User talk:Davemon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Chaos Marauder

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)