User talk:Sergay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
Good luck, and have fun. --Roleplayer (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Biggest Loser
Hey I noticed you made a few edits to the article for The Biggest Loser Australia (Season 3) and thought you might like to add to the dispute on the discussion page. User:Josh710 keeps reverting edits and removing information, adding his own information which is poorly written and messing up the consistency set out by the previous two seasons. I can't seem to explain clearly that the article is being messed up. Do you know the process to get it sorted out civilly? Cheers. Peter (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Twilight
Don't worry, I'm expanding it with MTV cites at the moment. It's just a matter of using verifiable sources to narrow the scope so we don't indiscriminately list every single role. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I wanted to take a moment here to explain. There are many movie websites that list a multitude of roles in a film indiscriminately. I've cited news sources because generally, if they're talking about certain roles, they would be more prominent than someone who will only be in the background. We link to IMDb for the full cast information, so we try to narrow the scope here. Also, it's a good idea to use simple lists for Cast sections instead because they can be edited with more ease and expanded with prose. Wikitables are too limiting to accomplish that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, WP:MOSFILM encourages prose. A personal example I've done is Sunshine (2007 film)#Characters. Also, we can't be sure that the characters will be adapted faithfully. They could be either in the background or written out completely. The last example I recall is the exclusion of The Walker in The Seeker, see The Seeker (film)#Writing. Obviously, we should hope that it's faithful, but sometimes changes are made for conventional and creative reasons. I think I've exhausted the online sources I could find for supporting the article at this point. I'll check Newsbank for some print sources covering any additional detail a little bit later. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I see the film poster. I think if you still see the book poster, you need to reload that particular web page in its entirety. Just go to the article, hold Ctrl, and click Refresh. This will do a "hard" refresh, completely reloading the page. This is because the book poster is probably cached on your computer, so when you do the "hard" refresh, it will look for the image as it exists online instead of on your computer. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strange, now I see the problem you're talking about, and the "hard" refresh does not help. (It showed since another editor tried to put a different file of the poster image in the article.) I'm on a friend's computer, so I can't do anything with images. I contained another editor, Grandpafootsoldier, who often uploads poster images, to see if he can't upload a new and separate file of the new poster image. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Revert
Hello, I was wondering about this revert of yours. in the edit summary you say it "doesn't belong on a character page". Does this mean it belongs on some other page? Thanks for your time. --Angel Alice♠(talk) 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Alright. :) Thanks. --Angel Alice♠(talk) 01:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiproject The Office (US)
Hi Sergay. I've seen that you've done some work with the articles pertaining to The Office, and I just wanted to inform you of The Office WikiProject, a project dedicated to improving Office articles. If you have any questions about it, you can ask on my talk page. Mastrchf (t/c) 17:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Twilight
Hello Sergay, I just saw your revert of my revert on the Twilight page. Please read the message that I have left for you on that article talk page. I'm just trying to reach a comprimise and avoid one revert after another, which wastes time and space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The man in the mask (talk • contribs) 22:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. i've been watching the Eclipse page, and evidently so have you. While we enjoy your enthusiasm in editing this page, I have noticed that you seem to be reverting every edit made back to your own version of the article. While yours is perfectly acceptable, so are the vast majority of others you have been reverting. If you feel that you must continue these actions, please give a detailed but concise explanation of why each revert was made in your edit summary, as I see that you have been neglecting to do so with your past few reverts. I'm sorry to seem like a nag, but your self imposed regime over these pages has been one of total dominance. Please keep an open mind to the writing styles and opinions of other editors. The man in the mask (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am glad to hear that you are so devout in maintainig the integrity of these articles, but some of your claims of vadalism are very opinionated. While some of your reverts are very well intentioned, it is the wording reverts that bother me. Please keep in mind that you are not the only person who speaks the english language, and that as long as it makes sense, most wording is acceptable by Wikipedia's quality standards. I am not asking you to back down, merely to be more open minded. I find it unsettling that you (according to your user page) created your account to work on the wording in this one set of articles. Please take time to review the quality standards, ownership of articles and vandalsm pages. If you adhere to these guidelines, no more warnings need be issued. Dont get defensive please, just loosen your grip a little for the sake of other editors, whose edits, as long as they are valid, are valued equally by the community. The man in the mask (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to argue about this any more, but know that I am keeping my eye on these pages. i do not want to have to involve an administrator, which may involve the issue of more Warnings. The man in the mask (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Eclipse
No problem! I've been meaning to do one for all the Twilight books that didn't have one, so I figured I'd start with Eclipse. Thanks again. ~ Bella Swan? 13:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Just so's you know (redux)
Hey, I'm just glad that you would like to discuss this instead of us resorting to some sort of edit war.
Perhaps we can arrive at the proverbial 'happy medium'? To that end, I shall provide my response to the problems you have, and we shall discuss from there onward until we can come to a point at which we can agree to disagree. Sound good?
