Editing Talk:Sacred Scrolls/Archive 1
Discussion page of Sacred Scrolls/Archive 1
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Greetings, Jzanjani. I welcome you to the battlestar wiki and want you to know that I appreciate your desire to contribute here. However, your edits to this article baffle me. At present, it has been meticulously arranged to provide the most comprehensive information possible in an objective, well-cited manner with separate sections for interpretation and commentary. If you feel this layout is mistaken, or that there's information which needs to be incuded in this article which we've missed, I would like you to make your case here, on the talk page, before comitting another revision. Thank you for your consideration. --[[User: | Greetings, Jzanjani. I welcome you to the battlestar wiki and want you to know that I appreciate your desire to contribute here. However, your edits to this article baffle me. At present, it has been meticulously arranged to provide the most comprehensive information possible in an objective, well-cited manner with separate sections for interpretation and commentary. If you feel this layout is mistaken, or that there's information which needs to be incuded in this article which we've missed, I would like you to make your case here, on the talk page, before comitting another revision. Thank you for your consideration. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 05:03, 5 October 2005 (EDT) | ||
==On the Format of Character Quotes== | ==On the Format of Character Quotes== | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
I'm not sure if this comment should be somewhere else, but I think the Sacred Scrolls article in particular could definitely use some cleanup. [[User:Jzanjani|Jzanjani]] 16:08, 5 October 2005 (EDT) | I'm not sure if this comment should be somewhere else, but I think the Sacred Scrolls article in particular could definitely use some cleanup. [[User:Jzanjani|Jzanjani]] 16:08, 5 October 2005 (EDT) | ||
:See [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions]]. --[[User: | :See [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:31, 5 October 2005 (EDT) | ||
:: I would be extatic if you'd post this comment for discussion on the [[Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions|Standards and Conventions]] project page. That's really the best place to discuss such sweeping things. | :: I would be extatic if you'd post this comment for discussion on the [[Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions|Standards and Conventions]] project page. That's really the best place to discuss such sweeping things. | ||
| Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
== Cleanup Required == | == Cleanup Required == | ||
I've found this article to be confusing to read, perhaps not just due to length, but from the mix of information, both derived, plausible and factual. I'm going to go "[[User: | I've found this article to be confusing to read, perhaps not just due to length, but from the mix of information, both derived, plausible and factual. I'm going to go "[[User:Peter Farago|Peter]]" on this article soon to clean up the threads and verify their basis on aired content, using the [[Battlestar Wiki:Citation Jihad#Derived Content|Derived Content standards]] as a guideline. Knowing how so many have worked hard on this, however, I won't make outright deletions but will go nuts with the <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> marker when I find items that don't fit the aired content or appears too much a stretch. Given that we know now that the virtual Six is NOT the actual [[Caprica Six]], much of what has been said by her alone may be in doubt. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:29, 19 September 2006 (CDT) | ||
:In particular the "Three Exodii" theory could stand some revision. But to be honest, I can't be bothered to do it, since it's very complicared and I don't agree with it in the first place. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 07:35, 13 January 2007 (CST) | :In particular the "Three Exodii" theory could stand some revision. But to be honest, I can't be bothered to do it, since it's very complicared and I don't agree with it in the first place. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 07:35, 13 January 2007 (CST) | ||