User:LOTRrules/Archives

Vandalism

Way to be a "vandal stopper". Real mature, you edit a pic to "North American fag.". The dude doesn't look like a "fag" btw..

IT was a joke - I was testing you!! LOTRrules 12:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Ae Fond Kiss.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:71252-1-.jpg. The copy called Image:71252-1-.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 15:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Saintalberts-1-.jpg

Hello LOTRrules. I spotted the above image in use on the Pollokshields article, and I see that you uploaded it with a PD-Self license. It seems to me that the image license is incorrect and this is a copyright violation copied from here, where copyright is claimed by Gerry Blaikie. Unless you are genuinely the creator of the image, the image will be speedily deleted as a copyright violation. I previously contacted Mr Blaikie by email for permission to use one of his other images in another Wikipedia article, but he declined permission. Therefore, unless you can identify yourself unambiguously as Mr Blaikie, I will have no option but to delete the image.

In the meantime, pending your response, rather than deleting the image I've commented it out on the article page. Respecting the copyright of the work of others is vital for the future wellbeing and success of Wikipedia. Please reply on my talk page ASAP. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but my brother once got rid of my account before as we share a computer at home and only has one thing in his agenda - to get rid of my accounts - I have put restrctions on him before but he won't listen I'm sorry and will remove any derogatory language or copyrighted pictures he has used and has put up...As you can clearly see on my user page he has put "I love Sarah" on it and this does make me rancorous on the subject that he vandelised before - I will try to stop it next time. Youn can delete that St. Alberts picture of course and any others you may come accross. Again I'm really sorry and regret him using the computer for vandalistic purposes... LOTRrules 14:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'd suggest changing your password via the preferences link at the top of the screen, then your brother won't be able to use your Wikipedia account. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tawny Owl

Hi, I removed the trivia heading because trivia sections are now discouraged. Basically, if the item is significant, it should be integrated into a proper section, if not, then deleted. Jimfbleak 15:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, Pollokshields Minimarket, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. SMC89 11:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Pollokshields Minimarket, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SMC89 11:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re. Pollokshields Minimarket

You can't delete the article! I've just begun! I'm looking for refernces and the popularity of this market is of the highest callibre! YOU CAN'T DELETE IT! And Why? The market has been a popular place for people there! LOTRrules 11:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry about that article, I thought it might meet the criteria for speedy deletion and an admin must have decided that it did and deleted it. If you want to recreate the article and maybe put an under construction tag on it or something and state that you're trying to find references. Otherwise you'd need to state it's significance clearly and put in the references when you first create the article so that another editor doesn't tag it for deletion as well.

Once again, sorry =) SMC89 01:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Eye

I'd try to help fix the stuff you added to eye, but it's hard to figure out exactly what you're trying to say. Maybe if you add the refs I called for I can check and figure it out. Dicklyon 20:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon is right. It is very difficult to understand, and I noticed that someone just removed it. Another issue with the edit is that is was marked as a minor edit. You may want to read this section on what constitutes a minor edit. It appears that you mark nearly all of your work as minor edits. Thanks! TK421 21:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. And if you'd like to put it back, make sure every statement is based on a source, otherwise editors will be justified in just taking it out again. Dicklyon 22:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Suffer the Little Children"

Hi, just wanted to drop you a line to say thanks for clearing up that issue for me - I thought the line 'cataclysmically retarded' was deliberately insulting and should be altered, but I see now that it's simply accurate. My bad! -Elizabennet | talk 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Elegy For a Stillborn Child

A tag has been placed on Elegy For a Stillborn Child requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redfarmer (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Muslim Names

I have nominated List of Muslim Names, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Names. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You should not remove AFD templates that have been placed on pages. If you disagree with the nomination for deletion, please go to the deletion discuss and state your opinion there. The stuff you removed actually started off with a note of "do not remove this...". Thanks. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Making many edits to the same page during a short time span

---

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. High on a tree (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for December has been published. January's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your tirade

See extensive reply at Talk:New antisemitism. AnonMoos (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Letters

LOTRrules

Notability of Alternative Nation

A tag has been placed on Alternative Nation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Elegy For a Stillborn Child

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Elegy For a Stillborn Child, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

13

I'm 13 years old! ACBestDog and Bone ^{Have I reverted an edit} _{by you, and got it wrong? Tell me!} 19:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Iv'e been editing for about a year and 2 months... What's an aspie then? ACBestDog and Bone ^{Have I reverted an edit} _{by you, and got it wrong? Tell me!} 22:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess I am a bit of an Aspie... And i am very protective of the hull trains article! I must go, as i havent checked the Hull trains article for at least 1 minute... Oh wait, it's protected... Goodnight, ACBestDog and Bone ^{Have I reverted an edit} _{by you, and got it wrong? Tell me!} 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I didnt... ACBestDog and Bone ^{Have I reverted an edit} _{by you, and got it wrong? Tell me!} 18:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Farah Khan

Please refrain yourself from editing Farah Khans birthdate. She was born in 1972 NOT 1965. If you have any queries please go directly to my talk page. Please find a reference that PROVES she was born on 1965. I will warn you that if you continue to change and give false information on Farha Khan I will have to contact an administrator and report this as vandalism. LOTRrules (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday 211.31.240.29 made, what I consider to be, a good faith edit to the Farah Khan article. I noticed that the edit was made in the main text but not followed through to the info box. I followed This link at the bottom of the page to verify the edit. Yesterday, I can assure you, that Bollywood Village page said her date of birth was 8 October 1965 (it has changed since then). I therefore decide to change the info box to match the main text, and did so in good faith.

Do not tell me to refrain from editing articles. You do not own this, or any other, article.

Do not 'warn' me.

Do not threaten me with administrators. (On second thoughts, go on, show our swap of words to an administrator)

Do not accuse me of vandalism. Look at my contributions. Show me any hint of vandalism.

Do not accuse me of 'continuing to give false information' after a single good faith edit.

Do not shout at me with bold and capitals.

Do read this. 2007 - 42 = ...I'll let you work it out. No, it's not proof, and in good faith I will not re-edit the article - for now. I will allow you the benefit of the doubt - that you know better than the Bollywood news people.

Finally, there's a proper way to speak to people, and you need to learn it. Mannafredo (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This one says she'll be a 43 year old mother. Oh, and I've calmed down a bit since this morning. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's more. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not tell ME what to do. I only wanted what was best for the article. Do not make up a list which I should follow, see I can do the same...but I won't go down to that level... LOTRrules (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You were extremely rude and threatening and I reacted as anyone might - pretty much as you have just reacted to my tirade.

You say - 'Do not tell ME what to do' - it is you that gave me 'orders' before I returned the complement. It's not nice is it, so why do you do it to others? I think you should learn to treat people as you would hope to be treated by them - that's not an order, just a suggestion.

You say - 'I only wanted what was best for the article' - well maybe you should have looked about a bit as I did to find the last three links rather than simply denounce my edit and 211.31.240.29's edit as vandalism based on very little evidence. If you really want what's best for the article, why haven't you changed her date of birth back to 1965 - or do you still think it's 1972 - I'm more than happy for you to prove it so.

I'm going to stay away from the Farah Khan article for a while. You can do with it as you see fit. I suggest we put this episode behind us, as I think it is obvious that we are both trying to do what's best for Wikipedia. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't realise it was "threatening", I thought (without looking for your edit count) that you were basing it on false I-know-everything kind of way. I only said it was going to be REPORTED as vandalism NOT that it was because sombody, and I don't know who, wrote false information, and untrue statements on the article. It took me ages to clear that up and find what she actually DID win in the awards section. I just thought it was happening again - you see I'm VERY defencive about articles, particularly the ones I spend a lot of time on, and when somebody writes something which I assume to be false I take it personally...I do that a lot. Sorry if I somehow managed to offend you. Anyway I do what I can for Wikipedia. FYI I did look on Google for her age but the only one I could find was the one that you took to be wrong. Truce? LOTRrules (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your user page

Yes, it's me again. On another matter, do you know that when viewed using Firefox, your user page is all messed up and a few days old, and when viewed using Explorer it's clean and up-to-date. Just FYI. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hive (Resident Evil)

I have failed your GA nomination of The Hive (Resident Evil) due to a complete lack of out-of-universe perspective. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

New messages=

Drat! Fell for it. :( Simply south (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HUNTER BETA LOTRrules.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:HUNTER BETA LOTRrules.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HUNTER GAMMA LOTRrules.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:HUNTER GAMMA LOTRrules.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CERBURUS LOTRrules.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CERBURUS LOTRrules.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:121 alpha hunter.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:121 alpha hunter.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nosferatu LOTRrules.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nosferatu LOTRrules.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:T0178Tyrant LOTRrules.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:T0178Tyrant LOTRrules.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ALBINOID LOTRrules.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ALBINOID LOTRrules.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bandersnatch LOTRrules.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bandersnatch LOTRrules.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bandersnatch LOTRrules2.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Bandersnatch LOTRrules2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Prototyrant LOTRrules.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Prototyrant LOTRrules.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Chimera LOTRrules.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Chimera LOTRrules.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Eliminator ape LOTRrules.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Eliminator ape LOTRrules.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Roach LOTRrules.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Roach LOTRrules.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Hunter Alpha LOTRrules.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hunter Alpha LOTRrules.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

All (above) sorted. LOTRrules (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

BOW article

Because it makes it impossible to navigate to the correct section, if we were linking from another article, and it encourages the creation of an indiscriminate list, which Wikipedia is not. Tables are overall discouraged, especially if they are the only thing on the page. Please see this.

There is no obvious edit, and it makes a lot of useful functions impossible. In fact, making a table for an excuse to keep the pictures is a big no-no.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The table actualy made it look kwl, now the pictures are going through sub-categories.OsirisV (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I know it did look cool but I am currently editing it to FOLLOW GUIDELINES. I still have the orignal script which I will post to the Resident Evil Wikia LOTRrules (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

On my computer browser the pictures actually look okay - please describe them on how they look like on yours, if it is still as you say they are then please consult me - I should get a barnstar for the work I've for that article! LOTRrules (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The link doesn't work. LOTRrules (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If ur gonna send to the res wiki, you may have to talk to my friend [Forerunner]OsirisV (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well... with the table, all the images were kept inside their boxes, making shure theywere next to their info. Now they are going through other sections (can happen if every picture is set to "right" one on top of the other)OsirisV (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Right I'll have to sort that out lastly LOTRrules (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Link still doesn't work LOTRrules (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it is hard to describe, then you need pictures. Maybe some file quotes...Fixed link...OsirisV (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture leaking is fixed by adding {{-}} to the end of each section, like I did for the ape.

Before actually deleting any info, we may want to consider duplicating some of the enemy profiles to the Viruses page, to see if they would work there. Having it set up like

==Prog. Virus==

===Progenitor-based BOWs===

Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

I'm not saying I'm going to pressure you to delete them - I'm saying that sooner or later, a pic-hunter will come across the page, and mark every image as unacceptable. And there's not much we can do. Sometimes, if they're in a bad mood, they might also mark the page for deletion.

I would work on describing them as much as possible in the text (Eliminator-Ape, for example, is pretty well described, Yawns as well), and try to calm down on the images so that we don't send the hunter into a huff when he finds the page.

Also, go ahead and make backup uploads to REwiki - that way, if we eventually need to, we can just transwiki the page and not have to rewrite it.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ALBINOID LOTRrules.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ALBINOID LOTRrules.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CERBURUS LOTRrules.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CERBURUS LOTRrules.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Eliminator ape LOTRrules.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eliminator ape LOTRrules.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lurker frog LOTRrules.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lurker frog LOTRrules.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Neptune LOTRrules.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Neptune LOTRrules.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Roach LOTRrules.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Roach LOTRrules.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:T0178Tyrant LOTRrules2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:T0178Tyrant LOTRrules2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yawn LOTRrules.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Yawn LOTRrules.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tyrant002 LOTRrules.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tyrant002 LOTRrules.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tyrant103 LOTRrules.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tyrant103 LOTRrules.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Junling

Hi there, I see that you gave a final warning to User:Junling - who deleted large amounts of information on Gun Violence in the USA, well he has been doing the exact same on the article School shooting, he deleted large amounts of info on the Canadian section and deleted the colour graphics which outlined the most dangerous cases - looks like he didn't take you seriously. LOTRrules (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him, as I had warned him I would. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! I'll get ya barnstar! LOTRrules (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait! He didn't remove the infomation! My bad. He simply shifted it to the referance section. Still is the block justified? I mean he did remove information, he didn't disuss it on the discussion section, so does is the block still justified? LOTRrules (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Junling

Hi there, I see that you gave a final warning to User:Junling - who deleted large amounts of information on Gun Violence in the USA, well he has been doing the exact same on the article School shooting, he deleted large amounts of info on the Canadian section and deleted the colour graphics which outlined the most dangerous cases - looks like he didn't take you seriously. LOTRrules (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him, as I had warned him I would. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! I'll get ya barnstar! LOTRrules (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait! He didn't remove the infomation! My bad. He simply shifted it to the referance section. Still is the block justified? I mean he did remove information, he didn't disuss it on the discussion section, so does is the block still justified? LOTRrules (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appeared to be disruptive and he never challenged that, never raised that point in response to the warnings. If he asks for unblock on those grounds, I won't object. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

ODITLOID

See ODITLOID link for reply on stalin citation thingy LOTRrules (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Again see reply on ODITLOID LOTRrules (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FA Status

How about we go for the ultimate rating? The article looks fine and if anybody else is willing we can work together to get this up to featured status. So what do you say? In an actual fact this did win the Nobel Prize... should be easy then. LOTRrules (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I say go for it. But, you need to be sure that the citations are correct and you are right WRT facts: the Nobel Prize was awarded "For the ethical force with which he has pursued the indispensable traditions of Russian literature". No specific mention of Ivan's day. Also, if you haven't already got it, you need to see, . If you go for FA without it—beware. --GrahamColm^Talk 02:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical commentary & Quote

Shouldn't the quote be in the commentary section? Seems a bit tedious and pointless to have it at the end of the plot. And the commentary section is wriiten like a review - seems familiar, not sure if it is copyright...anyway we should get a review from website or magazine/journal's that prove this is true. LOTRrules (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional Quotes

I think we should get more quotes from this book which higlighted the main theme. Such as Volkovoi's use of the whip and the cook's unnourishing food which highlighted cruelty, oppression, dehumanization and starvation. LOTRrules (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and find some from the Parker translation. LOTRrules (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't use the Parker translation, it's very poor. Use Willetts. I have all of them here and Willetts' is the most loyal to the original Russian. The best quote IMO is:

“ Just one of the three thousand six hundred and fifty-three days of his sentence, from bell to bell. The extra three were for leap years. ”

GrahamColm^Talk 02:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dwarves

Why is Dwarven section so long! and do we really need those HUGE tables? LOTRrules (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to delete the section as it was worthless, felt like a game guide, and no other factions had sections like it. However, my edits have been reverted, so I suppose it'll stay there forever.67.177.233.231 (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you were on the write lines, it does not exactly meet criteria. Well done for editing them. But I suppose some user is attached to the article. LOTRrules (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well at least someone got rid of the tables... LOTRrules (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Denisovich

Hi, thanks for the award. I like the work that you and others are doing on this important article. This is something that I would find difficult to do and still maintain the very important neutral point of view. Can I take the liberty of pointing you towards some useful sources?

• Kathryn Feuer (Ed). Solzhenitsyn: A collection of Critical Essays. (1976). Spectrum Books, ISBN 0-13-822619
• Christopher Moody. Solzhenitsyn. (1973). Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh ISBN 0-05-002600-3
• Leopold Labedz. Solzhenitsyn: A documentary record. (1970). Penguin ISBN 0-014-00.3395.5
• Michael Scammell, Solzhenitsyn. (1986). Paladin. ISBN 0-586-08538-6
• Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Invisible Allies,. (Translated by Alexis Klimoff and Michael Nicholson). (1995). The Harvill Press ISBN 1-86046-259-6
• Giovanni Grazzini. Solzhenitsyn. (Translated by Eric Mosbacher) (1971). Michael Joseph, ISBN 0-7181-1068-4
• David Burg and George Feifer. Solzhenitsyn: A Biography. (1972). ISBN 0-340-16593-6
• Zhores Medvedev. 10 Years After Ivan Denisovich. (Translated by Hilary Steinberg). (1973). Macmillan, London.SBN 33-15217-4
• Abraham Rothberg. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Major Novels. (1971). Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-0668-4
• Dostoevsky's The House of the Dead

If these could be worked in to the {{reflist}}, it will make the referencing of the article fairly straight forward. Best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to thank you for the award and to thank GrahamColm for his suggestions. I have copied them to Talk:One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, where all interested editors may find them. --Jtir (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted School shooting

Why did you remove nearly half of that pages content? --SyntaxError55 ^talk 01:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I left a message to say I was going to major edit the article. Why did you consider this as vandalism? I mean the it was one of the reasons it failed GA. LOTRrules (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was a bit too quick on the draw. I saw that you removed half of the page and thought it was vandalism. --SyntaxError55 ^talk 01:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't want to cause an edit war but it is irrelavent. I mean I did make the article - check my stats 300 approx edits to it - I wan the article to get featured status and the according to the rules lists are not allowed extensively in one article unless in specific circumstances. Please don't label my edits as vandalistic in the future - thanks. LOTRrules (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's alright. You can continue to edit the page, I don't have any objects, I just didn't recognize your name and thought you were a new user. My apologies. :( --SyntaxError55 ^talk 01:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it. Is that okay with you? LOTRrules (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC

Thanks. It's fine - just a minute mistake. Happy editing. LOTRrules (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching request

You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly in the future. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at theCoachee checklist; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so, once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 07:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Denisovich at FAC

Hi, thanks for the note you left on my page. I'm taking a short break from Wikipedia because I've been overdoing it. I see you are working very hard on the article which is commendable but I don't think it will achieve FA this time around. You took it to FAC too early and now the pressure is really on to get it up to standard. The last thing I want is to discourage you, but there is no shame in withdrawing it, and giving yourself some breathing space. My advice, (and I'm only someone who admires what you are doing), is to ask for it to be de-listed to give you time to gather you sources. There is no shame in this and it does not prevent or make it harder for your work to reach FA at a later date. At the pace you are working, there is a danger that you will introduce more problems and you will get unfavourable comments which will discourage you. Please do not give up on the article you will get there. Best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice I'll de-list it. I'll prbably have it completed in 2 weeks then after that. I'll let you know what'll happen. I think I need a break myself. But I'll be happy to de-list it in 3 days the adive people are giving me is very constructive and precise. Thank you again. Hope to see you soon fellow Wikipedian, enjoy you'r break. LOTRrules (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wave vector

Hi, I am just wondering if its 'wavevector' or 'wave vector' or even 'wave-vector'? A google search didn't help me to draw a conclusion... Thanks, Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I sorted out the disambiguation and re-directed it there. LOTRrules (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Boy, does this article read like an advertisement for this guy, or what? Cleanup please.

This article is a mess. There are two main problems:

1. There are several Kyle Smiths

2. Repeat vandalism

Most people coming here are looking for the NY Post writer "Kyle Smith" and that is who this article was created for. Right now though, all the information about the writer has been deleted. Needs to be reverted back to what it was in May 2007.Lord of the Ping (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, I fixed most of it. Still working on it. LOTRrules (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, nice work.--Lord of the Ping (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! LOTRrules (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Michaelott10

This user has been linking articles to his site for "violent video films/games", can you ban him? I know that he has only made 2 of these edits - I don't trust spammers however... They ruin Wikipedia. And whats more is that he has been looking at an article that deals with death/suicide of people, primarily kids and students - how immoral is that? I've given him two warnings but I feel he might not listen to me in the future. If an admin does it he won't do it... LOTRrules (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll keep an eye on him, and if he does it again, I'll give him a stern warning and a block if necessary. GlassCobra 22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks LOTRrules (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

27% of what?

In Peacekeeping - Assessments there was the following comment on the peacekeeping scale:

and was projected to be near 27% in 2003

I moved that here, because it doesn't make any sense for anybody who doesn't know how the scale works, which also is the case for most readers, since there is no such article. Before reinsertion - what is this totality that the scale is 27% of? Mikael Häggström 12:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? THere should be no article for the following because the figure just represents a percentage. Nevertheless I'll check it again and get back to you... LOTRrules (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It speaks for itself 27% of all UN peacekeeping forces available to the UN. Sorry for the late response. LOTRrules (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation! Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Athiesm in Japan

Although this article deals with religion in Japan, I think the number of Agnotic and Athiest memebers of Japanese society needs to be addressed. I would appreciate it if this request was taken seriously, and not treated with ignorant comments such as "athiesm is evil," "athiesm is a lack of faith," and etc. Perhaps if it is found through debate that this information is not pertinent to the article, perhaps a new article addressing Athiesm/Agnosticism in Japan should be created, or the information should be added to an already existing Athiesm/Agnosticism article dealing with the worldwide prevalence of these views.

Thanks, --67.177.170.218 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Atheism isn't a religion, many Japanese people are religious and are finding that spiritual belief is a part of human guidance. And what's more is that this article constitutes the beliefs of people in Japan not ergo "lack of...". Furthermore since Japan does not take religious surveys because they respect people's beliefs it is no wonder that there are no estimates of the Japanese agnostic - if there ever existed such a person. Put simply there are no ways to tell if atheism even exists in Japan LOTRrules (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is Christianity mentioned so much?

I call attention to the statistics on NationMaster [4] (http://www.nationmaster.com) where they say the Japanese "observe both Shinto and Buddhist 84%, other 16% (including Christian 0.7%)" This says to me that Christianity in Japan is practiced by so few people that it should be moved to another category titled "Other Religions" along with shamanism and other cults. Cite me specific facts that show that the Japanese belive in Chrisitianity in equal proportion to the other two, otherwise I will make this change.--Scipantheist 15:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The section in question reads like a historical note. I don't think the fact that Christianity is not put at "other religions" means that "Japanese belive in Chrisitianity in equal proportion to the other two." -- Taku 16:50, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

True, only 1% of the japanese population is christain 71.135.56.246 17:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it either. Christianity is really minor but there is more written about it than Shinto and Buddhism! The little note in other religions should be all that is needed in this article. For those interested a seperate article on history and situation of Christianity in Japan seems like the place for it. --Timtak 04:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the large section - it came as quite a shock when I saw the article. I got rid of most of the info and added the links to other articles that discussed the religion in japan - also I removed it to the minority section where the minority relgions are discussed. LOTRrules (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Arabs ARE semites

How can it be anti-semitic? This article is just WRONG. When does Islam accept discriminating others? And this is probably just to add further to Islamophobia. Arabs themselves are Semites. It says right here on Wikipedia! Why can't it be added to or merged to persecution or discrimination agaisnt Jews? THIS ARTICLE IS ENTIRELY FALSE. LOTRrules (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, your tirade is mostly relevant to the main Antisemitism article, and not specifically to this one. This article will only change its terminology in the (unlikely) event that the main Antisemitism article does so first.

Secondly, the word "Semites" (as a noun form) is in fact rarely used at all in modern accurate scholarly terminology (except to refer to certain ancient tribes). There are definitely Semitic languages and people who are speakers of Semitic languages, but the word "Semites" itself has extremely little ascertainable valid meaning when referring to modern peoples (except in the eyes of a few old-fashioned allegedly "scientific" bigots, who still believe in the idea of unchanging archetypes of the Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and Semitic so-called "races").

Thirdly, it is true that the term "antisemitic" is not in fact strictly etymologically correct (since Jews are hardly the only group with a historical connection to Semitic languages and/or their early speakers), but that's due to this word's specific origins -- since "Semites"=Jews was one of a whole series of mock-grandiose pseudo-elevated (but really slightly condescending) terms which were used in the late Victorian period to refer to various ethnic/religious groups that were felt by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants to be somewhat alien to themselves -- such as "Celestials" used to refer to Chinese, "Romans" for Italians, "Sons of Erin" for Irish, and a number of others. During that period, the term "Jew-hating" was a little too harsh to be used in mixed company when Podsnap's innocent Young Person was present, so that "anti-Semitism" (originally coined by non-Jewish Jew-hater Wilhelm Marr in 1879) was accepted as a genteel polite euphemism for drawing-room use.

However, at this point the above is all pretty much water under the bridge, since the word "antisemitism" has obtained a fixed and established meaning over the last 120 years of usage in the English language, from the Dreyfus struggle through the Holocaust to General Assembly resolution 3379 of 1975. If you want to coin a word for hatred of Arabs, then by all means please do so -- there are plenty of theoretically valid possibilities, such as "Arabophobia", "Misaraby", "anti-Arabism", etc. etc. But please don't try to redefine the accepted term for hatred of Jews, because the problem of hatred of Jews is not the same as the problem of hatred of Arabs. And you certainly don't help your cause by seeming to support the old tired propaganda line that Arabs can't hate Jews because Arabs are "Semites" themselves -- something which is not only factually false, but which hardly any thoughtful and intelligent person believes. AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And? Homophobes hate gays, but are not afraid of them. Words are often used in other ways than what their original meaning suggests. // Liftarn (talk)

Wow, I actually agree with Liftarn! Guess there's a first time for everything... However, I have to point out that the special etymological problem with the word "homophobia" is not the possible fear/hatred discrepancy (which is exactly the same for all -phobia words, and is a broadly-accepted convention, since sometimes hate does grow out of fear), but rather the fact that literally (based on Greek roots) homophobia should mean "fear of sames", i.e. "fear of people like oneself". AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Who coined this term? I mean I seriously doubt people from Islam did... And in the English language the term anti-semite still remains that if you call anyone of semitic background in discrpency a derogative term you are in fact being anti-semitic...so how can a term for hating Arabs and a term for hating Jews NOT be the same? Semitic languages = Semites... and are you also encouraging that anyone make a word to describe the hatred of Arabs? I mean here on Wikipedia? ANd what do you mean "scientific" bigots? LOTRrules (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote directly above?? German non-Jewish Jew-hater Wilhelm Marr is usually credited with coining the term in 1879. For further info, see the main antisemitism article, which I already linked to. Wilhelm Marr probably didn't care too much about Arabs when coining the word, because Arabs were totally irrelevant to the daily life experiences of the vast majority of middle-class residents of northern European cities in the year 1879 -- unlike Jews. And no, it is most definitely NOT the case that "Semitic languages = Semites", as I already explained in great detail above. And the terms for hating Jews are different for the terms for hating Arabs because there are many people who hate Jews without hating Arabs, and many other people who hate Arabs without hating Jews. When there are two such distinct realities, then it's not usually useful to use only one single term to cover both indiscriminately... AnonMoos (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, first time for everything. I agree with AnonMoos (though not on the question of whether to use giant red slanting fonts to hammer home one's points). No one calls anti-Arab bigotry "antisemitism"; they call it "Islamophobia," even though lotsa Arabs aren't Muslims. Meaning is defined by use and by convention, not by etymology. Otherwise "innocent," "ignorant," and "agnostic" would all be synonyms, an impecunious person would have no sheep and a sincere one would have no wax, while the "ambitious" would be those walking around in circles, and an "inspired" poet would be an inflated one – or worse, one with a bad case of wind.--G-Dett (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The related terms that have developed over time are "antisemitism" ("s" not capitalized to recognize original false "racialized" premise), "Islamophobia", and "Arabophobia".--Cberlet (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So overall you're saying that this article is INCITING Islamophobia? What about Neo-Nazi's? "Neo" meaning new? The prefix tells us so! So should they be in this article? Or do should somebody create a new article entitled "Neo-New Anti-Semitism? I feel this article plays too much concentration on Arabs and Islam. For thousands of years Jews have been persecuted and so have Arabs and so have Christians and so have Bhuddists and so have...(well you get my point...). Why not include this in the fucking article? Why has somebody ONLY concentrated on Islam. Christians have hated Jews and made it public in their own nations and some haven't even apologised yet. I feel that this article is (again) concentrating on Arabs too much...THIS ARTICLE IS NOT NEUTRAL. LOTRrules (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you really need to start reading things with a little greater care. This article does not in fact focus excusively (or even predominantly) on Arabs and Jew-hating and/or Muslims and Jew-hating -- we have completely separate articles Arabs_and_antisemitism and Islam_and_antisemitism devoted to those topics. This article only really discusses Muslims in the context of the alleged convergence between the strange bedfellows or unlikely political alliance of extremist Leftists, extremist Islamists, and extremist Rightists. If you want a general broad overview of religious persecution as a global phenomenon throughout history, then start by going to the Religious persecution article (this article has a much narrower and more specific function). AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You are a saint, AnonMoos, but that doesn't change the foact: WP:DNFTT. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm hardly uniformly saintly, but I have had previous experience in debating upholders of the shoddy "Arabs can't hate Jews because they're also Semites" propaganda line outside of Wikipedia. And he's only a troll if he's insincere. AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A troll? I'm mearly discussing the article! I have to question the hell out of everything to get the answers I want! And this is a real debate I've had for in a couple of months! So please forive me for being a troll(!)...And I think it is hardly propoganda...I bet you're from the extreme right youself the way you speak and think of others opinions...are you trying to make me look like an exttremist? insincere? look at yourself... LOTRrules (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh lordy, not this old chestnut again! We have a common usage, this is just a game. Lobojo (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear LOTRrules, the bit about "Arabs being Semites too" is really past its sell-by date, and is not being taken seriously by any other editor to this page (much less being supported by anyone whatsoever). The sooner you assimilate and comprehend this (and stop casting unnecessary and irrelevant ideological aspersions on others), the sooner you might possibly be able to contribute to constructive and productive conversations about improving the article New antisemitism... AnonMoos (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

LOTRrules is a troll because (1) this page is for discussing improvements to the article, and to discuss improvemetns to the article, one needs to know something about the topic. (2) a good-faith editor at a minimum would read the relevant articles and the Wikipedia article on anti-Semitism provides a clear explanation as to why anti-Semitism refers to hatred of or disrcimination against Jews, and not just anyone speaking a Semitic language. (3) see WP:POINT and WP:DIS. PS: Two more reasons why he is a troll: (4) he changes other people's comments, which is forbidden, and (5) he ignores other people's good faith efforts to explain things to him. It is he evident and unceasing unwillingness to listen to others, despite his own demands to use this page to push his POV, that make him a troll Slrubenstein | Talk 12:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

LOTR not a troll (AGF) but discussion need not go further. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that some people have attacked me seems inappropriate, personal attacks are low, but the meaning is still clear Arabs & Jews = Semites, hatred of Arabs & Jews = anti-semite. I'd still use it in it's PROPER CONTEXT LOTRrules (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

LOTR, just find a reliable definitional source (dictionary, encyclopedia etc) that states that general usage of the term "anti-Semite" = "hated of Arabs and Jews." this should easily put an end to this gnarly and anfractuous pleonasm and the iniquitous suggestions that trolldom is afoot. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Write?, fine. LOTRrules (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has become absurd. The reason this page title is spelled "antisemitism" is to recognize the fact that in the pseudoscience of "racial eugenics" in the 1800s, Arabs and Jews were classified as "Semites." However the term "antisemitism" has that specific spelling to recognize that "anti-Semitism" could be misleading, but that the term "anti-Semitism" comes from an anti-Jewish political movement. This is not a new issue, and the terms "antisemitism" and "Arabophobia" are now used by scholars to make the distinctions clear. I agree with Slrubenstein that this is a settled issue. Ignorance is understandable, but to endlessly debate an issue based on ignorance is a waste of time.--Cberlet (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree on this. I let my temper flare a little. This article is confusing in a sense and since I was taught in school that semites included Arabs I have stuck on that rule. My bad. I'd just like to say I'm glad it was sorted out. I've done the research and everything else. The term has in places changed in meaning and some places haven't. This debate still is controversial. Next time I hope we all keep a cool head. LOTRrules (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Colour

I think this should be added to the list of fetishes but I cannot find the name of it anywhere does it exist? LOTRrules 14:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What type of white skin?194.112.32.101 22:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You know how people prefer lighter skin over darker skin? Like that. I'm not a racist but am underlining the truth of society - some people prefer dark skin others whiter skin but the most common seems to be white skin in Europeon contries where people of different ethnicities favour "white" over "their own" the same if a person moves to country lacking "white demographics" excerpt vice versa...

LOTRrules (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There is currently an article dealing with Racial fetishism, but in terms of a fetish for skin tone - it seems familiar in that I recall a report on Channel4 News about the higher status (or regard) awarded to lighter skinned women in Africa among their peers and families. This could essentially be the same as a racial fetish, and was probably not sexually motivated, but I cannot doubt that the possibilities may run contrary to the essentials or primary appearances. Redblueball (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, how come a link isn't on this page? Odd, I'll put one if there isn't LOTRrules (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

no problem.. it's already on the fetish template. Redblueball (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich

Anime centric

Take care that the article doesn't give more weight to the anime side of Sakura than the manga side, especially considering the manga is original story here. I bring this up mostly on the point that there is not a single image of her as she as she appears in the manga. While she's basically the same in both mediums, the user might not know that, and there's always the subtle details, not the least of which is that monochrome changes everything.--SeizureDog (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Since anime and manga are basically the same anime being the TV adaption and manga being the comic adaption is there such a difference? Are yo saying that the anime is "made along" with the TV adaption and new storylines are created? LOTRrules (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See message response to your last message Talk:Sakura Haruno, LOTRrules (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way just curious, how old are you? LOTRrules (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But I am 20 years, 2 months, and 2 days of age.--SeizureDog (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

34,000

User:Qst,

With the number of articles you've contributed to you say you have made 34,000 edits, I was amazed to see that you've only got 13,000+, is this an honest mistake? LOTRrules (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I use an edit counter tool which can be found in Cometstyles on the Freenode IRC network. Combined with my edits using this account, and my former account, Tellyaddict and Rlest - I have 34,000 contribs. Thanks for pointing that out. ~ Qst (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Qst, you may wish to insert some sort of a disclaimer or footnote into that userbox: this isn't the first time a user has enquired about this :) Just a thought. AGK (contact) 20:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I probably will, just I'm busy changing IRC clients from Chatzilla to XChat, so I'm a little busy at the moment. :) ~ Qst (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll be using the same client as me, then ;) It's pretty good, BTW. AGK (contact) 21:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Its great, but its supposed to keep you connected for twelve hours, even if your computer is on standby (apparently it can last longer, too,) but that feature doesn't seem to be working... Qst (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Would have been nice if you actually responded on my talkpage. I mean I thought you were trying to avoid me. Thanks for sorting this out LOTRrules (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not at all. You can see from previous messages that I reply on this page, in order to keep messages and replies together. Qst (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hey there LOTR, I"ve seen you around and decided to take a look at your edit history. A couple of things have jumped out at me. First, this discussion will probably hurt any candidacy for a few months. Second, there appears to be an issue with your brother and access to your account. I'll look at it a little more later... but have to run right noBalloonman (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for responding. And about that little issue with my brother has been solved. As you can see I've been collecting all of the discussions I've taken part in to make it easier for you. Another is that if it does affect my final outcome be sure to tell me of all the things I did wrong. And please don't remove my account if you find anything suspicious. I've made lots of contribs but if you think I need more time to mature then please feel free to discuss this because I am willing. All I really want to do is know everything about Wikipedia - how it runs, how I can improve it...I've been tirelessy contributing to Wikipedia actively for more than two months now and am really enjoying it. The trust issue I hope can be solved if it now isn't. LOTRrules (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

hey there LOTR... if you are interested, I'd be proud to take you as a candidate---even though you appear to be lacking one of the primal characteristics of my first 3 candidates. Any chance you could change you name to some thing that begins with an S? ;-)Balloonman (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? I have stuck with LOTRrules for a long time now..., if you mind me asking...why change my name? I don't fully understand what you mean...can you explain further? I'm a bit puzzled. LOTRrules (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way I'd love to be your student. LOTRrules (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a joke---my first three students all have names that begin with an "S" ;-) To get started, we need to create a /admin coaching page off of your main user page. When you do so, go ahead and answer the three basic questions that are asked of all admin candidates —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that you've been busy in RL, but whenever you are ready to begin, set up that /admin coaching page off of your main page and we can get going.Balloonman (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to do this to you, but reviewing your edits again, and I decided that I probably wouldn't make a good admin coach for you. When I look for coachees I look for people who I believe will be able to pass in 1-3 months. Looking at your edits, I do not believe that to be the case.

