User talk:T-dot/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk archives for User:T-dot (current talk page)
<< 1	< Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3 >	5 >>

Assumptively

I laughed out loud when I saw your edit summary [1] on Lord Voldemort. I thought assumptively sounded fairly prepostrous myself, but apparently it's a word (or at least used to be): [2], [3]. Anyway, no big deal; I don't think I've ever heard the word used, and it would be difficult for me to use it in a sentence. Good job on the cleanup! E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

what the ...

Could you be so kind to go and read what is on Talk:Ford!

P.S. Please ... --Goldie (tell me) 19:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I read it; but I have no idea what it might be in regards to, or why you wanted me to read it. I gather I must have missed out on an earlier discussion, consensus vote, or dispute...? --T-dot 19:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter spoilers

Hi there. I've just posted a comment at Talk:Albus Dumbledore, which might be of interest. I think (after looking through the edit history) that you added in the spoiler as a "note to editors" (though you say you added it "back" - so maybe someone else had added it earlier). I know it was meant to be a spoiler warning, but it actually spoilt the plot for me. Not a big thing, and I'm not annoyed or anything, but I thought I should point this out for future reference. Also, looking through the edit history and reading the summaries led to me reading a few more plot spoilers! :-) Carcharoth 10:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I just pulled up the text of the page to correct a small typo in the lead section, and found myself reading a plot spoiler in the "helpful" 'note to editors'. Please, please, if you put a plot spoiler anywhere, please label it as a plot spoiler and add warnings well before the text itself (as I've just done). Thanks. Carcharoth 10:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - but the primary intent and principle of Avoiding Plot Spoilers applies to first and foremost to the main article as posted, not so much to the commentary, discussions, warnings, and historical logs between editors regarding information to be posted or eliminated. It is not expected that someone totally unfamiliar with the plot line in the world of Harry Potter would try to study and edit materials located in a spoiler area, and then be offended by the spoilers discovered there. Nor would it be expected that novices unfamiliar with the HP plots and Wiki-principles and guidelines would go digging into ancient edit histories and comments and discussions between editors, who are actively engaged in combat on a daily basis in counter-vandalism efforts and other cleanup work, to keep the current "public view" of the main article "kosher".

Experience has shown that some editors are ignorant of (or have no regard for) the rules on posting spoilers, and insist on adding things like death dates, and who killed who, and what happens to who, in areas outside of the "authorized" spoiler areas. In addition, sometimes the Edit Summaries themselves may contain spoiler info, but this was either done maliciously by a vandal, or by the CVU as warning, and cannot be helped or remedied after the fact. The Counter-Vandalism Unit is sometimes forced to post "hidden" warnings against posting spoilers, even if such a warning itself (normally hidden from clear public view but visible in the "edit" window) contains spoiler information - it simply cannot be helped in some cases. It is all for the greater good - an well planned and discussed attempt to head off some of the the gross infractions of vandals and Internet Trolls by using a warning sign, that is hoped to at least stop the non-malicious novice from inadvertently posting a spoiler out of ignorance of the rules.

I think we may be getting a little oversensitive, to the point of absurdity, if we are seriously getting worked up over the issue of "spoilers" discovered in edit summaries, ancient histories, old editorial discussions, and CVU-posted warnings to avoid posting a forbidden spoiler; and furthermore the whole complaint even seems just a bit disingenuous. Wiki Guidelines say to "assume good faith" on the part of other editors, but I think we may be pushing the limits here... --T-dot 12:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for replying here as well as at Talk:Albus Dumbledore. Unfortunately I didn't notice until now that you posted here, so I only posted a reply there. Carcharoth 10:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Kindness Campaign!

Just my way of saying thanks to newcomers to the Kindness Campaign... a delicious home-baked chocolate chip cookie! Yum. :D ♥ Kylu (talk • contribs • email • logs • count)

Concordia newsletter

Concordia Newsletter

Community Justice is no more. It has been reformed to Concordia. Membership has been transferred.

Concordia is an organization of editors on Wikipedia that strive to encourage civility and fair treatment among all editors in the Wikipedian community, from the Wikignome to the Wikiholic. The project was designed to have a friendly and helpful environment to support any unfortunate Wikipedians that have become victims of incivility, hostility, or continual disrespect.

