User talk:T-dot/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Dates in Harry Potter

Dates in Harry Potter - I've recreated the article. I've done some major rewriting, and a lot of sourcing, and I've readded it to the main section because I think it's in good enough condition now to pass muster; however, I haven't reached the bottom yet, which consequently is still in bad shape. Please could you help if you get the chance? Michael Sanders 01:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your notes on the WP:WPHP talkpage, the article was deleted again on the same day. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 6 for the Deletion review, give your opinion on the matter, and vote either for overturning the deletion of the rewritten article or keeping it deleted. Michael Sanders 19:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Blood purity

Hi - just telling you, Blood purity is up for deletion. Michael Sanders 23:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates in HP

This is beginning to seem like a yo-yo. I'm not sure precisely when you posted, so you may not have seen that 'dates' has now been reposted back to AFD. A nicely judged decision, I would say, avoiding a judgement of Solomon upon the arguments. However, here we go again. It doesn't help that the name of the article also keeps being changed. Sandpiper 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's back again (there is, apparently, some justice in the world), just in time to meet the editor who was removing the dates earlier today.

As for your suggestions: do whatever you think necessary to get that article kept. Michael Sanders 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I, GoldenIrish present you the Barnstar of Diligence for helping me in my time of need. In my eyes you are truly the greatest editor and/or article writer on wiki.GoldenIrish 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Y film promo draco02.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Y film promo draco02.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. David Gerard 17:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Concept automobile

Template:Concept automobile has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thumbsucking

I've merged this article with data theft as per AFD. Please feel free to make any suggestions or improvements you feel necessary. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks

T-Dot, thank you for your kind support of my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday, and for your support of my sig. In the end, I did change it back in order to avoid being disruptive (of course, as noted on the RfA, my profession still clearly identifies my faith). Please feel free to drop me a note any time if there is anything that I might be able to do for you. Pastordavid 16:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the explanation regarding protection of articles. Still new to wiki and feeling my way around. Missjessica254 14:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which closed successfully a couple of days a ago. I was busy the last couple of days, but I do really appreciate your support. Happy editing, Signature^brendel 05:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twilight of the Dead

The criteria you claimed for notability of this article (having an ISBN, being on Amazon, having one review and possibly others) absolutely do not meet the notability requirements necessary. In fact, as I have posted on that page, the book explicitly fails the notability requirements. I don't know if you just skinned the notability page or what, but please reconsider your vote. DreamGuy 04:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You planning on ignoring this, or what? I hope you're not voting on any other deletion pages with the same bad criteria. DreamGuy 04:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, T-dot's comment is reasonable and balanced, and he votes a "weak keep" citing a review, while also admitting it is a vanity publisher. Surely people can disagree on border-line cases without one of them having to be completely misguided about our guidelines. --Merzul 11:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

On Charles Hughes

• "Gotcha, and I do happen to agree. By coincidence, I got yelled at some time ago for being "uncivil" by daring to refer to something as "fancruft", so I thought I would do my part to spread the word, as a reasonably non-rude gesture."
  

Cheers for the heads-up, i hadn't realised it was being perceived as uncivil etc. Sorry if i came across like a shithead. Best, tomasz. 16:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I need some backup

It looks like I'm about to start an edit war and I really don't want to, so I'm hoping I can resolve this with majority opinion. There's a right-wing libertarian dude who's been editing Wiki articles to post opinions about JK Rowling's supposed socialist messages. He added a massive subsection to the Controversy over Harry Potter page on this topic, which I ultimately deleted on the (in my opinion correct) grounds that it constituted criticism, not controversy. A controversy is an argument or dispute, and there is no evidence of controversy in that section whatsoever. I made that point and merged the section with the Harry Potter#Criticism and praise section. Now he's back and he's reinserted his section, but he seems to have missed the original point. Before things get rough I would like to ensure that this goes over as smoothly as possible. Thanks. Serendipodous 16:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. About 80 percent of what Libertycookies posted is still extant on Wikipedia; it's just been shifted to the "criticism" section of the Harry Potter page. A lot of it has been verified and much of the POV has been removed; however, I still feel that it does not fit a controversy, as there is no evidence that, other than the fact that this guy obviously thinks they're important, these criticisms have had any wider impact. No conflict has arisen over them; no court battles have ensued, no books have been burned. Controversy implies conflict, and I see no conflict there. I've just given the controversy page an overhaul to emphasise the conflict and court battles element, which had been de-emphasised until now. I think I've managed to clarify what the article is supposed to be about. Thanks again.Serendipodous 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Concerns

T-Dot, I apologize for shuffling your request off to another admin, but it appeared to me that you wanted a speedy response, which I was unable to give at the time. As I expected he would, KillerChihuahua seems to have provided a good analysis of the situation. In short, there is a good deal of behavior on wikipedia which may seem annoying, obnoxious, or just plain rude; but which does not rise to the level of being a breach of any sort of policy. The best advice I can give you in such situations is to just ignore it; or, even better, assume the best possible meaning of it. I hope that this experience has not put a bad taste in your mouth for the XfD process, and that you will continue to participate in this valuable process. All the best. Pastordavid 20:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I being unfair?

