User talk:T-dot/Archive 2

On spam links

Hey I noticed you nailed the spam link on Ford Motor Company.[1] 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: [2]. --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

MKZ

MKS

SUV

MKX

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 [3], 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)

Horcruxes

The concept is NOT introduced until book 6. Please point out where Horcruxes are introduced prior to book 6. In a bit of retcon it is revealed that certain objects introduced prior to book 6 were Horcruxes, but the concept of Horcruxes are not mentioned until book 6. - Vedexent (talk) - 12:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please take up disagreements and discussions of this sort on the discussion page of the subject article - not on the participant's user page. This user page is not a private chat room for you to carry on with arguments. Thanks. --T-dot 14:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that the edit in question is yours, putting a message about it on your user discussion page seems perfectly legitimate. If you disagree, maybe you should put a notice about your rather unorthadox user talk page policies at the head of your page, rather than trying to "verbally spank" people for using your user talk page like 99% of everyone else's? Just a thought - Vedexent (talk) - 15:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

All I did was remove the spoiler information, and clarify that the first Horcrux was introduced conceptually if not specifically by name (Riddle/Voldemort's "memory ... preserved in a diary for fifty years", with which Riddle was able to "pour a little of my (Voldemort's) soul back into her (Ginny)..." and that the visible manifestation of Riddle disintegrated when the diary was destroyed by the basilisk fang). The elements of the "concept" of the Horcrux are there if one knows where and how to look, and if one understands the meaning of the word "concept". But I shall not argue the point further - it is not worthy of my time. --T-dot 14:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Again with the beans...

Sorry, but User:RadioKirk beat you to the comeback about my zeal.

Thanks.

trezjr 23:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For many contributions with limited reward (especially your work with car related pages), I present you with this Original Barnstar. Sharkface217 01:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Regulus Arcturus Black

I've redirected this to Regulus Black. I seem to remember his middle name was mentioned in the Black Family tapestry drawn by J.K. Rowling on http://www.hp-lexicon.org . - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

NO!!! "Seem to remember" does NOT qualify as verifiable from a Reliable Source. Rowling has NEVER publicly stated Regulus Black's middle name, nor has she said that it even begins with an "A". This is a crucial plot element in the Harry Potter universe, and constitutes either false speculation or a spoiler! There were indeed other characters on the Black Family tapestry with the name "Arcturus" and other "A" names, but NOT REGULUS. You have bought into an urban legend without checking the source. If Rowling has publicly stated that Regulus is R.A.B., then provide indisputable PROOF and we can redirect and so forth. Nobody has been able to do so yet, because it is not a fact. This is what is required for the Wikipedia! Please undo the redirect, and speedily delete the Regulus Arcturus Black article as requested. It is NOT encyclopedic under verifiability and reliable source rules, and constitutes speculation and original research. Thanks. --T-dot 13:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if his name is Regulus Arcturus Black, it doesn't prove he's RAB, but that's not what I was saying. I think it makes a good search query, but you're right. His middle name wasn't mentioned on the tapestry after all. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The mere existence of an article by the name of Regulus Arcturus Black in an encyclopedia like this implies that such a name really exists and that it is verifiable by a reliable source. We cannot say this, and thus the article CANNOT STAND. The article was inappropriately created by a known internet troll vandal who has an agenda of "proving" that R.A.B. = Regulus Black. This claim is NOT permitted in either of those articles. It is discussed as a possibility, but not a proven fact. It is one of the most important aspects of the unpublished 7th novel in the series, and a terrific plot spoiler if it is true, and pure undocumented speculation and original research if it is not true. Either way it cannot remain in the wikipedia. --T-dot 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it is confirmed by the initials used in translated versions of the book. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is discussed as a POSSIBILITY in the R.A.B. article, but is NOT conclusive proof. The fact that the Black family name and the "B" in R.A.B. are consistent in various translations lends credence to the THEORY that the B in R.A.B. stands for Black. Beyond that we cannot say, since we do NOT know Regulus' middle name, or the initial, or even if he has one. There is another theory mentioned in the article that suggests R.A.B. could be "R. Andromeda Black", the mother of Tonks. Please study the articles before you make these rash and incorrect statements! --T-dot 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That deletion was me. = Mgm|^(talk) 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Seriously - THANK YOU! --T-dot 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you care so much anyway? It sounds like you don't want it to be true. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am astounded by that. Is this a trick question from an Administrator Test? It does not matter in the least what I "want to be true". Personally I happen believe that R.A.B. is Regulus Black. But what I and some others may believe has nothing at all to do with the purpose and content of the Wikipedia. The reason I care is because we stewards in the HP Project - and all Wikipedians - MUST preserve the integrity of the Wikipedia. We cannot give in to personal beliefs and biases, and contaminate the Wikipedia with speculation and original research that cannot be verified with reliable sources. Pretty basic Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines are at stake here. We "insiders" on the HP Project also cannot go around spoiling plot lines for existing and future novels and other works of fiction, that stuff belongs on fan web sites and forums - not in an encyclopedia. We also need to resist the efforts of the less mature users, vandals, and trolls, who have no regard for or understanding of the rules. Additionally, Wikipedians in the HP Project should have the decency to respect J. K. Rowlings wishes and efforts. Rowling's wish is to keep to herself certain secrets about the HP plot storyline and certain revelations about her next novel, which is due out in about 9 months tentatively. If and when Rowling choses to reveal certain information about her creation - the world of Harry Potter and her next novel - then we Wikipedians are free to make that information available on the Wikipedia in a formal, proper, and respectful manner. And isn't this what being an Administrator is all about? Preserving integrity? I've been editing on the Wikipedia for over a year now, and have made no attempt to pursue an RFA, because I am not sure I am up to the task yet. But at least I have these basic concepts down - that verifiability with reliable sources always trumps the "truth" and certainly "beliefs". At least that is what I thought we were supposed to be all about... --T-dot 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Weasley Family - Assistance

