User talk:Davemon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Help

I created this site based on Lord of the Rings. I could use some help developing it. Would you like to? Here is the link:

http://lordoftheringsmelkorfaction.wetpaint.com/

Please give me some help, I could use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rembrant13 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please man! Creating an account on wetpaint is free, and I need help with this site! And one major difference from here is that there are also forums! You can talk about anything that has to do with Lord of the Rings! Please help me out! Rembrant13 (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hobbit

I believe the whole section is. The problem is that a person has to check through the books in order to find them, hence making them OR. If you can find an article or review of the set of books that mentions these, then I'm sure it would be OK but untill then, I view it as OR. The Placebo Effect 19:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Constructive criticism noticed

Your last suggestions on the graphic design talk page and supporting sources were very constructive. I think we will find common ground in all of our efforts if we stay on the positive side. I will resume assumptions of good faith on your part and pay more attention to your suggestions as you continue to edit constructively. :) Oicumayberight 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Chaos Marauder

Sorry about that. I didn't realize it was an in-game description.Chunky Rice 21:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorcerers cave

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sorcerers cave, by Pavel Vozenilek, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sorcerers cave fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

no notability suggested

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sorcerers cave, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Sorcerers cave itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Article is now in AfD. -N 23:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was reopened because there was an error. Someone else will close it instead. - Mailer Diablo 15:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chaos-marauders-box-cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Chaos-marauders-box-cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. ShakespeareFan00 13:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Warhammer-second-edition-cover.jpg

I have tagged Image:Warhammer-second-edition-cover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 14:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Headings

Please do NOT revert cases where people bring headings in line with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style saying that "Title Case is usual for headings" - please read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Only the first letter of the first word, and the first letter of proper nouns are capitalized; all other letters are in lower case (for example, “Rules and regulations”, not “Rules and Regulations”)

If you've been changing this at any articles other than Moomin, please could you go back and change these? Thanks. 81.231.84.130 07:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake. --Davémon 11:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks

RE: Alliance for Progress

Thanks for your opinion. I figured I would lose out. I suspect dealing with this anon, that he will not be satisfied with me removing the quote, and if it is okay, I may solicit your opinion again. Travb (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Huge suprise, guess what? the anon is not satisfied with the removal of the quote, and is now changing the other section, can you weigh in on this too please? Travb (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hobbit film

Why? Please read WP:SS: do you want the eventual article to be fully developed or what? You are removing proper context and relevant opinions on adapting The Hobbit. Alientraveller 13:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would understand if you are not familiar with such a practice of merging films that aren't filming, ala the Logan's Run remake or Magneto. I also understand if you feel various things are not relevant to The Hobbit itself. Therefore I have merged the content instead into The Lord of the Rings film trilogy#Prequels. Alientraveller 13:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The move to LOTR#prequel is a good one. It's mostly not relevant to The Hobbit itself, and biases a specific reading and treatment of the novel. The article would benefit from the addition of the licensing situation of the property. --Davémon 17:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you might want to contribute to this discussion. Alientraveller 15:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You're accusing Del Toro of being a liar. Alientraveller (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, hopefully we can all agree the current phrasing is fine: "explanation" is so much more neutral sounding than "claiming". Maybe it's a good time to tell you being used to hate something isn't such a big deal: Michael Bay thought Transformers were stupid until Hasbro explained to him it was more than a toy. Alientraveller (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I used to hate Star Wars and Star Trek as a really young kid *flees from the angry mob* (I was young! I was dumb ok!). Alientraveller (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get Del Toro's relationship with "The Hobbit" recorded as fully and neutrally as possible. Of course, it doesn't matter that he said he hated Hobbits and now is planning to make a film about one. He's a professional film-maker, not some fan-boy. Since when did directors have to be total geeks about their source material anyway? Fact is, it's all just good encyclopedia material if treated properly. --Davémon (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, alarm bells went ringing though when you wholesale reverted my revisions. Anyway, the article's all the better for it. Alientraveller (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Alliance for Progress

Can you share you opinion on the section in dispute? As I wrote in the edit, I can't win--if the references are summarized, they are not accurate, it the references are word for word, I am plagerizing. I resent having to waste my time with this editor who has contributed nothing to wikipedia. Travb (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

thank you again. Have a great weekend. Travb (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Guenter Lewy ‎

You did such a great job on Alliance for Progress, I was wondering if you could help me on Guenter Lewy with the same anon. He wikistalked me to this page. Do I need to file a third opinion again before you could help? Travb (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your response. Travb (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Warhammer-second-edition-cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Warhammer-second-edition-cover.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 22:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hobbit peer review

