User talk:Serenity

"Link title" stuff

The "Link title" stuff has to do with the editing bar. I believe the user might have hit that accidentally when beginning to edit. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 13:43, 19 November 2007 (CST)

Yeah, probably. Though I can only see [] and [[]] there. But never mind. No big deal. :) --Serenity 13:48, 19 November 2007 (CST)

Immunity to virus

Sorry for posting it again, thought the change failed to save since you removed it so fast. Anyway I have to disagree with your reasons - Cottle says "couple hundred years ago", a couple is 2 so its 200 years ago and it is very relevent since its a major clue as the history of the cylons. Since they didn't have an immunity to the virus then it implies they are based on material that is at least 200 years old—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swozie (talk • contribs).

"a couple" means "a few". That can be anything from 2 to maybe 4 or 5. In any case, it's not an accurate date. If you had written something like "over 200 years BCH", then maybe. I still question its relevance. It's another speculative topic, especially with the shaky science of the episode. As it's written now, it's stands there without any point. One could add that piece of speculation/analysis, but that's not really fitting for a timeline. It could be added as analysis, or better question to the episode article though. Actually, it's already touched on about 3/4th of the way down. --Serenity 15:13, 4 January 2008 (CST)

A couple does not mean a few! A few means 3,4,5 or whatever, a couple means 2 thats all there is to it (as Cottle would say). It borders speculation that it is relevant to cylon history which is why I didn't say that - thats left up to the reader to interpret but since its a valid piece of information on Coloniel History then this is the most relevant place for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swozie (talk • contribs).

The term is used ambigiously when referring to time. It might technically mean two, but when people say "A couple of days" they don't always mean two, or they might as well say it. The Oxford dictionary says "an indefinite small number" as a possible definition. Anyways, it's already mentioned on the episode page, and there is a Cylon History article too. --Serenity 15:47, 4 January 2008 (CST)

I can't believe there can be so much fuss over such a simple change. Cottle says "a couple hundred years ago", a couple means 2, its speculation that he meant approx 200 years based on your experience of how other people would use the term. I was just posting a hard fact effectively pasted direct from the show and you disagree with it! Do you want facts in this site or just your interpretation of facts? I fully agree that you shouldn't have speculation posted but I didn't speculate anything here and besides the site has an awful of preconceptions posted as facts that need to be made clearer, I would like to contribute in this way but it involves this much hassle then its a waste of my time.

Your recent change is better but you say "at least 200 years" and this could mean 200 to million years or more which obviously isnt what Cottle says - just change it to "couple hundred" years as Cottle says!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swozie (talk • contribs).

Swozie, please calm down. You say you "can't believe there can be so much fuss over such a simple change", but you're the one making the fuss here. "A couple of ..." is generally meant as "a few ...", not exactly 2. Ask anyone, they'll agree. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 16:10, 4 January 2008 (CST)

It simply does not mean exactly two years. Yeah, I'm making too much of a fuss about it and it's annoying me too. Removing it was probably jumping the gun; sorry. I can add a footnote about Cottle's dialogue, but it's really pretty clear how he means it. But I could also say that you want your interpretation of facts noted. This cuts both ways. There are an awful lot of theories about things floating around and it's impossible to give room to everything, so we either eliminate speculation entirely or try to stick to the most sensible interpretations until something is clarified. Again, the best place for this stuff is the Analysis section of the episode pages. They usually have room to write more a bit more about something and are also read by many people. It's also ideal for challenging "preconceptions" with new ideas as long as they're not too outlandish (like some of the stuff on the Final Five, Earth, etc. that can be found on forums).

Btw, please sign your comments with four tildes: --~~~~. There is also a quick link below the edit box for it. --Serenity 16:17, 4 January 2008 (CST)

OK I am calm! I just didn't think it was in line with the timeline if I had written "couple" where all the other items are listed with numbers. So do you suggest I talk about changes before making them in the future? --Swozie 16:38, 4 January 2008 (CST)

I don't think that will be necessary, unless you're planning to rewrite half an article. If it's a little thing like this, just make the change, and someone will spot it and undo it if they think it's wrong. Please don't be discouraged by the fact that one of your first edits was met by controversy: that's just bad luck. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 16:44, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Nah, it was fine. Usually things don't spiral out of control like this. :s Of course I could have opened a discussion before removing it, but that's really the same problem. There a few approximate dates on the page with "ca.", so they don't all have to be exact. If something isn't clear, they just have a footnote with the source or reasoning. --Serenity 16:50, 4 January 2008 (CST)

ok cool well before I make any more changes I need you to clarify what you interpret as speculation. The cylons not having immunity "implies" that they are based on material that is at least a "couple" hundred years old. Simon even says that they are all based on material from the same genetic pool. Now I appreciate this can lead to wild theories but I don't see it as speculation, its logical deduction, whether you believe it or not is another matter. However the same page talks about "at some unlisted time, travel occured from Earth to Kobol (because of the constellation map)". This is no different, the evidence implies travel from Earth to Kobol, its never stated as fact its just deduced.--Swozie 17:11, 4 January 2008 (CST)