Open main menu



Just wanted to welcome you. I've be dabbing here and there, like yourself, started by making a corection or three. Then checking this or that, to get bite by a stub, and redirected to a title that seemed totally out of context - it was, sort of, as five differentl languages had lent names to the town at one time or another. In coming to an understanding of that, as well as the subject matter I was originally interested in (See Lushun aka Port Arthur and follow just about any link for the Russo-Japanese War) I got involved in a serious expansion. For the last three weeks, I've been improving the whole related set of articles before and after said war. It's fun! Starting in on a Vfd Debate is probably a little quick, but there's no problem with that either. Your posting has already drawn some commentary, so you want to go back and look at the thread.

Here's a good secret: will create an article page in your user space that you can refine before copying it into 'Article Space'. One Caveat - create a link for yourself on your talk or user page like [[1]]... Proably the best way to procede would be to create the link, then follow the redlink to the 'Edit The Box Below' autopage to begin building your contribution.

The following is something that someone first posted on my talk page, and the links are useful, so I copy it verbatum here for you... Besides, if I don't go to dinner now, I'll be divorced instead!

So enjoy and help us stamp out ignorance!!!


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. I have it on good authority that there is a Help Desk... I don't know how to find it yet, but it's there and I should know soon.

Again, welcome! Fabartus 01:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Infinite loopsEdit

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Disambig, and also see Category:Disambiguation. It may be appropriate to create Infinite Loop (street), and at the top of Infinite loop add a line that links there. The earlier case was two pages of which the names only differed in capitalization - and that is a bad thing. Radiant_>|< 12:26, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • You are correct, that was my reasoning. We sometimes do that on wikipages if one of the two topics is only a very short definition. Radiant_>|< 12:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

CAP rearrangementEdit


I'll move the paragraphs somewhere else than objectives if you like. I couldn't find quite the right place for them, but thought that was the most suitable area. I wanted to move the paragraphs out of the "critique" section, since they don't really deal with a critique of the CAP. I'll look into it.

Peregrine981 02:46, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Now that I see "critique" in terms of arguments in favour and against, I am happy enough to replace the paragraph. I hadn't thought about it, and assumed critique to be criticisms.
Peregrine981 11:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

George GallowayEdit

Please read No original research, particularly the section about cite your sources. If you can cite a reputable source that says that the Sunday Times views are opposed to Galloways, lets see that source. If not, then it is your original research. Also read poisoning the well. --Mrfixter 4 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)

Please cite a reputable source that says that the Sunday Times views are in opposition to Galloways. You are poisoning the well by attempting to cast doubt on the Sunday Times as a source on his marriage difficulties. --Mrfixter 4 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)
The Sunday Times intentions are not the issue. The Sunday Times is a reputable source and so should be quoted about a story concerning Galloways personal life. The Sunday Times politics with regard to Galloway are pure speculation on your part and original research. That a newspaper has a bias is not worth putting in an article about Galloway. Has anyone claimed that the Sunday Times has been running a witchhunt against him? Cite your sources! --Mrfixter 4 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)
No, I never said the Sunday Times is absolutely reliable, I only stated that it is a reliable source. I never denied it had a bias either, I was only stating that your original research about the Sunday Times having views in opposition to Galloway should not be in the article. I would also draw your attention to the fact that at the time Galloway was NOT a labour mp, having been expelled from the labour party a while before the general election. He was running as a Respect party candidate, not a labour one. I think you should also read WP:NPOV. --Mrfixter 5 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)

Hitler's PortraitsEdit

Thanks for the support, I will expand the portraits page, but I am waiting to see if they delete it. I don't want to do a bunch of work if it is going to be deleted anyway !!

Agricultural PolicyEdit

Welcome, from FLetch. I took note of your remarks and I agree that these are *possible* rationales for policy action. Good comments too on the structure of the page as well. Clearly, the "arguments against" section needs to be tightened up and then expanded to include other criticisms, such as higher domestic food prices in the rich world. Some advice: if just alterring a heading or a few words and sentences in a section, these are considered minor edits and require little comment. Some information on me: I'm an American from Milwaukee, Wisconsin and am an economics graduate student at the university here. I'm a political centrist in that I switch between parties and candidates too, depending on the issues involved. I occasionally contribute to the ag. policy and free trade pages here. The free trade page is much more in need of cleanup.

Matthew ParrisEdit

I removed Category:British MPs because the article is also listed under Category:Gay UK MPs, which is a direct descendent of it. By the same reasoning I also removed Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people as it is a parent category of Category:LGBT politicians and thus Category:Gay politicians.

That having been said, Category:Gay UK MPs needs work as well. I'm working through Category:LGBT actors before I do that, though. Cheers, Cleduc 01:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ: if you click on Category:Gay UK MPs you will see at the bottom that it is a subcategory of Category:British MPs. Whether this is absolutely necessary or not I do not know -- I don't know if there's consensus that Category:British MPs has grown huge and unwieldy like [[certain other categories. However, removing Category:British MPs did not remove that attribute from that article -- it remains in the same category hierarchy nonetheless. However, I'm not terribly pleased with Category:Gay UK MPs being under Category:British MPs, but I haven't tackled that one yet. Cheers, Cleduc 14:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Macropedias and WikibooksEdit

I saw your comments both on the Wikibooks VfD discussion on the Harry Potter Wikibook as well as a comment that you made to Aya on his user:talk page. I wanted to go over this for a moment.

There has been several attempts in the past to try and organize a private "Wikipedia" on a single subject or topic. The best example of this that I can come up with is Memory Alpha which is a Star Trek universe Wikipedia. Mind you that this is a totally independent Wiki and has nothing to do with the Wikimedia Foundation, although there does appear to be quite a bit of cross pollination between Wikipedia and Memory Alpha on a great many articles between both projects. Memory Alpha in some situations even tries to act as though it were Wikipedia in the 24th Century, describing events of the Star Trek TV series' as part of the historical record.

The "small definition" of Macropedia would be trying to create an almanac or 'pedia collection of articles that focus on a specific topic.

While something like this regarding Harry Potter would be incredibly cool to have, it is totally inconsistant with Wikibooks policy to allow something like this to be started there. I thought (and on this I need to learn more about Wikipedia) the whole purpose of a Wikiproject was precisely to organize content like this, but have the articles as a part of the mainstream Wikipedia as well. Perhaps I'm mistaken on this. There also appear to be a small subset of users on Wikipedia that are hardcore deletionists that will kill a Wikipedia article for almost any trivial reason, and some of them have tried to delete Harry Potter content because it is about fictional characters and concepts, therefore not worth preserving as human knowledge. I vehimently disagree on that point, but that is another battle to fight another day, perhaps. The rest of the arguments to keep or delete are pure political posturing and I don't think are really valid arguments for the most part. Some of the people doing the voting also don't understand Wikibooks and its purpose in being.

Literary deconstruction is, however, something that would be useful to have on Wikibooks, or an in depth analysis of the universe of Harry Potter, and how it relates to the larger world of contemporary witchcraft (including wiccan philosophies). There are numerous Wikibooks that could be created based on a study of the Rowling books, but it will take some creativity to get them put together.

I'm throwing this discussion on your Wikipedia user:talk page because it seems from your user page on Wikibooks that you frequent Wikipedia more often are are more likely to read this. I tend to hang out at Wikibooks more, and point to that on my User page as well. Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions.--Robert Horning 14:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous editorsEdit

Since when has any part of Wikipedia become closed to anonymous editing ? I understand certain votes may be closed, but I don't believe anything else has; I don't believe you have a valid reason for telling me to get an ID. I also don't agree with your idea that WikiProject pages are "consensus pages", as Wikipedia has always favored editing without discussion first, then gaining consensus if debate breaks out.

I have done no harm to the project, and have helped it considerably, particularly on the /Images page: most images on the page were added by me and the current organization of it was made by me. I made edits to the main project page accepted by anyone who commented. I also made the book reference templates. Your assertion that anonymous editors should not be allowed is not backed by any evidence that that "protection" is needed.

I reserve the right to not get or use an ID; that is my decision, not yours, as you do not set Wikipedia policy and that policy allows full editing privileges to anonymous editors. I have been editing Wikipedia (anonymously and not) since 2003: far longer than you have. Being arrogant by deciding Wikipedia policy for all of us and then telling me what to do in the edit history is not acceptable, or polite, behavior.

That said, your edit to the to-do list was good. To incorporate it into the main project page (the server isn't smart enough to detect changes automatically), make sure to choose the small purge link on the to-do list on the main page. — 05:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Lily and James PotterEdit

I do find the speculation about a friendship between Lily and Severus interesting. However, if it is to be included in any Wikipedia article, it needs to be backed up with hard facts from either the books, interviews with Rowling, or other valid sources. There are a million and one fan theories out there, some of which contradict eachother, many of which have been proven wrong over time, and many others that will never be proven right or wrong. Theory, opinion, and speculation do not belong in Wikipedia, as fascinating as they often are. If you have sources to back up the theory of Lily and Severus's friendship, by all means include them. Otherwise, the extent of its inclusion should be a line akin to "Because of the way Lily chastised James for his mistreatment of Severus, some fans have theorized that Lily and Severus were friends." --Icarus 03:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

That Lily defended Severus when James was bullying him deserves a mention. But any information about Lily and Severus having any sort of friendship is pure speculation at this point, unless you have a link to an interview with Rowling in which she confirms it. Just because they were in the same class doesn't mean they were friends. Just because Lily didn't like the way James bullied Severus doesn't mean they were friends. They might have been, but there's no way to know one way or another. Unsourced speculation does not belong in Wikipedia. --Icarus 07:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a possible theory. But Slughorn's personality must also be taken into account. He wants to form social and political alliances. Flattery, by means of emphasizing (or even exaggerating) Harry's mother's accomplishments, while tactfully abstaining from mentioning Harry's nemesis's accomplishments, can be easily explained as nothing more than that. Rowling may reveal information in the last book that strengthens your theory, but until then it's fanon at best. There isn't enough support to include anything beyone a brief, passing mention of fan speculation in the article. --Icarus 05:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I've moved this entire conversation (plus my latest additon to it) to the James and Lily Potter article's talk page. This way it's all in one place (instead of divided between two talkpages, though I compiled it all onto mine too for convenience) and other users can weigh in with their thoughts. --Icarus 03:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Half-Blood PrinceEdit

Hi icarus, just had a look at your latest revision. I have to still say, I don't see why you insist on going through theories of whether Harry was right or wrong in what he concluded about the potions/spells. The book does not discuss whether Harry might have made a mistake, I havn't particularly (or indeed at all) seen this point debated by anyone seriously arguing that Harry was wrong. I am not convinced it is important to argue whether he was right, or to explicitly argue at all about it in the story. What is gained by proposing alternative interpretations? Sandpiper 19:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

When did I say that Harry was wrong about his conclusions? I never said that he was wrong to think that the spells were written by the HBP. You, however, are implying that because it was not specifically mentioned that Harry thought the potions tips were the Prince's original work, that means that Harry didn't think that. This is not confirmed by the book. It is an extrapolation that may or may not turn out to be true. Or was it something else you thought I was saying Harry was wrong about? (BTW, if you reply, please do so on my talk page. I don't check wikipedia as often or as thoroughly as I used to, so I'll probably miss it if you post it elsewhere. Thanks!)--Icarus 03:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The way it appears to me is that rather than me trying to insert theories about the Prince having written the potions tips, you are trying to insert theories that he didn't. I haven't responded point-by-point to the evidence you've given, but what it boils down to is that you have an interesting theory that may turn out to be true, but is not definite as of yet. But I've given up trying to keep such unverified speculation out of the article (even Dumbledore's house being Gryffindor is considered unverified, so I'm not just being nitpicky) because I don't have the time, and it seems clear that you're not going to budge. So instead I'm trying to present a balanced view that includes your theory, but also points out that it's not yet verified. Maybe Harry thinks the Prince wrote the potions hints, maybe he doesn't. It's unclear. Your theory that he did not cannot be included unless it is done so in a way that makes it clear that it hasn't been verified either way. There are many things that will hopefully be cleared up in the next book. Until then, no unverified theory can be presented as fact.
It occurs to me that you may not even be aware of how leading your wordings have been. Look at the descriptions of the events surrounding Dumbledore's death for examples of how words can state mere facts, but be worded in such a way to lead people off in a particular direction. For example, one editor tried to add "But things in the Harry Potter world are not always as they seem." See how this implies that that is true in this specific case, even if the sentence itself is only a general statement? If someone strategically added "But Dumbledore trusted Snape, and he demonstrated his loyalty many times in the earlier books." after a section about Snape's possible defection, that too would be a statement of fact, but the wording and placement within the article would lead readers in a specific direction. You may think that you're merely stating the facts, but you're doing so in such a way as to lead the reader in a very specific direction (intentionally or not). I still question whether or not your theory is widely accepted enough to be notable, as you have provided no evidence on that, but like I've said, I've decided to stop pursuing that line. Now my main concern is that the article not lead the reader to think that one particular as-of-yet unverified theory is more valid than another. --Icarus 04:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

go back to blair pageEdit

return to the blair page and save it from biased apparatchik David Boothroyd (Dbiv)

Hickster 23:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads up. I'll update the watchlist. Incidentally, I keep this watchlist "public" (take a look at the actual watchlist article and you will see that I'm perfectly happy to let other people help me out with the watchlist. :-) Thanks, Deathphoenix 07:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... when I think about it, I don't really see any harm in keeping it. It'll come in useful if, say, someone tries to remove the redirect and create another article. If this is against consensus, it'll let the rest of us revert this easily. If this is according to consensus, we don't have to re-add the article to the watchlist. Thanks, Deathphoenix 07:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Yup, looks like I have Mr Ollivander on the watchlist as well. I think I agree with having Mr Ollivander's store merged with Diagon Alley. I think keeping info on his store and Mr Ollivander himself separate, but I'm not strongly of this opinion. I think most of the information available in the novels about Mr Ollivander is about his store anyway. --Deathphoenix 07:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

...where your loyalties lie...Edit

Hey Sandpiper, just checking in to say hi, thanks for your comments about Snape on my talk page, and I've replied there to avoid clogging up your page. See you there! Peeper 18:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

RE. Harry PotterEdit

The book was Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix I'm sorry for not specifing which book. Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 02:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The chapter is Career Advice, sorry to take so long to replie. I was caught up in a basketball game and archiving my talk page. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 03:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
LOL NO! I'm watching a Chicago Bulls game on T.V. or I guess I'm listening to it since I'm watching my editing lol. It's freezing cold outside, I don't think I'd be playin basketball right now :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 03:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I wanted to leave this directly on your talk page. lol The reason Slughorn rarely mentions Snape is because Snape is either A) A former death eater, or B) A current death eater. (Who knows for sure which he is). If you will recall Slughorn doesn't like to ave the children of death eaters in his Slugclub. On the train in book 6 when Harry sneaks into the Slytherin compartment, he hears Zabini tell Draco that Slughorn doesn't seem intrested in death eaters. I left a replie on the talk page too. I look forward to your response. :-) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 21:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter WikibooksEdit

I will try to explain on the WikiProject talk page. It can get a little confusing and I want everyone to hear it. Just give me a few minutes. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


Hello. I wanted to send this to you personally, because you already changed this once. The foreign editions of HBP were definitely not delayed. Believe me, I am a foreigner. Sure, they appeared several months after the english version, but this is true for every other Potter book as well. It is because the translators only get the book with the rest of the world and need some time to translate it. Sure, the english version of HBP was a bestseller in about every European Country, but the same was true for the english versions of GoF and OotP. OotP even was the first english book, which topped the bestsellerlist in both Germany and France. Just an example: The enlish version of OotP appeared in June, and the German and French translation in November. Compared to this, the release date of October 1st for these two translations with a worldwide release on July 16th is far from a delay. Neville Longbottom 21:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Charles WhitmanEdit

Hello Sandpiper,

Read your suggestion about the rewrite and I find you have that rare insight some people have to try and quell a hostile environment. I have contributed vastly to the Whitman page because I have been Power of Attorney for Houston McCoy for several years now. As a new comer, I was met with hostile editing and "original research" rules that quite frankly,appear to favor the editors and not the contributors, no matter what sources are cited. I no longer contribute there because I know they will edit my contribution to their own purposes and then make it appear that their edit is just, without resources and based upon their opinion of what an abortion or unborn fetus is. It's all contrary to the records I have on Whitman and the UT Tower Tragedy (I have all the records by the way.) One member insists that since the unborn child of Claire Wilson had to be delivered by C-Section, it constitutes an abortion and not a killing by Whitman. The mother had been seriously wounded at 8 mns pregnancy and the C-Section was performed to save mother and child. Unfortunately the child has been killed from the bullet that entered her hip, destroying her colon and uterus. Now these Yahoo's want to claim it was an abortion and history does not record unborn children in the death tolls. Tell me if I'm crazy or not! Look in the reference section to the link "Cop Compensation.... or similar" that explains my positions. Thanks! Subwayjack 18:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)subwayjack

Hello Sandpiper,

Saw your comments on the discussion page, your questions may be answered there in the new injured list section. We have at the moment reached a compromise, however, if you look at the arguments, your input would be greatly appreciated! Thanks again!Subwayjack 20:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)su

Harry Potter ProjectEdit

Thanks for your response to the questions! -Reagle 17:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom questionEdit

Thanks for your question about my ArbCom candidacy. I have just answered it, and hope you think the answer is satisfactory. David | Talk 21:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|(talk) 03:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

For your work...Edit


On merging the Tom Riddle article with the Lord Voldemort article, I award you this Dark Mark. Mwahahahahahaha. No, seriously, it took some work, so thanks. Keep up the good work. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I understand, but you have done a wonderful start on this immense task, so I thought some recognition was in order. See ya. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well Deserved BarnstarEdit

For your tireless work recently on various Harry Potter articles........ Good work Death Eater Dan   19:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is funny, I just came to your talk page about to award you a barnstar (probably a different one) for the same thing! Congratulations! --Deathphoenix 20:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just out of intrest (because this is the first barnstar I have awarded)..... which one would you have given him, DeathPhoenix? Death Eater Dan   22:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom Marvolo RiddleEdit

Hi Beowulf, I notice you altered one of my changes. First, Tom Marvolo Riddle is a redirect, so shouldn't be used as a link, either use Tom Riddle or Lord Voldemort. I am trying to rearrange things so that tom riddle is only linked when it is explicitly only tom who is meant. Otherwise link Lord Voldemort, which includes his whole life history. Anything which is using both names so the reader knows they are the same person should go directly to Voldemort. Thaks,Sandpiper 16:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, not a problem with removing the redirects. However, the link I "reverted" I still think is proper. Slughorn was not talking to "Lord Voldemort" - he was talking to a young boy who would become Lord Voldemort. If you absolutly must, then make the link
[[Voldemort|Tom Riddle]]
instead, but as far as the text is concerned, "Tom Riddle" is correct in that usage, "Lord Voldemort" is not. - Beowulf314159 16:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Issues of personal style should not cloud issues of factual clarity. For now, I will ensure that the text of articles remain accurate. How you think they should be linked - in this case at least, I agree - is secondary. You may wish to propose an article merger, if one has not already been proposed. - Beowulf314159 16:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Battle of HogwartsEdit

Apologies for the confusing deletion log, I've fixed it now. I think the objections were both to the title and to the material. Many of the deleters made clear they didn't think the material needed to stand alone at all, at least not in such minute detail. I'm not sure that more than one of the deleters said it was necessarily all included anywhere else, although many indicated that a more efficient version of it could be. If you want to know where someone thinks it has been merged to, you should ask them rather than me, I think. I can userfy it for you, if you'd like to see the material again (but note that this wouldn't be a license to recreate the material in article space). -Splashtalk 13:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the article to User:Sandpiper/Battle of Hogwarts. Standard cautions about recreating deleted material apply. Also remember that, if you should merge parts of it, you need to provide a 'credit' in your edit summary back to the subpage, and to retain the subpage. -Splashtalk 20:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Since the GFDL insists on attribution of authors, if you move the work in the article to elsewhere, we need to be able to track back to its authors, hence the suggestion of a link back to the usersubpage in the edit summary, and the consequent need to retain the subpage. It's the same as the issue of merging and deleting. -Splashtalk 21:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
We do not merge and delete, since this would remove the revision history and the attribution that the GFDL insists we keep. It is hypothetically possible to copy the history to the talk page, but with a multi-article merge this would be either difficult or impossible. Which is all to say that you need to retain the userfied article if you merge it anywhere for GFDL purposes. -Splashtalk 21:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I've seen that document somewhere too, but it certainly isn't a provision in the text of the GFDL. No, we do not ever merge and delete, though people on AfD sometimes say we should. There request to delete is simply passed over. I suppose occasionally an admin might do a history merge or paste histories onto talk pages, but these are both very much the exception rather than the rule. -Splashtalk 23:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Redirects are cheap, I guess. -Splashtalk 00:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Schools classEdit

Nope, three preserved; (30)925 Cheltenham, (30)926 Repton 30(928) Stowe.

Dunc| 18:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


I reverted back your reinsertion of the two pictures on 4-6-0. I feel that on a page about a wheel arrangement, pictures that are so dark the wheels cannot be seen are rather pointless. When there are already pictures in the article that don't have that flaw, I don't believe we should keep up bad pictures - it would be different if we had no other pictures to illustrate it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I see your point - seeing beyond 4-6-0 as a wheel arrangement and showing it as a type. Fortunately most North American 4-6-0s predate 1923 (public domain cut off point in the US) and thus photos will be quite available, I hope. I'll see what else I can find, too, and if you can see if those pictures can be given a bit more clarity, that'll be good too. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Or more to the point, I can (usually) get good quality photographs of most engines; go to and look for black five or hall class or the number of a preserved engine. Now, Stowe is a bit difficult to find, but please consider quality. If photos aren't up to scratch, then they'll be ignored, especially if we have one of the same engine which is better. Therefore, I do recommend if you want to upload your photos on the net though you use as a vehicle, not Wikipedia. And like Morven says, contemporary photographs are much more useful than modern photographs. Please. — Dunc| 22:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I think 4-6-0 should be a general history/description of the type - surviving examples should go into a supplementary list or category. The article at present is badly US-centric and needs that to be fixed, of course. 4-6-0s were popular in North America in the late 19th and early 20th century, before being supplanted by 4-6-2s and other larger power. Britain probably stuck to the type the hardest, especially the GWR. German use paralleled the American; Pacifics took over in the most part. I think there was a fair amount of use in France, Belgium et al. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there currently aren't articles on those US types. There should be, of course, but it awaits someone with enough information to write the article. I think I may have enough for the Southern Pacific one, but not sure about the other.
At some point, we need articles on the evolution of the steam locomotive in each major nation and some articles comparing them; the British and American way of doing things was rather different indeed, with German often somewhere in between and France just wierd. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit short with you before, see commons:category:Preserved British steam locomotives for basically what we have. And yes, the 4-6-0 right through from Highland Railway Jones Goods to BR standard class 5, but I've sourced most of them and I think at least I know what good composition is. As a rule of thumb though, the harder the photograph is to obtain, the lower quality will be acceptable.

Also, I think we need to wait on other language Wikipedias coming up to speed (the German wikipedia is reasonably up to speed on their steam engines, go via DRG BR 52 and click on the language link), but I don't think the French, Dutch or Italians are anywhere near. Also II we are far from finishing British types, most of the grouping types are stubs, while many pre-grouping types simply don't exist. And the problem with pre-grouping types is that they are very complex (particularly Midland 0-6-0 freight engines) and information is only available in books. So, yeah, there's a lot to do. — Dunc| 11:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Schools photoEdit

The photo is of Repton. Cheltenham is out of service in the NRM (I think). Repton is normally based on the NYMR. It is visiting the Glos Warks Rly and for that it has been temporarily renamed/renumbered Cheltenham because that school is local to the Glos Warks Rly. — Dunc| 15:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Gazelle1.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading Image:Gazelle1.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then 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 want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 10:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Longest streets in LondonEdit

Please stop simply reverting this article back to one fixed version, it's not helpful. I moved the list in question to the talk page, so anyone that finds a verified source for any item on the list can move it back in, which is slow going, but moving the list back in its entirety wipes outs everyone's work, including those who are trying to reference the claims made one by one.

AFD reached no consensus, but that does not mean that the article must be frozen at that point in time, which is what your reverts are resulting in. Several claims were disputed, and when no references were forthcoming for several weeks, the disputed claims were moved into the talk page, until references can be found. If you can find references for any item on the list, please do so and add back in the referenced item. You mention that there are "trivially verifiable", if that is the case, references should be easy to find. If you can't find references, please consider that it's possible that these items are actually quite difficult to reference reliably. Also, please note that even if you find a reference for the lengths of all the street on the list, you should not put it back in as a numbered list unless you also have a reference that these are the 1st, 2nd, etc, longest as well, as, while the two claims of length vs longest are related, they are quite separate. Regards, MartinRe 18:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Comma :-DEdit

The comma in Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Sorry about it. I was under the impression (USA's rules, at least) that all punctuation goes on the inside of the quotation marks, should it be necessary. Considering that we're dealing with a "which" adjective clause after that, the comma is almost 99% necessary – this we agree on. But, I thought it should go on the inside. A trivial point, sure, but I'll check out some grammar rules around. Thanks for your help with the page. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 22:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

All righty. I don't really mind. Just as long as we understand the differences. I'm okay. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 15:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, how about "Students (Hermione and Neville) at the Yule Ball"? Good? I'll go change it and if you don't like it you can put it back. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 01:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

HBP reference in GoF filmEdit

I've looked on the dvd for it on my tv, but its too small for me to be able to read the print now. I originally noticed it one of the later times I saw it in the theatre. I've gone back on the DVD, and I believe its the vial visible at 1:49:29, but since I can't read it too well on the size of screen I have I may be mistaken. I hope this helps. And if you can't find anything to verify it with, I won't be upset if you remove it. I'm quite sure I noticed it on the big screen though. Carl.bunderson 21:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm thinking of the one that you mentioned first. Its like at the crook of Snape's arm as he's holding the veritaserum. I am unable to read it however, on my tv. If I ever get a chance to see it in a cinema again I'll do so to try n figure it out for sure. Carl.bunderson 03:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bellatrix quotesEdit

"Hi, I noticed you reinserted the quotes that anon had removed, but placed them in the text. I am not at all convinced by his argument. The quotes were relevant information about Bella, so I do not see what difference it makes where they go in the article, somewhere they are separately explained, or all collected together. They were not irrelevant to the text. I would have placed this comment on his page, but it seemed pointless for an IP with only one edit. Sandpiper 23:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)"

What do you want me to do about it? Revert it, or place your comments on the Bellatrix/Anonymous IP talk pages where they belong. I'm the person who created the "Memorable quotes" section; I obviously thought they were important to the article and not copyright violations. I didn't bother evaluating the justification for the deletion of the section; people will delete or change what they don't like, regardless of wiki policy. I'm just looking out for my contributions by situating them in such a way that they won't be deleted again. Guermantes 17:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

about Stege molleporten.jpgEdit

Hello - I'm sorry, but my english writing is not the best , but the text in the danish artikel says something like : The Mill gate in Stege was one of three towngates in the old defensive wall. It is mensioned for the first time in 1531 in the Town-book of Stege, but is probably from the late 1400.

