Jhenderson777 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 186: | Line 186: | ||
This is why we need to get rid of the list all together. You wanted to find the sources based your long opinion that you had to write about and it's apparently clear that it's easy to do that. Archenemy is a subjective term. Nothing more, nothing less. [[User:Jhenderson777|<span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px:color:blue">Jhenderson</span>]]<sup>'''[[User talk:Jhenderson777| <span style="color:red;">7</span><span style="color:blue;">7</span><span style="color:aqua;">7</span>]]'''</sup> 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
This is why we need to get rid of the list all together. You wanted to find the sources based your long opinion that you had to write about and it's apparently clear that it's easy to do that. Archenemy is a subjective term. Nothing more, nothing less. [[User:Jhenderson777|<span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px:color:blue">Jhenderson</span>]]<sup>'''[[User talk:Jhenderson777| <span style="color:red;">7</span><span style="color:blue;">7</span><span style="color:aqua;">7</span>]]'''</sup> 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
If you insist on throwing the baby out with the bath water because you are unable to convince me to switch to your PoV, then...be my guest. Just calm down. [[User:Haleth|Haleth]] ([[User talk:Haleth#top|talk]]) 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:56, 19 September 2013
Welcome!
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:Where to ask a question, ask me or an experienced wikipedian like Sango123 and JoanneB and leave your message on our talk page. Again, welcome! If you want to tell me something or if you just want to say hi, leave your message under the Talk Section of | My Talk Page Once you've become an experienced Wikipedian, please take your time to visit this page: |
WWE Fantasy
The clue is in the name "Fantasy" just cus a move is listed there as a finisher doesnt make it so. we live in a little place called reality when they use a said move to finish a match it becomes a finisher --- Paulley]
- lol i wouldnt worry about him, some of the ppl he is complaining to are the Wiki wrestling authorities.... and as for the fantasy thing i know it is a WWE thing but until moves are actually used as finishers (in real matches) they shouldnt/will not be bolded --- Paulley
WWE:Diva injuries
When placing these items, please date them. Otherwise there is no way of knowing if this is a tally of months missed so far, or if it's what a doctor or announcer has said will probably be the length of time they will be out for.. Lsjzl 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Reverts
Would you care to justify your reversion of my edits here? I do not appreciate having my work arbitrarily reverted to a version ridden with errors. Furthermore, your comments in edit summaries - "This is it, keep it that way", "As far as I am concerned" - are needlessly provocative; I think you would benefit from reading Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Thank you. McPhail 16:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Sign your posts
Start signing your posts so it's easier for people to know who you are instead of them having to go into the history. It's not that hard, all you have to do is put ~~~~ at the end of your posts on talk pages, and it'll show up like this---> Bsroiaadn 21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Plagiarism
Much of the information you added to the Personal Life section in the Sherri Martel section is word-for-word from http://www.wrestlingepicenter.com/shows/SherriMartel/
Adding information is great, but it needs to be rewritten into different words and cited. GaryColemanFan 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
WWE roster
The current wording of why the superstars are inactive is unclear, and there is no evidence that they have been suspended like you said. WWE nor any media has stated the names who were officially suspended and it is not your place to speculate. Please refran from making comments that could potentially in violation of WP:BLP against these individuals. — Moe ε 07:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
MOS on fiction.
I just want to point you towards MOS on Fiction. Your recent contributions on SC articles have been very useful, but can you be just familiarise yourself with this so you get it in the right style: namely, events in the fictional universe should be written about in the present tense, not the past. Also, please refrain from copying text from sources, as was done for a number of sections in the minor characters article. Thanks. -- Sabre 08:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 17:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Three revert rule and revert wars
I'm following up a report on the three revert rule report board about the editing on Stacy Carter. Your editing broke the three revert rule by undoing changes by other edits more than three times during a 24-hour period. I have decided not to block you from editing because the report was made a day after the edit dispute and you did stop after another editor contacted you, but please be aware that blocks can and do follow three revert rule violations.