1. Your edits on Elegy For a Stillborn Child. This page has had a copyvio tag and two prod tags on it in the past two months. You've removed the prod tag twice, but you haven't dealt with the reason why it was prodded to begin with.
2. Using all caps can be seen as incivility.
3. Your dialog with Mannafredo regarding Farah Khan did show a lack of civility.
4. Your outburst on Talk:New antisemitism shows some civility issues.
5. Your removing an AfD tag from an article that you were working on
6. The numerous images that were deleted due to fair use and copyright vios.

I think you are an excellent editor who will someday make a great admin. I liked your edits before I saw you on this board. But due to the above issues it will be 6 months without incident before you are ready to run for Admin. Thus, I am reluctantly withdrawing my offer to be your admin coach. Sorry. Good luck in the future.Balloonman (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

This article is full of useless trivia. I'm going to sort this out and create a separate section. LOTRrules (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorted out most of the mess. LOTRrules (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, how are Endings trivia, but a list of Nina's various ages not? King Zeal (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia states that you are not supposed to state the endings of a game - this is moderately done through the plot. Heavy concentration on just ending alone provide gameguiding - which lead back to trivia. Another thing, her age marks an incident where she got pregnant and would explain why she suddenly is 40+ years old vis a vis relates to plot. However I'm going to research this further if we all want this to get to GA status - it's not even a start-class article. So trivia sections are a big no-no. They belong in the Media section. Revealing plot details like endings in one section of the article is against Wikipedia policy unless its the main game article itself - but that is a different story. No gameguiding is allowed. LOTRrules (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the first time I've heard anything about that. Can you link me to the policy itself? However, that still does not justify an entire section to explain Nina's age. It's something that can be explained within the plot section itself. All you need to do is integrate it into that section. King Zeal (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will intergrate that but leave it up there so I can blend it in. By the way why did you copy-edit the bottom section? It should be in past tense since she did star in the game - plot details should be written in proper prose. LOTRrules (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I thought that fictional works were supposed to be expressed in eternal present tense. Also, can you remember to link me to that policy you described before? King Zeal (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I will link it soon. I remember that the policy was often quoted to me by editors in BOW, I gave the ending away a lot and have since learned my lesson. I'm just looking for it right now...LOTRrules (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a game guide - I checked out the policy and you were right about present tense. However I still think plot details that big and to dedicate an entire section to the ending makes the article look tedious. the endings are explained throughout the plot. Most of the info given on ending was a sort of game-guide. LOTRrules (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_Wulong Other characters like this one have these trivia sections which are discouraged from wikipedia] - I mean how does a referance like "Jackie Chan movie" give encyclopaedic content? LOTRrules (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See also - Wikipedia:Trivia sections LOTRrules (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't see anything there that says that multiple endings can't be described, especially when they're alternate scenarios for the characters' story. For example, not one of Ling Xiaoyu's endings is ever mentioned in any of her story details for any of the Tekken games. I don't see how providing a brief (that being the keyword--I do agree that some of the sections are way too long) description of the ending is acting as a game guide or being trivial. If it can be integrated into the story (such as ALL of Jin's endings), then fine. But if not, how is excluding it doing the character's page justice? King Zeal (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine I'll mend it in. Right now. LOTRrules (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ban

Why don't you ban User: 216.253.220.18? He seems to have made unconstructive edits to Wikipedia and it's been going on for months. Why don't you just ban him? look at his user talk page LOTRrules (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... no recent edits, final warning already issued. Plus, it's an anon, so we might be dealing with several people using the same Internet connexion, or one that has been passed around (happens a lot with AOL people). --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

This is regarding Nina Williams article. I see that you have contributed well in the past to Tekken games. But an issue has popped up. While researching for referances and citations I came across websites that were written exactly like this article had been and a few others as well. And they seemed to be running for a while - ie before this article was created. Did you by any chance copy them and put them here? I'm only asking because you seemed to have contributed a large amount to the article. I am not accusing you, just asking because if this was discovered in other Tekken articles they could be deleted. Furthermore I have re-worded statements so it will be unlikely this will get deleted. Many thanks for contributions all ready. And drop me a message soon. LOTRrules (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXII - March 2008

The March 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --17:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

This is regarding Nina Williams article. I see that you have contributed well in the past to Tekken games. But an issue has popped up. While researching for referances and citations I came across websites that were written exactly like this article had been and a few others as well. And they seemed to be running for a while - ie before this article was created. Did you by any chance copy them and put them here? I'm only asking because you seemed to have contributed a large amount to the article. I am not accusing you, just asking because if this was discovered in other Tekken articles they could be deleted. Furthermore I have re-worded statements so it will be unlikely this will get deleted. Many thanks for contributions all ready. And drop me a message soon. LOTRrules (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't me. I've made the Tekken series my personal "pet series", but I've tried hard to make sure they remain decent contributions. I didn't put any copyrighted material to my knowledge. King Zeal (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Abilities

What notability is there regarding the movelist? I still don't understand; you're against an Endings section, but you don't think it's trite to list all of Nina's past and present moves? Without context, what purpose does including them have? King Zeal (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the information I gave out again thoroughly. I'm not angry but an endings section is way out of line - it was written like a game guide and most of it was trivia-esque like. A list of moves provides information - stats, facts whatever you want to call it - falls into a catagory. Never in the history of editing the article have I written explicity her moves were from the past or present that would be trivia - I just simply listed them. Ergo this meant that the article had more information about her moves. The endings I mostly blended into the plot as much I could but giving heavily explicit information on just endings alone - and the way it is written - sounded like trivia. It fell into Wikipedia is not a gameguide policy. Also if you have the time look an endings section is not in the Resident Evil articles nor are their moves because RE concentrates on story and plot. If you could want, you could create a separate article because we have enough information on the endings section alone - you see in the article they just looked like tedious trivia. The list that I made didn't fall into the gameguide chasm. Remember they are just statistics on the information of her character, her potential, her skills and techniques. See also WP:LIST and WP:EMBED for additional information on lists. LOTRrules (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand how a list of moves is any less trivial than an Endings section. How is describing what happens in a character's ending more trivial than listing only the names of what a character can do? Facts without context is the very DEFINITION of trivia. For example: Why are the moves relevant? What do they say about the character? What have other sources said about her moves?

Do you see what I'm saying? Without adding any of that detail, the list is just cruft. King Zeal (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do see what you're saying. This is a complicated debate. I'll list them in order of skill. This is not trivia - there are hundreds of texts out there that describe her moves and I'll do the exact same. My local library has info on books - Tekken included. How much damage she can inflict, how her moves relate to her martial arts skills and techniques. Currently I'm just listing them and then I'm going to delete anything thats irrelavent and then finally add in the referances - a structured approach will get this to GA status. Look at my stats I have edited this article 115 times and still working on it. I'm finding quotes and referances as we speak. Just let me do all the work for that section and we'll have a GA article soon. LOTRrules (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, wait. Read what you just said: You're going to add information about Nina's moves that correspond to how much damage she can inflict. If that doesn't fall into the category of being a game guide, I don't know what does. What books, exactly, are you planning to get this information from, anyway? Because if it's an instruction manual or game guide (which are the only two types that I know of), then that brings us right back to where we started: Wikipedia isn't a game guide.

And, I'm sorry, but I can't let you, or anyone else, do all the work when it comes to a Wiki article. That kind of defeats the purpose. King Zeal (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I'll just do what you said. Don't delete it. and don't don't get rid of everything. I'll list the books her tommorow - they are NOT gameguides - and what are you sorry for? I just said that one little section. Don't pity me. LOTRrules (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lists

Hello, I need your advice since you're an admin. Is this list appropriate on Nina Williams (the skills & techniques section). LOTRrules (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I am not an admin, though much of what I do in Wikipedia can give the impression that I am one. But the list you deleted from said article should indeed have been deleted, if only on the grounds that it is way too long compared to the rest of the article, and meaningless to non-players. Thank you. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. LOTRrules (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Uppercase

Why are Headings letters NOT in uppercase? They are like chapters and its just proper punctuation... e.g Rise to Fame as opposed to Rise to fame ? LOTRrules (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Because that's just the way Wikipedia is. Rappingwonders (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

but its not good punctuation LOTRrules (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel this guideline should change, feel free to discuss it at the talk page for WP:STYLE, that is where it's clearly defined. -Verdatum (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Eminems Mother & Family

Is there a section that descrines marshalls mother? or a separate article? I can't find either. Also he seems to hate his mother as I recall he says in one of his songs:

C'mon Debs cum on your tits, fuck that cum on your tits cum on your lips...

— Eminem - Album: The Eminem Show Song: Without me

Sorry for being so graphic but I believe Debs refers to his mother? I mean he insults her which might suggest family conflict? I'm not so sure...But should we have a section dedicated to his mother or his ex-wife for that matter? LOTRrules (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is already a short section about his mother and ex-wife here. By the way...

...and get ready, 'cause this is about to get heavy. I just settled all my lawsuits, (F*** you Debbie!)

— Eminem - Album: The Eminem Show Song: Without Me

122.53.102.230 (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You must be extremely careful when making conclusions from such references. You can't use his lyrics to determine if he's being serious, or if his opinion continues to hold; he's allowed to change his mind after all. All these cautionary issues are covered in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Oh also, Wikipedia is not censored. So long as it's appropriate, and quoting lyrics certainly is, you don't need to use asterisks or apologize or anything. -Verdatum (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, i think the personal life section needs cleaning up. where it says he hates his mother debbie is only speculation, as in some of his lyrics he mentions that he's sorry, and that he does love her. iy's hard to tell weathjer he's joking or being serious in most of his lyrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.224.1.14 (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fictional characters

As far as I know, there's no policy on it. However, using the examples of Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Smallville (Season 1), which are featured articles, most characters are addressed by their first names, unless the character is typically addressed by their last name, such as with Indiana Jones. Aside from that, it's just a good idea to NOT address either Nina or Anna by their last names, since the name "Williams" could be used by either (and, if you include their father, that makes a third). 13:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fullmetal Alchemist Manga

Do you know the website of the japanese publisher of the fullmetal manga? I plan to reference the isbn and I cant find that website. Regards.--Tintor2 (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

i have the website but my mouse has malfunctioned or else i would have given it to you. it currently is frozen and won't let me copy or paste anything. I'll try and give it to you tommorow. any questions? LOTRrules (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a question: Are the Gaiden chapters published in the books? If they are published there, shouldnt they be included? I also added a comment in the talk page of the article. See you.--Tintor2 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

First articles

What was the very first article on Wikipedia as well as

• 1,000,000th
• 2,000,000th?

LOTRrules (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See Category:Milestone Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. LOTRrules (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Central Mosque Answer - Saudi Royal?

Funding (heading) Glasgow Central Mosque

If memory serves, a considerable proportion of the cost of building the mosque was provided by a member of the Saudi royal family. Is this the case? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC) - your quote

Sorry people were slow to respond but here is your answer

I don't know what you mean and to my personal knowledge I think it is NOT possible that the Saudi royal family did give funding for it, please would you site a source to juxtaposize your conclusion/theory? LOTRrules 22:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

Indian/Muslim? When I went to the biography portal it said these exact words. How can Muslim be a nationality when there are billions of Muslims throughout the world. why the slash? why can't it be Indian Muslim? I'm sure that people in Britain or the USA who are Muslims are not a separate nationality if they were born in these countries... LOTRrules (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

READ THIS PAGE!!!

I cannot believe the editors of this page have let it become such a state! It reads like anti-BNP propaganda and contains little useful information. Read the respect page. Doesnt say that they'r a bunch of racist muslims does it? So why is this one written the way it is? Don't try to defend yourself with quotes and explainations etc. this article bears a far left opinion and not a lot else. If you don't understand the BNP from a fairly neutral standpoint you should leave this page alone 80.5.156.202 (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I can't defend myself with quotes and explanations, what can I do?! Emeraude (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Step aside, and let me handle it? It's simple. On Wikipedia, we go by what secondary sources say. The overwhelming majority of secondary sources think the BNP are a bunch of extremist far-right racists. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We should be using good secondary sources though, and not presenting POV 80.5.156.202 (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that someone here is trying to make the BNP look innocent which is a direct violation of NPOV and you are giving a POV. Face the facts they are extremist fascists and racists - it has been put in that the BNP have later "denied" that they are racist which seems pretty neutral to me. What would you like us to put in? Where's the "propoganda", where's the posters, the quotes encouraging people that they should be anti-BNP? It is presenting in NPOV. We are using good secondry sources.

“ Well, if I can't defend myself with quotes and explanations, what can I do?! ”

I think this sums it up. You need evidence to support an argument and the arguments say they are racist and far-right. LOTRrules (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Policies like advertisments

A few issues which affect the article:

• Why does this page outline the policies of the party? - This is redundant as policies change all of the time, Wikipedia is not an advertising agency or particpates in political party stances, therefore this article expresses POV wheras it should be NPOV. Outlining thier policies is again redundant.
• All other political party articles seem to concentrate on the history of the party. Labour for example, outlining current activites and electoral results. This article heavily emphasises on policies.
• A few of the citations are not properly linked therefore information ecpressed should be removed, as again this collides with POV.
• Most of the article page takes up space which could be used for something else i.e electoral results.
• Either split the policies page or remove it - since it changes all the time.
• Concentration must be made on the affiliates of the BNP rather than themselves - they're relationships with other parties and/or other politicians e.g. Tony Blair, David Cameron...etc...
• Who would like to vote for them - this is not made clear in a concise section.
• Statistics are all over the place, this is confusing for a reader.

LOTRrules (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've created a special page here. Qwenton (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's a very bad idea, as it will make one, if not both pages fail NPOV. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's as if a member of the BNP has written this out! This is completely out of NPOV policy. LOTRrules (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Major Edit

Just to tell you I think the Impact section is just too long and irrelavent. I will cut it down but I will have the spare biuts of information used as referances in the near future. It was one of the reasons the article failed a good article nomination. LOTRrules (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Right I'll make a separate page on my userpage as a place for storing these tables (which are irrelavent) - please contact me if you can't find them. LOTRrules (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Final note: I have stored them - anyone who wants them go to User:LOTRrules/Referances - but be warned the use of these tables will result in GA and/or FA status automatic failure so please use these only for referance not by making up huge tables as WP is against extensive list/table formats in just one article... LOTRrules (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Croats vs Serbs only?

Did the Croats ally with the Bosnian (Muslim) population? Or did they have conflicts with them as well? It seems to me that Serbia seemed to be the cause of the war. And that they did most of the damage... LOTRrules (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There weren't many Bosniaks in Krajina, afaik. In Bosnia they were allies and enemies at the different stages of the conflict. Alæxis_¿question? 07:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

During war Croats supplied Bosniaks with weapon. In the beginning they were allies, however conflicts between Croats and Muslims in Bosnia occured during 1993 for several reasons which are not all clear. According to some testimonies Serbs arranged these conflicts between allies from the opposite side, second reason could be arrival of Muslim soldiers from the east - Mujahideen - for them all Christians were enemies, also allegedly there was some kind of agreement between Croat Tuđman and Serb Milošević concerning the territory of Bosnia, Bosnian leader A. Izetbegović agreed in the beginning that Croatia can get Herzegovina, but it was changed very soon. Whatever there were also conflicts between different groups of Bosniaks (Muslims). Even there was some conflict with Bosniaks, Croats didn't stop to supply them, so at the end of war they were on the same side against Serbs who were actually the only real agressors in whole story. Zenanarh (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. But are the incidents recorded here? I would be grateful if you pointed this out. And did Osama bin Laden fight there? Since he wasn't classed as a terrorist then (I assume)? I mean the CIA did train him... LOTRrules (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mujahedeens in Bosnia were used by the USA just like in Afganistan against the Soviet Union.That was befor terrorism. Serb like to mention that Bosnian Muslims were extremists,but that is very untrue.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. LOTRrules (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Islam and the Holy Grail

Does Islam acknowledge the Holy Grail? LOTRrules (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? It's obviously not one of their articles of belief, since it isn't even one of the Christians' articles of belief.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah...right...thanks for clearing that up. It's just a myth... LOTRrules (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical Order

When filling in the "Known B.O.W.s" Section it may be best to put the creatures in Alphabetical Order.

No this is redundant - it is pointless to have it this way. Better to have it in the order it's in now - the chronological order of the games LOTRrules (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical order is what the manual of style suggests.

Also, this article is incredibly crufty, and though I want to keep it, I'm going to have to trim it a lot so that it won't get outright deleted. I would suggest creating a copy of this to post on the RE wikia.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But it's NOT "crufty" - I am STIL WORKING ON IT, I have a HOST of information at MY DISPOSAL AND DAY IN DAY OUT I'M ADDING STUFF INTO IT. Look at what I have said below, fine alphabetical order is Okay - BUT LETS ALSO KEEP IT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER of game. LOTRrules (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all what is wrong with it? (I am still working on it) LOTRrules (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one I would suggest WP:NOT#List (I think I linked that right), WP:OWN, and WP:AGF, WP:NPOV. Also, I said "crufty", not "stubby" - crufty is when it's a big dumping ground for in-universe trivia, with no concessions to the fact that it's fictional.

For example: "Three of these Tyrants were successfully killed by Wesker." - that's irrelevant plot detail, and explains nothing about the subject itself. That is cruft.

For order - do you mean chronological by release, or chronological by in-series timeline? Because the first is going to have a confusing order, and the second is WAY too in-universe. This is why the guidelines suggest an alphabetical order. Ordering it by alphabet would also allow grouping of similar enemies, like Tyrants.

I'm not going to claim it's anything near what it should be, but Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series is much closer to what this article should be, if it isn't deleted.

You need sourcing (from news articles, reviews, or in-game quotes), you need to not make OR like "Thanatos is easily recognized by its sublime display of agility, brute force, and keen survival instincts.", and both the "chronological" and table formats are strongly discouraged.

Believe me, I'm not saying I want to get rid of this article. I want to keep it, but I want it to be cleaned up to the point that it is still informative while not being an instant deletion-target.

It might actually be a good idea to merge it with the Viruses page, with each construct of a virus being shortly described under the virus's own description.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A note about refs - fansites should not be used as sources. Sources must be published, either in articles, reviews, or in the game itself. Official site should also be acceptable.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay. But I don't want you to get rid of everything. And i realise that it was in an universe style, its just that I have spent SO much time and energy on it for the good of wikipedia. Can you just further outline stuff that you are going do in the future? I don't want anything to turn up bad, or look like the other terrible articles on RE. By the way info on the tyrants was not mine the thonatos was added by someone else, I've only been editing stuff that was already in here. LOTRrules (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fine that you didn't add it, I'm just giving an example of what I was talking about when I said it badly needed cleaning. I can try to ask you to reword certain things, but most of the edits I made preserved info and only removed things that were blatantly not acceptable.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Right I see that now, forgive my panic attack, thanks for all the advice. LOTRrules (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

After we have gotten rid of the in universe junk why can't we AFTER put it into aplhabetical order? How does that sound? LOTRrules (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean put it in alphabetical order after cleaning up the article? I guess that would be fine, but I don't see why it would be a big deal to do it like that.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it would be easier that way LOTRrules (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've set it to alphabetical order of creature in chronological order of game. LOTRrules (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it worth pointing out that I moved the B.O.W. "Neptune" from first appearing in Outbreak, to first appearing in Resident Evil (1) as this was the case. Neptune and both her young were first found in the lab in the basement of the guardhouse. If anyone disagrees then let me know but the shark is definately there are RE1 was definately out before Outbreak. emma_north1 (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2008 (GMT)

It's fine I checked this out. LOTRrules (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Major Edit

The article was flawed from the very beginning. But since then I have made a few decent changes

• I changed the name, the initial one which had been confusing and lacked immemsley in terms of having anything relating to Resident Evil was changed to Bio organic weapon (Resident Evil)
• I have included images that make the article more aesthetically eye-catching, giving more information to the public, which also serve as a purpose to educate the people who have NOT yet played or heard of or seen the series.
• The sections need a lot of work which has already been put in and hopefully I will be able to find and reference specific books and websites - just needs a BIT of cleaning up.
• The initial state of the article was appauling but yet informative and useful, me adding more information to the article brought up the quality of the article in specific areas.
• I have also explained or am going to explain it from an entirely neutral point of view so that the people unfamillier to the article or the game series will find it informative, not just something that is based on "truthiness"

I hope to improve the article in time further. LOTRrules (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have, starting from the top, begun formatting and trimming the sections to bring them in line with the guidelines. Most of the pictures are going to end up being deleted, probably not by me, though, since having so many images for the purposes of glitzing up the article is strictly against guidelines. I would highly suggest uploading the images to the RE wikia instead, since I can't see them being possible to defend (especially since you source their creation to an RE fansite, rather than Capcom itself).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As shown with the first section done, the sections should list a brief desc. of what the creature is and what game it appeared in. Then, a brief sentence on how/why it was made, and then one describing what makes it special. There should be NO gameguiding - no "shotguns are effective", "they won't give the player much trouble" - NADA. If absolutely necessary, we can have "they attack the player by" - but NO GUIDES ON HOW TO DEFEAT THEM.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also needed in that section would be any info on why the designers chose to make this enemy, any reception info, and proper sourcing for the Marcus Report bit. Also, if there is an in-game encyclopedia like with Devil May Cry, or an online official site encyclopedia, or a published sourcebook, we should try to source/add info from that.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE PLEASE LET me sort them out, I'll fix it but I just want to edit this article, I don't want you deleting more than you should. Also a note on images - we need them to illustrate a character the previous description on list of resident evil creatures couldn't describe them efficiently enough, I thought pictures would be useful and compulsory, if not VITAL. LOTRrules (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I want us to work with this together, I have spent way too much time researching this stuff and I don't want more than enough info to get it deleted. I agree with the fact that this article is in-universe style - but I will fix that. Please consult me before you edit. I will do the same with you to keep you up to date on what I am doing also. LOTRrules (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I mages are from Capcom but the site said it did not hold the copyright to them so I just thought where it said "source" you had to put the actual site where you got them from - I'll fix that. LOTRrules (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You might be able to argue that the images are necessary, though I've tried the same with Digimon and was ignored. So, in order to at least have the info somewhere, I would suggest an upload to the RE wikia in case they get deleted from here.

I can try to show you if I am introducing a new format or something, like with the Eliminator-Apes, but I can't check every single edit with you if we're going to ever get this done. I don't think I actually removed any of the non-guide info, I just made it more concise and clear.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Renaming

Renaming to "list of bio organic weapons" or keep the original name?

Add "support" or "oppose" if you agree or disagree with renaming it.

• Support Rename it as it is written in a list format. LOTRrules (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Move - I change my mind lets move it to List of BOWs in the Resident Evil series LOTRrules (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - rename it LOTRrules (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with Viruses in the Resident Evil series or move to List of BOWs in the Resident Evil series (since they are known as BOWs in the games - the acronym can be explained in the introduction).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Alpha hunter

"During the T-virus outbreak, the Hunters were released James Marcus to eliminate Rebecca Chambers and Billy Coen." - just to be sure this line is in-universe? I am supposed to get rid of this? LOTRrules (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to describe what they do in the game, as long as the section is clear that this did not happen in real life, and you stay away from game-guide info or how many the protagonist killed.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Right that is fine. LOTRrules (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, all Hunters should be covered in the "Hunter" section - there's not much reason to split the different installments as seperate sections.

Also, it's not going to work too well to have different sections for each game - most of the enemies on the zelda page were deleted because they had tiny, unimportant appearances, and the same on the (GA!) Final Fantasy article - its best to group it by creature type, and we can get some real-world discussion by talking about why the artistic design changed throughout the series.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Table form

It is technically in list format, BUT why can't we keep it in its table form? It provides a basis in which to keep images in which again are vital. LOTRrules (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It'll still look like a list. Except better. Zelda may get deleted and if we're aiming for that then this'll just ultimately get deleted. Stick with table form but get rid of the crufty stuff LOTRrules (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Answered also on user's talk page: because the guidelines don't suggest this situation as reasonable to use a table, because making a table just to demand to keep images is a big no-no, and because it disallows many useful functions such as direct linking.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

Is there any way in that we can keep ALL or most of the images on this ENGLISH List of B.O.W's (Resident Evil) article? The BOW's are INCREDIBLY difficult to describe. LOTRrules (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In accordance to Wikipedias fair use policy I will be getting rid of a few images Non-free images use in lists. I will be getting rid of the most easily describable BOW such as the Yawn, baboon etc...LOTRrules (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I will not get rid of all of them. It will make the article look tedious. LOTRrules (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Referances will be added shortly, i have just found a games reviewing site among others and I will add them to this to prove most of what is in the article is right! 78.150.254.233 (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

oKAY BE SURE TO EMAIL ME and send me the links also! or drop a message into my talkpage LOTRrules (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure it is published reviews, and not user-submitted or fan reviews.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

production and design

The production and dessign process SHOULD ONLY OUTLINE ON HOW, WHERE AND WHEN IT WAS DESIGNED, DATES ARE REQUIRED AND WHO WAS INVOVLED IN THE PROCESS. IT SHOULD CONTAIN NO SPOILERS, NO TRIVIA, NO GAMEGUIDING AND NO PLOT DETAILS. THERE SHOULD BE THOROUGH, DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS ON THE HISTORY OF THE THE B.O.W'S. YOU MUST OUTLINE ANYTHING YOU ARE GOING TO DO IN THE DISCUSSION PAGE I CANNOT EMPHASISE ENOUGH ON HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS. we need more information on it and if anyone can help it would be brilliant LOTRrules (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use all-caps. Also important is why the designers chose that type of creature, and what, if anything, they based it on.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Some concerns

1. If you are going to be doing many rewrites, please edit it in a text browser so as to not cause so many edits in a row.
2. Use {{-}} at the end of each section to make the image clear the limit.
3. Since there are many recurring "types" of enemies, it would be best to group by this type to help illustrate how the design has changed throughout the series' history. This would also allow for real-world discussion by talking about this evolution. For this reason, ordering by game is not the best idea.
4. Please do not use ''' bolding unless highlighting an entire term. For example, deliberate, and the B, O, and W letters should not be bolded - that they are an acronym is already explained, and that the infections are deliberate does not need to be so highly stressed.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

Image is a fair use violation. Clearly there the fair use rationale is made is a lie. I placed a better image on it why did delete it? LOTRrules (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Explain how the image is a fair use violation. FightingStreet (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"No free Alternative"? There are images on google that have smaller images than this...the fact that the fair use says no free alternative could exist is a clear violation because again there are lots of images with a simple websearch. LOTRrules (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

These images that appear on Google are copyrighted by Namco, just like yours or mine. That's what "No free alternative" means. Your image is just as good as mine, but let's use the one that was uploaded first. FightingStreet (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

But yours violates the rule. Its proportions are much bigger. Use a smaller one. It'll avoid copyright issues. LOTRrules (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced its size now. FightingStreet (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for listening. LOTRrules (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

How?

How did you get that nifty Brazillian avatar on the bottom right had screen that stays there if roll back and forth? LOTRrules (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a javascript trick. code - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. How do you think mine looks? LOTRrules (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice, I've done some resizing to make it look a little better. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Image violation?

guy uploaded is this image in fair use violation because the guy who uploaded it won't let me replace it with this one which is lower in resolution: one that I uploaded. Please help. LOTRrules (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, but I find our image policies almost impenetrable. --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Work

This article needs a lot of work. I'll take that up. I'll clean up most of the article in coming future and hopefully it will look much better. Contact me or write on this talk page if anything else is going to happen with the article because I don't want problems arising. LOTRrules (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up the article. It looks a lot better. I'll work on the article more as well, but there is one thing. Maes Hughes is not a State Alchemist, he never has been. I'll fix this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by E-lord (talk • contribs) 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Any time. Plot would be a sufficient heading to begin with. The title you have had layed down was too long; the neccisity of the rest of the article seemed redundant then. His roles are already explained in the Anime and Manga sections. I hope this article can reach GA soon. LOTRrules (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, plot certainly doesn't make sense if it's a character. Characters don't have plot; I'll use this in the meantime, but I'll try to think of something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.108.40 (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot does go with character. LOTRrules (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sakura Haruno Has a similar plot section. This makes sense. LOTRrules (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oversourcing

According to WP:Verifiability, the most important things to source in an article are the things that are challenged or LIKELY to be challenged. You don't need to source absolutely EVERYTHING in the article, and it's very unbecoming to use the same source two or three times in the same sentence. Follow the spirit of Wikipedia's rules: Not the letter. King Zeal (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Hive

Can you just outline the problems instead of telling me its in-universe. It's a fictional laboratory so how can I get out-of-universe info if it's in the games and there is no out-of-universe info...the construction section tells who built it and what the story is like. How can I get information on who else built it if all the info is from the game and in the game? LOTRrules (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What you should be looking out for is how this fictional facility affecting anything in the real world. Mentioning in the lead section how this part of the film affected the Resident Evil games is good, but it needs a lot more of information to that effect.

Almost all the sections simply explain the plot of the game. A good "construction" section would explain details on how the sets for The Hive were constructed in the real world, and how the scenes were filmed. Take a look at Spoo to get an idea of what to do. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. LOTRrules (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of universe of Hagaren

I have been for out of universe info of characters from Fullmetal Alchemist and found this and this. I suppose there are also some books from Fullmetal Alchemist with conception information. I also found a lot of reception. Since my english is not very good I ll only work in reception.

Also, about the references of the list of manga chapters, I can use the website of amazon but it would be better to use the most reliable source. Well, regards.--Tintor2 (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thank you. Since your English isn't that good I assume you're Japanese? Anyway thank you for the articles referances section I will work on them on the next few weeks (with you). Also are you trying to get this to featured status? Like the Naruto chapters? Because that is what I want. See you soon. LOTRrules (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Im from South America, Argentina and Im still studying english. I left my doubts of the summaries in the talk page of the manga list. See you.--Tintor2 (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again then. LOTRrules (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been expanding the out of universe info of the Edward Elric article. The image should be replaced something of color. Have you thought in some image? I couldnt decide.--Tintor2 (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added a plot overview section and tagged it for expand. The personality needs to be cleaned up while it would be necessary to create a background section. I ll see what I can do later. See you--Tintor2 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to my to-do list and I'll contact you later I'm a bit busy in RL. LOTRrules (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To Stub or Not to Stub?

Is this really a stub page if this is all the info we have on it?? -- Alcarillo 16:43, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You could add something about it probably being created by Morgoth in the First Age before anyone was around to name it but it would only be speculation. However, it would seem probable that after the fall of Morgoth (at Utumno and at Thangorodrim) some of the creatures he created fled and hid in various places, like outside Moria. I refrain from adding this in until interest can be guaged or in case I am incorrect. Hydraton31 11:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also needs an infobox (character) and image, at least. SkierRMH 06:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix up the article. LOTRrules (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've sorted out most of the article and added an infobox. LOTRrules (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added extra information to the article. I think it's past the "stub" stage since I've put in a lot of information. LOTRrules (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Uthanc

The Watcher in the Water article has recently been improving and is still building however User:Uthanc keeps moving the book illustration picture to the adaptations section. He has repeatedly moved the picture even though the style of writing says that a book illutration image is supposed to go in the top or at least near the top. I have talked to him but he ignores me, I was wondering if you could tell him to stop shifting the image and naming it falsely because the image is an illustration from a book not a screenshot of the film. LOTRrules (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I don't have any authority to deal with user disputes, I'm afraid. If you're having issues with someone I suggest that you contact him/her on their talk page so you can discuss the conflict rather than simply reverting and edit warring. In this case, however, I believe that you're mistaken if the image you're referring to is Image:WITWLOTR.jpg. The image is obviously a screenshot from the film; it says as much at the website where you obtained it and in the provided licensing tag. Uthanc appears to be correct although I still say that you need to contact them personally rather than simply relying on an edit summary to make your argument for you. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 17:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I contacted the guy and he says its the art from the movie not film footage. Nonetheless I found a new picture. LOTRrules (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Watcher in the Water

Hello there, what do you think of the article of the now? We have added in more reliable sources and fixed most of the mistakes I think. LOTRrules (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has definitely improved but it still requires work, especially in the formatting and MOS areas. I'm glad you were able to find some scholarly references to rely on; the more the merrier. If you plan to re-nominate it for GAN, another user should probably take a look at it in order for you to receive another POV on the matter. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 16:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see I can't review it. I simply think it would be a better idea for you and other contributors to receive an outside opinion during a second GAC review. I also have other things in the works and have limited time available for new reviews at the moment, sorry. María (habla conmigo) 00:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have to be Jewish to join?

I'm a Muslim and I know lots of info on the Jewish people but not enough I think to satisfy me. I'm multi-cultural and I like to learn about people's cultures... LOTRrules (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean the Wikiproject. LOTRrules (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You wrote at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Do_you_have_to_be_Jewish_to_join.3F "Do you have to be Jewish to join? I mean the Wikiproject."
I don't think that Wikiprojects are allowed to exclude people on this kind of basis. I'm a member of a number of Wikiprojects whose "groups" I'm not a member of in "real life" (including WikiProject Judaism). As long as you follow the general Wikipedia rules on NPOV, civility, edits with good cites, not edit warring, etc; and the guidelines and goals of that individual Wikiproject; and as long as you are honest with other editors, IMHO there shouldn't be any problem. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
-- (Incidentally, that's a lovely masjid in the photo in the lower right corner of your page. :-) ) - Writtenonsand (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation I am now a member! And thanks for the comment! LOTRrules (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:TBLOTR.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:TBLOTR.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. I had forgotten to add it during upload. LOTRrules (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-primary references

Hi -- I've noticed you're using www.tuckborough.net as a reference for much of the information about Treebeard. These references are not as helpful as references to the text itself, which the Project Standards WP:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards say we should be using in preference to secondary and tertiary references.

Also, it would help if you could post changes in larger batches! All those individual edits really clog up the project change page. Thanks! Elphion (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi thanks for message. I'm using Tuckboriugh just now because I look at the primary referances later aince they take a while to look for in the book. This is just a start. Upon completion I'll use Tolkiens work more often. Hope you understand. LOTRrules (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

More on references: I'm not sure whether you're done yet, but I just want to reinforce that references like "J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers" are also not quite enough; it really helps to include the chapter name, as some of your other references do. (I just include the book title and the chapter name. I don't bother with "J.R.R. Tolkien" or a page number -- for these four books -- since the pagination varies so widely from edition to edition.)