The drawing is from the late of 1800.

(Mølleporten i Stege var en af tre byporte i det gamle fæstningsanlæg. Den nævnes første gang i 1531 i Stege By's bog, men er formentlig fra slutningen af 1400-tallet)

Yours sinsirely Nico-dk 08:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

New Hogwarts teacher?Edit

Hi Sandpiper, you put in some interesting points in Harry Potter: Book Seven, and although I've become a little less caring about analysis or speculation, there's one point in there that I found interesting:

  • Someone from Harry's class will become a Hogwart's teacher[2].

I took a quick look at the above link and only found discussion about the new DADA teacher in HBP and how he will be someone who has a magic eye and be able to face down Draco Malfoy. Could you give me a small passage of text to search for to find the area where JKR says the newest Hogwarts teacher will come from Harry's class? Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's right, now I remember the quote. Danke for the information! --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi Sandpiper. I noticed you reverted my edits on the Snape page because I removed the HarryPotter template but I think that if you think it's a good idea for it to be on there I think it should be on every one, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore, Lockhart, Nearly Headless Nick, Fred Weasley etc. ForestH2


Do you think we should create a template like the one you said on my talk page? ForestH2


hahaha... so how do you feel about being neutral? (answer: whatever) --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It must hurt. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Further InformationEdit

The school website has a load of information about the school's history if you would like it.

Image Tagging Image:440locomotivestowe.jpgEdit

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:440locomotivestowe.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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 media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. Fritz S. (Talk) 10:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: GeneticsEdit

Hi Sandpiper. As I mentioned to Tasc on User_talk:Tasc#Genetics in Nicholas II and elsewhere, the genetics information is probably unnecessary and therefore inappropriate for articles on the more obscure nobles. This is especially true because, as you said, it is true of thousands of people.

The genetics information is significant for a few, however, like Nicholas II of Russia, the czarina, and her ancestor Queen Victoria, and maybe some very notable ancestors of these, because the mitochondrial genotyping of these people was one of the first and most widely-reported applications of mitochondrial genetics. --Saforrest 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Tunbridge Wells station eastern approach.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading Image:Tunbridge Wells station eastern approach.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject NovelsEdit

Regarding your question about the tag on the talk page of Severus Snape, members of the Wikiproject Novels will assess the quality and importance (for the novels project, that is) of this article. Every novel and fictional character that has a separate article is in scope of this project. However, as you are not a member of Wikiproject Novels (I think) you don't have to do anything. It will be evaluated by us (eventually). Errabee 11:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems we could really use your help. Why don't you become a member of Wikiproject Novels? You are not obligated to do anything, but that way you can be part of the assessment team. Our assessment procedure can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment. Indeed many people cannot say they have read that many novels, not even I (and I have read a lot of novels). So your help would really be appreciated. Errabee 11:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Talk:Harry Potter 7 (book), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter 7/seven/VII/sqrt(49)Edit

Reference: My talk page

Hi. Thanks for the words of welcome.

I came across the discussion at WP:RM. I opposed the change in article name from "7" to "seven" for stylistic reasons, which I outlined in the post (the "rule" that numbers be spelled out if less than some arbitrary value, which I held to be applicable only to prose writing, and not to the numbering system of books, movies, chapters, etc).

That being said, I have no knowledge of any prior or subsequent movements of the page, or of anything else to do with the pages for that matter. I merely stopped by to voice my opinion on the article naming debate as it stood at that moment; my interest here was merely one of housekeeping. In all probability, I won't be back this way again. With respect to HP's world, I consider myself a "Muddle" (i.e. hasn't read the books; enjoys the movies; annoys fans with questions like "so, like, he's the bad guy, right?"; and further annoys fans by saying "Muddle" prompting said fans to indignantly correct him to say "Muggle", whereupon he merely smiles and shrugs).

Cheers. --SigPig 11:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Harry potter 7 titleEdit

Hello Nice to see that some new faces have recently become interested in commenting on the article. However, I am interested to know how you became involved with the page? It would seem that someone came along and changed the title without any discussion. Then someone started a debate about a different title. A number of people I have never seen comment on a Harry Potter page then opposed the proposed further move, and in just 7 days, you yourself closed the debate. This is quite extraordinary attention for a HP page.

No one has yet explained the grounds for changing the page from its original title. Can you explain why this was done? It was also done by someone who had never edited the page before and was pretty inexperienced. A justification was given, but not explained. Then (as you noticed) an anon deleted the debate. Also very strange. Why would anyone do this? Sounded like someone wanted to avoid discussion. While I do not think it likely that people would have opposed the page title change if it is satifactorily explained, this has still not been done. I do not see how any change of title can be discussed or considered to have been voted unless someone explains why it needed to be moved in the first place. Sandpiper 07:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, i tried to look up the definition of vandalism. it says: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.". It then goes on at great length. Perhaps you would like to reconsider the comment you placed on my user page? Sandpiper 08:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh good, an easy question. Page moves can be done by anyone at anytime as long as they're within reason (i.e., don't rename Harry Potter 7 (book) to The new Harry Potter book that is going to be so cool!!! or Harry Potter 7 (book) on Wheels!!!!). For this, consult WP:BOLD. If someone wants to move an article to a title that is obstructed, they need to use WP:RM. For this, consult the first two or three sections of WP:RM. This is what Cafzal (talkcontribs) did. Several people logged votes and opinions and the result was an overwhelming (by comparison to other move requests) vote to not bother with the move. Rather than comment on the open move request, you kept asking why it was moved in the first place. The problem with getting persistent with that question at that point (as you are continuing to be now) is that you don't own the article. For this, consult WP:OWN. No one owes you an explanation as to why it was moved in the first place. You can politely ask and you can propose some other move but, if no answer is given, you should probably drop it. Anyway, back to the move request: Then I became involved. I'm an administrator. Administrators go through WP:RM and close out requests. This move request came up and I closed it out. That means it's closed. As in closed forever. Read the red text in {{polltop}} and {{pollbottom}}, "Please do not modify it." That means do not modify it. Ever. You modified it. The first time, I re-closed it and tried to be firm in my edit summary. Then you modified it again. Then you got a nasty message on your talk page. I was being kind with that simple message - other admins would have put up one of the nasty red stop signs or even just blocked you outright. Hopefully that clears up your confusion. You're free to go to WP:RM and you're free to use WP:BOLD to move it somewhere else but the community has spoken pretty clearly on that particular move request. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
In reply to the first comment, I was involved with the article before, but I have since created a new account. About the article renaming, if I remember correctly, it went from "Harry Potter book seven" to Harry Potter 7 (book). I think that the page was moved because somebody said "7" is more encyclopedic than "seven" and is more consistent with other articles. Myself, I prefer the newer title because I think that "book" should not be in the middle of the title, but at the end. However, I don't feel too strongly either way but I don't think that it should be changed back. 0L1 17:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think we are getting somewhere. you are saying that someone had initiated a formal request to move the page, and that you as an admin who does that sort of thing, closed the debate according to established procedures and timetable? Right. That does explain why a number of new editors had suddenly decided to comment on an HP page.
This is the first time that I have become aware either that there is such a procedure, or that it had been initiated. All I saw was that a discussion was going on, on the page, about whether or not to move it. this followed someone having already moved the page without any comment except for a cryptic sugestion that the name violated rules. I may be wrong on that, because it appeared to have already been moved at least twice before this debate. Other strange things were happening, as you commented the debate had been deleted entirely the last time I saw the page before you closed it. Then, along comes yet another total stranger and decides to 'close' the debate. This does not happen. Discussions about alterations to these pages typically meanders on for weeks or months, frequently simply petering out. So, I saw my clear course as to find out what was happening, first by asking questions on the talk page, and then when no information had yet appeared, insisting that the debate continue. This seems to me entirely in accord with 'any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia.', to approximately reverse the summary statement describing 'vandalism'.
Now, I have not had time to read all the pages of advice to admins on how they are supposed to warn people that they are breaking 'rules'. It is quite clear to me at least, that I was not aware I was interefering with your formal procedure to debate a name change. It is rather implict therefore, that I was certainly not warned about what was going on. I am a bit unclear also about what a 'stage 3' warning is. The description page would seem to imply that an admin is supposed first to issue a stage 1, then a stage 2..etc warnings.
As a responsible editor, it is my responsibility to find out what is happening when a bunch of total strangers turn up and start mucking about with a page title which has been perfectly happily sitting there for considerable time, for no apparent reason. I did this initially merely by asking a question on the page, to which none of the voters replied. This is not now surprising since the people concerned were simply 'voters', who had just dropped in to voice an opinion, and would not have understood why I was asking questions which to them seemed irrelevant, even if they came back and saw them. I did get a reply from t-dot, who is a regular contributor, but who I suspect was as bemused as me by what was going on. As it appeared to me, several total strangers staged a mock debate over changing the title. I did not recognise anyone as people who might normally sensibly consider a question such as the best name for an HP article. You are quite right that no one 'owns' an article, but nonethelless people generally form themselves into groups who 'look after' articles. I 'wrote' a good part of this one. None of the voters, or yourself' seem to me to fit this description. It is not hepfull to wiki if 'bands' of people wander about changing titles as they please.
It would seem there has been something of a misunderstanding of what was going on, and that all you were doing was following procedures. There would seem to be a fault in the system, as the nature of the debate is not apparent to anyone (like me) simply scrolling to the bottom of the talk page to look for new entries. Perhaps, as an admin, you could suggest doing something about that?
This is all the more disappointing, since I noticed on your RFA page that you stated that you would never find yourself in the situation where you were involved in a disagreement with an editor, where you had not followed all the correct procedures according to guidelines. As I said before, perhaps you would like to reconsider the comment you placed on my user page? Sandpiper 19:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I still have no view on the original name change, since I still havn't really found out who did it or why they thought it a good idea. My point was that arbitrarily closing a discussion on this is rather futile, when nothing has really been decided. However, it seems you and I were debating different things. Sandpiper 19:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My first reaction here is that you may be taking things a tad too seriously. It was a small faux pas on your part followed by a warning from me when the faux pas was repeated. Out of that, you've gone to the lengths of pulling up my WP:RFA and reading through the whole thing and even extracted information out (BTW I'm honestly not sure which comment you're referring to in there). All of that over an article which is probably going to be renamed two or three more times before a title is finally announced, after which it will be renamed four or five more times for a variety of peculiar reasons (probably having "...ON WHEELS!!!!" at the end for a short time). Really - it's not worth it. We should both be adding and fixing content here rather than continuing this. It sounds like you've been here much longer than me and you've never seen a WP:RM in action so you may want to research some of the processes here as well. I wish you luck in improving the article on the Harry Potter 7 book, regardless of the article's title! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have spent several hours trying to sort out what is going on here. finding your RFA is the least of the difficulties in trying to find out what was supposed to happen. This situation illustrates one of the problems with wiki, that the more people write rules about things, the more impossible it becomes to read them all, never mind follow them. I try not to read any more rules than I absolutely need to, because, as you say, it wastes a huge amount of time. If I need to move a page by debate, then I shall reluctantly find out how. Perhaps you might give some consideration to the difficulty which happened here, that someone stumbles into the middle of one of your formal debates, without any indication of what it is. The title doesn't help, really, unless you already know what it implies. I see that there is a notice at the top of the page, but I didn't even stop to read the guff there (quite a bit), never mind realise it related to the debate at the bottom.
You are also right, that people get very upset by small offenses. However....if you could see your way clear towards deleting the 'stop' note which you placed on my talk page? (but I promise not to delete the section again, now I know why it is there)
Oh, there is a little box to click to show that an edit is a miinor one. One reason i seldom use it, is that experience suggests there is no such thing as a minor edit, including spelling and punctuation. Sandpiper 20:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[copied from other page....]Now, to get back to present time.... the section i think I had in mind in your RFA was the following. The questioner was asking about a different situation, but it seemed to me reasonable to assume that your response was transferrable. Sandpiper 00:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

4. Question from Axiomm: How are you willing to handle the following situations: You tag a user as a "sockpuppet" and the user removes it. Would you leave that person alone or would you retag?

I would retag immediately and explain to the user that s/he would need to go through proper channels to get the tag removed, just as the proper channels were followed to get the tag attached in the first place. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is people don't understand the guidelines in regards to whether a user's homepage should be tagged. I trust however that you'll be patient with users and use proper judgement. Axiomm 15:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Well yes. As I said, I would explain why I tagged their user page - and I would direct them to the applicable policies and processes. But, if I am the one who added the tag in the first place - as your scenario specifies - then I applied it for a reason and it should not be removed except by an admin. Even if the WP:SSP process is complete and they are deemed not to be a sockpuppet, an admin would still be the one removing the tag. (Sorry if I'm belaboring the point.) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Must admit, it does again illustrate the need to read carefully and understand what someone has written before commenting. I see that the section jumped out at me as being immediately relevant rather more than it does on later reading after a weeks cooling down. However, you do imply that you always follow proper channels, and will always be patient and use proper judgement with users.

Now, my request that you reconsider the original note you added to my page, and remove it? (hope this comes out ok after I re-created it) Sandpiper 00:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter sevenEdit

See my reply to your inquiry. ~ clearthought 21:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again!Edit

I took a long wikibreak, and am just becoming active again.

I just saw your question about the effects of low doses of radiation. For a long time, all the low-dose information we had was estimates from A-bomb survivors - very poor estimates of doses. Gradually, a pool of data was built up on nuclear plant workers and submariners - although this was a very healthy lot. All the information available was incorporated into the BEIR Reports (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation), of which the latest is BEIR VII (2005).

BEIR VII says any radiation is dangerous (see [3] and [4]).

Now, BEIR VII apparently did not incorporate data from those exposed during the Chernobyl accident. However, the non-soviet nations were very diligent about radiation monitoring, and in the future we likely will have more reliable low-dose data fr certain types of cancers. Most cancers won't be trackable, though, because smoking and other health factors kill so many more people for these cancers.

So, in answer, the data we have says to act as if any radiation is dangerous. Simesa 07:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've RepliedEdit

See my reply at User talk:John Reaves#severus Snape John Reaves 19:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. On a side note, good job on the copyediting, it really helps the article's quality.
John Reaves 19:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Any HelpEdit

I have a minor quarrel going on with Duane543 on The Slug Club talk page (he thinks the Club is just the name for all Slughorn's favourites given to them by others, and that accordingly Lucius - and Harry - as Slughorn's favourites should be listed as part of it; I think the Club is an informal but quite real gathering around Slughorn of those who are willing to accept his patronage (thus, not Harry, who refused to join), and that consequently we don't know if Malfoy was a member, since we only know that Slughorn once favoured him. Want to leap in? Michaelsanders 12:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The discusion contines!!! Are you still going to be a part of it? (Duane543 17:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC))

Assessment commentsEdit

The comments you are after are lined to via the "here" word in the verbage at the bottem of any articles NovelsWikiProject banner. Most don't have them present although these two novels do. Let me know how you get on. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


If you are interested, please give assistance in the articles for deletion. Students in Harry Potter's Year and Harry Potter characters birthday list have both been put up for deletion, which I feel is extraordinarily unreasonable, especially since the deletionists clearly have no grasp of the relevance of the articles. Please help. Michaelsanders 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Snape: not fictional traitorEdit

Well, I read your comments on the talk page but I'm not so sure about your standpoint. Are you netral, or do you support this or not? May I ask: Could you please get involved again in the debate and help me in this kind of thing since the talk keeps taking long while the whole problem seems not easy to be solved, if you want to remove that unfair category and feel interested. Arhugefan 16:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, if not, I take back those words, thanks for your time. Arhugefan 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

→ I want you to know that I'm very happy about the fact that you removed the category (without any objection from anyone). Thank you very much. I really should have shown my appreciation much earlier. Wish you well. Arfan (Talk) 10:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


You wouldn't happen to have a higher resolution version of this anywhere, would you? I'd love it as my desktop wallpaper, such a nice picture :) JoeBaldwin 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Boesen School (District 28)Edit

Check out WP:PROD for more on why the above article was deleted, then just now undeleted. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Half-blood PrinceEdit

Point by point...

"well, we meet again. Rather than argue in the edit tags, I thought we might do it here.

"I'm willing to go as far as mystery is solved, but not truth is revealed. As I said, the one truth we can be sure of, is that any truth revealed at the end of HBP is likely to be wrong. So it is not accurate to claim here that a truth has been revealed. We wait to se what will happen."

'The mystery is solved' seems thoroughly inappropriate. It implies a Marple-esque neat solving and wrapping up of the solution by the detective. Which isn't what happened. The 'truth', as it stands at the end of HBP, was revealed by the criminal. The only 'solving of a mystery' was Hermione's confirmation that, yes, Snape's parents were a witch and a muggle, so he must have been the HBP. Suggest a better phrase, perhaps, but 'the mystery is solved' is just...wrong.

"I'm not hugeley exercised in arguing over Slughorn loans Harry and Ron a pair of the spare Advanced Potion-Making textbooks kept in the Potions storeroom.. but I note that now you have left out Libacious Borage."

I'll put him back.

"Ill gotten. How is Harry's achievement ill-gotten? He only used the book Slughorn gave him."

Ill-gotten - to Hermione - because he didn't get his success legitimately. He cheated. That's why Hermione got so angry (unlike his trouncing of her in DADA, where she asks him to teach her).

"What is the issue with explaining the anagram properly? If you don't give the full name and full anagram translation then it sounds bad and is misleading, whereas it is a precise anagram. In that respect it is quite different to translating Severus Snape as HBP. Not in any sense an anagram."


"half blood is an insult, why use the euphemism and highbrow 'offensive connotations'?"

Prince isn't an insult, as such, it has thoroughly muggle connotations (since 'there are no wizarding Princes'; there are - or were - wizarding lords, given the Peverills, Bloody Baron, and Sir Nicholas); half-bloods, to purebloods, are better than muggle-borns. So the name has poor associations, but isn't necessarily an outright insult.

"For Harry, it means "the boy who had been so clever, who had helped him so much", and whom he refused to think badly of, is, in fact, his bitter enemy.

"This is not at all obvious to me, but an interpretation of the book. What I read was that Harry was in shock, and frankly hadn't had time to decide what he thought. Thus I object to claiming he had a settled view."

"It's just that I was sort of right about the Half-Blood Prince business, she said tentatively. D'you have to rub it in, Hermione? How d'you think I feel about that now?" "murderer, Harry spat." "Hermione had just inadvertantly reminded him, he, Harry, had been taken in...the boy who had helped him so much...helped was an almost unendurable thought now..." "I had proof Snape was [evil] too" "His animosity was all for Snape" "And if I meet Severus Snape along the way, so much the better for me, so much the worse for him." I think it's pretty clear what Harry thinks regarding both Snape and the Prince. Yes, maybe he'll change his mind, but he certainly isn't showing any intention of doing so.

"How this sickening revelation will affect Harry's quest to destroy Voldemort and avenge Dumbledore's murder remains to be seen.

"Maybe Harry did find this revelation sickening, but that is not what the article says. The article says that an average reader would find the revelation sickening. Well, I didn't, nor did those those I have spoken to personally. Interesting, exciting, amusing, audience gripping... If you want to say Harry found it sickening, then I am open to suggestions (been a while since I read it, mind), but as I said on the point above, I'm still not convinced Harry really had time to think much at all about this."

I'll change that to make it clearer, but as I said above, Harry's making his feels on the matter abundantly clear.

"I didn't change it, but I also thought para 3 Slughorn loans read better when it explains at the start that the book had potions tips, jinxes and the nickname. This is for reasons of collecting together information; place all sentences explaining the books content together. Still no problem then in the next para talking about the difference between potions and jinxes. I felt this also gave the last sentence of the Slughorn para more punch: Enthused by his unprecedented success... reads better if you do not have to stick in the sentence immediately before explaining how the prince comes into it, because I dealt with that at the para start. Sandpiper 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)"


Retrieved from ""

Michaelsanders 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sirius BlackEdit

"just had a quick look at it, and there seem to be a few errors here and there. I don't see any reason to suppose Siius was miserable at 16. He seems to have always enjoyed himself. Perhaps what is written in the article is not what you mean?"

Possibly needs rephrasing - the context, however, makes it clear that we know that he was miserable in his homelife by the time he left, although we don't know the prior circumstances.
"The thing is, that the line you put in is not necesarily mean he was miserable solely at home. It can be read as an add on point that he was miserable always. But I am not convinced he was necessarily miserable at home. He might have enjoyed baiying his parents untill they finally threw him out."
"I ran away from home...I'd had enough...[Why did I] leave?...Because I hated the whole lot of them...I don't like being back here...I never thought I'd be stuck in this house again."

"Which bit didn't you like about James trying to impress Lily? that's what it says. He keeps looking at her, even gets her to laugh, and then is really pissed when she tells him off. can't understand why she isn't impressed."

You claimed that the bullying of Snape by Sirius and James was not only because they were bored and disliked him (both clearly stated in the text), but because James wanted to impress Lily by mistreating Snape. The last doesn't seem to have any specific textual support, or general textual support; and, as I said in the summary, given Lily's reaction, I don't really how it could be seen as intended to impress her.
"This is not stated explicitly, but step by step. James writes her initials, he keeps looking at the girls ,sys so every now and then, gets her to laugh at him sttacking Snape, and finally is shocked that she is not on his side. His loving her is explicit, his disappointment at her not being pleased by what he has done is also."
You claimed they attacked Snape because James " wished to impress Lily Evans, who James was in love with." There is no reason to think that - James responded to Sirius' complaints that he was 'bored' by saying, "This'll liven you up...look who it is...". They then attack Snape and mock him, before attacking him with magic. None of this could be reasonably considered to be an attempt to impress Lily, especially since James would presumably have known her character. Yes, James had a crush on her - 'in love' would be a little extreme - but there is no reason to think that the attack got her angry with him was meant to be an attempt to impress her.

"Where do we learn animagi are invulnerable to werewolf bites when transformed?Sandpiper 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)"

"They couldn't keep me company as humans, so they kept me company as animals," said Lupin. "A werewolf is only a danger to people." Michaelsanders 11:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"'a werewolf is only a danger to people, does not mean that 'transformed animagi are invulnerable to werewolves'.I didn't understand it mean that, and not did others. I don't know if anyone has asked rowling about it.
found you this quote 'Sirius was bleeding, there were gashes across his muzzle and back...' P.279 UK poa CH20. So Siruis suffered harm from lupins attack as a werewolf. Not invulnerable then."
A werewolf is only a 'danger' to people, not to animagi. Lupin harmed Sirius, as your quote shows - but Sirius did not become a werewolf. So Sirius was never in danger from the werewolf. Michael Sanders 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It's clear that James had a crush on Lily, yes, and those quotes show that. What they don't show is any indication that his bullying of Snape was to impress Lily, rather than to alleviate his and Sirius' boredom or because he hated Snape (both clearly stated in the text). Blackmail, perhaps - "go out with me, and I'll never lay a wand on old Snivelly again". But there is no reason to think it is to impress her.
As for the werewolf thing - Lupin said, "A werewolf is only a danger to people". Since people and animals are equally at risk of being shredded, he can only have been talking about the werewolf curse - which, as we saw when he attacked Sirius in PoA, didn't infect Sirius when in his animagical form. Michael Sanders 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that James had a crush on Lily, yes, and those quotes show that. What they don't show is any indication that his bullying of Snape was to impress Lily, rather than to alleviate his and Sirius' boredom or because he hated Snape (both clearly stated in the text). Blackmail, perhaps - "go out with me, and I'll never lay a wand on old Snivelly again". But there is no reason to think it is to impress her.

Er, so why so many references in the text to his keep looking at the girls, and his obsession with one girl in particular. It is woven through the whole scene that James is interested in how she reacts to his actions. It even ends by explicitly saying that her reaction is important to him. Incidentally, it is incorrect that James and Sirius attacked Snape. Sirius only tagged along, James started it and the article ought to make that clear. James is the real bully in this scene.

As for the werewolf thing - Lupin said, "A werewolf is only a danger to people". Since people and animals are equally at risk of being shredded, he can only have been talking about the werewolf curse - which, as we saw when he attacked Sirius in PoA, didn't infect Sirius when in his animagical form. Michael Sanders 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

er, yes, exactly, so you cannot say that (animagi are invulnerable to werewolf bites when transformed), because they simply aren't. They may be protected from the magical aspect, presumably because they are not human, but they are not proteced from the physical aspect of the attack. Sandpiper 19:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Sandpiper! I think that you're a really great editor, so, do you think that you could sign my autograph book, maybe? It would be an honor if you did! See ya later, Sandpiper! Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, about that... Can it be deleted? Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 22:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Erm, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about per your cryptic message on my talk page. If you're talking about the Essjay thing, I couldn't care less about him. Not in a bad way, but I only really heard about it yesterday. Jimbo is not God however - you statement about the design of a paperclip is remarkably similar to the ol' "God makes every blade of grass" quote... Spawn Man 04:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

HP wikiEdit

Hi, I meant to do this a long time ago, but I guess I forgot. You are the "Sandpiper" on the HP wiki right? John Reaves (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the confirmation. John Reaves (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Cygnus BlackEdit

Thanks for pointing that out to me. The best thing to do is for both of us to search for some indication of why the date has been changed on the Lexicon (if necessary, try e-mailing). If there is good reason to think that it derives from Rowling, we change it (for my preference, noting the change in the article); if the Lexicon has changed it off its own bat for a good reason, we don't change it in the article, but note that the Lexicon has changed it and give the reasoning. Michael Sanders 19:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Original BarnstarEdit

  The Original Barnstar
I, GoldenIrish, present you The Original Barnstar for your exceptional work on the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article.GoldenIrish 17:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(Note: This is the first Barnstar I have ever given.)


