User talk:Baldbobbo

Leave a message

---

Enhanced memory

I think we always use the present tense, even for dead characters -- see cloning, phasing or electronic communication; some of the users of these abilities are dead yet the present tense is used.--Referos 17:35, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

• These need to be changed then, because every other power page with a deceased character is in past tense. The proper tense follows their existence in the show. Thanks for letting me know those are in present tense, I'll fix them. In the future, a deceased character should be mentioned in the past tense. --Bob (new comment) 18:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
  • The exact policy is a little unclear, but it can be found here. (Admin 18:10, 22 September 2008 (EDT))
    • It looks like we've been using both. I don't care much for which one (though I personally prefer present tense for all so that we don't have to update every time somebody dies or is then revealed to not really have died), but we should probably be consistent across the board. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
      • I like the "is the (first/only) character (shown/known) to have this ability" since it's proper tense and works. --Bob (new comment) 18:13, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
        • I don't know about that "first person..." wording. That has chronological connotations and I assume what you mean is "first that we learned about." (Admin 18:25, 22 September 2008 (EDT))
          • The parenthesis were meant to be correlated. So "the first character shown to have this ability" or "only character known". "Shown" implies the actual show, in which case it applies to real-world chronology, right?--Bob (new comment) 18:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
      • Yeah, there are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. I think leaving them in the present tense is a little counter-intuitive to many people at first... I think we'd end up with a lot of people trying to put them in past tense without knowing the policy here first whereas the past tense is what people would expect by default. On the other hand leaving them in present tense is more timeline agnostic (which can be useful in a show with time travel) and it has the benefit of not needing rewrites when characters die (which again can be tricky with the time travel element). (Admin 18:18, 22 September 2008 (EDT))

Jesse Murphy

Hi. Why are you undoing my work exactly? I have alot of information about Jesse Murphy, Eric Doyle, Samedi and Stephen Canfield. Why are you doing it?

• I'm undoing edits that are speculative. Your entries about their abilities have not been shown in any canon source, so they are speculative, and do not belong on main namespace articles. I hope that helps, but when you state something as fact when it hasn't appeared on screen or in a GN/Webisode/Evolutions content, it's speculative, not fact.--Bob (new comment) 17:12, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Synopsis

nice work on The Butterfly Effect synopsis! :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

• Yeah, it occurred to me that I knew 3x01 was done, so I should check on 3x02, and saw it was no where near done, and I couldn't sleep last night, so I took care of it. Bad part was my internet was terrible (it took me 10min to just load the main page!), so I had trouble editing anything, but it all worked out.--Bob (new comment) 15:06, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
  • You know, I'm pretty sure Admin did a lot of the episode summaries in the past, and he did a terrific job. I think the episode summaries should really follow the standard that was set in the past two seasons, where the summaries are full of details, and really achieve an almost play by play quality rather than a broad summary. Yours did the same. Now, I would hate to discourage any users from doing the summaries--in fact, I've encouraged them to write them in the past--but I think we should really stress the standard of quality in the summaries. That means basically two things--a few select people write the summaries, or anybody who writes the summaries should look at the quality and tone of the past summaries and try to match them. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
    • I agree, there's a few in Season Two that are small and don't go over it. Someone might want to go through and add some details to them. It really fills out the page, and does capture everything going on in the episodes. I don't mind doing it, but if we do have someone doing it, I'm up to the idea of protecting a page to prevent edit conflicts, but I know Admin was against that in the past. I know it wouldn't be very democratic if just one or two people were allowed to edit a particular page. In the past, I've written them while the show is airing on a text editor, then cleaned them up before copying and pasting the content. The only problem is you write over someone else's work if they were editing the page. This seems to be the quickest way that maintains quality, and worst come to worse, someone can go through the history and add any erased content.--Bob (new comment) 16:02, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Reasoning and science

You're crazy if you think that science and reasoning is not an element of the story. There is plenty of talk about Evolution in the show. Both Chandra Suresh and Mohinder Suresh are geneticists. There is a a slow of research items. I could go on and on here.

I wanted in the main page because I wanted everyone to work on it, not just me. There are so many references that I don't know them all. --Pinkkeith 15:49, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

• Then it needs to be rephrased, and that's why I moved it. Sometimes, ideas like this are obvious, but are phrased to where it's not widely understood. I moved it to user namespace so it can be developed. Articles on user namespace can be edited and contributed by other users. I understand that science is widely used in the show, but personally, I wouldn't say that it's a theme per se. That's just my opinion, but once it gets further developed, then maybe I'll get what you're trying to say.--Bob (new comment) 15:53, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

• I named it in opposition to the faith and religion article name. I personally don't believe in the f&r article myself, but it is an opinion held by some (fans and characters alike). Science is also another option, that powers are a natural phenomenon rather then a super natural one (again, held by both fans and characters alike). I'm waiting until a few seasons in where characters start with an extraterrestrial explaination to their powers. What about it is unclear to you? The f&r article is just one sentence followed by a list of examples. --Pinkkeith 16:11, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
  • My misunderstanding is that science isn't something that needs to be proven, as opposed to the theme of religion and faith. I think the reason the faith and religion page was added, because there are many people who claim that their abilities come from a higher source, and any references to religion. However, Mohinder and Chandra proved that there is a genetic source for the genetic anomalies that cause the abilities, so much so that Mohinder was able to replicate it. For me, that means that there's no need to state the obvious, because it has been proven on the show, whereas religion is a belief. See what I'm saying? I don't think we need one theme to oppose the other for personal reasons. Certainly, no one here is advocating a particular religion over scientific thought. Tim Kring likes using religion and faith in his works (he has a degree in Divinity), and it's clear that there are heavy undertones of religion in the show. However, for me, science is a given. --Bob (new comment) 16:15, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
    • Sorry, I'm not trying to butt heads with you; I just want to understand your position. First, I would think that is a theme (which I bleive science and reasoning is) that is "obvious" should be have its own article. It is like saying that Heroes shouldn't have an article since it is obvious that Heroes is a television show. In fanct, if s&r is a strong theme in the show (if that is what you meant by obvious) then it should very strongly have its own aritcle. Secondly, I think that nothing in Heroes is ever proven beyond a shadow of any doubt. Even if something is proven isn't a reason to not have its own aricle. In fact, I think that is a reason why it should have its own article. I think there is a strong dichotomy in this show: Child vs. parent, Fate vs. free will (which could also be thought of as faith vs. reasoning), Logic vs. emotion and Loyalty vs. treachery are a few that are found in this wiki. Science vs religion is just another one that I see coming out of the show, espeically this seaon. --Pinkkeith 16:30, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
      • I understand where you're coming from. I just don't know how it can be phrased to convey your idea, which again is why I moved it to your user namespace. I don't really understand what the discussion is about, but it needs to be developed before being moved to the main namespace. Same thing happened with irony and a few others.--Bob (new comment) 16:32, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Blocked user

A few days ago you blocked someone for "Vulgarity: user name using racial slur". While it could be an anagram of a racial slur, it is most commonly used as a reference to someone with red hair, and in this case most likely is, unless I missed something. -Lөvөl 05:09, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

• I know about the red hair-ginger reference, but the anagram is something I've seen before, and it's a racial slur. --Bob (new comment) 05:10, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Matt did display this ability

He did. Thats most obvious. His eyes turn white and he looks all around. Or do i have to send you a screenshot to prove it?