Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:49, 16 January 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I prefer to comments made here on this page, so please watch this page until the discussion is done. Please note that comments which are uncivil, contain vulgarity, flame baiting, or are excessively rude may simply be deleted without response. I'm also a neat freak, so I regularly archive items from my talk page when the discussion is resolved or closed, hence the archive box over there. ->>

Are you hear about an edit I made? You may want to check my user page first to get some general info on some common questions about edits I make. Here are some quick links as well:

• Explain the assessment you made on this TV or film article
• Why did you give X article Y tag(s)?

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Request for Arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#The Television Episodes Edit Wars. John254 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank for the notification, though I disagree with being included in it. I have added my statement. Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, they won't take the case. I participated in the prior case and ArbCom is not going to rule directly on the content issue. I think the consensus among admins is that blatant disruption will be dealt with harshly from here on. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to know. I was mildly annoyed with being included as I have attempted to actually do what people complained about TTN not doing, starting merge discussions first if I feel there will be some complaint and attempting to do the needed work in a more friendly way. Of course, several times people have made no remarks on the merge discussion, then after the merge is done, complain anyway, but its stayed fairly civil throughout. If no consensus can be reached for a merge after explaining, then and only then have I resorted to AfD (rather than just straight redirecting). Collectonian (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I may have spoke too soon. Not to worry, though. I don't believe you've done anything wrong. A lot of editors who've been given the moniker "resurrectionists" have been busy reverting and their sin is disruption. Their day will come. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Aggie comment

Regarding this, I'm confident BQZip01 was not intending an insult. He is an Aggie himself and, at the least, meant nothing more than to be informative; and, at most, meant nothing more than a good-natured ribbing. Just came across the edit and wanted to chime in. I would hate to see such such a little misunderstanding escalate. Keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured he was just trying to get in a little ribbing, but it really isn't appropriate for putting in an article, even if one wonders about the anon user that changed it in the first place :P Collectonian (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Just wanted to make sure you didn't feel there was anything malicious on his part. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

See the top of my talk page. I can't really afford to get involved in a big project like this at the time, I'm afraid. Circeus (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Collectonian (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide a thorough copyedit, but it will take me a couple of days. (There are two articles in line ahead of yours.) In the future, however, please contact me for a copyedit before the article is listed at FAC. I don't care for working under the pressure of the FAC process. Thanks and I'll be in touch. (If I haven't made comments by Friday, please send me another message.) – Scartol • Tok 18:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll keep it in mind for future FACs (this one is my first). :) Much appreciated! Collectonian (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello freak!

You don´t mind if I have another account, do you? Yaeh, it may take a while for you to call again the support of yr peers. Lulu Margarida 17:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can´t you stand for yrself? Mom???!! She, they, him (Oh, Iam so confused*&¨%$#@!), called me again of freak!! Mom??? Help me, mom! Go there, mom, block her, knock her!! Block, block! Childhood... Baby boomers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu Margarida (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

Thanks for making a nomination at WP:LOTD. The system works best with more voters. Please also come by and vote before voting closes on the 20th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the votes. Good luck next month.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• grin* Thanks for the reminder. I'd meant to do it before and got sidetracked :-) Collectonian (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What?

Not protesting, just wondering what you are talking about in terms of the Trinity Blood Article. If I could give you information to cite data books, I would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewR5D4 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What are these data books you keep referencing? I haven't seen any information about them online at all. I reverted the edits because they contained too many NPOV/unneutral statements without a source. Particularly "While she appears to be young, Mirka Fortuna is in fact a scary old lady who likes to scheme, and would sacrifice her own flesh and blood to accomplish her goals. Her plan to expose Suleyman with her own grandson as bait is proof of her ill nature. Some would say that she is selfish, arrogant, and twisted" is not supported by the anime, and seems biased against Mirka without proper sourcing that explicitly states it. Its also redundant, as the same basic information is given in the paragraph above, but allows the reader to decide what they think about her actions. Collectonian (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll grant you that much. What does the acronym NPOV stand for exactly. As for what you stated earlier, the data books contain detailed information about the main characters and locations, and came with the Collectors Edition DVD's only. From what I have seen so far, they are based highly on the Anime, but make references to novel information like Isaac's profile did. The small booklets are licensed by Trinity Blood Partners and Funimation Productions Ltd as it says on the back cover. If you need information for future citing, I will see what I can do.

On a lighter note, the edits in Mirka Fortuna's article were a bit redundant now that you have discussed it rationally. I'm also glad you kept my good grammatical statements. Upon ready Asthe's profile, I found the original version to be a rough read, due to the constant use of unnecessary commas and lousy wording. I added that small statement about her personality, because she does display kindness. (If not rarely) I was just trying to do the character justice.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV = neutral point of view :) I put back in some of the grammar fixes you made, since they were good. Just easier to revert and add back those than try to hack out the rest. I'm sure all of the character articles will continue to be expanded as the novels come out, so I'm not sure the DVD booklets are needed as a source unless they add some information not already found in the anime, novels or manga? Any info on production details or stuff like that? Collectonian (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right about that, because most of it is either historical background (Which fit well when I edited the information about the Empire itself) and information most likely seen in the novels. What do you need exactly in terms of production details?

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...name, publication date, publisher at minimum, I think. Author if they have one listed. Collectonian (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Back says "AX File, Trinity Blood Collector's Edition Chapter V" The data in small letters says "2005 Trinity Blood Partners Liscensed by Funimation Productions Ltd. All Rights reserved" I don't know if that's enough, but that's the information for one of the books.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes...I saw it earlier. That sufficient for doing a cite tag, but need to know what specific parts are sourcable from it. Collectonian (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by that? Are you telling me to cite information within the article. If that is the case, than I will have to give you information about the other Data Books as well. The above example is only for 1 book as you can guess.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If information for any of the books are currently used in the article, yes, each of the books must be properly cited where it is used. Collectonian (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Legend

What is the problem? I only provided a source for Cruise playing an elf. I can put elf back in without the source, but that wouldn't carry as much weight. Seriously, you take yourself too much... Jon Jonasson (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The way you put that link it, it looked like link spam. Also, its factually incorrect. According to the movie, he is a hermit, not an elf. Gump is an elf, not Jack. Collectonian (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have since realized that Jack, aka "Jack O' the Green" is an allegory of a Jack in the Green or Green man forest deity character. And while he may be some kind of fairyfolk, you are correct, he is not so much an elf. Jon Jonasson (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reference for hermit, or restore my edits to Legend (film). I already agreed he isn't an elf. Jon Jonasson (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, in Celtic mythology, "Jack in the Green" is not a tree, he is just symbolized by a tree. The folk-fair practice of dressing someone as a tree is an offshoot of the celtic mythology, not the cause of it. Read deeper into the article without being so rash. Jon Jonasson (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Tom Cruise stars in this timeless tale as young Jack O' The Green, a free-spirited hermit who becomes a hero when he combats the evil Lord of Darkness (Tim Curry) to rescue Princess Lili (Mia Sara) and free the universe from its curse of icy winter night." - from the American Press Kit. Collectonian (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the citation to the article. Collectonian (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Press kits are written for the Hoi polloi with no understanding of myth and symbolism. Jon Jonasson (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That really isn't your call to make. Unless the movie specifically calls him something other than a hermit, an official source does, or an actually reliable source does, we will use what they do. Nor is the plot section a place for discussion the allegories, myths, or symbolism in the film, it is for straight summarizing of the film. Collectonian (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)