I know - I was intending to do it at 18:15, like I promised; however, internet packed up, and I hadn't checked the horcrux article today anyway; bit of a surprise, I must say, to discover. Anyway, hopefully, the miscreant will be willing to discuss the issue again, instead of taking it upon himself to view his sole voice as a majority view. Michael Sanders 18:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. So sad. As sad as wine in your glass and a seat by the fire.
If we're lucky, he'll perhaps learn from this that he is not above the rules. Michael Sanders 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Delusions of grandeur; although one might hope our's will share the orignal's fate. Michael Sanders 02:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates in Harry PotterEdit

Dates in Harry Potter - I've recreated the article. I've done some major rewriting, and a lot of sourcing, and I've readded it to the main section because I think it's in good enough condition now to pass muster; however, I haven't reached the bottom yet, which consequently is still in bad shape. Please could you help if you get the chance? Michael Sanders 01:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates in Harry PotterEdit

There seemed a clear consensus to delete, and I felt the nominator proved his case - there were just no, or far too few, reliable sources used, and it seemed likely they didn't exist at all. The fact that the creation of a timeline for the series was a fan undertaking also seriously undercut any claims to notability. But my primary reason for deletion was based on consensus, and the delete voters made their case pretty well. I would not have objected to transwiki-ing it somewhere, but no one suggested that and I'd imagine that if there's a Harry Potter wiki they'd have the same info already.--Cúchullain t/c 13:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Blood purityEdit

Just thought you'd like to know: Blood purity is up for deletion. Michael Sanders 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also reported Folken for breaking 3RR on Horcrux. Michael Sanders 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

new sectionEdit

Hi I'm soooo sorry Sandpiper for wrighting this right here but I have 2 questions I would like you to try and answer on my discussion page. If you could at least answer the 2nd question that would be great! I'm friends with GoldenIrish he's might of mentioned me a few times and now I've changed my user name to HarryFanatic102HarryFanatic102 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)HarryFanatic102


I was checking my watchlist and in the middle of some status stuff I saw something that said GoldenIrish +86 HarryFanatic102 +186 and Sandpiper +450 or something like that. Do you know what it is?GoldenIrish 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Easy Solution to reinstatement of Dates in Harry Potter?Edit

(note: I posted essentially the same comments on Michael Sander's page)

Sandman - In analyzing the arguments for upholding the deletion of the original and speedy-deletion and protection of the rewritten article, one of the recurring themes I see there is a general distaste or even hatred for "fancruft" in general, and particularly for Harry Potter "fans", and generally for all things Harry Potter and related subjects. It is a thinly veiled cultural revulsion that is clearly non-neutral POV, but carefully mascarading behind an encyclopedic by-the-rules analysis, which reeks of Wikilawyering and disrupting the Project making a point. We cannot do anything about these because we must assume good faith. There is also an clear argumentative assumption that the article contains disallowed "synthesis" and "original research", without really understanding the sources behind the work.

In examining the article, I think we have done this to ourselves. We open up with exactly what they despise): "Harry Potter fans have created a timeline for the Harry Potter series...", and I think they simply do not get much past the first sentence before making up their minds, or perhaps only scanning the dates listed and noting crufty-sounding points: birthdates and deathdates of imaginary ghosts, witches, and other fictional characters. The innocent sounding (to us) phrase immediately creates a tone which is exactly what the "opposition" is criticizing. It basically states, in their minds, that the following is all fancruft, and that it was created (ie: synthesized out of thin air or nothing) "for the series". This last part also carries a tone that the unreliable crazy-ass fanatics, who will literally fall for anything (re: Pyramids of Furmat, etc.) actually believe that they have benefitted the series by creating this timeline - as if Rowling needed the fans to do this "important" (to fanatics) work. Perhaps she did, but we do not need to say so in public. In any case I think the arguments they present will evaporate before a neutral administrator if we remove the offending phrase. Besides it is crossing into weasel wording to suggest that "some fans" created a timeline. I would recommend we open up with something more like: "J. K. Rowling approved a general timeline developed by Warner Bros. for the Harry Potter series...", and perhaps also note in passing that the timeline matches that produced by Mugglenet, HPANA, Leaky Cauldron, and whatever other reputable HP sites have it posted. This tone takes the sourcing and synthesis issues off the backs of the "unreliable crazy fanatics" (solving the reliable source, original research, and synthesis problems within the wikipedia article. It may be enough to reinstate the article if we state clearly up front exactly what the anchoring sources are, rather than blurting out that "some fans created this...". --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit SummaryEdit

I was wondering why you were including my sig in the edit summaries of the AFD. Cheers!--Cyrus Andiron 01:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. No big deal really, I was just curious.--Cyrus Andiron 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Evidently we've overloaded the system with the constant banter. I didn't put my name in the title, so how it got there is a mystery as well. Oh well, instability... what can you do. --Cyrus Andiron 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Succession Boxes=Edit

You may want to clarify your remarks. You said you were in favor of keeping all succsession boxes when the debate was actually about keeping successionm boxes specifically for fictional characters.--Dr who1975 15:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement here. The existing rule that prohibits them from being used is open for abuse. I have some ideas for amending the rule which I may be forced to put forth soon but generally, I wish it would be removed in it's entirety.--Dr who1975 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Please don't add unsourced speculation to the article (see No original research and more particularly WP:SYN).Folken de Fanel 12:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And it's the same for Severus Snape and Deathly Hallows article. Since you're systematically reverting without justification to add unencyclopedic content, your behavior is concidered disruptive and will be punished if you continue.

You're not allowed to use the articles of Wikipedia to continue your personal wars with others editors. Stop reverting just for the sake of opposing me, or you'll be blocked. Folken de Fanel 12:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what's happening with you...Maybe you live in some kind of alternate reality...
The location of the locket has not been discussed anywhere and I don't give a damn about it. Book 7 is not out yet, and Wikipedia doesn't allow OR. Go and discuss this on message boards if you want, but this has not its place on Wikipedia.
Nobody has agreed anywhere that such speculation (because it's not "information" -if that was the case, you would be able to give me the page number in book 7 where it is written...and I'm still waiting for it) was "includable", and in anyway it has been thoroughly proven that nothing of this was sourced (again, show me your copy of book 7). You should try to understand that Wikipedia isn't only about you. You can't build a consensus all alone.
But my "dear" Sandpiper, I have the right to believe whatever I want, and I have the right to claim whatever I want. I don't need your permission.
And anyway, that's only the absolute truth, nothing is sourced.
I am entitled to deleted everything I want, and you are certainly not entitled to give me orders. By the way, if some content blatantly violates the rules of Wikipedia, then it is deleted, period. You do not make the rules. You can only follow them.
In that case, the content is not sourceable (book 7 is not yet published), and not sourced.
I see you are not familiar with the rules of Wikipedia, therefore I inform you that the removal of vandalism (in our case, your adding of spam in external links and violation of the external links policy) doesn't count in 3RR. By the way, if you continue to vandalize the RAB article, you're going to get blocked. Folken de Fanel 20:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think i should frame that one. Sandpiper 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Unreliable sources and self-published theories aren't accepted on Wikipedia. "Likely to happen" ? I don't think you have any mean to prove it.
Please, don't use "wikipedian" words out of their context, such as "notability". Mere fansites aren't notable.
I don't give a damn about Spatz and Anelli, however JKR talked about RAB and this is the important thing. JKR is the author of the HP saga, and I think her words might appear slightly relevant on Wikipedia.
However, mere fans dreaming about the content of book 7 have nothing to do with JKR's words, and have nothing to do on Wikipedia.
Because we're not on a fansite. I don't care about what some fans think. We're on Wikipedia, we have rules to write the articles, if some content doesn't respect these rules it gets deleted, that's all. OR is not permitted here.
I don't give a damn about what you or some other fans believe. We don't work with the "certainty" of the contributors. We work with reliable sources.
People have said all sorts of things, all are not on Wikipedia, because all are not notable. That's the case with opinions coming from an extrememly small number of die-hard fans...
What is supposed to be reported on Wikipedia is not fancruft and unsubstanciated speculations and attempts at guessing the future, anyway...
Well, quite a number of editor think exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
Anyway, as for the RAB is concerned, no reliable source proving the text is not merely the personal opinions and deductions of the contributor, no paragraph. Folken de Fanel 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It has been said often enough, but bears repeating. Wikipedia is no place for original research. However, if a fact can be [[WP:|attributed]] to a reliable source, it warrants inclusion (provided, with contentious issues, there is even handed coverage). For example, if Blog A reports that RAB is a small dog, and Website B reports that RAB has curly hair, you should not include it. But if The Daily News reports that RAB is a poodle, on the basis of those facts, that makes it fair game. Wikipedia is not concerned with the truth, but with verifiablity - Tiswas(t/c) 09:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to R.A.B., is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Folken de Fanel 21:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to R.A.B.. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Folken de Fanel 08:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content, as you did to R.A.B., is considered vandalism and may result in a block. Folken de Fanel 07:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Severus SnapeEdit

  Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Severus Snape, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Folken de Fanel 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor point from Regulus Black debateEdit

Hi - this isn't really that important, I just wanted to answer your question but keep it separate from the argument that's raging on the regulus black talk page... My comment about edit summaries being 'manipulated' was based on the immediate impression I got from seeing your edit and Folken de Fanel's - it looked as though you had got frustrated with the paragraph being removed and had reinserted it with 'edit a bit' as the edit summary, instead of 'rv', to try and conceal what you were doing...! And then Folken de Fanel appeared to adopt the same tactic. I apologise unreservedly if (as I assume from your surprise on the talk page) this was not the case - I have a lot of respect for you as an editor and have never had cause to question anything you've contributed, but that was how it looked! I can't say the same for Folken de Fanel - his talk page makes interesting reading. If it makes any difference, I agree with you and Michaelsanders on this one, I just tried to start a discussion on the talk page because the incessant removal of the paragraph seemed so childish! All the best, Libatius 01:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: ????????Edit

I was more of a symbolic "What the....?" John Reaves (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Laura Mallory mergerEdit

Hey Sandpiper, I've replied to you at Talk:Controversy over Harry Potter. Best, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dark Mark.JPGEdit

Hello, Sandpiper. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Dark Mark.JPG) was found at the following location: User talk:Sandpiper. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Deathly HallowsEdit

Please don't make edits again on the section Deathly Hallows until a complete consensus has been made. Right now AFAIK, you are the only one of the major editors to the article that is totally in favor of including more information. There are parts of me that are in favor of adding some of the information, but anything would be very limited, and I think I'm the only one who would even consider that much, again, AFAIK. I must warn you however, due to your long history of debate over such subjects, that if you continue to add in content in that section unless it has been agreed in a consensus, then I will have to pursue further action, possibly even to the level of talking outside of the page. I understand your enthusiasm, I've also been involved in some edit wars, at least two of them which made it to WP:LAME, both of which I lost to a degree, and given the chance, I'd bring the debates right back up. But this much I will state, that I am most in favor of finding a way to please all involved parties, and if that can't be done, then I will go with the flow of people. I should also add that I'm not afraid to take further action if needed, although I don't want to do so. You have made many valuable contributions to many articles, and I really don't want to have to do something that might stop that, but this much I will have to add. Sometimes, you just have to let it go. Tuvas 21:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to our continued debate on the talk page. I still do not consider that you answered my observation, that essentailly you were agreeing that the disputed content was admissable under wiki rules. I am therefore inclined to proceed on the assumption that you do agree this. Sandpiper 11:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure what "notice you referted by restoration" is supposed to mean. -- John Reaves (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of explanation at WT:WPHP, I'm not sure what you don't understand. Simply put, it's an abuse of copyright. -- John Reaves (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion of the Regulus Black article - vandalism?Edit

I did a rewrite of the Regulus Black article, cleaning it up while (in my opinion) retaining all the relevant information. I gave a few indications as to why on the talk page. In my understanding, reverting some rather major work put in by someone without any discussion on the talk page could be considered vandalism. Are you actually interested in improving the article? Much of the information currently on there is more relevant to another article, such as R.A.B.; quite some information is repeated. I argued this on the talk page, if you had bothered to read it. LR 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read your reply on my talk page. I think it would be better to discuss the Regulus Black article on that article's talk page. In reply, the current article is poorly written, there is a lot of information repeated inside that article, and as well some information which is relevant, or at least its relevance is not made clear. Just one instance: the fact that Sirius Black's name has been removed from the Black Family Tapestry does not seem to have much relevance to an article about Regulus; certainly not enough to justify it being part of the top matter for the article. Also, the information on Regulus's parents seems to be repeated several times throughout the article. And so on, and so on. It's just poor organization, and rather rambling.

Overall, the relevant information in the article can be presented in a much more concise way, and that was the purpose of my edit. I mostly kept the actual wording from the previous article as well. If there is anything that you feel is relevant that was left out, you should discuss it on the talk pages. I suggest moving this discussion to the talk page for Regulus Black. 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Goblet of Fire Bloomsbury Paperback Adult.jpg)Edit

Thanks for uploading Image:Goblet of Fire Bloomsbury Paperback Adult.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Collected conversations concerning Folken de Fanel (book in progress)Edit

Deathly HallowsEdit

Since we don't know much about HP's Hallows, I think a separate article encompassing every meaning the word can have would be the best solution.

If you ask me how I see the section in the DH article, I find it sufficient in its current aspect. The best thing, for me, would be reworded definitions using dictionaries, then maybe illustrations of various (if we can find anything else that arthurian legends) uses of the word in literature.

Concerning a precise description of the arthurian hallows, although it would absolutely not be original research, I think that, as far as DH is concerned, it would be off-topic.

In that case, a separate entry for Hallows appears to be the best solution, since it would (h)allow (^^) the contributors to be exaustive about arthurian legends and other myths/literary uses.

However, what I would not like on the DH article, is definitely an exhaustive mention of the arthurian hallows, then an insistance about arthurian influences on HP, then an insistance on the similarities between Horcruxes and arthurian hallows, in order to build a point, whatever it might be, concerning the meaning of the HP Hallows.

Concerning arthurian legends, there are as many versions of the stories as there were authors to retell them. However one of the most known versions, that really established some of the basics, that is, Chrétien de Troyes's, has only four "hallows", the ones mentionned in the DH article. Other authors have surely created other relics, it's possible, yes...

As for refs to lexicon and all about theories, I basically agree with that. We could say it like that: "There are many theories trying to deduce the meaning of the word Hallows using various axes/sources etc, available on websites like Lexicon etc". However it would be essencial to check if it wouldn't be concidered as spam...

Folken de Fanel 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have studied Chrétien de Troyes in highschool, but that was 2 years ago, and it was not as deep a study as have done professors and all. So I know a bit about it, but not really more...

The plot continuity with Horcruxes and all is relevant, a "plot continuity section", however I can't see the use of mentioning it where we talk about Hallows. So yes, these mentions are relevant, but only in the "plot continuity".

Concerning the article, the version before mine appeared to me as blatant OR, that's why I modified it. When I noticed than another contributor had raised doubts (and that he had reverted it also), I decided to rework it on my own.

When I speak about arthurian influences, I don't necessarily talk about Horcruxes, but lulurascal has pointed out an interesting things, that there are indeed authentic literary critics that said Harry was an "athurian character" or something like that. So while it's perfectly relevant in a literary analysis section, it was in "meanings of Hallows" just to build a point, and that's why I edited it out. However I wouldn't write about the arthurian refs in HP in the hypothetical Hallows article (unless if documented with essays by literary critics), as it would also be building a point...Folken de Fanel 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Deathly hallowsEdit

You have manipulated my words.

Be sure I'm not going to let this just "happen". There will be consequences for you.

If you refuse to play the game according to the rules (ie if you're not ready to accept that someone can contradict you), it will only backfire at you.

I had expressed my concerns, however you have specifically picked up a sentence that didn't include these concerns, and you just showed it, ignoring everything I could have said after, you have talked in my place and you have manipulated my words.

You have not played according to the rules. It's just unfair, and Wikipedia is just not like that. Wikipedia is a collaborative work, and you can't just eliminate the other by manipulating their words, you have to accept you're not the only one here, you have to play with others if you want it to work.

You have obviously played alone, and you have used an insidious trick to get me out of the way, and Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Folken de Fanel 00:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed my own amendments to the text, that you conveniently ignored and tried to hide when an administrator went on the talk page.
I have expressed my concerns and you know what they are. Do not pretend you don't, please.
I have said the article (if there has to be a need to be thorough about other unrelated hallows in an HP article) needed to have literary refs to other forms of hallows. Folken de Fanel 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what Folken de Fanel said, or what he meant, he is now saying he does not agree with the change. I'd advise you to work towards a solution you both agree on. Trebor 15:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to your recent restoration of archived comments on the talk page for DHEdit

I'd like to draw your attention on something:


"Modifying users' comments:
Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged."

Please realise that if you continue to pretend I'm not objecting to your proposal, if you continue to ignore my arguments and bring back old sentences to try to make me sound like I agree with you, or worse, if you continue to tweak the archive system in order to restore obsolete comments while conventiently "forgetting" to restore my most recent opinion on the subject, you could be concidered a vandal.

Please keep this in mind when you'll contribute to the talk page. I really don't want to have to give you proper warnings, but I don't want you to continue to use insidious methods in place of arguments either. Stop this before it becomes too serious. Folken de Fanel 00:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated, I have merely restored the actual ongoing debate. As I've said the text you restored was obsolete and did not correspond to any ongoing debate I had participated to. The section you restored was not ongoing, yet you pretended it was (a convenient way to hide any remark I might have said against your text). The section I restored was ongoing.
If you want to argue that you established a continuity in related sections (in your second restoring only), fair enough, however do not accuse me of anything or it will backfire at you, as your responsibility in altering comments and making me say what I didn't say has been undisputably established.
You have made errors in understanding original postings, you have ignored any improvement I requested, and I certainly didn't say what you pretend I said. I said it was good but needed improvement, instead of adressing my remarks you merely tried to insert your text. Doing that without even trying to add whatever text was needed was a mark of disrespect, which then prompted my total disagreement, besides still having reclamations about the text. Then I saw what were your arguments and how I was right to object to the edit, seeing what you had in mind when writing it. Folken de Fanel 22:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I had made comments to which you didn't answer.
No, sources for information about HP are not sufficiently reputable for their content to be explained here. Unless they have already read book 7, they are not, and JKR has never ever stated that these websites were "sufficiently reputable for Wikipedia".
They do not present facts, they present unsubstanciated theories.
Wiki never presents uncertain informations (please note that informations are not uncertain. Either they are information, or interpretations. Wiki presents information, and in certain specific subjects which are still a source of debate for the whole mankind, interpretations made by persons that have enough credential to do so, because interpretations are the only thing mankind can have. And in any case there absolutely not interpretations lazily thrown on a message board by 14 year old kids on message boards, they are very serious works that have been evaluated, tested, researched, for years and years, based on various scientific observations, calculated with computers, and all. Which is not the case of HP7, it's not one of the great mysteries of the world, it exists, it has been written, and JKR knows the answer, and only her (and her editors). That fans which have no credential to present any theory (have they read book 7 ? No. So they aren't reliable). It's just that a bunch of kids dreaming about a soon to be published book. So, absolutely nothing notable here. The book will be published in a few months, so we are not interested in theories.
One last thing : it's your proposed text, it's you who have to improve it. So either you take into account others' opinion, or you don't, and in that case you don't propose anything. Folken de Fanel 13:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're wrong on this one, and you know it. WP doesn't report unsubstanciated theories. Folken de Fanel 19:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deathly hallows articleEdit

Do not add theories on fansite as sources. They reflect your POV only, and are certainly not the only ones that exist on the subject.

That fansites wrote those don't make them "considerable".

Again, you lack the detachment required for Wikipedia.

A newspaper reporting there are theories is good. Mere theories from fansites aren't.

And stop adding those source.Folken de Fanel 22:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It was in a news on Mugglenet, maybe it was even included in the article. People from WB or Bloomsbury or whatever just said these had nothing to do with JKR (you'll see there are a lot of titles registered, each more strange than the other, anyway). Folken de Fanel 23:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Then you understood absolutely nothing, as usual. I have said it many times (but maybe you master english even less than me ?), I don't have anything against fansites, only their are not to be taken as sources for speculation because they are not reliable.
So now you stop being mulle-headed, you have no choice.
Evidence ? Go to mugglenet, since that's all your life.
What OR ? Do you know what OR is (well, of course you don't...)Folken de Fanel 10:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
You forgot to say "please"...Folken de Fanel 11:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I assume such a word doesn't exist in your dictionary, so here it is: Folken de Fanel 11:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
No. Without proof, nothing in the article, because OR. No one knows anything about the other titles so you can't assume which were "probably" the ones. I remind you the list include also Peverell Quest, Wand of Gryffindor, Ring of Destiny, Elder Wand, etc...
So no. Simply do not assume things.
Besides, the comment is clear: "representative for Jo said the titles were "never contenders" for Book 7. "We often registered a few spares to keep people guessing! Whether Jo reveals what her two other favorites were, I don't know." " The comment clearly covers the "few spares" which have been registered, including the ones you want to cite. The representative for Jo didn't mention any difference between old and new "spares", so believe what you want, but keep it for you.
Folken de Fanel 11:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
No because there's no neutrality. You force a slection of 2 titles, titles that were chosed by your POV.
Make a list of all the spare titles registered by WB if you want, but anyway don't force your own conclusions to the readers. Folken de Fanel 13:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the relevance if we know these titles are only "spares", without any confirmation that the list also contains possible titles ? I can't see the point of including it here, unless you want to hint that the other "hallows" title could be the 2 ther choices, which would be your own opinion. I have no problem however with a complete list of spares that have been registered (maybe in the general HP article since it doesn't specifically concerns book 7). Besides, the aim of the section is the meaning of hallows, and other possible titles (moreover when we don't even know them) don't appear to be relevant there...I agree that if we knew these titles, it would bring "something" to the understanding of hallows, but since we don't even know them, I can't see where we would be going with this.Folken de Fanel 17:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
And they'll surely be interested in seeing that many other titles have been registered also.
As you wrote it previously it was too subjective, but a possible acceptable wording could be "among various titles that have been registered by WB [include examples or full list + anyway a link to the list], it's worth noting that there is a "Hallows of Hogwarts". However, website Mugglenet was told by representatives of JKR that these titles were "never contenders for book 7 etc". Folken de Fanel 17:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have difficulties reading english, this issue is very clear. I again quote the representative for JKR: "representative for Jo said the titles were "never contenders" for Book 7. "We often registered a few spares to keep people guessing! Whether Jo reveals what her two other favorites were, I don't know." " The comment clearly covers the "few spares" which have been registered, including the ones you want to cite. The representative for Jo didn't mention any difference between old and new "spares", so believe what you want, but keep it for you.

If you say "Hallows of Hogwarts" aren't covered by this quote, then "Peverell Quest", "Wand of Gryffindor", "Ring of Destiny", "Elder Wand" are also possibles titles for book 7, and thus you cannot impose your POV in the article by only selecting 2 titles, thus OR-ing what you think about the 2 other titles (which, I remind you again, we still don't know).

So now, either you provide a clear quote saying "Hallows of hogwarts" etc are indeed the other titles for book 7, or you just shut up.

As for the fansites refs, as usual, they have nothing to do there, since they are not considerable in anyway, it's just one theory on one website, I can't see how it could be a proof of "numerous" and "considerable" speculation. Besides, we have all agreed that links to fansites and fan theories add nothing to do here, so please stick to the consensus.