We currently need help in getting going, and making the community understand our aims. We work for civility. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you have ideas, let us know at our talk page, or on the IRC channel. We aim to spread civility in every way we can.

Should you wish to unsubscribe to future newsletters, please add your name to Wikipedia:Concordia/Do Not Spam.

Thank you for your time. If you need anything, feel free to comment at WT:CCD or come into our IRC channel [4].

- The Concordia council. Delivered by Ian13 13:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

On spam links

Hey I noticed you nailed the spam link on Ford Motor Company.[5] Aweseome. I got User:Mrtipsy's other spam links because of that edit. Thanks. Kevin_b_er 06:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand stand this

This is becoming a problem. Is Nick Shim dating anyone? Was Robert Pattinson's cat eaten by Nick Shim? I've found this on Matthew Lewis's site, Nick Shim's and Robert Pattinson which you reverted. Can you tell me if this is true? ForestH2

I think the proper approach is to revert or delete any unsourced gossip and rumours, particularly that which appears to be slanderous or ludicrous, unless there are authoritative news sources (other than from speculation, fan sites, slash fiction, and blog pages). The Burden of Proof is on those who post such nonsense, not on those attempting to clean it up. --T-dot 23:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

O.K. ForestH2

Town Car replacement

HI, I noticed you put the MKS in as replacement. While yes it will be the flagship, please note that we have taken the flagship name off the template and now only have a full size category, the MKS won't be the replacement for the Town Car. Auto Week said it well, "If Ford stops making the Town Car with the closure of the Wixom plant next year, there will be a gap before a replacement product is on the market. Ford plans a production version of the Lincoln MKS concept car featured at the 2006 Detroit auto show. It could arrive as early as late 2007. But that vehicle, based on the Ford Five Hundred platform, is much smaller." You see the MKS is to small, over a foot shorter, than the TC to be Town Car. Autoweed also states that the DTS will be the only cay left in the "old cooger" segment, and they're right the MKS will be the new flagship but won't replace the Town Car. Just like there has never been a replacement for the Fleetwood Bourgham, there won't be one for the TC in the near future. As we have taken out the flagship category, I think its fair to have the TC end in '07 w/ nothing to follow and put the MKS in the Continental line only. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Two flaws in your logic: 1) the Continental was considered a "midsize" car (your own claim) and the Town Car is considered "full size". The MkS is called a "full size flagship" in all the Ford media releases. Even if it is a "foot shorter", the interior space is comparable (except perhaps for the extended wheelbase Town Car and certainly the stretched limo versions). 2) The MkS is also AWD - so it crosses both the Continental (FWD) and Town Car (RWD) platform configurations. I had assumed until recently that the Town Car was a continuing carline to be produced in canada alongside it's platform mates Crown Vic and Grand Marquis, and that the MkS was essentially a replacement for the Continental and to an extent the "loaded" LS, which was in turn the de facto replacement for the Mark VIII, in spite of significant platform and visual styling variations. With the closing of the Wixom plant, and the decision not to transfer Town car production to Canada (and what appears to be a move towards cancelling the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis as well), then the "full size Flagship" line you originally created is indeed being filled by the MKS - and conveniently at about the same time as Wixom is scheduled to close and Town Car production will cease.

This is why I decided the "best compromise" is to cross both the midsize and fullsize "flagship" carlines with the MkS - again I was setting what is factually correct and "right" as opposed to what might be "believed" or "understood" or "conceptualized" by fans, who tend to be fanatical in their biases about "their cars" - which usually yields problems related to POV. I have known your edits for a long time now, and I know you to be highly protective of your Lincoln articles, and especially that of your beloved Town Car. You have a tendancy to lean towards what I call "automotive classism" where you tend to try to keep certain vehicles "pidgeonholed" - as seen in the automotive timelines you have so meticulously created, and often fight any changes to them. The problem with this static approach is that the automotive industry and marketplace and consumer demographics is highly dynamic - constantly shifting and adjusting and expanding and shrinking to the needs and wants and preferences of the buying public. I think the "best" and most "correct" solution here is to allow the MkS to do its job as advertised, and cover the Continental and Town Car class carlines as it in fact does.