You're welcome, and thanks for your efforts to bring the novel up to FA status. I will definitely help out with the article, but my attention is divided between a number of projects right now. Let's keep the momentum going, though. Victorianist (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Elves

You cannot claim one man's opinion as fact, as informed as it might be. I have read the source myself, and if you have read it you would see that it is an interpretation of the evidence into what the author thinks is the truth of the matter. I *could* write that Legolas is based on a Robin Hood, because he lives in the wood is depicted as wearing green (mush like Robin Hood) and uses a bow, now this would be my opinion, not an unequivocal fact and should not be taken as such, even if I published my thesis on the matter. In short my edits are in line with Wikipedia's policy and as such should be retained. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is it is not a 'fact' that some of the tales are based on Irish mythology, it is only a fact that Dimitra Fimi has theorised that such is a case, I do infact know what weasel words are, and it is in fact your edit that is 'verging' on the fatc. It is one author's point of view, whether you agree with it or not and this should be stated as such as is Wikipedia's policy. It is non-neutral at the moment. Pointing out that 'an author', 'some authors' is more in line with Wikipedia's point of view than saying that it is a known fact. If you have actually read the source then you would see that Tolkien did not ever claim this to be the origin of the story and especially not many of them. In short it is a theory nothing more nothing less, as popular as all things Celtic on wikipedia are, they are not the only culture to influence modern fantasy, literature or folklore and neither are Norse and Greek (in fact most would claim 'The Silmarillion' to be more Finnish in character than anything else, but I digress). In short, get off your high horse, stop adding your own agenda, stop stating an opinion as fact and stop trying to 'rule' an article, especially when other people's edits shall improve the article. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Hobbit - copyediting

Davemon - thanks for the invitation and the kind words. I've just returned from ten days out of the country (so I didn't get your post until now). I will be happy to take another look this weekend if that is still timely. Simmaren (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Gandalf

I put those passages under the Silmarillion, not the Appendices, because that is where they are most fully described. Only the dates come from Appendix B. Of the Appendices, Appendix B is the only one to give any of this information, and it does so less generously than the Silmarillion.  Elphion (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have very strong opinions. The previous state was my attempt to organize the material usefully. The Silmarillion Section head made clear where the information was comming from, the refs on the dates made clear what was coming from Appendix B, and the dates and the events were presented together. That works for me. I don't object to having an "Appendices" head, but there's not really much info in the Appendices, and there's some value to not scattering the information in the article so that it's hard to assimilate.  Elphion (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Middle-earth canon

Could you add a section to talk:Middle-earth canon indicating what you think needs verification? On a quick reading it looks accurate to me and reasonably well referenced.  Elphion (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Chaos Marauders Not Withdrawn

Changes made to Chaos Marauders entry are not Games Workshop "spin". I worked for Games Workshop at the time the games was created. That's how I know about the Starships connection. Steve Hand hadn't even heard of Ogallala or Starships before GW dumped a copy of Starships in his lap. He wasn't happy about the task but he'd just joined GW as an in-house designer (he'd sold Chainsaw Warrior to GW as a freelancer) and was given the project as a "trial". So it was either, "remake Starships or leave the company." Whatever. Copies of Chaos Marauders did not vanish off shelves overnight. They remained discounted in Games Workshop stores for months. The reasons I gave for poor sales may not correct but they are what were discussed and believed in the Nottingham Design Studio in 1986/87. Titles previously published for £9.99 in shallow boxes before Marauders were either expansion kits (e.g. BloodBowl "Death Zone", various Talisman add-ons), role-playing modules (e.g. Warhammer Death On The Reik) and Floorplans (for Warhammer, Judge Dredd etc.). Chaos Marauders was the first original product to be published by Games Workshop in that format and at that price-point. When the game failed to sell, these factors were believed to be responsible. Discussion was given to rerelasing the game in a deep box for £15.99 but this was considered too risky. As someone who was "there at the time", I think I know what happened. Also I can't see any citation on the page for the claim that the game was withdrawn. The La Manga article cited refers only to the game's similariy to Ogallala. I'm happy to lose my edits about the reasons for poor sales but the claim that the game was withdrawn is just wrong and should not be on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FactFix (talk • contribs) 09:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Orc

It was nice to see someone remove all that fan stuff from an article, it used to be endemic all over WP, but it seems to be getting sorted out as of late =) Lethesl 23:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Hobbit runes.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Hobbit runes.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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 MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Note

