User talk:Sage of Ice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Welcome Sage of Ice
2 Avatar: The Last Airbender citations
3 Pettigrew-Potter Life Debt
4 Fanart comment
5 Dynamic IPs and warnings
6 Raul654

[edit] Welcome Sage of Ice

THank you for joining WikiProject:Avatar: The Last Airbender. After seeing many of your edits. I am sure you will help make all our lives easier as you rise up to join the elite of the Wikiproject (I wish i was their but that's another story.) Cnriaczoy42 01:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar: The Last Airbender citations

Information about the show can only come officially from the show itself, or from official sites with official statements by the production crew.

What is revealed in an episode can not be cited except in the form of referencing that specific episode. Citing a third party website with a synopsis of the episode (like avatarspirit.net) is not appropriate due to the site having no affiliation with the show.

A synopsis from that site is as official as a synopsis on Wikipedia: written entirely by an unaffiliated third party. The episode is the official, primary source for the information, and referencing it is far more preferable than citing a third party website.

As such, the only time that a citation is needed, is when something was NOT mentioned in an episode, for in that situation there is nothing to reference, and thus the proof of the claim is neeeded. When writing an article on a movie, you don't rely on a website's synopsis of the movie to present the facts. You rely on the movie itself. This same logic applies to a TV show.

Accordingly, I have removed the tag on Aang's entry. Sage of Ice 12:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

------------------

This is what you wrote:

"Citing a third party website with a synopsis of the episode (like avatarspirit.net) is not appropriate due to the site having no affiliation with the show."

Now look at the following tag that came from the Wikipedia:Citing sources page...

This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources.

Do you see a pattern? Avatarspirit.net would then be a perfect source since it's "third party" and has "no affiliation with the show". I have no objections that the citation template was taken down, but please make sure that you read up on the subject more before taking one down again. (Ghostexorcist 06:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

------------------

Thank you for the long-winded lecture. I’m a history major; I know what a primary source is. However, you seem to miss the entire point of me adding this tag. Unaffiliated third-party sources are still acceptable. The Aang page should at least have sources cited so others can check the material presented for accuracy and or consistency. That is the entire point of Wikipedia. It’s a “starting point” which allows others to branch out from the sources given.

"Take, for example, the page of George Costanza. It describes the character entirely based on events from the series episodes. Canonical sources. What happens in an episode becomes a fact of the character. These sources suffice as reference, for they are undeniable. Anything else is non-canonical and inappropriate if cited unless it came directly from a series creator/producer (those who have the power to create canon). As such, you'll notice that there are no citations or references in that article, merely external links for more information."

The Aang page does not have a single external link. Just a book citation which I added.

“No one can say that events that took place in an episode were "biased" events. That just does not make sense.”

But who says the people writing the article are not? From reading the article’s talk page, I’ve seen that people view the same episode in different ways. Not everyone is going to agree with each other. So people might add things to the article, which a small circle (not the majority) agrees with, but might not be viewed the same way the original writer had intended. That’s why some sort of source should be used. Toph is the only character article within the group that I've seen which uses an external source.(Ghostexorcist 08:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

No problem on the second lecture. Thanks for adding the external link. I see that you fixed a typo on my Lei tai page. Other than The Blind Bandit, do you know of any other avatar episodes where benders fight on a raised, square (or rectangular) fighting service? I haven't seen it, but I hear The Storm episode shows flashbacks of the fire prince facing his father in an Agni Kai. One of the rules is to knock an opponent on his back, which is also rules in lei tai.(Ghostexorcist 19:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Pettigrew-Potter Life Debt

Hey Sage - I saw your (immediately self-deleted) concerns about the possibly speculative nature of the presumed "Life Debt" that Pettigrew owes Potter. While Rowling does not explicitly use the term "Life Debt" directly in the books or elsewhere, I thought I would give you the proper reference source, so you can review the texts and decide for yourself if they meet the definition of a Life debt, since I expect this may still be an issue at least for you.

