User talk:Mcelite

One-drop rule

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to One-drop rule, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you.. Jeeny ^(talk) 04:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to African American. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Using Wikipedia as a source is not ok. Neither is splicing together points from multiple sources to advance a position. This is called original research and is effectively the same as not having a source at all. CJ 09:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

One-drop rule

Please review Wikipedia's policies concerning verifiability, original research, and reliable sources.

The information you are adding to One-drop rule is not based on reliable sources. Self-published books, blogs, advertisements for films, and messages to e-mail lists are not reliable sources. Furthermore, none of the sources have anything to say about "Damage Caused in African American Families", the title under which you have added this information.

In accordance with the policies cited above, information that cannot be supported by reliable sources will be removed from the article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR, particularly Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Writing a paragraph that consists of sentences, each of which may be true, for the purpose of creating an argument ("The one-drop rule causes damage in African-American families") that has not been published in reliable sources is considered original research.

Also, a book published by Lulu Press is "self-published". Lulu.com describes itself as the "#1 Self Publishing Website". Wikipedia policy does not accept self-published books as sources. That doesn't mean that you wrote the book. It simply means that the author's manuscript wasn't subject to the editing and fact-checking that is typical of mainstream publishing companies.

If your argument, that the one-drop rule causes damage in African-American families, is widely accepted, it shouldn't be hard to find sources that satisfy Wikipedia's policies concerning reliable sources to cite it properly. If you have any questions, please ask at Talk:One-drop rule or User talk:Malik Shabazz. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

PS - To be 100% honest, I don't think you're writing about damage caused in African-American families by the one-drop rule. I think you're writing about the Native American heritage many African-Americans have but aren't aware of, and the new census category of "Multiracial". You may want to think about what it is that you're trying to communicate and give it a more descriptive title, and consider whether it belongs in One-drop rule, African American, or Multiracial. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Majin Buu

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Majin Buu are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur size changes

Hi Mcelite,

Why are you adjusting the respective sizes of Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and Tyrannosaurus? We get a lot of editors who switch the already-referenced numbers around, but the references in Dinosaur size confirm that Tyrannosaurus was neither the longest nor the most massive theropod. These are only estimates, but they are based mostly on peer-reviewed papers and studies of the fossils. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 07:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

here is the link to the T. rex third finger discovery. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 08:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was pretty surprising to everyone. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur sizes

Hey Mcelite. I'm not sure what you mean when you frequently refer to people "declaring officially" the largest theropod. These things are not declared, estimates are given in various studies based on fossil evidence. All studies since its discovery have recognized Giganotosaurus as larger than Tyrannosaurus. Period. Some specimens that might be larger have been found. However, when these have been actually studied and published on, they were not found to be even as large as Sue. Some, like C-Rex, might be larger, but might not. We won't know until the finds are prepared and studied, and it's not our job as an encyclopedia to speculate about or discuss these finds until the real scientists are able and willing to give official opinions. Spinosaurus was usually ignored when saying which was biggest, but as the article states, it was known to be longer than 45ft even as far back as the 1960s. The new finds in the last three years have simply confirmed this. Every study since has found Spinosaurus to be the largest theropod. Unless new evidence comes to light to disprove this (maybe it had no tail, or was full of helium?), this must be considered official by any serious encylcopedia. Of course there's room for speculation and criticism of these studies, but that must be done on personal web sites, not on Wikipedia. The cites are our foundation. Changing the numbers for information that is backed up by a published source, as it seems you've done, is unethical at best. If you have data points that you think contradict what's in the articles, that's great, but please discuss them before you make changes. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mcelite,

I'm going to back up Dinoguy's comment above and give you the statistics:

• Spinosaurus: estimates suggest that it was around 16 to 18 meters in length (52.5 to 59.1 ft) and 9 tonnes (9.9 tons) in weight. The paper is: dal Sasso, C.; Maganuco, S.; Buffetaut, E.; and Mendez, M.A. (2005). "New information on the skull of the enigmatic theropod Spinosaurus, with remarks on its sizes and affinities". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 25 (4): 888-896. doi:10.1671/0272-4634(2005)025%5B0888:NIOTSO%5D2.0.CO;2.
• Giganotosaurus: The largest specimen is estimated to represent an individual 13.2 m (43.3ft) long, that weighed 6.2 tons. The estimate comes from Mortimer, M. (2004), "Carnosauria", The Theropod Database, viewed September 17, 2007. http://home.myuw.net/eoraptor/.
• Carcharodontosaurus: Grew to an estimated 11.1-13.5 meters (36-44 feet) and weighed up to 2.9 metric tons. The sources are Mortimer, M. (2003), "And the Largest Theropod Is....", discussion group, The Dinosaur Mailing List, viewed July 21, 2003. http://dml.cmnh.org/ and Bervoets, F. (2007), "DinoData", viewed September 17, 2007. http://www.dinodata.org/.
• Deltadromeus: measured an estimated 8.1-~13.3 m (26.5-~43.6 ft) long. The source is Mortimer, M. (2004), "Carnosauria", The Theropod Database, viewed September 17, 2007. http://home.myuw.net/eoraptor/.
• Tyrannotitan: up to 13.7 metres or 45.6 feet long. The source is: Novas, de Valais, Vickers-Rich and Rich. (2005). "A large Cretaceous theropod from Patagonia, Argentina, and the evolution of carcharodontosaurids." Naturwissenschaften.
• Tyrannosaurus: grew up to 12-13 m (39.3-42.6 ft) long and weighed 6-8 tons. The papers are: Brochu, C.R. 2003. Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex: insights from a nearly complete skeleton and high-resolution computed tomographic analysis of the skull. Memoirs of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 7: 1-138, Christiansen, P. & Fariña, R.A. 2004. "Mass prediction in theropod dinosaurs." Historical Biology 16: 85-92, and Henderson, D.M. 1999. "Estimating the masses and centers of mass of extinct animals by 3-D mathematical slicing". Paleobiology 25: 88–106.