At a guess, it looks like you're trying to drive your edit count up. You're certainly dominating the page history! Elphion (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not extaly trying to increase my edit count. I just spot mistakes or I want to upgrade the article or add more info in after I press the save button. That way the article improves and I get the edits as a bonus. I'll get proper references later, you should see what I have done with Watcher in the Water after it was finally completed. LOTRrules (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Be careful; the "bonus" may not be what you think. There is widespread disdain among seasoned editors for this style of editing, and people do check on your style. Beyond that, there are downsides for other editors: as I mentioned, your constant churning fills up both the page history (making it difficult to assess the value of your edits), and the project history (making it harder to find anything else). Don't get me wrong -- noone objects to coming back to fix a typo, etc.; but for general editing it makes more sense to work on a section at a time, not a phrase at a time. Elphion (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

10,000,000th Article

10,000,000th Article is on the following link. Congradulations Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.[3] LOTRrules (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

LOTRrules, I noticed during the Watcher GA review that you put a lot of effort into improving articles, which is great, but it would be helpful if you used edit summaries. While I was reviewing the article's history, I spent a lot of time checking out each edit's detail since I couldn't tell what you were doing just by reviewing the edit summary. Not only does this help other editors, but it facilitates vandalism control and helps you when you're looking for a particular edit. Also, you tend to make numerous small edits. Try either using the Preview button more and grouping these incremental edits together, or, if you're planning on a decent sized revision to an article, consider copying the whole (or part of) the article to a sandbox page for work offline. Then you can copy it back to the article wholesale. Just some ideas that might make life easier. Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ima Hogg

This [4]was unnecessary. WP:CIVIL and all that. Xdenizen (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Watcher in the Water

The article Watcher in the Water you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Watcher in the Water for things needed to be addressed. Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a couple more comments on the talk page. Mr. Absurd (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NWP.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NWP.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:THiveRE.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:THiveRE.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Pagrashtak 20:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Pollokshields

Hi. Why have your last two edits to Pollokshields been deletions? Please use the edit summary, particularly when removing stuff for no obvious reason. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards LOTRrules (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward Elric

What the article needs to pass GA is conception info and manga plot summary. Do you have conception info? If so, add and I ll make the manga summary and source most things.Tintor2 (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Meaning?

What do you mean the Dol Guldur needs "*lots*" of work? See the talk page that I'v documented in the past few days. Expansion on history, etymology and culture are I'm sure at their peak. However the other sections do look a bit weak I'm sure. All I need are the refs from the Hobbit and unfinished tales, two books which I have not as of yet read. LOTRrules (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the talk page. See my additions there. I'm not trying to be unfriendly, and I appreciate the effort you've put into the article, but the organization and language need improvement. I hope to interest you in providing that. As the talk page indicates, I think you should address the structure first.  Elphion (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

List

• Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
• Fahrenheit 451
• The Player of Games

editing trouble

When you changed the Gora Prai strike discussion it deleted a lot of my commentary. What's the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Larkin (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

LOTRrules (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry bout that. I am still learning how to use wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Larkin (talk • contribs) 18:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Notes

• WITW VOE
• WITW before me
• [5]
• []
• []

LOTRrules (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles newsletter

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Middle-earth Wikiproject

Welcome to the project. Do you have any knowledge of The Hobbit about Dol Guldur? I am looking for references from the book but unfortunately I can't get hold of the book only extracts seeing as where I live. Reply to my talk page please. LOTRrules (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The hobbit refs and info need help with article

I haven't read the Hobbit just the Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion. I need citations for the article Dol Guldur which already has most of the refs from the two books I've mentioned. I just need Hobbit info and refs added in. LOTRrules (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Roll call?

When is the next roll call? LOTRrules (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's one going on right now for June-September at the top of the page. After that, they come up about once every three or four months. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the actual roll call? I thought it was a mock. Why not feature this at the front? LOTRrules (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Done it. Hopefully there will be more to sign up. I've been looking for ages for it, as if I was blind, oh nevermind. LOTRrules (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

June-September... I'd hope so, as many users take a break for holidays...--Michael X the White (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Awards

Are there any barnstars made? I cannot find a link from here. LOTRrules (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a section. Feel free to add anymore. LOTRrules (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Refs

I need help with the refs, and have completely re-written that article from this. I will look for citations, I had prepared an article like this before but lost the sources nonetheless if you want to delete stuff then discuss it here first. LOTRrules (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Found many citations at last. Will start to write them in in the next couple of days. LOTRrules (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added pictures and maps which should be enough with the fair use licenses up to date. Just locating final citations and dates. LOTRrules (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Completed most of the citations, just need to expand the adaptations section and check to avoid use of in-universe style language. LOTRrules (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I have expanded it as far it would go. Need someone with experiance to look at this section in detail as I am unfamiliar of other adaptations. I will try to make it less in-universe...LOTRrules (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A culture section has been included and many of the sections expanded. Referances will be coming in the few days. LOTRrules (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As of today the article looks like this. LOTRrules (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Now this LOTRrules (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Final copy before submission to get it reviewed for mistakes LOTRrules (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not submit it just yet. There is so much to clean up it's hard to know where to start. I made a brief pass to fix the most obvious spelling and punctuation problems. For the next step, I would suggest focusing on the following:

• In refs, don't rely on fan sites unless they really are the ultimate source. Find the sources in Tolkien's books or reliable literary sources. That the external refs are all to fan sites is something of an embarrassment.
• Separate Notes from References; the Notes don't require full bibliographic citations, which can appear once in a separate References section.
• If you're going to use named refs (which is not a bad idea), please choose more descriptive names.
• Perhaps most important for starters, reduce the redundancy -- the article mentions several things several times over. Also, the article should limit itself to the geographical details and the events that happened here -- the details of Sauron's return to power in the Third Age, the White Council, and the hunt for the Ring are described adequately in other articles, which should be referenced.

Elphion (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, some ideas on improving the article:

• The article needs lots more real-world information about Tolkien's creative processes and the changing role of Tol-in-Gaurhoth/Necromancers Tower/Dol Guldur (for example have a look at the Development section of Elf (Middle-earth)). Some very relevant information appears in Mr. Baggins (book one of The History of the Hobbit).
• Find references in critical literature and use those, even in preference to citing the original texts. You'll have to be careful the sources that are reliable, and those that aren't. Have a look at some of the results for: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=dol+guldur
• Adaptations: Try to find critical information with regards adaptations:
  • For start with: http://www.gamehobby.net/ and http://www.aeolia.net/dragondex/reviews-games.html for where to find reviews of ICE MERP. I know DG appeared in more than one ICE MERP book including the Mirkwood supplements - why not list them all? Likewise there is Decipher Inc.'s RPG and CCG which probably have some Dol Guldur references. Issue 317 of White Dwarf magazine had design notes by Matt Ward on The Rise of the Necromancer - so there should be some good Dol Guldur material there too.

Hope these notes help, and keep up the hard work! --Davémon (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: critical literature being preferable to citations of the text: Both have their place. Certainly we want to promote the notability of Tolkien by showing that there are critical treatments. But the WP articles serve a valuable function by identifying where in Tolkien's opus various ideas and events are discussed; such citations are very useful (and, I suspect, more useful to most of our readers than the critical references).  Elphion (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

One problem with this article is that it is structured in an in-universe way, bordering on OR. Critical literature (and I'm including the commentaries of HoTH and HoME in that) wont just help establish notability but will also ground the article in the real-world, and therefore be encyclopedic, which focusing on primary sources as research material can never do. Davémon (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion: many of the passages in the article that have been copied verbatim from fan-sites in the external references ought to be rewritten  Elphion (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As of today it looks like this. LOTRrules (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dol Guldur

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I feel the article is shaping up, I've constantly edited this article to reach the standards of the Wikiproject and the I believe the headings should stay where they are as per "location" section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards.

Things of concern:

• I need someone to consider if this article meets criteria of not being in-universe
• I need advice to contact a user who can copy edit this. I don't know if there is a project on that.
• The article is looking good I need someone to give me advice generally.
• All in all I need advice on how I can improve it as a whole.

Thanks, LOTRrules (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Nice article although I think that it needs some work to get to GA and more work to reach FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• A model article is useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. I reviewed Saruman recently and thought it did a great job on keeping an out of universe perspective and think it might be useful to help with that aspect of this article. I also note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth#Featured_articles lists several FA and GA articles that may be useful models.
• I think this needs work to be consistently written from an out of universe perspective. If you have not already read WP:IN-U, please do so. I think more references to Tolkien would help (there are already refs to the novels) and perhaps some changes in structure would help too. I also note that the article on Saruman starts with Concept and creation, which emphasizes how Tolkien came to create the character. Looking at the lead (more on that later) the last two sentences give no indication this is a fictional place.
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - please see WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - for example Politics or Adaptations do not appear in the lead. The lead should also be expanded to 2 to 3 paragraphs for the length of the article.
• Typically the lead does not need refs since it is a summary of the article, which should be cited. Direct quotes and extraordinary claims should still be cited even in the lead.
• Provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR For example, not all readers will know what Sindarin is, so instead ojust linking it, say something like in Tolkien's fictional Elf language Sindarin ...
• Etymology does a good job being out of universe, while Geography is written almost entirely from an in universe perspective.
• Article needs more references, for example the first paragraph of Geography has no refs or the first two paragraphs in Culture are also without cites. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Refs are not complete - for example internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. See Ref 22 which is a bare link, or ref 28 is for an album and should indicate that. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
• Some of the refs are not properly done or do not seem to meet WP:RS. Ref 2 See detailed map is not sufficient - since the map is Tolkien's own, the ref should cite that. Or what makes http://www.tuckborough.net/fortress.html a reliable source?
• There is a lot of scholarship and even popular books on Tolkien and his works and these should be cited for a third party perspective.
• Languages section - per WP:Summary style there should be a summary of the article referenced here. I must admit I don't see how this ties in to Dol Guldur - how does this differ from te Etymology section?
• Adaptations - surely Dol Guldur is portrayed in some way in one of the animated films? Or is it at least mentioned in the recent LOTR films? How about the Borthers Hildbrandt calendars or even a ref to artwork in the infobox?
• Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - expand them or combine with others. As is, they break up the flow of the article.
• Agree this needs a copyedit - ask a volunteer at WP:PRV or leave a message on the talk page of one of the users lsted at WP:LOCE
• I think what is there is generally good, just needs some polish, perhaps some restructuring.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information you provided. Structure is said to have been laid out that way, that's why it's there on the standards page, however to get it to GA or FA I agree that some sections are irrelevent, some need polish and some need work. LOTRrules (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• A late comment, but one that applies to all fiction-related subjects: is it possible to discuss the author's (Tolkien in this case) relationship with his creation? An example of what I am trying to indicate here is nicely illustrated with Tom Bombadill, whose creation was inspired by a Dutch doll owned by Tolkien's children, & whose nature Tolkien admitted that he left unexplained because he felt some parts of a literary work ought to be mysterious -- even to its own creator. In the case of Dol Guldur, an example could be whether Tolkien originally created it to be the Necromancer's/Sauron's base of operations, but grew dissatisfied with it as his vision developed & in the end replaced it with Barad Dur. Obviously, the information may not be available in a usable form -- but I would hope a FA would cover this matter if it is.-- llywrch (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've already started to research this. Although I can't anything so far. WIthout this would it reach FA? ANd is the article coming along nicely? In your eyes? LOTRrules (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

C-Class

It looks like the new C-Class is nearly live (for articles falling between B-Class and Start-Class, see WT:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment), and soon we'll have to reassess existing articles. Any ideas about new borderlines pertaining to our project? Súrendil (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? LOTRrules (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he means we should discuss what specific standards we have for C-class articles. While we are at it, we should discuss what the other assessment grades mean. I think I used A-class an an informal project-specific GA-class, as both GA and FA need formal reviews now (GA didn't use to, but does now). Probably all our A-class articles should be B-class until we are organised enough (again? the project's activity varies a fair bit) to have formal A-class assessments. It might also be an idea, if we don't have the resources for an A-class review section, to put any really good B-class articles forward for GA-class, or straight to FA (though that is harder). ie. effectively merge A and B-class, and deprecate A-class. We might also want to bring some of the B-class articles down to C-class, and push some of the better start-class articles up to C-class. C-class parameters would need to be added to the project assessment banner (that appears on talk pages) and the categories created. That should allow the assessment bot to update Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tolkien articles by quality statistics. We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Assessment, but it is a bit out of date. Carcharoth (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets start then I suppose. Where do we begin? Gandalf III (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Project page and members

I've created a sub page of the members section, the page looks a lot clearer and welcoming than before and also professional. LOTRrules (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There is lots of tidying that can be done. Be bold or ask here if you think it might need discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose we get rid of bullet pointed articles and the graphics except for the FA status ones. This will make it look more prestigious and welcoming, and active. If a a dead project is seen then it's more than likely that people will not contribute to it. Also the ones that are labelled GA should not be in the A-Class list. This makes it more clear if GA and A-class labelled ones are seperate. If for example on the Talk Page of Faramir the article is labelled 'GA Class' then there is no need to list it on the A-Class section. Gandalf III (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Move Middle Men to Men of Twilight?

Random article surfing led me to the Middle Men article. On the the discussion page for this someone wrote (in 2004) that the article should be renamed Men of Twilight.

I don't know enough about Tolkien to know if they are right so I thought I would leave a heads up here. Can someone who knows more either

• move the article or
• respond to the discussion page comment.

Thanx Filceolaire (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done it. You can see the talkpage as to why. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 12:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Name

There is no such thing as "Middle men" in The Lord of the Rings. Please change it to "Men of Twilight" the term that is actually used. ONCE, they are refered to as "Middle Peoples", but Men of Twilight is much more common.

Someone wiki'd "Middle Men" references into most of the regions of Middle-earth articles, i.e. Gondor, and they must be removed.

Thers is only one reference in The Two Tower Chapter 5 The Window on the West

>We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight, but with memory of other things.

--RedDragon 06:58, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I've renamed the article per reuquest on Middle-earth project page. Also the redirect leads here of "Middle Men". Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 22:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

articles needing attention

removed excess/template/cruft/overly long plot summaries/speculation from

radagast, saruman, perigrin took, meriadoc brandybook, old man willow, dol guldur.

Articles may still need work.87.102.86.73 (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What you did constitues to vandalism, please revert all of your disruptive edits if they have not been done so. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 12:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not vandalism, it is a difference in judgment. Be careful how you throw that term around. Uthanc's approach to 87.102.86.73's edits -- see Radagast (Middle-earth) -- was more constructive. Elphion (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think 'politics of dol guldur', or 'culture of dol guldur' does not represent fan cruft then there is nothing I can do.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

for instance if you read this

In the lifespan of Dol Guldur Tolkien had introduced a storyline of the politics surrounding the fictional fortress. Many incidences accelerated the events in the lead up to the antagonist's, Sauron, rise to power. Several such issues are discussed below. Political issues around Sauron's stronghold had increased the tensions in Middle-earth. The Wise, including Gandalf, had sensed an evil power growing, and continued to try to locate evidence that Sauron was alive and regaining his once great strength.[24][14]Gandalf, having infiltrated the land, explored Dol Guldur and discovered that the evil presence whose true identity he long suspected was indeed Sauron.[14][18] In T.A. 2851 he pressed the White Council (which had first been formed in T.A. 2463 for such discussions) for an attack on Sauron. Saruman — the head of the council, who had already been corrupted — spoke against this move, saying that Sauron could not regain his full strength without the One Ring.[24][14][18] Indeed the One Ring was what Saruman himself was looking for, and in his pursuit to gain Sauron's ring Saruman secretly betrayed the Council.[25] He claimed that the Ring had most likely been lost in the Anduin river, whence it had been carried out to the sea.[20][24]Saruman believed it lay hidden in the Gladden Fields and searched for it while secretly employing spies to keep an eye on Gandalf. The Gladden Fields were where Isildur, his sons, and most of his army, the Dúnedain, had died in an ambush lead by orcs, and this was where the Ring later betrayed the king at the Disaster of the Gladden Fields. Saruman let his quest for the Ring abide, hoping in time the Ring might reveal itself by its continuous pursuit to reach Sauron, its one true master.[14][18]

Sauron was left alone to his devices, and Gandalf was powerless to do anything to thwart Sauron's resurrection to power.[14] Gandalf remained troubled by Sauron's presence, and at the White Council in T.A. 2941 he once again argued that an attack on Dol Guldur was inevitable and necessary for the security of Middle-earth and its peoples.[24][14] Saruman agreed this time, but only because he had learned two years earlier that Sauron too was searching for the One Ring in the Gladden Fields, and perhaps had learnt of Isildur's end, and possibly of Aragorn the descendant of Isildur.[19]The Council gathered all strength that was available and drove Sauron from Dol Guldur with the help of the inventions that Saruman had developed during his studies of Enemy.[26][14] Sauron, not wanting to be defeated again, had already prepared in advance for the potential assault. Sauron too was watching the moves of his enemy, and so Sauron travelled in secret to rebuild Barad-dûr, his last great stronghold in Mordor, to be his new sanctuary;[14] however he later stationed three Nazgûl to keep watch over the stronghold.[20]

which you restored, you will see that it has practically nothing to do with the article 'dol guldur', any relevent info. should be in the section history ie "The Council gathered all strength that was available and drove Sauron from Dol Guldur..."

also looking at Dol_Guldur#Culture you should be able to see that the whole section has nothing to do with an article named 'dol guldur'.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) 87.102.86.73's comments are in line with other comments on talk:Dol Guldur. User:LOTRrules has been quick to call the editing vandalism, but it is nothing of the sort. I could wish that 87.102.86.73 had announced intent on the talk page before deleting so much (as others of us have done), but many of the changes are just. LOTRrules has countered that the article has been nominated for GA, but in fact he nominated it, despite advice that it still needs a lot of work, and the referee has been giving it some flak. I far prefer Uthanc's constructive response to 87.102.86.73's edits -- see, for example Radagast (Middle-earth). Elphion (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly feel like an 'ogre' or 'troll' deleting so much work - especially in this case - where the content is well done - (not always the case) - but the problem is not so much with what has been written, but that it's just in the wrong article - in fact the whole project used to/still does suffer much repitition across articles - especially in terms of plot. In the case of the LOTR, the whole book was at one time effectively written multiple times across many different articles.. when in fact that should be covered at the main book page, and not the character's pages at all.

In general I only make edits when I 'chance' across articles for whatever reason, hence the anonymous (but static) IP.

Keep up the good work - I enjoyed treebeard especially.87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the 'cruft' part is wrong. I mean even the standards declare that the sections should be included and they don't seem irrelavant. 78.144.20.173 (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Guidlines/rules do state you can have the sections. Locations states that you can have these. Frankly I can't see what I did wrong. To IP 87.102.86.73: I assumed that you were a troll, since you repeatedly deleted vast amounts of information while it was on GA review and to other articles. I'd reverted the infoboxes deletions to Merry brandibucks article and a few others. However I do realise now those were on good faith merit. Next time please consult it on the talkpage as some sections do have merit. I have taken into account what you have said. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 22:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It has now been listed as GA. It was relevant after all. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The parts I highlighted are quite an interesting and readable collection fo words, but I questioned it's relevence to the article itself, and also should bring your attention (as others have mentioned on the talk page) to the 'manual of style' for articles which warns against writing in an 'in universe style' ie Wikipedia:WAF#The_problem_with_in-universe_perspective, when possible I recommend reading section 1 of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).. the problem here is that the article treats the topic as if it were real historical fact... In the meantime good luck, and maybe some of the parts I highlighted could be incorporated into a more suitable article??87.102.86.73 (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

right now I'm fixing the problems highlighted in the talkpage. I want to stick with the Manual of style for middle-earth articles. Also if third party sources can be found add them to the article using cite tags. It needs to be broad in its converage too thats why the sections are needed, but I will take your words seriously. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review for WITW

Watcher in the Water

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

The article cannot expand any further, I have exhausted all sources. I need more sources or rather someone to point me in the right direction. The article is short but that is about the most information I have come across. The article has failed pass GA three times and I am desperate for someone to tell me what to do about the article. Since Spoo has made it why doesn't this article, it's more factually based. I need a guide.

Please do not tell me get more sources I need somepone to point to some sources that have merit. If not then I am open to any suggesstions and general feedback on how to improve.

Thanks, LOTRrules (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Hmmm. I read the article, read the talk page, and three failed GA reviews. I think the article can be improved and that perhaps it may be able to get it up to GA status. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

• Spoo was made FA in a different era (August 2005) and has twice been through WP:FAR and has been up for deletion too. I strongly doubt it would make it through WP:FAC today. The bottom line, though, is that Spoo has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Whether or not it is FA or deleted, Spoo does not matter here. This article has to make GA on its own merits and nothing else. Complaining about Spoo just detracts from your work here and does no good. Let it go. See WP:Other stuff exists
• I agree this article needs more sources. I do not agree that you have exhausted all sources. I did a very simple search on Google books and found a large number of potential sources here. Here are just two that look good (there are a lot more there):
  • J.R.R. Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator by Wayne G. Hammond, Christina Scull - Tolkien drew the Watcher and they talk about it.
  • Postmodern Medievalisms - Page 73 by Richard Utz, Jesse G. Swan, Paul Plisiewicz - this compares Tolkien's book, Jackson's film, and George Lucas scene with a water monster in Star Wars
• Google scholar also has some things about this, although it might be harder to get some of those sources.
• There are a fair number of books on Tolkien and his works, which I would think probably at least mention the Watcher. FOr example if you search for books on "Tolkien analysis" at Amazon there are many books that have the search inside feature - could look for Watcher and see what to try and find in a library and/or get through interlibrary loan.
  • I found this at Amazon - The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion by Wayne G. Hammond, Christina Scull that way - it mentions the Watcher.
• In short, get thee to a library! ;-)
• I also agree with the comments at the three GA reviews - once you find more sources, get a copyedit from someone at WP:PRV or by asking one of the reviewers at WP:LOCE
• As I noted at my review of Dol Goldur, Howe's illustration is used in the infobox, but is not otherwise discussed in the article. If Howe and Lee are good enough for See also, why not put them in the article?
• Ref 1 appears to be to Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source. See WP:RS
• While a lot of work has been put into the article so far, much much more needs to be done. Please remember that the GA criteria focus on what is in the article itself. I do not know if it can get to GA< my guess is that it can, but you may need a lot of work and assistance with copyedits.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Special links (Do not remove)

Hello, LOTRrules/Archives! Thank you for joining WikiProject Middle-earth and contributing to improve Tolkien-related articles. We are glad to have you join in the effort! Here're some good links and subpages related to our WikiProject.

If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask on our talk page. Thank you for your contributions and have fun editing!

Links

• [6]
• LOTR PROJECT PAGE

• Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 19:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

GA

I passed Dol Guldur. the_ed17 14:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sword of Shannara

Would you mind reviewing The Sword of Shannara for GA status? the_ed17 14:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm don't frequently review articles I am not sure what to say. But I will help with the article. Firstly a good peer review is needed, which will build up a lot of the negative stuff associated with the article, if any. Then we'll sort it out, add anything and then start the review process. Keep in touch. I'm always looking for a challenge. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's already listed there. =) the_ed17 20:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to ask something. Did you pass my article just so I could review yours? I would think that you are somehow using me. I won't review your article because I too am having doubts about your review. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 12:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think was the first thing that I thought of when I saw Maria's message? Mainly, it was, "Oh crap, I hope that he dosen't think..." and now look at this. Anyway, no, I didn't, but it sure looks that way, dosen't it? Sorry. I'll retract my request... the_ed17 13:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I never had any intention of reviewing it, but helping yes, yes I would do that. It seems far fetched that right after you reviewed it you wanted me to review The Sword of Shannara, now I don't know what to do. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 13:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There were no favors going around here, guys. Don't chase phantoms in the mist. the_ed17 13:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

More GA process concerns

Maria, is this request as troublesome to you as it is to me given some of the discussions about similar "favors"?
Jim Dunning | talk 04:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, it is. Especially since I have issues with the first article being promoted. María (habla conmigo) 12:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear I explicitly stated that I have no experiance in reviewing articles. I thought he wanted help. Anyway why didn't you or Dunning at least raise the issue on my talk page? Why d'you have to let me find out this way? I wrote that he use a peer review and sort out any negative, crufty stuff before the GA process. There were no favours. I too became suspicious and now I'm having doubts that the article should have been passed for GA. I suggest you look at the discussion again before wrongfully suspecting me. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 13:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear I explicitly stated that I have no experiance in reviewing articles. I thought he wanted help. Anyway why didn't you or Maria at least raise the issue on my talk page? Why d'you have to let me find out this way? I wrote that he use a peer review and sort out any negative, crufty stuff before the GA process. There were no favours. I too became suspicious and now I'm having doubts that the article should have been passed for GA. I suggest you look at the discussion again before wrongfully suspecting me. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 13:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

GUYS. It was MY FAULT. LOTR/Lord of Moria had nothing to do with any requests etc....look throught the history all you want! How 'bout this: A) I'm the reviewer. B) I made the request for a review of Sword. No, I had not intention of "favors". It looks that way now, but that WAS NOT MY INTENTION!! the_ed17 13:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

GA process concerns

LOTRrules, my question to Maria was not focused on you at all, and I'm sorry I created that impression. There have been some discussions about questionable GARs in which it appears some editors may be working in concert to promote articles despite quality problems. I don't know that the other editor's actions are of a similar ilk, but her/his post to you raised a flag, especially since the article she/he just promoted has issues that should have been resolved before it was listed GA (and the article she/he is campaigning for has serious in-universe problems). It's clear from your response post to the editor and history here that nothing on your part was questionable. Again, I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.
Jim Dunning | talk 13:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I had written out a long, eloquent reply, but an edit conflict ate it. :) I echo JimDunning, however; no blame was placed on anyone, but I truly apologize if it appeared that way. There was initial suspicion on my part, yes, but because you declined to review in kind, LOTRrules, I saw no reason to question the_ed17's request further. I'm sure it was meant as a friendly tit-for-tat, but as JimDunning says, there has been process wonkery at WP:GAC lately that resulted in a few bad promotions. It's made everyone a little weary of review requests, especially in regards to users that are new to the process. What is important is that all articles receive fair and impartial reviews. María (habla conmigo) 13:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Those darn edit conflict animals, always eating everyone's homework. =) I apoligize for even asking you LOTRrules--the only reason why I asked LOTRrule was because I wanted to get any review for Sword out of the way...Sorry, everyone. the_ed17 13:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Today" comments

Just curious: why do you keep adding the comments about "Today the article looks like this ..."? That information is easily available from the History tab. (I'll watch your page so you can answer here -- I hate how conversations keep getting busted up across talk pages!) Elphion (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well once before I worked on an article called The Hive (Resident Evil) and Bio Organic Weapon (B.O.W.) and an IP had changed so much and added so much POV that I couldn't possibly repair it with a revert and then BOW got deleted. So I started to put a "Today" permanant link on the page in case someone did the same thing with the other articles I worked on. Also in the case of excessive vandalism I put it there as a back up. Although I don't use it lot its always good to have a back-up. It's just an easier option. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 17:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Iranian Jews

If the article states that 25,000 Jews live in Iran (in the diaspora section) then why source 5 used in the infobox? It dates back to 2006 and is an inaccurate portrayel of Iranian Jews still in Iran. Furthermore a more realiable source indicates that there are 25,000 Jews still in Iran, such as the BBC. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The 25,000 figure is from a book by Littman written in 1979, shortly after the Shah was overthrown. It's sensible to suppose that the Jewish population of Iran has gradually dwindled since then, making the 2006 figure quite plausible. The figure from 2006 is, if nothing else, more recent. You have better sources? Cite them. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Map

Maybe we can fix this article up by adding a map showing where Fangorn Forest is? The one on the Mordor page is good. I'm not that good at wiking so can someone do it for me? Norank (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to fill in a fair use license, and since the one on mordor is not licensed fully then there must be a reason why. I'm not sure if it is acceptable or not to have that map yet. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 12:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Middle Men redirect

I tried to change Middle Men to redirect to the Middle man disambiguation page instead of to Men of Twilight - having made sure Men of Twilight was mentioned there. I messed up and redirected to Middle Man, a Boz Skaggs album, by mistake.

You reverted my change.

I'm fixing the redirect so it points at the disambiguation page now. OK Filceolaire (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmm. There do seem to be a lot of links to Middle Men from other LOTR pages (see this list [[7]]). I'm afraid I won't be able to tidy them all up. Can the LOTR project sort these out? Filceolaire (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll start to work on it. The Wikiproject doesn't have to get involved although if you want to make an official announcement then feel free to do it. However the page redirects to the disambiguation page for most, so it's no biggie. Anyway I'll sort that out, thanks for contacting me. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 22:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

Menorah The WikiProject Judaism Newsletter Issue I -- Sivan, 5768

Main Project Page Talk Page Judaism Portal Categories To Do Judaism AFD/RFC Shavuot celebrates Moses receiving the Ten Commandments. What's This? Shalom aleichem sports fans, and welcome to the first of what I hope will be a monthly newsletter with the need-to-know information about our fair WikiProject. If you have any questions or comments, or would like to recommend a story for the newsletter, click here to leave a message on the Newsletter Coordinator's talk page. In the News WikiProject Good Articles is doing sweeps over all our current good articles to ensure they still meet criteria. For more information and how you can help, check out WikiProject Good Articles Sweeps. GA status for the article Jew has been put on hold pending a few minor revisions. A list of things that need to be done to return this top importance article to its proper status can be found here. Jerusalem is a Featured Article Candidate! Go forth, my people, and !vote! To Do One new Judaism-related article was created this month, the long requested Hebrew Punctuation. Thanks to Epson291 for creating it. Remember, folks, there are over forty standing requests for Judaism articles, so whenever you get the opportunity make sure to go create a few. In the right column you will see a listing of our most popular articles. All of these articles got 170,000+ page hits in the past month, and they should be on everyone's watchlist so we can keep them vandalism-free. Spread the word! No, not the Word... (well, you can do that too) I'm talking about inviting knowledgeable users to join the project. You can proclaim your undying love of WikiProject Judaism in methods mild to wild, check the project template page and member list for examples. We also now have a flashy advertisement, to use it add {{Wikipedia ads|ad=148}} to your userpage. Quick Stats On the date of publish, we had... 275 Project Members 6152 articles 2341 of which are Stubs 15 of which are Good 8 of which are Featured New Members Benignuman Bernstein2291 Shevashalosh Yudel Most Popular Articles By page hits. Source. Israel The Holocaust Judaism Ten Commandments Ark of the Covenant Wikipedia ads file info – #148

This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much!!!

WOW! Thanks a Lot! I never would have expected barnstars like these! I have worked hard creating mainly maps and demographics for Wikipedia which I thought wasn't really special, but wow thanks a lot! And Islamic Barnstar, do I really deserve that? I mean I have contributed in some articles of Islam, but not significantly, but hey this is such a great award of which you have given me, I really appreciate it, Thank you very much! Well I have tried getting rid of the image in the article of Muhammad which shows the image of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), but what ever you do it's ratified by westerners, non-Muslims have taken over that article, which is quite a shame for Wikipedia and the way the information is used. But I do hope Insha-Allah that image does get deleted some how. And I again, Jazakallah! Assalamu Alaykum! Moshin (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:THiveRE2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:THiveRE2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:THiveRE.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:THiveRE.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!

		The Tolkien Barnstar
		In recognition of the excellent work done to bring Dol Guldur up to Good article status, the work done to bring Watcher in the Water up to the verge of GA, and for your work keeping the Wikiproject functioning optimally, I hereby award you the Middle-earth WikiProject Award. Keep it up! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

New User

Sir, I am a new user to your project. I am amazed by seeing the vastness of your Programs. I thank you for devicing such an useful tool for us. But Can you please tell me whether we are permitted to give rise to new articles or not? And if yes, how can we make new articles? Please answer kindly.117.201.97.83 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. First of all I am not the project leader and nor does the project belong to anyone. I am a contributer, a volunteer for the project. I am thankful that you have recognised my achievements and contributions to the project and am flattered. You can join the Middle-earth Wikiproject; just sign your name or drop me a further message if you need further help. Also if you do like my work why not give me a barnstar I am thankful for all recognition and I may give you one as well. I must also stress that I am sincereley sorry for not responding as soon as possible. I was on holiday and having a well deserved break. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 13:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also you can create articles if they do not turn up in the search (there is a hyperlink in red titled "create"). If you are not a member this is not likely as only members can create articles. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

All articles now have ratings!

