some print copies of their more fascinating articles in the manner of how this site recently published a compilation book of their best lists. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You're repeating yourself in the discussion. Assuming people have read every post in the discussion before replying to everyone !voting delete is a reasonable courtesy.--chaser (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- A pointer: User:S Marshall/Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe. You may have a use for the sourced content from that article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks and I have added it to User:A_Nobody#Userfied_articles_to_work_on. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
![]() |
The Surreal Barnstar | |
For your well thought and reasoned analysis of candidates are RFA, they give everyone else pause for thought :) AtheWeatherman 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC) |
My RfA
Thank you for your contribution to my RfA. I have added myself to category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall, but I hope to wield the mop in such a way that you will find your concerns were unfounded, and that we shall never have to meet there. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are welcome and congratulations! I always respect and appreciate when someone I oppose or express concerns about takes the oppose and criticisms in stride and is conciliatory afterwards. Kudos for handling my comments maturely; that alone is being off to the right start! Good luck with the new abilities! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Consider moving your proposed closing summary?
Hello A Nobody. Would you consider moving your proposed closing summary that you posted at AN (about merging during AfDs) over to WT:AFD? I was actually hoping that, when making your summary, you would talk more specifically about what was said in the discussion. (How many thought this, how many thought that, etc.) EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, if you would like me to; however, I am under the impression from AN that it might be best if someone who has not commented in the discussion summarized in the interest of being the most neutral/unbiased? Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 14:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought of a new idea for finding a fair admin to close that discussion: we make a list of admins that are acceptable to both of us. Please share your thoughts at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Request discussion closure. Flatscan (talk) 03:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hello A Nobody. On the theory that I may be the admin who tries to close the WT:AFD discussion, I have left a note over at WP:AN#Request discussion closure. I also left a question at User talk:Flatscan#Your post at WP:AN trying to determine what change would result if consensus is found in the thread. I may also have a follow-up question for you, since I don't fully understand the views you expressed in the thread. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- You seem neutral/reasonable enough to close the discussion, but I do not see any clear consensus for any actual change there as everyone concedes that in at least some cases merging during AfDs is okay and anything else will be instruction creep or something ignorable per WP:IAR anyway and again as I said, it looks far more like a vocal minority more concerned about having their deletion nominations succeed than about making the most of content per WP:PRESERVE. Save of course instances where the content in question needs to be removed for legal reasons in which we can all agree nothing should be merged from it, all good faith editors would rather we make the most of content to improve articles not under discussion than to add just another useless redlink anyway per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, i.e. ultimately an Afd need not interfere with benefitting other articles on a volunteer site in which someone may have the time to work on a merge the week of the discussion but not afterwards due to vacation, work, etc. If the merge concerns non-hoax, libel, or copyvio content, then there is no legitimate reason to oppose its occuring. I cannot imagine anyone seriously being bothered by a non-libelous redirect. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 14:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you're not challenging what people say are the attribution rules, don't you agree that if any merging is done, by anyone, it makes a plain deletion result of the AfD impossible? (Unless whoever does any merging is standing ready to remove the merged material if the AfD actually closes with delete). From your comments, I am not clear on who you are expecting to clean things up if the AfD actually closes with delete. Do you have an extra gimmick to solve that situation that I am missing? EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- If merging makes a plain deletion result of the AfD impossible, then that is totally fine by me, so long as it is not to save something legally damaging to the project. No AfD for something that is not a hoax or legally damaging (libel or copy vio) should ever close as "delete" when a merge or redirect location exists per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. Deletion is supposed to be a last resort for content that is totally unsalvageable or litterally dangerous. Number of votes to delete should never trump our ability to improve other articles that might benefit from the content in an article nominated for deletion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Excuse the follow-up question, but wouldn't that imply that anyone who is opposed to deletion of an article can veto its deletion, just by taking some of its content and merging it into another article? EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Only if it actually benefits the other article. Let us say for example we have a list of battles that has oodles of references for each battle, but the article is nominated for deletion, and strangely enough one or more of the actual individual battle articles not nominated has no or only a couple inline citations. Thus, moving a couple sentences from the article nominated for deletion to the individual battle article (for which existence no one is challenging) winds up improving an article no one could possibly get deleted. As for the example battle list, it is not libelous, not a hoax, nor a copy vio. Clearly, it is to Wikipedia benefit to make use of the referenced content from the list in the other article(s) even if a numeric majority do not like the list article, which could as a compromise just be redirected to Battles or something at worst anyway. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Excuse the follow-up question, but wouldn't that imply that anyone who is opposed to deletion of an article can veto its deletion, just by taking some of its content and merging it into another article? EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- If merging makes a plain deletion result of the AfD impossible, then that is totally fine by me, so long as it is not to save something legally damaging to the project. No AfD for something that is not a hoax or legally damaging (libel or copy vio) should ever close as "delete" when a merge or redirect location exists per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. Deletion is supposed to be a last resort for content that is totally unsalvageable or litterally dangerous. Number of votes to delete should never trump our ability to improve other articles that might benefit from the content in an article nominated for deletion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you're not challenging what people say are the attribution rules, don't you agree that if any merging is done, by anyone, it makes a plain deletion result of the AfD impossible? (Unless whoever does any merging is standing ready to remove the merged material if the AfD actually closes with delete). From your comments, I am not clear on who you are expecting to clean things up if the AfD actually closes with delete. Do you have an extra gimmick to solve that situation that I am missing? EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- You seem neutral/reasonable enough to close the discussion, but I do not see any clear consensus for any actual change there as everyone concedes that in at least some cases merging during AfDs is okay and anything else will be instruction creep or something ignorable per WP:IAR anyway and again as I said, it looks far more like a vocal minority more concerned about having their deletion nominations succeed than about making the most of content per WP:PRESERVE. Save of course instances where the content in question needs to be removed for legal reasons in which we can all agree nothing should be merged from it, all good faith editors would rather we make the most of content to improve articles not under discussion than to add just another useless redlink anyway per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, i.e. ultimately an Afd need not interfere with benefitting other articles on a volunteer site in which someone may have the time to work on a merge the week of the discussion but not afterwards due to vacation, work, etc. If the merge concerns non-hoax, libel, or copyvio content, then there is no legitimate reason to oppose its occuring. I cannot imagine anyone seriously being bothered by a non-libelous redirect. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 14:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Kimber Henry article
Hey, I don't want to be jumping the gun or anything, but do you believe there's any possibility that the Kimber Henry article could remain open as a result of recent activity? I had previously abandoned all hopes of trying to keep the article open, but recent developments have opened up my interest once again. Is it likely that the user in question will simply re-direct the article once more when his ban is lifted? Do you have any opinion on the matter? Thanks. Maxpower03 18:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:BRD, the user has to seek a consensus now on the talk page to have what he wants to stick and if he continues to edit-war with you and anyone else, he will likely be blocked again. So, yeah, you have a good chance. The key is to find and add as many sources as inline citations to the article as possible and especially for sections on development and reception. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 15:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's interesting. Thanks a lot. Maxpower03 13:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Any reasonable and honest editor
This comment comes close to the personal attacks that I warned you about a few weeks ago. You're implying that Abductive is being dishonest, and that is not OK. Worse, you two are talking past each other about the independence of the sources. His position is that the subject does not meet the GNG and so is not notable. Your position, I guess, is that it is notable independent of the GNG and so the lack of independent sources is irrelevant. If that's your position, state it instead of implying that another editor is dishonest. Refactoring would be wise.--chaser (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- How is that a personal attack? You are reading too much into this. And I wasn't being ad hominem either, targeting not one person, just complaining about the lame argument some deletionists often are seen making in the AFDs. Dream Focus 00:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome message
Sending a welcome message to all anonymous IPs, assuming they are new users, is an unnecessary and annoying formality. 71.178.189.162 (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- But if they're not new, then the IP is dynamic and they may be new in the future. I wouldn't let one detractor slow you down.--chaser (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009
- Uploading tool: New tool for photo scavenger hunts
- Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Nominations closing November 24
- Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser continues
- News and notes: Government stubs, Suriname exhibit, milestones and more
- In the news: The Decline of Wikipedia, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Unwelcome
You are unwelcome on my talk page. Do not return. Hipocrite (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)