If you get into a revert war with another editor, it is important to engage them in constructive discussion on the article talk page rather than just continue to revert. This action often gains the attention of other users, and if you want others to express their opinions on the dispute you can ask for a third opinion, or make a request for comments. Sam Blacketer 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
F*** you Aladdin Zane/Rogue Gremlin/whatever
You bloody sock-puppeting hypocrite and big time wikipedia playground bully. :) Here's my little memorial for you.
User:Haleth 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Your edits made on November 30, 2007 (UTC) to Eve Torres
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Eve Torres. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. 141.156.234.101 (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Category:Tofu is already a subcategory of Category:Chinese cuisine, so that one isn't needed at Tofu skin. Badagnani (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I rethought that. Category:Tofu includes tofu dishes from non-Chinese cultures, so it's probably a good idea to keep the Category:Chinese cuisine category. Badagnani (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Krissy Vaine
I saw it on a wrestling website long time ago....I don't remember but she is retired
Daizee Haze and TNA
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't know if that was her only appearance. You are not a source so you are not qualified to make judgments on her status. You only have an opinion. She appeared on television, was named by TNA, and wrestled in their ring. So it's best just to leave her as an active part of the roster until there is a verifiable source that states she is done with TNA. If you have any questions on this matter please use the talk page. Otherwise please refrain from making future edits. Thank you. Sid122 talk 19:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball means you can't see into the future and determine her future with the company. The average fan siting at home knows nothing of whether or not this person is contracted with the company. You are speculating on something you don't know about. To anyone's eyes, someone named Daisy Haze justed wrestled on TNA and it was on television. This is far different than when WWE brought in a SHIMMER wrestler to play Hilary Clinton. Daizee Haze is neither contracted to TNA or ROH. She is an independent contractor. The verifiable source is anyone who watched Impact on Thursday. Her appearance on Spike TV was enough of a source. Her contract status is irrelevant and not important.
If any other objecting editor has a problem then they may take it up with me on my talk page. I have no problem going to arbitration. But right now it just looks like you. Sid122 talk 21:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:TNA roster. 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. Can I suggest you get involved at the discussion concerning your reverts here ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
List of WWE employees
The boxes are being removed to avoid redundancy (see WP:OVERLINK for more information). Thanks for understanding. Miztahrogers (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Hi. Please try to use edit summaries to explain your edits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing sources
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Koreans in Malaysia. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the content is removed. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. cab (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Reference to the image of the western variation of a Malay dish, it is relevant to the article for two reasons:
- Malaysian food itself is a "portmanteau of food" from the surrounding cultures and its own.
- As Malay people came to the US, they continued the tradition of incorporating other cultures' styles into their own. The image shows the result of such incorporation and is a natural evolution of the cuisine.
As the dish does not represent traditional Malay food, it should be characterized as such. If you feel that strongly about the subject, the image can stay gone. However, in the future it is advisable not to remove, then re-remove content (unless it is a clear violation of WP policy). The best course of action is to first assume good faith and bring the issue to the opposing editor's talk page or the article's talk page. If the issue can not be resolved there, a non-involved administrator would be happy to resolve the dispute. If you have any questions about anything, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Cheers!--It's me...Sallicio! 17:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
National dish article
Apologies for my improper edit summary remark. I don't have to tell you that this article is mostly (if not in whole) based on wp:OR and therefore hard to keep somehow reliable and true without purging 90 percent of it. BTW, I'm surely not your enemy and far from starting an edit war over this (article). You say you're on this (article) for quite some time? So I'm wondering if you could add some sources as this article up to date still lacks of citations (and so it's basically just about opinions). Although I just try to keep silliness and more unsourced additions out of it (or reverse "blanking" of potential legitimate entries) and have no intention to spend too much of my time on this, I might be willing to search for citations within the next few weeks. One thing is crucial thou: As we should first determine and agree on what should be covered under "national dish" in regards of each country's history; and if we want to include more recent additions. That is what makes it so difficult to have a list without further explanation. A good example for my point would be Chicken Tikka Masala as an English/Britain national dish. Furthermore, you purged doner kebab in the German section (which I did too in my edit) but also Spätzle and Knödel which are as common as the bun that goes with a burger at least in southern Germany and in part of eastern Germany in regards to "Knödel". Should we include "curry wurst" but exclude Spätzle even so the first is a more recent dish (snack or "fast food" to be precise)? It's just not as clean-cut as it might seem.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, since you didn't respond yet I assume you're off-line for maybe another week or two and therefore I will change at least the German entry back. Give me a line when you're back. Looking forward to work this out with you for the good of the article. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
World Languages
See world languages:talk. You need to reliably source a link between 'UN language' and 'world language'. Until then this is original research and not permissable for inclusion in the article and as justification for defining languages as world languages.Utopial (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. By big language I mean most number of speakers, which there is a page for and which has nothing to do with being a world language.