But I am not interested in an edit war with you. I put that edit to the Lincoln timeline up for a reason, and that was to make you think about it a little deeper, and come to your own conclusions, and consider "letting go" of the Town Car as a "protected" carline, and consider the MkS for what it is intended for in the marketplace, rather than highlighting how it differs from the venerable Town Car. I think when the MkS comes out, and you get to test drive one, you will like it and be thrilled that it is the defacto Lincoln Flagship "replacement" for the Town Car - carrying the Lincoln name and flag with some long deserved pride and respect. It will be a quantum leap, ready to take on all comers from Japan, Europe, and even Cadillac; as you will see as more information is released. By the way - I have been adopting the "MkS" moniker for a reason - that is sort of how it will appear on the nameplate - almost like "Mk S" where the "k" is actually capital but slightly reduced in font size and dropped down, and a slight gap between the "Mk" and the "S" - as will also be seen on the "MkX / Mk X" crossover coming out in a few weeks. Anyway for now, check out the media previews again on the MkS: [6]. --T-dot 11:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't revert the edit because of my POV over the Town Car. But only beucase there are considerable differences between the MkS and the TC and I noticed that the Fleetwood which has never had a successor and was thinking about rearranging the entire Lincoln template as well. But I guess as the flagship and still being a full-size sedan, the MkS does serve as a replacement. Alrighty then, I reverted my revert in template I have "so meticulously created." ;-) Thanks for quick reply. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 17:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S., yes I am highly protective of my articles but that also depends on who edited it, I have almost never reverted or disputed any of your edits as they add quality to the articles. Signature^brendel 17:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Template Sandbox

Lincoln, a luxury car division of Ford Motor Company

<-- earlier

Road car timeline, 1990s-present

[edit]

Type

1990s

2000s

'90

'91

'92

'93

'94

'95

'96

'97

'98

'99

'00

'01

'02

'03

'04

'05

'06

'07

'08

'09

Historic models:

Concept models:

Lincoln Futura | Lincoln MKS | Lincoln MK9/Mark X | Lincoln Navicross

I came accross this by accident and I must say it is a really good improvement. I also support marking future model years red! You probably couldn't care less about what I am thinking, but I couldn't resist dropping in while passing by :D Bravada, talk - 14:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC) PS. Hmm... Actually, I might have one reservation here. I wonder how would MKZ, with no V8 engine and lower price tag, replace the LS8. I'd say the MKS would replace the LS8 (and therefore also the Continental in the long run), while the TC would either soldier on, get a replacement in the form of the rumored car bigger than the MKS (either a stretched D3 one or some RWD wonder), or perhaps just fade away, like the Fleetwood a decade earlier. Perhaps there could be some "fading" bar placed after 2007 for TC to indicate uncertain status?

Great, the model years are much easier to read! I actually have the same reservation as Bravada, but it does seem that the MkS despite its much smaller size, and lower price tag will be the new full-size flagship. Personally I still think that the TC will be like the Fleetwood a car without a proper replacement. Also, I do think the model years after '07 should have a different color as to warn the user that we are talking about a futur vehicle which may still be subject to change in marketing and physical characteristics. Great improvement on the template. Signature^brendel 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

About the MkZ ... Granted it is certainly not a "pure" replacement for the LS-V8. But with the improved 3.5L engine, the MkZ comes in with a power (and torque) -to-weight ratio (263 hp and 249 ft-lb / 3438 lb) that is pretty comparable to the 3.9L LS-V8 (280 hp or 286 ft-lb / 3692 lb) - and therefore it should be pretty close in performance, especially with the 6-speed transmission keeping the engine operating at close to optimum conditions. It is also pretty close in terms of overall size and interior space - and thus utility. That said, a loaded MkZ looks to be topping out at around $37,000 (TBA) - which will tend to place it somewhat below the current (while they last) LS-V8, which starts at just under $40,000 and tops out close to $49,000 ... and many folks first judge a car's "cachet" by its price range, not its size, performance, or "mission". Nevertheless, Lincoln should be able to sell the car well on price point advantage relative to the competition in its class.