Main pages: WP: ARDA, Dol Guldur, and Watcher in the Water

220 unrated, now down to zero (with two wikiproject pages and a disambiguation page left). Does that win me the Middle Earth Barnstar???? :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you rate all of them yourself? lol. Blackngold29 20:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

...Yes? Why? The 220 I just did? Look at my user contributions, it took about an hour....why? Do I need to rate every article in the project to get one? :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay, I got a barnstar! :) Now tell me what I need to do to earn one of those really cool Middle Earth barnstars. I am currently building an article index, so that should be a massive amount of work, perhaps that would earn me one. Article indexes, or lists of every article in the project, are extremely useful, as you will find out, but it's such a big project that I see why one hasn't been made for it yet. I'll do it! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh can I get one? I managed to get Dol Guldur up to GA. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 17:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would give you one, but I'm not really a part of this project, any regulars have the barnstar box, ready to dish some out? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that I fixed the talk page and project page and contributed heavily to Watcher in the Water, and I also think anyone can give a barnstar and you do not specifically have to be a member, so can I please get one? I've worked so hard in the past few months for one. And yes I think we should give them out! You know spread love of the project. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 10:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your award was awarded :) Once I get this article index up and running, I want one too, since one you see how mammoth a task it is, you'll see why I should get one. It will be very beneficial to the project. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello thanks for the award. How is the index going? May I see it? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

New User

Main page: WP: ARDA

Sir, I am a new user to your project. I am amazed by seeing the vastness of your Programs. I thank you for devicing such an useful tool for us. But Can you please tell me whether we are permitted to give rise to new articles or not? And if yes, how can we make new articles? Please answer kindly.117.201.97.83 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. First of all I am not the project leader and nor does the project belong to anyone. I am a contributer, a volunteer for the project. I am thankful that you have recognised my achievements and contributions to the project and am flattered. You can join the Middle-earth Wikiproject; just sign your name or drop me a further message if you need further help. Also if you do like my work why not give me a barnstar I am thankful for all recognition and I may give you one as well. I must also stress that I am sincereley sorry for not responding as soon as possible. I was on holiday and having a well deserved break. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 13:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also you can create articles if they do not turn up in the search (there is a hyperlink in red titled "create"). If you are not a member this is not likely as only members can create articles. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm immensely grateful to you Sir, for answering my questions. Best Regards.117.201.98.14 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Award request

Main page: User talk:Eustress

I offered a general suggestion on how to properly seek awards. Another way is to approach editors and ask for an award challenge (e.g., add infoboxes to x number of articles and I'll give you y barnstar). I can always use help on some tasks I'm working on, so let me know if you would like such a challenge--they're not necessarily easy, but rewarding. Best --Eustress (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have any tasks then I'd be glad to take them up to get an award. What are they? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

One challenge that comes to mind is the following: Transfer at least 25 names into the tables I have created on List of University of Texas at Austin alumni (see article's talk page for more info; provide proof when task complete; must locate complete citation for each) and I will award you a Content Creativity Barnstar. This challenge is open to all—best regards whether or not you decide to pursue the challenge. --Eustress (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar award

Main pages: user talk: M Miah and user talk: Moshin

		The Original Barnstar
		I, Mr Miah, hereby award you the original barnster, for your great contribution and work on Middle-earth articles, and of course for being kind! Keep up the Good! M Miah (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The index

Main page: User talk:Judgesurreal777

All the articles are there, they just need to be put in their proper category. [Link to Index]. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

The Judaism Newsletter Issue II -- Tammuz, 5768

WikiProject Judaism (talk/to do) WikiProject Jewish History (talk/to do) WikiProject Kabbalah (talk/to do) Now with 200% more Jewishness! Yes, folks, we're moving on up. This newsletter is now the newsletter for both WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Jewish History, and WikiProject Kabbalah. In the future, I may split them, but for now I think we'll be just fine with one. As always, any questions or comments should be directed to me, L'Aquatique. A Special Dispatch Just a note, not aimed at anyone in particular. By order of the administrative cabal, it is officially not cool (and possibly dickish) to call someone an anti-semite when they aren't being anti-semitic. Anti-semitic is a very charged word, and it's important only to use it when you're absolutely sure it applies, lest it become the subject of a Godwin-esque law. Remember Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. In the News A new class on the importance scale has been added- C Class- which covers articles better than start but not quite to B Class yet. It is up to the WikiProjects to decide whether to adopt them or not. Currently, there has been little discussion within our Projects, so if you feel strongly either way be sure to note so at your Project[s]. There is a proposal to reword the section on NPOV regarding religious articles. Please see Wikipedia_talk:NPOV#Religion section - Disputes between historians or scientists and religious_views to weigh in. Thanks largely to the efforts of Xyz7890, a new navbox has come into being featuring Halakha topics. See: Template talk:Halakha to join in the conversation about how it can best be improved. To Do The Simple English Wikipedia is beginning a project of creating and improving articles related to religion, including Judaism. At the present time, volunteers are needed to propose our most important subjects for articles to be created. The official working list is here and a more extended list is here. If you are unsure of proper topics, you might try checking our lists of top importance level articles: Judaism and Jewish History. (WikiProject Kabbalah currently doesn't have such a list) [Simple English] WikiProject Christianity is considering running a monthly drive wherein two or three top importance articles from English Wikipedia are simplified and moved over to S.E. They have extended an offer to work with us in creating a similar project for Judaism related articles. For questions or volunteer opportunities, please contact User:John Carter. WikiProject Kabbalah is in dire need of an article rating system for quality and importance. If you are familiar with that system and have some time on your hands, please create one. It could also use some infoboxes... New Members Judaism: Big maybe, Janirai, Jfdwolff, Joseph.mahal, Joshua Weiss, LisaLiel, Rcjavid, Yehudi, YY, Agent204.15, Gilad73, Joseph.mahal, Noah03 Jewish History: Noah03 Kabbalah: None. Won't you join? New Articles Habib ben Elisha Faturechi (Thanks PhatJew!) There are some 40 odd standing requests for Judaism related articles. Please make them! I would, but I'm too busy writing this. . Menorah Quick Links Judaism Portal Kabbalah Portal Articles for Deletion Request for Comment Article Requests WikiProject Judaism Stats 281 Project Members 6155 articles 2342 of which are Stubs 15 of which are Good 8 of which are Featured WikiProject Jewish History Stats 69 Project Members 1124 articles 241 of which are Stubs 10 of which are Good 10 of which are Featured WikiProject Kabbalah Stats 12 Project Members 165 articles 87 of which are Stubs 1 of which is Good 1 of which is Featured Wikipedia ads file info – #148

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 02:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Change the article title

Main pages: Talk:Timeline of Islamic science and engineering and Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers

In June 2007 Demophon made a reasoned argument for a change of title for this article. Then in March 2008 Udzu changed it back again , but I'm not sure I folow his reasons for this. Can we have a debate?

I suggest "Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world" is the better title. We dont talk about Christian science or Atheistic science so why have an Islamic science. As User:Udzu says , little is known of the beliefs of the scientists mentioned here. The Islamic world is a cultural entity under which science operated for centuries. I propose changing it back again to "Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world" . Lumos3 (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I whole heartedly disagree. Jews consider themselves to be a race, however there are black Jews. So why should Jews be classified as a race? It is Islamic science, there are many fieleds, (see Aviccena for details). In addition as noted in the introduction many Muslims say the Qu'ran expresses scientific knowledge. ANd that is why "Islamic Science" is Islamic Science. Do you understand? I hope I have clarified enough info. Leave the title as it is. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose that the article be split into two parts: Timeline of classical Islamic science and engineering and Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers. The reason why I think this would be more appropriate is because the classical period deals almost exclusively with the Islamic world, whereas the modern period deals with Muslim scientists and engineers from both within and outside the Islamic world. Furthermore, it would help reduce the length of the article, without having to sacrifice any content. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just moved the Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers section to a new article: Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers. Any comments? Jagged 85 (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

British people

Main page: Talk:British people

I forgot to tell you (and thus you may not have noticed) that I secured an image of Kelly Holmes for use on the British people article a week or so ago. It wasn't from the original source, but rather a private photographer I approached. Hope it was what you had in mind. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Indian Muslim?

Main page: user talk: Jagged 85

Are you by any chance an Indian Muslim? Just curious...Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a Muslim, but not an Indian. I'm actually a British Muslim of Bangladeshi descent. What about you? Judging by your home page, are you either Turkish, Kosovan or Iranian? Salam, Jagged 85 (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually a British South Asian of mixed descent, proud of the histories of Muslims, including the Iranians, Turkish and European Muslims. I also have am proud of the Muslims worlds history (before and after Islam). I just like celebrating my culture a lot. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fangorn

Main page: Talk:Fangorn

I've reverted the move of the page to Fangorn Forrest and fixed the cut-and-paste move to Fangorn Forest. You really should discuss a page name change on the talk page and get consensus first. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the moving and pasteing thing you did to Fangorn. I tried to fix it but some how it went a little wrong. So all in all I was just trying to write and Good Article. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 13:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking for work

Main page: user talk: Jagged 85

I see that have made major contributions to Islamic related articles, however do have any online sources I could use so I can expand the inventions relating to Islamic civilisation? I also want to work to get them on FA or FA-List as soon as possible. Basically I'm looking for tips on how to wrtie Islamic articles. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 13:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Systemic bias

Main page: Talk: Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe

Hello. There is reason to assume that user Jagged 85 does not actually reads what he writes and cites, but rather relies on a method of creating articles by copy and paste tidbits from all over WP and elsewhere. This combined with his consistent one-sidedness creates controversial contents. His Islamic Golden Age has also been critically regarded by other users. Before posting the same things twice, I would like to point at Islamic Golden Age#discussion for further discussion.

I have to stress that the problem of Jagged 85's articles cannot be fixed by punctual improvements. It is created by his C&P method, with which he creates more rapidly controversial contents which knowledgeable users can counter-check with the claimed sources. So please do not remove the neutrality tag. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not the creator of this article, but did contribute to more than half of the article. I do of course use copy-and-paste quite often, but I only copy information from other articles which have been reliably-sourced and not under dispute. It would be more helpful if you could be more specific about what looks unreliable in the article (rather than commenting on the editor). I know you don't trust me, but that alone is not a good enough reason to condemn the article. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And for your information, I do read the sources I cite. Most of the information I copy-and-paste between different articles are information which I myself added to Wikipedia in the first place. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't flame editors and make personel attacks. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 14:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute (balance)

Main page: Talk: Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe

The jury system was Nordic Anglo-Saxon:

"The legal traditions of the Danes were also different. It was they who evolved the 12-man jury system. This was soon borrowed by the English, who exported it to the rest of the world..." (BBC) http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/conquest/wessex_kings/anglosaxon_law_02.shtml

So basically, the article lies - it says that the Normans introduced the jury system into England, which is rubbish, and that the Normans got this from the Arabs, which is also Islamist drivel.

The article paints a very one-sided picture, and has obviously been written by a Muslim with an agenda to promote Islam. Europeans in the Middle Ages, had superior ship building and armour technology (to the Arabs), crossed the Atlantic at the end of the Middle Ages(before the Arabs) invented and developed the art and science of writing Music, and the Bible was PRINTED in Europe, centuries before the first Koran in the east. The banking system of the Crusaders was way in advance to that used by the Arabs. A Knight could deposit money in Scotland and withdraw the cash in Jerusalem - the Arabs had nothing like that. When the Turks finally took Constantinople, they marvelled at its riches and fantastic architecture, which was superior to that found in their own Empire ... Constantinople was a CHRISTIAN EUROPEAN city. The Christian cathederal there, then became the finest "mosque" in the Muslim world - built and designed, of course, by "Barbaric" European Christians of the Middle Ages. I admit that none of this is actually denied in the article, but neither is it mentioned. It should be clearly stated that in many ways parts of Medieval Europe were more advanced than Arabia.

Finally, the Arabian / Islamic societies had a love for autocratic regimes that seems to linger to this day, whilst in much of Europe the Feudal system (which was by no means Utopia) at least limited the abslote power of a ruler - eg - the Magna Carta, and within the European Feudal system everybody had their civil rights relative to their social position, whilst in Islamic kingdoms, civil rights rarely exsisted outside the whims of the current ruler. The article paints the picture of a debased backward Medieval Europe reliant upon the light of Islam for guidance - HA! Oh well, politically correct Wikipedia strikes again. TB --121.218.100.212 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Please don't make assumptions about the religion or motivations of editors. In the first place, you're likely wrong; in the second place, it's insulting.

2) Please cite sources for your claims. If you can show historians that have spoken on your issue, do cite them. It's impossible to verify or contradict a summary from memory like the one you give above.

3) No article can cover everything; the various roots of the jury system are discussed in Jury, with dates (which the BBC "popular summary" lacks); the fact that this article doesn't speak on areas where Europe influenced the Islamic world is just how things have to be in a million-article encyclopedia.

In summary: Calm down. Don't insult. Cite sources. Thanks! --Alvestrand (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I do spot a few fibs in what the IP has said. Again I too would like to say that whatever you say you would like to put in, back it up with evidence and sources. This is a discussion to improve the article not flame the religion, editor or history itself. If you're angry about a religion, really no one cares if you are, go do it on a forum not on Wikipedia. In addition to this Wikipedia is not a profiteering organisation, so how can Wikipedia be PC if it's written by people?

Furthermore if this "has obviously been written by a Muslim with an agenda to promote Islam" do you mean to say the sources are wrong? It seems well referenced to me. Again please don't flame. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 14:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources..... I mean really, everything I stated is just common accepted history ... but fair enough, here it is:

JURY SYSTEM

Encyclopedia Britannica ... (6/660 15th edition) "Historical details of the jury's inception are unknown, but it may have originated in England." Encyclopedia Britannica says nothing about the Arabs as far as the jury system goes - but they do mention the Saxons & Ancient Greeks, who I seem to remember were not Muslims (-:. Winston Churchill, in his much valued History of The English Speaking Peoples, also says that the Anglo Saxons introduced the Jury System. So there you have it: Encyclopedia Britannica, Winston Churchill & The BBC - good enough?

So, your -quote- "well-referenced and POV free" article (see below) in fact, is telling us lies. And they want to promote this to GA?

Now can I ask for a source please.....

We often hear how the Muslims "invented manned flight" - the story goes that a Muslim strapped wings to himself, in the manner of a bird, in Spain, jumped off a cliff .... fell, and killed himself. No technical drawings of this "glider" were ever available (which is a good job, because it obviously didn't work). This is not my POV by the way - this is the story as Muslims tell it. No Muslims in the Middle Ages ever tried it again - least of all those who actually saw the would-be aviator fall to his death.

Now, how on earth did this obscure, tragicomic and little documented event influence later European glider experiments???? Of course it didn't! I have given my sources, now let me ask for theirs! Prove the link!

I am insulting nobody, but a fact's a fact: this article was obviously written to promote Islam. But alas, it is only a "fool" that points out that the emperor has no clothes.

TB --124.176.66.35 (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WRT jury: Have you checked the source that's given in the article?

WRT flight - please check the sources on Abbas Ibn Firnas. None of the sources say that he was killed - he did hurt his back. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all give me a link. And your argument still makes no sense. What do the above arguments have anything to do with promoting Islam? You have reached not a plausable conclusion and you provide unsourced information with exaggeration. Are you going to say that the renaissance was written to promote it? Wikipedia writes solid facts and is POV free. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Too much POV on Europeans

Main page: Talk: Telescope

Why isn't the Father of Optics included? Or the book of Optics? It is clear to me that Islamic Scientists did invent them and yet there is no mention, only on European invention. I haven't seen such a badly written article since the early days of Wikpedia. What do you propose we get rid of and add to this?Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"I haven't seen such a badly written article since the early days of Wikpedia." That's a bit of an exaggeration. Clearly you have not hit Special:Random enough recently. The article could be improved sure, but it has more weight to Europeans, solely because they are the ones that invented and perfected the telescope. Deamon138 (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an article on the Telescope, not an article on the History of optics. You may be interested in reading the rest of this talk page for more. - DigitalC (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just join the consensus. DigitalC's arguements aren't worth the merit, so just try and add to the sentence. Anyway, DigitalC, you have won. I am not going to contribute to Wikipedia anymore since users like you (who obviously has issues) have ruined it for me. It a GREAT grace sine over the weeked I found a GF. HUZZAH!! I hope you learn to be more civil in the future, It may help you out. Cheers my friend. InternetHero (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Deasmon138 they did not invent the the telescope, clearly the Arabs did. InternetHero you cannot give up. If you give up then only the biased people will be left on Wikipedia. Fight it and discuss it. And I have hit the random page. But for such an article to have the bias this has and what history outlines is a violation Wikipedia NPOV rule. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the History of optics article clearly states that the Islamic world invented the telescope. There is also a reference on it from the Book of Optics. So clearly it should be given credit. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh an if anyone would like to know. Here it is: Topdemir, Hüseyin Gazi (1999), Takîyüddîn'in Optik Kitabi, Ministery of Culture Press, Ankara (cf. Dr. Hüseyin Gazi Topdemir (30 June 2008). "Taqi al-Din ibn Ma‘ruf and the Science of Optics: The Nature of Light and the Mechanism of Vision". FSTC Limited. Retrieved on 2008-07-04.) Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Al-Haytham did build observatories but there is no written record of a telescope. His disciple wrote some treaties on astronomy but they were burned by a "holy-man". In respect to Taqi Al-Din, he did build a rudimentary telescope. Don't worry we have won. I can tell coz every admin---who are usually good people---that has seen this page agrees with us. Currently, the other 3 members of the POV-consensus hasn't been here---maybe out of guilt. Thats not what we're here for, but it has to be done. InternetHero (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you in some ways. I did feel insulted by user: Deamon138 and user: DigitalC's comments but this is no place to dicuss that. Why didn't you raise this issue before? With WP: ISLAM or WP:HISTORY or even with the admins? I do see more fighting here and quarrals which seem unjust. I'm raising the issue with an admin. Clearly you feel bullied. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 19:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know you could do that!!! I will do it my friend. I got admnis b4 and they agree with me. They can only do so much, though. InternetHero (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude---Daemon138 is actually pretty cool, though. He's just a particular person, but he agrees that we should add the fundamentals. InternetHero (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

LOTRrules you must be about the only person that finds that Internet'Hero' is acting in good faith in the wikipedia, and frankly I'm surprised that there's as many as one given his edit history. Feel free to comment at the RFC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InternetHero I guess.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know abou that. The only reason you hate me is because I have friends who plays tricks on me and stuff. Other than that, I think you hate me because you tried to revert my edit on the internal combustion engine page and it didn't work. You guys have to spend your time more constructively. I am 23 and I have a night shift job 3 days out of the week and I just started helping my friend with his lawn maintenance company. I got to school in the fall so I've got better things to deefnd my self against, "he said I need a job--wanh, wanh,". The probably: "he said I need a job again, and sais I said wanh wanh". Thats why I think they're just children/teenagers. You guys need to go play or something. Good day. I said good day. InternetHero (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to self

Main pages: Talk: Islam and Talk: Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe

• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot
• Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe

"Inheritance" of religion in Islam

Main page: Talk: Islam

Within Judaism, you're considered jewish if your mother is jewish, or that's how I remember it in any case. Within Islam, are you considered a member of the faith if your father is muslim? If your mother is muslim? If either is muslim? And is the rule a hard-and-fast kinda thing, or does it possibly vary from country to country?--Mr Bucket (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Islam teaches that everyone is born a Muslim. But for clarification, Muslim women may only marry Muslim men, so in this obvious scenario the children will be raised Muslims. Muslim men that marry non-Muslim women will do so with the taken-for-granted assumption that she will submit and become a Muslim too, so again the children are raised Muslim. Tourskin (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In secular countries, Muslim women marry non-Muslim men. In this case, are children considered Muslims? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it depends. I'm not a Muslim, but I know for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim is not to be taken lightly. In such cases, Islamic law has already been broken with her marrying a non-Muslim. Islamic law teaches that whenever a Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim man, she will fall under his influence and religion, becoming an apostate. Furthermore interpretation of the Qu'ran says that such relations are to be avoided, against all non-believers. It is assumed that Muslim men will not fall under the religion of their wives, hence they can marry non-mulsim women. Some blog sites discussing this suggest that the Qu'ran does not allow any marriages, regardless if its a Muslim man or woman, but for that, I do not know. Point being, if a Muslim woman does marry a non-Muslim, and the man stays a non-Muslim, then I guess the couple probably don't have Islamic law on their minds and so won't raise the kids Muslims anyways; the Qu'ran leaves no room for interpretation when it comes to who is allowed to marry non-Muslims (permanent non-Muslims who don't convert). Tourskin (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

From a more Muslim perspective (me),

• Muslim men are allowed to marry non-Muslim women as long as they are the "people of the book" (Christian, Jew [and other sorry I forget but I think it begins with "S"]).
  • That directly means the kids will be Muslim. This is similar "who is a Jew" concept where if the mother is Jewish the child is Jewish, except this is vice-versa for Muslims i.e. father was Muslim child is a Muslim.
• If a Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim man and they have kids, the kids are not Muslims.
  • However for such a marriage to take place the man must be a Muslim convert. This is why Muslim women do not marry non-Muslims because the relationship gets complicated.

Any questions? Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 15:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Also everyone is a Muslim by name. So only difference is that you say you are Muslim. I am proud to say I am a Muslim. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 15:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And I humiliate myself before God to say I am a Christian, for I am not worthy - please keep our personal opinions to ourselves. Tourskin (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That was kinda unnecessary, Tourskin, IMHO Nautical Mongoose (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And why is it unnecessary for User:Lord of Moria to say that he is proud of being a Muslim? My example was designed to illicit a reaction; now you know that wikipedia discussion pages are not for stating what one is proud of. Tourskin (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And User:Lord of Moria, you are incorrect; according to Islamic belief, everyone is born a Muslim, but not everyone remains submitted to God, and not everyone who submits to God does so according to the Qu'ran. Besides, hadn't I answered all of these points anyway? Tourskin (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think Moria's statement was something to worry about, but...I think I'll stay out of this one n.n;; Nautical Mongoose (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't being hostile or anything like that why take offence? LOL. I'm sorry if I meant any. I did not mean to insult anyone, sorry. I can say I'm proud to be a Muslim, I was giving myself as an example of who is a Muslim i.e. I proclaim it like my religion demands. People can say they are proud of themselves (I mean they do do it on their user pages). I am not incorrect however I have done my research so no need to be hostile towards me. Any more questions? Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I am happy that we cleared this. I too apologize if I insulted anyone, although I think neither me nor User:Lord of Moria need apologize. Tourskin (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread does not relate directly to work on the article; the conversation is best taken to a non-wiki venue. Article talk pages are not for general discourse on the the topic of the article, but a tool for editing collaboration. If you would like to see an area developed, you may initiate the process by making your recommendations here: the result will just as often answer your query AND result in development of the article. Mavigogun (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What Is a Briton Exactly?

Main page: Talk: British people

I'm confused by this use of term. The article states that Britons are people with british citezenship or of indigionous ancestry but the article deals with mostly Irish, Scots or English ancestry, does this mean that Black people born in Britain are not British? Or that I myself who belongs to a British minority who was born in Britain is not British? Is this article exclusively written about White British? Because if it is it should be moved to the other briton article about the indigenous peoples. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The confusion isn't just here on the article but in real world practice too. Of course the article needs to address "the British" as its historical defintion and cultural association, but I think it is clear we also need an additional paragraph in the lead section that explains Black British presence (and other BME groups) in the UK, as well as Immigration to the United Kingdom (1922-present day). --Jza84 |  Talk  15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've found about two or three articles that deal specifically with the White British population. The article seems a little biased. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, what would you propose? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I propose that a section should be dedicated to the minority non-white population. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is about ethnically British people, and is intended for a worldwide audience, not just people from the United Kingdom itself. I suggest that the section "non-white British" should be removed; there are plenty of other articles about these people, such as the ones which were mentioned before. user: HSDR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.180.127 (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so I get this right, non-white Britons are NOT Ethnically British??? If a white Briton has one French father and an English mother (e.g. Brunel), what makes that person more ethnically British than someone with an African/Caribbean/Asian father and and English mother also? Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.63.209 (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The very presence of a heading "non-white British" implies that they're "different" than "white British". Probably not what's intended.... British is British, regardless of colour. Perhaps the content would be better dealt with under a historical immigration section? --Bardcom (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I should think so. There should be a section on the history of immigration. If it says I'm British on my passport and I'm Asian then I still am British because I was born here and nowhere else. Also this section could also link to other Britons; such as British Pakistani, British Indian, British Chinese, British Japanese etc... There are already three articles I've spotted about Whites in Britain. White British is itself and ethnic group. Being British isn't. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 22:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

British Asian in infobox

Main page: Talk: British people

I think at least another picture depicting another ethnic group should be added mainly the British Asians. I suggest Konnie Huq since Kelly homes is also there. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 11:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, rationale being that where does this stop? If we have a British Asian, why not British Chinese? Then from there, do we have British Polish, British American, British Nigerian, British Bangladeshi? Also, the image was always intended to encompass some degree of representiveness. The BME population is less than 2 eigths of the currently British population - less than 1 eigth even, and much less historically. I think image is stable now. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines that 90% of people in Britain make up Whites and the rest to the major ethnic groups. British Asian seems to be the largest. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly Holmes shouldn't be listed here

Main page: Talk: British people

Why is Kelly Holmes listed in ethnic British people? She is mixed with non-British isle blood, her father is a Jamaican.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.213.137 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 7 August 2008

She is listed because she is British and a credit to us all. Abtract (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

She was also born in Britain, which makes her British. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 22:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why she's flying that flag? She wouldn't represent Great Britain at the Olympics would she? :P --Jza84 |  Talk  22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if she was born in Britain or carries a flag of a certain country, HALF of her is not native to Britain, which was what this article is meant about isn't it? Natives of Britain, or are we just dropping the ball for political correctness now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.213.137 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 August 2008

No-one is truly native to Britain in the born from the soil sense, as the ancestors of every single modern "Briton" were living somewhere else not so long ago. Besides, Brunel was half-French, and you aren't complaining about him being there. Why? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The same thing could be said about the ancestors of other countries if you go back in history enough. Also about Brunel, he is much more ethnically similar to Britons from having French blood then a Jamaican would be. 124.179.213.137 (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Churchill's half American. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  10:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

American is a nationality, not an ethnic group (the U.S. is comprised of many different ethnic groups). I guess British could be both a nationality or an ethnic group, but isn't Great Britain made up of different ethnic groups as well? The predominant, more specific groups would be English, Scottish, and Welsh (Irish if one counts all of the UK with Northern Ireland as well). Kman543210 (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Responding to the point of "it doesn't matter that she was born in Britain": Actually, according to the article, it does matter. The first sentence defines being British as: "...are the native inhabitants of Great Britain and their descendants or citizens of the United Kingdom..." According to the second part of the definition of the article, she was born in England, hence, she is a British citizen. Kman543210 (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's absurd to think just because someone is a citizen makes them ethnically part of that country. This article states that Britons were created from European mixes "The pre-Celtic, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended in Britain under the Normans, Scandinavian Vikings who had lived in Northern France."

"Also about Brunel, he is much more ethnically similar to Britons from having French blood then a Jamaican would be". These type of comments smacks of Double Standards to me and rather sinister. As long as your ancestors as "White/Caucasian" you could have Kazakhstani blood and be "more British" than someone also born in Britain but who is not White it seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.249.215 (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of being ethnically similar includes sharing the same racial characteristics, as in its definition.

If anyone is going on about kelly homes not being british then why does she represent Britain or why doesn't Amir Khan? Go and contribute on the White British article. Being british is not an ethnicity, it is a nationality. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 21:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly Holmes should not be in that picture. The article is about ethnically British people; Kelly Holmes does not fill that criteria. I suggest it is removed, before this page turns into a farce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.253.171 (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"The article is about ethnically British people". No it isn't. Please read the introduction to the article first, then seek consensus on this page, before vandalising the article page again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The introduction is wrong, and also needs alteration. The simple fact is, that British citizenship does not equate to British ethnicity. With this in mind, Kelly Holmes needs to be removed from the picture, and replaced by someone more suitable. The introduction also needs to be changed. Also, if I change the page, it is not vandalism, it is merely rectification. HSDR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.244.51 (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

British does relate to citizenship. If you want to talk about the ethnic British then the Welsh and Cornish have the only claim. Please stop vandalising the page. If you think there is a case for your position then make it here and see if you can get any agreement. --Snowded TALK 14:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How could there be such a thing as "ethnically British people" or "British ethnicity" when British identity was a post-Union construct? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself ethnically British owing to my mixed ancestry, but I freely admit this is a personal criteria. Incidently, "ethnic groups" are totally distinct to notions of "race"; it's not a natural, organic grouping. One can create, or choose to be part of an ethnic group based on any criteria they wish (so, one could argue for, or identify themselves (or others) as ethnically Mancunian, or Northern). It's just labels, not science.

I do agree with Angus though - "Britishness" is a post-Union construct, and "ethnic Britons" is anyones' guess/interpretation. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. "Britishness", so to speak, as a clear and clarified identity, is a post-union construct. The ethnic identity inhabitants of the British Isles is not, as the British Isles have existed, geographically, far longer than any political boundaries were even considered. You are welcome to delude yourself into thinking that the black and asian populations of Britain are something more than a mistake made in the 60s and 70s, but the reality proves hugely different. Kelly Holmes, and other blacks, are simply not British. There is plenty of agreement for that in this page, and in the country at large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.208.168 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You have no agreement to that position and continued changes to the article without agreement constitute vandalism. Please stop. --Snowded TALK 18:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated before, it is not vandalism, it is merely rectification of incorrect facts. You are the ones committing vandalism here. I suggest that you read the page, for this is a consensus opinion here, on Wikipedia, and amongst the British people at large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.208.168 (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please provide links to establish your claim above and in the meantime leave the article alone --Snowded TALK 20:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone read my posts? To the IP there are at least 3 articles on Wikipedia detailing British or the history of Britons as an ethnic group. One is White British, the other is British peoples. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The following should give you the right information. Britons (historical), and White British. The first describes the indigionous peoples of Briton. But practically every Briton (modern day) I have met do not go back even farther than that on their family tree. If you keep saying that then you mostly refer to the ancients which don't exist today although some may be related to the original peoples. Most are White now with mixed nationality i.e, the French or German or Norman or Spanish or Polish relatives can be found. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The British people have arisen from multiple immigrations over time including much intermarriage. That means the current mix needs to be representative. You can't be selective on skin colour. The other extreme is to say that only the Briton's count and we should exclude anlgo-saxons. --Snowded TALK 17:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that is probably why it is emphasised that Britain is a "multicultural society". Do you now agree IP? Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That is complete twaddle, and a supposed 'modern', yet inherently flawed, view of Britain. British people, specifically English people, are a blend of various Northern European migrants. Many English people can trace their ancestry back to 1066. I think it is awfully audacious of blacks and other coloured people, who not so long ago, were blatantly thought of as inferior, to come here and expect to be British. They are not. It is also strange how, in this country, the media and whoever else constantly speak of "multicultural Britain", when just under 90% of people are white. Most countries have ethnic minorities, but only we appear to talk about them so much, overly emphasising the role of race in the issue. Go to "French People" or "German people", both nations with black and ethnic minorities, but do they flaunt them on that page? No. They mainly have historical figures, which is how this page should be shaped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.208.168 (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Originally we were all migrants from Africa if you didn't know. I for one am very pleased that we have the multi-culturalism of Britain celebrated in the first page. It was pretty audacious of the British to go around taking over other people's countries during the age of Empire. Pleased to see, oh anonymous IP address that you appear to be in a minority of one. --Snowded TALK 11:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think we should update the pics and put Christine Ohuruogu there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be a minority here, but in the nation as a whole, my views are firmly in the majority. If you hold those views, about there being no real "nations" or "people" in those nations, then why are you contributing and editing an article about national identity? It was a mistake to bring those people from the colonies here, and everyone knows it, so why celebrate their presence?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.208.168 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very happy to celebrate it, along with the fact that your views have thankfully never been reflected in any electoral process of any significance. Agree with you Ghmyrtle on the suggested change. It would also make sense to replace Knightly with a distinguished Asian (the first into the Commons maybe?)--Snowded TALK 11:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel honestly sorry for you, being so disagreeable and all, but the picture is being removed, and replaced by something more suitable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.208.168 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to get agreement here to any change I am afraid --Snowded TALK 11:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You must ask yourself why this section is even in existence. Besides, I simply do not require a mandate from you, and the other socialists here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.208.168 (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You need a mandate from the editting community though. Read WP:CONSENSUS. It's probably best to let this one go - you have no consenus and are unlikely to ever achieve it here. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a consensus in the real-world, which I can transfer onto wikipedia if I must. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.208.168 (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you would be, and are infact, wasting your own time as well as ours. That's not how Wikipedia functions. Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a democracy or forum for idle discussion. Continuing this absurd conversation of threats against the will of serious and well meaning contributors merely serves to isolate you, and, if necessary, restrict your access to Wikipedia. What you are doing now is convered in our page WP:TROLL and is dealt with by administrators protecting pages and blocking ip addresses (with a click of a button). Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedic text. Seriously, let this one go, find something more constructive to do with your time on the internet. Please revisit our welcome page if you wish to join the community. Good luck. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just in case this was missed, the beginning of the article defines the term as "...the native inhabitants of Great Britain and their descendants or citizens of the United Kingdom, of the Isle of Man, one of the Channel Islands, or of one of the British overseas territories" The IP editor may be more comfortable editing the White British article. Kman543210 (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Then this is a non-issue; if Wikipedia is not a democracy, then I do not require a democratic or majority in order to have a mandate to edit the article. Would you like to give a reason as to why you are banning me for expressing the opinion of the British people? This will continue until we have justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.243.2 (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

“ It was a mistake to bring those people from the colonies here, and everyone knows it, so why celebrate their presence? ”

I am afraid to say that the British did not bring them here, but they wanted to come here and have a better life, pay their taxes and live a prosperous life (isn't that what everyone wants?) under Britains legal system. Britain is not a right wing state nor do you have any right to say it is, nor do you have the right to say you represent the people of Britain, my advice to you is to read the article first then raise an issue. The article is about nationality as you have rightly said not race. However if you do want to change something to the article without direct violation of Manual of Style or violate what the article has clearly by all means discuss it here. Here is something for you: the rules of the olympic games state a person must be the nationality they repressent, which mean British Africans, British Asians and British whatever can participate, the same rules apply to the citizen of a nation: If you were born here then you a rightly a Briton if you are not in any way affiliated with the nation then you are not a British citizen.

Also where do you get the notion that Britains White demographic population is less than 90%? It is in fact more than that. Please stop being close minded. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 18:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Also please tell me IP why you say in French people "they don't celebrate Blacks or Asians?" Zidane is not of French ancestry, he is in fact of Algerian ancestry and a Muslim. So clearly what this tells me is that you go more on what you see than what you read. You're not going to say he's French only are you? The French are not a race nor are the Britons. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 18:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"I may be a minority here, but in the nation as a whole, my views are firmly in the majority". Actually, look at an opinion poll and you'll see that you're wrong. Only 8 per cent of respondents said that "To be truly British it is necessary to be white" and 75 per cent said "Britain has benefited in many ways from becoming a multi-cultural society". Similarly, this poll found that 86 per cent of people don't think that you have to be white to be British and in this one it was 91 per cent. Thankfully, you seem to be in a pretty small minority with your hateful opinions. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Promotion

Main page: Talk: Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe

Do you think we can possibly promote the article to GA? It seems both well referenced and POV free. I shall nominate the article on the GA page and if it has any issues then we'll sort them out. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 14:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would urge you not to proceed. The chief problem with this article is that it finds all the mentions scholars have made suggesting some route of Islamic influence into Europe and lumps them together, giving the appearance that Islam has had fundamental influence on almost every aspect of European culture. I do not deny Islamic influence, but a scholar who disagrees with the extent of it implied by this page will not write about the lack of influence, he simply won't write about the influence. It is very hard to provide references for negative assertions. A lot of this article consists of sentences that basically say, "the Muslims did something like this before the Europeans". This is hardly convincing, even if some scholars, quite possibly with axes to grind or agendas to promote or just plain biased, suggest that it might imply a causal connexion. To suggest that Gothic architecture is Islamic-influenced is, in my opinion, to go beyond what our current knowledge can allow. So the Muslims had pointed arches? Is that where Suger got the idea? Was the writer of that assertion aware that Gothic architecture did not catch on in Italy until the 13th century, and barely so in the south? It just seems like a bizarre claim, with or without a source. The section on legal systems seems equally hard to believe. It's not that Islam made no important contributions to medieval Europe, but that many things arose in medieval Europe without an Islamic basis and many "Islamic" influences were really other influences mediated by Islam. This article is just not a nuanced look at the subject but a collection of sourced assertions about various "contributions" made by "Islam" to medieval Europe. Let it be and don't try to promote to GA. Srnec (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and the sources seem to be good. It is not a case that religion had anything to do with it but that you have to remember that Islam was a civilisation once and a powerhouse for knowledge and co-existance. We are not talking about religion but the sources are reliable. If the truth seems to shock you then thats really has nothing to do with the article. I think it is fairly balanced and what's more is the renaissance article seems to include info on the subject. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Exaggereation

Main page: Talk: Dyslexia

Do people with dylexia over exaggerate to sound impressive? I know this seems a little blunt and I question myself about really putting it on here but a few people I've met who have dyslexia tend to exaggerate with people - to the point where you can really tell. For example I had one telling me he had 7 Xbox360's and 4 Playstations, whereas another told me he'd been to the Beijing olympic games in January. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 17:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review

Thought you might be interested in helping out with improving The Lord of the Rings, so I'm letting you know about Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Lord of the Rings. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up

Main pages: Talk:Telescope and user talk:InternetHero

Be tough and debate that is what Wikipedia is all about. See reply Telescope. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, collaborating would be nice. Thats what I tried to do from the start: to no effect. Don't worry about it too much, the admins will be the final placeholder if they get any meat-puppets. InternetHero (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not giving up; I'm just not going to take this too seriously anymore. I have been nothing but respectful but if enough people dislike you for whatever reason (indeed, the users on the telecope page are racist or they hate me coz they seen my facebook page coz I get a lot of girls), they can make a "rfc" (request for comment).