This is to leave you a note about Samuel Johnson. As per this, I trimmed out 3k worth of text and then added in 9.5k worth of text in terms of elaborations of plots/subjects of works, influence on contemporary works, more detailed explanation of biographies, added a section on his influence on criticism and response, and organizations/celebrations based around his character. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

Hi. I noticed that you opposed the promotion of the Samuel Johnson article to FA status, on the grounds that you had never heard of the subject of the article and couldn't tell, from the article as it then was, why it was notable enough to deserve FA. I have been doing some small-scale work on the subject of that article (basically, I created and did a lot of the editing work on the Irene and Vanity of Human Wishes articles). What I am curious about it is why you consider yourself qualified to offer an opinion on the FA-worthiness of an article on a subject of which you admit you are completely ignorant. I know enough about Johnson, and enough about the principles of good article writing, to know that I didn't want to get involved in the FA-review process for the Johnson article. I am honestly curious (this is not sarcasm) about why you thought you had a right to pass an opinion on the subject. I, for one, would never get involved in the review process for an article about a subject I knew absolutely nothing about, and which I had never even heard of before. Cheers. Lexo (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I concede that "right" was the wrong word, and I withdraw it. Nevertheless, I personally would not consider myself qualified to make a judgment about how good an article is at presenting notable info if I had never even heard of the subject. If I've never heard of it, how do I know what's significant and what isn't? There was a FA recently about an obscure baseball card. I thought that that was a totally trivial subject for an article, but apparently not. All I am suggesting is that self-confessed total ignorance of the subject of an article is not a good perspective from which to make judgments about what is significant in the article and what isn't. For one thing, I suspect that it might make people who worked on the article less inclined to take your criticisms seriously. I happen to agree with you that the article needs work, but unlike you I am in a position to make positive suggestions, because I know something about the subject. Merely complaining about articles does not improve them. Lexo (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: Davemon, the lead of Samuel Johnson, and a good deal of the text, has been adjusted, hopefully now dealing with your concern that "I'd never heard of Samuel Johnson before ... I've no more idea about why this man was important at the end of the article than I had before I started it." Would you mind revisiting the article and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel Johnson to update your appraisal? Thanks and regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your point about the possibility that a non-expert on the subject might be a good judge of the worth of an article is well-taken, at least by me. I also have no desire to get into a fight about it. I actually agree with you, and have noticed that the majority of wikipedia articles about (i.e.) maths suffer from the fact that, by their nature, they tend to be written and edited by people who already know about maths - with the result that most maths-related articles read more like textbook extracts than like encyclopedia articles, because the editors forget that they are supposed to be explaining the subject to the general reader, not summarising it for the math student. Nevertheless, I do think that self-confessed total ignorance of a subject is not a good perspective to edit from. The skills involved in editing an article are quite specific, but I know from my professional experience that knowledge of the subject of the text being edited is never a hindrance and is usually an asset. Lexo (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally - I would hope that WP articles should not be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as evidence in a court of law. In a court of law, the stakes are way higher than they are here. We should strive to be accurate, but if we were to think of every single edit as being a matter of someone's life and death, we could never edit at all. I think your comparison is not all that helpful. But I appreciate that you have addressed what I said, and I feel that we both want to make wikipedia more useful. Lexo (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to revisit the Samuel Johnson page? Awadewit's concerns have been met as with Shoemaker's Holiday's concerns. Durova has moved to neutral. The page has gone through a change, cutting down unnecessary detail, moving other to subpages, focusing more on the works and emphasizing more points of notability, such as in Samuel Johnson#Critical theory and Samuel Johnson#Legacy. Any update that you can provide will be helpful. Thank you for your time. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hobbit-conifer-tape-box.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hobbit-conifer-tape-box.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Battlelore and LotR

Hello. I left a comment on the talk page concerning that Finnish Metal band. I do think they're notable for a brief inclusion into the main LotR article, since they are in fact totally devoted to LotR theme. E.g. the track list of their third album includes titles like:

• Sons of Riddermark
• Sword's Song
• The Mark of the Bear
• Attack of the Orcs
• Dragonslayer
• Khazad-Dum, Pt. 2 (Silent Caverns)
• Horns of Gondor
• The War of Wrath (ok, that'd rather be inspired by the Silm)

Or look at Third Age of the Sun, a clear concept album. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000

I just noticed that you know some things about Warhammer 40,000. I don't know much, but during a deletion review for a Blood Angel's character, I found some third party reviews that I could almost put together a page. I've been meaning to when I have time, but I just need someone with a keen eye who can help me create some (and I stress "some") background for a small section. From what I've seen, I plan on organizing the new page for the Blood Angels based on their timeline via appearance within editions, spin offs, and then a little bit about common features. I have a few reviews for the board game books, some discussion about miniatures, and some notes about video games. Would you be willing to help? I think I should be able to work on such a thing later this fall, so there is plenty of time to consider. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare and the triple goddess

