User talk:Zythe/Archive 1

 Hey, try to leave messages to me in appropriate categories, create a new one if appropriate... I can rearrange everything to make it look nice though, k? :) 

Deist... perhaps a PanDeist?
Friend, I see that you class yourself as a Deist - might you also be a PanDeist? I have just begun speak on such things at length on my MySpace blog. //// Pacific PanDeist 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well personally, while the argument that god is the universe intrigues me, Deism for me is only a logical possibility... I see the universe as self supporting, with probability and formula in physics governing our world without need for divine intervention. I do sort of believe that beyond what we can percieve, something else may exist, and within the possibilities of the universe, perhaps some sort of sentience can exist in its core. I'm not sure exactly where my religious beliefs truly fit, but I see Deism as a nice umbrella for my own rationalist philosophy :) Thanks though. Zythe 16:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying, it is always elucidating to plum the spiritual ideas of others, so long as we all share an open mind!! Of course, when I say we share an open mind, I mean it in a more literal sense than most!! ;) ://// Pacific PanDeist 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking over your reply and thought of this: if God was all that was before the Universe, and God made the Universe, and especially if we presume the Universe to be infinite or presume God to be finite. then what is the Universe made from? ://// Pacific PanDeist * 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe some scientists try to say that the universe's expansion will result in an eventual retraction (red shift to violet shift), leading to a big implosion, after which will come a big bang... and this process may have happened before, it may always happen, it may never end... if time can be absorbed into a black hole, then literally time can be sucked into the retracting universe... a bit like what Hindus believe... that it repeats itself. Literally, chaos as a concept, dark matter and nothing, is merely a frequency away from the particles and waves that make up everything we know. Literally, "nothing" is something. Maybe I'm not making sense. This is where most people cite the first cause. And why does the Universe have to be made of God, if God is God, then nothing is impossible? I'm just saying, the rationalist theory which physics endeavours to explain makes most sense to me. If God exists outside time, he is what stops everything repeating. Perhaps that is how he is both alpha and omega? I have a lot of different, contrasting opinions. To me, philosophy is flexible. Zythe 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Does that not beg the question, "Why?" Why would a god omniscient or at least nearly so, create a universe at all? That is the question Deism can not answer, PanTheism need not ask because it presumes no creation, but which PanDeism seeks to answer...That is what God would do in order to experience existence in a way that "God" cannot!! That is the ultimate rational point is it not, the explanation not only how we are here but WHY!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You've got to wonder, why does there have to be a why? Can't there simply be a paradox of is? Who says God has to exist yet, perhaps his creation is within time and then his influence is retroactive... essenitally a grandfather paradox. Pandeism is a great argument, and I do understand what you mean, but I have resigned myself to the argument that some things do not necessarily behave in such a way that they can actually be answered. Zythe 21:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a personal preference then - for me there must be a how, a why, and a where are we going!! You are content to ponder only the how and perhaps believe that there is no why or where to go, but I believe that if there is a how (which there must be - look at the design inherent in the Universe!!) then these other questions must be answered... then again all persons who adopt a religion believe themselves to be right so I look through the lens of the beliefs I've chosen (or perhaps chose me!!) //// Pacific PanDeist * 01:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC) (I see you prefer the sig to be put in the same line as the prior comment, I will do this!!) //// Pacific PanDeist * 01:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * :) //// Pacific PanDeist * 00:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again
What an odd conversation you've got youreslf in - hi, I'm doing fine, thought I'd say so, friend!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 10:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine thanks too :) Zythe 22:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Pleased to know that!! :D //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Going nuts over here
So I wrote this article up on the Al Gore's Penguin Army video controversy and I'm getting taken apart over it by a couple of folks (really 2 or 3)... I trust you, does it look like the mess they're saying it is on the talk page? Or is it a fair take on what to me is an obvious piece of dirty politics? Bless Yourself!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely certain because I'm not familiar with the subject but I think it you just follow everyone's advice the problems will go away :). Things like weasel words can be reworded or changed into quotes if you have a source you can reference. I think if you just Assume good faith and take everything as friendly advice the article should get better. Just do some general copy editting :). Should be fine. ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi :-) To you
Thank you for your comment on my page and i agree that more people like us should be open and proud.--Dil 20:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nick Griffin
Bless you and your Griffin edit summary. One day we'll all grow up to believe that if someone was bisexual they'd say so :) I left the edit itself intact, however, as there's not much arguing with it. Dogville 22:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha, thanks! Seems fitting considering BNP party policy is that "homosexuals should stay in the closet where they belong" or some such crap. You know what they say about homophobes! Zythe 12:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