Once that is up, the admins won't even help you when people delete/vandalize information. I even told the 3rr noticeboard that this guy was edit-warring. He revert my edits 4 times, yet the admin said the POV tags were justified... I had NO POV--just the need to contribute with a modern-day form of literature.

I have to admit it was a clever trick, but as far as its merit: it is worthless. If you accept peoples' strengths and try not to use artificial counter-measures such as hate or pleasure to try and reciprocate the mind, then you can get inside the mind of any1---even girls. Thats the secret of my intelligence; I don't care if any1 steals from me more: at least it may help them. I'll be leaving soon anyway. I'm am going to write one more essay in respect to the omnipotency that can be achieved through understanding the universe in respect to time. Then maybe people will stop raping women and girls. Good day, fellow Internet Hero!! InternetHero (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Watch, I won't get their divine blessing to edit. If something causes you this much stress---and you don't get paid for it---it isn't worth doing. I have a gGF NOW!! HUZZAH!! You should find one to. I hope they get better, maybe they'll be as happy as I am right now. :-) Good day fellow Internet Hero!!! InternetHero (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Look here. LOL. That is why they're not happy and spend 13 hours a day on Wikipedia. InternetHero (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You are giving up! Look at you. Do not leave. I'm supporting you. And their dirty tricks won't get far. Also please reply directly to my talkpage no one looks at talkpages I only this now. I have raised the issue with 2 Admins. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 20:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

See reply at talkpage Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 20:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Main page: Talk:Telescope

InternetHero asked me to unprotect the page, because (according to him) the dispute is resolved. Everyone agree? · AndonicO ^Engage. 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that we have reached a concensus on the exact change to install into the article, but InternetHero has stated that he is retiring from Wikipedia, which suggests that likelyhood of edit warring on this article is less. - DigitalC (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue approaches resolution- but is not there yet; prematurely unprotecting would negate the good work that has been done and bolster opposing partisans -who would take the action as an endorsement of their particular position.Mavigogun (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree since this article is biased. I'm not being rude or biased myself, but the most important people in history are not even included in the history section. It is just one short introduction and furthermore Egyptions, Islamic Golden Age scientists and even Gallileo is not included, in the intro to history which it should briefly and provide citations. Does everyone agree with this? If yes then we can collaborate together. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There is like a 9 to 5 consensus. So I think we won. The arguements above aren't very intelligent. It's probably not the actual representation of their minds' but for now, they're stuck with hate as a prerequisite for motivation. Its sad really. Their grammar is really bad as well so I think we're dealing with hate---not true thoughts. InternetHero (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Also the arguments above do seem unjustified. There is more quarral with "undue weight" than actual history. This is appalling. I have never seen such disruptive edits and pointless arguments. Everything will be balanced when every bit of information is added here and in the right places. There is also too many bulleted links to other pages, why have them? Minimize them. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 19:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You have provided tons of sources that are genuine which have been shunned. Frankly I can already see some of them as bad editors or relatively new to Wikipedia. Talk to me sometime if you need advice. Looks like you could use some friendly advice. Also please do not leave. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 20:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The more I look at this page the more I realise how they have ganged up on you. As a new editor I am shocked and are still being. I've looked at their talk pages, their histories, the discussions above and frankly they are being hollow and ignorant. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 20:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help man. You're pretty cool. I never like LOTF, though. ;-) But don't call them names and such; I don't think it will help with what we're trying to contribute. Umm, O.K. I won't give up :D. I'm going to get an admin for the Norse colonization of the Americas. InternetHero (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In reply to rfc, commented here. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User is being bullied

Main pages: user talk: Chunky Rice and user talk: Jza84

I have been monitoring the telescope article talkpage and clearly user: InternetHero feels distressed by the continuous edit warring that is happening in the article. The issue is the invention of the telescope and its history. Other articles state that Arab scientists created the telescope. I have looked and discussed and researched the issue and I too feel insulted when the debate is discussed. However I have seen that some users have reverted many of the above users edit even when he provided citations. I think this is the most important issue. Relevant information is not being added and clearly violates WP:POV. I have sources to support that above users statements with citations. user:DigitalC and user:Deamon138 are the ones doing so.

Furthermore there is no mention on the History of the telescope within the article, just a consensus on European involvement only whereas the Timeline of the Telescope clearly states Egyption, Islamic and Italian scienctists involvement among a few others. I will the raising the issue with another admin also. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 20:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Main page: user talk: Moshin

I need your opinion on something. I even consider you as a friend that is why I need advice. I have the message to two admins but I want to hear your opinion on this because one user is being bullied out of Wikipedia, and I cannot stand for someone particularly him with his constructive edits to be forced to leave. I would like you to respond please, I feel such pity towards a good contributor. This is what I left with the admins:

"I have been monitoring the telescope article talkpage and clearly user: InternetHero feels distressed by the continuous edit warring that is happening in the article. The issue is the invention of the telescope and its history. Other articles state that Arab scientists created the telescope. I have looked and discussed and researched the issue and I too feel insulted when the debate is discussed. However I have seen that some users have reverted many of the above users edit even when he provided citations. I think this is the most important issue. Relevant information is not being added and clearly violates WP:POV. I have sources to support that above users statements with citations. user:DigitalC and user:Deamon138 are the ones doing so.

Furthermore there is no mention on the History of the telescope within the article, just a consensus on European involvement only whereas the Timeline of the Telescope clearly states Egyption, Islamic and Italian scienctists involvement among a few others. I will the raising the issue with another admin also." Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 20:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"and I cannot stand for someone particularly him with his constructive edits to be forced to leave. I would like you to respond please, I feel such (pity) towards a good contributor."

I will never give up anymore my friend. InternetHero (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if the user at the top is contributing to the article which is very well referenced then I don't see why he should be harrassed on the article, just report to the admins and they will sort it out. Don't give up mate, you're doing the right thing. The users which are removing your data, give them warnings of the risk of being banned, report to the vandal report and they will sort them out. Mohsin 14:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I bracketed the pity part coz I didn't want that, but I have tried to take it in the talk-pages and it has gotten nowhere for now. All we can do is try again. Good day fellow Internet Hero. InternetHero (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User: Jza84 Response

Hello,

I am the user that is being bullied. I don't want User:LOTRrules to "baby" me, but I am very glad that some1 noticed. I didn't intend for this to happen but I am very grateful, LOTRrules. Anyway, the thought of antiquity has been raised and I agree that it should be in the history of telescope. However, Ibn Sahl and Ibn Al-Haytham should be mentioned in the telescope page. They were fundamenal to the telescope. I agree that some of the other users have been rude and transparent in their arguements, but I think we can resolve this issue ourselves. I think that Daemon138 wasn't trying to be rude. He just probably wanted to be particular. He actually agrees that we should add more on the two individuals above. InternetHero (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys (and lady? - I believe?),

I'm really struggling to find editting time at the moment, so I'm probably not the best editor or admin to approach for this. I will try my utmost to take a look this evening (inline with WP:3O), but failing that, if abuse and disruptive editting continues, it's probably best raising this at WP:ANI. Sorry that might be a bit of a cop out, but my current personal circumstances restrict my committments here. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This matter is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InternetHero, and comments may be added there. FYI. --Hordaland (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Index

Main page: user talk: Judgesurreal777

I'm trying to get the motivational barnstar so users like you are getting my support. How is your index going, finished yet? I see it does look good but have you finished with the catagories? Work hard on it looks good. Anyproblems or if you want assistance leave a message on the Talkpage. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Talk Space Usage

Main page: Talk: Telescope

Article talk space is for addressing specific issues and proposals with that article -not general discussion of the article topic, or as a chat space with other users to address any other topic (such as user behavior or editing controversies on other pages), as seen here: [8]. Desist from adding noise to article talk space; direct this discourse to venues designed for them, such as user talk space or other personal conflict resolution tools. Mavigogun (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression I was. You may want to check that again. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 19:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Saladin

Main page: Talk: Saladin

Could you please enter the reason that you are making an edit into the edit summary so the rest of the editors can understand what you are trying to do and why? It might be better if you discussed massive changes (like a dozen in a row) on the discussion page before making them. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The economy of Egypt

Main page: Talk: Saladin

An editor has linked the Economy of Egypt to the phrase, "Saldin revitalized..." One does not expect that the article would have economic statements back to the middle ages! I don't think that this is a reaonable link. Student7 (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bascially its to show his greatness and rise to power, his rep improved and this is why he trusted a lot of people began to trust him. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Main page: Talk: Saladin

LOTRules, would it be possible to fill in the edit summary so that other editors can understand what it is you are trying to do and why? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but most of the sources need to addedand I'm doing this quite efficiently. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the massive changes have been that useful. Along with the many spelling errors, the article suddenly sounds naive or aimed at a naive reader. It seemed more encyclopedic before. I'm not so sure the article wouldn't be improved if the changes and sometimes very vague references wouldn't be totally reverted wo whatever was there bofore. I have no idea why you started this anyway. Nor does anyone else since the editor has chosen not to enlighten us either by discussion or by entering an edit summary. Student7 (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The diction in some places is stilted, broken, and sounds like it was drafted by a non-native speaker; these issues direly need to be addressed. Also, a cursory reading reveals contradictory claims -'He neither maimed, killed nor retaliated against the losers of the battle but allowed them to live in peace and harmony as long as they cooperated' and 'Saladin retaliated by killing all Franks captured from August 28 - September 10. Bahā' ad-Dīn writes, "Whilst we were there they brought two Franks to the Sultan (Saladin) who had been made prisoners by the advance guard. He had them beheaded on the spot"'. Additionally, summations such as 'peace and harmony' are so highly subjective as to be of little worth; the article would be well served by adopting a more encyclopedic voice.Mavigogun (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me Student7 I directly take notes made on encyclopadia Britannica and from a variation of reliable sources. First of all what spelling errors? I can see none. They are useful and I'm continually adding sources. I've only edited the the first two sections and am researching this article more and more. Might I ask what the "very vague references" are? Also are you intentially trying to insult me by saying Britannica is not reliable? To the second user I did not write the other baha ad-dins source. I think it looks more encyclopaedic now. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 15:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You might try using an English version of Mozilla for updates. It will underscore misspellings and suggest (like a word processor) alternate spelling.Student7 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you might want to take a look at WP:CIVIL.Student7 (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you do first off. You insult my writing skills and then go on to tell me to be civil? Even the user on the next section here thinks you were not being nice. Still you haven't answered all my questions, frankly don't tell me what to do or insult me when you seem to contradict yourself, also don't attack me personally. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, a brief note before I leave. First, good job keeping this on the talk page. Second, part of Wikipedia is that our edits are going to be criticized and changed. I consider this a good thing and appreciate the evaluation of my work. LOTRrules, understand that this is part of the process. If one makes sweeping edits to an article, one must expect that their edits will be criticized, challenged, and sometimes removed. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hi, I just came here from a 3rd Opinion notice. First, I want to commend everyone for seeking resolution without allowing the discussion to be come aggravated into a dispute.

The reason for the third opinion filing seems to concern the use of edit summaries. My opinion is that, although not required, they are good practice. Personally, I find them useful when looking at article's from my watchlist and to keep track of changes in articles. I recommend editors to use them, whenever possible. Also, I would add that it is customary to notify active collaborators of pending plans to dramatically change an article. This permits discussion and promotes consensus. LOTRrules, I would hope that you work with the editors on the page to help establish that consensus. Lastly, Student7, I encourage everyone to assume good faith regarding editors who have come to work on a particular article, thus LOTRrules can edit the article. However, I would hope that in the future he would discuss these changes on the talk page beforehand.

I hope this helped. Most kind regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may give a fourth opinion, LOTRrules, you have not improved the article at all. Britannica is not a reliable source - all you have done is used another encyclopedia. The article may not have been great before but it hasn't gotten any better. 12:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference for the above is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources.12:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Main page: Talk: Saladin

Hi there, I saw a filing requesting a third opinion for the Saladin article. I left a note on the article's Talk Page to that effect. Hope this helps! Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just came here from a 3rd Opinion notice. First, I want to commend everyone for seeking resolution without allowing the discussion to be come aggravated into a dispute.

The reason for the third opinion filing seems to concern the use of edit summaries. My opinion is that, although not required, they are good practice. Personally, I find them useful when looking at article's from my watchlist and to keep track of changes in articles. I recommend editors to use them, whenever possible. Also, I would add that it is customary to notify active collaborators of pending plans to dramatically change an article. This permits discussion and promotes consensus. LOTRrules, I would hope that you work with the editors on the page to help establish that consensus. Lastly, Student7, I encourage everyone to assume good faith regarding editors who have come to work on a particular article, thus LOTRrules can edit the article. However, I would hope that in the future he would discuss these changes on the talk page beforehand.

I hope this helped. Most kind regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Aviccena

Main page: Talk: Medicine

I'm going to add an Aviccena image to the article. I had previously and it was removed with no explanation. He is considered the Father of modern medicine after all. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 11:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Award

Main page: user talk: 117.201.96.18

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you with the original barnstar of Wikipedia,for your amazingly grand work in the Middle-Earth Project of Wikipedia.Keep on performing in this way Sir,we are with you.May the Lord Almighty help you.I am pround to award you. 117.201.96.18 (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello tank you for recognising my work. If you'd also like to join the Wikiproject then please become a member, I look forward to working with you in the future. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 10:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmyotis Proposal Revisited

Main page: Talk: Telescope

Trimmed repetition, integrated with remainder of paragraph:

• During the Middle Ages, Ibn Sahl and Ibn Al-Haytham made advances in the understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope. In particular, Al-Haytham developed the law of refraction, gained insight into the magnifying properties of lenses, and experimented with cylindrical, concave, and parabolic mirrors. The earliest known telescopes were the refracting telescopes that appeared in the Netherlands in 1608. These were credited to three individuals: Hans Lippershey and Zacharias Janssen, who were spectacle makers in Middelburg, and Jacob Metius of Alkmaar—also known as Jacob Adriaanszoon. Galileo greatly improved upon this design the following year. Niccolò Zucchi is credited with constructing the first reflecting telescope in 1616. In 1668, Isaac Newton designed an improved a reflecting telescope that bears his name, the "Newtonian reflector."

While mindfull that this is an article on the Telescope and that information regarding history should acts as a gateway to the History of the telescope article, I question whether Ibn Sahl is marginalized, or if the mention is proportional; also, is the expounding on Al-Haytham's mirror research topical/should it be removed? Little detail is given to those credited with making the first device, by contrast; I favor the brevity of this draft, as well as the recognition without speculative attribution -and would further favor the removal of the mirror references as being significant but possibly superfluous to the citing.Mavigogun (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the second sentence should be removed, for two reasons. The first is that it doesn't match with the facts that I have read - that is, al-Haytham did not develop the law of refraction, ibn Sahl did. The second reason is that it then puts more emphasis on al-Haytham than anyone else in the paragraph. - DigitalC (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

After dispensing with the detail and value attribution of the second sentence:

• During the Middle Ages, Ibn Sahl and Ibn Al-Haytham made advances in the understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope. The earliest known telescopes were the refracting telescopes that appeared in the Netherlands in 1608. These were credited to three individuals: Hans Lippershey and Zacharias Janssen, who were spectacle makers in Middelburg, and Jacob Metius of Alkmaar—also known as Jacob Adriaanszoon. Galileo greatly improved upon this design the following year. Niccolò Zucchi is credited with constructing the first reflecting telescope in 1616. In 1668, Isaac Newton designed an improved a reflecting telescope that bears his name, the "Newtonian reflector."

The paragraph acts as a good starting place for anyone interested in investigating further the contributions of all named, and (subjectively) does so without speculation -while still attributing elemental importance to the work of Ibn Sahl and Ibn Al-Haytham without marginalizing the contributions of either. Mavigogun (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to trim the 'also known as Jacob Adriaanszoon', as that information would better be included at Jacob Metius.Mavigogun (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I had removed that earlier, but it was reinserted. - DigitalC (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

With the extraneous 'Adriaanszoon' portion removed:

• During the Middle Ages, Ibn Sahl and Ibn Al-Haytham made advances in the understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope. The earliest known telescopes were the refracting telescopes that appeared in the Netherlands in 1608. These were credited to three individuals: Hans Lippershey and Zacharias Janssen, who were spectacle makers in Middelburg, and Jacob Metius of Alkmaar. Galileo greatly improved upon these designs the following year. Niccolò Zucchi is credited with constructing the first reflecting telescope in 1616. In 1668, Isaac Newton designed an improved a reflecting telescope that bears his name, the "Newtonian reflector."

Also changed 'this' to 'these' to indicate non-singular/non-collaborative nature of constructions.Mavigogun (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. - DigitalC (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

4 Day commentary

I suggest that we leave this item open for comment for another 4 days, the 25th of August; if at that time there are no unresolved disputes, we return to normalized editing.Mavigogun (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks good and appreciate the way you guys hung in there to work things out. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks good too. Maybe after this we should add a little more on Galileo, and then add more detail on the other two paragraphs, to keep it in line with a summary of History of the telescope. Deamon138 (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What about the speculation that Al haythan invented it? Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 19:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the exhaustive discussion of that subject on this same talk page; the condensed version would likely not satisfy your scrutiny. To point: unsubstantiated speculation in the context of this summation amounts to undue weight that, in effect, marginalizes the well documented evidence of those normally attributed with the invention. That is an over simplification of a complex argument that has been addressed at length; one would be best served to become familiar with that discussion and direct comment to those involved.Mavigogun (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Also change Middle ages to Islamic Golden Age, it is a significant period in the history of the world. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 19:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

We use a common calender to refer to the dates in the article -1608 CE for the creation of the telescope by the Gregorian Calander, as apposed to the 1017 AH using the Hijri- so to are there common -although greatly subjective- generalizations of era; many overlap. It would seem to me that the term 'Islamic Golden Age' might be both accurate and innocuous; my only reticence is that it may serve as a beach head for the expression of an agenda beyond the purpose of this article- or that using the term, while specifically topical, over a more common signifier may be serving such an agenda. Again, it seems innocuous and texturally appropriate; given the great deal of advocacy editing in this sphere, I am tentatively supportive of the suggestion.Mavigogun (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The two Islamic scientists were born before what is considered the Middle Ages. Take for example the first one 940-1000 AD. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 19:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The categorization is a loose one, and easily fits the time period in question -400's to early 1500's.Mavigogun (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

From Middle ages: "The Middle Ages are commonly dated from the fall of the Western Roman Empire (or by some scholars, before that) in the 5th century to the beginning of the Early Modern Period in the 16th century...". So it certainly doesn't appear that they were born before what is considered the Middle Ages. I don't object to the use of Islamic Golden Age at this stage, because it too looks correct. However, I agree that it could serve an agenda over a more commonly used term. - DigitalC (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets jsut add the freaking paragraph already. Your arguements against the latter are meaningless in relation to logic. The best sentence was the on Mmyotos has put up. InternetHero (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We might also indicate period with 'In the 10th-11th century': the span of both the Islamic Golden age and Middle Ages are considerable; such a description would give greater specificity to the chronological relation of the developments. I support unlocking and use of whatever is least contentious. Mavigogun (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a good change - it certainly makes it more precise. - DigitalC (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose unlocking and making this related history edit:

• In the 10th-11th century, Ibn Sahl and Ibn Al-Haytham made advances in the understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope. The earliest known telescopes were the refracting telescopes that appeared in the Netherlands in 1608. These were credited to three individuals: Hans Lippershey and Zacharias Janssen, who were spectacle makers in Middelburg, and Jacob Metius of Alkmaar. Galileo greatly improved upon these designs the following year. Niccolò Zucchi is credited with constructing the first reflecting telescope in 1616. In 1668, Isaac Newton designed an improved a reflecting telescope that bears his name, the "Newtonian reflector."

I'm not sure how to go about requesting the return to normalized editing.Mavigogun (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not clear why you don't add Islamic Golden Age to the article. It doesn't let the reader go off at a tangent. It provides more information and a further link. Lets stop bickering and unlock the article and someone please add the link. 10th to 11th Cent. seems too bland. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

Main pages: Allosaurus and Talk: Allosaurus

• 
• 
• 

The current image is most likely going to be deleted, since it was from Morguefile.com, and therefore didn't have a usable license.

I've searched for images we could use instead, so on the right are two similar images from Commons, but which have a bit of the lower jaw cropped out, and noisy backgrounds.

Then one where the arms are showing.

And then one from Flickr, which can be cropped, but is a bit dark: [9]

What do people think? FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think they are all fine. But the one that sticks out the most is the first. I think it even possibly looks better than the others Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 19:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, i just got permission from the author of the current image to upload it with a CC license. FunkMonk (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

References?

Main page: Talk: Allosaurus

Why aren't there any references at the beginning of the article? There isn't one single reference. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 19:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it's the lead (or lede, if you prefer). The lead is introductory, and everything discussed in the lead is discussed and referenced in the article. It's similar to an abstract of a paper, which is an overview and typically does not include references either. J. Spencer (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Judaism Newsletter

The Judaism Newsletter Issue III -- Av, 5768

WikiProject Judaism (talk/to do) WikiProject Jewish History (talk/to do) WikiProject Kabbalah (talk/to do) Sir Moses Montefore, a Jewish activist who died 123 years ago this month "Censorship" of names of G-d There is an interesting discussion currently taking place regarding whether or not it is acceptable to censor (i.e. G-d, HaShem->YodHey) names of G-d in articles to protect Jews who may be reading or editing the article. You can weigh in here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Yahweh. Article Cleanup Lists User:B. Wolterding has generously offered us use of his bot to generate lists that show which articles of ours are tagged for cleanup. You can read more about this service here: User:B._Wolterding/Cleanup_listings and if you would like to take him up on his offer, contact him on his talk page. In the News The Jewish Barnstar The New Jewish Barnstar There is a collaboration drive to get Holocaust in Lithuania to good article status. For information about how you can help, see the talk page or contact User:Piotrus. WikiProject Kabbalah's only Featured and Good articles have been removed from the WikiProject, on the grounds that neither article (Diane Keaton and David Beckham, respectively) actually mention the subject's affiliation with Kabbalah. If you have sourced information linking either of these people to Kabbalah, please add it so the articles can be returned to the WikiProject. After a rather heated discussion, there are now two barnstars for use by the Jewish WikiProjects, {{The Jewish Barnstar}} and {{The New Jewish Barnstar}}, and you can choose which one you would like to use.. Remember: barnstars are for rewarding users who are doing good work on the project or on Judaism, Jewish History, or Kabbalah articles, and anyone can give anyone else a barnstar. If you see a user who you thinks deserves a thank you, give them a barnstar! To Do/Help Requests If you have some spare time on your hands, we could use an article about a Kabbalah scholar named Moshe Idel. According to HG there are quite a few sources easily available, you can contact him if you have questions. Be sure to nominate it for DYK if the finished article is eligible. The folks at Shimon Peres need some assistance from someone familiar with both the Hebrew calendar and language to help them figure out the subject's birthday. If you can help, please see Talk:Shimon_Peres#Birthday. New Members Judaism: Arigont, Avi, CheskiChips, Pini00001, Shirulashem, TaliaNadel, Tyciol, yehoshuafriedla Jewish History: 5768altalena, AniMate, User:Yosef.garibaldi.gmail, Pinnecco, Shirulashem, Tyciol Kabbalah: Shuliavrumi New Articles Bezalel Rudinsky (thanks Shirulashem!}, Jewish tartan (thanks Briangotts!), Hebrew spelling (thanks Epson291) We get a lot of articles that are being created and not announced! By announcing new articles, you attract attention to them, and the more people looking and editing the better they will get. If you would like your new article to appear in the newsletter, add it here for Judaism and Kabbalah and here for Jewish History. There are some 40 odd standing requests for Judaism related articles. Please make them! I would, but I'm too busy writing this. . Menorah Quick Links Judaism Portal Kabbalah Portal Israel Portal Articles for Deletion Request for Comment Article Requests WikiProject Judaism Stats 291 Project Members 6248 articles 2356 of which are Stubs 18 of which are Good 6 of which are Featured WikiProject Jewish History Stats 77 Project Members 1141 articles 244 of which are Stubs 10 of which are Good 10 of which are Featured WikiProject Kabbalah Stats 13 Project Members 165 articles 87 of which are Stubs 0 of which are Good 0 of which are Featured Wikipedia ads file info – #148

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Star

HOW DID U MAKE THAT STAR BEHIND TH wikipedia logo ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersaiyan474 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I just did. I can't really go into details. I've so busy. I try to reply but I can't guarantee anything. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

MedRevise.co.uk

Hey, I thought you might be interested in this, since you are medically active here on wikipedia. With a colleague I have set up a Medical Revision website, called MedRevise.co.uk. It is not trying to compete with Wikipedia, but trying to be something else useful, different and fun. If you are interested, please read our philosophy and just have a little look at our site. I would appreciate your feedback, and some contributions if you have the time. Thanks a lot! MedRevise (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Telescope

Main pages: User Talk: Mmyotis and Talk: Telescope

Hi there, why did you revert my edits and claimed them to be in violation of WP:PEA? Why at least did you not discuss them? I think they are in lineand do not violate the policy. LOTRrules (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry LOTRrules, but I didn't think a discussion would be necessary in this case. I'd be glad to discuss it, however. The sentence that I edited reads:

From the 10th-11th century, during the Islamic Golden Age, Ibn Sahl[2] and Ibn Al-Haytham[3] made advances in the understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope.

As written, this sentence makes it quite clear that the advances made during the Islamic Golden Age were significant to the development of the telescope. Adding the word significant imparts no new information and serves only to promote the importance of the islamic contributions, which is the very definition of a peacock term, the use of which, according to wikipedia style guidelines, should be avoided. That was my reason for the edit. I hope that helps. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 18:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Lenin Peak=Avicenna Peak

Main page: Talk: Ibn Sina Peak

Hi, I think this redirect should have been discussed on Talk:Lenin Peak first, especially seeing that there is a a beginning of such a discussion in May 2008. I would like to stress that "Lenin Peak" is still the common usage in English (despite the official rename from July 2006): Google gives 9,370 hits for "Lenin Peak" and 27,100 hits for "Peak Lenin", compared with only 177 for "Ibn Sina Peak". I strongly urge you to reconsider and revert your redirect given the strong preference for Lenin Peak in English usage. --Zlerman (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

---

We have agreed after long debates that the name of the article stays as "Lenin Peak" from considerations of accepted usage in English, although the official name of the peak as of July 4, 2006 is Avicenna Peak (or preferably Ibn Sina Peak as some have argued -- see this talk page above). Alefbe on May 15 changed the opening sentence of the article so that we now have an article called "Lenin Peak" that starts with "Avicenna Peak (...), formerly known as Lenin Peak...". This does not look logical to me: I prefer the first sentence to start with the words "Lenin Peak" -- as in the article title -- and introduce Avicenna (or Ibn Sina) later -- as in the earlier version.

Can we have some discussion on this? --Zlerman (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of moving the page to "Avicenna Peak". In naming peaks, montains, cities, ..., the common tradition of encyclopedias (as well as news agencies) is to follow the official name. That's why we use "Chennai" and "Mumbai" for the two Indian cities (while "Madras" and "Bombai" are still more common in English books). About the old discussion, not many users have participated in that discussion (there is only one vote). I'll request the move again. I think we should be consistent with the common tradition of encyclopedias and news agencies. Alefbe (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose yet another move from Lenin Peak to Avicenna Peak. We have enough confusion in en:wiki and in all the interwikis as it is. Also note the argument raised above in favor of using Ibn Sina Peak instead of Avicenna Peak. But this is not what I have put up for discussion. The question is simply one of style: is it logical to have the first sentence in an article named "Lenin Peak" start with "Avicenna Peak", as Alefbe changed on May 15? Both Avicenna Peak and Ibn Sina Peak should be mentioned in the article (and in fact they are), but what do we put for the first two words in an article named "Lenin Peak"? Lenin Peak or Avicenna Peak? Could we have some opinions on this, not just from Zlerman and Alefbe, but from other editors as well?--Zlerman (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Both the names are included at the beginning. For a more concise enyclopaedic view the official name should be given as the title. The redirect also for Lenin Peak comes here. I wouldn't say it is logical to have Lenin Peak as the title. LOTRrules (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

House WikiProject

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject House

Hello, I noticed that you appear to be interested in House. A House WikiProject has been started to better format the articles surrounding House. You are hereby invited to join. Thank you.

Cheers. --Music26/11 17:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

1. --Oh yes, we do need a wikiproject for House. By the way have you heard his English accent? He sounds so different. I'd probably be involverd more with the character of House, and some disease related articles. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 17:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I noticed you signed the proposal, the WikiProject has been set up here. --Music26/11 12:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Half Middle Eastern

Main page: Talk: Leonardo da Vinci

By any chance was he the son of an Arab slave women? LOTRrules 17:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a chance that he was. This information is included in the section about his early life, and is referemced, if you want to know why this is considered a possibility. It has been shown that he had a particular pattern on one of his fingerprints that is quite common in people of Middle Eastern Descent. At this point in time, it has been impossible for me to discover whether, or how frequently this same pattern may have occurred in people from Tuscany in the 1400s. So there is no way to assess the information.

However, research by the head of the Vinci Museum indicates that Leonardo's father had a Middle Eastern slave called Caterina, around the time that Leonardo was born.

This article is already very long, so it is not the place to go into the various research and articles about any one particular aspect of Leonardo. Amandajm (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That does explain something. But is there any research on where his mother came from? I quantify that Baghdad was where his mother was sold, after all slave markets had been there for a while. So possibly he could have been an Iraqi? Or Lebanese, maybe? Christians are quite common in Lebanon... Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 11:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer is no. We don't know where his mother came from. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate whether she was sold in Baghdad. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that his mother was Iraqi or Lebanese, or anything else other than "Arabic" which covers a broad swathe and includes the possibility that she may have come from North Africa or Spain. What you are saying is all speculation.

The fact that there are many Christians in Lebanon is irrelevant. We don't know that Leonardo's mother was Christian. The fact that she was called Caterina is not an indication of her religion. That name was often given to Middle Eastern slave women in Tuscany. Living in Italy at that time, she would have been expected to learn about and practise Christianity, because, as a slave, she belonged to a Christian family.

Leonardo's writings do not indicate that he had a strong Christian faith. He didn't write about religious matters. Even though many of his pictures have a religious subject, you cannot presume that he had deep religious feelings. He painted what he was paid to paint. In the late 1400s most paintings were either religious pictures, or portraits. Occasionally a very rich family might pay an artist to paint something from mythology. Or a city council might commission a history painting. But most paintings of that date are small pictures of the Madonna and Child.

Another possibility is that Caterina was not purchased as a slave by Piero da Vinci. She may have been born of a slave mother and had an Italian father. One of the things that makes me of this opinion is that Piero did not have her in his house working in the capacity of a slave. She was living as a free person, in her own home on Piero's land, and was presumably supported by Piero until she married. The indication that she was a "slave" only comes from the documentation that Piero owned a Middle Easterm slave. She is more usually referred to as a "peasant", so perhaps her father was a Tuscan peasant. Amandajm (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation (although now I think he is just Arabic and won't go for speculation).Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 13:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

STOP

Main page: User Talk: 128.125.28.132

Stop vandalising article pages. This is a warning or you will be banned. LOTRrules (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Date Convention

Main pages: Telescope and Talk: Telescope

The 10th-11th century period indicator is used in the history section because it is more specific than the commonly used 'Middle Ages' -or 'Islamic Golden Age' label -both of which are superfluous; there is no need to describe the date- it is not the subject of the article; there might be cause for describing the 1608 date as 'the age of Enlightenment', however, given that this section is subservient to the central subject of Telescopes (as apposed to 'History of the Telescope'), such a description would be burdensome. Recent edits adding the IGA reference may serve to expound upon the gravity of Islamic culture -but that is not the subject of this article, and is likewise an impeding burden.Mavigogun (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, the article currently implies that Lippershey et al. either knew about or were at least in the intellectual tradition of Al-Haytham et al. Is this supported by the references? We might be either selling the Netherlanders short or overstating their grasp of optics. History is full of starts and stops (and devoting a modicum of space to documenting some certainly belongs in the main History article and might not be out of place in this summary section), and we should avoid oversimplifying the narrative. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't "burdensome". The Islamic Golden Age hyperlink serves as a gateway, a further link for the reader to click on and find out more. Plus it was in the actual Golden Age Period and many sources from childrens books to adult books on the IGA cover this, and credit the IGA period to have advanced knowledge in optics. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 11:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The IGA is tertiary to this article; users interested in either of the related contributers will find links to the IGA from those article pages- where the subject relates directly to the article subject. Inclusion here amounts to promotion of a particular contextual view of history. LOTRrules reasoning for inclusion here speaks to serving a purpose separate from the subject of this article, an agenda with a distinct perspective. LOTRrules: why are you not advocating for linking out to the age of Enlightenment? Was the change in consciousness embodied by this era not key to the subject developments of this article? Due -and undue weight- may only being judged objectively; subjectively, nothing is EVER undue.Mavigogun (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't "undue weight". The Age of Enlightenment started in the 18th Century not the 16th, even the article states this. Al-Haytham was working in the period of the IGA, ie during it. Your basis for argument seems to concentrated on one line; the IGA is something of which still should be given merit in the article. If the AOE did start in the 16th I'd clearly validate its inclusion as the build up to creation of telescopes, since it doesn't, and telescopes were being made before the 18th Century, it doesn't merit. In addition the AOE was clearly a proposition of philosophical change, a phenonmenon that occured which doesn't include vast inventions and development to objects, but only to human reasoning and thinking. The IGA merits, therefore, as this is also called the Islamic Renaissance: a period where both Islamic studies and, later, the European studies ammounted to many discoveries in the development of technology, ie the European Renaissance. This lead to many inventions. I'm only adding things which are valid and genuine. On a brief note I'd appreciate it if you didn't SHOUT at me. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with including the widely accepted descriptor of Islamic Golden Age to designate the period in which Ibn al-Haytham's advances were made. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to inform the reader. The advantage of a wikipedia article is that it offers the opportunity to increase our knowledge through the ready availability of wikilinks to ancillary subjects. Although I support LOTRrules' edit, I do not support his methods. He needs to respect the wiki process and work toward consensus on the talk pages when an edit is reverted by another editor. This question was raised six days ago and he has not bothered to support his edits on the talk pages until today. Such behavior is disruptive and I can understand Mavigogun's frustration. That being said, the insinuation that LOTRrules is serving an agenda outside of this article is unhelpful. We need to reach consensus by first determining whether an edit conforms with wikipedia policy and then using the guidlines to develop wording that is agreeable to all the editors involved. Ad hominem comments about other editors serve only to make the process more difficult. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 02:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have previously tried to get the IGA line in and it was accepted, however I did not realise, nor do I believe, I was being disruptive. I apologise if I appeared that way, but Mavigoguns comments/edits seem arbitrary. It sounds extrenuously pedantic when you fight over one hyperlink. I just think it makes the article more informative. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 11:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Language in "Reception"

Main pages: Dol Guldur and Talk: Dol Guldur

I made a stab at bringing the Reception section closer to standard English, but someone who knows something about the games should review it; there are still several phrases I don't understand. Elphion (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Like what? LOTRrules (talk)

• "The entire sets of Dol Guldur in the game are on the Games Workshop website." ("The entire sets are" doesn't work grammatically, but I don't know what was intended, and couldn't find what was being referred to on the website.)
• "The campaign called "Assault on Dol Guldur" appears as the final part of the campaign." -- the campaign appears as part of the campaign? Again, I don't know what is intended.