About midway through chapter 22 of Prisoner of Azkaban (the exact page numbers vary with edition, but it is on page 426-427 in mine), Dumbledore is speaking with Harry. Harry is upset because Pettigrew escaped and has returned to the Dark Lord, as predicted by Trelawney. Dumbledore consoles Harry by telling him he "did a very noble thing, in saving Pettigrew's life", and then goes on to say "Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy who is in your debt. . . . When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between them . . . and I'm much mistaken if Voldemort wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter." Dumbledore continues with "This is magic at its deepest, most impenetrable, Harry. But trust me . . . the time may come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life."^[HP3]

I think you will find that Dumbledores description of the situation at the very least meets the definition of a Life debt. As to when, if, or how Pettigrew will pay that debt is unknown. It is not clear whether Pettigrew did anything or should have done anything to pay the debt in the Graveyard Scene of Goblet of Fire; and it can be debated whether Pettigrew would have had to intevene in some way, had Harry been very near death during the wizard-duel with Voldemort. The fact is, Harry and his wand and magical skills (and perhaps some dumb luck) pretty much got himself out of trouble in that scene, so Pettigrew did not need to attempt to intervene. In any case, the magic-enhanced life-debt remains, and we shall see in Book 7 if Pettigrew is somehow forced to pay that debt to redeem himself. This is why the life-debt is included with the Known plot details / Continuing storylines back at the Deathly Hallows article.

I was also in two minds about whether to leave this one in. However, I think there is also something from Rowling talking about it. Don't know where it is, mind. My own issue was whether it is sufficiently important, since we are selecting which points to highlight. Also I was wondering whether since the section introduces the concept of life debts, there is supposed to be one still owed to James by Snape. Sandpiper 09:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There is,'Catheldral school: Will wormtail ever pay Harry back? JK Rowling replies -> You'll see... keep reading!'[1] Sandpiper

Now - what might be a valid debate point is whether "Continuing storylines from previous books" is really appropriate . . . perhaps "Unresolved plot elements" would be more correct, since we do not really know what storylines will in fact be continued in Book 7. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fanart comment

Please remove the blatant advertising in your comment in the fanart section on the Avatar page. By this I mean the 2 times you mention avatarspirit. -Dylan0513 18:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dylan, what would you have done? Told the kid to screw off and never come here again because this isn't a forum? Probably, which means you would have broken this: Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. I chose to give the kid a site to go to so that he would not post any other such things on Wikipedia. I gave him an outlet, it wasn't advertising. It was guidance. And it's not against the Wikipedia policy to send someone to a site where they should be. It's not advertising however you want to see it. Want to know why? Here: Wikipedia:Advertisement.

Read up and read well. What I did in no way qualifies as advertisement OR as canvassing. You just have personal issues against ASN and any mention of it, as you've mentioned above. That gives you NO reason to delete someone's comment and COMPLETELY breaks THIS policy: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable.

Do you see now that YOU are the policy-breaker and not me?

You're "pretty sure" that my actions were against policy? Maybe you should RESEARCH BEFORE you act. Like I did. It's common sense. If you do that, you'll be far less likely to break any of these, too: Wikipedia:Etiquette#How_to_avoid_abuse_of_talk_pages.

I was going to send him to another Avatar page with a forum, but I couldn't really find one fast enough, so I just gave him ASN. There was no hidden agenda, and you have no reason or evidence to think so. Whether you like or dislike ASN, you can't deny that they have a forum and was where that kid should have been. Not here. What YOU think of ASN, whether it is good or bad, does not even remotely factor into anything that should ever be on Wikipedia. So keep it to yourself.

I'm going to stop throwing all those links in your face now. I did that not because I want to be hostile, but because I wanted to be thourough - a courtesy you did not give me.

Now I won't go there and re-edit the page to include my response. Mainly because I feel that the kid got the message and there is nothing more to be gained. You, however, Dylan, need to exercise far more caution with your rash behaviour, for the sake of your account and every Avatar page. Sage of Ice 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic IPs and warnings

How would I have known if the warning I left was used as a dynamic IP?
I've left hundreds of warnings on user pages and had multiple users blocked.
I did not engage in an edit war.
I did not insult the vandal.
That was four months ago.