This is something I have never done before...

Please could you attempt to mediate in the Weasley family article. As you may o may not know, I have been engaged in a rather pointless battle with another editor there for the past two or so days - he was attempting to make what I felt were needless and slightly dangerous semantic changes to the Bloodtraitor section, and had initially set out in a mission to alter the tone of the article, since he felt it read 'like a slam against the Weasleys' (this being the solid facts he felt to be negative). I, as you might guess, refused to back down, and suggested that since he had stuck up attention grabbing notices and asked for mediation, we leave the article as it was until such mediation emerged. This he agreed to. He then went back on that agreement. He also engaged in maybe-sock puppeting, attempting to edit the article whilst not logged in, which I believe was an attempt to suggest that he had support. This continued until last night, when I suggested that since we were in deadlock, we leave the issue for a third, unbiased party to sort out. He refused. I suggested it again. At his point, the user ←Phŋж'2Âshəs |Đ|©| got involved, claiming to be a third party mediator, and proclaimed that, as I had suggested, he would edit the offending section himself, and that if either myself or the objectionable Mr Reaves (John Reaves) edited the alterations, we would be barred.

However, the alterations are if anything worse. There is now clear and obvious bias in favour of the Weasleys, loss of vital detail, and definite Original Research (for a start, PhnxAhses claims that most Purebloods do not label the family as bloodtraitors - an interesting idea, but complete speculation).

We have both talked before, I know, most notably in the case of the Black Family Tree, where I obviously did not behave well, but where you were extremely helpful, sober, and influential in giving stability and a chance for constructive talk. Therefore, I am asking you to please intervene in the Weasley article and apply the same qualities. I can promise you here that I will accept your judgements, and not argue with you; but at the same time, I am not going to back down to the rest of them, which you will agree is hardly helpful to Wikipedia. I ask you, then, to please help.

Thank you for your time. Michael Sanders. Michaelsanders 10:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we both had the same idea. T-dot, I would also like for you to get involved with the article in question.←Phŋж2Âshəs |Đ|©| 17:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into the issue this week. Sorry for the delay - busy times are afoot. I know you guys are anxious to get to an end of the war and form a consensus, but sometimes it is good just to take couple of days to cool off and think about the long term. What would we want Readers to know about the topic, say, five years from now when the HP universe is "closed" (following the release of the DVDs of the special extended edition versions of all the movies, and the later "special editions" of the books, when Rowling finally corrects all the errors and inconsistencies she introduced in the originals, which has led to more fanatical heated debates on the Wiki and fan sites than any other topic known to man since chicken/egg). The article and the Wikipedia is going to be around for a long time: there is no need to rush into a bad solution. The Wikipedia should avoid being overly temporal - with news changing every time a new movie trailer comes out. I am already bracing for the inevitable attacks that certain lines and scenes shown in the newly-released OOtP Trailer do not happen in the books, and so are "not canonical". Geez.

Anyway my view is we are all here to try to improve the quality of the information in articles. We should not be pressing for the publication of our personal agendas and beliefs - biased or not. Our job is to try to present the Weasleys (and other HP families and characters) exactly as Rowling intended them to be presented, and to avoid "bashing" or speculation on judging their motives or whatever. We can discuss obvious parallels between the HP-universe Wizard "purebloodedness" and real world biases based on race/ethnicity (as Rowling did on her site), and we can certainly discuss the "exclusive" attitude of certain pureblood families (Black, Malfoy, etc.) and contrast that with the more "inclusive" attitude of other purebloods (Weasley, etc.), and the non-pureblood family members and muggles and muggle-borns (Potter, Granger, etc.). But I think we should avoid judging, laying guilt, attributing motives, and overly categorizing HP characters beyond: what would (or did) JKR say - both what she wrote, and what she intended to write (correcting for things like date inconsistencies, etc.). --T-dot 13:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)