User talk:Justin Bacon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Justin, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and style guide pages are also useful. There is a sandbox which you can use to experiment in. If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. Angela 01:52, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Here's an Attaboy for you for tackling the pages concerning the rulers of Persia & putting a template at the bottom of each article. (And they appear to be better thought-thru than the ones I did for the Roman Emperors.) All of the articles concerning the history of Persia could benefit from some attention. -- llywrch 01:34, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

About the templates for the Roman Emperors articles: unfortunately, I wasn't the one who created it, but was goaded into action when Adam Bishop added them to the list of Byzantine Emperors. In fact, I'd say that the articles on the Roman Emperors was the important collection last to have these templates attached -- although I haven't looked at the list of Emperors for China & Japan.

But I more than happy to do anything that will encourage other people to contribute. -- llywrch 17:26, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Justin, is there a reason the rulers of the Seleucid dynasty seem to have two templates at the bottom of each article? (Normally I'd just delete the superfluous one, but with my luck it'd probably turn out that this duplication was the result of a long argument I've not heard of, & I would be fanning dying flames.) -- llywrch 22:23, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No long argument. But my reasoning was thus: Although the Seleucid dynasty is briefly the same as the line of Persian Kings, the two don't remain constant: The Seleucid dynasty continues to exist for a long time after losing the throne of Persia. My thinking was that if someone were following, say, the Persian kings from one link to the next, they'd want continuity. Similarly, if someone were following the Seleucid dynasty from one link to the next, they'd want continuity. Thus, two links. Justin Bacon 15:48, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I was wondering what was the source for the list of rulers for the Parthia article. The dates and other information seems to differ from other information such as this site. Maximus Rex 00:28, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the expansion of Tekumel! --Kaleissin 22:34:48, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

Contents 1 Star Wars 2 Star Wars opening wording 3 SW Template 4 Contradictory? 5 Discrepancies (Dune)

[edit] Star Wars

I did look at the history before I reverted, and I completely diagree with the formatting. I have been working to get the article featured, and, no offense, but I don't think your version is in the right direction. The Wookieepedian 19:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• This is more appropriately discussed at the article's talk page, and I am transferring the discussion there. I would like you to explain why you feel that:

1. The length of the article (which is too long by Wikipedia standards) should not be trimmed by removing redundant information.
2. The grammar and writing style of the article should not be improved wherever possible.
3. There is a need to illogically separate similar information into multiple categories. For example, why do we need two different sections for television shows? Why are games given two separate sections, one of which is lumped in unnaturally with toys? Why do we need two different sections, each discussing Joseph Campbell's influence on the trilogy?
4. Fan works should included as a sub-section of the Extended Universe, a term which explicitly only applies to licensed material?

I am undoing your revert of the article (incorporating the substantive material subsequently added Philwelch. Please do not revert the article again without addressing your rationale for the redundant and clumsy lay-out you prefer for this article. Justin Bacon 21:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked User:The Wookieepedian for his violations of 3RR but please be advised that edit wars are never good and that you were part of it as well. At the moment by my count you are on the very edge of 3RR so I urge you not to revert Star Wars again for awhile and to take out any issues you may have on the article's talk page. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup. Seeing it was just a revert war, I stopped fighting a losing battle. We seem to be having some success on working towards a wider consensus on the talk page. Thank you. Justin Bacon 23:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars opening wording

The opening as I have it reads: "Star Wars is a science fantasy saga inspired from a fictional universe created by writer/producer/director George Lucas in the early 1970s." I have it this way for a reason. The sentence states that Lucas created the overall universe, as in the ideas, the characters, the locations, etc. However, all stories about this universe were created based on the fictional universe Lucas created. As you know, many authors and artists were involved in these stories, so they weren't directly created by Lucas, they were created using his basic ideas. Together, the stories make up the complete saga. I can see what you mean the wayyou have it, but this type of wording relates the two. The Wookieepedian 03:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would stretch things to credit Lucas with the creation of all the ideas, characters, and locations. The basic premise of the universe is not Lucas's sole creation just like the stories weren't his sole creation. — Phil Welch 03:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Moving this discussion to Talk:Star Wars. I'll comment there. Justin Bacon 03:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SW Template

I made a comment today on the SW talk page about why I made the change. My idea is that, as a compromise, all the episodes pages could have the consensus template, while the other one, which is comprehensive, could be on the main page, since that is where most interested in SW come first. This would allow it then to act as a portal. The Wookieepedian 03:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictory?

What is contradictory about "demons and devils disappeared for a time and were renamed Tanar'ri and Baatezu respectively when they returned" (emphasis newly added)? Not to be (overly) rude or anything, but you do understand the notion of temporal sequence, right? PurplePlatypus 18:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepancies (Dune)

Hi. Lundse & I have decided not to engage in further "discussion" with Zeus69962 on this topic because, as you have pointed out with citing sources, he seems to have no idea of how to construct or conduct a logical argument. Just to keep you in the loop. RJCraig 07:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Noticed your recent comments on the "Discrepancies of Dune" discussion page. I fail to see how discussion about what should and should not be included, conscensus on the removal of clearly obvious errors and the ultimate desire of those contributing in those discussions to provide an article that is consise and free of OR could in itself be considered OR. If anything it is an attempt to remove the POV from the article, where one reader may believe that there is a discrepancy yet this is disproved or easily countered with simple logic. You should have a look at the Star Wars discrepancy page... the amount of OR in there is fantastical by comparison. Discussion pages can have whatever they like in them, OR or otherwise... as long as the resulting article is free of it then is there an issue? Enigmatical 00:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you are basing your decision on what should be presented in the article not on the basis of actual, verifiable discrepancies which have been claimed within the fan community, but on the basis of your own personal assessment of what is or is not a "correct" discrepancy. That's OR and it's directly affecting the content of the article. Justin Bacon 16:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)