I hate it when this happens, because I always end up looking like a jerk. Libertycookies thinks I'm being vindictive, and perhaps I am. But when someone comes along and swamps not one, not two but three articles I am currently editing with what looks to me (and I hope to you) like transparent original research backed up by a few quotes from a right-wing loony fringe group, I get territorial. I just flagged her (I think she's a her) new article Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling with about thirty tags. She's probably going to see it as an overreaction, but I don't know what else to do. Serendipodous 08:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to sound overly cliché here, and I am sure you have heard it all before. But I sometimes think we all need to review (READ!) the policies and guidelines, and re-emphasize that all articles within the Wikipedia must conform to them. Special attention must be given to enforcing verifiability from reliable sources, avoiding original research, and maintaining a neutral point of view; and this is most especially important for articles which constitute a biography of a living person. If an article, such as Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling crosses any of the policy lines, then it must be flagged as such and cleaned up, post haste. This does not mean that the concerns cannot be consensus-discussed on the article and user talk pages in a civil manner, carefully avoiding personal attacks and such. If you think the article in question fails to conform to Wikipedia policy, especially in the matter of neutrality and verifiability in a WP:BLP (please read that!), to the extent that the Wikipedia can be seen as being "irresponsible", then the policies provide for immediate removal of the offending material, and review by the BLP Noticeboard if intervention is necessary. Some applicable thoughts from WP:BLP:

• Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR.
• We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
• This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.
• Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Wikipedia is a top-ten website, and with such prominence comes a measure of responsibility. Wikipedia is, fundamentally, a project that aims to improve the world. This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion, grace and understanding.
• Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted (see WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material).
• Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in WP:V, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see WP:NOR). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply.
• If you have concerns, either as editor or subject, about biographical material about a living person on any page, please contact the BLP noticeboard.

I know this is a rather lengthy answer (not to mention a bad copy-and-paste job of published wiki-policies and guidelines) but my intention is to show that there are policies and guidelines that cover the issue, sources for recourse, and justification and methods for investigating and "fixing" the problem. Thanks for your patience. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 11:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I admit some of the Politics and Influences of J.K. Rowling needed citations (which I could have added with a request), but I think deletion of the entire article is a little bit extreme, especially with truncated discussion. I realize that most people who've read Harry Potter can't see the political message, and my POV is that Rowling wrote the "political children's fairy tale about a monster" to try and reach those folks. Looks like this is my last act as a writer under this account since I upset the person concerned about being unfair. Libertycookies 22:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support on the Order of the Phoenix talk page. You certainly stated what I was trying to say much more eloquently! :) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Episode article review notice

The individual episode articles for Hannah Montana are now being reviewed according to episode notability guidelines. Please contribute to the discussion on Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes#2nd episode article review. Thanks. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Birth dates in HP articles

Well, you said to keep you posted. We have one editor: User:Cambria.Alexis who constantly reverts the changes back. Someone might need to step in. Ccrashh 10:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

HPDH

Yes, I checked back on that talk page for HP7; apologies for deleting that section on Snape's loyalties, I suppose I must have missed a large chunk of that while I was reading it the first time! Gammondog 10:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you get my email T-Dot?

Please let me know. Serendipodous 14:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