And if you really want to include this theory, find a reliable 3rd party source like a newspaper which reports it. Folken de Fanel 07:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The quote is: "representative for Jo said the titles were "never contenders" for Book 7. "We often registered a few spares to keep people guessing! Whether Jo reveals what her two other favorites were, I don't know." "
The quote says everything, and there is no need to impose on it a meaning that isn't there. The representative for JKR says they often register a few spares, and that's all. It's not ours to speculate that the presence of the word "Hallows" in one of these spare titles means that is is one of the 3 possibilities for book 7. Hallows is indeed a rare word, but it wasn't created just for book 7, and it existed before. Whether a title using this word is an hint that it is one of the possible titles remains in the realm of OR.
Thus, we have an obligation to make the statement neutral, and to say what JKR's representatives say about it. Don't forget this is not your personal blog or a fan site, it's WP, we have rules and obligations. Your claims are OR because they push your personal opinion on this issue. Thus we have to balance your claim with other official claims about it. Because remember, we don't know what these titles are, and speculatig about it is strictly forbidden. In order not to give the impression you're speculating and hinting that these titles are the ones, we have to say all there is to say on the subject, including that WB registered all kind of spare titles.
If you refuse to make your claims more neutral, then we'll simply delete all this.
Please stop being stubborn, I've let you add this little note, so now let me make it rules-compliant, otherwise it will quickly disappear, and you can be sure no one will object this. Folken de Fanel 12:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The quote is: "representative for Jo said the titles were "never contenders" for Book 7. "We often registered a few spares to keep people guessing! Whether Jo reveals what her two other favorites were, I don't know." "
There's nothing here saying other titles are contenders for book 7. It says, however, that they often register a few spares, meaning that all the other registered titles are "spares" and not "contenders", until further notice.
Since your only intent by putting these spare names, and hiding the fact that a representative for JKR said they often registered "spare titles", is top say that these titles are indeed the 2 other choices, you're clearly doing OR.
As we don't know what these titles are, we don't try to guess what they are.
Now, unless you have a reliable source confirming these titles have any relevance, don't edit this section anymore. Folken de Fanel 10:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: comment on Severus Snape talk pageEdit

Hi Sandpiper. I’ve seen you reinsert your comment on FdF name and I decide not to delete it again, because if I do that I will pack myself up in the mussy cycle that you and other people are entangled in. To put it bluntly, I have to say that I don’t agree with both of you: you and Folken de Fanel. Folken’s behavior, in fact, is rather unacceptable as he becomes more and more disruptive and annoying. He shouldn’t have considered your comment as offense and your comment shows no signs of insult, I know that. But you also shouldn’t have brought it out in Severus Snape talk page and together with other editors continuously restored the text. The action just makes the situation and the relationship among wikipedians get worse. Folken is wrong when he behaved like that, but you can’t insist that you’re 100% right. You yourself know the comment is completely off-topic and it doesn’t belong to the prolonged “OR” issue. That’s the reason why I removed it. Why do you still make every effort adding it? It seems that 3 months of debate with Folken have made a calm and judicious editor like you become somewhat aggressive and short-tempered, as from my objective viewpoint. I wonder why you (include you, Folken, MS, JR) don’t bring this problem to request for arbitration and do some other things constructive and useful for Wikipedia instead (Wikipedia doesn’t just limit in RAB or Regulus Black or Deathly hallows), rather than plunge into a gallimaufry of “discussion” and 3RR, which lead to nothing except for the breakage in relationship. Again, I don’t agree with your restoration of the comment on FdF because it not only plays no role in solving the problem and is totally off the track, but also a kind of action of adding fuel to the flames. I assume before that you didn’t leave an edit summary like “edit a bit, right? Be yourself, Sandpiper. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I’m sorry for my tardiness in reply because I’m really busy in real life these days. Thanks for the clarification about the “edit a bit” thing. Now I understand what you mean. However, besides the “edit a bit” action you also restored the mainstreaming of the original text, thus summary like that could easily (and in fact it did) lead to misunderstanding. To tell traight from from the shoulder, I was more satified by your latter version compared to the former one and Folken seems to agree with it (he hasn’t tried to revert till now). I’m pleased that the tension of debate seems to subside gradually, ironically thanks to full-protection tags in some pages. It’s a pity your message was crucially interrupted by Folken and I had to conjoin the pieces by seeing in the history to perceive what you meant (it’s a nice reply, anyway).
Come back to our main problems. Let’s look back on the past when Folken removed considerable amount of information from Deathly Hallows and insisted that it violated no original research policy. He initiated the mortally longest discussion ever I’ve seen since my first step to Wikipedia. After that, or just recently, Folken has become more and more intolerantly disruptive, “bull-headed” and uncivil. He relentlessly deletes content in other articles and deems them to reliable sources failures and original research. His actions are overcritical and make other editors run out of patience but frankly I can’t help myself agree with him in some ways and not all of his edits are baseless. Don’t think that I’m going to take side with him or I’m the kind of blindly following the rules (in fact I disagree with many of Wiki policies, believe me). I just want to give my judgment with fairness and objectification. Let’s give out R.A.B., for example. What do we get from the book? A piece of paper contains a short message with the mysterious signature R.A.B, plus some vague dripping clues scattered elsewhere, compared to a surprisingly-long article. I don’t deny that this article is very informative and interesting and helpful to readers, because it sufficiently collects all the hints from various sources. But don’t you think that it is a bit far more of a deductive material rather than a “real article” in its literal meaning? I think with this version, or the former version, the title should be changed to “Speculations around R.A.B. mystery” or “R.A.B. theories” or something. “Aberforth was seen drawing his cloak about his throat, as if concealing something, as he walked away from the scene. It is possible that he now has the locket.” Possibility is interesting if it wasn’t described in a blatantly speculative intonation like that. Also, I find the sentence “many readers who have followed the series have concluded that…” a little suspicious of its verifiability. Of course it’s according to Langford “et al”, but the problem is that based on what did Lanford make such a ridiculous claim (in my opinion). And about the external links, citing an entire “forum” is not perspicacious idea. You can be assured that the readers who have a taste for Harry Potter have known about these too-famous forums long ago, and Google will help them find those useful addresses easily, no need for Wikipedia’s responsibility. Folken is right when he follows the rules and his initial aim was to improve the articles, but complying with the rules so stiffly and receiving strong upheaval from other editors make him lose his hair. The main purpose of No original research policy is to prevent the articles from being added excessive multilateral unverified sources that can reflect the corrupted opinions and to restrict PoV pushing. I suggest you should change the wording or find other descriptions which make the paragraph less conjectural, like your “edit a bit” in Regulus Black page. Just warring on things that can have been solved by other ways is really tired, do you think so?
Oh, my reply just like an essay now. If you and Folken have intentions of writing me back a reply, please avoid mutual discussion which makes me very confused.
P/s: I have noticed many times you wrote some words whose suffix is “-ful” like “helpful” and “fruitful” into “-full” tagged (e.g here). I wonder if it is a typing mistake or habitual misspelling or in your birthplace they write like that? Causesobad → (Talk) 15:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, Causesobad, and nice to hear from you. Now where to start? Last read, first remembered. I have always been inclined to double up on ls. I also, and completely separately, type badly and find lots of typos when I re-read. Some find their way into the text. Strangely, some of the first discussion I read on wiki was very much of the inter-mixed comment type. After getting used to what was going on, I kinda assumed that is how it is supposed to be done.
Had Folken not beaten me to it, I would have pointed out that I was not aware he had accepted anything. A number of articles now are blocked, which means they are not likely to have much traffic. I'm also busy, and Michaelsanders seems to have disappeared too. I fancy it is his turn to comment. I think you are somewhat optimistic in interpreting absence of opportunity as absence of intent. However, this does also depend which article you are reading. The disputed paragraph re the locket in RAB is essentially the same paragraph about which the same dispute first arose on 'Horcrux'. (the information being relevant to both). The debate on Horcrux concerned a more refined version which was more or less accepted by three editors, but still opposed on all counts by Folken. The debate on RAB is thus something of an extension of the same debate which had already occurred on Horcrux. Not seeing the point of another extended debate, we havn't. Similarly, even if I had placed a very specific edit comment on the RAB page, 'edit a bit', I don't see it would materially have helped anyone to understand what was going on. I have already given you the long explanation of that one, yet I suspect you still did not understand the full circumstances.
I agree, Folken can make good edits. The difficulty is that he frequently argues to disallow the most obvious of sources, eg the websites. re your comment on general references, where specific pages from those websites have been introduced, Folken has claimed that they are fansites, and thus inadmissable(etc). Mostly, on RAB, no one has previously made an issue of this, so there was no reason why specific refs would be intelaced in the text. When he declined to accept websites, we (sanders and I independantly) found him a couple of books. One by someone who seems to have become famous as a proponent of the books as having a strong christian message, and the other a professional analyst of this sort of literature. I have the impression that his view is that no theory about the books can be included, because in the absence of the final volume it can only be speculation. It is of course true that it is speculation, but it is widespread speculation which is being reported. Either he does not see this distinction, or does not accept it. So I further suspect that his delving into the rules is rather to support his POV, rather than the other way about, in pursuit of adherence to rules. My impression is furthered when he, as I would see it, misinterprets the rules. I suspect that the debate on 'Deathly Hallows' only ended because people became sick of it, so agreed with Folken to shut him up. In the long run, this is not a good policy.
I'm not sure what you consider to be a real article. The article RAB is somewhat akin to the artcle Half-blood Prince. Both are mysteries set by Rowling. The RAB one was set only at the end of the book, whereas HBP was set right at the start, and we get a solution by the end. Otherwise, both are discussing a puzzle set to readers, and it is only a question of where you have got to in the story. An article is about what there is to say on a subject. In the RAB case, almost everything is external to the books, as I beleieve it was obviously intended to be. It is a big TO BE CONTINUED... sign tacked on the end of the story, and I think it was deliberately intended as a throwaway, so that we could all work it out and then Rowling might simply confirm it on page 1, and spend her book writing about something entirely different and unexpected. Or Regulus might be important, or pigs may fly (rather more likely in the wizarding world), or whatever, who knows for sure. But what we have, is the existing debate which we should be reporting as a legitimate phenomenon which has grown around the puzzle.
The debate on deathly hallows was about exactly this same issue. Rowling has set another puzzle, which is what does the title mean. Like HBP we will find out by the end, but in the meanwhile we should be reporting the debate about it. I am slightly ambivalent about this, because there is some degree of 'spoiler' attached to explaining the book before it appears. But on the whole I think we are doing exactly what Rowling wants, by explaining the debate her announcement created and the theories about what the title means. I still don't know how up to speed you are on this, but I also found it very entertaining/clever when I discovered Rowling had used a statue of Hermes to send yet another message to her readers. I don't doubt this was another clue and deliberate invitation to speculate about the title.
I can't say for sure on what Langford based his claim. I quoted what he wrote about it on the RAB talk page. He asserts that many people have come to this view, which is the point of referring to him, as an authority that it is indeed being debated. Personally, I don't see that this claim is ridiculous. There was considerable debate on the subject on the aformentioned websites at the time, still now, and there are now editorials saying the same sort of thing. naturally, if I thought he was wrong I would not be arguing in support of citing him. (An example of where editorial opinion legitimately influencces content.) But this issue of citing books about HP has only come about because Folken declines to accept the source websites as evidence that people are indeed discussing these issues. Never mind that the author recommended that readers should do so. I don't agree that it is inappropriate that we pass on her reommendations for sources about her books to readers. As a matter of course, i think any article should have some general refs indicating the best places to look for more information. Don't you? Sandpiper 22:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that the Severus Snape article was unblocked and that you reintegrated the paragraph, as was agreed, don't forget that you now have to look for sources. I wouldn't like you to just walk away when you have what you wanted and to conveniently "forget" what are your duties now...Folken de Fanel 10:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is my answer:

"So you say a discussion about why you can't include your POV refs, isn't "immediately relevant" to why you can't include your POV refs ? It seems you have not read well, or even that you don't want to read. So here is the link, again: Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#The_meaning_of_.22Deathly_Hallows.22 " Folken de Fanel 20:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for getting back, but I'm afraid I still feel you are not answering the question. You claimed the edits are NPOV. You claim that there are many other theories about the meaning of Deathly Hallows, so the ones I have referendced are pOV. I'm afraid I must still insist that you demonstrate where these 'other' theories actually exist, otherwise I can only concluded that they are OR by yourself. Sandpiper 11:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is my answer:

"So you say a discussion about why you can't include your POV refs, isn't "immediately relevant" to why you can't include your POV refs ? It seems you have not read well, or even that you don't want to read. So here is the link, again: Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#The_meaning_of_.22Deathly_Hallows.22 " Folken de Fanel 12:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you reverted me once again, with the tag (an article from a national newspaper is NPOV. One self-published theory which happens to be the one you like, isn't NPOV. And it's a matter of what you think is true/is not.) I don't disagree that a newspaper ref which merely says there is a debate is NPOV. However, it is also totally uninformative and unhelpfull to readers. I persist that you have produced no evidence that the refs I inserted are in any way not NPOV. I continue to suggest that to demonstrate that they are NPOV you must produce evidence that they do not fairly represent the debate on the title. I'm afraid I have seen nothing which supports your claim. Sandpiper 14:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is my answer:

"So you say a discussion about why you can't include your POV refs, isn't "immediately relevant" to why you can't include your POV refs ? It seems you have not read well, or even that you don't want to read. So here is the link, again: Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#The_meaning_of_.22Deathly_Hallows.22.

(and now, you say that newspapers aren't made to inform ?) Folken de Fanel 00:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Please always follow our core policies. Thank you. Folken de Fanel 06:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh not another little tag? Please explain in what way my edits are not NPOV. Sandpiper 06:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Read what I've written here and you'll know: Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#The_meaning_of_.22Deathly_Hallows.22.Folken de Fanel 07:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesnt say anything immediately relevant. Are you suggesting again that theories may not be included? This is incorrect, as you must know by now. Theories are entirely admissable content. The only issue is correctly representing them, as you said NPOV. I think I have a senssible NPOV presentation in the ref, but if you have refs showing a diverging POV, then please present them. Sandpiper 07:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
So you say a discussion about why you can't include your POV refs, isn't "immediately relevant" to why you can't include your POV refs ?
It seems you have not read well, or even that you don't want to read. So here is the link, again: Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#The_meaning_of_.22Deathly_Hallows.22Folken de Fanel 07:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, when you say Theories are entirely admissable content", you're of course totally wrong.Folken de Fanel 07:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Deathly hallowsEdit

My version includes all there is to say about the other titles.

Now you're only making bad faith edits which bare your own POV.

If Langford is your source, tell me precisely why we couldn't mention it in the article (and I'm waiting for a precise quote from an official policy/guideline. See also WP:WEASEL in this respect, a rule which many here have noted you're not familiar with).

Tell me why, if representatives of JKR have specifically declared, concerning these titles that they "often registered a few spares to keep people guessing", we should hide it (because that's precisely what you're doing).

I don't understand, this is relevant info pertaining to the topic we're dealing. You even use and quote this source elsewhere, so why are you reverting it ?

You simply have no reasons to revert now: with my version, the mention of the titles is still there, we have complete and relevant info, the info is sourced, and not presented as it it were an absolute truth but merely the POV of an external source.

You're indeed merely reverting to express your personal opposition to me (and the people on Wikipedia certainly don't give a damn about it), and you are thus disturbing the articles.

You are now obliged to stop, we work for the benefit of the articles, not for their destruction.

If you have something to say to me, say it to me, then. Don't act like a coward, using articles and reverts just to show you don't like anything I do and how you think you are better than me. I have a talk page, if necessary you can use my email, so if you hate me so much, if you so desperately want to say how low I am compared to you, then use these means, and leave the articles alone. Folken de Fanel 09:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacksEdit

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:R.A.B.. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Remember you must not use Wikipedia to imply you know better than other editors about Harry Potter, more particularly when you try to use this in a content debate that you have lost. If you can find valid arguments, it's obvious you're wrong. Folken de Fanel 08:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Folken de Fanel was then reverted by a user not normally editing this page [5], but said user was in my judgement then intimidated into self reverting, see here:[6]"

I have never intimidated anyone. Sandpiper, please don't make bad faith accusations that can be seen as diffamation.
Funpika was mistaken in reverting the article (and was certainly not in your "judgement"), and he freely admitted it when we discussed about it (as he had invited me to do on my talk page).
I demand that you apologize for such false accusations. Folken de Fanel 18:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
With regard to your query,
You wrote to Funpika:You have reverted a version of the article containing blatant and unsourced original research (as was specifically stated in my previous edit summaries and in the long discussion there is on the talk page), including various spam external links.
This statement is entirely your own view of affairs. What you wrote amounts to an accusation that Funpika has added blatant OR and Spam to a page, and that there is a consensus agreeing with your opinion. Funpika did revert you, I take it on his own unaided judgement when he saw what edit you had made. Otherwise your statement is incorrect on just about every point. While I understand that you may believe you are correct, the fact is that others do not agree with you. This was a clear attempt to make the editor concerned change his mind. While there is nothing wrong in that, the tone of your post is indeed intimidating.
Having said that, I'm not quite sure why Funpika decided to revert you, perhaps because you had just blatantly broken 3RR again. He seems to have been running a vandal spotting tool, so I suppose it had just identified you. Sandpiper 20:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't live in your dreams. Come back to reality.
This statement was the absolute truth.
Funpika reverted content to original research and spam links, because he was mistaken and had not looked at the edits. He only reverted on the basis that I had not filled my edit summaries, which was not the case. Fupika has never expressed any adherence to your opinions. And that's indeed no surprise he changed his mind after I explained to him what I was reverting.
Otherwise my statement is absolutely correct on just about every point.
I do not "believe", I am correct. You just have to read the various policies and guidelines to see it.
"Others" ? Michaelsanders and yourself only count as a single vandalistic entity leaning toward absolute original research, now. I don't think you can be seen as anything other than ultra-minoritarian lunatics: either in number or in quality and seriousness of argumentation, you fail. It's no wonder you lost the majority of votings that occured concerning OR policies on HP articles, what you fail to understand is that the OR policies exist since the beginning of WP, and that everyone here adheres to them, you won't change anything just by insulting others and vandalizing articles. Besides your comical duo, there are no "others".
The tone of my post was not intimidating but informative.
Again I demand that you apologize for such false accusations.
I had never broken 3RR. Funpika's revert was only a mistake, and you cannot invent false motivations to him. You're the vandal. Folken de Fanel 20:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
er, contrary to your expressed opinion that you have never broken 3RR, I think your bans and comments expressed on your talk page by other editors suggest that you have. Sandpiper 21:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(Another one for the scrap book, then. Maybe i should create a page specifically. )

Reverting vandalism does not count in 3RR...Folken de Fanel 22:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Reverting vandalism does not count towards a 3RR violation, which shows that your behaviour was not considered to be 'reverting vandalism'. Perhaps you should think more about that. Sandpiper 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I know what I reverted. The admin obviously didn't look at the edits...Before telling me to "understand" the rules (I understand them perfectly), try to read them, once in your life.Folken de Fanel 22:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the comment on your talk page shows that in fact three admins did not feel you were reverting vandalism. How many more opinions do you want? Sandpiper 22:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I was reverting vandalism and that's a fact. Admins don't look at edits. Folken de Fanel 22:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your actions on the french WPEdit

Vandalizing french articles about HP certainly isn't going to help you in your quest.Folken de Fanel 00:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the same reasons apply on the french wiki as here, with regard to precisely why reporting the widespread debate about the plot of Harry Potter books is absolutely appropriate. Wiki is supposed to report what others think about a subject. My french is good enough to read the articles and see whether valid content has been deleted, but I will not attempt to debate the issue with you in French. It seems to me that your time might be better spent expanding the french articles to include content which is on the english wiki, not deleting what little is there already. You have still not explained why you consider my references unfairly represent views about the meaning of 'hallows', though you persist in deleting the references. Sandpiper 00:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I repeat, vandalizing french articles about HP certainly isn't going to help you in your quest
Here is my answer:
"So you say a discussion about why you can't include your POV refs, isn't "immediately relevant" to why you can't include your POV refs ? It seems you have not read well, or even that you don't want to read. So here is the link, again: Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#The_meaning_of_.22Deathly_Hallows.22.Folken de Fanel 00:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The only relevant comment I can see in that large chunk is that you dispute Rowling's opinion of what constitutes a good source of discussion about her books, and claim that my refs are POV. Yet you produce no evidence to support this. I am not asking you for a different place where you say the same thing, but some actual evidence in the form of other references which indicate that mine are POV. Sandpiper 00:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. You fabricated your so-called "Rowling's opinion".
  2. "Rowling" is not a criterion in WP rules of admissibility/notability/verifiability, and Rowling isn't a member of WP comitee of admissibility/notability/verifiability. We go by the established rules of WP, what external people say (or what some claim external people said) doesn't matter.
  3. Did Rowling say "You shall vandalize the french HP articles" ?
  4. I produced all the evidence needed to support this: Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#The_meaning_of_.22Deathly_Hallows.22
  5. What evidence indicating your edits would be NPOV did you produce ? Folken de Fanel 01:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

er, see her website where she reccomends other websites.Rowling is an absolute authority on the content of her own books, and no one is better placed to say whether a particular source is authoritative, or not. This has nothing to do with wiki rules.I have not seen any quotes from her commenting on any wiki. No, there were no refs at all in the section you quote which throw any light on the issue of whether my refs are NPOV. I have not seen you produce any, anywhere, and I very much doubt any exist. I don't have to prove they are NPOV, you have to prove they aren't. Sandpiper 01:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. No she doesn't "recommend", she gives her opinion, which concerns only herself.
  2. And Rowling has never said a source would be "authoritative", and anyway, Rowling isn't "authoritative" concerning the rules of Wikipedia.
  3. This has everything to do with the wiki rules.
  4. If you have not seen any quotes from her commenting on any wiki, don't involve her in the administration/rules of Wiki.
  5. Yes, there is every single ref possible in the section I quote.
  6. I have proved your edits are POV, you have to prove they aren't (but because you know they are POV and because you can't prove the contrary, you claim you don't have to. That's hilarious).Folken de Fanel 01:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, one editor writes something and references it. If someone else wishes to claim the first edit unfairly represents the subject then they have to prove it. You are claiming it is an unfair representation, so you must demonstrate that this is so. Sandpiper 01:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference are not used and should not be used to make points.
I have proved it.
You must demonstrate it would not be so. Folken de Fanel 11:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)



My username is Bapti and I am a mediator ("Wikipompier" is literally "wiki-fireman" in English) on the French-language Wikipedia. I will try to solve the problems on the articles devoted to Harry Potter. Please indicate the modifications, additions and deletions you wish to see done on the articles on this page (it would be preferable if you wrote in French).--Bapti 13:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bonjour Je m'appelle Bapti et je suis un médiateur sur la Wikipédia francophone. Je vais essayer de résoudre les problèmes sur les articles consacrés à Harry Potter. Merci d'indiquer sur cette page les modifications, ajouts et suppressions que vous souhaitez pour les articles (de préférence en Français).--Bapti 13:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Your encounter with a 'wiki-pompier'...Edit

It's hardly my business, but I just came across your arbitration case on the French Wikipedia with Folken - he just removed *that* paragraph again from one of the articles it appears in (R.A.B. or Regulus Black...). I was following the whole debate but then it seems to stop about 10 days ago - is there more somewhere or has it just fizzled out? Would be interested to hear the outcome. Libatius 23:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I had a look myself at the debate on the french wiki. On the whole the articles are static as I would wish them, (and others, particularly ones competent to write french). The pompier posted a reply on Folken's page, once again inviting him to produce any further arguments he could think of to support his case, specifically about whether Granger is a good source, really. Other sources were discussed but the arbitrator found that Granger was a satisfactory source, so the case for inclusion was made without considering the merits of others. Folken seems to be persistenly removing the communications on his page there, as he does here if he does not like them. So check the back history to find the debate. Sandpiper 17:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It has already been established here by several users that granger wasn't a reliable source, and you could never establish the contrary, so i's over. Don't try to push your pov by fabricating comments that the others have never said.
The pompier never proved anything and never bothered to argue about anything, and as it was clear that this pompier was subjective in his interventions, there was no reasons to blindly follow his pov if he's not able to justify anything.
Sandpiper, it's seems you have a personal disliking for me. But honestly, what do you care ? Is your life so empty that you actually enjoy monitoring everything I do on each wiki, so that you can comment it and criticize it everywhere, even on the talkpages of other users who don't give a damn about your little vendetta ? What does it matter if I do what I want with my talk page, what does it matter to you ? Don't you have anything else in your life ? Is really your most important activity in life checking how I manage my talk page on international wikis ?Folken de Fanel 17:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the pompier found against you and it was accepted that Granger is a very good source. He offered you the chance to bring forward further arguments, which you have not, and there the matter rests. You then set about accusing him of bias on his RfA. Unfortunate for him, we all await the outcome. He has 88 for and 5 against, including 3 feeling he should wait a bit longer, one which seems to be some sort of a joke, and Folken's objection. Sandpiper 12:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop your vandalismEdit

OR is not wanted on WP. Self-published sources are not wanted on WP.

That's enough, stop disrupting WP articles just for your personal pleasure. If you can't justify your edits, they can't be on WP. Remember what Tuvas told you ? "Stop trying the patience of others". Folken de Fanel 10:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, don't include any controversial content in articles without discussing it first and reaching a consensus with other users. If you continue to ignore others, you'll have to face the consequences of your acts. If you refuse to show any good faith by keeping acting as a pov pusher and ignoring comments from others, there's no doubt about what will happen, so the choice is yours...Folken de Fanel 10:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Folken, please stop leaving disingenuous messages all over wikis in two languages. Everyone editing wiki must understand that it is not their private playground, and that their own personal point of view as to the content of articles is no better than anyone elses. In particular we have disagreed over whether HP articles should include coverage of the debate amongst readers as to the plot, the meaning of the plot, and likely extensions of that plot. The existence of this debate is a major and unprecedented cultural phenomenon and should be reported. There are now supposedly 190 books written about HP (according to the telegraph [7], I presume they mean in English). Moreover, the results of that debate are now widely distributed and frankly well known. The debate has even been encouraged by Rowling. I haven't traced all the details, but it would appear that at one point Warner brothers tried to curtail some of the fan sites, but gave up because of massive public protests against what they were trying to do. The number of book sales for these books written about the works of Rowling is in itself bigger than interest in some original books, and their content deserves to be reported just as much as any other book. The last review I read, again by the Telegraph went so far as to describe Rowling as the most successful author ever. I understand that it is your wish that there should not be coverage of this in wiki, but that is a flat contradiction of how wiki articles should be structured. It is deliberate policy to spread content as far as possible away from singleminded slavish quotation of the original source. This absolutely must include reporting what others have written about the books.
Please stop attempting to bend every rule you can find to support your own point of view. Sandpiper 12:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Useless to leave insult messages either on my talk page or yours. All you are asked is to go by the rules, and to stop acting as if you were a the only one on Earth, imposing content and views that obviously nobody else agrees with (and the debate in which you involved with LR is another proof of that). From now on, you don't revert anything before discussing it first and reaching a consensus with other users. Otherwise, you'll be concidered as a disrupter of WP, and you'll get what you deserve for that. I couldn't care less about your personal rants and all your nonsense, it'll only be a waste of your time, so do as you are supposed to do here on WP. If you don't want to belong to this community, fair enough, but then go away, if you stay and don't want to get blocked, go by the rules. Folken de Fanel 22:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you.Folken de Fanel 10:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Refusing discussion is admitting you're wrong, and that you're merely a disrupter of WP trying to push your POV.Folken de Fanel 10:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We have already exchanged maybe 10,000 lines of argument. I suggest you read it again, more carefully, if you still do not understand my points. Sandpiper 17:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Inventing imaginary consensuses is not acceptable on Wikipedia. If you keep pushing your POV, you'll be blocked.Folken de Fanel 12:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Folken, stop playing stupid gtames and posting inappropriate tags on peoples pages. Did you know that can be construed as vandalism? Sandpiper 12:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You were warned earlier that you couldn't impose your POV if you kept ignoring other people's opinion, if you kept refusing to discuss your edits, and if you kept refusing to reach consensus with others. You've blatantly ignored all I have told you and still tried to impose your POV while you refused to reach consensus with others, so now you're only getting what you deserve. You're actually being disruptive, and you're on the right way to get blocked. You're even making things worse by using personal attacks "stupid games", are you actually trying to get permanently blocked ?Folken de Fanel 12:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Horcruxe, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Folken de Fanel 12:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

again, see my comment above. stop abusing proper process by plastering wiki with inappropriate messages. This can be construed as vandalism, especially when a user is experienced enough to know better. Sandpiper 12:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
An experienced user knows better than to constantly ignore other people, constantly ignore discussions, constantly refuse to take them into acccount, constantly refuse to reach consensus, and constantly try to impose a POV by force. Thus you're not an experienced user. Thus templates are perfectly appropriate, and they correspond to the situation.Folken de Fanel 10:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

After all this, I see you've reverted AGAIN on RAB, thus ignoring both my previous warnings, and the official warnings you got today. This is obviously a provocation, and you've undisputably proved that you're here only to disturb WP to prove a point. I let you one chance, stop all this disruptive reverts and maybe you'll escape your fate. This is a test between us: prove that you can work with others, that you can make good faith contributions, by not reverting anything until book 7 is out. Prove that you're not merely a POV pusher and discuss your edits, and try to actually reach consensus with others. If, after proper debates, you've proven the value of your edits and that you have convinced others that you're right, then, other users will re-add the debated content. To prove my good faith, I remove all templates I gave you today. This is a pact between us. No more templates, no more warnings, no admin intervention if you can behave, if you can show me you're a good editor that accepts to discuss his edits, instead of imposing them by force. I trust you on this one, now the choice is yours, you calm down and you do as all good WP editors are supposed to do (and you may have a chance to see your edits accepted). I've given you many chances, months ago and only days ago, each time you've rejected them. Please realize this is the very last you'll get, so don't waste it this time. Folken de Fanel 20:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Folken, what are you talking about? The only warnings I get are ones posted by you, and official is not the word I would use to describe them. I notice that you have chosen to remove the warning flags you posted on my page. Please do not post any more. You know perfectly well that all my edits are in good faith. The difference between us seems to be that I consider it appropriate, indeed correct, to report the fan interest and debate over Hp, and you do not. Frankly, I do not understand why you consider it inappropriate to report what the readership thinks about the books. The whole reason for the success of ther books is the extent to which readers have become involved in the story. Sandpiper 08:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That was your last chance.Folken de Fanel 10:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Folken de Fanel 10:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you placed all the silly tags back into the discussion. I remind you Folken, that wiki works by consensus. It is your approach which has led to disciplinary action. Sandpiper 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
As per your edit comment reply, this issue will be over when you accept that comment written by third parties discussing the plots of the Rowling books is not only admissable content on wiki, but is the sort of stuff we should be repoorting. And since you are in the habit of deleting my replies i say once again, if you feel my inclusions are not NPOV, then please produce your own references to show that I am unfairly misrepresenting the debate. Sandpiper 06:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


It's when you start inventing things, fabricating imaginary statements and attributing them to people who never said them, that it's becoming obvious you have a problem.