1) The problem is, a lack of research on the part of a storyteller IS lazy, what with information being so readily accessible. And it is a negative thing for any person who wishes to tell a story to not do at least some degree of research. As I had stated, one of the three basic rules of storytelling is 'truth.' In the words of Jim Loehr, "The ‘truth’ rule is that the story you tell should conform to known facts. Ask yourself: if the story is a work of fantasy, a lie you tell yourself, reflecting your biases and prejudices; or if you are sidestepping that parts of the story that are obviously untrue because they’re just too painful to confront." Basically, if you're going to tell a story involving things that are known, you should either tell the story based on your own concepts of what is known or be able to relay to the audience of why you are not including them. But in either case, you ought to know what it is that you are telling a story about. ('You' in this blurb, of course, referring to the one seeking to tell a story.) As it stands personally, I could care less about the differences applied, so long as they're logical in how they are used, but that's an entirely different discussion altogether. However, the choice of wording I used for that sentence is simply an exact approximation. Whether it is viewed negatively or positively is a matter of personal connotation. If you can think of a further neutral phrasing for it, do tell.
2) I'd removed 'traditional' because it really isn't 'traditional' vampires hers vary from, but the majority of vampires throughout fiction, both past and present. If you can find a term to better reflect that then simply removing the word altogether, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you. (You should know, though, that I tend to be a stickler when it comes to terminology. But I'm not entirely unreasonable. ;) )
On the matter of weaknesses, though, she did remove all of their weaknesses. And while they can be destroyed somehow, the manner by which Meyer portrays them as being able to be destroyed is inconsistent. She says that they have to be cut up and burnt (or something to that extent), but their bodies are so tough that they cannot be cut - and being burnt is the background behind Jane's ability. So perhaps, to that end, it could be said that they have no known weaknesses? (Just so you know, I wasn't the one to put mention of weaknesses or lack thereof where it's placed..however, a regard for weaknesses is a deviation from legend, so perhaps that's why it was placed where it was.)
3) The addition of the "this is not backed by scientific data or research" was the only change I'd made to that sentence.
4) While, yes, it is their only source of food, it still should be pointed out that they would not be able to starve to death, as that is a deviation from legend. This would be a point for discussion of chosen semantics.
And with all that, I put the ball in your court. I'm not an unreasonable fellow. Perhaps when all this is done, we could find something to talk about that we can agree upon. Sorry for the long reply. Xulicote (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If Jim Loehr doesn't count for you as a credible basis, perhaps Tom Clancy, who said, "The difference between reality and fiction? Fiction has to make sense."?
Yes, she chose to have her 'vampires' be different. Yes, there's nothing wrong with that. But there are boundaries which can be crossed. There's more to being a vampire besides being dead and consuming blood. Actually, there are various creatures in mythos that consume blood, and Meyer's 'vampires' aren't actually dead but simply, 'frozen in time.'
I don't know if you noticed, but the small section in which she 'mentioned' the 'typical' vampire traits felt as though it were tacked on. Like it had been the idea of her publisher to add it, just to be 'safe.' This seemingly 'tacked on' aspect of what 'research' she might have done after the fact may play into why she seems to be inconsistent on various ideas about her own 'vampires.' Nevermind the fact that she even says she doesn't plot anything out or really make an effort to plan.
Oh, you might want to re-check the source again. While, yes, the interviewer asked about the Host, which Meyer wrote as a "science fiction for those who don't like science fiction" (wtf?), Meyer's answer is her thoughts about fantasy in general, which Twilight falls under the category of.
But yes, your wording suffices on her admitting to doing little to no research. There had been an interview where she had directly admitted to not doing research on vampires before writing Twilight, and I've been searching for that interview for ages. But it seems that she's had it removed. The current source will still work, but if I can ever find the original, I'll be sure to tack it on, as well. Just to be on the safe side. Xulicote (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's another source: http://chbookstore.qwestoffice.net/fa2006-08.html It requires a bit of scrolling to get to. I'll add more if I find them. Xulicote (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- shugs* In either case, I did provide a source where she mentions not having researched them. She claims a 'familiarity' without having read anything more than a few of Anne Rice's works, but nothing more than that. So that phrase can be altered to "Meyer admits to having not researched" or whatever it was you'd said. Would you like the honors?
I guess there are just certain things that go along with being dead that her 'vampires' lack..such as not having super speed. If the body were 'dead' as she tries to claim, but operates only on a venom instead of blood, they would be having trouble moving at all, let alone at the speeds she portrays them to have. Not to mention that the body wouldn't able to move at all due to rigormortis if there's nothing providing sustenance to the muscles.. I guess this more goes under the science aspect, though.
One question, though. What could the 'vampires' have access to that could be used to cut each other up that humans do not? If anything, the 'vampires' seem to rely on humans for technology. So then if humans can't cut the vampires, the vampires would not be able to cut themselves. It just doesn't have any sort of consistency in thinking.
I'm aware that Jane's power is used for torture. But Jane obtained her power by being burned at the stake. And yet she's still around? Seems that burning doesn't do anything to them after all.
And I agree that if they have no weaknesses, they'd live forever. But they're not shown to actually have any. We're told that they do, but the ones we're told just don't add up. Perhaps the wording could be this: "Edward states that they do have a few weaknesses, but what they could be remains largely unknown." Xulicote (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
