User talk:Lasserempe/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Lasserempe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

TheRingess 01:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Regulus Black

Repeated information is always a thorny issue. However, it is equally relevant to the Regulus article that he is considered likely to be RAB, as it is that RAB is considered likely to be Regulus. It is customary to explain the main points of a topic, even where there exists a somewhat longer article explaining it in more detail. The article as I restored it is not over long, in fact still quite short. I really don't see that the shorter version is better. I would suggest just leaving it be for the next couple of months, as it will need a comprehensive rewrite after the next book, one way or the other. While I wouldn't go overboard with John Granger as a source, the article needs as many external sources for discussion about the character as it can get. Sandpiper 22:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you found the reversion of the article something of a shock, but anyone who drops in and makes major changes to an established article is likely to discover that others don't agree with him. Everyone (well most people, discounting vandalism) alter articles to make them better, or at least better as they see it. The trouble is that others are likely to disagree. As a case in point, if you check the history now, you will see that Folken De Fanel has popped up following in my wake, and altered the sections which he personally finds inappropriate. Thus making major changes is something of a hostage to fortune, and if you mean to carry on editing wiki, you will have to accept that everything you write will, sooner or later, disappear. It just works that way. I'm also sorry that I don't have time to discuss your changes individually. Again, the difficulty when someone makes changes as major as yours is that it essentially becomes impossible to go through them word by word. You should not expect that an edit summary would attempt to do so. I entirely understand the desire to make changes when you think something needs improving, but just posting comments on the talk page does not mean that interested parties will have seen them before you set to work. Sandpiper 17:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

PS if you edit your user page and just put something on it, you will be rewarded with a blue name tag!Sandpiper

Sandpiper, you're here to justify your deletion of Lasserempe's edits, and I see your still can't explain why. I see that you're more interested in trying to involve him in your personal war against me...

I don't find your "explanation" very respectful, Sandpiper. Basically, you're saying that you deleted Lasserempe's version just for the sake of deleting, and that you did it without thinking about the quality of his edits or without caring about the general quality of the article. That's a very selfish behavior, and I don't think "everythings gets deleted sooner or later" can excuse your behavior.

I personally don't find much problems with Lasserempe' version, even if some things could have been more developed.Folken de Fanel 17:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi folken, nice to see your still playing catchup Sandpiper)

I see you're still trying to provoke me everywhere. Disrupting WP in order to continue your personal wars will only get you into trouble. Stop harassing me. Really, get a life.Folken de Fanel 19:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying guys, but this discussion should be on the talk page for Regulus Black. Let's try and improve the article - it's quite obvious that you two guys don't get along very well. Since both of you represent quite different opinions, if we can reach a concensus on any contentious issues in any way, that would probably mean that we've found an optimal solution. It could also set a precedent for how to deal with other issues. LR 21:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

More Regulus

Hi, I just read your latest post on the Regulus Black talk page. I'd be happy to have a look at your edit and give my opinion, but it'll have to wait a few days (perhaps a week) I'm afraid, as I'm mid-exams...just checking WP every now and then! Anyway, it's in the edit history, so it isn't going anywhere... All the best Libatius 14:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Just answered your question on my talk page

Just answered your question on my talk page. linas (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)