Whatever I think or expect about book 7 stays in my head, and doesn't influence my edits on WP, unlike you.

I have never said I didn't believe these theories, or that I did. It's simply not the question.

I have already explained all my motives, that your edits were original research, that your "sources" were just unreliable and non-notable, and that inclusion of HP theories was against the spirit of WP.

I told you that it was not about "whether it's true or false". So really, I can't see how you dare say things like "because I think it is wrong". I've explained it many times, what I believe or not is my problem, and the personal beliefs of contributors on WP is not the focus. The rules are the only focus.

You just try to add content that cannot be added. That's all. Every one told you so. You're sources are bad, just bad, self-published books, unreliable books, non-notable books, unsubstanciated speculations, blatant crystal-balling...And your edits, the're awful. Each one of them is shouting at our face "Sandpiper believes this !", the fact is that, no one cares about you. Nobody's here to see what Sandpiper thinks of book 7.

This is so hypocritical from you, you dare say "because I think it is wrong", and saying me "prove it is wrong, then !", while, even though you don't realize it, by saying this, you admit you think it is right, you defend yourself merely by saying "prove it is wrong", thus confirming you're adding it because you think it is right. No one here brought the matter of right/wrong, except you. The very fact that you are identifying the "wrong" as the opposite of your edits, the "right", is the undeniable proof that you believe in these theories and that's the only reason why you're adding them.

But in doing so, you utterly miss the point of WP, because WP isn't a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of reliability, notability, of encyclopedicality. I'm not going to copy the rules here, you know very well what they say. Not all sources can be used, and such restricted sources like books froms fans, or forums, are just not reliable. They only concern a very restricted minority of fans, and are just attempts at seeing the future, making them totally unsubstanciated (who can say they are, or aren't going to happen ? That the very principle of unreliability, you can't rely on them, you can't know for sure). That's one thing, the other is that in your edits, you blatantly say that these theories are true. And you're not authorised to do that.

You won't lead us into a "right or wrong" debate, it has not it's place on WP and it's not WP's focus. Theories and speculations are just not the focus of WP, moreover when users are here to prove they are right (or so they think). You can however go to the HP wiki [8], which is a fan project, in which theories are acceptable, and are indeed the focus. But you'll never impose content that isn't the focus of WP, and you cannot keep revert warring while refusing to discuss with others, refusing to reach consensus, which is the basis of WP. Don't you realize that you are the instrument of your own defeat, by your behavior ? Folken de Fanel 23:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't believe I have ever intentionally attributed anything to the wrong person. Nor have I invented anything. I have reported what others believe about the books, and have listed published books to support this. I see absolutely no reason why the established websites, which have been recommended by Rowling as authorities on her work, should not be accepted as entirely satisfactory sources on the subject of what fans believe, but since you insisted, first Michael Sanders and then I have gone to the trouble of finding some published books. Langford is an established author, contributor to established paper encyclopedias, has won many awards, and dare I say it even has a wiki article explaining all this. Spartz represents mugglenet, personally interviewed Rowling about this subject and is author of a book which has become a best seller. Granger has become a celebrity in the US precisely because he speaks and writes about HP. If these had been authors writing books in their own right about something else, those books would be entitled to their own articles. As it is, we are entitled to mention them in articles where it is appropriate. Wiki editors write about what exists now. These other books predicting what will be in Rowlings book exist now, and we are entitled to report what they say. In a similar way, in 5 weeks time we shall report what Rowling says on the subject of how the plot of her existing books ought to be developed.
I will try to make the issue of NPOV more clear. There exists debate as to the likely content of DH. I have reported it. It is entirely proper for me to report what others have said. You can only argue for the deletion of this material on grounds that my reporting is biased, if you can show that I have unfairly reported the sources, or can produce other sources which disagree with them. You havn't. You can attempt to argue that the sources are unreliable or non-noteable (as you have attempted), but you cannot argue that I unfairly report them unless you can show that it is the case. Sandpiper 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes you have attributed false comments to other people.
No you're not reporting anything, you merely stating what you think is true and you think unreliable self-published sources will serve as an excuse.
Already talked about it, no website was ever recommended by Rowling as reliable sources for Wikipedia, and Rowling never said anything about their theories. Isolated websites (self-published ) aren't reliable sources.
Langford has never written about HP before, thus he's not an established HP-related author, he's never won any award about HP (or being able to see the future, since that's the subject). You wrote the article you're refering to.
Spatz is unreliable and non-notable, using his own theories to make money about HP. That the same unreliable and non-notable material went from one format to another, doesn't change anything. Sales are nothing and don't change anithing to non-notability.
Granger is self-publishing books, and become popular about HP only as a christian analysing paralells with religion in HP books.
We cannot mention unreliable sources such as these, just because you want to add your favorite theories.
Then book 7 and its plot don't exist now, so we don't write about it.
These books are based on nothing, they have no ground for their assertions, no proof, nothing, they're just for a restricted circle of die-hard fans, who aren't the focus of WP. You can try the HP wiki for that, but not WP. Thus we're not "reporting" what they say since they're not reliable and not notable. JKR is notable because she writes the book. People who aren't involved in the writing of the book have no reliability whatsoever concerning this book. If they don't know, nobody else knows. Why favor what they say, when just anyone on the net, claiming the wildest things, is as "reliable" as they are ? The fact is, you just want to add what you like.
Others have already told you. The so-called debate is not notable, as it's restricted to forum talks, only concerning a restricted circle of die-hard fans. Besides, you're not reporting anything, you're merely taking side. You produce very selective extracts of the speculation that has been created, and not the fact that there is speculation.
It is entirely improper for you to produce speculation and using excuses of "reporting", when you're not reporting anything, but merely stating what you think is true and hiding behind unreliable self-published "sources".
I can argue for the deletion of this material on all grounds I want. Your edits have been undisputably proven to be biased, because, as I have proved, you're only here to present your theories as if they were true, and you "report" (as you say) only what you like. Also because you're using source which do not respect the established rules, as they are not notable, not reliable. And "disagreeing sources" is not the point, it's not a matter of being right or wrong, it's a matter of subject being unappropriate for WP, moreover when a contributor is using it to assert his own beliefs. I have done all that.
And many others told you the same things, many others agreed.
And you still avoid answering about your disruptive behavior, imposing content by force instead of discussing and trying to reach consensus. Folken de Fanel 01:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: HP fandomEdit

Hey Sandpiper, sorry for the delayed response. The reason I removed the mention of the theme park from the article was because, as soon as its production was confirmed, I had a feeling that people would begin to expand on its description in that article and then it would just become an all-out subarticle on the park. So I removed its mention for now before all the latest rumors were added there. A brand new article may be appropriate for details about the park, but I agree that it merits mention in the Fandom article, though I'm not sure where. Anyway, I actually wanted to remove it just for the week or so after news of its announcement died down. Anyway, seems we have some higher priority work to do on that article in the mean time, with its failed FAC. Best, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Horcruxes etcEdit

I am putting all the stuff removed from Wikipédia on HP Wiki. Much more freedom here: [9]. Barraki 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Please see Talk:R.A.B.--Jac16888 12:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I reverted your edit to the article, because it seemed to be comprised of unverifiable theories. I really am not a Harry Potter fan, So i don't really have any knowledge of the theories regarding any point of plot. It seemed as though it were an adition based on a personal theory (as I said, I have no idea if the theory is widespread or not), hence the OR summary. It may also be a poor understanding of WP:CRYSTAL on my part, but I thought that speculation on what is going to happen in future books is not allowed. However, if the theories you placed in the article are widesprread, then I suppose that they could probably go in. Sorry if I caused offence, just felt it was better to be s afe than sorry!--NeoNerd 12:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading the stuff I removed, I think I might have been a bit hasty in removing the first two paragraphs of it, since now I look closer, they are actually refereced (oops). However, the third paragraph seemed to be loosely based on a quote, but not the book itself. --NeoNerd 12:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't really want to get get involved, since there does seem to be a bit of an acrimonious edit conflict going on. However, I will revert myself, since some of the material was sourced.--NeoNerd 12:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Deathly HallowsEdit

I know she has said this would be the final Harry Potter book, but there is also a quote on that page which goes:

  • In a 2000 interview through Scholastic, Rowling stated that there isn't a university after Hogwarts and that she did not plan on further Harry Potter books:[61]
Q: Do you think that you will write about Harry after he graduates from Hogwarts? Isn't there a University of Wizardry?
A: No, there's no University for Wizards. At the moment I'm only planning to write seven Harry Potter books. I won't say "never," but I have no plans to write an eighth book.

So, she said I would "never say never". Which means a possible 8th book? Dunno Ccrashh 12:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Regulas BlackEdit

I left a repley to you in the Talk section of the regulas black article. I have one thing I really want to ask/stress. I appreciate the effort and the passion you put into your articles However it is conter productive and harmful to not consider the views an opinions of your fellow editors. Wikipedia is a group effort. repeatedly placing content that the group have not agreed on can been seen as rude. Please follow the process and allow us to come to a consensus about the information in the article instead of insisting on your version. It's only polite. Thanks Angielaj 02:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! While not a follower of the whole debate, I think the effort to include sources for the discussion on Regulas Black and his potential for being the R.A.B. refered to in the Half Blood Prince is good. It is hard, I think to have an encyclopedic entry on this kind of topic, though I know wikipedia is full of them, and lots of effort goes into making the entries as good as possible. I hope that you and the others who feel passionately about the article can come to a consensus on what and how to include all the good discussion on even the fairly minor characters. Good luck! Rocksanddirt 00:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I made some edits to the Regulas Black page and want to know what you think. It's frustrating trying to convey what you mean in prose sometimes. I didn't take about the part with the disput on the locket but I did change one word. Please let me know what you think in the talk Page

Cheers AngielaJ 02:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Old 3RR reportEdit

Regarding this old 3RR report about the Harry Potter book article, the edit war seems to have cooled, but please let me know on my talk page if you want someone to mediate or need admin intervention.--Chaser - T 20:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuing the edit war at Horcrux is a really stupid way to solve this disagreement. Please use the talk page.--Chaser - T 21:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Horcrux revert vandalismEdit

Did you look at what I reverted as opposed to what you put back in? They weren't the same at all. Check the history. Ccrashh 12:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The wording was different on both anon edits by different anons which you deleted, but the meaning was exactly the same. You may legitimately disagree about content, but you may not claim random editors are vandals when they simply reinsert content which you dispute. Sandpiper

So you are saying I can post disputed content over and over again and not be considered engaged in vandalism? Interesting. Besides, I couldn't figure out what you were talking about, re: the vandalism tag, at first. On the anonymous user site, it doesn't appear to use that word. Just the description of the history. So, in point of fact, I clicked the wrong button on Twinkle. Sue me. Still, the vandalism tag, in my opinion, in valid. Just like using ONE source to support theories is valid in your opinion. Ccrashh 11:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows Re-StructuringEdit

I noticed how you changed around a few paragraphs and merged a couple of sections together to create a much more streamlined and coherent article-- i think its improved significantly! especially the what we know about the story section- that really ties together a few elements that i was struggling with how to organize. Twump 23:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me. I didnt realize i wasnt signed in. Anyway, I tried mostly to slim down the lead, which was really bloated, and i think that new readers would be compelled to skip a lot of it simply becuase there was a lack of direction. What parts are still nagging you? Maybe i could take a look and see if i come up with something. Thanks Twump 23:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Snapejinxingbroom.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Snapejinxingbroom.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 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 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 non-free media 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. J Milburn 10:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


The page was getting a bit long, and I thought it could do with archiving the bits no longer needed, so I put a redlink there in the hope someone would archive some of the page. I was unable to archive myself because the ctrl+c/v/x keys didnt work on the computer I was using. RHB - Talk 12:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


A template you created, Template:1-Class, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter thing... King's paragraphEdit

A little while ago I removed a bunch of excess reviews in the critical reception list. I haven't paid much attention to the page since then but I have noticed reversion's here and there in my watch list. After taking a look at the said article and thus said section, I think it would be more advantageous if you cut down King's paragraph to just the "meat" - if you get me? All non-essential sentences could possibly be kicked out since we only need the essential's of what notable commentator's mean. Do you agree/disagree? (Btw, I do think that the paragraph could/should be there, but perhaps a shortened version. It takes up a fair amount of room in comparison to other crit. reviews in the section) Hooah ScarianTalk 23:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry sir but that's not up to you to decide. I shall open it up for discussion on the appropriate page. Thank you for your time. ScarianTalk 23:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Buddy, I don't care about the size of plot, I don't care about the plot. (It's late here and I just want to sleep but I can't because I love Wikipedia) I really only care about the size of King's quote... I read it myself and sure, I agree with you, it's not bad. But an irrelevant sentence or two could go to allow other writer's a chance - rather than clogging it up to allow King more space. Despite King's "authority" as a writer, other critics' opinions are just as valid, do you understand where I am coming from, friend? ScarianTalk 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Harry Potter roll-callEdit

Hi there. Your username is listed on the WikiProject Harry Potter participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. Your name has therefore been moved to a "potentially inactive" list. If you still consider yourself an active WikiProject Harry Potter editor, please move your name from the Potentially inactive list to the Active Contributors list. You may also wish to add {{User WP Harry Potter}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. Conversely, if you do not wish to be considered a member of the WikiProject, leave your name where it is and it will be moved to the Inactive Contributors section. If you wish to make a clean break with the Project you may move your name to the Known to have left section. Many thanks.

Your recent editsEdit

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button   located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 04:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

William Parker Sports CollegeEdit

I've recently decided to go back to some articles I edited a while ago and add references. i was going to do this with the extract from Rev William Parker's will, but note that it's not quite tha same as the wording in the books I have to hand. I bellieve you added the information in question - could I ask, please, where the quotation came from? Many thanks. --rossb 13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Over the last days, User:G.A.S and me have been working on a careful rewording of the intro, which we are now jointly proposing here. Since you've been recently active on WT:WAF, I think the proposal may be of interest to you and we both would appreciate your input. Also, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, please forgive the timesaving templated wording. — aldebaer 20:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Malfoy insults Hermione.jpg)Edit

  Thanks for uploading Image:Malfoy insults Hermione.jpg. 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 21:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAF rewriteEdit

The drafting is going on on my talk page. However, it is kind of slow, but there is at least a long term vision. Don't see it as a rewrite, though. Anything there is only the opinion of the writers, and still need to be presented to the usual writers of WP:WAF for comment and discussion. Regards, G.A.S 10:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your help but the issue is sorted now. Sorry I didn't update the talk page. Thanks though. - J Logan t: 08:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Titus OatesEdit

Yes - it's the famous (or infamous) Titus Oates. --rossb 12:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am, to my shame, too busy and much too weary to take part in the accursed notability debates, but thank you for your latest comment ("needs the words it needs".) --Kizor 20:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

European UnionEdit

I reviewed your recent reversion in the EU article, and I have to agree with Blue Haired Laywer. The problem is not as much that you are not right but:
1) The text you made does not fit the current sources, hence these sources have become irrelevant and should have been removed or amended.
2) The text you provide is not supported by any provided sources. To make such bold claims as you are making, you have to provide a high quality source and insert it in the text at the relevant position.
This considering, the edit you made is not a good edit, not because it is not true, but because you do not provide evidence for its truth; ie a formal rather then a content wise argument, but good referencing is about the only way the quality can be guarded so it is not a trivial but an essnential core formality. I have reverted your edit and left a message on the talk page. If you provide the relevant references I would be happy for you to reinsert your ideas. Arnoutf 20:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Langford EndofHP cover.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading Image:Langford EndofHP 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 00:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

CAP subsidy cutsEdit

You make a good point. Any decent farm will have more acreage, and get a bigger subsidy, than the mentioned aristocrats. Fred Bauder 02:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think obtaining money under the CAP has absolutely nothing to do with competence as a farmer.Sandpiper 15:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems not, although the requirements are quite complex. There seems to be requirements that the land be maintained as farmland and be farmed. And there seems to be a wide variety of subsidies and other payments for different crops, like bees, for example. My point was that a full-time farmer needs considerable land to be fully employed, more than the few hundred acres cultivated on some of the estates mentioned. I speak of grain and similar crops, of course, that are amenable to large scale commercial production. Fred Bauder 15:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

EU statusEdit

A Non-European view: [10] Lear 21 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely this is vandalism of a users page here Lear. Many Americans couldn't find you Europe on a map. If you take the American government's view as gospel on what the EU is, haha, ah well, I don't really have to say do I. --Simonski 21:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent editsEdit

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button   located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent editsEdit

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button   located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheChosenpaperbackcoverPinto.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading Image:TheChosenpaperbackcoverPinto.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 (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Budget of the European Union - Contributions tableEdit

Hi i have been looking at the figures on the Budget of the European Union page and i think from looking at the history you added the table with details on contributions and expenditure. I was looking at the EU budget report on the Europa website.

Looking at page 33 (marked 31) showing national contribution and 63 (marked as 61) showing the 2006 EU contribution and expenditure figures of member states. The Expenditure on the wiki page matches exactly with the figure on the table, however all the contribution figures seem to be slightly out compared to the "Total revenue" figure on that page of the report. I might be missing something and completly wrong, but i dont understand why theres a difference, i cant seem to find the contribution numbers stated in the report.

For example looking at Germany: Total Revenue(page63) and Total Own resources (page33)both say 20501.2 but on the wiki table of total contribution it says 22,218,438,941

If you could take a look at this when u get the chance and if you understand why theres a difference, do you think u could add just a little note on the page under the table how the total contribution was calculated or get back to me.

Thanks, hope that made sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBritWatcher (talkcontribs) 05:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for getting back to me, do you think we should change the figures on the EU budget and statistics page so they match the revenue stated on the EU report. If the expenditure figure came from the EU budget the revenue should really come from the same source aswell. Its a much more reliable source than anything from Eurostat, atleast then its clear where the data is from and if the data is incorrect the EU budget report is to blame not people who have posted and edited wiki pages.

I dont mind taking the numbers off of the report and editing both pages with the contribution figures.. I just wanted to make sure i wasnt wrong or hadnt missed how the contribution had been worked out.

TheBritWatcher 24th december 2007

AfD nomination of Harry Potter newspapers and magazinesEdit

An article that you have been involved in editing, Harry Potter newspapers and magazines, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter newspapers and magazines (2nd nomination). Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Spencer RobertsEdit

Hi Sandpiper. Thank you for starting the Arthur Spencer Roberts article because it is turning into an interesting article. One thing, though, that you can do to improve its quality is to avoid introducing facts implicitly. Let me explain what I mean.

I, like most readers, do not have and have not read the book Chiaroscuro: The Life of Arthur Spencer-Roberts. Thus when I see the sentence "The family moved to Hastings during Roberts' youth on medical advice that a southern climate would improve his tuberculosis.", I immediately wonder if I missed the part about Roberts getting TB, a fact that was implicitly asserted in this sentence. Another example is the sentence starting with "While a new recruit at the start of World War II", which, after reading, leaves me thinking When did he join?, Why?, and Was he drafted or did he join voluntarily?.

Here are some other examples:

  • medical advice (Who gave this advice?)
  • In 1939 as a gunner (When did he become a gunner? Did he start as a gunner?)
  • while the army stayed in India (Why were they staying in India?)
  • where both his and his wife's father had served (Where did the article say that he married someone? [below] Where was the short introduction for Mavis' father, or, why was her father mentioned here?)
  • but he again took a teaching job (Did he temporarily forgo an art career for a teaching career?)
  • Privations of life in the wilderness and a desire for company (Was life on the Isle of Arran lonely?)
  • After returning from one such visit (Which visit? There was more than one?)


I know that many of these things will be worked out in the long run; this is, after all, a stub, but since you have the book, it would be easier for all editors if you incorporated as much of this information as possible.

« D Trebbien (talk) 04:48 2008 January 2 (UTC)

Hi Dtrebbien. I wrote the article the way I did to accurately quote the source. I don't know who gave the medical advice (it doesn't say). There was no part about him getting tuberculosis, only having it. It is a very eclectic book jumping about all over the place, seeking as much to get the feel of the guy as to arrange facts in order. For example, I was not entirely happy stating they lived in Glasgow as it is implied by his father working there rather than stated. I was told elsewhere he was in fact born in Ireland.
I don't know whether he started as a gunner. I would guess this is likely, but the book does not say (or it might, but not in that passage). It reports him refusing to join a newly enlisted mate marching up and down the sea front in Hastings, but it doesn't say if they volunteered or were called up. it mentions training in Wales but not how they got there, his superior shooting at a civilian car before being invited to the occupants wedding, and a squaddy electrocuting himself. I have refrained from presuming anything it doesn't exactly say.
I presume they stayed in India because it was british territory needing an army, but it might have been because the government wanted to slow down releasing soldiers back to civilian life. I cant know from this book. The fathers served in different regiments, but there is some more detail on this. Apparently they were on opposite sides of a river during the same campaign. I have no idea if they knew each other. The book does have a section talking about empathy for the various soldiers and the effect on him of visiting the somme battlefields and his decision therefore to paint a picture about it. I don't know how many he might have painted on this theme, or any other info about his volume of work and which pictures are most famous.
I started adding bits while reading along as the only practical way of reordering information. Yes, I know we need some more obvious normal bio details (the book doesn't say when he was born, for example), but they are at best mixed up. Some more precise dates, length of trips etc, may be ascertained by more careful reading. I didn't introduce the sectioning, someone else did that: I hadn't got to that stage yet and while splitting it chronologically might make sense, it is not entirely natural from this source, which hops backwards and forwards on topics. Similarly, while there is more detail on some points, as it is obviously missing on others it is difficult to initially assess the correct level of detail for particular sections.
It did have a description of the wedding, in Hastings, on a windy day, where all the ladies skirts were blown up over their heads. My difficulty is whether such an amusing story is worth repeating, or isn't very helpful in the face of more important shortages.
It never states exactly what he was teaching. Sounds as though it was several subjects, probably private schools, mentions his doing drawings to illustrate several subjects. His wife was also teaching, sometimes they were at the same place. As another example of the books difficulties it says a headmaster was pleased to employ them as a team in one sentence, then next sentence appears to go on about her working at a different school. Hard to sort out. Then again, this is his biography: it seems likely from having got to the end of it that she was happy to be working earning money while he stayed at home and painted. Ultimatley, she was probably right as he became known and could earn money from painting, they did OK and had fun. But how much to introduce what she was doing? Do we mention her refusing to give greta garbo tea on some greek millionaires yacht? Possibly yes, the millionaire seems to have been something between a good customer and an agent, and a friend. How about the odd person turning up naked? Someone already chopped out the sentence I put in about him being offered acting work: I though it relevant becasue although he never took it up, in the judgement of a professional director he must have had the necessary looks/charisma/whatever and this says something about him.
Doesn't say how many trips to the USA. yes, several, and they seems to have enjoyed staying in posh hotels and with millionaires. I was myself wondering how many over how long when mentioning their return to find their house falling over the cliff.
I got into this because I was looking for illustrations for another article, and Roberts did some drawings. Having discovered a bit about him it seemed likely he was a good enough artist that he ought to have an article. However, he is not long enough dead to have earnt a place in history and just too long dead to have got onto the internet for sourcing. On the whole, I don't think he was too good at marketing. Sandpiper (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandpiper. Everything seems okay, then. If the book doesn't say something, then it can't appear on Wikipedia.
It might be fun to incorporate the part about how the couple enjoyed staying in posh hotels with millionaires, as it somewhat gives an overall impression of their actual personalities.
As for some of the other facts, like Mavis' refusal to serve greta garbo tea, or an odd person turning up naked, I think that you made the right decision to not include them. While funny, they are practically bits of trivia and if readers remain interested in Roberts, then they have an incentive to acquire the book.
Does the book cite sources? If so, maybe you could add the references to the article's Talk page.
« D Trebbien (talk) 16:36 2008 January 2 (UTC)

Thanks for the revertEdit

Thanks for doing that revert, I was looking at all those edits flowing and rapidly starting to loose the will to live, I really didn't want to revert back to my own last edit nor revert those two editors less it looked like spite or WP:POINT. Thanks again. SouthernElectric (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

little discussion on EUEdit

"I couldn't find out whether US states are entitled to secede, or not"They have to amend the constitution,i think,in all cases it's not unilateral,not anymore anyway.But for the pre-civil war situation,you can argue that they indeed had a right to just leave.