A couple of others I think I figured out, but as I said, others should review this to be sure I made sense of it. Elphion (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The first should read:

• "The entire figurine game sets of Dol Guldur from Games Workshop can be viewed on their website."

The second should read:

• The campaign, "Assault on Dol Guldur", appears as the final part of the main campaign in the game."

I think this sounds more concise. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 11:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If you're going to copy conversations to your talk page, please mark them as copies and give the source page. Thanks. Elphion (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not more concise, but it makes better sense. ("Concise" means "short, brief".) The first one is still grammatically awkward. "Entire" generally modifies a singular noun, so "entire sets" doesn't work. What kind of sets are we talking about? Card sets? Theatrical sets? Sets of figurines? Elphion (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

General Cleanup?

Main pages: Talk: The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II and The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II

I'm not sure how many people care around this time (July 2008), but I have several suggestions regarding the polishing/rewriting of this page. - More details in the Plot section, outlining the campaign storylines in a couple of paragraphs

UPDATE (02 Sep 2008): Mission-by-mission added. Great job folks, but a shorter paragraph or two would be nice, I think.

- Adding a new Factions section, with general style of play and unique characteristics of each faction - Reducing the Heroes section, replacing the story descriptions of the heroes with short descriptions of how they play (and possibly merging it into Factions section) - Reducing the Create-a-Hero section (never tried it, so not sure how it works)

UPDATE (28 Sep 2008): Almost deleted, greatly summarized. More info perhaps?

- Merging Original Characters section with Heroes section

UPDATE (28 Sep 2008): Deleted, Third Age characters to Heroes section.

- Reducing the Comparisons with Tolkien's Writings section

UPDATE (28 Sep 2008): Deleted, some bits merged into Plot: Setting.

- Adding Critical Reception section, with quotes from several prominent game review sites and magazines

UPDATE (02 Sep 2008): Started. Need more info and review scores.

That's all I can think of right now. Anyone agree, have anything to add, or will personally make major edits, you're welcome. Spiritaway5177 (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A little help - WikiProject Video games Guidelines Spiritaway5177 (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope you're still here. And I'm glad someone has taken a good look at the article. We should worl together. Contact me please I want to get started quickly. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 00:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just edit as you see fit and discuss ideas with everyone here! Spiritaway5177 (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone just deleted the whole 'un-encyclopedic' info in this article. This article needs serious work, but I don't think simply cutting off sections is gonna work all that well.. I restored most of it for now, and I'm merging some useful pieces from the to-be-deleted sections into other parts of the article. Point is, let's take it slowly.. Also, some updates to the above list. Edit and Add more ideas. Spiritaway5177 (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should cut all the cruft. It makes the article look very, very messy. I think some sections should be merged, preferably all the characters and a new section created on factions. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 11:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed most of the cruft and added tags to sections that need work. Also to save informationI've mergerd a few unnecessary sections. It looks like a template for GA to the eye slightly, but still the prose could do with some work and expressions. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 12:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

User: 212.74.27.254

Main page: user Talk: 212.74.27.254

Hello the above user is continuing to vandalise, as he did to Aviccena. Please stop the user. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 13:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Racist

Main page: user Talk: 75.150.156.89

Please stop being your typical racist selves and stop making disruptive edits. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 15:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Figwit and WITW

Main pages: Figwit, Watcher in the Water, and user Talk: Mr. Absurd

Hello, LOTRrules. You have new messages at Mr. Absurd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Excuse me, but I tried to get Watcher in the Water to go to GA, how come an article called Figwit got to GA (it too like WITW has little referencing) while you said WITW will "never get to GA"? WITW has by far more information than Figwit.Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 12:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitely never said that it would never get to GA, I just said that I didn't think it was likely, and not in its current state. And regarding the references, the Figwit article is probably a bit better than the Watcher article — you shouldn't compare based on number of references, but rather their quality. If you want to get it up to GA, find an admin or an experienced member of the LotR WP and ask for assistance. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Transfare of Technology

Main pages: Early modern warfare and Talk: Early Modern warfare

Cannon was not spread to the West by the Arabs unlike gunpowder. In fact the first undoubtable Chinese sources mention metal cannon after the first European sources and no real evidence has been found to the contrary and there is some, albeit just as unprovable, evidence that metal handgonnes were in use in Europe in 1280. I think the situation has more to do with individual development. No original research allowed. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's false. The Cannon did spread to the West by the Arabs as did the gun and cannon. The Chinese were very secretive about their technology, and if it wasn't for the Islamic World the Muslims woulnd't have spread valuable information. (such as how to make paper - which the Chinese were VERY secretive about.) Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 16:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Facts

Main pages: History of medicine and Talk:History of medicine

Wikipedians, why don't you just admit it? You are trying very hard to rewrite history to your own liking to make it seem as if Asians played an equal role (or an even greater role) to Europeans when it comes to the creation of modern science (whether we are talking about medicine, astronomy, physics etc....). I have read a great deal of books in the past few years that go into detail on the history of various scientific fields. When all the facts are laid out, Europeans, including Ancient Greeks, are largely responsible for the advanced state that science as we know it, is in today. Yes, I know that other civilizations made some important contributions, but this doesn't mean we should be augmenting their histories and making our own facts up about them in order to put them on the same level as Western Civilization. I notice a lot of contradictions in your articles. First, you go into a long and specious list of accomplishments done by past Asian civilizations, to the point where an average uneducated reader would come to the false conclusion that Asians were largely responsible for forming the foundations of all of our modern sciences. I guess such a thing as the Greeks never existed according to the writers of Wikipedia. Then, you suddenly jump into the modern era, throwing out name after name of European scientists. It is as if you expect the reader to come to the conclusion that these brilliant European scientists of the 1600s and 1700s got all of their knowledge from Asia. This begs the question as to why Asians weren't the first to create the modern world. Of course, the answer to all this confusion is simple. It WAS NOT largely Asians in ancient times who were creating the foundations of modern science. It was Greeks. And it also just happens to be the case that not much was done with science (after the Greeks) until the Europeans started fooling around with science again after coming out of the Dark Ages. Is what I am saying Eurocentric? No, what I am saying simply reflects the facts as they are. --Cftiger 13:30 November 26, 2006.

"Modern" science began in Asia and Africa (Egypt) and then spread to Europe via Greek scholars who studied in these places. Knowledge of it was lost by Europeans in the Dark Ages, but was brought back to Europe by the Muslims in the Middle Ages. Drutt 11:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please give me examples of how the science in Asia during those times was "modern". --Cftiger 10:01 April 22, 2007.

Do accept my apology, but I find it very hard to believe that you've actually done your research. If you had, you would know that Muslims in Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and Andalucian Spain have made an essential, revolutionary contribution to modern science (including mathematics, chemistry, physics, astronomy and medicine). To say that they were merely a bridge in time is a huge understatement, bordering on naiveness. Ibn Sina, was known in Europe by the latin name Avicenna and considered the father of modern medicine. He wrote The Canon of Medicine, which was the most influential book on medicine for over 600 years. Today, it is still regarded as one the most important medical books ever written. It is in fact, still being sold. Al-Razi was equally influential in the Field of medicine. Al Khawarizmi, a Muslim mathematician who was responsible for the development of Algebra and Trignometry; the basis of today's computer technology. He was also the first to identify the value zero in a valid equation. These names are but a minute fraction in a vast sea of scientists originating in the Muslim world, all who made valuable contributions to modern science. I urge you to do further research, and to do so rigorously. You will find that the few facts I mentioned here, are indeed a small fraction of a more extensive world.

The Muslims took the basis of their knowledge laregely from Ancient Greek works, as well as from China, Persia, India and Egypt. They did however excel, and make their own revolutionary breakthroughs, in sciences, as well as institutions including the first hospitals and universities.

War, invasion, civil war and corruption brought the end of this civilation's golden age, it's unique wealth of knowledge was passed on to the west and ushered in an era of a renewed Europe; the Renaissance. It is the way of history; with the end of any civilization, there is the rise of another, to whom the experience and knowledge of the fallen are passed on. This is how we humans progress.

WHO'S NEXT?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.220.150 (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear!!! Brilliant. Please join you'd make a wonderful editor. Well you see some people are racially prejudiced and xenophobic. The facts are all there in history. Please look them up. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Islam focus?

Main pages: User talk:Lihaas and User talk:Itaqallah

read your post on itaqullah's talk page.

Where is this anti-muslim bias? on wikipedia? we'll jhaap them. i don't edit too many muslim articles (except political ones), but point them out to me when you see it.

(btw- im not muslim, though, but still... ;)) Lihaas (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ME 0.7 discussion moved

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/Wikipedia 0.7 selection and the associated page and table. Carcharoth (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Trinity Anti-Blazers

Main pages: Trinity High School (Rutherglen), Talk:Trinity High School (Rutherglen), and User Talk: Lord-Schmee

Hey are you a trinity high school pupil? stop vandalising articles. It's not nice okay? Capisce? Anyway I thought the petitions were a stupid idea. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 20:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm a pupil, and no it wasn't vandalism.

It's a ligitimate petition going on in the school. It's not even that, it's a rebellion. That, if anything, is news. A teacher can't punish 1500 kids for not wearing blazers, so what will he do? Only time will tell. They even have a bebo page, I can link you, if you desire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord-Schmee (talk • contribs) 21:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes provide me the link please. By the way what is your real name? Are you a fifth or sixth year? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a 4th year, actually.

And here is the bebo link: Link

-- Lord-Schmee

Yes. But who are you? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Why should you need a name? -- Lord-Schmee —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

Just curious. I go there too. Sorry if I offended. I just think it's pretty cool that I know someone that goes to my school on Wikipedia. It's not often that I get to meet someone from my school on Wikipedia. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol nice. Well what is your name, then? I had a feeling you did.

I'm ###### #####. Lord-Schmee (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. By the way are you a relation of David Casey? I can't exactly reveal my own name here. But what I can do is leave a clue. I'm the guy who had dyed his hair blue on the left side. Do you know what I mean? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling it was you! You knew O'Hagan?

No relation to him whatsoever. :P Lord-Schmee (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Which O'Hagen? The one that left in fifth year? I knew several O'Hagens And how did you "know"? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The perverted one. Andrew O'Hagan. I just had a feeling that you were who you were, no idea why. If you are who I think you are, I'm the person who interviewed you with Andrew O'Hagan. ^.^' "What did you think of the new Ironman film?", "I haven't seen it...", "You haven't seen it? You haven't seen it?!!"

Yeah he left in 5th year. :P

Yeah I knew him. He was in my 4th year English class. Can you remind me which interview? Where was it? I'll give you another clue I'm in sixth year at the moment. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I also talk to you whenever I see you, usually on a daily basis. Lord-Schmee (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WHAT??? Since when? Where do I talk to you? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That is, ofcourse, assuming you are who I think you are. Blue hair, a hat? Glasses (I think) and I once asked you the secret to your Shiny Blue hair? The interview was outside the Science/Admin/Computing building. Lord-Schmee (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you get on my bus? Honestly give mre more clues. I don't know who, I can't put my finger on it. do you have a myspace? Maybe I can see your picture. I did have shiny blue hair and wore a winters hat to avoid people annoying me on the bus and the playground. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and I wear glasses. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably have to meet you. I honestly cannot recognise your name. It's seems very familiar though. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have red-ish hair. Kinda fat. Spoke to you today, infact. Where was it... I think it was at the Science building, or maybe it was at the Cafeteria. Lord-Schmee (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I replied on your page, but it's easier if we reply from here from now on. Lord-Schmee (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it was science. At lunchtime. perhaps. Are you the guy who tried to film me everyday on a camera? While I was in fifth year? And you failed each time? With Andrew at your side? I if I remember correctly did you grab someones breast while I was there once? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 22:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember, but it was probably true? Yes I'm the one with the camera :P Lord-Schmee (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Ya bastard, what are you doing these days? I thought you were in 5th year. Where's Andy these days? LOLLord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 22:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, just 4th year, exams T.T Andy? See him some mornings goin to College, but that's all. What's up with the petition thing? :O

But yeah, damn >_< Exams this year and I ain't lookin forward to them, but who is? XD Lord-Schmee (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No-one I suppose. But compared to Higher, they're pish. You got an email? Or MSN? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 22:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(my name, no spaces, no capitals)@hotmail.co.uk

Okay. I'll mail you tommorrow, yeah? You'll get my addie with it. I got to go and eat now. See you sometime later. Bye Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 22:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sure, I was about to head to sleep anyway. :P G'night! Lord-Schmee (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, glad to see you're enjoying Wikipedia, but remember, our primary purpose here is to work on the encyclopedia, not to just chat about non-wiki things. See also WP:NOTFORUM. Also remember that chats are not private, and everyone else can see what you're saying. We have Recent Changes patrollers who routinely scan every single edit that's made to the project, scanning for vandalism and whatnot, so they get to read all this stuff too.  :) Anyway, not a huge deal, but did want to drop you a note and request to keep discussions a bit more wiki-focused.  :) Thanks, --Elonka 22:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but we are allowed. Since we are not talking on an article page. Besides I asked for his email. So now we can have a conversation elsewhere. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 10:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

Main pages: Wikipedia:Peer review/Mark Speight/archive2, Mark Speight, and User talk:How do you turn this on

Hi, you commented on the (failed) FAC; please can you help me out by leaving some feedback at peer review? Thanks, and best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 12:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Main page: WP:Wikiproject Good Article Collaboration Center

Religion section of Turkey

Main pages: Turkey and User talk: Tangomaan

Please vote at the Religion (2) section of Talk Page of the article Turkey, viewing Version 1 (my re-edited version for a neutral prospective) and Version 2, and decide which is the preferred version for the Religion section of Turkey at the below of the page, Agree or Disagree for Version 1, Thank you!!! Mohsin (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No it's alright, the article looks OK now, but could be better. It was just a argument over the discussion of presenting the conservatism side of Turkey, which others opposed to it. But thanks anyway for responding. Cheers. Salaam. Mohsin (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dol Guldur GA Review

Main pages: Talk:Dol Guldur/GA2, Talk: Dol Guldur, and Dol Guldur

Good article reassessment for Dol Guldur

Dol Guldur has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Thanks for signing my guestbook

Main page: User:LAAFan/Guestbook

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for signing my guestbook. LAAFan

No barnstar is required on your part.--LAAFan^sign _review 00:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You are now a rollbacker!

Main pages: Wikipedia:Rollback feature and User talk:Jza84

Hello, can I please get the rollback feature, I've had to deal with vandalism for a while now. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 11:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! I have granted you rights to the rollback feature. Please spend a short time reading through Wikipedia:Rollback feature page so to avoid any issue with its use/misuse. I hope it helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  12:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for granting it. I'll read the guidelines ASAP. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 12:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you read them sooner rather than later - especially this section, and most certainly before using the rollback tool again.

Rollback should most definitely not have been used for this edit where you reverted the (correct) removal by another editor of a non-notable individual from a list that you had inserted in the first place. As a general principle, rollback should only be used outside your own userspace for reverting blatant vandalism (as you have done correctly here, and potentially here) but definitely not for good faith edits such as the one on Friel or this one here. _Gb^T/c 16:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalising & Threatened

Main pages: User talk:Simpsons contributor and Islam

Stop vandalising articles as you did with the Islam article. You could be banned the next time. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 12:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the threatening tone; I’m shaking in my seat, but watch this video before you accuse me of vandalism. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(Where is the the threating tone?) What does that have do with Islam? Just because some people are religiously zelous doesn't mean the religion is. I'd appreciate it if you didn't throw propoganda at me. You obviouly sound quite ignorant or are afraid of a relgion you don't know any meaning of. I suggest you do research instead of looking quite the ignorami. Stop generalising and get on with your life. Islam has many branches I suggest you look it up. (Ever heard of the Islamic Golden Age? This period was a significant time in our human history). I'm sorry if I offended you but you must realise Wikipedia is not for vandalising and spreading hate by writing POV or making personal attacks. You could say any religion is bad. The Talmud for example allows the marriage of 3 year olds (or so I've heard). Do I hate the relgion? Do I hate the people? No. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 13:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"You could be banned the next time" sounds like a threat to me. And if you want me to be honest I can't deny I'm quite afraid of Islam; especially since I can't criticize it anywhere I go! I could make any disgusting bigoted comment I wanted about Jews or atheists (See here, here, here and here for anti-atheist bigotry in the guardian alone) and use them as universal scapegoats blaming them for everything from dog eat dog laissez-faire capitalism to communism (easy to hit both ends when you’re continually beating a dead horse I guess) but I'm never allowed to say a bad word about Islam lest I be called a (add fantastic adjective here: militant/extremist/fundamentalist/zealot/neocon and of course, racist) What race has to do with religion is beyond me.

And he only thing that is keeping the Middle East stagnant at the moment is the thing that kept Medieval Europe stagnant for god knows how many centuries: religion. Islam and Christianity are equally poisonous in this respect. I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree that Europe was poisoned by Christianity during the Dark Ages?

And I’m sorry for the inappropriate characterization, OK? --Simpsons contributor (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Calm down man. All I'm saying is that you have to watch what you're saying. You can't make fun of Muslims or discriminate them for what they believe in. You can criticize the religion but not the people, OK? Race laws suggest that you can't discriminate for what a person believes in or the persons colour, personal beliefs or disability. By segregating a portion of society's group by catagorising them is, after all, racial hence racist. Religion does not have to be a bad thing. Religion in the Middle-east during the dark ages was a sort of boost for humanity and lead in some ways the renaissance (I know this seems far fetched but it's true, the word Islam in its broadest meaning means a peaceful civilisation [there are many meanings]). You know the safest way to combat your fear is to learn about it and confront it, I reccommend seeing Islam: Empire of Faith - click on the google video links and hopefully you won't be as hostile as you seem to be in future. You can't live your life in hate, I mean look what happened to the Nazis and Jews (a trajedy that turned into a massive trajedy).

You also have to relise that Dark Age Europe was ruled by a pope and he launched 15 crusades (9 on Muslims) and that because Europe was ruled by one man (in a sense) that is where the root of the trouble lay. While religion in Europe was misunderstood, the understanding of relgion in the Middle-east was an advancement. The middle-east was the west of its day. Its where Chemistry, and medicine and other such things were discovered fully and the knowledge then we still use today. (See Aviccena, the father of modern medicine for more info.) Learn more about it! That is what will make you fear less subjects relating to Islam! Honestly learning about your fears will make you happier and more comfortable. You have to have an open mind.Any more queries? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"The middle-east was the west of its day." That's because Europe was wallowing in religious nonsense and barbarism while the Islamic world was working on science and reason inherited from the Ancient Greeks. It has flipped now. The way forward is for the Islamic world to secularize. If you pay attention I never said I have anything against individual Muslims any more than I have anything against individual Christians or people who are unlucky enough to be born in North Korea. I said that the ideology is poisonous when it takes over a person's life (Islam, Christianity, communism, etc). Worse still when the ideology conquers a whole state (North Korea, Cuba, China and the former Soviet Union saw more than 100,000,000 deaths and nationwide state sponsored slavery thanks to whole countries being poisoned by the deadly ideology of communism, which Jews and atheists are always blamed for starting to this day) Did you read those Guardian articles by the way?

I hope Iraq secularizes before the big bad illegal occupiers sell the Iraqis out (again) and let the gangsters and theocrats take over. If Iraq secularizes in time it will become like Kuwait or the UAE, if it doesn’t it will become like Saudi Arabia or Iran depending on whether the Sunni or Shia take control. It doesn’t have to be that way: Catholics and Protestants had been killing and torturing and persecuting one another in a barbaric game of political one-upmanship for many centuries, and that was still occurring in Northern Ireland until very recently, but somehow the Christian world managed to secularize. And I never once tried to stand up for the Pope, the thuggish Medieval Christians or the crusades. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Article --Simpsons contributor (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a caution

Main page: User talk:Atakan0652

Why do you suggest that Turkish users are more knowledgable in Turkish matters and anyone "foreign" is otherwise? Turkey is not only your country but mine too. As a famous philosopher once said "I do not belong to a country, the whole world is my home". So calling User:Tangomaan a Bangladeshi, yeah I support him, and not allowing him to contribute to Turkish articles is a clear violation of Wikipedias very basic morals. (Anyone can contribute, how can you judge who is more knowledgable?) Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 22:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I didn't insist that Turkish people are more knowledgeable. I think it is because of my English level. But just one thing to remind; I can only show tolerance to real and meaningful contributions. Not to dividing contibutions. Wikipedia is one of the most important source in the web. And lots of people will read that article. Let's show them real Turkey. Turkey is not that country. Cheers. --♪♫Atakan^0652|mesaj 15:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atakan0652 (talk • contribs)

Guestbook

Main pages: User talk:Scapler and User:Scapler/Guestbook

		The First Signer of Guestbook Barnstar
		For being the first person to sign my guestbook and even improving it while there...wow and thanks! Scapler (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for signing, and I was not offended at all, I am thankful for the improvement! Scapler (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose just give me The Special Barnstar, as no other Barnstar seems to fit. : ) Scapler (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

HMM? Scapler (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback removed

Main pages: User talk:Gb and Wikipedia:Rollback

I have removed your rollback right. Despite my message to you yesterday here, you have either failed, again, to read about when rollback should and should not be used, or have read the relevant policy and yet continue to use the rollback tool on occasions where you have been told you should not do so. The edits you rolled back here and here were bona fide removals of content that the editor concerned (who provided their justification in the edit summaries) felt were inappropriate to the article. They were clearly not vandalism, and most certainly not blatant vandalism, and your use of the rollback tool to revert them was completely inappropriate. Since you haven't shown that you can be trusted to use the tool wisely, I have no option but to remove it. _Gb^T/c 14:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my behaviour in using the rollback tool. I have learned from my mistake and want to move on. I understand that I shouldn't have used the tool in such a way and next time when requesting such a tool I will be more cautious. I had been under a little stress in college, and I shouldn't have ignored your warnings. Can I please have the tool back? I will be more responsible now. I don't want to ruin my reputation. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 00:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, but please bear in mind that I will be watching your use of the tool, and any repetition will result in it being removed again, but permanently this time. _Gb^T/c 20:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I accept the terms and will try to use it where appropriate. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 20:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Also would you mind signing my guestbook? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 20:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, but I don't do guestbooks...I don't think that's what we're really here for. _Gb^T/c 21:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Goerge W Bush

Main pages: George W Bush and Talk: George W Bush

LOTRrules wants a sentence in the Foreign policy subsection of the Presidency section to read as follows (boldness added by me):

In response, Bush launched the War on Terror, in which the United States military and an international coalition invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq, which has in turn lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and tens of thousands of Afgahnistanis.

I believe the bold text is a POV push, because it paints those wars in a negative light without any reference to the positive aspects of those wars. Whenever I have removed the bold text, LOTRrules has restored it. I want to hear from other editors as to whether the bold text is a POV push. All comments are welcome. SMP0328. (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel it is a POV push. That's one lasting part of GWB's legacy. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if it's "part of GWB's legacy", the bold text portrays those wars as simply killing thousands of people. What about removing Saddam Hussein from power? Wikipedia requires neutrality. The bold text is not even close to neutral. It is not the job of Wikipedia to determine if Bush is a good or bad President, or whether the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are good or bad. SMP0328. (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The bold text doesn't say anything about GWB being good or bad. It doesn't pass any judgment on the war. It neutrally gives an idea of how many people died. I think, though, that you're against it because you would rather people not think about it.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not POV push. How can you justify a war in a "positive light"? This is neutral. If we get rid of this then we should get rid of the "3000 people that died in WTC" sentence - isn't that POV push? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 22:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore ask yourself the question did I say it was he who was good or bad? It's his legacy as much as Watergate was in Nixon's time. It's just fact. It may be a blow to his career but Watergate was a lasting legacy of Nixon's and so are the war casualties. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 23:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Its an American centric thing. The rest of the world finds it rather disturbing that we've actually killed more Iraqi citizens than Saddam killed. We should mention it only because otherwise we are whitewashing the situation. We can expand some additional details about the pros of the war, but this central fact is rather important to a great number of people. RTRimmel (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to including the information about the number of dead Iraqis, only to the wording. As written, I agree with SMP that there is a neutrality issue in only highlighting what is unquestionably a negative aspect. It would be better to have a full stop after "...and later Iraq" and expand on specifics in a following sentence or paragraph. It could be as simple as "...and later Iraq. Although _insert something positive_, the wars have lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and tens of thousands of Afgahnistanis" (or is it Afghans) . - auburnpilot talk 23:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not calling for a whitewash. I'm simply asking for NPOV to be followed. Provide a balance of the aspects of those wars. To highlight only a negative aspect or only a positive aspect is a POV push. SMP0328. (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you put in a source to balance it out then instead of clipping it? You seem to bring the hammer down on anything anti-bush so fast that its a blur these days. How about:

In response, Bush launched the War on Terror, in which the United States military and an international coalition invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq. The wars overthrew the respective governments of those nations and has in turn lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and tens of thousands of Afgahnistanis.

RTRimmel (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That part of the article now says (boldness not in article):

In response, Bush launched the War on Terror, in which the United States military and an international coalition invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq, which has in turn lead to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with some polls suggesting up to one million dead, including tens of thousands of civilian Afghans.

I think that provides both viewpoints of those wars in a neutral fashion and specifies who or what previously controlled those countries. SMP0328. (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's "Afghanistanis". You were right the first time, the second you make them sound like carpets(!) Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 23:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's Afghan (as in List of Afghans). Afghanistan.org also states "People of Afghanistan are called Afghans, not Afghani" but we're getting off topic. - auburnpilot talk 00:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In the real-world I heard people call them "Afghanistani", like "Pakistani" but yes we should stop this now. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 00:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits

Main pages: Talk: George W. Bush, George W Bush, and User talk:AuburnPilot

It'd be great if you would stop edit warring on the Bush article while discussion is ongoing. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 23:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't edit warring. Where is your justification for that. Moreover why do you blame me? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 23:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not blaming anyone, but you are edit warring. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] - auburnpilot talk 23:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Rape Charges

Main pages: Talk: George W Bush, George W Bush, Margie Schoedinger, and Talk: Margie Schoedinger

A lady by the name of Margie Schoedinger was suing Bush for raping her, however she mysteriously committed suicide, shouldn't it be mentioned since it's a serious crime to be accused of?--PUNk Limited (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What? I can't believe this. Do you have sources? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 00:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That article claims Bush had committed "'individual sex crimes' against both herself and her husband." The case doesn't appear to have anywhere, especially after her suicide. Unless there is strong evidence supporting this claim, it is not notable. Adding unsubstantiated claim to biographical articles should be allowed, for it can easily lead to defamation of character. SMP0328. (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the woman was a certifiable nutjob who apparently accused Bush of having the FBI kidnap her and her husband so that he could rape both of them. No reputable news source covered it, for obvious reasons. Even the editor of the paper where the original report was published has called the woman a "nutcase" and stated the report wasn't meant to be published, as they hadn't done proper fact checking. - auburnpilot talk 00:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute...

Do you even have a secret page? Cheating via Special:PrefixIndex brings nothing... —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 18:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman-Habsburg Wars

Main pages: Ottoman-Habsburg wars, User talk: Gabr-el, and WP:ANI

Stop entering your Islamic POV. At the end of the War, the Ottomans lost Hungary and much of the Balkans to the Austrians, if you didn't notice. Stop vandalizing it. Gabr-el 06:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly this was a good faith edit. Secondly how is it Islamic POV? I was merely stating that Ottomans won first then lost it. There is no need for the aggressive tone. (I don't know if you are doing this because I'm Muslim but there was no Islamic POV there, so I must assume you left a message to attempt to offend to me. Tut, tut.)

Secondly don't label me as a vandal. If anything you are a troll (See WP:TROLL - you seem like one) I have been on Wikipedia for a while so I know how to edit. It seemed like a personal attack to be honest (See WP:PERSONAL ATTACK, seeing as you'll need it for future). I only changed a tiny bit in the article -- and that was in the infobox. I see that a user has already commented on your incivility. So unless you want some of your own medicine I'd advise you to stop accusing people for doing minor things. Capice? LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gabr-el. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well your wording of it was very poor, because you never mentioned that the Austrians won later on. You only said "Ottomans victorious". I have no need to offend you, I couldn't care less what religion you are. What I do care is when I work hard trying to build a good and neutral article and then you come along and add in something without leaving a message. The result that you had left was clearly not NPOV. Gabr-el 18:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I apologize for offending you. I've been on edge recently against nationalistic edits, so I wrongly assumed that you were motivated by a similar edge. Gabr-el 19:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to apologize to me for calling me a troll. I have apologized to you for calling your edit vandalism. Gabr-el 06:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be being pushed into responding in an incivil manner, but if you continue doing so in these disputes I or other administrators will block your account for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Our behavior policies apply all the time, including during heated content debates. If you cannot discuss disagreements in a polite and constructive manner, then you are acting in a manner destructive to Wikipedia and the community here. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You just made another incivil personal attack on WP:ANI. This is not acceptable.

This is your last warning. Further personal attacks or incivil comments will result in your account being blocked.

This is not acceptable behavior for Wikipedia editors. Regardless of who started the content dispute and what they did during it, you are expected and required to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If you break those policies you will be blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That was not a personal attack - where is the element that made it personal? All that has happened so far is that people have accused me of being incivil, I denied it (naturally as a defendent) and am accused again of incivility. Gabr-el 22:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You are communicating in a hostile manner and attacking people. Defending yourself by attacking people is not acceptable.

You would not have 6 or 7 separate Wikipedia administrators telling you that you're being incivil and asking you to calm down and stop it if there was not a problem. If you don't understand what you're doing, you are going to have a very serious problem contributing to Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I will not apologise for calling you a troll. Your behaviour needs to be sorted out. The fact is that you are trolling (WP:TROLL) and it offending a lot of people (sometimes hurting when you imply a boistrous nature). Looking from the sources below and on WP:ANI you don't listen to other people - especially the admins. If you are not listening to them what does your apology say? Looking a little further you do seem to threaten other editors and then mask this by saying this has all turned into a "snowball that has resulted in misunderstanding". If your apology is empty then I have reason to believe that you do not fully comprehend the full meaning of the situation. We are all volunteers to Wikipedia and this space is not for insulting people (WP:INSULT, WP:PERSONAL ATTACK). Regards. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, LOTR. By attacking me, refusing to forgive me and by advertising my mistakes, you have tested my pride beyond all measures. I think you are now the one who has taken his to a new height. You hurt me deeply, for you continue to advertise these attacks when all I was trying to do was stop what seemed to me was a mistaken edit. I have found within the Love of Christ the ability to forgive you. I shall now leave Wikipedia. Congratulations on achieving your objective, which has been composed of hatred, but which I now respond with dignity and love, by leaving you alone to edit as you please. Gabr-el 16:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

For Gods sake (man or woman). All I meant to tell you was that your attitude seems unacceptable sometimes, not that you are a bad editor, a bad person or such. I was giving advice on how you can be a good editor and being civil. I am apologising if I offended you or hurt you, but not for identifying you trolling. And you didn't have to retire. Regards. (I take it you do want this apology?) LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Specific diffs

Specific problem diffs to follow Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

That's just in the last 50 edits you made. There are more in evidence going back several more days. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Prussia

{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Map of Prussia}}

Television Documentary "Islam: Empire of Faith"

Main pages: Islam: Empire of Faith, Talk: Islam: Empire of Faith, Saladin, Talk: Saladin, and WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

This documentary is being used as a source in the article. I do not think it is a valid source. Using a TV documentary as a source is risky at the best of times, but this production seems decidedly unsuitable to be used as one. The imdb.com reviews of it are not encouraging. Quotes from various reviews: "funded mostly by Iranian state oil and mining companies, this documentary is dazzling in its presentation, but careless about the historical facts"; "tendentious"; "propagandizing"; an "infomercial"; "mostly propaganda"; "pseudo documentary"; "Great cinematography but biased"; "there is a decidedly pro-Islam bias pervading this film"; "don't take the "historical facts" too seriously"; "the director prostituted himself to covert politics", and so on.