4ish on the Kinsey Scale!
Not sure why, but that made me laugh so hard! Oh, and I agree with you abour Brandon Boyd :) -Bri 16:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, why thank you, I do try! I'm a big fan of sixes myself. :P ~ZytheTalk to me! 16:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually used to have a 5 up, because I considered the fact that I've been with four women in my life as 'incidentally heterosexual', but I thought about it and changed it...2 of the 4 were drunken mistakes, and a third ended up being a mistake...only the last was really thought out and purposeful and meaningful, because it was gfor my son. Ah well, thus I'm a 6!-Bri 16:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's way more confusing with me and I wish it wasn't. I wish I could be one of those people who "just know" but I don't. Sometimes I like one more than the other. Sometimes I contemplate I may be straighter than my straight mates and that weirds it out. Sometimes I can be repulsed by an individual and it makes me re-evaluate whether I not I like their entire gender. Meh, it goes back and forth. So I can be quite happy to identify as gay in situations or as straight, but I don't think a lot of people understand that because they see the three terms as mutually exclusive. ~ZytheTalk to me! 16:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good thing you're 16 and you have plenty of time to figure it out, and, in 2006, not as much pressure to figure it out at all. I'm 27...  When I was 16, it wasn;t fashionable to be gay, bi, etc.  I suppose both you and I are lucky, depending on how you look at it. -Bri 16:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wyatt Halliwell (Paige Matthews article)
Hello, Zythe.

Please cite your reasons why the Wyatt Halliwell name needs to be boldfaced. I don't feel it should be, as it sticks out from the rest of the article, and is unnecessary. Thanks --Joe Christl 13:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What?


 * Refresh my memory, when did I do this, and to what article? Zythe 14:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * [Here]. On the Paige Matthews page, there is a spot where I saw Wyatt Matthew Halliwell was boldfaced.  I saw that Mira had unboldfaced something earlier, and I decided to unboldface this, as it doesn't seem to fit being boldfaced.  An hour later you re-boldfaced it.


 * The only thing I can think is, when I made my change, perhaps you were already editing the original page (before my edit) and your change still carried the original.


 * If that's the case, forgive me. --Joe Christl 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's ok, if you look at the same edit, you'll see I was correcting the link to Avatars (Charmed) and appending the Whitelighter section. :) Zythe 15:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought that Wikipedia would stop someones edit when the original source had changed (sort of like cvs). Guess not. --Joe Christl 15:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was viewing the version comparison at the time, so maybe clicking edit editted the old version instead? Zythe 15:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Leo Wyatt
After your last edit in the Leo Wyatt page, the page has some small false information (such as: The Frozen state, as he`s currently no longer frozen, etc.). So Please, reverse your last edit. --DarkFireTaker
 * Fixed, thanks.

