User talk:T-dot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, T-dot, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  TheRingess 03:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Famous Locations 2 Lincoln MKS 3 Mustang infobox 4 New Speculation Template? 5 Severus Snape Dates 6 Ford... 7 Lincoln Flagship 8 Ignorance in revert of Harry Potter book 7 speculation 9 Aviator MKS 10 Lincoln Flagship 11 Barnstar for T-dot 12 Dumbledore speculation 13 "deep" reverts 14 A barnstar for you 15 Good edit on Edsel Ford 16 Dumbledore 17 Randazzo56 18 "Throwing the baby out with the bath water" 19 Infobox 20 Why so few Wikipedians are engineers? 20.1 Reply 21 Assumptively 22 what the ... 23 Harry Potter spoilers 24 Welcome to the Kindness Campaign! 25 Concordia newsletter 26 On spam links 27 I don't understand stand this 28 Town Car replacement 29 Template Sandbox 30 Harry Potter book seven 31 Harry Potter Book 7 32 Albus Dumbledore Article 33 Henry Ford 34 Style 35 Random date changes 36 Image copyright problem with Image:X_studio_29seamus.jpg 37 Orphaned fair use image (Image:L Ford Edge01.jpg) 38 Ford Edge image 39 Homer Simpson 40 User:88.111.11.218 41 Albus Dumbledore 42 The Hogwarts Founders 43 Image:08MercuryMariner thum01 MR.jpg 44 Horcruxes 45 Image:Gt500 3 full.jpg 46 Again with the beans... 47 Image:07FordEdgeCUV.jpg 48 Barnstar 49 Regulus Arcturus Black

[edit] Famous Locations

Hi T-Dot, Earlier today I put some external links to our Famous Locations reference information for Titanic, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. You labelled them spam and removed them! I have to take issue with you and ask you to please explain the basis of your decision. Our information is genuine and, like Wikipedia, we have contributors who work hard to provide this information for free to our many visitors. Famous Locations 12:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Please see Wikipedia's External Links guidelines, in particular the Links to avoid section. A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link. The Wikipedia is not the place to promote your web site. Also - Links to search engine results are not permitted, and this is how your links to your web site worked. Thanks. --T-dot 14:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

PS - that said (above), if you still wish to promote your web site and search engine, by posting "helpful links" to it in the corresponding Wikipedia articles (External Links sections), then please by all means feel free to post and discuss those links on the repective articles' "talk pages" (discussion tabs). Some editors and administrators may view your external links more favorably than others, and in general we work from consensus around here in the Wikipedia, so nobody should feel bullied. We always try to work together to come to agreeable compromise, just with a bias towards following, as best as we can, the letter and spirit of the Wiki rules (policies, guidelines, etc.). Thanks again. --T-dot 15:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln MKS

Hi, I just read your message concerning the Lincoln MKS article, but am still a bit confused. On the infobox it said that the Mark S concept is a mid-size sedan and the template confirms this assumption by listing the MKS as a possible replacment for the LS. In the article and in your message, however, you stated that it is a Full-size sedan. I myself have read the press releases but am still doubtful at the vehicle being a Full-size since Lincoln executives only said the MKS merely hints at the design for a future full-size sedan. The pictures, despite the 20" wheels do not hint at the MKS being a Full-size (The Chrysler Imperial has 22" being a Full-size; they all have big wheels now.). If you could provide a link or some dimensions specs I can change the infobos to read Full-size. Anyways, Thank you very much for contributing. Sincerely, Gerdbrendel 19:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC) ................................................................................

I believe that what you can legitimately post in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is factual information, as released to the public, by the entity that owns the information. Everything else is to be considered pure speculation, gossip, rumors, or perhaps unauthorized leaks. Even if a "Ford insider" knows something about the "MKS" concept car that has not been publicly announced by the Company , they SHALL NOT post it here (as some have already done) - doing so may be considered Corporate Espionage, and can result in termination, lawsuits, and prosecution. I started to try to clean up all the speculation posts about the MKS - but gave up trying - it is just too deep now.

Now if Ford Motor Company publicly acknowleges (and you can prove it with a link to a legitimate Ford Motor Company Source - not from a fan / rumor / gossip or spy website), then by all means it can and should be posted here. For the time being, you have to go with the official company line - that the MKS is a concept car that "strongly hints" at a possible future full size Lincoln sedan. But you can feel free to scour online news reports using Yahoo! or Google or some other search engine, and then post anything you find, from a reputable news source, that is directly quoting Bill Ford or Mark Fields or Anne Stevens or some other Company Executive or Spokesman. I think the Company realizes there has been some mixed information released from various sources, and will try to straighten it all out in the coming days. For the next few weeks, Ford will be observing public and press reactions to the MKS Concept Car, and then make a final decision about production possibilities - most likely after "The Way Ahead" on January 23rd. In addition - Ford has many other upcoming Auto Shows, where more Concepts (and variations) and corporate announcements can be expected.