These estimates indicate that Spinosaurus was both the longest and most massive theropod dinosaur known, and that Tyrannosaurus was only the third longest and sixth most massive theropod. These numbers are listed at Dinosaur size, with the sources in place. New sources may come out which give different figures. Until they do, these are the numbers we've got. When possible, we try to use papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals so that the numbers are as accurate as possible. Few of the skeletons are complete, but we're going with numbers published outside of Wikipedia.

When you change the numbers around, or begin to speculate on which ones could be larger, you go from being an encyclopedia editor to an adder of speculative material. This may be fine on a personal website, but cannot be used on Wikipedia because of the no original research policy.

If you have better sources for the sizes (preferably from peer-reviewed journals), please provide them, either here or on talk:Dinosaur size. It should be our goal to provide the best sources of information for our readers, and none of these numbers is set in stone. But none of these estimates were published by Wikipedia editors, which is why your changes have been continually reverted: it appears the material added is your own speculation. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mcelite, no worries. As far as I know, Gig and the largest known T. rex were about the same hip height, 3-3.5m, but nobody really publishes these kind of estimates because height depends entirely on the posture of the legs and back, which of course was incredibly variable (that is, nobody knows what stance was 'neutral' for these animals). I agree that there's no good evidence Gig was more massive than Rex, but we need to report the full range of published estimates... which happen to be exactly the same for each species. Various good studies have posited between 6 and 8 tonnes max size for both, so that's what we report. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources

As I explained above, one can tell that it's a self-published source because it was published by Lulu Press, which describes itself as the "#1 Self Publishing Website". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Notability

Articles on Wikipedia must be notable, or in short, they must have been the subject of several reliable, verifiable secondary sources. For instance, an article on Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow is notable since it has been the subject of several secondary sources (interviews concerning development, reviews from several video game publications). Conversely, an article on my old dog is not notable, as he hasn't been the subject of any significant type of secondary sources. There are some specific notability requirements for certain types of articles (books, people, organizations and companies), and for your purposes, this is Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). To avoid a confusing diatribe on the matter, in short, if you can find information on Kishimoto's conception and development of Ino (why he created the character, what thought went into appearance, personality, abilities, whatever) or reception from other sources (critical reception on her specifically, merchandise released), then you would have a much stronger case for having an article on her. If any of this is confusing, as it inevitably is, feel free to ask me for clarification on my talk page. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If such information was easily found, then she would have an article right now. Merchandise can be found by checking Viz Media's site, or Amazon.com. Critical reception can be found from a variety of sources, so long as the source satisfies WP:RS and WP:V. For instance, you can use an article from the Los Angeles Times or IGN, but not one from a Naruto fansite. Anyhow, it would be best if you created the article in your userspace, and then inquire at Talk:List of major Naruto characters or another related page whether your efforts are enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). As for the userspace issue, start the page at User:Mcelite/Sandbox. There, you can work at the page at your leisure: consider it your personal workspace for making the article until it's ready. Best of luck. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fictional and Non-Fictional Heroines

Hello. I have nominated a category you created, Category:Fictional and Non-Fictional Heroines, for deletion. The deletion debate is here. Kolindigo (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mcelite - I read your comments on the CFD. I understand where you're coming from, and what you're trying to do, and I sympathize. However, it's not really what categories are designed for. Think of them as more like a filing system than as keywords or lists. I'd like to suggest, first, some of the basic categorization guidelines (WP:CAT, WP:CLS, WP:CATFAQ, and WP:OCAT). Second, you might start thinking about what it is you're trying to capture or create. Based on your comments it seems to be a list of notable or admirable women. That's a bit vague -- and, frankly, would be really huge! But if you started thinking about very specific areas of interest: women who are notable in 20th century politics, or women who are notable in creating anime --that sort of thing can be more specific. Then look for articles or books on that topic, and start drafting an article about that topic. (You can put it in your userspace while you're drafting it -- for instance, User:Mcelite/DraftList. The article can include discussions of those people. It can't be a topic you just make up -- it has to be a topic that other people have already been doing research on and writing on. I'll be happy to look at article drafts and give you comments on them if you like. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You know, the abbreviation 3RR does actually mean something, mainly 3 reverts within 24 hours. I only did two. And that is besides the point that the template explicitly states "Please do not remove this tag" which you did twice. The template and states that you should add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|Your reason why a free replacement can not be found or created}} to the image. Since I protected the image, I will add that for you and let the closing admin (not me) decide. Feel free to leave a message on the image's talk page why you think this image should stay. Garion96 (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheetah

No problem. I've seen the article go back and forth a few times and figured a ref would stop the nonsense. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry for the misunderstaning

sorry for the misunderstanging, i guess i should have referenced my work, but merely forgot in haste. this new theory of extinction is being analyzed at my place of work. i shall publish my findings else where. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonephenylring (talk • contribs) 04:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Huey, Dewey, and Louie

I actually didn't find that very easy either ( had to use different search engines to finally find something bigger ). About the picture - I can try to make one, since i record every episode I can find on TV, since they almost don't broadcast them here. If you want me to, I can try to make a picture ( probably going to be low resolution though ). --Bozi7 (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that :) --Bozi7 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ino Yamanaka

I made some edits and added some references in the text. I would grateful if you help me with sorting them and editing source code!