Image copyright problem with Image:Chrishalliwell.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chrishalliwell.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ash Ketchum
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. H ig hway Batman! 22:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He falls under the category of Messiah because in the second movie it is prophesised the world would turn to Ash (to save it). It stands.Zythe 22:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the movies generally aren't held in regard as canon because of their lack of impact on the anime. Keep categorizing, H ig hway Batman! 22:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Canonicity isn't relevant. In one variation of the story, Ash is "a messiah". A bit like how Mary Jane Watson is under the lesbians category but she's only a lesbian in one alternate universe story etc... I can think of better examples than that actually, well, maybe not right now. Zythe 22:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll back you up on this one. --Chris Griswold 21:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No I classed it as vandalism because I forgot because of the canonicity. Sorry, H ig hway Batman! 22:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * =) Zythe 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Time Lords
I'm not aware of them being pre-cognisant but I could be wrong Tim! 21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Fictional teleporters
I have removed the various Power Rangers characters from this category because their method of teleportation can be likened to the Star Trek teleporters. They did not have the power to do so; they merely used technology to do so. If you take any random Star Trek character, you can see that they are not listed under "Fictional teleporters". Ryūlóng 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how someone ascertains their powers, they still belong to them, right? Is Iron Man the hero or is it his suit? If the power of Red Ranger itself teleports and not Rocky DeSantos or whoever, then what's to discriminate between earlier series in which they could and later in which they couldn't? That's why I added all the MM and Zeo rangers. In Star Trek, they use the ship to teleport. In Power Rangers, it is thier own powers, and only some specific rangers. Zythe 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But they didn't get the ability to teleport from their suits. They had a watch/communicator that allowed them to teleport, whether they were in their civilian or Power Ranger suits. And I'm not that sure that the Zeo Rangers teleported. Ryūlóng 18:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And Green Lantern has a ring. I don't see why they should not be included, they are teleporters, later ones aren't. It's not like Star Trek where I assume everyone does actually teleport all the time.Zythe 19:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I originally removed the entry from Tommy's page because I thought it was a mistake in his powers through Dino Thunder, where they got abilities that were not unlike those that would allow for inclusion in categories such as "Fictional speedsters" or the like. However, in the Mighty Morphin era, I doubt that their technologically driven ability to teleport would surmount to inclusion into the category. Ryūlóng 19:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, whatever, I don't care enough to revert them back and I haven't watched Power Rangers since Time Force, and really I feel it should have ended at In Space. While I feel technological and mystical powers sources equate to roughly the same thing. Didn't some of the Ninjas and others since have innate powers, from their coins or whatever the power source was that year? Should they count? Zythe 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are different powers that they utilized as part of their training that weren't derived from a device. If a Power Ranger has the ability to manipulate the wind or electricity, that warrants inclusion into the respective categories. However, I believe that listing "Category:Power Rangers characters" into "Category:Fictional teleporters" would be sufficient, as several of the characters that have their own pages are in the category, and it wouldn't include any of the Ranger teams that didn't teleport. Ryūlóng 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Superman
Please explain the inclusion of Superman in Category:Fictional psychokineticists at the talk page. Thanks. --Chris Griswold 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for agreeing about Ash Ketchum and I've tried to explain the Superman-is-telekinetic bit. I was thinking that Superman and enough of his pastiches have psionicly enhanced strength. Could it be enough to constitute a subcategory of psychokineticists? ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really know. I'm trying to understand. --Chris Griswold 21:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How Superman's powers work: John Byrne in his 1986 reboot suggested that Superman's powers were telekinetic or psionic in their functioning (as a result of the traditional yellow sun explanation), though recent comics such as Birthright have begun to retcon this explanation away. As of Birthright's continuity, Superman's powers again work on a combination of solar conversion and gravitational difference from Krypton.


 * Of course, if these were retconned by Superboy punching a cosmic barrier, then at a time it would still have existed - much like the worlds of the Multiverse which now technically "never existed".


 * Tactile telekinesis: This ability was originally presented as a more scientifically sound explanation for Superman's feats of strength. This included exceeding the strain and mass-to-energy lifting power of his physical body, exceeding the durability of his organic body, his power of flight and most notably his ability to lift buildings without having them crumble around him under their own weight. On a side note this was also used to explain why blows from Superman didn't pulverize 'soft-flesh' opponents, however there are many characters who can still shred people like wet tissue paper even with this ability. Subsequently all fictional characters who display the above abilities are principally given the ability of tactile telekinesis by default even without the creators having to say so.


 * Superboy would have to have inherited it from Superman too, right? Even if Superman doesn't have the control of it in the comics, to the extent that future Superboy, Zod and his disciples seem to.


 * And not Superman himself, but, Image:ReedTheorizes.jpg: "...mental powers such as pyrokinesis, telekinesis and levitation."