Hi, Davémon. I wanted to make sure you understood that I am trying to respect your position on keeping the Triple Goddess of Neopaganism separate from the triple goddess of antiquity and the influence of that concept on later literature and art. But I also wanted to make sure that you understood that Shakespeare lived several hundred years before Robert Graves; when Bottom in A Midsummer Night's Dream speaks of the triple goddess, or Prospero in The Tempest, it's because Shakespeare was familiar with the Latin texts from antiquity. I don't have time at the moment to work with restoring and amplifying the Shakespeare reference in the triple goddess (antiquity) article, but Roberts, for instance, specifically cites Ovid and Apuleius as sources for Shakespeare's use of the triple goddess concept. And that is the point of the new article (which, by the way, I didn't create): to deal with the classical and more broadly the Indo-European tradition. It will take a while for the article to evolve, but it can't develop properly if you're going to make it your mission to cut out information arbitrarily, without discussion with other contributors and without understanding the scholarly methodology. For instance, the Homeric Hymn to Demeter has in fact been discussed in light of the Maiden/Mother/Crone archetype; if I put that in, are you going to delete it, or move it to the Neopagan article? The poem is one of Graves's inspirations for his own formulation of the concept, but that approach in turn becomes part of the record of scholarship on the poem, whether or not one agrees that the mode of analysis is apt (I don't favor it as a way to read the poem, but it can be argued). You seem to care deeply about the Neopagan concept, but the new article isn't about that. It's about the literary tradition, and the history of scholarship. I'm hoping that you will respect what others have to say, and discuss before deleting. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Read your comment; thanks. Will confine myself to the talk page in future. Please look there. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

IP editor at Triple Goddess

Just in case you don't know, you seem to be being accused of being a Moonie. (New World Encyclopedia is part of the Unification Churhc). Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm now the subject of a sustained series of personal attacks:

• "Davemon's anti-feminist and misogynist bias towards this topic in general. Apparently, "Goddess-feminists" are a major source of personal frustration for him. (In addition, he certainly seems to have a personal vendetta against anything pro-Graves. How unfortunate for him, don't you think?" [[1]]
• "I can't believe anyone would do something soooooo blatantly stupid... Perhaps you should lay off the Warhammer for a while and maybe read a book or two, don't you think?" [[2]]
• "You are a hypocrite who fails to maintain any semblance of objectivity once someone irritates you. And you have no clue about how to maintain a NPOV on this article. Absolutely none whatsoever. Are you even capable of performing your job at all?"[[3]]
• "As opposed to intellectually-challenged simpletons with male-chauvinist agendas. Not saying you are, but some of the contributors to this article certainly fit the bill."[4]

From the IPs Talk page: "[I] let this article get under my skin... Of course, those who were involved in its creation intended it to do just that. And fortuitously, I happen to enjoy knocking around individuals who like to belittle other people's beliefs".

wow. --Davémon (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings Sources

Unless I'm much mistaken, it shouldn't be necessary to find sources for ideas that are apparent from the Lord of the Rings itself (e.g., Gollum's "evilness"), though I did take the bait this time.Mario777Zelda (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Tag on Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism

Retaliatory tagging on other articles is not a good tactic in WP discussions. Please keep discussion on Talk:Triple Goddess rather than adding tags to other articles, particularly when it is difficult to see a justification for "notability" tag on the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism article. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 23:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about what's been happening at Talk:Triple Goddess, and neither do I care, but I do very much agree with the comments I've seen Davemon make at Talk:Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. The sourcing is poor, the article's tone is inappropriate, and either significant sections of material have been missed out or the notability of this movement is somewhat in doubt. Consequently I have removed its GA listing; you can see my reasoning here. If you do not agree with my decision to delist then you are welcome to appeal at WP:GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Demeter edit

Please read Talk:Demeter#Poor and misleading documentation, partiality to see why I undid your edit. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Hi Davemon, since the edits have been flying fast and furious at Triple Goddess, I just wanted to make sure that you're aware of the three-revert rule. I have no idea whether you've come close to breaking it or not, but it's a good thing to be aware of nonetheless. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Riot of 1879 FAC

The letters have been pruned YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the nice note. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know....

A thread has been starting about you at AN: [5] WolverineFootball2008 (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. EyeSerene^talk 10:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)