Really, I did absolutely nothing wrong, and even in hindsight, I would not do anything differently. The edit in question was replacing proper awards with "He Haz A Big Cock says his wife," which is obviously blatant vandalism by someone who never intends on becoming a good editor. After all, that is the only edit by that IP address . . . ever. You know you have a dynamic IP, and knew that the message was not meant for you. If there were no such thing as dynamic IPs, there wouldn't be much need for user accounts at Wikipedia. As long as you sign in to your account, you should never receive any messages not meant for you. I see that you're new here, so please realize that you may have something to learn. For example, you have provided an edit summary on only 51.14% of your edits. Always filling in the summary field is considered an important guideline at Wikipedia. Thanks for your recommendation and I hope you continue making good edits to improve Wikipedia. --Muéro^(talk/c) 02:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy: "If you see vandalism, revert it and leave a warning message on the user's talk page." Maybe I should have left a friendlier warning, but I fail to see how removing vandalism without leaving a warning is somehow better. I had no way of knowing if it was a dynamic IP (and even if it is, signing in is pretty easy). I had no way of knowing if the editor would vandalize again. An editor cannot be blocked without warning(s), so why not warn someone, when they deserve it, just in case it ever comes to the point where they need to be blocked? I've only ever requested that two users be blocked, one anonymous IP and one signed-in user, but both had numerous warnings and were subsequently blocked. So I don't go around warning and asking for blocks willy nilly, but I do try to keep Wikipedia vandalism-free. My mother works at a middle school, and she has complained to me about students finding inappropriate material on Wikipedia because of vandalism. The students were told to find information (about a United States president) at Wikipedia, and instead found a whole bunch of explicit garbage that was left there entirely too long (a few hours).

As for the edit summaries, I completely agree that many users of Wikipedia may have slow connections, but adding "spelling fix" or some other short text summary should not slow down loading a page noticeably. Wikipedia does have some sort of policy on this, which tried to invoke (unsuccessfully) to remove an extremely large (1.2 megabytes) animated GIF image of copyrighted video without good fair-use rationale. I really don't think the 12 bytes to load "spelling fix" will make any difference. I agree that adding edit summaries regarding discussion page edits isn't necessary, and should be left the the discretion of the editor. But, adding edit summaries to all article edits, including minor edits, is still important, especially if you ever edit without signing in. Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. Many users watch recent changes for vandalism (I use Lupin's anti-vandal tool for this), and two red flags are anonymous IP edits and edits without edit summaries. A quick and easy edit summary could save someone time by showing either the full text (Wikipedia policy states: In the case of a small addition to an article, it is highly recommended to copy the full text of this addition to the summary field, giving a maximum of information with a minimum of effort) of the change(s) or just a summary of the change(s). Even if the edit summaries don't help you much, they really do help many other editors, and I would encourage you to try to provide one if possible.

In regard to the age of your account, you are absolutely correct that you may have been editing for a long time before that. Plus, genuinely new users can have good ideas and opinions too, so I really shouldn't have mentioned anything about the age of your account. After all, we were all new once. Just as you said to me, carry on the good work. We're both working toward the same goal, so thanks for clarifying your suggestions, and maybe I'll start leaving friendlier messages unless absolutely necessary. --Muéro^(talk/c) 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother arguing with this guy, Sago of Ice. After figting a war over addition of literally anything positive on the Ales Hemsky page, due to Hemsky eliminating his Detroit Red Wings from the playoffs, I have found that the best way to deal with him is to ignore, ignore, ignore. Let him think he runs wikipedia, and do your business. I had to change my user name because he drove me so crazy (in one instance by reporting me to someone he knew outside of wikipedia in an attempt at getting me banned), that I said some stuff I didn't want associated with my former user name (my real name). Just .... ignore if you want to keep your sanity. The strokes 20:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)