"discriminate against citizens of a different state"All EU citizens have a EU citizenship in parallel with that of there country,this just means that you have extra rights then a complete alien,but still some anomalies remain.

"the buildings"Actually it depends on the buildings,some are owned by the institutions,some by the governments,some by the cities, some are private.In the case of ownership by the institution,it's less clear,since every one has a share in it.Theres no requirement that the buildings are located in the union,there where proposals to put some in Switzerland.Lets just say you are complitly off in this one.

"Who arbitrates in international law where there are conflicts?"whell i'm making the assumption that all the international legalease are not just literature.The courts are not there to force a dessision,the parlament can make any dessision it whants,but... it can't start issuing laws that contradict each other.The parlement has olredy accepted the supremacy of international law,if it whants to go against international law,it must fist repell the specific law,the courts are not making a desision against parlement,they deside that parlement has contradicted it's self.If you don't accept supremacy of international law,that means that you don't keap your promesses and foreign countries will not trust you.

"Suppose 26 states choose to renege on their treaty agreements and make a new treaty excluding the 27th"Thers an expultion prosedure,ferthere more the commision is apointed unanimously,the court need one judje from every contry and many more,so there are many oportunities for pressure.There are many posibilities for conflict resolution,just discusion and compromise,going to court,expelle the trouble maker,declare you insane....I'm sure that you can comme up with a lot of scenarios,but in the end it boiles down to trust, keeping your word, how many friends do you have,how far are you willing to use coertion....And in ansering a question that i gnored untill here,internatinal relations are like the relation betwen wikipedians, if you have freinds,if you can demonstrate power,if you can manage to coerce, if your actions don't alianate your arlies and friends,you can do what the fuck you whant,in wikipedia you can put in the articles what the fuck you whant or deal with editors the way you whant,the "rules" are like the international law ,if you can demonstrate power,coertion and all that, you can write the rules that you whant, give special privileges to your freinds or fans,you interpret the rules the whay you whant as long as you can get away whith it,or what your morals permits you to do and you distribute penalties the way you whant.The problem here is that thers no separation of powers,on top of the fact that you are your self a party.When the UK sovereignist are complaining about loss of sovereignty,it's exacly that ability to redious the sovereighnty of others.In the international system,all countries are sovereign,but some are more sovereign then others.Under this POV sovereignty is not something that you have or you don't have,it's continuous,no contry is fully sovereign,enless it's the only one on the planette.Saying that EU member states are sovereign doesn't make sence,even incide a federation they will retain some sovereighty,they will not loose there independence over night after some special amendment to the treties.

"I doubt the EU would be punitive at all with any country wanting to leave"Yes and no,they will never do anything, "violent",i mean in general,not just sending troups(example Sweden and the euro).But the EU is not a fairy tale.

"but people who fight wars for their independence from foreign oppression seldom do so because they want to improve their economies"Yep this is absolutly true,almost systematicly any seciding teritory sees it's situation plunge.

"Freedom is just priceless" yea right,tell that to iraquis,especially to that boy how lost both arms and his entire familly at the same time,without counting the third degree burns.It just hitlerian like nationalism/racism,thies independency movements have rarely any link to freedom.After independence it generaly ends up in a dictatorship of some form.

"and this is arguably the first step towards rules saying there is no way of leaving."Thats interesting elaborate.I rather think that the secession close is just there to calm down eurosceptics,it isn't seriously intended to be used,the EU is giving nothing for something here,to smooth out future negotiation(yes :) you can federalize your army with us :),remember you can leave at any time :)),presisly because the real probability of secession is minute,if there was a country that was seriously thinking to leave,i'm not convined that they would be a close in the first place.When the level of integration,and the number of countries stabilize,the central goverment of the time will probably ammend it out.I bet that a future european linkon will declare that the european federation is older than it's constitution,and nuke anybody how is not in line.For the right repel the treaties unilaterally or not,i cal this acknowledgment,that effectively you don't legally has the right to do so,why add the clause if you already has that right?

"Under that definition, there are no sovereign nations currently"No one forces any one to ratify a treaty.If you don't like the UN,you know where the door is.Whats the point of ratifying a treaty,if you don't intend to respect it,this implies dishonesty from your part.How are you going to deal with foreigners if you don't keap your word,unless you want to end up like north korea.Internally the courts will not allow you to have contradictory laws.If you didn't include proper exit clauses in the treaty you singed,that's your problem.A contract is a contract.Lets get a little example with the EU,there a no procedures for leaving,how are you going to divide the common goods?Equally?According to your obligations during the time you followed the treaty?According to population?According to GDP?You going to simply steal what ever is in your reach?I mean just a normal divorce with a legal frame work are a mess to sort out.You should have thouth of all that before signing.If the treaty is silent on secession,it just means that their isn't one,you will need concencus from all the others.At my knowledge thers no "divorce law" in the UN,you can see treaties as a marriage where the parties decide the procedure of divorce.I'm not sure,but the treaty of rome says something about an ever closer union.while seca(the first precursor of the EU) had a 50 years life spam,Benelux normally expires 201X something(almost certainly it will be extended again),why having expiration dates if you just can walk out? -- (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, drop it already! Its such a pointless discussion for as long as there is no agreement on the issue in the wider scheme of things (ie. between the member states, experts, academics etc) --Simonski (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent editsEdit

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button   located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

EU introductionEdit

Please do not introduce false claims like " much of the EU functioning" etc. anymore . Lear 21 (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel this is a false statement, please produce some references explaining this. The EU ref you produced instead states that most EU activities do depend upon agreement between members in an intergovernmental manner. I explained this in more detail on the EU talk page, but you did not respond. Sandpiper (talk)

DO NOT introduce unreferenced claims like "much of the EU functioning" anymore. You have built up now, a reputation of introducing a series of unreferenced, weak written claims to the EU article. These claims have been questioned by several editors. STOP your actions, STOP reintroducing content, which is neither convincing, neither has majority, and neither complies to Wikipedia recommendations. Lear 21 (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Lear I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that you are, frankly, insane. --Simonski (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

EU Single marketEdit

The section has become to long. It should be trimmed by at least 2 paragraphs. When I look at the last para, it becomes clear that highly specific information has been introduced. That is too much. Lear 21 (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Steve Vander Ark.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading Image:Steve Vander Ark.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, have you considered archiving your talk page? It's pretty long... J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I have replied on the image's talk page. J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Reform TreatyEdit

Yo man, thought you'd find this current argument on the Lisbon Treaty page quite interesting. I'm getting the impression that in many areas the page has been edited by people who really don't have a clue what they're talking about. If you get the chance, have a look on the talk page at the section on UK reaction/free undistorted competition, I'm pretty sure you'd agree with me on this issue so your support would be welcome! --Simonski (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Winston ChurchillEdit

I have just read your excellent comments on the talk page. I attempted a long time ago to get the article to FA. I only managed to get it to GA before I gave in. However perhaps you might consider making the changes to the sections you have mentioned. The article can benefit from an editor with a reviewers eye and especially one who is actually reading a Churchill biography! It is close to being FA on the article scale, it just needs those few important tweaks which maybe you could do? I would suggest you edit the sections you mentioned on the talk page as I agree with your comments. I am very gald to see that you objected to the buggery claim (and that it has been removed). LordHarris 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandpiper, you mentioned the question of whether Churchill ought to be described as the prime minister of Great Britain or the prime minister of the United Kingdom. The trouble with the former description is that Great Britain is not a country and was not a country at the time of Churchill's prime ministership. Great Britain is an island, really, the island on which England, Scotland and Wales are situated. Churchill could be described as the "British prime minister" because the adjective "British" has come to be accepted as the de facto adjective relating to the UK (as well as to Great Britain, of course). The UK might have had an empire in Churchill's day, as you say, but he was not prime minister of the empire, he was just prime minister of the UK. Ondewelle (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC) And while you're at it any more comments on Winston Churchill in politics especially in relation to your comments about changing parties would be much appreciated Backnumber1662 (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments, I agree with you in part about the Dardenelles, that can be dealt with at some greater length (part of Lord Harris's comments. But I think (as I wrote and as the historians who I referenced -specially Liddell Hart say) if the scheme had been properly planned -and in particular had it been a co ordinated army and navy operation from the start it would have worked. Your edits would be very much appreciated I would love this to be a featured article Backnumber1662 (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that we need to deal with the full history of the Gallipoli campaign in the Churchill page, perhaps its sufficient to note that some historians believe that it could have been successful if properly set up and others say it was doomed to failure. The important thing for Churchill is to note that it was a failure and he was blamed- particularly by the press and the Conservatives, looking for a lever to get political advantage and by some of the Liberals annoyed that he (in their eyes) precipitated the shell crisis. For my own part, if ANZAC and the other forces had been ready in early March or if the whole expedition had been put off till enough troops, aircraft and ships were concentrated I am sure the expedition would have been successful. Churchill had the right idea but he didnt carry it through cabinet properlyBacknumber1662 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest moving your heading crossing the floor one paragraph down, the Hughligans were Conservatives (certainly not as radical as Chamberlain's Unionists)and Churchill didn't move toward crossing the floor till Chamberlain started his tariff reform movement.Backnumber1662 (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Sandpiper. I replied to your question on my talk page, to keep the discussion in one place. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jackie FisherEdit

The only source I have is Mackay's biography - which is pretty good (better than Massie ;-) ) but far from gospel. I'll see where that places him. On the whole I'm interested in the ships, rather than the men! The Land (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Have put some information on the Jackie fisher talk page. I might take a look at the Churchill article. The Land (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I've also written a bit about the relationship between Fisher and Churchill 1911-14 at: Winston_Churchill_in_politics:_1900-1939#First_Lord_of_the_Admiralty. The Land (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I've never got much into the detail of naval battles - Life's too short to wade through the reams of historiography - so I don't know much about Jutland. The only problem with Massie is that his books are popular history: the narrative is very readable, but by and large his work is a synthesis of other secondary sources (not always well-attributed) and errors creep in. The Land (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Battle of JutlandEdit

Just because Massie writes it hardly means it is a fact. Please note that not one technical detail in Castles of Steel is referenced. Baden and Bayern were arguably the epitome of German dreanought construction and represented a continuous design evolution from the Nassau class. The Revenge class most certainly was not a direct continuation of British dreadnought design. All other British dreadnoughts had more boiler rooms than the three in that class, therefore the Revenge class was the result of a different design philosophy.

Of course, German ships were more closely sub-divided - however using the Revenge class's three boiler rooms is not a valid way of proving it. This point on design philosphy with regard to the outcome is irrelevant anyway - no dreadnought battleships were sunk at Jutland, while four battle-cruisers were - using battleships to question the philosophy of a different type of ship isn't logical. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 23:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Fisher's Committee on Designs drew up the specifications for HMS Dreadnought and the Invincible class battle cruiser. However, they were based on two entirely different philosophies of both utilisation and design, the latter governing the former - the only major similarity being the all-big-gun main armament. I will have a look at my copy of Massie in the morning, but if he did try and use the Bayern and the Royal Sovereign as typical examples then he is quite frankly wrong, and most technical studies of German and British battleships will tell you that. Massie may well cite it as a fair example, but one can not blindly assume Massie is right, especially when, to be blunt, the old fool didn't bother informing the reader what information he used to cite his conclusions. Suffice it to say Wikipedia is more scholarly than that. The one technical study I did note in Castles of Steel's bibliography was Breyer's Battleships and Battlecruisers book which he may have used to support his argument. This 30-year old book is rife with errors and also has a subtle German bias. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Where do my objections lie?
-The Revenge class were unique among the Royal navy's battleships in having such a small number of boiler rooms. The easiest guide to proving this is the number of funnels - the Revenge class has one, all other classes of battleship have two - it's as simple as that. Therefore it is simply wrong of Massie to use Royal Sovereign as a typical example. And anyone with a knowledge of the Battle of Jutland will tell you, that it's perverse to compare British battleships to German ones because it was the British battleships inflicting the punishment and not taking it, with the exception of Warspite, Malaya and Marlborough, all of which survived fairly serious damage and were repaired quickly.
Frankly, I find it strange that you should consider a book written by a 73-year old as infaillable. The fact that you admit that you are not really an expert on ships suggests you are not really in a position to judge. I would contend that Castles of Steel being such a big fat book makes errors even more likely, and I've found a great deal in the two weeks I've owned my copy.
For example, if you were wanting to write about the Norwegian convoys Massie alludes to on p. 753, you would probably look at that page then write something like, "the four Superb class battleships were detached for convoy duty to Norway", then cite Massie. However, contrary to his book, there is no such thing as the Superb class. The Superb was a member of the Bellerophon class which numbered three ships. On occasion the Dreadnought was categorised as a Superb class ship but from 1916-1918 she was definitely on duty with the Third Battle Squadron on the Coast of England. And because Massie doesn't cite such details the discerning reader (i.e. me) has no idea where he got such a stupid idea from. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 10:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I will address each of you points as they are;

The original point we were discussing, the comparison of boiler rooms, has slipped a bit in importance. The article had a posted 'citation needed', which presumably meant someone was not happy about the comment re barracks and compartments. I inserted the ref comparing ship designs in part to address this. After you cut it, I then re-edited the piece before noticing my insert had disappeared. Thus I had already arrived at a somewhat different version which isolated the problematic statement about barracks from the one about better watertight partitioning. I have read a comment about barracks, possibly in Massie's 'Dreadnought', but I could not say exactly where it is without further work. So in that sense, I don't really consider this as an issue to go to war over. On the other hand, while not feeling the point is essential to the article, I remain unconvinced that it would be inappropriate. The point does not simply concern the sunk british battlecruisers, but the german ships which survived. Massie makes an entirely general point about all german ships being designed to better survive complex damage. German armour was penetrated during the battle: the vessels remained afloat because designers and builders had subdsivided their hulls into an extraordinary number of small watertight compartments. Specifically citing an example of battleships, he makes it clear he is not just talking about battlecruisers. Whether right or wrong, Massie is arguing all german ships were better designed in this regard. Certainly Jellicoe was deathly afraid a salvo of 10 torpedos from a few destroyers might leave him short 10 battleships sinking from one hit each. I was just reading a piece by him 'the grand fleet' (1919)here, where he goes on about it not being possible to widen british ships as the germans had done, because there were no docks big enough. The wider hull helped in keeping torpedo explosions further away from the body of the ship.

I removed a point comparing two ships which weren't at Jutland, which Massie in an unsourced passage in his book claimed were representative of the Imperial German and Royal Navies. I removed it because it isn't true. Yes, there is a point to be made that German ships whether by design or coincidence were better suited to surviving attack, but this can be found in many other naval history books which can claim to be more technical. Your point did not adequately reflect this hence my removal.
Yes, Jellicoe was afraid of torpedoes, hence his famous turn away. However, Scheer was also aware that however well sub-divided his ships, they would still sink under the onslaught of the Grand Fleet's battleships, hence his famous "Gefechtskehrtwendung" turn-aways, otherwise known as retreats under fire.

Now, as to being a naval expert. I am hardly ever an expert on anything I write about on wiki, and this is true of most people. I write about what intersts me, and if I happen to find out about something I may check here, see what there is, and add to it. That is how wiki works. It is not written by experts and does not claim to be accurate. While I dont exactly approve of this, all it claims to do is report what other respected individuals have said about a subject. Thus, if Massie makes a general point about ship design, clearly a respected author in this field or we wouldn't be arguing about him at all, then that is entirely satisfactory for wiki. Neither of you has argued he is wrong in this case, I think? This section of the article is in the introduction, not the aftermath. In the aftermath it is appropriate to talk about specific points emerging from the battle. In the introduction it is fair to make a general point that all german ships had this advantage. This was an important consideration for the admiral, or should have been. Perhaps he didn't know? If he did know, I'm quite sure he was never going to explain to the public at the time that he didn't dare chase the german fleet for fear of torpedos he knew could very well sink his badly designed ships fast.

I struggle to see why you consider Massie a respected author in "this field". He has written a book on the Romanovs, a book on raising his son, and Dreadnought was by and large a book about men, not machines. What Massie brings to the table is a comprehensive though concise narrative history utilising many first-person accounts taken from recent literature. Note that the book does not claim to be anything more than a narrative history, i.e. one which tells a story and does not seek to elaborate and substantiate on it. And may I remind you that having turned away from the High Sea Fleet Jellicoe then proceeded to then try and seek battle again, but was failed by Beatty, a number of his Captains and the Operations Division of the Naval War Staff in London for not keeping him informed of the enemy's wherebouts.
Wikipedia does strive for verifiable accuracy, and on the basis of the technical argument Massie is unverifiable. Wikipedia relies on editors like myself and The Land (I hope he doesn't mind taking his name in vain) to weed out inaccuracies which litter articles, as well as to positively create and augment others.

Funnels: I'm afraid it is not obvious to me what relevance the number of funnels has to the number of boiler rooms. A funnel is just a big pipe. There could be dozens of flues all emptying into one funnel, or each going to a separate one depending what the designers thought best.

Gross oversimplification on my part here: Boilers have uptakes which need to evacuate their exhaust through funnels. The manner in which you organise your boilers into boiler rooms dictates where the exhausts can go. Most battleships, with more boiler rooms, had to have two funnels. Royal Sovereign, with only three boiler rooms, could have one funnel.

73 year old? like, how old fisher was when re-appointed as first sea lord? He was getting a bit doddery, but still knew what he was talking about.

But you will have seen from Massie that he was utterly unable to say no to Churchill, or for that matter the British government, over the Dardanelles. Age might not have been a factor in this intriguing weakness, but it can't have done him any good. I'll admit, attacking Massie for his age is below the belt, but I'm trying to excuse his errors.

Superb: is this an important point? From what you say, he in a short-hand way indicated which ships were meant, without going into extra detail in an already long book. Might be a mistake, or might be he deliberately intended not to say 'belerephon's because that would more specifically exclude dreadnought. Exactly what dreadnought was doing at the time seems irrelevant, because he is talking about a discussion of a proposal. Doesn't say it took place. This appears to me to be glossing over a minor point by the author, which does not really affect his argument, where the main point was a campaign to inveigle the americans into sending ships. I read this as necessary simplification of an argument, which is what we do all the time writing. If this is the main objection to him, that he simplifies (his description of Fisher's succesive commands writing in 'dreadnought' would seem another eexample), then I don't see that as a problem provided he does so appropriately. All authors choose what is relevant to include. Any other points re Massie?

Over simplification without accuracy is pointless and defeats the purpose of making it easier to understand in the first place. You and I aren't writing a book meant to basically educate thousands of people on the naval history of World War One. The point re:Superb is meant to illustrate that he's confusing very different ships together, which goes back to the original comparison of Bayern and Royal Sovereign. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 15:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Essentially, I do not trust Massie to get technical details correct. German battleships might have been more survivable than British ones, but Massie is not an expert on the matter. If one believes Massie then HMS Warrior (1860) has a wooden hull. Massie's unreliability in matters of detail means that using lots of citations from him will result in errors or mis-statements; that's not a criticism of him, but a recognition that his work is popular and popular sources aren't the best for writing encyclopedia. There are many better books to read about the technical aspects of naval warfare. I own some of them and Harlsbottom has a vast library of them.
All this said, it is a very fine point. You will notice that Dreadnought#Underwater_Protection_and_Subdivision is as yet unreferenced, and doesn't say anything about differing design philosophies! Perhaps, in finding an adequate reference for Battle of Jutland, we will find the right sources for that section of dreadnought as well. Harlsbottom tends to insist on a very high quality of referencing (as do the other editors who are more knowledgeable about this era of naval history than I am). This can be frustrating but does produce very good articles.
Regards, The Land (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
While you make some good points the upshot is this; some of what Massie writes is unreliable and wrong, and there are enough Wikipedia editors who feel the same way and will not allow it in its original form to be placed in articles.
Back on the subject of Superb, the Wikipedia article is wrong and needs amending. The Bellerophon class carried a different, superior secondary armament and had a completely different profile to Dreadnought. The succeeding St. Vincent class was a different size and had a completely different main calibre armament. Just because these articles are wrong doesn't mean that they should just remain that way, and it is my earnest hope that one day more people will engage in raising the standard of naval history articles (there are many good editors but not enough).
Out of interest, I infer from some of your comments that you haven't read Castles of Steel completely yet? Is that a fair inference? I have read the entire book through including the notes, hence what I will admit are disparaging comments about the book. Re: your comments on the number of notes, I can only reiterate, it doesn't matter how many he has made unless they're comprehensive. You defend his style of writing and referencing, while I as an aspiring historian can only deplore and condemn it. In the acknowledgements he wrote that he had spent on Dreadnought and Castles of Steel twenty-two years of labour and research. You must surely agree that he could at least have been thorough in completing the book? -Harlsbottom (talk | library) 18:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of how Wikipedia does and should operate. There are, in my opinion three main reasons why articles should have in-line referencing.

  • A casual reader, seeing that a point has been given a reference, will give it credence. A purely superficial matter, but if Wikipedia looks credible its reputation will improve and more experts may well be attracted to edit.
  • Those readers wishing to read further on a subject but don't want to thrash through reams of paper can use the reference to isolate a particular page within a source or sources.
  • Most importantly perhaps, if a point is referenced, then it can be checked to make sure it's valid, as I did with your insertion last night/today, and hence this healthy discussion.

Perhaps Massie would make a good text-book someday, but before I would see it in a classroom the little errors would have to be corrected. Otherwise these things can snowball into misunderstandings of the most serious kind - popular misconception.

By the by, your comments about experts not editing on Wikipedia - a few do. I can name an acquaintance, Jon Parshall, co-author of a recognised exceptional work on the Battle of Midway, Shattered Sword, helped bring that article up to Featured Status. And I should point out, that I am in no way or form a professional historian. I edit on Wikipedia in my spare time for the sole purpose of improving the free distribution of quality information.

If you're interested in Fisher, dp see User:Harlsbottom/John Arbuthnot Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher. It is largely taken from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry by Andrew Lambert, with a number of revisions by me. I deleted a number of out-dated and incorrect references to the control of gunnery. It is concise and judgemental, i.e. what Wikipedia is not for the most part. It'll save you buying Mackay's book, but if you do it does have page references to it in. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 19:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Original PointEdit

Back to the original point on boiler rooms. Having returned today to my collection of books I consulted by copy of Breyer, which is a technical work which while unreferenced is also respected by many naval historians. Massie has it in is bibliography - one can only assume that he utilised it in writing Castles of Steel. According to the plans of the Revenge class, Royal Sovereign would indeed have had THREE boiler rooms (p. 151). Bayern on the other hand, according to the class plan had FOUR (p. 281). I will consult User:The Land and ask him if he can verify this, as I believe he owns a copy.

As to the Fisher article (which is by Paul Halpern and not Andrew Lambert, my mistake), the link is [11]. The section I removed was this;

as it is totally incorrect and I can provide a dozen sources to prove it's wrong. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography articles are often used in biography articles, though sparingly, as in a number of cases they have been proven to be spectacularly misinformed and rife with error. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the only part I removed was the part in quotes above, otherwise the article is the same as found on the ODNB website.
As to the plans, they're simplified to show the internal subdivisions, and engine rooms and boiler rooms are clearly marked. There appears to be but two compartments separating the turbines. and no divisions between each turbine, making for two enginerooms. Yet another point which hasn't been mentioned is that Ramillies of the Revenge class was the first dreadnought battleship to be bulged, and their underwater vertical protection was superior to any other class of British battleship, another point towards the Revenge class not being indicative of British design philosophy and also renders any comparison with Bayern on internal sub-division pointless as the watertight-compartments would not be flooded thanks to the bulge (tested in 1917 by German attacks on the bulged monitors Terror and Erebus. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I have done some more research through my books and files, which presents something of a different picture. I'm not ignoring this discussion, but I've got many other things on my plate plus I'm writing up a proper Bayern-Royal Sovereign comparison. --Harlsbottom (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still working on it, among other things. Currently reading through the official report of the tests when the RN sank Baden after the war. I can tell you for a fact though, having corresponded with a published historian and checked for myself the actual plans of internal subdivision for Bayern, that she and her sister had NINE boiler rooms arranged around a dynamo room. She also had six turbine rooms. However, transverse bulkheads in any of compartments (i.e. those which ran side to side) were not watertight and had many openings in which water could run - a large number of openings being in place for a sophisticated system of pumps, which somewhat defeats the purpose. For protection the Bayern relied on a less extensive armour system than that of the Revenge class which gave way to coal bunkers, which opens up the possibility of coal dust explosions should a hit occur, or in the case of the bunker coal having been used up provide no protection whatsoever. Royal Sovereign's boilers, being well-inboard compared to Bayern and thoroughly watertight, could only be disabled by armour-piercing shell, which in light of the High Sea Fleet's gunnery against the battlefleet at Jutland seems a relatively remote possibility.
With regards to the Dreadnought photo, while I cannot recognise the pre-dreadnought in question, I have asked around and hopefully someone will have an answer. Harlsbottom (talk | library)   12:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


Dreadnought, p.386 claims that Warrior's hull was made of oak. The Land (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ship movesEdit

Please stop moving ship articles until a consensus is reached. So far there has been only opposition expressed, whilst you are basing your support on a discussion that took place over a year ago. Let's gather a current consensus first. Benea (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

pennant numbersEdit

"No useful information". - Well, let me see, since I usually stick with US Navy ships, the hull numbers provide lots of information: e.g. USS Texas has had many incarnations of different types of vessels and each hull number at a glance can tell you which type of vessel each one was, i.e. battleship, cruiser, submarine, etc. (Also, some of the RN's pennant numbers can do the same, hence look at the WWII-present aircraft carriers of Britain and the Commonwealth of Nations). Finally, let's keep this on the naming conventions talk page. -MBK004 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's part of the 2008 discussion and does not need a brand new level 2 heading. That is misleading since the archives are by level 2 headings, leaving it your way could lead to an incomplete archival in the future. -MBK004 20:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Good you saw that mistake. -MBK004 20:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I see many. But I am not responsible for whatever way your archives may work. tail wagging dog? Sandpiper (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


While I understand your frustration with the debate at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships), that is no excuse for comparing those with whom you disagree to a third-world dictator. Please comment on content rather than your fellow contributors. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are complaining about, or who you feel has been accused of being a dictator. Perhaps you could explain. Sandpiper (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Prince Louis of BattenbergEdit

I read the explanation you received for why the lead on this article was reverted back to its previous version, without further discussion on the talk page. Are you now satisfied with the revert and explanation? I'm not: The article's lead should indeed identify what he is most historically notable for, rather than being made to agree with "the flow" of the rest of the article. The change was appropriate. But I won't intervene if you are unwilling to support the alternative further. FactStraight (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WWI campaign infoboxesEdit

Hi Sandpiper. Sorry for the delay, but I was editing another articles and, as the majority of the Wikipedians, I also have a life :).