- Take a world language such as french or portuguese and you will find official international associations entirely founded due to linguistic connection (CPLP, CPLP Games, Lusophony Games, flag of CPLP, TV CPLP, PALOP, FETCCP, International Lusophone Markets Business Association (ACIML), etc). Languages such as bengali, japanese, hindustani and mandarin lack these organisations because these languages are spoken by the same broad ethnic group and within 1 region of adjacent nations. There is no world connection based on these languages. With no world connection, how can a language be a world language?
- Given that over 90% of the PRC is Han Chinese and there r other languages spoken there, this would suggest that very close to 100% of mandarin speakers in those countries are Han Chinese, and the remainder are very closely ethnically related (just like for bengali). There are various 'ethnicities' in Japan as well. Ethnicity can be measured at various levels, like languages and dialects are grouped into families at various levels. The ethnicities of Japanese, Bengali and Mandarin speakers are so close and related that it has to be said that they are all defined on ethnic lines - literally, u can define the ethnicity of one of those language speakers as either of 1 ethnicity or a very closely related ethnicity. There is no such possible definition with English, where there are huge & arbitrary disconnections in the ethnicities of speakers, not just smooth transitions to closely related ethnicities like Scotts & Celts. So those mentioned languages fail the criteria for not being defined based on ethnic lines.
- Aside from there being no link established through reliable sourcing, personally I don't see any link between what you posted about the UN languages and categorisation as a world language. The UN languages are the languages of the permanent security members + arabic & spanish to cover off the majority of the rest of the world. Indians officially speak English, Portuguese speakers understand Spanish (and/or dont number enough) and the other languages are too small. The languages are used to ensure that as many people as possible can read the UN materials. Status as a UN language appears to depend more on (1) economic/military/political power to become a permanent member (2) or number of speakers who can't understand the existing languages. Not world language criteria.
- See Talk:World_language#Other_super-regional_languages. Our discussions are silly, endless and pointless. Let's allow the experts to decide via sources.Utopial (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Sources gathered and compiled: Talk:World_language#Sources Utopial (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. –BMRR (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Zeratul
Hello, one of your edits to the article Zeratul introduced a ref named "TerCamp" without including a source. (Several of your edits there introduced refnames without sources, but I located the others in the article Characters of StarCraft). Would you please revisit the article and add in the reference you intended? Thanks. - Salamurai (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Berbere
Greetings, you added nigella seeds as an ingredient in berbere. Perhaps it is an ingredient, but it wasn't mentioned in either of the cited sources. Can you point to a source that mentions its inclusion? Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. See also: Talk:Berbere#Ingredients. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Archenemy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- * [[Attuma]] is the arch-foe of [[Namor]]. <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.hembeck.com/FredSez/FredSezJune2003.htm| title=Fred SeSez: Archive - June
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
challenge
Here is a challenge. If you really do believe they are archenemies. Why don't you put it on the Wikipedia page of that villain article (which never claims such). Maybe if you put it there people will actually believe the ridiculous claim that they are archenemies. After all Wikipedia articles really should be consistent with each other. If one article stated such then the other article really should back it up. Jhenderson 777 15:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously go on the Joker (comics) page and state that he is "one of the archenemies" and go to the Ra's Al Ghul article and state the same thing. I ain't going to revert you. After all you are going to use you're "reliable sources" aren't you. I will give you a cookie if you do it man. Jhenderson 777 15:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- I could, but then...it sounds rather childish to me, don't you think? There are plenty of other wiki character pages, where the term "archenemy" and "nemesis" or whatever is tossed around (see for instance, the Atom villain Chronos) and there are no sources whatsoever to back them up. Why don't you go and remove them, since you're passionate about making sure information of dubious quality and reliability get off wikipedia pages?