Meanwhile, the enigmatic MkS, with its rumored 4.4L V8, probably could/should be rolling upwards of 315-330 hp, and probably around 310-320 ft-lb of torque. That should be able to propel a theoretical 4000 pound class vehicle (somewhere midway between a 3700 pound LS and a 4400 pound Town Car) very sweetly as a new "Lincoln Flagship"; and a hypothetical targeted price point range of $40,000 to $50,000 should again be very attractive. If a very-hypothetical, longer wheelbase version of the MkS were theoretically produced a model year or two later, it could possibly top out in the same price range, and generally similar space and capacity as the longer wheelbase "Signature L" Town Car, and be suitable for similar traditional taxi / limo / livery roles. As for stretched limosines - well who can say what the folks that do that sort of thing come up with.

Anyway the midsize Zephyr is kind-of slotting close to the LS-V6 "mission", and is comparably priced, with considerably improved performance in the '07 MkZ upgrade. Meanwhile, the MkS is kind-of straddling several "fences", between the LS-V8, the Continental, and the Town Car, in terms of mission and pricing. It would almost seem to make sense for Lincoln to develop a 4.0L class V8 in the 290 hp / 290 ft-lb range for a "base" MkS, and a 4.4 V8 in the 330 hp / 330 ft-lb class for an "ultimate / sport" (and perhaps stretched) edition MkS, to cover the market. Of course all this makes the Lincoln Vehicles template very complicated for us to maintain or make any sense of. All it really proves is that Ford / Lincoln does not design new vehicles to fit smoothly on our old dated timeline templates, in which we try to pidgeon-hole their vehicles into, but rather to meet future consumer marketplace demand. Food for thought. Have fun.

Back to the original "model year format" points - I would like to request both of you to assist in updating the many automotive vehicle timeline templates - not just the Lincoln Vehicles timeline template, but all of them for consistency. I'm also not sure how to properly change the font color in a template for the "future years", so please feel free to take my suggestions and experiment, and deploy it if it looks good. Thanks! --T-dot 23:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

PS ... on the other hand, we have this ... The Wreck Of The Town Car --T-dot 11:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter book seven

Could you please refrain from making sarcastic comments in your edit summary, as you did to the Harry Potter book seven article today (diff). This is biting the newbies and may confuse editors. Cheers — G a ry Kirk | ^talk! 12:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Your stetement that my comments were sarcastic and constituted "biting the newbies" is a judgemental, oversensitive reaction, and well off the mark. I assure you that my clever, funny, and good natured comment requesting a citation was intended to achieve a result, and the result was achieved thank you. The requested citation was provided, so that impartial editors can now properly review it for validity and authority. The "newbie" in question is no newbie. The article in question has been plagued by vandals and trolls posting false titles for the book, and making uncited claims taken as it turns out from non-authoritative fan gossip sites and personal blog pages. The wikipedia is not the place for such nonsense. Nevertheless thank you for the feedback. --T-dot 13:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter Book 7

Why do I need a reference? The quote is in the article. Look in info from JK. But i don't even know why we put it there cuz its in the article already. (11987 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

I saw that after the fact. She says "two" not "at least two". And the rumors about Potter are rumors, not quotes from Rowling.

In a June 2006 interview about the previously-written ending, JK Rowling admitted that -

"One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die...A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure evil...They go for the main characters, or I do" --T-dot 23:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore Article

I see that you reverted my removal of the claim that Dumbledore was head of Gryffindor on the basis that it was undiscussed. You'll note that it *was* discussed on the article's talk page. Unless there's evidence that Dumbledore was head of Gryffindor (which I don't recall existing in the books or movies), that claim should not be there.

I believe the conclusion of the discussion at the time of my reinstatement was to KEEP it for the time being, and not arbitrarily delete information that is still under discussion. You first deleted it, without regard to that consensus, and then deleted it again after reinstatement, after adding your own "consensus" decision. My function is to work with the consensus, on behalf of the Wikipedia, and to fight unauthorized "blanking" of useful information - which constitutes vandalism. Nevertheless, I do not have a poker in this particular fire, so feel free to do as you wish, and perhaps others will correct your changes, if it is required for the benefit of the Wikipedia. --T-dot 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I do admit to not being expert (well, or knowing at all how) at automatically placing edits in multiple places at once, so apologies for replying to you three times. In any case, I don't see any consensus in the Dumbledore talk page that his being head of house belongs there. That, plus at least two users on that page stated the opinion that there isn't any evidence that Dumbledore was head of house. Having read the books many times, I certainly don't remember such evidence. If they/I are/am wrong, someone ought to be easily able to prove that with an appropriate reference to the books/movies/interview with Rowling. Venknat 08:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Henry Ford