I have asked for the opinion of others at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Meowy 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing actually its a documentary by PBS and made in the US. So how can it be biased. Don't pay any attention to the comments - they're just opinions. Have you actually seen the documentary? There are links on the actual page to Google video and you can see it from there. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are the reviews? I have only seen one user review. The documentary was made back in the year 2000. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The best that television can do is to use the same WP:RELY sources that we are trying to use. At worse, they can use myths and legends. The latter can help promote a serious documentary into sensational stuff that is tremendously watchable but not terribly accurate. I don't trust television. I've run into more than one problem with well-intentioned editors who relied on a television "documentary." They all have "sweeps" or the equivalent. We are just trying for accuracy not a huge readership nor a Pulitzer! Let's stick with serious scholars and let tv go it's own way. Student7 (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Television Documentary "Islam: Empire of Faith"

Main pages: Islam: Empire of Faith, Talk: Saladin, and Saladin

This documentary is being used as a source in the Saladin article. It is being used to insert some POV claims and wild phrases into the article such as "the Islamic world had done nothing to start the offensive" (the "offensive" being the First Crusade), and "The Muslim culture lay in ruins for at least one hundred and four years". I tried to remove those phrases but another editor reverted my edit, saying that the source "is reliable". I have not seen the documentary, but the imdb.com reviews of it are not encouraging. Quotes from various reviews: "funded mostly by Iranian state oil and mining companies, this documentary is dazzling in its presentation, but careless about the historical facts"; "tendentious"; "propagandizing"; an "infomercial"; "mostly propaganda"; "pseudo documentary"; "Great cinematography but biased"; "there is a decidedly pro-Islam bias pervading this film"; "don't take the "historical facts" too seriously"; "the director prostituted himself to covert politics", and so on. Using a TV documentary as a source is risky at the best of times, but this production seems decidedly unsuitable to be used as one. Meowy 19:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Saladin is an important history article so sources should all be works by academic historians. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing actually its a documentary by PBS and made in the US. So how can it be biased. Don't pay any attention to the comments - they're just opinions. Have you actually seen the documentary? There are links on the actual page to Google video and you can see it from there. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are the reviews? I have only seen one user review. The documentary was made back in the year 2000. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You click on the word "more". Meowy 23:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Also there are historians in the documentary talking about the history. If I remember correctly there are about 5 Historians from universities, some of them professors. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A TV documentary is rarely a reliable source. There simply is not enough space in it for anything but a cursory treatment. I don't know if this one is better or worse than the average, but for a topic as Saladin, which has literally thousands of scholarly books and articles written about it, there is no reason to use sub-par sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

They talk about Saladin in episdoe 2 extensively. I think this illustrates his character which I'd think is important to what he was actually like. The documentary is neutral and informative. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 22:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The solution is to look out the books and articles authored by the academics who appeared in the documentary. That will give you a much richer source of information. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll get to work on it right away. But I want to leave it up there till I'm done gathering sources to prevent deletion. I'll do it in roughly the next 5 days. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

All forms of video presentation are notoriously misleading. The format simply cannot handle the complexities that the written word can do, either in nuance or in depth of coverage. The project is in text format, other editors need to be able to examine the sources, in context (perhaps with scans of what the original says), and text is simply the only way to do it. If the material is worth anything, it's bound to have been published in text first. PR^talk 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much focus on his ethnicity

Main pages: Geber, Talk: Geber, and Alchemy

It would be nice if all the effort focused on trying to determine which part of the middle east he was from could be directed toward finding references for the claims made in the article about the techniques he developed. There are very few citations (sometimes none) to back up claims of his discoveries.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 15:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. 17 references to back up that he was an Arab seems a bit like overkill to me. -kotra (talk) 23:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How many would you prefer, then? Do you understand the concept of reference counting to determine which of two possibilities is better-supported? You can't provide just one reference for that, since none of the references themselves do the counting. There is a meaningful point here that cannot be demonstrated any other way: a) Geber is considered by overwhelming consensus to be Arab, however b) there is still significant literature suggesting he was Persian. In what universe are less references better and how do I get a bus pass to go there? --70.131.51.228 (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You know well wikipedia doesnt lie on the truth but on the sources. You Arabs know well he was Persian (He was born in Tus in north east of Iran. See the map, how far is it from arabs?)... He was most probably Persian... You Arabs think that whoever is Muslim must be Arab, or whoever has an Islamic name, must be arab, or whoever knows arabic must be arab!!!! I am a muslim, my name is Mohammad, and I know arabic(because I learned to understand quran) but I am IRANIAN. The same thing was there for Geber... Actually its not that important for me, you can think as your wish, you can change the facts, take all Iranian scientists for arabs, call Persian gulf as a-r.a-b.i-a.n gulf... But know one thing, the truth never dies. --61.8.140.20 (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether or not he was an Arab, a Persian, or both. My point is just that when there are more than 5 or 6 references, new ones cease to have any useful purpose. When it comes to references, we should focus on quality, not quantity. Also, using a large number of references to prove a point (here that he is "overwhelmingly" considered to be Arab), is original research, even if it uses outside sources to come to that conclusion. None of the references actually claim that "most sources state that he was an Arab" (correct me if I'm wrong), so it is original research to take a bunch of references that say one thing and from that conclude that "most" say it. I could probably find 20 references that state the Holocaust didn't exist, and so conclude that "most" say that too, since there might be only 10 references in a Holocaust article that say it does. But that would of course be incorrect.

If there aren't any reliable sources that say how common either view is (Arab or Persian), the best we can do is say "Some sources describe him as an Arab, whereas others describe him as a Persian." -kotra (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

i totally agree with Kotra on his ethnicity, he was most definately persian, and most sources do not list him as arab. Arabs just come on wikiepdia and claim somehow every muslim must be arab, when it is quiet clear the scientific achievements during the middle ages were made by persians, jews, and Zoroastrianist's who converted to islam. The amounrt of nationalism and lieing and distorting makes me sick personally.Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I never commented on his ethnicity. My comment was just that there are too many references, and that "counting" references to make a point is original research. -kotra (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

At most you should have 3 sources. The rest can be left as notes or amalgamated in the 3 sources. LOTRrules (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though I don't know how exactly they should be left as notes or amalgamated. -kotra (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You can split them into bullut points (see Horcrux ref at the bottom of the page it has 1 refs but 3-4 sources) Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Syriac (Assyrian) Influence

Main pages: Islamic Golden Age and Talk: Islamic Golden Age

i agree with Gun Powder Ma, there isnt enough detail, and for me about the advances brought on by East Syrians (members of the Church of the East) during the Sassanian period where they were the driving force in the translation of Greek philosophy, medicine, astronomy etc. from Greek to Syriacs ... these translations were predomenatly found in School of Edessa (before it was close) then in School of Nisibis, and from there in many other schools. It was after the Islamic invasion of Mesopotamia that once again these Greek texts were translated from Syriac to Arabic by Assyrians themselves. This is the reason why the "Islamic Golden Age" began. Without the contribution of the Assyrians and the fact that they translated countless Greek texts to Syriac and later to Arabic there wouldnt have been an "Islamic Golden Age" I think there needs to be a seperate section just on the Assyrian (Nestorian, East Syrian, Syriac etc.)contribution to the Islamic Golden Age. I advize you to research on this topic, and if you want me to I am able to make this section for you. Malik Danno (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

“ Without the contribution of the Assyrians and the fact that they translated countless Greek texts to Syriac and later to Arabic there wouldnt have been an "Islamic Golden Age" ”

Uh...r-i-g-h-t... You do know there were other ethnicities involved? LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I can only see question marks instead of your signature. Which software are we missing? —Cesar Tort 21:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Who, me? It's in Japanese. Can you still click on it? LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes: I can click on it. I guess I don't have the software to see the letters. —Cesar Tort 21:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:gabr-el again

Main pages: WP:ANI, User: Gabr-el, and User talk: Gabr-el

Unresolved

[23]. Is this appropriate? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I am not really seeing the issue. Is there more to this story that I should know so I can put it into context? Tiptoety ^talk 07:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The long discussion about Gabr-el and his incivility, and the long discussion on his Talk page about civility, has been archived, but It is only fair that I repay his great interest in my edits with my own interest in his edits sounds like stalking, to me. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The archived discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive486#User:Gabr-el. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A final warning about incivility is at User_talk:Gabr-el#Uncivility_.28again.29. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that I have been dragged into this and having studied the user's behaviour I would say this user is getting out of hand. The users demand that I give him/her "an apology" for saying that he/she has a trolling behaviour says a lot. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he "retired", with a snotty message about leaving with peace and love. Anyway, it looks like for the time being, the problem is resolved. Marking as such - Tan | 39 18:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You know I don't approve of you calling him snotty. I feel bad for making him feel bad. I only wanted him to sort out his behaviour. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, yeh, yeh. Meanwhile, where's that squid sushi I ordered. :b Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done(!). Real mature... Why are you even commenting anyway? Got a problem?LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you LOTR. Though we continued to have a difference of opinion in articles, you have cheered me up enough to come back. Gabr-el 04:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Persecution

Main pages: Criticism of Christianity and Talk: Criticism of Christianity

I realy think someone should add more info on the persecution of Muslims by Christians during the crusades. These were in my opinion quite pointless conquests based on racism and power, mainly by military leaders and the pope. Nor is there any mention of the killing of Jews or atheists in this section. I'm sure this is one of the lasting legacy's of Christianity. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lasting legacy's of Christianity? You make it hard for me not to accuse you of a serious POV violation. What if I was to tell you that the Insurgency in Iraq, Intifada, Hamas, 9/11, Munich hostage kidnappings, Bali bombings in Indonesia, bombings in India, Taliban in Afghanistan (Events of the last 30 years only) were to be one of the most lasting legacy's of Islam, how would you feel? Would I be justified in calling these Islamic persecutions of Christianity? Now, whilst you are formulating your mental defense against these, think how I am reacting to you suggesting that a "pointless war based on racism and power" is one of Christianity's lasting legacy's.

Most western sources will state the Council of Clermont as the Pope's intention to protect Eastern Christians from the recently arrived Seljuk Turks. Besides, the idea that the Crusades was a war for power is not justified by the massive expenses involved in them. Indeed, more money and power could be found in conquering southern Spain from the Muslims, or attacking their fellow Christian neighbors, which the Christian Kingdoms in Europe had been doing for quite some time. So zealous were the Christian knights that many in Spain abandoned the Reconquista for the Holy Land. You need to see the aftermath of the Battle of Ascalon in which the vast majority of the Knights who served in the First Crusade and survived went home, having fulfilled their vow to "free" Jerusalem and pray at the Holy Sepulcher.

Your statement that the war was motivated for racism is also moot by the fact that the Byzantines, Christian allies of the Crusaders were in direct alliance with the Islamic Fatimid Caliphate. Furthermore, Peter the Hermit, a key leader of the First Crusade was himself a fluent speaker of Arabic and on behalf of the Crusaders received the ambassadors of the Fatimid Caliphate and they attempted to negotiate a peace treaty. So much for racism there, my friend.

Finally, I think you make a good case for your own dismissal of the Crusades as persecution of Muslims; the aim of the Crusade was not to kill Muslims but in your words "pointless conquests based on racism and power" - if its based on race, and power, its got nothing to do with Religion than has it? Then it has nothing to do with how Muslims are persecuted. I could go on and on blowing holes into your highly offensive statement, but I will leave you to respond and contemplate. Gabr-el 04:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I think Islamic terrorism is a lasting legacy of Islam since it was done people claiming to be Muslims but not what you mentioned. You see several were done for a cause other than Islam but I don't deny 9/11 wasn't. Gabr-el we have crossed paths before, please don't confuse yourself with culture and religion with nationalism. I didn't mention POV.

1. The first crusade was against Muslims AND Eastern Orthodox Christians - it was based on power because the leader of that particular crusade wanted to become rich.
2. There was racism on behalf of the crusaders. Most Western sources say the Muslims were looked down upon because they rejected the theory of the Holy Trinity and so the crusaders were called to kill any Muslims in the city of Jerusalem.
3. Eastern Orthodox Christians when some of them did ally themselves with the Muslims they too were hated by Europeans. It was a racial battle in many ways.
4. The Pope launched the attacks on Muslims for loot, historians even say so because the pope was corrupt.
5. The Crusades were done in the name of Christianity so yes, it is a lasting legacy of the crusades.
6. For 104 years the crusaders stayed in Jerusalem and it is documented that they discriminated the Muslims based on religious differences.

I would appreciate that yuo don't call me "mental". Remember what happened before? LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What happened before? We both issued apologies. I may remind you that everyone is equal in their demand for respect. I did not call you mental, so don't make up stuff.

The Pope was not corrupt in 1095, you're thinking of other popes. The Pope would have not increased his wealth from a campaign so distant. Not all Christians were Eastern Orthodox andyou make too many vagues assumptions. You forget the large pool of Turcopoles recruited by the Crusaders. Futhermore, their objective was not to kill Muslims, their objective involved killing Muslims, but their objective was to free the Holy Land. I already stated elsewhere how the Muslims living in jerusalem afterwards suffered heavy taxes, as did Christians living in Islamic lands.

The First Crusade was not against Eastern Orthodox Christians, because it was the Eastern Orthodox Emperor of Byzantium who called for help! There's a difference between individual drunk soldiers being racists, and labeling the entire campaign as a racist Christian legacy.

You're going to need to cite a lot of your theories my friend with neutral and reliable sources. Gabr-el 23:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1099 - > 1187 is not 104 years, its 88 years. Gabr-el 23:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

LOTR, make up your mind! You say its a racist attack - then its not religious persecution is it!! If the Pope was corrupt, then religion was not on his mind but money! So much for religious persecution than. If the Christians attacked each other as well as Muslims, then its not Christian persecution of Muslims, but Christians going war-crazy over the region, in much the same way that the Ottomans did in Europe later and how Mamelukes and Baibars did too.

Attacking Muslims is not the same thing as Islamic Persecution. This article already has section about Christianity and violence. Gabr-el 23:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes it is. The definition for racism is persecution of race, colour and beliefs (that includes religious, political and social). Are you telling me that Hitler murdering nearly every Jew in Europe was not racist? LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

By your definition then, If I kill a white man, I am obviously being racist against white people. No? Sounds like we're missing something, no? Its called Intention. Hitler murdered Jews BECAUSE they were Jews. Racism is when you prejudice against someone based on race. Not based on non-racial matters. Islamic persecution is persecuting Muslims BECAUSE they are Muslims. And in warfare, every city was thoroughly sacked after a long and gruelling siege warfare. What about the 100,000 Armenians slaughtered at the Siege of Antioch in 1268? Is that racism? Or when the Ottomans sacked Constantinople? Gabr-el 21:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I would appreciate it if you didn't lie about the so called "siege of antioch" as pointed out by the following transcript:

Proposed deletion of Siege of Antioch (1084)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Siege of Antioch (1084), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

The siege never happened. The article has been unreferenced for months because there are no reliable sources for this event.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Aramgar (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thus you all your arguments have been discredited. The attacks were racist after all. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Undue balance

Main pages: Telescope and Talk: Telescope

I have removed the below to talk because it is not a synopsis of the summery at history of the telescope (WP:UNDUE). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In the 10th and 11th centuries, during the Islamic Golden Age, Ibn Sahl and Ibn al-Haytham made advances in the physical and mathematical understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope. There is some documentary evidence, but no surviving designs or physical evidence, that the principles of telescopes were known to Leonard Digges, Taqi al-Din and Giambattista della Porta in the late 16th century.

I don't see that it violates the WP:UNDUE. It is essential to have it there as it explains the history and the lead up to the invention of the telescope and even references are applied to state that it is true. We have previously agreed that it is notable. See the archive for detail. Regrads. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 15:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I was part of "previous" discussions I do not see what "agreement" you are pointing to. The "essential" work of explaining what lead up to the development of the telescope is dealt with in History of the telescope and History of optics. WP:UNDUE does not deal with whether something is "true", it deals with whether something is given undue weight. If you look at a history of optics article such as this[24] you will see at least 10 different individuals cited as significant, why are we only citing one? As user Eldereft pointed out above, Al-Haytham is cited in a way that implies that he was the direct progenitor of the telescope. What standard text books make this link? (reliable source). Leonard Digges, Taqi al-Din and Giambattista della Porta are not in the summery at HOTT, neither is Al-Haytham, and Taqi al-Din as a telescope maker seems to be a minority citation, again not in a reliable source. Bringing them all together and citing multiple sources with no supporting reliable sources that make these connections is creating an article section by Synthesis. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't add "undue weight". And it certainly doesn't imply that Al-Haytham invented it, iot explicitly states this, he worked on the optics and made developments there which were later used by Galileo and the likes from the Book of Optics. As such it should be included, after all it just fact, it in no way implies "he invented it". Regards, Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 22:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The O.S. Marshall references states that it was indeed possible for him given his shared knowledge of the principle foundations of the device. InternetHero (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Pay telescopes

Main pages: Telescope and Talk: Telescope

Would like to see some mention of "pay-per-view" telescopes, the coin-operated variety often seen at monuments and vistas. If a similar article already exists, could someone point a redirect (Pay telescope) its way? — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 11:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they're are any (articles on it that is). Perhaps you could add a section yourself? LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup v.2?

Main pages: The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II and Talk: The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II

The article went through some significant changes, so let's make a new list!

• 'Characters' section looks sort of "out of place," since this is not particularly story-driven or character-focused. It mostly talks about units and heroes, so merge to 'Gameplay' in its own subsection?

'Characters' into 'Factions.' Unit mechanism fits better in 'Gameplay.' Spiritaway5177 (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Some more general info about each factions and heroes would be nice. Not too game-guide style, though.

Faction characteristics added to 'Factions.' Good factions started. Too Game-guide-ish? Spiritaway5177 (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• 'Features' section looks too short. What should we put in here anyway??
• 'Plot' section looks crowded. I think its content is summarized enough, but would suggest subheadings for 'Good' and 'Evil'.
• A new 'Development' section, for some real-world history of the game, as well as techincal stuff. Necessary for GA.
• Add more suggestions and/or edits!

Some role-model RTS pages: StarCraft (Featured article), Age of Empires III (Good article) Spiritaway5177 (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please lets stick to the main body of of WP:MoS and avoid adding subsections that go into unecessary pedantic detail. The article should look concise otherwise we'll go back to what it originally was -- and we do not need another clean up. I reccommend that we should continue to add in as much detail as possible on the reception and gameplay areas rather than factions (in fact this should be brief [per faction]). We could add maps of some of the settings in the settings area and we need to expand the receptions area as this is where it will mostly be judged on. (I advise a table should be made of reviewers and scores both in a two column table). An example is given below on how to tackle such a section as reception. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviewer	Rating/Score Given
PC Review Magazine	90%
Gamers.com	9/10

Greeks

Main pages: Greeks and Talk: Greeks

According to your changes in the aforementioned article, you should also change the articles about Turkish peoples and Jews (the field about religion) or let the Greeks article be in the state left by User:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ. Thanks. 85.17.87.165 (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You have broken 3RR on "Greeks" now. Will you stop, or do I have to report you for blocking? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What, are you having trouble participating in a conversation again FuPerf? 85.73.241.90 (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Idiot, resentment BBC revolt

Main pages: Talk: Jonathan Ross and Talk: Russel Brand

Not enough is addressed in the article about the disgust of BBC television and UK television tax payers towards this man and how he managed to negotiate himelf into a position where he is paid reportedly 17 million pounds over three years; also the fact he is a misogynist and about the current crisis involving the BBC, lack of confidence, broadcasting rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.74.80 (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it £18million? Besides, I'm not sure it's really relevant to say that much. A mention is probably enough. Paul Largo (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he's well worth the money! He's hilarious. Bah! to the fools who say he's not. He was excercising his RIGHT to free speech. It was only joke anyway. I've read the transcript, all he said was "He f****d your grand daughter". Fingers crossed he comes back. 30,500 idiots spoiling the fun can't have it their own way y'know. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 10:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral so you can't condemn, or support, Ross's actions in the article. Besides, there is an article on the controversy, which is why is not covered so much here. And for the benefit of the poster above, Ross was not exercising his 'right to free speech', phone calls of that nature are not covered by free speech, they are in fact illegal under British law. The U.S. has far more freedom of speech than we have and yet those phoncalls would be illegal there too. If I made similar phonecalls to your mother, she could have me arrested and if I tried to defend my actions on freedom of speech grounds I'd be ridiculed for making such an absurd argument. If Ross has simply said it on air without leaving messages for Sachs, that would be totally different. And incidentally Jonathan Ross dosen't like freedom of speech at all when it comes to similar statements made about him and his family, he has spent the last couples of years issuing threats to the British media through his solicitors Schillings of London for publishing details about the private lives of his wife and children, something which ironically usually IS covered by freedom of speech so long as it's not libellous. Besides, there is actually a victim here and he didn't find it funny. If you disagree, kindly post your mothers/sisters/grandmothers phone number up here for us and we'll see if they find it funny. 92.10.238.227 (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Under British law prank calls are not illegal. I thought due to the hype of the media you of all people might have heard it. It is his right to free speech. It a harmless joke, people make fun of each other all the time. And furthermore you can't tell me what to do, I do support him, in the words of Jimmy Carr Ross is an valuable national treasure. When all the things came out about the Muhammed cartoon controversy many people didn't find that funny but it was covered under a blankett of "free speech", the cartoon stated all Muslims are following a terrorist - something which many Muslims did not find amusing. It was to them similar to the drawings of the "big nosed Jewish cartoons" in Germany in the 1900s. So why is this different? I wholeheartedly support Ross and his freedom of speech. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can improve the article by saying the above? To avoid violation of WP:NPOV? LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had to post this here as the discussion has (rightly) been removed from Ross's page. If you wish to reply I suggest you do it here, not on my page, as the IP may change as I am on AOL and may not see it.

Sorry but abusive prank calls of a personal nature using the language Ross used are illegal. Merely humorous prank calls without language or personal insults are not illegal provided they are not made repeatedly or in the early hours of the morning so as to constitute harassment. A call of the nature Ross made is illegal and can be prosecuted if the receiver makes a complaint to the police and the police decide prosecution is worthwhile and justified, or in some cases the police will warn the offender of future prosecution if he persists with the calls. The same applies in the U.S., with laws varying from state to state. Neither Britain nor the U.S. protects abusive phonecalls under freedom of speech, if you don't believe me then make some and then present it to the police as a defence.

If you think it's a harmless joke, then evidently Sachs' feelings are an irrelevance, since only he and his family can make the judgement about whether the call is harmless (it's not likely to harm anyone else). You're certainly entitled to that view and so again, I ask you to post your mothers phone number up here so I can telephone her and call her a whore who takes it up the arse at 3 am. It's a harmless joke and it might even be true for all I know and it doesn’t matter what she thinks. It may strike you as odd or quaint, but most people are actually offended by recieving phonecalls suggesting that their female offspring are cheap and easy lays complete with descriptions of the sex acts you've performed on them. That was part of the humour, that Sachs was being humiliated effectively to his face in a way that would enrage almost any male without him being in a position to do anything about it (such as punching Ross out, as most people undoubtedly would). You might feel it's odd that Sachs might be upset, but it's up to him to decide whether the call is "harmless" since it was directed at him, not you.

To put it bluntly, you don't understand what Freedom of Speech is literally as it is written in law or philosophically - it protects Ross's right to say MOST of what he'd like to (he couldn't get up and exhort people to 'Kill the Jews' for instance or incite violence) provided he doesn’t invade someone else's privacy. He can say Bailee is a slut on television if he wants and that’s freedom of speech. If Sachs hears it we can't do anything about that. Ross can't however telephone her grandfather and force him to listen to details of a private sexual encounter between her and Brand. Are you getting it now? It's because he phoned Sachs and informed him - with offensive language as well - of something that neither he wanted to know or that Bailee wanted him to know that Freedom of Speech goes out the window. I can say Ross's wife Jane Goldman is a slut for fucking Sean Hughes on here. I can't ring Jane up and force her to listen to my opinion, and Ross would be right onto BT to trace the call if I did it, certainly if I did it more than once. The analogy is usually that my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose.

As for me "telling you what to do", there is nowhere in the paragraph where I tell you to do anything at all (other than the suggestion to post a relatives phone number) although there's plenty of implication in your paragraph that you feel you have the right to tell Sachs he must abandon his own right to privacy to provide you with a laugh. The comparison with the Islamic cartoons is so inane I hesitate to even discuss it - criticising and satirising religion is - hopefully - protected (though not as much as it should be in this country). It has to be for obvious reasons. The reason it causes problems is because religious fundamentalists threaten violence because they don't want such views expressed at all. It's not remotely comparable to Sachs' case - people aren’t asking for the right to telephone private Muslim citizens and subject them to abuse about their religion while using offensive language, they are asking for the right to criticize Islam freely in the media. Ross himself would cringe at the comparison. As for the Jewish cartoons, they were cartoons used by a fascist state which otherwise banned freedom of speech and they could not be used here as they would be regarded as incitement to racial hatred and are not covered under freedom of speech. Whether you, I or anyone else agree with that limit is another matter, they don't generally agree with limits of those sorts in the U.S.

I'm glad you support Ross's right to freedom of speech above and beyond what he is actually entitled to in law (including his right to make offensive phonecalls to the private residences of pensioners), just curious as to why you refuse to engage with the fact that the "national treasure" and living reincarnation of Lenny Bruce himself doesn’t support freedom of speech for anyone else. He doesn’t like it at all when the media print details of his wife's infidelities or occult practices or what his kids are getting up to (funnily enough it's the stuff about his kids that really enrages him - ironic that) - he warns them to stop doing it with baseless legal threats, despite the fact that they are doing nothing that isn't actually protected by freedom of speech laws. Why so keen to protect Freedom of Speech for a man who bitterly opposes the same right for others? Isn't the "national treasure" a bit of hypocrite? 92.11.95.209 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah well. Saying ALL Muslims are terrorists is freedom of speech according to that Danish bloke, whereas makinga prank call is "offensive". The Danish bloke wasn't critisizing Islam, he was critisizing ALL Muslims. I guess we're very two different people. Ross and Brand said sorry, Sach accepted it and the media are up there sky high making a mountain out of a mole hill. I still believe it is freedom of speech. As to your hippocrite bit I guess all humans are hypocrites.

Anyway prove it's illegal. Find me that law on making prank calls. I heard from the BBC Breakfast that there is no such law. By the way are from the US or UK? You give two very conflicting opinions. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven’t replied until now. As it happens, I’m English, I was bringing up the United States since citizens of that country have arguably the greatest degree of freedom of speech in the world, certainly more so than here, yet they don’t agree that pestering pensioners with obscenities in their own homes is "freedom of speech". I have no idea if we are "two very different people" but as it happens I'm very far left-wing, socialist, liberal, under 30, and make my living in the music industry. As for comedy, no I don't think Jonathan Ross shouting "he's fucked your granddaughter" down a telephone is "hilarious" (although I probably would have done when I was 12), I find Bill Hicks and Bill Bailey funny for example. So I don't think I'd qualify as a Daily Mail reading conservative. I just don't think pensioners should be pestered with potentially distressing phonecalls about their family members just to give a few of the easily amused amongst us a laugh, since I wouldn't want my loved ones treated in that way.

Proving it's illegal here is easy. The 1984 Telecommunications Act states that "it is a criminal offence to leave grossly offensive messages over telephone or make indecent or obscene or menacing telephone calls or calls which cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety." Ross's calls probably qualify as "grossly offensive" and certainly as "indecent" and "obscene" (just for the language, never mind the statements about the granddaughter). The Malicious Communications Act 1988 makes it illegal to send an "indecent or grossly offensive message" - in 2001 the act was amended to make clear this applies to "electronic communications or articles of any description" rather than just written messages, including "telephone calls, emails or text messages." The 1997 Prevention of Harassment Act also apparently deals with telephone calls but does not define "harassment" and unlike the other act automatically requires that at least two such calls have been made to prosecute under it (Ross would appear to qualify as he made four), but the purpose of the act is to remedy a previous legal failure to safeguard "domestic privacy" i.e. not being pestered in your own home by obscene phonecalls about your own family, amongst other things. Whether the police would have considered Ross and Brand’s actions as worthy of prosecution cannot be known since Sachs did not seek to press charges but there is certainly a reasonable chance they would have done (hence why the media kept asking Sachs if intended to take the matter up with the police). Even if they didn’t think prosecution was worthwhile, the calls themselves are still illegal. If you wish to know more, look up the information on the government’s website or on Liberty’s website.

BBC Breakfast are quite correct that prank calls are not illegal because prank calls need not be obscene or offensive. I never said prank calls are illegal, I actually said quite clearly that they are not, provided they are not made repeatedly or at unearthly hours of the morning (which would qualify as harassment and causing inconvenience and annoyance). You can make prank calls, so long as they are not offensive and indecent. Sachs has his right to domestic privacy, you may wish to believe that it is Ross’s ‘right to free speech’ (fundamentally misunderstanding the whole principle) to pester pensioners in their own home with foul language and indecent obscenities about the female members of their families and that no such right to privacy should exist (though it does, in law), but in that case you would also have to believe that it’s my right to telephone an elderly woman up every afternoon and harass her with explicit details about the sex acts I’ve performed on her daughter, or the sex acts I’d like to perform on the elderly lady herself, even if it’s causing her severe distress and upset (as it almost certainly would). Of course you don’t believe that and even if you did, you’d soon stop believing it if I was doing to a member of your family, you’d to be straight on to the police. One of the crucial concepts of freedom of speech is the obvious difference between speech and action – Ross has every right to say more or less what he likes in public, but he doesn’t have to right to pester private citizens and force them to hear obscenities about their families. Failing to see the difference between speech and action is why you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech. You might regard ‘freedom of speech’ as covering the right to pester private citizens with offensive or even malicious phone calls but I doubt you’d find anyone who truly understands freedom of speech, even the most extreme libertarians and pro-free speech advocates, who would agree with you, and regardless it’s not Ross’s right, even if you think it should be, under our law or anyone else’s as far as I am aware. If you want a world in which people can harass and verbally intimidate others in their own homes, day after day if they so wish with the victim having no means of stopping them, then fine, I’m not sure anyone else would. If I came around to your house and stood outside with a megaphone screaming obscenities about you and your family for eight hours a day everyday of the week and the police’s response was “well, we can’t do anything, it’s his freedom of speech, you’ll have to put up with it”, I’d love to see you maintain your principles. These are the kind of absurdities we end up with if we follow your bizarre definition of Freedom of Speech to its logical conclusion.

These are the reasons why Freedom of Speech has not been brought up as an issue by any media commentator as far as I am aware but it’s got nothing to do with it anyway, even if we imagine for a moment that Ross’ acts were legal and pretend that Sachs had no right to privacy, it still wouldn’t be a freedom of speech issue for a very obvious reason – nobody would be stopping Ross from making his phone calls. The BBC have said nothing about how they intend to stop Ross from doing and saying what he likes in his own home. Ross could sit at home and pester Sachs on the telephone all he liked but how does it follow that the BBC should be forced to let him do it on their programmes? Or that they should continue to employ him even if he does it at home and they don’t like the behaviour. They could not demand he stop, but he cannot demand that they must employ him regardless of his behaviour. Ross signs a contract which states he must not bring the corporation into disrepute. He signed the contract. The BBC, like any employer, are free to employ who they wish. If I made offensive phone calls to pensioners from my office, it’s very likely I’d be sacked. I have no right to insist my employer let me make the calls on their time and from their phone. But they can’t stop me making the calls at home so they are not limiting my freedom of speech. Even if they sack me for making the calls at home because they regard me as a public nuisance, I could still do it, they are not limiting my freedom of speech by sacking me. The BBC sacked Kilroy-Silk a few years back for writing a column in the Mail (he did not express his views on the BBC). The BBC sacked him as they did not wish to employ someone who publicly aired such views (even though nothing he said, as bigoted and inaccurate as it was, was illegal and would be protected under freedom of speech). But there is no limit to his Freedom of Speech, the BBC simply exercised their right to employ and associate with who they wish, Kilroy-Silk is still free to air his views. Freedom of speech is not demanding that the BBC or any organisation give you a platform to air your views or make offensive phone calls, freedom of speech doesn’t work like that.

The comparison with the Islamic cartoons is wholly inappropriate but in any case, we have to have freedom to criticise religion. And since the whole point of freedom of speech is that you must believe in the freedom to air views that you yourself despise (if you only believe in freedom of speech for views you agree with or do not find offensive you don’t believe in freedom of speech at all – Hitler and Stalin both believed in freedom of speech for views they didn’t object to). I don’t know which particular cartoon you’re referring to although I vaguely recall a cartoon depicting Mohammed as a terrorist which perhaps implied that all Muslims should be considered to be inherently terrorists (not sure if this is the one you mean). If that is indeed what the cartoonist meant to imply then yes the view is absurd (one could make similar or even more extreme arguments about all Christians based on statements in the Bible) but the fact that most of us think it is a silly or even offensive argument has nothing to do with freedom of speech (most of the cartoons were fairly terrible if I remember rightly, both artistically and intellectually, but that isn’t the issue). If anyone says directly that “all Muslims are terrorists” however that is a different situation. There are limits to freedom of speech in this country in cases where individuals make statements than could cause racial or religious hatred and/or directly incite violence. I happen to agree with those limits, I think they are justified and sensible, but other would disagree (such as the government of the U.S.). Cartoons implying Muslims are following an inherently terrorist religion would probably be regarded as freedom of speech since one can argue that religious texts promote violence, however standing up on stage and saying directly that “all Muslims are terrorists” would almost certainly land you in jail for inciting religious hatred. Direct arguments about religious or racial groups that are obviously prejudicial and false and could incite violence against said groups are illegal and not covered by freedom of speech, which I happen to think is a sensible law. It’s a complex issue but I think the law in this country is about right (though it might not always be exercised correctly). You have to be able to freely criticise religion, but promoting prejudicial hatred is another matter.

And finally, as for Ross’ hypocrisy, yes most of us are hypocrites to some degree, but usually our hypocrisy is fairly moderate and a case of failing to lift up to lofty aspirations. Spending much of your time threatening newspapers with legal action if they dare to report the private lives of your wife and children (as they are entitled to under freedom of speech) while choosing to reveal the details of the sex life someone else’s private life on BBC radio (direct to their family!) is pretty lethal hypocrisy. Of course, Ross hasn’t absurdly defended his actions on the grounds of freedom of speech, and I imagine he wouldn’t dream of it (I expect he’d happily admit he wants less freedom of speech for others, not more, in these areas). In any case, according to the Independent last Sunday Ross tried very hard to stop the broadcast going out at all. Clearly he understood immediately the mistake he had made, it’s a shame that some of his fans didn’t. Frankly if you want to campaign for greater freedom of speech, there are serious journalists in places like Turkey and Colombia getting tortured for trying to reveal too much about government policy in the newspapers, campaigning on their behalf might be a more worthwhile exercise than campaigning for freedom of speech to start covering lewd phonecalls to pensioners on behalf of Jonathan Ross, who would doubtless be rather bemused by your arguments anyway. 92.8.170.73 (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Telescope: Fountains of BM

Main pages: Telescope, Talk: Telescope, User Talk: 24.138.145.57, and User Talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr

Hi, That guy is being disruptive. We had a long discussion and then he feels fit to edit-war?? He didn't reply to my talk-page so I'm going to revert it to the old way which was agreed upon. Nice try, but that guy is the worse of them all---trust me. 24.138.145.57 (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing personal attacks from an anonymous IP to a Wikipedia talk page[25], maybe you want to read the behavioral guideline some time? Try the part that starts with No personal attacks. And maybe try reading the above talk to see where the problems are in the inference that only Al-haytham paved the way for telescope development. As for previous TALK, all I see is a big ol' POV Push, (and a hint at who Mr. anonymous IP is) but maybe its my lying eyes. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Inventions in the modern Islamic world

Main pages: Inventions in the modern Islamic world, User talk:InternetHero, and User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr

Please do not restore questionable material to articles without giving a rational in summery or talk as you did here[26] (and also at Timeline of Islamic science and engineering here[27]). Since the article is "Inventions in the modern Islamic world" the addition of a dubious possible invention (as stated in the source[28]) puts it outside the scope of this article and seems to be a POV edit. If you think otherwise PLEASE DO open up a discussion on it. thanks Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you please leave this guy alone??? I know that in this day in age we're seeing an immergence of a civilization---and that might bug you---but that's no reason to start bullying this guy. LOTR, you're cool. Just take your energy in trying to get a gf---its WORTH it. Just leave the telescope article alone for now--its not worth it. He KNOWS he's wrong, and I'm having fun at my "friends" house. :-D InternetHero (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of Islamic science and engineering

Main pages: Timeline of Islamic science and engineering and User Talk: Fountains of Bryn Mawr

Please do not mark removal of cleanup tags as a minor edit as you did here[29]. Please do add a summery statement to your edits giving rational or directing other editors to talk. Comment on that edit left BTW at Talk:Timeline of Islamic science and engineering#Tags. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

Main pages: Reactions to the November 2008 Mumbai attacks and User talk:59.183.164.226

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Reactions to the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, you will be blocked from editing. Fucking zealot

Go ahead, ban me then. If anything I can get you banned, you uncivilised tosspot. Bloody terrorist. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Inventions in the modern Islamic world image removal

Main pages: Inventions in the modern Islamic world and User talk:Hammersoft

I have removed the image Image:MullaSadra.JPG from this article for a second time today. There is no rationale on the image's description page for its inclusion on this article. This is a requirement of our policy on fair use image use. Further, it is highly unlikely there could be an adequate rationale, as this image is not significant to the article in that it does not display an historic event or anything of consequence other than mere depiction of Mulla Sadra. If someone needs to see what this individual looked like, they can go to his article. Please do not restore the image to Inventions in the modern Islamic world. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, I see that you have left me a message on my talkpage. I've had to deal with vandals before, and some people seem to love attacking those articles. I thought you were one of those. But, since you provided a good argument I just want to say I'm sorry for wrongly accusing you for one. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Main pages: User talk:Justin_A_Kuntz, Talk: Suez Crisis, and Suez Crisis

See WP:3RR repeatedly reverting other editors changes will result in a block for disruptive edits. You are in danger of violating WP:3RR on Suez Crisis and please note that 3RR is not a limit, an admin may still decide to block you for edit warring before 4 reverts. If you have an issue the correct response is to take the discussion to the Talk Page not to edit war. Justin talk 20:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you reverted again within seconds. I've raised the issue at WP:AN. Justin talk 17:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP:3RR

I have left a message on Suez Crisis. The third time you revert my edits you will be violating WP:3RR. Stop being hypocritical and answer my questions and resolve the issue or I will have an admin look into your counter-productive behaviour. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am asking you politely to apologise for that remark, for which I take great offence, and remove it. Justin talk 15:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I refuse to. This is a blemish on your record which you cannot deny. If you apply for adminship I shall bring this up, unless you correct yourself. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Main page: User talk:Ryulong

I was just wondering if anyone brought up the fact that your signature has no indication of your username within it. I'm pretty sure it should.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN Suez Crisis Debate

Resolved

 – Content dispute. Discussion should continue on Talk:Suez Crisis, not here.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Another troublesome article on my watch list, Suez Crisis, [30], previously I had an issue with LOTRrules editing the infobox to claim an Egyptian military victory against consensus and previous discussions. LOTRrules sparked an edit war with multiple edits till I issued a WP:3RR warning. This evening i noted he'd introduced the same changes and reverted again within minutes of my changes. I would also welcome admin oversight and comment on this issue. Justin talk 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not "sparked an edit war". An IP had added "military victory of the colition forces" which is to an extent true but is not metioned. By adding "military victory of..." it is not only in violation of POV but Original Research. in But I have edited the article and added citations from reliable sources to proove that is was won by Egypt.

