User talk:86.131.82.101

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Regulus Black

A long time ago, the 'argument that Regulus is not RAB' was written by another editor in essay form. A request was made on the talk page to rewrite it in encyclopaedic form. I did so, and did not receive any complaints. Since then, that section has seen plenty of changes, additions and removals (most notably people insisting that really no-one apart from Death Eaters refers to Voldemort as 'The Dark Lord': most recently, a suggestion that Ginny only chose the term because it rhymed with 'blackboard'), none of which I have objected to (you can see for yourself, using the history, how much has been changed over time). I don't at all like your insinuation that I would by biased according to my level of input.

I also don't quite grasp the "When reading it, I can quite clearly see that there is some kind of personal favouritism for this particular theory, for whatever the reason the editor may have had." Is that to suggest the theory that he is RAB, or that he isn't? I actually believe he is, and was determinedly pointing out the obstacles to why he could not be. I don't care for bias at all. If you were suggesting that I 'personaly favour' the 'he is RAB' theory, I can assure you that I was not setting up and knocking down straw men. If the 'he is not RAB' theory...I suspect that is more your own bias.

Kreacher, as I have pointed out in the article, has everything to do with the theory. Look at [1] under Regulus not RAB for a better summation than I care to give now.

'Flawed' seemed as good a word as any to indicate that the theory has a hole through lack of evidence: i.e. is the locket gold, does it have a snake on it? Suggest a better word if you want to. It certainly is NOT weasel-wording.

Rowling's use of red-herrings is excessively documented: Snape is a rather great stinker of one. I cited the Tonks one at the time because that, being in the same book, was the first which sprang to mind. There are plenty of others.

I am sorry if you are unhappy that the 'not RAB' makes points you disagree with (I suspect that you believe that he is RAB). It is merely a summation of what we know, and until HPDH is released and we can write a proper article based on verifiable fact, it is all we can work with. Happy editing. Michaelsanders 23:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)