T-Dot, I've lost any patience. Libertycookies has finally gone insane and I cannot deal with this anymore. PLEASE do something about this! Serendipodous 16:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry - I've been tied up with baseball tournament this weekend, and now have a team barbecue going on, so I have not had much online-time. I did get your email, thanks, but again I have not had time to study the matter and form an opinion. In general, I think the correct approach would be to contact an administrator, (I am not one), via Request Administrator Assistance, perhaps preferably contact one who has been involved in the HP Project, who can understand the sensitivity and subleties of the matter, and also help to explain and enforce the applicable policies User:John Reaves might be a good candidate administrator, and others can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Participants - the admins are those with many links after the name including the sys-op tools "blocks", "protects", etc. I am sorry if you thought I was an admin or something - but I have no more "power" to do anything than you do. You could also to try to get an independant Third opinion from someone who is not involved, who can offer an unbiased view and see if there is a basis for further action. Check the link for more information. If this proves unsatisfactory, then there is a process called Request for Comment, which is another part of the Dispute Resolution process, where you can request that other editors formally review and comment on another user's activities, and they then come to a consensus on whether the matter needs to be dealt with by an administrator or bureaucrat, up to and including banning a user if it comes to that. I understand your strong sense of urgency, and that you want it to come to a rapid resolution, but it is important to remember that there is nothing "permanent" in the Wikipedia; and in time any material that a user has posted that proves to be inappropriate, can and will be corrected in due time. Sometimes we have to be patient and let things work out in a content dispute, according to the process, to avoid edit wars and reversion battles. I'll do what I can to help, but that is not much beyond offering an opinion and participating in a consensus discussion or debate on the matter. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; I thought you were an admin :) I think I'm beginning to lose my sense of perspective, but when you've spent the last ten days in the world of a man who honestly believes that JK Rowling is an anarchist revolutionary bent on a "Fight Club" style consumer revolution, it's hard to remember what reality is. I have sent an email to John Reaves; for some reason my account isn't picking up Wiki emails so I don't know if he got it. Thank you for your time and I hope I didn't scare you too much :) I've also launched a case for arbitration, though I have no idea if Libertycookies will deign to take part. Serendipodous 18:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help T-dot. Sorry that I'm responding a bit on the defensive. But obviously I've angered Seren and this is way personal for him. It's mildly personal to me, because I take issue to being deleted without the courtesy of a talk. However, I'd like to note that I have not taken to name calling. Libertycookies 19:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've taken JK Rowling off my watchlist. I've gone to great lengths to bring Liberty's abuses to general attention, to a chorus of indifference. I can no longer edit that article. Serendipodous 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK; I've started a request for mediation. However, since it can't go ahead unless Libertycookies agrees with it, I don't see how it will help. What do I do if he rejects it? Serendipodous 10:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed to mediation. I'm not trying to paint her as anything other than an influential writer that has some political themes in her work. She's confirmed that there is political aspects to her work to Entertainment Weekly (I didn't attach the direct quote to the article, but you could read it to confirm). Whether her personal politics or beliefs are good or bad are not something that I am trying to define. I think that she is acting in good conscience and is merely trying to encourage people to think for themselves. I'm sorry that I haven't gone to the extreme in backing up quotes with more and more sources, but I think we should leaving the subject open to reader's interpretation. Deleting the subject of politics is unacceptable to me, as I think the information needs to be available, but possibly in a more neutral format. If socialism or the fabian society are coming off as a negative beliefs, then maybe there should be more on these philosophies as not being inherently evil.

We could always shoot an email to her publisher requesting comment. Libertycookies 15:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, things have certianly got interesting. Yesterday I contacted an admin who had previous knowledge of Liberty's edits, having deleted his article on JK Rowling's politics. I asked her to "do something", not entirely sure what that something would be. Well she just showed up at the Rowling article and summarily deleted the entire politics section, pointing out that it was an attempt to recreate a deleted article and so violated Wiki deletion policies. I don't know what this will do to the mediation but I seriously doubt this is over. Serendipodous 15:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please thank the administrator and ask "her" to review the corresponding RfM and RfArb pages - and provide her with links to make it easy: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#JK Rowling and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/J. K. Rowling. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey T-dot, rather than continue an edit war and a mild flaming, how about lets find our own compromise. I agree that I've been a jerk to Seren, which hasn't been very fair to other users. But I'd have to argue that he hasn't really done much to make me want to be nice to him. I don't really care if 100% of what I've submitted is on the board, but some information on Rowling politics and themes seems warranted. If not, please make the case why. Libertycookies 13:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK well, I guess I would recommend that we go back to the original mediated agreement that we worked out here, where I thought the consensus was that we could have a short paragraph, maybe two if absolutely necessary, consisting of a few sentences in a minor section describing JKR's political leanings and how they tend to show up in her novels. After that agreement was established, it seems that the whole thing then snowballed and grew from a minor mole-hill footnote into a mountainous multi-article expose of JKR's beliefs, leanings, pursuasions, sympathies, political allies, affiliations, philosophies, and evil close friends and their politics and sympathies. The whole thing was reminescent of 1950's McCarthyism, and seemed to be oriented towards proving that JKR is a revolutionary socialist/anarchist/whatever promoting youthful rebellion against authority and whatnot. It was not properly contexted. Any rebellious content in the Harry Potter series seems to me to be clearly in the context of unjust fascist dictatorships, authoritative abuse of powers in elected and appointed leadership, and clear circumstances of child abuse and neglect. If allegations of Rowling rebellion-promoting and anarchy are to be discussed, it must be in the context of the circumstances, and not left to the reader to wonder about, keeping the article neutral and not pushing a POV. We also MUST follow the rules of WP:BLP to the letter, and make sure any points we want to share about JKR are carefully sourced to reliable, verifiable sources; particularly in material that is controversial, as outlined there. If people are reverting it, then it is by definition controversial. I hope you did not mean I was "flaming", I have been trying to act as a coach and mediator, and to advance the process toward a conclusion. I am disappointed the WP:RfArb (ie: Supreme Court) and WP:RfM (ie: Court of Appeals) was not accepted, but the conflict has been essentially sent back to WP:RfC (District Court) for proper discussion and consensus. Essentially we did this backwards, and got slapped down for doing it. Hopefully we all learned something in the process. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope didn't mean you were flaming, you've been a voice of reason. I shamefully admit that some of my posts were lacking in citations and POV in a bit of revenge against Seren, who I think was way too possesive of the topic of Rowling, and put me on the defensive months before any dialogue was exchanged. I'm a jerk, but I do eventually move on.