I removed the infoboxes following the pattern of WWII campaigns in Wikipedia: the battle or campaign boxes are not branded as "part of WWII", but as part of a specific operations theatre (i.e.: Battle of the Coral Sea is labeled "part of WWII, Pacific War").

Why this?. See for example the following article: Operation Abstention. The only campaign infobox included in this particular page is that concerning the Mediterranean area in WWII. Imagine the mess if we have to post all the naval campaigns, from the Battle of the Atlantic to the Pacific, the German raiders or the Russian Convoys. In order to avoid unnecessary additions on pages about naval battles, I think the only infobox present should be that directly involving the subject of the article.--Darius (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Bombardment of Yarmouth and LowestoftEdit

Your work on this article was exceptional. The recruiting poster was a nice touch :) . I also liked how you fleshed out the reasons why the Germans chose that time to risk such an excursion out of the North Sea; it now has more context. Thank you for notifying me of your changes--I enjoyed reading it. I had been checking in on it for some time, but I stopped after there was never any interest in improving it. I'm glad you took up the torch. Some nit-noid editing questions: 1) Some of the British ship names are not italicized 2) In the last paragraph of the "Prelude" section the 1st Scouting Group is capitalized whereas the "2nd Scouting Group" is not capitalized. Which one do you prefer? 3) Some of the AM & PM times are capitalized and some are not. Thanks again, Pen of bushido (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Kaiserliche MarineEdit

Hi, Sandpiper. I had a quick question about the expansion you just made to Kaiserliche Marine. About halfway down, you added a line about the navy having "400 officers and 5,00 ratings". Is that supposed to be 500 or 5,000? Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

date autoformattingEdit

Thanks for your contribution at MOSNUM talk. It's only a matter of a few days before I boldly insert the critical sentence that deprecates the use of DA. The debate looks pretty much resolved. Tony (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Hobkirk's HillEdit

Thank you for reviewing the Battle of Hobkirk's Hill article and grading it as a C class article. However, could I trouble you to add you insights on to why this article is a C and what is keeping it from a B to the Talk Page.


--dashiellx (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your notes to the Talk page. Once I actually have some time, I hope to be able to make many of the improvements you recommend. Also, thanks for doing a copy edit on the article. --dashiellx (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

disruptive behaviourEdit

I will delete any off topic comment and it can be considered disruptive behaviour that calls for the intervention of an admin. Don't lecture me on naval tactics. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Demand for citationsEdit

Read your intro page, and just wanted to comment. In general I do not disagree with you. However, due to the anonymity and questionable authority of Wikipeda participants to contribute to its contents, I think that citing sources is paramount as a way of establishing Wikipedia as a quality reference work.

I agree on the article rating system in particular. It seems to me that only an acknowledged expert on the subject of an article can "certify" it as a must-read, and that would require abandoning of anonymity, with all that eventuates from it. The next-best thing is to increase the amount of citation to the stage where every sentence that expresses a separate idea is cited from an authoritative source. This would explicitly equate such articles to other reference equivalents such as Britannica where the authority is implied by the author who is usually an academic in the field. This explicit provision of evidence woudl in fact make Wikipedia far more authoritative than the other works where this is only implied.

My greatest disdain is for use of consensus to establish article content regardless of existing article quality policies, and the use of administrative authority in resolving article content disputes. Such disputes I think should be resolved on the basis of "put up or shut up" with regard to sources.

Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 03:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

C-class articles -- thanksEdit

Thanks for your input on C-class articles on WP:INDIA. Much appreciated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:HMSLiondamagetoQturret.jpgEdit

Image:HMSLiondamagetoQturret.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:HMSLiondamagetoQturret1916.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:HMSLiondamagetoQturret1916.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

7th Cruiser SquadronEdit

Hey, I don't use my en:wikipedia account too often, so I didn't see your messages regarding the 7th Cruiser Squadron article. The german article seems to be about the same squadron, but confusingly calls it the 3rd cruiser squadron, I left a message in the discussion. And yes, there is way more information on the german page on Otto Weddigen, but I don't really have time to contribute at the moment... maybe later. Noleti (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


The standard for not being able to reproduce a free image of an existing object or living person is very high on Wikipedia. The possibility of an image being created has overridden the practicality of actually being able to create the image. Based on past experience, I have to stand by my decision to delete the image, but the deletion can be appealed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -Regards Nv8200p talk 22:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The River WarEdit

A user named User:Nard the Bard (User:Nard the Bard at Wikipedia Commons) removed the image (Image:The River War Unabridged edition 2 Vols.jpeg) from Wikimedia Commons, saying it was a copyright violation ([12]). He then had it flagged on the English Wikipedia and it was removed there as well. I don't know why. All I did was move the one volume pic up to the top (at The River War) after the two volume pic was removed.

TuckerResearch (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If you do a Google Image Search for "'the river war' churchill" -- it should be the first image, still showing it at Wikipedia Commons. (Here: [13].) TuckerResearch (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Policy questionEdit

You've said "alteration of fundamental wiki policies, which continue to state that referencing is only required for contentious points." Since I've had unsourced material removed here, citing policy, & defense of even more radical removal on the talk page there (quoting a statement to the effect "delete with extreme prejudice"), I'd be interested to know where I find what the policy actually says. Thanks. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 05:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I have a suspicion of bad faith in re custom car (maybe I'm biased, I admit), 'cause AFAICT, there was no hazard of any of it being challenged, except by the guy taking it out (who refused persistently to defend the removal of the pix, as the talk page showed). Any suggestions on what to do? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
On content, I can see the point wanting sources, so I wasn't (very...) peeved about that. What really burned me was a claim of "redundant" (& a supporting "3d opinion"), without any reason I could see. I'm more/less in agreement with you on inclusion. This would be my preference, rather than this, & I don't think there are "too many" pix (tho maybe the Type 1 & the DeSoto grille could go). As it is... And I don't have a good record getting support here for my views; I end up with insults & opposition... I begin to think it's a losing proposition to even ask. Ah, well. Thanks for letting me vent a little. ;D TREKphiler hit me ♠ 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Just came across this. Thanks (if a bit belated). TREKphiler hit me ♠ 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to demote WP:WAF from guidelineEdit

Hello. Since you are the editor with the most edits to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) who is still on Wikipedia, I am notifying you of an RFC I started to demote it from a guideline. You are invited to comment here. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Christmas cardEdit

Adding a capitalized adjective to a common noun does not cause the noun to be capitalized, so we have 'Canadian whisky', 'French fashion', and a dye called Prussian blue. Capitalizing the noun would lead to silly results, as in 'On the table there is a red plate and a Prussian Blue Plate.' Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

HMS Inflexible (1876)Edit

The information came from Warrior to Dreadnought - Warship development 1860-1905 ISBN 1 84067 5292 by D.K. Brown. The comment is in a caption of a photo of the ship with the pole masts, on page 65, and says "In 1885 Inflexible's sailing rig was replaced by two military masts (Imperial War Museum Q39234)".

Page 84 of Warships of the World to 1900 By Lincoln P. Paine, which I can see through Google Books ( says that the sails were replaced by fighting tops in 1885, at the end of the first para under the picture.

One piece of very tangential evidence (and hardly conclusive) is in Dreadnought - Britain and Germany, and the coming of the First World War, ISBN 0-22403260-7 by Robert Massie. On pp 420, it discusses Fisher's command of HMS Inflexible:

"Nevertheless, when he found his ship [Inflexible] was ranked low in the Mediterranen Fleet because his crew could not shift topsails as quickly as others he sent his men aloft to drill", and then goes on to discuss how he reported later that Inflexible was regarded as "the best ship in the Fleet". Presumably this is with the full sailing rig, and not the pole masts, and indeed the picture in Warships of the World to 1900 shows the ship with full rig in the Mediterranean.

The next paragraph says "In the spring, Fisher took his new ship to the Mediterranean, where Inflexible's first assignment was [guard ship for the Queen's visit to the Riviera]". He was the ship's first captain and it was commissioned in July 1881.

The Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher article says that the ship was still building so Fisher was temporarily appointed to HMS Duke of Wellington, flagship of the port admiral at Portsmouth, between 30 January and 4 July 1881 (although the article also says that Inflexible was in the Mediterranean in spring 1881, which I assume is a mistake).

So, it was presumably spring 1882 when he took the ship to the Mediterranean where the rest of the fleet thought poorly of his crew's sail handling abilities.

A month or two for the crew to improve, and there isn't much time for a refit to replace the masts before the bombardment in early July.

Apart from the painting in your book, I did find something which suggests that the masts may have been replaced a bit earlier than 1885, in an authoratitive looking essay, "The Inflexible Solution", , which says that "By 1885 her yards and masts had given way to pole masts ". I am not sure of the provenance of the essay but the author seems to know what he is writing about.

One possibility is that the painting is correct but shows the original masts with the upper sections removed ( suggests that "The ships were all cleared for action with topgallant masts struck and bowsprits rigged in"). Jll (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Coordinator ElectionsEdit

I don't personally see anything wrong with the current grading system; it's not perfect at the bottom end of the scale, but the implementation of C-Class might be an improvement and help people. I certainly don't think GA should be scrapped, although I wonder if making the Second Opinion option as compulsory might make things even better. Skinny87 (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I imagine comparing the GA and A-Class requirements would tell you that; I'm afraid my time is rather limited at the moment and I'm not able to tell you that m'self. But I still think that if we had half-a-dozen new rankings for lower-ranking articles (B and below), most of the MILHIST articles would be just as bad. MILHIST and wiki are voluntary, and there are too few volunteers and too many articles that need writing/expanding; add to that the difficulties of expanding major articles because of i.p. editors/POV & nationalism problems and plain old trolls, and you can see that it's not the grading system that's at fault. It's the fact that wikipedia is a hobby site, essentially, and people do what they want. Skinny87 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You've obviously put a lot of thought into this, Sandpiper, but I don't think I'm the right person to talk to. This needs to go to the current Coordinators - I'd suggest posting on their talkpage and asking this. Skinny87 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Election questionEdit

Hi, you raise some interesting points, but I'm afraid that I am not certain of your exact question, can you make it a little clearer? If you wish to do so in the form of a question on the election nominations page I'd be happy to answer it "officially" there, or I can do so here if you prefer a more informal answer.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see, I think I understand you now. My answer may seem a little off base at first, but bear with it. A fundamental principle of Wikipedia editing, which I have seen repeated over and over again, is that there is no way to successfully force, make or even persuade editors to work on a subject they are not interested in. This must be remembered whenever considering or drawing up policy or initiatives. With this in mind, you have to consider what is being asked here: should the project focus on increasing the number of articles under its purview and bringing those articles up to a minimum standard, or should the project focus on a attaining a high level of quality for a very small number of articles?
My answer would be that the project should do both, as it contains editors who are seeking to do both. Attempting to force editors to focus solely on one or the other will end in failure. Instead, the project should provide the facilities and support for editors who wish to promote a small number of articles to a very high standard and for those who wish to cover a wide range of articles to a specific degree. I personally feel strongly that the current GA standard is an important benchmark in this process - in theory at least, articles that achieve GA are sufficiently well written, sufficiently well sourced and sufficiently in compliance with MoS to provide an interesting and educational experience to anyone who uses them: they may not be complete, but they are a highly valuable introduction to a subject. Articles above this level, FAs and MilitHist A-Class, are mainly the work of editors seeking to create a more definitive resource on that specific topic. Articles below are generally less useful and less interesting because they lack one or more of the criteria. I think that as the GA assessment process evolves, GA will become a hurdle that every article can and should aim at, a dividing line between high-quality and low-quality articles. The other assessment levels: Stub, Start, C and B will become tools to be used as part of the movement of articles towards this goal, not ends in themselves. This is not a futile aim: certainly we will never be at the stage when every article is a GA or better, but I have watched the "GAs or better to articles" ratio fall by well over 100 in the last year alone.
I think that a principle reason for this is that the excellent standard of assessment at MilitHist is not repeated Wiki-wide: as I mentioned in my official response, many projects have lower standards when handing out assessment "grades" and some have no defined assessment systems at all. As a result, what may be a B or even A class article in another project may be significantly less developed than an equivalent article under the MilitHist project. The only assessments that are standardised Wiki-wide are GA and FA, and it is no coincidence that MilitHist provides a significant proportion of both sets of articles. In relation to the Francis Harvey article, as much as that article was, and remains, a massive headache, the very fact that within a year two editors had poked holes in the article shows the strength of Wikipedia and this project as a whole: no FA or GA is safe, especially when developed by someone with a less than stellar understanding of the event: those that fail to meet the criteria are swiftly identified and delisted or improved (as this one will be at some point soon I am sure).
In summary therefore, I think that the project should not try to force or persuade editors to do one thing or the other, but instead provide the assistance and framework to do either or both. A quality benchmark does need to be set, but due to Wiki-wide differences in interpretation, GA and FA are the only places this can be standardised and the project needs to understand that and fall in line with it. As FA is (by its very nature) too difficult for many users to achieve often, GA is the next best port of call and the one that I feel should be used to differentiate between articles of high quality and those of "low". Hopefully this lengthy ramble has answered your question.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I take it from your reply that you are a proponent of "short-term" wikipedia standards, by which I mean that you think that all improvements to Wikipedia have to be worked out in weeks or months rather than years. I'm a "long-view" wikipedian, and I think I can clearly see improvements across the board in the three years I have been here. The reassessment of articles at FA or GA is a slow process which can take years, but it is slowly weeding out inadequate articles.
Your accusation that MilitHist somehow inadvertantly sabotaged B class holds no weight I'm afraid. There is no way in which an assessment system run through wikiprojects can possibly hope to maintain its standards Wiki-wide. I remember when B class came in properly, and MilitHist found it inadequate for their articles and so adjusted it to fit the project by making it harder. Other projects did the opposite and as a result, B class is not recognised Wiki-wide as an assessment or an achievement; in some projects it is, in others merely a stage of development. C class will, I'm afraid, end in much the same result whether or not MilitHist adopts it (in fact it might be doing the class a favour by not doing so).--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean "accustaion" in quite the way it sounded, and I'm sorry if I came across as aggressive or similar, it wasn't my intention. You are absolutely correct that the check box system for B class was devised here, but the reason it was is that B class was inadequate for the project's needs. A Wiki-wide standard is a good idea, I agree, but my standpoint is that we already have two Wiki-wide standards, GA and FA, and they are under strain due to their workload. Introduing another system below GA will only dilute the pool of reviewers further for a diminishing return.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my point of view. I was saying not that centralised assessment is unsustainable, but instead that it is the only way to ensure a universal standard across the whole of Wikipedia: project based assessment will only work for articles within each individual project and are unenforceable as a Wikipedia wide program. I was not involved in the MilitHist discussions that led to the development of a tougher B class within the project, but I completely agree with them: MilitHist needed a way to raise the standards that their articles aspired to and bridge the huge gap between Start and GA. They therefore introduced a method of doing so within the existing assessment framework by grading their B class articles on standard criteria.
I will warn you now (again), that any attempt to force projects to abide by centralised rules on grading articles will fail to establish a universal consensus on what these rules are because the projects will inevitably operate in their own interests. The effect you desire can only be achieved by centralised processes outside the projects that are following the interests of the process, not the individual projects. These centralised processes are the only grades that can be relied upon Wiki-wide when considering publication or similar projects (and then not always). I do agree that consistency is the way forward for Wikipedia, but I strongly disagree with your ideas for how that can be achieved: not becuase I have anything against them personally, its just that my experience here tells me that they will not work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Election QuestionEdit

Good question, what I meant by 'not creating articles on anything people please' was that people should not just go off writing articles about themselves or their friends and pets (unless they are famous or well known). If people can provide the proper sources and references and meet the Wikipedia:Notability standard then I am fine with them writing articles about random things, they just need to meet those guidelines. Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 16:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

re: mil hist electionsEdit

Hi Sandpiper. That is a very interesting and insightful perspective you have. The purpose of GA is to be an advancement of B, but lesser than A. If you read the criteria of each rating, you will find they say mostly the same thing, it's just that the criteria and expectations become more stringent the higher you get. My take on things is that no article is devoid of useful/worthwhile content, it is just that some contain more than others. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Re C-ClassEdit

Thanks for your note - you make some very good points. I take a slightly different view of the assessment scale in that I believe (FA aside) it's more for editors than readers. How many readers even know to look at an article talk-page to find out what the article is graded as, or would understand and follow up the assessment criteria (which may be different for each WikiProject involved)? If we could include a rating on the article itself, like the FA star, I'd think differently - but even for FAs I wonder how many know or even care what the star means. This is why I see the assessment scale as being of more use to editors, by indicating at a glance roughly what the quality of an article is, and therefore how much work is needed to improve it. Of course there's also a cost/benefit argument involved - whether it's a better use of resources to improve many weak articles to an acceptable standard, or to improve a few to a very high standard - and I think if anywhere this might be where C-Class could be useful per Askari Mark's comment on the referendum. I'm still not convinced that it would make enough of a difference to actively support its introduction though.

Regarding your 10000 reasonable articles that are unfairly labelled as Start, in the original Wikipedia-wide C-Class introduction debate back last year I argued for the removal of Start-Class. I still think this would make more sense ('start' is an unintuitive misnomer, and I think we discriminate too finely between the weaker articles to no benefit). If we were proposing the introduction of C-Class with the simultaneous removal of Start-Class from our project scale, I'd certainly support that ;) EyeSerenetalk 09:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that some sort of quality indicator on articles themselves would be really useful, although currently only GA and FA are project-wide standards and thus suitably consistent, and I think we could do more to educate readers to look at the article talk-pages too - it's often where one gets a real feel for the veracity (or otherwise!) of the article content. However, I see this move to introduce C-Class as indicative of what might be a deeper problem at milhist at the moment; it's possible we've moved too far down the 'quality' road. I'm a huge proponent of article quality, but in my experience with GA, FA and milhist I've only ever seen assessment criteria become tighter, never looser, and I think while this drives up quality it does create gaps in the scale. Ideally I think we should be striving to maintain review consistency across a stable set of criteria, rather than allowing criteria to creep upwards and then filling in the gaps with additional stages... which themselves will then creep upwards too. I'd like to see this discussed before assessing the need for interim classes, as we may find we can address the gaps (which exist between B and A as well as Start and B) by renormalising our assessment criteria and ensuring reviewers don't over-assess. Inertia will ensure that removing C-Class will be far harder than adding it, and as I wrote I'm not convinced of the need for it just yet. EyeSerenetalk 10:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Milhist C-class referendumEdit

I have just removed the additional 'background' material you added. The current statement seems to me to do a good job of summing up the two sides of the argument and it was made available for comments and changes before voting started. The c-class issue has been discussed previously in great depth, and we're now voting on it so they're no need to re-open the discussion. Moreover, I think that it's poor behavior to change what people are voting on in the middle of the process, and this is dangerously close to a disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please step back and let the members of the project vote on this. Thank you, Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: c-classEdit

Fair enough, but I still see the difference between Start-Class and B-Class as marginal at best. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


Np, not really. I oppose it, but if the majority want it then I won't go against that, and if it can be implemented automatically, then all the better. Skinny87 (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, to be honest I just plain don't like C-Class and the idea behind it, so I'll still oppose it. Your claims are also a tad hyperbolic; it's not like being a Coordinator grants me any extra power, you know. Skinny87 (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


Well, I'm not entirely sure what I can say at this point. Each time I make a post, I try to emphasize that I am only arguing that the Germans won a tactical victory at Jutland. Every response I've gotten, however, has ignored the distinction I make and has attempted to rebut my arguments based on strategic factors (such as which side came out of the battle better able to achieve their overall war-aims), which should be of no consideration when attempting to decide who won the battle tactically. No one, yet, has bothered to "descend to my level" (as it were) and debate with me the outcome of the battle from a purely tactical standpoint. I think that might have something to do with the fact that it is very difficult (I think) to show that the British, who lost more ships and men, won the fight (once again, stressing that I'm only talking tactically.)

You said in your post on my talk page that, soon after the battle ended, there began "a desparate propaganda campaign to explain it wasn't really a defeat." Personally, I think that that propaganda campaign has never ended. My own view is that, because Jutland was the last fleet engagement that the Royal Navy ever took part in, it has been impossible for British-partisans to accept that it was anything but a clear-cut victory (which means both a tactical victory and a strategic victory.) Nobody wants to go out on a (tactical) loss. (And I'll make mention now that I am, in general, a decided Anglophile.)

Now I'll just say a couple of other things. First, I think that the distinction between a tactical victory and a strategic victory is a useful one, and is not overly confusing. It should be familiar to anyone who knows much at all about military history, and it is used frequently on Wikipedia (see the Battle of the Coral Sea for an example.) Second, the current "result" on the Jutland page is really quite biased, as it only tells one side of a very complicated story. Also, it says nothing about the battle itself. I'd think about changing it to something else, but I'm sure that my edit would be changed back instantly to maintain the "propaganda" version of things.

But, in any event, it's nice to have a civil discussion about the matter. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


My understanding is that you amended the reference to WP:UNDUE into WP:WAF back in with this edit. This principal is currently under discussion at WT:WAF and I would be grateful for your comments about its introduction.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Jutland - backgroundEdit

This chunk I'm working on may interest you. After I've fully worked out the U-boats involved (the sources conflict) I may put it into the article. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 12:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The Third GodEdit

No Problem. OtisJimmyOne 21:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

harry potter stampsEdit

I am puzzled that you just deleted the file 'harry potter stamps'. This file seems to have existed for two years without deletion, so perhaps you could explain the grounds for speedy deletion? Sandpiper (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
I regularly delete a lot of pages, so it is of immense help if, when querying one particular deletion, you mention the exact name of the page in question. I am assuming you are referring to File:Harry potter stamps.jpg.
As you could have found out from the deletion log, this file was deleted because it violates our non-free use policy. You will note that in section 2.1.3 of that page, it specifies that non-free images of stamps can be used only for identification of the stamp, not its subject. As a result, after the image was tagged with a warning notice for eleven days (four more than the normal period of four days), it was deleted.
As regards the delay, unfortunately the folks who patrol fair use and other images for inappropriate content don't have as much time as they would like to dedicate to the process, so some invalid images stay up longer than others. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Sandpiper. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HMS Victoria disasterEdit

Good work on sorting out the arithmetic ! It makes sense now. We really need a diagram, but my artwork is dreadful.. do you you know somebody on Wiki or Commons who likes doing this sort of diagram ? Regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

George TryonEdit

(1) Have you read Tryon's report on Sfax? It is very good.

(2) Have you read the court martial report on the Victoria? The evidence from the captain of Dreadnought is interesting.

