User talk:Libertycookies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Did you know...

Updated DYK query On 22 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Politics of Harry Potter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 talk 13:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lend a hand?

A user seeming to have an interest in some of the same issues as you recently posted to the Harry Potter article. I thought maybe you might want to drop him/her a hand and help them find their way. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lib, about the Influences and analogues article

There are a few things you need to know:

  • The influences section is only for those books which Rowling has acknowledged as influences. Someone else simply saying that HP was inspired by such and such a book doesn't count.
  • That is what the analogues section is for. If Rowling has not claimed a book as an influence on Harry Potter, but someone else has (preferably a lot of someone elses), then it can be listed as an analogue. If Rowling later admits that she was influenced by said book, then it can be shifted to influences.
  • The order of the books in both the main sections is chronological.
  • The "Other favorites" section is where to put those books that Rowling has not claimed influenced her work but which she simply says she likes very much. That's where Roddy Doyle goes.Serendipodous 06:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You should include this in your politics article

If only to balance it out. Serendipodous 06:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Added. Fits nicely with Fox News' views. Libertycookies 17:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Um, i cant really think of a topic headline

Im noticing that VERY VERY few of the harry potter articles contain the themes and morals presented by the harry potter books. This isnt really original research, as themes themes have a basis of fact -(IE JK and the book). I think these are very important in the analysis of harry potter. do you think i should continue to argue case, or that this isnt really relavent to harry potter. Im just asking a fellow harry potter fan =D I also really like your philosophy theme on your User page. Philosophy and pacifism have really been an interest of mine since i was a child addy gAddy-g-indahouse 12:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non violence

I was just reading the article on non violence that wiki has, and i noticed that it has no philosphy in it. To have an article on nonviolence, completely constructed with facts, is like einstien's theory of relativity without the physics. the philosophy of nonviolence is like the c^2 in MC^2. Do you think we should do something about it, as we share mutual interests in philosophy and non violence? addygAddy-g-indahouse 12:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dumbledore's-army-thumb.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dumbledore's-army-thumb.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jill Murphy

Which search terms did you use? I've been trying to google it for months. Serendipodous 15:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For the politics article

Bad transcript- keep an eye on it. (For the record it's "Juvenal" not "juvenile" Serendipodous 08:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter

Hi, Libertycookies. I worded it slightly more strongly than you, but, I think, in the same direction. See the Politics of HP page. Keep it up. Best, Timothy Perper (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I just wanted to say

Congratulations on standing up for proper sourcing. I just hope you understand that what you just said there is what I was trying to explain to you all those months ago. Seems we're singing from the same sheet now, so all's well. Your article is coming along very well. As regards the auction, I really don't have an opinion on it, because these things are always notoriously hard to second-guess. But yes, I think it will go for over the predicted price. By how much, I can't say. Serendipodous 17:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it will be deleted. Right now it's in that same netherworld position that Religious debates over the Harry Potter series is in, basically listing the contrary opinions of a select group of people, with little information on the true relevance or impact of their views. Such information is likely to emerge in time. Serendipodous 13:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The book sold for 2 million pounds, or roughly 40 times the predicted price. Serendipodous 16:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter Alliance

Hi there! Although the Harry Potter Alliance was tagged for deletion as non-notable, I actually deleted it as a copyvio, the sole content of the article was a cut'n'paste copy of [1] (although I see I didn't put that in the deletion reason, sorry). So certainly I have no objection to you creating a new article on them with some actual content! :-) p.s. this Google News search will lead you to a few more good pieces of coverage, it should certainly pass the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" test if you use a couple of those as well as your Time piece. Cheers, and Merry Christmas! --Stormie (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: politics link

Not sure if mentioning her philanthropy really comes under the banner of "politics"; also removed the Influences and analogues link from early life section on same grounds. It doesn't really matter which links are in the article or not though, because both politics... and influences... already link to the article via the Harry Potter template at the bottom. So all's well. Serendipodous 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Legal disputes" article was originally a subsection of the "JK Rowling" article, and, in accordance with "summary style" rules, when the legal disputes section was branched off, a summary paragraph and a link to the new article had to be included in this one, as per the article's FA nom. I must say I didn't really want it summarised here, since it has less to do with JK Rowling than Harry Potter, but there you are.Serendipodous 21:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Look Lib

I just spent a great deal of time and effort getting JK Rowling featured. If I start making drastic changes now, it may have to be delisted. I understand your sensibilities have been offended, but quite frankly, the article already goes into far more depth than most biographies of living people on this site, and if the content is comprehensive enough to please the rest of Wikipedia, then it's good enough for me. Serendipodous 22:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again Lib, I had to clean up one of your references. Your habit of not bothering to reference properly is not only annoying, it's also incredibly inconsiderate, as it basically says, "I'll just add whatever I like and let other people do the tedious work." If you're not willing to get your hands dirty like the rest of us, don't keep expecting the rest of us to do your work for you. Serendipodous 23:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:A-fine-old-conflict.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:A-fine-old-conflict.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Politics of Harry Potter

I'm going to nominate this article for peer review, to make sure it adheres to WP:BLP guidelines. The recent accusation of left-wing bias has me concerned. Serendipodous 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)