I'd like to see a small paragraph linking to a more comprehensive article (without the objectionable unsourced POV that I immaturely inserted to annoy Seren.). Do you think you can negotiate that with Jossi and Seren.?

Also, can you archive the rants exchanged by all? I don't see them as productive, though there may be valid point that should be edited and discussed. I've been taking an extreme stance, mainly to counterbalance what I see as an opposite extreme stance. I'd definately do things different with the benefit of experience. Libertycookies 15:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Just post your proposed solution as a new topic, named "Politics of JKR Compromise Proposal" or something, back at the JKR talk page and ask the parties (and any others who may have been involved before, per the history) at their talk pages to participate in the RfC. You might want to post notice at the other affected articles, where the "politics" issues also arose, as a courtesy. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Deathly hallows

A long-time WP:WPHP member as I may be, I must say I had a vague idea of this conflict involving several Harry Potter-related articles for the last few months, hence my thanks to you for informing me of valuable details about the issue, most of which I was unaware of. Having said that, I did notice a lengthy debate about the Hallows section in February [but never managed to make a comment there], however I went on a long wikibreak in March - April, then came back and tried to edit outside the Harry Potter topic for a while. I just got HP7 back on my watchlist recently and couldn't help noticing the disagreement between two other fellow editors, little did I know then how stormy the affair is. Well, I'm not entirely sure about my position in this conflict. Though I currently hold no opinion over what is going on at R.A.B or Horcrux, I'm quite inclined to readd part of the material originally added by User:Sandpiper (and later removed by User:Folken de Fanel as spam and npov violations) in the Deathly Hallows article, that is to say I am unable to stay neutral or serve as a mediator for that matter. In actual fact, some of my edits appear to have added more fuel to the fire, and as a consequence I got warned because of my behaviour yesterday. Now I'm looking through some archives of talk:HP7 in hope of finding some more useful clues. A few things which I have read suggest that I had better not just edit (and readd information to) the Deathly Hallows article in the way I would want to, I'll need to build consensus in advance. Oh well, I'll give it a try, not sure how this thing will turn out though... Once again, thank you for providing your input to the issue, I hope you have a beautiful weekend, Peacent 16:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw...

The Rowling quote on anarchy was from her describing her time teaching in Scotland wondering why her students didn't revolt. Hermoine actually says "I think we should do it ourselves" when describing the formation of the DA in TOotP. Fred and George simply don't give a damn anymore and turn floors into swamps in open rebellion against Umbridge before they drop out of school and open their business. Even teachers don't bother to assist Umbridge in restoring order from the chaos, leaving the swamp in place. These are themes that you can see in the trailers of the movie, or can reread the book to find. But admittedly, this is too far from the current interpretation of Rowling to go into Wikipedia. Maybe after the movie and book 7 come out, or maybe not until Rowling publishes her encyclopedia explaining all of the references. Libertycookies 12:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

T-Dot, could you check Liberty's most recent edits please?

His reference to politics in Harry Potter seems close to a misquotation, but I don't have the strength to engage in yet another battle with him. He seems to see you as impartial, so could you have a look? Serendipodous 14:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)