Furthermore, I am not in inviolation of WP:3RR. I had taken your advice. In case nobady had noticed the article is on real world perspective, not only on what other editors think on the article. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are the sources that Justin didn't bother to read and reverted within mere minutes after I had added them.

1. Here it states the Egyptians, although battered and bruised, had won the war with the retreat of the coalition forces
2. Again reinforces the above idea
3. Further supports claims made

Also what other discussions? Kindly point them out to me as there are innumerable material from sources which support the idea that Egypt won a political victory. There were no citations added or the mere mention of the coalitions "military victory" in the article itself.LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

None of those source support the contention of a military victory, the Eqyptian forces were routed as specified in [1.] above. The infobox used to specify the difference between the military victory by the allies and the diplomatic victory by Egypt. That was the long standing consensus agreed, rather the POV edit you have inserted. And noting your talk page you have a recurrent history of such edits. Justin talk 18:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Still you have not answered my questions and have attacked me. Nevertheless I forgive. (We are talking about the article in hand not my past history -- they are different than this). Kindly answer them. My "history" is not plagued with such edits. These things happen. I challenge. I Correct. that is what wikipedia is about.

In no where in the above sources is it cited that the coalition forces are "military victors". If they are I would kindly put it in if you find a valid source with my sources. But since you haven't, and many say it is a political victory for Egypt the citations are viable and appropriate for an article such as this. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Also we are talking about the overall result of the war. Egypts was political, end of story. You wouldn't say that the Americans won a military victory in the Vietnam war even though their casualties were lower than the others side. But they still lost the war - ie the overall result of the war was that they lost. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Saying it was a military victory would be basing an opinion on an article. Egypts pyrric victory which is cited as a political victory is true. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the text that is being fought over for now while the wording is talked over (The infobox makes sense without it). I have taken the issue up on the talk page, having read through the sources cited. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Suez Crisis WP:AN

Main pages: Suez Crisis, Talk:Suez Crisis, User:Narson, and User Talk:Justin_A_Kuntz

Another troublesome article on my watch list, Suez Crisis, [31], previously I had an issue with LOTRrules editing the infobox to claim an Egyptian military victory against consensus and previous discussions. LOTRrules sparked an edit war with multiple edits till I issued a WP:3RR warning. This evening i noted he'd introduced the same changes and reverted again within minutes of my changes. I would also welcome admin oversight and comment on this issue. Justin talk 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not "sparked an edit war". An IP had added "military victory of the colition forces" which is to an extent true but is not metioned. By adding "military victory of..." it is not only in violation of POV but Original Research. in But I have edited the article and added citations from reliable sources to proove that is was won by Egypt.

Furthermore, I am not in inviolation of WP:3RR. I had taken your advice. In case nobady had noticed the article is on real world perspective, not only on what other editors think on the article. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are the sources that Justin didn't bother to read and reverted within mere minutes after I had added them.

1. Here it states the Egyptians, although battered and bruised, had won the war with the retreat of the coalition forces
2. Again reinforces the above idea
3. Further supports claims made

Also what other discussions? Kindly point them out to me as there are innumerable material from sources which support the idea that Egypt won a political victory. There were no citations added or the mere mention of the coalitions "military victory" in the article itself. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 18:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

None of those source support the contention of a military victory, the Eqyptian forces were routed as specified in [1.] above. The infobox used to specify the difference between the military victory by the allies and the diplomatic victory by Egypt. That was the long standing consensus agreed, rather the POV edit you have inserted. And noting your talk page you have a recurrent history of such edits. Justin talk 18:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Still you have not answered my questions and have attacked me. Nevertheless I forgive. (We are talking about the article in hand not my past history -- they are different than this). Kindly answer them. My "history" is not plagued with such edits. These things happen. I challenge. I Correct. that is what wikipedia is about.

In no where in the above sources is it cited that the coalition forces are "military victors". If they are I would kindly put it in if you find a valid source with my sources. But since you haven't, and many say it is a political victory for Egypt the citations are viable and appropriate for an article such as this. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Also we are talking about the overall result of the war. Egypts was political, end of story. You wouldn't say that the Americans won a military victory in the Vietnam war even though their casualties were lower than the others side. But they still lost the war - ie the overall result of the war was that they lost. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Saying it was a military victory would be basing an opinion on an article. Egypts pyrric victory which is cited as a political victory is true. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Right Justin, kindly stop edit warring. You have raised the issue and without consultation or by answering my questions and through lack of sources you cite you are in direct violation of WP:OR. This is the second time I've reverted your edits. Kindly respond and refrain from edit warring until the issue has been resolved. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Having had a look over the sources, they don't /quite/ say what you want them to (One of the sources seem to indicate a victory for both sides, one military, one diplomatically). From the same sources you could easily seperate to a military victory for the coalition but political victory for Nassar. I'm going to blank the info out totally until some kind of agreement can be found, I figure it is best to skip it than have you guys edit warring overit. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

To LOTRules.

You're changing the long term consensus text from the infobox for POV reasons. The correct means of changing the consensus would be to take the change to the talk page, discuss it and achieve a new consensus. But you don't seem to want to do that, you simply revert straight back to your version. I have already responded to you pointing out that the sources you're quoting doesn't support the edit that you're proposing. You have chosen not to respond to that. I also took it to WP:AN requesting comments on my action, no one has seen anything wrong with it so I've reverted. I also removed two templates that had been added, to which there had been no action and the originator had not pursued for months, I noted that one of them had been satisfied anyway. You've simply blindly added those back without any thought in a kneejerk reaction.

What I have reverted is not WP:OR, its not even my edit, it was the previous consensus. See WP:CON for more details. Furthermore, I have not edit-warred. I've reverted twice and have no intention of editing any further, on the other hand you have already reverted 3 times today so are skating close to WP:3RR. It is 3 reverts, as you're reverting text that you attempted to introduce some days ago without success, remember the time when I issued a WP:3RR warning. And 3 reverts is not a given, edit-warring is simply reverting repeatedly against consensus and an admin could choose to block you on much less than that. Especially noting the history of a few days ago.

You claim that I haven't explained why to you, well that does show a certain lack of good faith as I have done so in talk, on WP:AN, on your own talk page and in my edit summaries. Your questions have been answered, I have not attacked you, I merely indicated on WP:AN that your talk page indicates a history of POV edits, which it clearly does.

I also offered a compromise to you, suggesting you added Egyptian politicial victory to the infobox, which was there previously. You've chosen not to do that, simply reverting to your version. Continue as you are if you like, I expect that someone else will be along presently note that you have changed the consensus, note the contents of the talk page and revert. You can then choose to revert again, earn a 3RR block, or force the article into being protected from editing. None of which is a particularly productive behaviour. Or you can choose to self-revert, discuss the matter with your fellow editors and move toward some compromise. Your choice. Justin talk 00:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've a look at your "sources" LOTR, you've exaggerated them quite a bit. I'd also say that two plain books and a bit off the "University of Singapore" website, aren't the best sources just the author's opinion. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Right now I'm satisfied about the compromise made. 4314, I have not "exaggerated" the sources. The two historians and the University of Singapore are reliable sources. I've tried to reach a compromise with Justin but again he reverted my edits without saying anything much about it.

Justin. For the last time. Please direct me to the consensus reached. Stop bantering and show me so I can read it. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you reverted whilst I was working on the compromise suggested. The point you are missing, is that the sources quoted DID NOT SUPPORT YOUR EDIT (emphasis added for clarity. Justin talk 14:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound so forward -- but you are lying. You did not work on a compromise. You ignored me. Sources do suppport my argument as one editor has previously said. (Also try not to shout at me -- its rude, see WP:UNCIVIL use italics next time.). Citations don't support yours and I don't see you discussing any you've found which support your biased claims. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you remove that remark and apologise, see [32] when I pointed out the long standing consensus. Justin talk 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree - though I would also suggest that if you both agree in principle about describing military and diplomatic victories separately, discussing how you reached that agreement is pretty irrelevant as these things go.

In the spirit of WP:BOLD, I have removed the peacock term "major" from "major victory". Infoboxes are blunt instruments and I think it best to go into detail in the article (as we do). Pfainuk talk 15:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I refuse to apologise as you wrongly accused me of violating WP:3RR when I was editing the article. You come across that way. We are getting off topic. If you want to discuss the apology you want me to give go to my talkpage. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(Where is that long consensus link you point out? If it is in WP:AN that's a weak argument. Show me the link for the Suez crisis archives. User:Narson had finished and resolved the issue -- he offered the solution, not you. According to the link you only made the consensus -- there was no "we" and "long standing consensus") LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Suez

Main pages: Talk: Suez Crisis, User talk: Narson, and User Talk: Justin_A_Kuntz

I've taken a look at the sources provided. They would support a political victory for egypt, though I've not looked at who the authors/publishers are. A couple would also support a military victory for the coalition. It is situations like this that makes infoboxes such pains as you can't go into intricacies. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd already suggested a compromise by adding political victory in there, doesn't look like he is interested. He simply reverted before I had a chance to put it in. Justin talk 00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Aye, political is certainly the best one could put there from the sources, and the most accurate. Pity we can't just put a link to the UN resolution as the result. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but when did you say even mention that to me? You reverted it 3 times Justin. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:AgeLOTRrules (4).jpg

Main pages: Age of Empires III and Talk: Age of Empires III

Thanks for uploading File:AgeLOTRrules (4).jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:AgeLOTRrules.jpg

Main pages: Age of Empires III and Talk: Age of Empires III

Thanks for uploading File:AgeLOTRrules.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

MEDCABAL

I am tired of watching this slow edit war and wasted verbiage. Getting a third opinion worked by some definitions, but not the most useful one. Would anyone else be interested in consulting the mediation cabal? - Eldereft (cont.) 05:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It may help, but the forth item in "How to list a MedCab request" requests that editors "have a good understanding of the Wikipedia's principles, especially regarding the proper weight of information". That has not been exhibited and is kind of the linchpin of the problems above. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I realize there is some irony in what I'm about to say, still, I think it needs to be said. Wikipedia works through the process of consensus. In difficult cases, MedCab can be a great help and I support Eldereft's suggestion wholeheartedly. Negative comments about the ability of other editors to comprehend wikipedia policies are counter productive and reflect poorly on the commentor's own ability to remain neutral and seek consensus. If Fountains of Bryn Mawr honestly wishes to resolve these issues, I suggest that they embrace the wikipedia policy of assuming good faith and express positive support for the MedCab mediation process. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 16:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have always wished "resolve these issues" but "Good faith" is no longer assumed. The editors making these changes have expressed that they edit from a bias as cited here[33] and implied on this users page[34]. I don't think these editors have a problem understanding policies, they just seem to have other priorities that run counter to Wikipedia policy. I think MedCab can help but it will be running up against advocacy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, but I think it's good to have it on here. I didn't even know the muslims invented the lenses and mirrors, etc,. 69.159.15.211 (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the top guy and I just made an account. Boomshakalakaboom (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello there and welcome to wikipedia. Muslims did discover a lot of things. But sadly the facts on this article are rather biased. Some people can think they can delete anything and then have it their own way. If you want to find out more things Muslims invented have a look at the articles on my userpage (they are mentioned in the box thing) Leave me a message sometime. A good place to start with the Ancient Muslim civilisation is the Islamic Golden Age. Until I came here I knew nothing about it save tid-bits. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Undue balance (2)

So, while the article is protected this week, would anybody like to hammer out some sort of consensus on whether 10th and 11th century mathematicians are so prominent to the development of telescopes that they should be mentioned in the summary paragraph here? Of particular interest would be the level of treatment from impartial high quality sources discussing telescopes. Also relevant are how they figure in History of the telescope. Personal comments on other editors are, as always, irrelevant. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think it would be WP:UNDUE weight to mention them, but perhaps someone could show, using high quality sources discussing telescopes, that they deserve the weight. DigitalC (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Before we start talking about weight and what should be included in the article, I'd like to understand what editors think about the statements themselves. Here is what we had in this article on the 18th of October:

In the 10th and 11th centuries, during the Islamic Golden Age, Ibn Sahl and Ibn al-Haytham made advances in the physical and mathematical understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope. There is some documentary evidence, but no surviving designs or physical evidence, that the principles of telescopes were known to Leonard Digges, Taqi al-Din and Giambattista della Porta in the late 16th century.

Are there any editors here who question the accuracy of these statements, or take issue with the reliability of the sources that have been used to support them? Thanks. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 22:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really, but that's not enough. The article is on telescopes, not the history of telescopes. Adding them here is simply undue weight. We're not going to list all the things that lead up to the telescope when we have an entire article for that purpose. What the heck would be the point???- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, of course not. We need to include material about the makeup of a telescope. Last time I checked, the laws of light and refraction---along with the mathematical calculations, and lenses---makeup the telescope. If it weren't so, a telescope could consist of a hollowed out reed brush. InternetHero (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this statement is relevant and does not violate WP:UNDUE. My reason is that this section should be a summary of the history of telescopes. And this sections fits in nicely. It is neither too long or tedious. It was well known that the crusaders took knowledge from the Islamic Empire, and one of the most influential books at the time was the Book of Optics; which is what the Europeans studied. From that they derived the telescope. The sections does not go into tedious detail at all and most certainly does not violate the policy. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input LOTRules and InternetHero. For now I'd like to give editors a little more time to respond to my questions about accuracy and reliability of sources before moving on to the seemingly more contentious question of relevancy. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 16:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) re: the statements themselves

In the 10th and 11th centuries, during the Islamic Golden Age, Ibn Sahl[1] and Ibn al-Haytham[1][2] made advances in the physical and mathematical understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope.

Very questionable. There are no reliable sources contained in that section. And it is totally unreferenced as to the claim "were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope". Not to mention the fact that it ignores the whole history of optics, ignores 200 years of spectacle development (a significant step cited by what appear to be reliable sources[35][36] [37]), and reaches a conclusion that is not in other history of telescopes overview articles[38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44].

"telescopes were known to Leonard Digges,[8] Taqi al-Din[4] and Giambattista della Porta[9]"

Source problems re: Taqi al-Din, this is is a single source minority view. Accuracy problems re: Giambattista della Porta, he may not be talking about telescopes at all[45] .

Re: WP:UNDUE All these people are footnotes to the history of telescopes, have problems being accurately attributed or are not something you would include in a short summery of significant developments, but can (and are) accurately covered in History of the telescope (or soon will be if we can get back to editing ;)). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to stop comparing this article tot he history of telescopes. I have seen you deleting vast amounts of info in that article on Ibn-Haytham. Stop doing this, as you discredit your own argument. Stop comparing them too. That article differs from this one. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Summary style re: keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronised and avoiding of POV forks. Re: "deleting vast amounts of info", you may want to simply read WP:NPOV and WP:V. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy and reliability

Main page: Talk: Telescope

If we can't reach consenus on the question of accuracy and reliability of the section under contention, then the question of weight is irrelevant. I've therefore copied the comments on accuracy and reliability here so they can be discussed first and without the distraction of other arguments. Please try to stay on topic. Thanks. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)}

Before we start talking about weight and what should be included in the article, I'd like to understand what editors think about the statements themselves. Here is what we had in this article on the 18th of October:

In the 10th and 11th centuries, during the Islamic Golden Age, Ibn Sahl and Ibn al-Haytham made advances in the physical and mathematical understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope. There is some documentary evidence, but no surviving designs or physical evidence, that the principles of telescopes were known to Leonard Digges, Taqi al-Din and Giambattista della Porta in the late 16th century.

Are there any editors here who question the accuracy of these statements, or take issue with the reliability of the sources that have been used to support them? Thanks. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 22:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really, but that's not enough. The article is on telescopes, not the history of telescopes. Adding them here is simply undue weight. We're not going to list all the things that lead up to the telescope when we have an entire article for that purpose. What the heck would be the point???- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In the 10th and 11th centuries, during the Islamic Golden Age, Ibn Sahl[1] and Ibn al-Haytham[1][2] made advances in the physical and mathematical understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope.

Very questionable. There are no reliable sources contained in that section. And it is totally unreferenced as to the claim "were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope".

"the principles of telescopes were known to Leonard Digges,[8] Taqi al-Din[4] and Giambattista della Porta[9]"

Source problems re: Taqi al-Din, this is is a single source minority view. Accuracy problems re: Giambattista della Porta, he may not be talking about telescopes at all[46] . Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe mentioning Leonard and Taqi can be exclusive to the optical and history of the telescope articles, but I think that Muslimheritage.com is a viable reference. It's even been on internation television: British television found here. Here's the O.S. Marshall reference, though: Page 8, last paragraph. The "Physics and Optics" article is good as well.

Maybe we should be talking about a consensus as well? InternetHero (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am in full support of the addition of Islamic Golden Age paragraph. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Main pages: Age of Empires III and Talk: Age of Empires III

I have a few pictures of the screenshots that would probably come in use. But since this is a good article I was thinking that I should discuss it here first. They are mostly screenshots of skirmishes, cannon fire and horse battles and some battles against ships. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added 3. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say keep the trading post screenshot, but remove the other two. Screenshots are non-free use, so we can't have too many per article. Also, that many falconets isn't very realistic (in terms of the game... not real warfare, obviously). · AndonicO ^Engage. 14:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? I want to keep the first two images and get rid of the other one (the one with ships). I think it is quite realistic in a sense it shows the possibilities of skirmish mode. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that would be okay. · AndonicO ^Engage. 10:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Main pages: Virus and User Talk: GrahamColm

Hello I am studying biology at the moment and I was contemplating since you're such an expert in the field I could ask for some help? I need to know - this may sound silly but I can't find it here on wikipedia - what a virus cell actually does when it invades to the host cells DNA? LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read Introduction to viruses. Generally speaking, only one type of virus "invades" the host cell's DNA, these are Retroviruses. These viruses add their DNA to the host cell's DNA and when the cell uses this DNA along with it's own it is "tricked into" making offspring viruses. Most viruses only invade the cell; some stay in the cytoplasm but other reach the nucleus. All cells have the ability to make proteins and DNA, indeed they must do this to survive and reproduce. Viruses are made of protein and DNA and they hi-jack the cell and use the cell's protein and DNA making abilities to copy themselves many thousands of times. Graham Colm ^Talk 12:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Post Script. I would be very interested to know which parts of Introduction to viruses you find hard to understand, because this will be my fault not yours. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 01:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Graham. What I find find most difficult to understand is what a virus actually does to a cells DNA - does it destroy it? That, in general, I mean applies to all virsuses? In the article you pointed out the introduction does not in the least say what the relationship is between DNA and invading cell? What is the fate of most DNA in that cell after lysis? サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 01:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You have asked an interesting question but the answers are complex.

1. First of all you need to understand a little about apoptosis or programmed cell death (cell suicide). When a cell's DNA is damaged and if the cell cannot repair it, often a complex sequence of intra-cellular events are initiated by the cell that leads to it's death (apoptosis). One of the results of apoptosis is destruction of the damaged DNA by the cell itself. Some viruses have mechanisms to limit apoptosis so that the host cell does not die before progeny viruses have been produced. HIV for expmple, does this.,
2. In infections of animals that result in lysis, the released DNA is metabolised, (broken down) in the body.
3. Bacteriophages are found wherever there are bacteria. Bacteria infected by theses viruses burst and their DNA is released into the environment. Most bacteria produce enzymes that destroy DNA (and RNA)—these are called restriction enzymes. So, the answer to you question in the case of bacteriophages is other bacteria destroy the released DNA, not the bacteriophages.

Thanks again Graham. By the way do you remember me? LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but your strange signature confused me. We have a shared interest in the life and work of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 10:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! I'm glad you haven't forgotten. Anyway my signature changed because I've "evolved". I mean just compare me with a couple of months ago. Anyway thanks on helping me with biology, you've cleared things up. See you around some time. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:AgeLOTRrules (4).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AgeLOTRrules (4).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Fullmetal

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Fullmetal_Alchemist_episodes&diff=60131542&oldid=60026661

AfD

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide
• Articles for deletion/Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide (2nd nomination)

Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This game was not notable at the time of the article's creation (i.e. the game itself). The original sources only asserted notability for a proposed article titled Muslim Massacre game controversy.

Following the usual arguments to keep at the original Afd that "Google says yes", the article, as both a game article or a controversy article, still stands as a clear violation of WP:NOT#NEWS.

Per the essay WP:NOTNEWS, this article has not demonstrated any reason why the Muslim Massacre game controversy is worthy of an article. The controversy has generated no further debate beyond the initial news sources. The controversy has generated no lasting cultural, social or intellectual changes in video gaming or the wider world. The controversy has not been the subject of any third party comment or analysis beyond the initial news sources. At best, as the passage of time has shown, this content is, and always was, something for Wikinews rather than Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE Per the Afd guidelines, please actually read the nomination before you register an opinion in this debate, "speedy" or otherwise. I want to assume this is done by everybody, but based on the first three contributors, I have doubts this is actually happening. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That the first three contributors didn't agree with your argument is far from "people not reading your nomination". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I feel it's notable. It has appeared in more than several media outlets (as per first AfD). There has been considrable controversy around the game's creation. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

note: So eager to keep was the above voter, that they voted before I had even created the Afd page. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I saw this on my watchlist and then saw the page. There was no warning from the creator of this AfD that this was still in construction. No need to scorn me. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought the page being a redlink would have shown the Afd was still under-construction. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

These comments, MickMacNee, are really inappropriate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: See previous Afd. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Massacre:_The_Game_of_Modern_Religious_Genocide. Chasingsol (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"Per previous Afd" does not address the reasons for nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Well-sourced, and covered in multiple reliable sources. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Facts which aren't disputed by me in the nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sufficiently so. You disputed the notability and how well-sourced it was at all points, and it was determined back in the day that it is notable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The notability guidelines for video game Wikipedia:TOY#Video_games do not discuss anything about lasting impact or media coverage after the initial release. The subject is covered by multiple reliable sources, thus meeting the general notability guideline. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Define "subject". There are two elements to the content, the game and the controversy. A claim of notability made under WP:TOY for this sort of amateur unlicensed release is clearly riding on the back of NEWS coverage of the controversy. One review source was quite explicit about this - he was not initially going to review the game until he saw the controversy, he stated he regretted having been conned into doing so because the game in his opinion clearly would not have warranted any notability as a game. The controversy is what needs to have demonstrated lasting third party comment beyond initial news sources, in order to not violate NOT#NEWS and justify the content - it hasn't. MickMacNee (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep — I may be missing something, but it looks like there are plenty of reliable sources that establish notability. I also thought that WP:NOT#NEWS pertains primarily to articles about events and not necessarily concrete objects like video games that are backed by print and/or online sources. MuZemike (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is about an event, the controversial release of a video game. It is simply gaming the Afd process to say that the presence of news sources that only exist because of the temporarily controversial event can then be transplanted to establish notability for the game that, had it not been for the controversial event, would never have been notable as a game. It's totally ass about face. MickMacNee (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like the article is not about the "event" of the controversial release of a video game, but is about the game itself and the controversy it caused. I don't think WP:NOT#NEWS applies here for this reason. A game that caused controversy covered in multiple reliable sources isn't akin to an event that happened to be announced in a newspaper. Wiw8 (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you assume good faith and be more civil rather than accusing me of gaming and being "ass about face." In other words. It's not like anyone is out to get you or anything. MuZemike (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, you require "third party comment or analysis beyond the initial news sources", right? here you go. Juzhong (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: Non admin AFD closure as keep at 11am, 21st Dec by User:Neurolysis here. Closure reverted at 11:40am as premature by User:MickMacNee here. Wiw8 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - at least two of the citations provide an actual game review, providing commentry beyond the event itself. I understand the nominator's application of NOT#NEWS, and indeed all the references in the article are from September (it's not a subject that has "received significant coverage over a period of time".) But aren't most games reviewed in the month that they are released anyway? Marasmusine (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - subject has received significant coverage in a wide range of multiple reliable sources, most of which specifically discuss this game and the controversy in detail, rather than just making passing mentions. This article therefore satisfies WP:N and WP:V, the sources satisfy WP:RS, so I can't see a valid reason for deletion. Whether the article was notable at the exact time of its creation is not relevant now, as long as it has become notable at some point since then, which this has. Also, it is not necessary to show ongoing media coverage and interest in order to pass WP:N because notability is not temporary. Wiw8 (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - A note about my WP:SNOW closure, SNOW is based on a demonstration that a discussion will blatantly close in a particular way, it does not require any specific criteria. My close was based on the fact that the keep votes are supported by policy, making the nominator's argument null. — neuro^(talk) 19:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your analysis of the debate as a snowball keep, I suppose it could be argued that the nominator was still commenting heavily in an attempt to make their case, which is one of the suggested criteria for not snowball closing. However, that could have been brought up in a deletion review if really felt necessary. While administrators can revert non-admin closures they believe were premature, I don't think non-admins are supposed to simply revert a closure, regardless of whether it was non-admin. Wiw8 (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Snowball Keep as offensive as the game is, it's pretty much a textbook definition of a notable game. There are a lot of reliable third-party sources that have covered this game because of its controversy. Sure, the controversy was braindead shock value that generated a flash of cheap publicity rather than any enduring impact. But notability is not temporary. An entirely notable game that can be written about in an encyclopedic manner. Randomran (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Can't see why it shouldn't be notable. Article is factual and neutral. Game is no more or no less sick than e.g. Wolfenstein (series). There would appear to be precedent for having articles on this type of subject. Power.corrupts (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Well, it's about 9 to 1, which indicates a 90% consensus to keep, which is more than enough that there's no way that it would ever result in delete. Snowball keep yet? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Snowball Keep, as the article has met all notability guidelines and consensus for Keep is clear at this point. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

---

Your signature

Please tone your signature down. It is, at the minute, quite ridiculous. I would suggest reading this bit about signatures. Your signature should contain some sort of reference to your username, and very few useless characters. --Deskana (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I came to ask the same thing after seeing it at WP:FLC. My computer cannot read a single one of your unicode characters. :/ Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I came to your talk page for the very same reason as the two above :). Please stick with latin characters that make reference to your username. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I speak Japanese and your username makes little sense to me, plus few people on this site will be able to see the characters. Instead they'll see empty boxes or gibberish. I also think you should tone down your Talk page. Being a web designer, the load time is too long and it's difficult to read because of the bizarre formatting and images. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, your new signature isn't much better. Putting a political message can be considered offensive to some and is not constructive. Please read WP:SIG. The only purpose of your signature is to link to your userpage and your talk page (and your contributions if you want). Also, please cut the formatting out of your talk page or archive it. It's incredibly difficult to load your talk page. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:LOTRrules/List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes

You are not allowed to have fair use images in your userspace per WP:NFCC. Further reverts will be construed as vandalism and you may be blocked for disruptive editing. Furthermore, I highly recommend that you withdraw Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, as it's not even remotely close to FL-quality right now. And as a last note, either archive your talk page or cut the ridiculous amount of formatting. It's very difficult to load a 212K page, and is a disservice to those who wish to communicate with you. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:FullmetalLOTRrules.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:FullmetalLOTRrules.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Farix (Talk) 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:FMADVDsetsLOTRrules.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:FMADVDsetsLOTRrules.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your signature, redux

I don't think your signature is appropriate. Every time you post a comment, you are effectively soapboxing. This is especially problematic on some of the topics you edit.

P.S. Your talk page is very difficult to load. Please try to cut it down. -- tariqabjotu 00:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Very true on both counts. I assume that your user name means (correct me if I am wrong) "Lord of the Rings Rules". Your current signature has no connotation whatsover. Please take the archiving advice to heart, my computer froze in my previous two attempts to load this page. From User:Gary King's talk page "Please if I'm also going to contribute to the article I'd like to know what I'm in for. " What do you mean by this (just wondering)? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I find your current signature to be even worse than your previous one. The old one was illegible. This one is offensive. Every single page you sign has that comment on it, which can be read by the rest of the world forever. Please, follow WP:SIG and have your signature say what your username is. You can format it with colours, fonts, etc, but no soapbox-type political messages please. Per WP:TPG I will be going around WP talk pages this evening changing your sig.

Also, per WP:OWN and WP:TPG, I will begin to archive old discussions on your talk page. You have been asked a few times to do something about it, and haven't. The formatting and number of discussions is too big for the page, causing people to have long waits while loading your page, and/or computer freezes. "When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer being discussed, archive it." Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I acted on WP:BOLD and just removed the box with the scroll bars and the two columns. When I checked the page's size, it was a somewhat reasonable size (about 250 kb, which isn't completely unheard of). So, I was surprised to see it take so long to load; I think that browsers take a long time to load this page because the page essentially asks the browser to take the discussions in the scroll bars, find the "middle", and split it in two columns of equal length. That's where most of the page processing time goes to. It should be a lot better now. Gary King (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have begun replacing the signatures with {{user4|LOTRrules}}. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay! I'm doing it. I've changed my signature and I promise I'll archive my talk page tonight. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:How?

Hello, LOTRrules. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Tinu Cherian - 05:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Software

Well you may think this is funny or cheap but I just use Paint, I just copy the larger scale of the map, paste it in and colour it, simple :) Mohsin (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Adminship and aXXo

Some people have offered to nominate me for adminship before; I have repeatedly declined. I might run for adminship one day in the future, but not anytime soon. Thanks for notifying me about aXXo; I will check it out and continue the conversation on the talk page there. Also, if you have a reliable source that explains what software he uses, then by all means, use it. Any reliable sources on aXXo is frankly hard to find. Gary King (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Best not to use it then. If aXXo continues doing what he's doing, then there will be more and more reliable sources documenting what he does, so we'll have more to work with. Gary King (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will get right on BFME2. Gary King (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Judaism in Japan

Hi LOTRrules! Unfortunately, I do not have any knowledge on the subject of Jews in Japan. However, the article History of the Jews in Japan has a number of sources, both for Judaism in modern Japan, and its history. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! It's true that the article I linked to didn't have many sources, but it did offer some basic information, including info on two synagogues in Japan, which could facilitate the expansion of Religion in Japan#Judaism. Unfortunately, I have almost no personal knowledge of the history of Judaism in East Asia and can't help by recommending books.

As for your work on Religion in Japan#Islam: The section is in good shape, and I'd say that if every section was at this level, the article could likely pass a GA review. However, I do have a few concerns. First and foremost, the section is too long and detailed for a summary. In the article's present form, it also constitutes undue weight, being more detailed than the sections on Shinto and Buddhism, which are both more widely-practiced in Japan. Don't forget that the main article is Islam in Japan, and IMO your main effort should be concentrated there; after bringing that article to a high standard, it will only be natural to write a summary for it in the article Religion in Japan.

Here are some specific concerns:

1. The Islamic conquests of the middle ages did not reach many of the Japanese Isles when they had ended in 732 – did they reach a few Japanese Isles? Did they reach the main ones? Please clarify.
2. not even when the Islamic Golden Age was at its cultural peak. – when was that? Is it referring to the Golden Age of Islam, or a specific period therein? I think it should read 'when Islam was in its golden age'.
3. The Muslim community in Japan has a history of over 100 years, although some sources contest more than this amount. – ambiguous and unclear, might need rephrasing. Other than the grammar/style issue in this sentence, it is unclear from the references given who these 'some sources' are and how many years we're talking about (e.g. 150 years is not a big difference, but maybe some sources say 500 or more years).
4. Some sources have stated that in 1982 the Muslims numbered 30,000 (half were speculated to be native). – again, very unclear and possibly WP:SYNTH. If the source (ref #4) provided is reliable, and it says that there were 30,000 Muslims, then it can be stated as a fact. If the source is not reliable, you should write 'according to [profession] E. Farah Caesar, ...'.
5. Many of the ethnic Japanese ... – once again, improper use of an ambiguous numerical value. How many are we talking about? In this context, it could be anywhere from a dozen to millions, so it needs clarifying.
6. The majority of estimates put the Muslim population at 100,000–120,000. – I didn't check all four references, but unless one of them explicitly says that a majority of estimates put the population at 100,000–120,000, it's WP:SYNTH and again an improper use of the terms most, many, few, etc.
7. Who is Keiko Sakurai? Needs a small clarification.
8. However, while essayist Michael Penn as well as the United States Department of State follow that 90% of Muslims are foreign and about 10% are ethnic,[3] the true figure is unknown and this is just another speculative estimate. – POV language, and the source (ref #9) does not support the assertion that it is 'just another speculative estimate'. The word estimate alone does not imply that it is incorrect, just that it's not precise. In fact, most estimates made by serious researches and bodies are meant to be accurate and educated.

That's it for now. Please note that I did not make notes on the last 3 paragraphs. Here are a number of other general concerns:

1. A lot of words to avoid are being used in the section, including weasel words and terms like 'recent', etc. These should be removed/rephrased, if possible.
2. Almost every sentence I reviewed had a grammar or style issue. I have fixed many of them (in the paragraphs I reviewed), but make sure to be more careful about stuff like this, as it could quick-fail a GA nom, and makes Wikipedia look less professional in the eyes of those who don't know how it works. In addition, keep WP:DASH in mind.

Hopefully, all of the above helped! If you are interested in my opinions on the rest of the section, let me know, and I will get back to you as soon as I am disposed. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)