- FYI, I added the IGN entry about Dark Phoenix being ranked as a top 10 comic book villain on the Jean Grey page complete with the citation months ago, and so far no one has bothered to remove or reverse it. I was also the one who added the link to the same IGN villains page for Ra's al Ghul. Mind you, Jean or at least one of her personas being branded a "villain" is an unpopular sentiment. Maybe because people like the fact that I actually cite what I write? Haleth (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, actually I don't need to. Have a closer look at Ra's page. It says there he is "one of Batman's greatest enemies", without a citation. Sounds or more less like what an archenemy's role ought to be. :) Haleth (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Greatest enemies is not archenemy. Riddler is one of Batman's greatest enemies too. We are getting nowhere with that statement. Totally different. Also who cares about IGN's top 100 villains. That has nothing to do with archenemy. Jhenderson 777
- The Chromos statement should probably be removed. It was just a suggestion.I just feel that we could invite more opinions on pages like that because let's face it the archenemy article is not active compared to the fictional character articles and I really want to hear more opinions on other editors that know the source material. Jhenderson 777 17:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Who cares? So why bother differentiating between reliable sources then? Do you believe that the prevalent PoV out there that Joker or Luthor are objectively considered "quality" villains, because people are taking at face value that they are the franchise protagonist's archenemy because the publishing company promote them as such? Marvel tried that with Romulus after killing off Sabretooth and it appeared to have failed spectacularly. Someone's archenemy is always counted among their "greatest enemies", but you're right, a "greatest enemy" list is not quite the same as an archenemy list. I could re-word it as one of Batman's archenemies, but I can assure you that no one would bat an eyelid, and it's all just semantics in the end. Remember, even that claim is left unsourced, which means most readers appear to take it for granted that Ra's al Ghul needs no further validation when it comes to his status in the Batman IP.
My point remains, that some characters and their enduring popularity means that they will inevitably have a large supporting cast and an extensive rogues gallery. And out of that extensive gallery, there will be at least one character that stand out in terms of being a memorable and compelling antagonist, thanks to the accumulation of critically and popularly acclaimed stories and characterization by the writer (along with a healthy dose of nostalgia and hindsight). That is what makes them arrive to this point, this archenemy "pedestal" for a lack of better word. If blog posts by people who appear to know their stuff are not good enough, then you can't ignore websites like Yahoo or IGN because of credibility and name recognition. It's a popular sentiment to think of Joker as the only archenemy worth mentioning when it comes to Batman because of Heath Ledger, the animated shows and recent comic book arcs cooked up to cross-promote. But I had a cursory glance at what's happening right now with the story arcs and it's clear that Ra's and Talia are staking an almost equal claim with Joker, taking that history of antagonism to a deeply personal level beyond Ra's abstract idealogy. The quality of the characterizing and storytelling plays a huge part in the relevancy of the character's antagonistic relationship with the protagonist, because the longevity and quality of the relationship is what the concept of "archenemy" is based on.
Personally, I am of the view that as of 2013 and going through Batman's entire character history, Ra's comes just under Joker when it comes to their significance and they have no peer within the rest of the rogue gallery, based on what I do know about the Batman franchise and opinion pieces I have read which discusses the franchise at length. I also think Braniac (instead of Darkseid) have an equally good claim to being Superman's archenemy alongside Luthor because of the sheer amount of anguish, challenge and pain he's dealt to Superman over the decades, but I can't overlook that About.com citation about Darkseid.
Regarding Chronos...it shouldn't be hard to find a reliable source which describes his relationship with Atom with some authority? I'm more knowledgable about the X-Men franchise compared to the others. Haleth (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
This is why we need to get rid of the list all together. You wanted to find the sources based your long opinion that you had to write about and it's apparently clear that it's easy to do that. Archenemy is a subjective term. Nothing more, nothing less. Jhenderson 777 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
If you insist on throwing the baby out with the bath water because you are unable to convince me to switch to your PoV, then...be my guest. Just calm down. Haleth (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)