User talk:Polenth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Messages left on this talk page will be responded to on this talk page, to keep the discussion together.
Contents |
[edit] Welcome message
(Guideline links removed to save space on the page - Polenth 23:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)) |
[edit] Dragon
Hello, what do you think is wrong with the dragon infobox? If you have any ideas for a change, bring 'em on! Funkynusayri 22:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Mainly it's because it disrupts the flow of the article. The picture below was pushed out of place, and the text doesn't recover and wrap around it properly. Some of the bits are also a bit odd, like 'habitat'. That might make sense for something like a sea serpent, but it isn't really relevant to dragons (who are associated with pretty much every habitat, so you wouldn't want to list them). Trying to list alternative names and similar creatures in an infobox is also a problem for dragons. There are many, and the info box can't really handle that. Polenth 23:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's just to standardise the mythological creature pages, habitat can always be excluded, but in this case I think it's rather fitting actually, as it wouldn't be too obvious from the article itself that they can live in any habitat, for example. If you can think of some other infobox sections that could be added, just mention them, I was in favour of making an infobox solely for mythological creatures, but it seems we'll have to use the paranormal creatures one. Funkynusayri 23:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Elizabeth Báthory
Hi. You posted some comments on Talk:Elizabeth Báthory and seem to be interested in keeping the article encyclopedic. Recently there's been a very aggressive anonymous IP address user editing the article to remove NPOV wording to outright try to make the article state that Bathory did, in fact, take baths in blood, did write a diary confessing to murders and witchcraft, and all sorts of other highly biased comments. I would appreciate it if you would add it to your watch list if it isn't already and take steps to prevent such blatant unscholarly personal opinions from remaining in the article. Thanks. DreamGuy 20:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- If it's something obvious like adding witchcraft, or he/she tries to revert again without discussing it on the talk page, I'll do something. It's a bit outside my main areas of knowledge though, so I'll avoid getting into any debates that occur sorting it out. Polenth 03:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- They're adding a variety of stuff, like that a diary by Bathory exists (see talk page where it's discussed that that's only rumor) and falsely saying that nobody believes Raymond Macnally that the blood bath legend was only invented years later, claiming that what witnesses admitted under torture was abslutely true, and outright in many cases arguing in the article in favor of certain views. I would think that much of the edits would be obvious when you read them as what has been changed recently were whole sections all at once. I don't recall if the witchcraft info wa part of it or not, but it could be, and certainly things very similar to it. And I know the guy will be reverting again when his 24 hours is up for the 3RR violation, as he is annoying me on my talk page about it. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated. DreamGuy 04:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the revert... I've also now listed the sections of the talk page that already discussed the issues in question. DreamGuy 20:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I have responded on the matter and would kindly wish to direct your attention to the talk page. --72.84.58.186 21:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The anonymous editor is back to pushing some of the same nonsense he was told he couldn't do on the talk page. Your assistance would be helpful again. DreamGuy 03:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I gave pertinent responses (yet again) on the talk page, to no avail (vis-a-vis this particular editor). It is not in any sense nonsense, nor is it in any sense mine. --72.84.34.222 04:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little busy with out-of-Wikipedia projects right now, and it's sounding like this issue might need some wider intervention. I don't see I have anything more to add to the dispute anyway. I've made it clear my position - that I think the additions should be properly sourced, regardless of who added them the first time. And I think they should be kept out of the article until they can be proven. I'd add in brief that I think re-adding something with enough passion to argue about it makes it your edit, and that makes you responsible for finding the sources. If they are no sources to quote, you'll better off just dropping the whole thing. Polenth 23:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think re-adding something with enough passion to argue about it makes it your edit - this sounds a bit reductionist. In any case, as I explained in more detail on the article's talk page, the focus on this aspect seems to have the intention of promoting an extreme minority "POV" in regards to Bathory's crimes and is likely in bad faith given the article's history (DreamGuy seems to have an obsession over the page even though he isn't accurately rendering how the page got to be how it is). Though I know of the processes of "wider intervention" with respect to Wiki processes, I'm not intimately familiar with them and am unsure if I am interested. I just wish a neutral observer would invest the time to rework the article and source it all rather than selectively. I don't have that much time (or passion, frankly). --72.84.56.55 03:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Bathory (again)
DreamGuy is now attempting to revert war over the insertion of tags regarding the plainly evident work the article needs. He has become frankly obsessed with being obstinate against me or simply believes he possesses this article. If this keeps up I intend to take the dispute further. Please comment on the talk. --72.84.41.13 09:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Noooo... Consensus was clearly formed on the talk page that this anon user's supposed "plainly evident work the article needs" is not only NOT needed, but that he needs to stop trying to push his POV and acting like *he* owns the article over all of the other editors who have weighed in. That he'd come crying to other people like he thinks he has any support is just ridiculous. DreamGuy 19:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have responded on the substance of these remarks on the article's talk page. --72.84.37.68 03:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cryptids
I have been adding {{WikiProject Cryptids}} to the articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cryptozoology/Articles --Java7837 20:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason {{WikiProject Cryptids}} has been added to many mythology related articles is because dragons are part of cryptozoology--Java7837 21:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think I see where the issue might arise. Dragons refer to a range of different mythological creatures. They're not all the same thing. Some of them are discussed in cryptozoology circles and some of them aren't. The ones that aren't have nothing about cryptozoology that could be added to their articles. Therefore they're not part of the cryptozoology project. Dragons aren't quite as simple as things like lake monsters; you need to look at the individual cases a bit more closely. (Will post a copy of this reply on your talk page too) Polenth 21:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a overlap between cryptozoology and mythology just as there is a overlap between christianity and judaism also I been adding {{WikiProject Cryptids}} to the articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cryptozoology/Articles--Java7837 21:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you have a issue with the articles they have listed there--Java7837 21:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
A creature doesn't have people trying to have find it or prove its existence for it to be a cryptid--Java7837 21:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