--Toddy1 (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


I have responded to both your remarks on my talk page.Legitimus (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles Cooper Penrose FitzgeraldEdit

Hi Sandpiper. Just saw your new article on the admiral. According to the referenced source and most of the Google hits I've checked, his last name was hyphenated. I suggest that the article be renamed, leaving behind a suitable redirect. Cheers, Favonian (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, looks like all the references to his book on admiral Tryon have the name without the hyphen, so it's probably authoritative. Let's keep the article name as is and get rid of some hyphens in the text. Favonian (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

HMS Agincourt (1865)Edit

Hi, I've added some section headings to the article to add some structure to the text... feel free to change it if you don't like it.. I noticed the statement (don't know who from) : "After another two years' good service, Agincourt was paid off in 1877 for re-armament, trading her outdated muzzle loading guns for new breach-loading ones". The infobox at right states RML 7-inch guns were replaced in 1875 by RML 9-inch which makes more sense, as the new breechloaders (BL) weren't ready until 1880. Brassey's 1888 has Agincourt carrying 17 RML 9-inch. regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Info I've dug up indicates she was in for refit 1875-1877, and RML guns were upgraded. Some sources say she got more 8 inch (, others (Brasseysd) 9-inch. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the message. Sorry - to which of my many obsessed, ranting-loony edits on this painful topic are you referring? A little steer would be most helpful! Cheers DBaK (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh hang on this is an HMS Insert-name-of-snake-here thing, right?! Heh, yes, I imagine they spelt it 93 different ways before it settled down. (If it has!) Cheers, DBaK (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and yes, quite. Maybe I should go back to my more boring "Middlesborough > Middlesbrough" version and de-hostage myself! And, re your spellings - yes, maybe, but it's probably the only one I'd notice, due to the tragic depth of my obsession. I sometimes think it's the only thing I learnt at school - "we live near GuisBORough, and that large (and fragrant) town over there is MiddlesBRough!" or words to that effect. :) Cheers, DBaK (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes quite - I wondered about that one too. But, as you say, given the standards of literacy of the time ... all I can say is Good Luck! :) DBaK (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

HMS Surprise (1856) armamentEdit

Hi, I see you started this article.. it states it was armed with a 7-inch breechloader, and was commissioned in 1856.. as far as I know the Armstrong breechloaders were introduced in 1859, and the 7-inch even as late as 1861. ?? Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

HMS Vulcan categorizationEdit

I'd put her under Royal Navy support ships with the submarine depot ships like HMS Bonaventure. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


Thanks. (It's nice to have someone add something undisputably relevant and useful, AND with supporting evidence!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


Hello, I am contacting you because you are a naval history contributor. I propose to add an additional note to the "manual of style", warning not to use literal conversions for gun names, where the calibre, gun weight or projectile weight used in the gun name is just a convenient approximation rather than an exact measurement. This applies to cases such British "4.7 inch" guns, British "18 inch torpedoes", "6 pounder guns" etc... in such cases, using the {{convert}} template produces incorrect results and should not be used. In such cases we need to hardcode "4.7-inch (120-mm)", "18-inch (450-mm)". Currently well-meaning folks keep going through these articles and adding {{convert}} everywhere without understanding the subject matter, producing rubbish like "18 inch (460 mm) torpedo" and 12 pounder (5.4 kg).. We also ne3ed, in my opinion, to agree to what degree we abbreviate calibres in conversion e.g. 12-inch = 305 mm, 4-inch = 102 mm, 6-inch = 152-mm, etc.. What is your opinion on this ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Helm signalEdit

What exactly is a "helm signal"[14]? I'm aware of the signals "Echo" and "India", but in that context, it seems that higher precision was required. Was that a specialty of the TA system? — Sebastian 02:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind; I just read in the same article that there must have been a signal for "maximum helm", which by and large answers my question. — Sebastian 02:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

HMS Victoria sinking animated gifEdit

After about a year I have got round to adding an animated diagram of the sinking to the HMS Victoria 1887 article. Based on the diagrams submitted to the court-martial. Dont know if I like it or not, but it gets the successive positions of the ships in one box. I have an alternate version where each frame is just labelled a,b,c, etc with detailed captions below and also I can change the time each frame is shown. Feedback appreciated. Sandpiper (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well done ! Works for me ! This is the sort of thing the Internet can do that books can't. My only issue is that I can't see the numbers in the thumbnail on Victoria's page (is it because I'm getting old or are the numbers too small ?); also the accompanying text doesn't refer to the fact that Victoria is Red and Camperdown is Blue, and is not clear which ships are in which column. My revised text would be :

Animation of the sinking. Ships are:
Right column :
1: Victoria (Red)
2: Nile
3: Dreadnought
4: Inflexible
5: Collingwood
6: Phaeton

Left Column :
7: Camperdown (Blue)
8: Edinburgh
9: Sans Pareil
10: Edgar
11: Amphion

Cheers. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a ReviewerEdit

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi you obviously have a working knowledge of User:Blablaaa there is a discussion Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Blablaaa you might be interested in commenting on.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Patrick BeeslyEdit

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Patrick Beesly, and it appears to include a substantial copy of For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Miss Morris/LusitaniaEdit

Hello, you're exactly right about the "Earl of Lathom". The "Miss Morris" was a real schooner though but was not sunk by U-20. The "Candidate" and "Centurion" were the last two victims of U-20 before the Lusitania(Google their names). The Miss Morris story I got from CBS's 1964 documentary "World War One" narrated by Robert Ryan. The documentary had footage of Miss Morris(on her last voyage Genoa-to-Baltimore taken by the captain of the U-Boat that sank her, Arnauld LaPeriere. LaPeriere's segment was included in the Lusitania/U20 saga and I was mistaken as to who sank what until I re-watched the documentary on VHS and saw the footage of Miss Morris as LaPeriere's. That's why I removed the Miss Morris name from U-20 sinkings as she was sunk by LaPeriere's U-35. LaPeriere was the most successful U-Boat captain of WW1, if not of all time, and he was a fan of a new device called the movie camera. He had his own camera aboard U-35 and filmed several of his victories. Nearly all of the footage in the documentary is LaPeriere's from U-35. This documentary and the Lusitania segment titled "They Sank the Lusitania" is on DVD and is usually posted on Youtube. Good luck and thanks Sandpiper. Koplimek (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Camperdown and VictoriaEdit

Apologies if I missed some nuances there. My impression, perhaps erroneous, was that Tryon had basically planned and commanded the fatal manoeuvre, while Markham and Bourke's sins were more those of omission, failing to keep their superior from doing himself and one of HM vessels in. When I first edited, it made it sound like Bourke had, out of his own head, rammed Camperdown and been acquitted for it for no particular reason; I wanted to try to convey that there was more to the affair than that. Feel free to adjust it to your taste. Choess (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

maps of shipping exclusion zones in WW1Edit

I noticed that you uploaded a couple of maps of the shipping exclusion zones declared by britain/germany in WWI. I want one map showing both the british and German zones for the 'RMS Lusitania' article as they were declared at that time and was thinking of creating one. There are maps of both in Bailey and Ryan's book on Lusitania, but the german one is different to the one you uploaded. Not encouraging. I wondered if you happened to know whether the map you posted is accurate, or anywhere I might be able to see accurate ones?Sandpiper (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't add any more information - they are the only maps I have seen. It would be great if you could construct an accurate map ! Regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)



I am looking for the reference of the cartoon you added to the RMS Lusitania incident page, "A letter from the president of the United States". Do you know the date or the newspaper that published it?

Thanks! Honam (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


Hello, Sandpiper. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 19:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


Hello, Sandpiper. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 20:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Battle of BorodinoEdit

Would you mind taking a look at the The Battle of Borodino I need someone to do a GA review for it.Tirronan (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you I have made chances will you check and see if that meets your requirements?Tirronan (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing to bear in mind, this like Jutland has its share of coverup's and more than a few. Then you get to the outright lying that you get in some histories, like going back to 1920 and trying to find a 1812 history book without a serious national slant. Borodino is worse than that actually. Anything written by a Russian Author during the Soviet Era you really have to watch, and western histories tend to try and just use French sources as much as possible, and the characters on the French side are if anything worse at lying at the time.Tirronan (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of JutlandEdit

some of the stuff I found. There is a link to this at the talk page Tirronan (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The British Navy, however, failed to adequately absorb the lessons from the destruction of the three battlecruisers sunk at Jutland. Initial investigations, both by Beatty and by the Admiralty, discovered that improper cordite handling was to blame for the severe losses on 31 May. 138 As time passed, however, both Beatty and Admiral John Jellicoe, the Grand Fleet commander, altered their positions. Instead of crew negligence, they blamed the loss of Queen Mary, Indefatigable, and Invincible on insufficient armor protection and poor anti-flash systems in the gun turrets. 139 On 14 July 1916, Beatty sent a letter to Jellicoe insisting that, "either our methods of ship construction are seriously at fault or that the nature of the ammunition we use is

135 Tarrant, op. cit., 178 136 Tarrant, op. cit., 380 137 Campbell, op. cit., 378 138 Lambert, op. cit., 47 139 Lambert, op. cit., 4833 not sufficiently stable to ensure safety." 140 The Admiralty protested these remarks and continued to insist that improper handling techniques were to blame. Jellicoe, however, was promoted to 1st Sea Lord on 28 November 1916. In this position, he was able to effectively suppress the findings of the Admiralty investigation and replace it with the explanation he and Beatty favored. 141 He deleted the memorandum that the Director of Naval Construction had written on the loss of the three battlecruisers, stating, "the memorandum should certainly not be issued—it does not at all represent the views of officers at sea and I do not agree with it." 142 Despite the insistence that unsafe propellant was not to blame for the disaster, in April 1917, the Royal Navy formulated a new version of cordite, which included a chalk-based stabilizer. 143 As tests would show in 1945, however, it was still not up to the standards of safety reached by the propellants of other navies. The Battle of Jutland was not the

All this stuff, is just to give you look at what I am seeing, though I am getting convinced that Jellico was covering up as much as Beatty.Tirronan (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)



  The Original Barnstar
Crazzy all3x (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

My recent revertEdit

I recently reverted an edit and you post it on my talkpage. I reverted that edit because it cited no references nor sources. Gabesta449 edits chat 19:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Respond on my talk page, Thanks. Gabesta449 edits chat 19:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I nuclear accidentsEdit

Hi Sandpiper, just to let you know, since I've had to replace the deleted ref name twice, that your edit added back in the dupe ref from Bloomberg/BusinessWeek (they're owned by the same company), that's already referenced earlier in the article. So I've added back in the ref name, thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem!! I found 2 more dupe refs that I'm trying to clean up, I know what you mean about edit conflicts. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima visualization =Edit

Hi. I am the one that made the visualization. I am curious why you prefer a copyrighted blurry image to the visualization? Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Text encoding problem @ Fukushima I Nuclear Power PlantEdit

You introduced a serious UTF text encoding problem at:

As a "nobody" on wikipedia I'm having trouble getting the appropriate reverts back in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henk Poley (talkcontribs) 10:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: radiation release at Fukushima Daini. The linked press release ( ) states:

"There was an increase of radiation dose at site boundary measured at 
the monitoring post of Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station. 
Accordingly, at 10:07pm Mar 14th and at 12:35am Mar 15th, it was 
determined that that a specific incident stipulated in article 10, 
clause 1 (Increase of radiation dose at site boundary) has occurred."

These measurement points ('at site boundary') are located near the fence around the power plant, you can see the site's area in Google Maps as the gray 'circle' around the reactor when you search for "Fukushima Daini". While it would be nice to know the exact wording of their handbook (art. 10, cl. 1), this states that that they did measure some radiation above normal. Also, if I'm not mistaken the wind was not coming from the Dai-ichi reactor, so it ought to be from within the site. I do not know wether these measurement triggers are a normal occurrence (instrument variability, natural radioactive dust from places around the power plant), nor the severity of this event (you'll find that in the handbook..).

If you like you could tone down the text around the reference. It is not anywhere near the problem at Fukushima I Henk Poley (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing I know about the tsunami protection at Fukushima Dai-ichi that I know is written down at: . I also got this information from my father, who got this from another source, probably a NucNet mailing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henk Poley (talkcontribs) 09:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... Hi, Sandpiper. Can you hear me? Is this thing on? /foof-foof/ (blows into microphone) I did a rapid head scratch to figure out how to reply to your query. I put my reply at my talk page following your question, so let me know your response (and let me know how to "do" a conversation here!). - Robert [[[User:RobertSegal|RobertSegal]] (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)]

Okay, So I reply here. Gotcha. Let's see if I can explain why passive construction is inherently faulty.

I don't think the formatting tools here will let me diagramme a sentence but perhaps I can describe it. Forgive me if I go back to fourth grade a moment (though it seems many people could use the trip)! So, here's Problem 1 with passive voice: An English sentence has to have a subject and a predicate, a doer and a thing it's doing. (These are sometimes clearly implied without being expressly written out but that's not relevant, here.) In the sentence It was anticipated to restore power to units 1 and 2 on 19 March and the other units on 20 March., the action is "anticipated" and the doer of the action is... well, completely missing from the sentence! So here's this (supposed) statement of fact in a serious composition reporting something's occurring and nobody's explaining who's doing the thing. Problem 2 is the word "it", a pronoun, a word that stands in for another word. The rules vary for identifying that word, called the antecedent, so we know what "it" is, but the antecedent typically is the nearest preceding noun that could fit the bill, in this case that's the proper noun "Unit 2" (which was mistakenly left in lower case) from the sentence just before. Well, that makes utterly zero sense, so we're left without an antecedent for "it" and we see immediately the word is one of those useless bits of text people like to sprinkle into statements so they will be longer and sound more imposing. "It" conveys no meaning and therefore gets removed, at which point the sentence obviously has to be re-written because it's author's mistake has been exposed. Problem 3 (and here's the big one): Forgetting all that fourth grade grammar crap, the sentence is there for a reason. It wants to tell us something. What? Someone was trying to restore power! Hey, now that's news! They're trying to restore the juice! But who? Stomp out the vagueness and just say who was doing the action: "Plant officials". Right? It wasn't Mrs. Mercurium's fourth grade grammar class the article is about. Let's say "plant officials", then: Plant officials anticipated the restoration of power to units 1 and 2 on 19 March and the other units on 20 March. But to really answer the question (problem 4; maybe it was the kids in Mrs. M's class?) requires re-examining the source and *that's* what I was talking about in my prior post when I said I would mark the article and then go back to check the sources no one else wanted to bother checking and fix the sentences myself. The last problem (#5) with the sentence is truly minor, in that "hoping" or "anticipating" are, in truth, irrelevant and it should deal in facts when it comes to technical discussions of engineering issues. We'd best describe the emotional component (if that's what the sentence is going to be about: hopes and fears) in a different section of the article -- but this is not a picky point I'm willing to expend effort to fight for! Oh, and choosing anticipated or hoped makes not a bit of difference as the choice doesn't address any of the problems.

Now multiply that thinking times all the glaring errors in the article -- and work fast! Oy vey! This is why it's hard to find good copy editors. Most people let "I'm in a hurry" be their motivation and that interferes with the time it takes to express oneself clearly. I see copy in the New York Times fer chrissake that makes me flinch. I think all the good copy editors died years ago which is a shame because I never can copy edit my own stuff and I need others to do it for me. But I editorialise.

So, anyway, that's why I "dislike"(?) passive construction, although dislike has little to do with it. Passive voice deletes the subject of the sentence and creates a nonsensical waste of the reader's time. Its abuse is antithetical to why we communicate through English language in the first place. I would aver it is NOT a question of taste. Passive sentences read like meaningless doo-doo.

One of my positions on editing other's work is, "I'm the editor, NOT the writer. The writer has facts to convey and the writer ought construct the sentence." In other words, all the editor can do is point out failures, which is sad! And in Wikipedia, the "author" may not stick around to revise his work! So the poor sentences sit there, "scattered with little complaints" and responsibility shifts to... whom? Those of us who care, I suppose. I care. I will revisit my "scattered complaints" all of them and fix each. But I believe the original writer ought get the chance to fix his own work and express what was intended.

You offered facts are more important than style. I have no problem, there. Since I'm not gathering facts, I'll edit the style and between us we'll have both ends taken care of. Not every Wiki insert needs to be hot off the headlines. There is a place for editorship as well. The enthusiasm you mention is a good thing in most respects. Too, those fights about too long versus too short are what they are, so I'll just edit for glaring language abuses, readability, punctuation, and the like. Someday I may grow up to be a real, live Wikiboy and feel I ought edit for content but for now I'm a rank amateur and I don't want the content choices of the world's best (?) outlet for facts, in any media, about an unfolding nuclear disaster on MY shoulders. Such can rest on your's, Sandpiper! (And thank you, by the way. With my background, I'm ravenous for some clear information about Fukushima and I'm flabbergastedly impressed with what you, personally, are managing as well as the contributions and hard work of so many others. I gave up on the NY Times, BCC, and other web sites for such information days ago. Further, your note to me took time -- and you TOOK that time, and so I am grateful.)

"I see the article has been amended to..." Passive voice, Sandpiper?

I haven't yet checked to see if anyone's reverted any of my squirrely hoard of edits. If you chose to let them stand, thanks. I shall address each in time. I hope things will slow down here and we clean up editors can gain on the mess. I appreciate your snap decisions, so keep 'em snapping. Understand, however, I can be trusted to finish what I start. That said, I expect to take perhaps three calendar days just to finish blue-penciling the rest of the article. It's a monster, for certain. If you run into any not-quite-dead, would-be copy editors out there -- good ones! -- we could use help. BTW: I am hugely imperfect. Slam my ass when I screw up.

Did I mention I'm verbose? Even as the Welter-Weight Champ of Omitting Needless Words, I sure prattle on. To your remaining points: Agreed, all. We do what we can, say what we mean, and mean what we say in the time that we have.



917 207-9840, Brooklyn, NY

RobertSegal (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... Should not have gone to This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. That was a different link, right? The tag should have been "[elucidate]" if not "[by whom?]". Strange.

The way to handle vaguness (yes! it exists!) is to state declaratively, "officials were vague" or, "officials expressed vague hopes", or "officials specifically said their hopes were vague because the officials themselves did not well understand what was happening". That way, the officials get to swim in their vagueness but the author states FACTS.

Anyway, no one cares who's doing the hoping. That section of the article's about who's doing the reparing.

After figgerin' out how to do the tilde thing (I got it, eventually!), I still like to sign my own name and have a knee-jerk response of square-bracketing whatever the computer is going to insert, square brackets being shorthand for "utterly not connected to the generation of the remainder of the material; inserted by alien hands; dropped in out of the blue". Oddly, after initialing a zillion-some-odd reactor plant valve changes in step-by-step valve line-up sheets and being told I couldn't initial with an R or an S because there were already too many Rs and Ss (!), I resolved to sign with a faux cursive J (bcause that's my middle initial and because I don't write in script) which, distorting over time, was mistaken for a glyph of a bird, as a child might draw on a seascape. "Aw, a SEAGULL!" they snickered, "That's cute!" (groan) When I ended up using computers, the closest character to my flattened cursive J that I could find to sign off with was...


... Which I've used for many years. Now I get to sign with a whole FLOCK of... Never mind.

Very Truly Yours,


P.S. Have also just now typed firm but acquiescent reply to your note re "Fuk50" article, so stand by. (Y'know, I'd have expected more Fuk'u'shima mispronunciation jokes to pop up by now.)

RobertSegal (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the "deletionist debate". Wait! I'll LOOK IT UP! Lesee...

Okay, then: Inc or Del?

I think both are somewhat missing the mark. I have a brain filled with useful and peripheral stuff, the entirety of which has a certain "personality" to it. It is, in fact, my personality. If other stuff circulated there, I'd be somebody different (as I am becoming, moment by moment). The universe, itself, has a distinct bent to it: Things are one way and not some other way. Not only is the universe as it is, it is NOT like something else. It, too, has a personality. This personality is precisely identical with my conception of the word God.

Now Wikipedia, then, is also a collection that is as it is and is not the Encyclopaedia Brittanica or The Joy of Cooking or Fifty-Three More Things to do in Zero Gravity. To fault, even partially, the identity of a collective project (as both the Incs and the Dels do) is to presume for oneself the role of... well God, actually. Who the hell are you to say? (c.f. The Book of Job)

Wiki's ever-multiplying hard drives have, I'm certain, room for whatever folks might want to stuff onto them, notability be damned. Dear Lord, some of my most pivotal bits of knowledge are, on the surface, not notable. I'm astonished at how crucial some of them are despite their diminutive appearance. (In 1982, for example, I saw a man discuss administrating fantasy games who said, "Nine times out of ten, the tighter the rules, the looser the players are playing it." That dumb bit of recorded text has provided more guidance for me in handling interpersonal hubbub than any other. And I didn't even realise as I typed this how relevant it was to the Inc v Del debate!) Moreover another man's ideas are not mine to mess with. His writing, his means to express those ideas, yes. That I will edit for clarity, though the final say should remain his. But if it's not yours, it's not yours to mess with.

That said, "Omit Needless Words". And sentences. And articles. That which human beings most value in their species is no better expressed than through how we refine and prefect our works. Critical thinking is a high attainment, likely our race's highest. Yes, we can tell gold from dross -- and we owe it to humanity to sort out and honour the best within us, casting aside that which doesn't make the cut. To say otherwise is to re-tread the whole (now passé) 1980s circle jerk about relative truth and lack of "real" value. Y'know what? You can try all day to elevate Country Time Lemonade but Chateau d'Yquem really is better than most other desert drinks. We perish when we go gaga over the Emperor's new clothes.

Wikipedia can be about every damned thing -- all information has a place -- but it must do the most perfect possible job of it.

The two views aren't contradictory. That's an illusion.

RobertSegal (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, SP, for the link ( Not so much of a debate as growing pains, it seems. I promise not to take Wikipedia personally, by which I mean not to invest heart 'n soul in whether it succeeds or not. I can do good, dedicated work and still be emotionally healthy. If I keep that promise to myself, I hope to avoid revisiting wreckage similar to that of other internet 'communities' in which I've besmirched myself! I'm just gonna fix typos and grammar and discuss bigger writing flaws as I run into 'em. There will always be misplaced modifiers. We will all be dead in a couple hundred years. I'm happy and I'm not gonna sweat it.

RobertSegal (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Missing sectionEdit

  Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.   Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.


Hello, Sandpiper. You have new messages at TitanOne's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

wish I could give you a barnstarEdit

but i'm just an IP (lol)... anyways those new image uploads from flickr, that you put on Fukushima 1, are a great find and very helpful. Thanks for making the edits to make them possible. Sometimes I feel like I am the only editor working on images for the 2011 tsunami pages and I really appreciate the help and non-deletionist attitude you have. Btw I usually use a different IP but I am traveling today. (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:LookandLearnCover.jpgEdit


Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:LookandLearnCover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ideas about linking dynamic graphics to textEdit

Hi there, we talked a while back about your animated gifs for the Victoria sinking. I've been thinking about how we can move Wikipedia along into web 3.0, with dynamic images moving as a user reads the text that describes moving events. E.g as a user reads the long and detailed text about the progress of a battle, navigation of ships etc, it would be great if maps or diagrams altered accordingly - e.g. if the ships on the chart moved according to where the reader was in the text, or if arrows and frontlines moved on a map as the user read through the text describing a military campaign. Currently, with exceptions such as animated gifs like yours, we aren't really exploiting the multimedia capabilities of the web, we're just publishing an online book. Any ideas on this ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed analysis. I realise with current webpage designs it's difficult to know where the user is focussing in the text.... but that to me is symptomatic of the current weakness - the webpage needs to interact more with the user rather than just slap a static page on the screen. Dunno how to at present... for a start we can assume that the user scrolls so that the centre of the screen is where they are reading. We then have a floating graphic e.g. map, which varies its content to match the text at centre of screen. The use will quickly understand what is happening as the graphic content changes with page scrolling. Example : Battle of Jutland, Midway etc. only make any sense in terms oif the fast movement of a large number of actors over a very large area : capital ships racing about at 25 knots, destroyers at 30+ knots, and squadrons of aircraft at Midway. We have good detailed texts on Wiki describing the key actions, but it's crippled by static content. A dynamic gif hovering and varying as the user scrolls down the text of e.g. the Run to the South, or Jellicoe finally crossing the T at Jutland would improve the user experience immensely. I know university libraries are looking into these kinds of ideas for distance education. I have used Javascript in the past to dynamically change images presented in a window, so at a very simple level if we create say 10 versions of a map showing positions during an action, we can use e.g. scrolling to trigger Javascript to reload the image.. or use a Java applet. Early days yet, but maybe we can set up a Wiki focus group to share ideas ? Rcbutcher (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

nordenfelt machine guns.Edit

I see you took off the picture of 1 in machine guns from HMS gannet from the article about the Nordenfelt machine gun up to 1 in calibre. I remain confused what the difference is supposed to be between that article titled Nordenfelt gun which says it is about machine guns up to 1 in and the separate article titled 1-in Nordenfeld gun about 1 in nordenfelt machine guns. Regards, Sandpiper (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC).

Hi there, I've tidied up the article to make clear it covers the anti-personnel weapon, typically 0.45 inch. I separated the two articles because one was purely anti-personnel, i.e. a typical machine-gun, whereas the 1-inch gun was for use against small vessels, intended to penetrate into boilers etc. Of course, I'm just one contributor, and I'm open to being corrected ! regards. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26Edit

Hi. When you recently edited Cutty Sark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Falmouth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject Harry Potter#Turning this Project into a task force?Edit

Converting into a task force is propose. Click above to join in. --George Ho (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Rite of SpringEdit

I note that you have introduced an infobox, ignoring (and in fact deleting) the request that this not be be done without seeking consensus. There is an existing and long-established consensus with music articles that infoboxes are not added; you are welcome to make the case for an infobox in this instance, but should do it on the talkpage as requested, rather than by unilateral action. Please remember that there is no requirement for any Wikipedia article to have an infobox.

You mention that the article is confused as to whether Rite is a ballet or an instrumental piece. In fact, the first paragraph of the article couldn't be clearer on this point. The "confusion" lies with the infobox, which because of the box-ticking nature of the format in unable to provide an accurate and adequate description of the work. Another crime which the infobox commits is to reduce the beautiful Roerisch image to the size of a large postage stamp, surely no way to draw readers into the article?

You raise other points in your talkpage comments which are of some interest, and I would like to address these when I have a little more time. In the meantime I would ask you to delete the infobox, until the matter has been subjected to a discussion for consensus. Brianboulton (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

With reference to your recent edits on the Rite article, I have copyedited and slightly shortened the material added in respect of the abandonment of the Nijinsky choreography. I have also trimmed the Nijinsky image caption by removing information of no relevance to the Rite. I am unconvinced that your rearrangements in the Performance history section are an improvement; there is much in favour of a simple chronology, and I think this issue needs further thought. I have left it alone for the moment, but I'll get another view on this. Meantime I have realigned the Massine image to its associated text. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I have replied on the article talk page.Sandpiper (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Monopoly of wisdomEdit

I wonder why you think your views override the consensus arrived at by numerous experienced Wikipedians, and why you feel free to revert their agreed versions on your own whim? I have just checked out your current project, on l'après-midi d'un faune, and I have counted 25 errors. I humbly suggest you attend to them, and leave fully-checked and agreed articles unmolested. If you deign to deal with Wiki colleagues I will gladly send you the list of errors in the Faun article. Tim Riley (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The Rites of Spring? Heigh ho! Tim Riley (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replied on article talk page.Sandpiper (talk)

Please stop edit warringEdit

I have undone your aaddition of an infobox to The Rite of Spring as the talk page consensus is five to one against (please see WP:Consensus). Please stop WP:edit warring. Edit warring may lead to your being blocked by an uninvolved admin. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

see talk page, but i note only one of those five editors has actually contributed significantly to the article.Sandpiper (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Rite of Spring againEdit

Hi Sandpiper, as someone who has commented in the past on whether The Rite of Spring article should have an infobox or not, I wanted to let you know that the discussion has been reopened on the article's talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


prose and policy
Thank you for quality contributions to articles such as Afternoon of a Faun, for a critical look at sources, including the author's , for the enlightening boxless prose of you user page and your note to self at the end, for "as if wiki wide policy does not aply to it", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 375th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 735 of Precious, a prize of QAI, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Plague of London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gravesend (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: Boats landing on Hastings beachEdit

Hello, Sandpiper. You have new messages at Freakmighty's talk page.
Message added 17:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk: File:HMSLion besideHMSQueenMaryblowingup1916.jpgEdit

It seems the caption on this image seems wrong because the HMS Princess Royal' not HMS Lion is the ship directly ahead of the HMS Queen Mary in the battleline of the day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adm.tang (talkcontribs) 13:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Ismailiabiplanecrash.jpg listed for discussionEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ismailiabiplanecrash.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 08:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

File:SMS V187at Heligoland.jpg listed for discussionEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SMS V187at Heligoland.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, Sandpiper. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Langford EndofHP cover.jpgEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Langford EndofHP cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Sandpiper. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Sandpiper. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.


"In my opinion, most history is opinion..." - in the past nine years, you've matured away from that nonsense, hopefully? (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC) If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Sandpiper".