Adding Henry Ford by Mantanmoreland to the Anti-Semitic category is wholly inappropriate. The claim: (category is amply supported by historical record cited in article; do not use inaccurate edit summaries WP:NPA) is not correct. Here are some excerpts from the article regarding "The International Jew" and other writings supposedly attributed to or approved by Ford. These strongly refute your claim that Ford should be categorized as an Anti-Semitic:

None of this work was actually written by Ford--who wrote almost nothing. Other people told him about the contents, although Ford probably never read them (He claimed he only read headlines.)

(The) articles nevertheless explicitly condemned pogroms (sic) and violence against Jews

News reports at the time quoted him as being shocked by the content and having been unaware of its nature.

Ford had nothing to do with the editorials even though they were under his byline.

Ford publicly retracted the International Jew and the Protocols. In January 1942, he wrote a public letter to the ADL denouncing hatred against the Jews and expressing his hope that anti-Jewish hatred would cease for all time.

I think this proves that Mr. Ford should not be included in the category with Anti-Semitics, and your statement that the article supports such categorization is simply false. As to "inaccurate edit summaries", your original categorization post did not even have an edit summary - and since the category is both inappropriate and inaccurate for application to Henry Ford, and had all the appearance of an agenda-driven drive-by vandalism done by an internet troll, done in spite of and in clear disregard of the discussions on the discussion page, and the approved material posted in the article. Thank you in advance for your re-consideration --T-dot 14:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. First of all, the word "vandalism" within Wikipedia has a specific meaning. See WP:VANDAL. Ditto for "trolling." Please don't use words like that inappropriately or to describe a content dispute. See WP:NPA.

Quoted from WP:NPA - Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. There is a difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll"... --T-dot 12:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, your uncited and unsubstantiated original research does not "prove" anything. What are your sources? Where are the citations in the article? Your one-sided and selective discussion represents a minority view among historians, who are quite unanimous that Ford was anti-Semitic. His claim that he was "too busy" to notice the seven years of anti-Semitism at the Dearborn Independent was derided at the time, and he later repudiated his apology.

However, you have highlighted a serious problem with this article, which is that it totally whitewashes Ford's anti-Semitism and provides a minority POV rejected by historians.

Additionally, and just as important, the article does not cite within the body of this lengthy article any of its sources, not the least of which are sources for its one-sided discussion of Ford's anti-Semtiistm. There is an omnibus list of sources at the bottom but none are linked to specific passages within the article. I have put the appropriate tag on the top of the section, since we are focusing on that that, but as a matter of fact the entire article contains no citations and the tag really belongs at the top of the article itself.--- User:Mantanmoreland|Mantanmoreland]] 15:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I just find it highly irregular that you would first use the Henry Ford article to defend your POV claim that Ford was Anti-Semitic, and then when challenged on that point by another User, who points out that the article does not say that (and you eventually read it and discover that it does not in fact defend your POV) you immediately dismiss the article as being uncited, and contrary to neutral POV. Very odd indeed. Nevertheless, I am not going to argue the issue further. --T-dot 15:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed irregular to have a long article, one that whitewashes a major historical figure, to have not a single citation for any of its dubious "facts." In any event, hopefuly that can now be rectified. --Mantanmoreland 15:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Style

A vivid red Lincoln LS V8- now that's style!
Okay I have created a Lincoln LS userbox and I already had one for Lincoln fans: Template:User Lincoln LS

This user is a Lincoln enthusiast.

Have fun! Signature^brendel 00:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU! --T-dot 09:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey someone deleted it. Bummer. --T-dot 15:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't quite know what happened-there is no valid reason to delete this template. I'm currently on vacation but may find still the time to fix the user box. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Have fun on your vacation - I'm in no hurry - just astonished that someone deleted or disabled it.

