User talk:Munkeegutz
Hello, Munkeegutz
| Help | |
|---|---|
| General Help | |
| Special Topics | |
| For more help...
Contact an administrator Or leave a message | |
Welcome to Heroes Wiki!
Here are a few links to get you started:
- If you are new to Heroes, you might want to start at the New User Portal.
- If you're not too familiar with editing wikis, you might like to start with Help:Editing.
- If you already are familiar with wikiediting, you might want to try Help:Style.
- If you're ready to get started, Template:Todo lists some ways you can help out.
- Of course, if you have your own idea for a new article, that's great, too.
- Recent Changes will let you see others' contributions as they happen.
- To make Recent Changes more useful for all users, remember to provide an edit summary in the Summary field before you save your changes.
- You can set the wiki to prompt you for a summary in your preferences.
- When posting on an article's Talk page you should add --~~~~ or click the signature button.
- This will add a signature and timestamp to the end of your comment so others can easily tell who posted it.
- Any new sections on an article's Talk page should be added to the bottom of the page and not to the top.
- When editing normal article pages, don't sign your contributions.
- If you have any questions or need any help, please feel free to leave a message for an administrator.
- You can also customize your user page if you like.
Once again, welcome to Heroes Wiki!
Regarding Theory:Peter Petrelli
I noticed you restored my theory, stating it was deleted "without reason" and noted that "In the future, please put a comment instead of deleting outright". I just wanted to point out that I did, in fact, put a comment about why I deleted it (as per 05:02, 1 May 2009 NeoAg7 "Removed my theory about Peter acquiring all of Sylar's abilities. He obviously didn't acquire Rapid-Cell Regeneration, and without that the theory cannot be true"). Your help to maintain the wiki is truly appreciated, but you should make sure to check all of the facts before restoring bits of articles and commenting about them. Thanks. NeoAg7 00:39, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
Yes it's true that it looks like he dosen't have Regeneration, but that's not grounds to remove a theory outright. I believe that you should have simply added a "minus" comment, because the theory is still valid. In addition, as someone said, there have been many times where someone has healed with blood remaining afterwords, and this could be one of those cases. Either way, sorry for any unpleasantness I caused... I didn't mean to be rude (though it sure looked that way now that I read it again!) I was mostly just trying to be concise in the edit comment. By the way, is it appropriate to respond to messages in your own User talk, or should I have edited yours? I'm somewhat new to this. Thanks! Munkeegutz 00:47, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
You can respond to either. Don't think there's really a rule to it (although if you respond on my talk page, it'll notify me). And I made the initial comment about Peter healing and there being blood after the fact. After I made the theory, though, I went back and reviewed the episode again to see that Peter didn't have blood on his face, but rather actual scratches. The blood shown in previous episodes after he healed distinctly looked like dried on blood, where as the cuts shown on his face looked like they had started to scab over. My apologies for just wiping the theory, but it just seemed to me that a theory that seemed blatantly false (that I also had added myself) should be removed in light of new evidence. And so ya know, you didn't cause any unpleasantness. If anything, I was trying not to be rude by pointing that out to you. It's a good sign in an editor that they help out where they think they're needed (and in some cases, it's also a good idea to be bold and just take the lead). So yeah in any case I think the new theory I added fits a bit better, given the information I've found by re-watching part of the episode. NeoAg7 01:40, 9 May 2009 (EDT)