 * Which is what I mean for a category of characters with "psionically enhanced strength". ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see your reasoning now. If you can think of several more characters, sure, make the category. I'd bring it up at the WP:CMC talk page because you can get more ideas for characters for the category. --Chris Griswold 22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost every character in Category:Superman pastiches ie. Gladiator (Shi'ar) and Captain Hero, every Kryptonian and possibly a few other non comics characters, like (from the Buffyverse): Willow Rosenberg, Illyria (Buffyverse), Glorificus (Buffyverse), Vengeance demon etc. ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Many, if not all, of the characters you are describing are empowered by belief. You can add Marvel's Norse gods and DC's Greek pantheon to the list. --Chris Griswold 22:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Marvel Greeks too? ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not as familiar with those characters. "Category:Characters with faith-based superpowers"? --Chris Griswold 01:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a wordy category name. Plus, I think it would probably be too subjective. There are a lot of magical powers that would require subjective assessment of what "faith" is. (P.S. That said, I've always enjoyed your Wikipedia contributions, by the way.) Wryspy 09:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't apply to every one of the characters whose powers derive from psychic abilities. Faith-based is subjective, too - who worships Jor-El? I was thinking more of a category to separate characters who have superhuman strength derived from build, size, stature, magic, strange genetic makeup - like Captain America, Spider-Man, Thing, Rockslide and Hulk ... from those whose powers are independent of their shape and form and so metaphysical in nature, like Buffy, Superman etc. ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've detailed more extensively what my proposal is. Please read it here: User:Zythe/Project, and contribute any ideas before I implement it. Thank you. ~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fictional &#91;fictional/legendary creature&#93;s"
Just to let you know I've responded to your observation re and at the above. I hope I'm not confusing myself! Best wishes, David Kernow 16:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nina
Yes, you are right :$ User:MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahah, thought so ;) ~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

fictional lesbians
When was this category removed?--Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 13:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because fictional LGBT characters (and by media subcategories) already exists. With regards to some fictional characters, gender and sexuality can be blurry (e.g. some would argue that Willow is lesbian-identified bisexual, that some bisexual characters who are never seen in recent years to be attracted to men are in fact lesbian etc.) This is also the reason why the larger category already exists, so that you can read in the article the what the character's gender is and everything it says about their sexuality before making a definite conclusion as to whether they are gay, bi, transgender or whatever else someone can be. :) ~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 17:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool; I couldn't find the CFD.--Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 17:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Sasquatch t|c 01:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You can remove this once you give an explanation... otherwise, don't remove warnings. Sasquatch t|c 01:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, nevermind. I see. Happy editing! Sasquatch t|c 01:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad you understand :) ~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 01:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Superstrength category
Hey Zythe, sorry about you having to revert all my edits to this category, I didn't realise they were covered in sub categories. Feel free to spank me for being so naughty!NeilEvans 00:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's okay, sorry if I came off condescending at all! ~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 00:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope not at all. BTW I checked out your myspace page, that's cool. NeilEvans 19:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Done so far

 * Shanshu Prophecy~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 06:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Watcher (Buffyverse)~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 23:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * List of supervillainesses~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 23:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Note on listing comics-related items for deletion
In the future, when listing a comics-related category, template, or article for deletion, please list it at WP:CMC/NB. This allows the community to come to a better concensus and feel like part of the process, and we have examples for you to just cut and paste and add the appropriate information to. I'd really appreciate it, and I am sure I'm not the only one. Thanks. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  )  20:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Strength
Hey. Saw your edit summary on Wolverine (comics). "Superhuman" is greater than human, be it peak or whatever, it just means greater than human. "Super" has no defined meaning applied to strength. Creating an explicit distinction between the two stinks of original research unless you can find reputable sources backing up the idea. --Newt Ψ Φ  00:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, that was the benchmark that came with the category when it was created. I tried adding Wolverine and Captain America to the category before, but it was reverted because apparently the category was for the very strong. I was just keeping up with what I'd been told. Sorry! ~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 10:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Style
Just so you know, it's not worth putting category tags on redirects. Okay? DS 15:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate review: Buffy article
Hi

Just letting WikiProject Buffyverse members know that the article 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' has recently been nominated as a candidate to become a featured article. Should it become a featured article, it will be possible for the article to appear on the Wikipedia main page on March 10th 2007, the 10th anniversary of Buffy (the premiere, "Welcome to the Hellmouth" aired March 10th 1997).

Any feedback you can offer to improve the article and/or to either object or support the nomination would be wonderful:

Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer

-- Paxomen 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)