Random date changes

I saw your note on 69.248.76.129 (talk · contribs), and I share your suspicions that was sneaky vandalism. Might want to keep an eye on 88.248.3.41 (talk · contribs) who seems to be doing similar edits to similar pages. I've been trying to add footnotes to these articles as I revert them, so it will be easier to spot next time, eg on Henry Hill (mobster). Gimmetrow 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:X_studio_29seamus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:X_studio_29seamus.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Solved - an anonymous vandal-editor deleted the source links and fair use copyright permissions. --T-dot 15:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Homer Simpson

I guess you aren't a big fan of The Simpsons, are you? It was revealed in episode 3F06 that Homer's full name is "Homer Jay Simpson". TJ Spyke 23:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

OK - well the article had it as Homer J Simpson until two days ago when User:GustavJ, on a vandalism spree, changed it to say Homer Joaquin Simpson [7], and from that another user changed it to Homer Jay Simpson. I was unaware of episode 3F06, but whatever is posted must be verifiable - see WP:V. --T-dot 00:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User:88.111.11.218

You just reverted an inappropriate speedy by User:88.111.11.218. If you check his/her contributions, you will see a pattern of inappropriate speedies. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore

Thank you for your Albus Dumbledore revert, I realise that it was a spoiler and should not have been placed. My forward thinking and thinking from other viewpoints is terrible! Thanks again. Dsims209 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hogwarts Founders

Hello. I seem to remember you, like myself, were not happy with the additions to the Salazar Slytherin section. I haven't been able to form a consensus large enough to dislodge the dedicated MichaelSanders, but I really think it's time we got enough might on our side to do something about it. Serendipodous 07:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Salazar Slytherin section does seem excessively lengthy when compared to the other sections in the Hogwarts founders article. It especially seems to carry a lot of excessive weasel word baggage about what "some fans feel...", in violation of avoiding weasel wording, not to mention the guidelines and policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. I think we could open up a dialog on the article's talk page and address the issue there (and not personally go after the "offending" user like some others do (see the pitiful and petty personal complaints lodged by Vedexent below over a simple matter of interpretation of the meaning of the word "concept", in the Horcrux article. That user apparently prefers to address differences of opinion privately on the user's talk page, bullying others into submission, rather than openly discussing the issue for a consensus among peers. Not my style. And such arguments over wordsmithing and syntax are not worthy of my time. But I wonder how long before Vedexent berates me for this? Some folks just need to step away from the keyboard for a while and fix themselves a nice cup of tea.). Anyway I think we have just cause to eliminate the weasel wording and speculation about "what some fans think" about Slytherin, and only allow posting of "just the facts" based on what Rowling wrote in the books, what was clearly stated in the movies (with a canonical asterisk), what Rowling has posted on HER web site, and what she might have let slip in interviews. --T-dot 13:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't intend to "go behind MichaelSanders's back" on this; however, whenever I have raised the issue on the talk page, he has remained intransagent, and any attempt I have made to alter the text has been met with reversion by MichaelSanders, usually within a matter of minutes. I need to get others on my side before I go back, so that I can be clear that I am speaking with the authority of Wikipedia when I contest his views. I also think that more than two dissenters will be required before he accepts the authority of consensus; multiple opponents don't seem to faze him. Serendipodous 14:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Did not realize that Mr. Sanders was doing this. How about we set up a sandbox-like editing area on the article's talk page, working out a revised version of the Salazar section with all the weasel wording and fan cruft and fluff removed, with an explanation of why this is needed, and then gather some input from the other "regulars" in the HP Project, and then after a week or so sub in the revised version, if there is decent consensus and no serious objection to it - and have that as a basis for "enforcing" the consensus editing approach for Mr. Sanders to consider. I think if we make it very clear what the Wiki guidelines and policies call for, then eventually Mr. Sanders will be forced to understand that his lone-wolf (albeit perhaps bold) solo-editing activities and general disregard for the policies, guidelines, and other editor's valid viewpoints are not permitted. I don't like the idea of bullying around other editors (newbie or veteran), who may soon convert to become "good" editors; but sometimes the newbies and even veterans need to be shown the ropes again, just not beaten into submission with them. I've only been editing for a year or so (anonymously for the first few months) and I still get bitch-slapped and spanked by "bully editors and administrators" from time to time over what I consider to be innocent, valid, (or humorous) edits and viewpoints. --T-dot 14:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, though I don't know how to go about it. Not sure how he'd react to it though. He may try to edit the sandbox to reflect his own views. Serendipodous 14:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories: User talk archives