That said - I really do feel your pain. The sudden and unexpected renaming of the 2007 Lincoln Aviator as the 2007 Lincoln "MKX" has produced no small amount of chaos and controversy; and then saying it is all about "letters" for Lincoln from now on, and then saying MKX is actually pronounced "Mark X" (which is alarmingly close to "Mark Ten"), and then calling the "MKS" (pronounced "Mark S") as either a full size Concept Car (which would be E or F class), or a midsize D3-platform based midsize LS replacement (which is itself a mid-plus D/E class chassis) - it is all very confusing. The best we can do at this point is be patient - wait for the Corporate Executives and Marketing folks get their "official story" straight, and let the Full Battle Fury of the Auto Show settle down a bit with the dust; and then post "just the facts Ma'am" on Wikipedia. T-dot 00:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

...................................................................................

Let me respond here rather than start yet another section.

You have referred to me in pluralis majestatis. I do not know whether this account is used by several editors or what. Anyway, I understand how upset you are when somebody just comes and tags the article you contributed to and which deals with one of your favorite topics like that. But what I was hoping for is just stir some discussion about it and hopefully help you adopt a broader view on the issue. Why I tagged this article like that:

1. First and foremost, there is no appropriate template available
2. Secondly, recently I have seen an increase in the number of articles featuring speculation, discussion and newspaper-style reporting, all "justified" by the use of the "upcoming vehicle template". The template says that the article "is likely to contain information of a speculative nature" - well, information of speculative nature are not really information and have no place in an encyclopedia.
3. Third, this article really reads like a newspaper article, and not an encyclopedic article. It tries to give an account of selected press reports, paraphrasing them and citing some people from FoMoCo.
4. Fourth, I have briefly looked at some fragments of your discussion with Gerd and I believe this article looks like it was shaped to argue your point (third paragraph especially). I don't think it covers the issue in its entirety, as it would have to cover all bits of gossip and tidbits from Ford guys to do so - but Wikipedia does not cover gossip anyway.
5. Fifth, call me whatever, but this is NOT the best written and formatted Wikipedia article I have seen.

At present, the MKS is a concept car which may or may not in a similar or quite different form under this name or other become a production model, replacing some other models or not. Those things change a lot, as automakers change their plans, and FoMoCo is especially unstable with regard to that of late. Rather than speculate and try to discuss the future, and perhaps alternative scenarios, the article should simply inform the user of the facts that are firm and certain. So, I would say this article should read like that:

• A description of the concept car and its features, including where it was presented and such - a fairly good example would be the Audi Nuvolari Quattro article (perhaps you can get a bit more detailed than that.
• One sentence like "Ford Motor Company has indicated that a production vehicle based on the Lincoln MKS concept and possibly using that name will be launched in 2008 or later." (however hard I tried, it still sounds awfully speculative) and link to some newspaper report or wherever a good and up-to-date account can be found.

The point is that Wikipedia is not a place to discuss future automobiles and automotive gossip. The car mags, automotive forums and such are. And it should stay that way.

As concerns what you added later to your edit on my talk page, I am considering launching a more widespread campaign against "future on Wikipedia" and "future vehicles" in particular. The MKS article just displayed a number of bad features and I couldn't resist starting with it. I will pursue this further. Delete the notice if you please and rearrange the article so that there would be no reason for it to be there and the whole thing will be a thing of the... past :D

Regards, Bravada, talk - 13:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. What you are linking to are not FoMoCo press releases. Ford press releases are to be found here. Please also see this discussion - in a nutshell, press photos are not really fair use and will have to be removed. I would focus on trying to procure some privately-made photos of the MKS when displayed at NAIAS or elsewhere.

OK fine then - if your agenda is to rid the Wikipedia of any references and articles on concept and future production automobiles, and any other future events and concepts, then I guess my recommendation to you would be to collect ALL of the Concept Car and Future Automobile (etc.) category entries, and nominate them as articles for deletion, and let the other Contributers decide by vote whether they are worthy of continuing, rather than using your drive-by slash-and-dash approach of choosing a single article and posting a self-made banner, claiming that it does not meet Wikipedia standards, and calling the article "fortune-telling" and "speculation" and "arguing a point of view" - even when it is well referenced and linked to the official sources. Let's do it right, not make up the rules as we go along. --T-dot 14:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down and read what I wrote carefully once again. I greatly appreciate well-written articles on concept cars and I believe we should have many more of them, this seems to be a rather poorly covered topic. I am not going to nominate articles on them for deletion, what for. I would like to curb "fortune telling" and "speculation" on Wikipedia, with speculation also appearing with regard to the past. And, btw, MySanAntonio.com is NOT FoMoCo's official website. Bravada, talk - 14:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The San Antonio News article is the reference source of the quotes from the Lincoln MkS Marketing Manager, obtained during an auto show. An additional external link to media.ford.com is provided at the bottom of the article, so readers can access the specifications, images, and technical details on the MkS. --T-dot 14:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mustang infobox

Sorry, I'm not an expert on Mustangs, Lincolns are more my field. I was only adding the new standard infobox to the article. Just replace any information inside the infobox. Usually cars using the same platform are called related but that may not be the case here. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 15:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, okay I'm sorry O must have confused platforms. I just research the D2C platform and found out that the Ford Thunderbird, Lincoln LS (?), and Mecury Cougar also used or use this platform. I don't trust this article however since the LS is related to the S-Type, you however mentioned that the Mustang has Jaguar derived parts, a circumstance under which the LS could be related to the Mustang. Once again I'm sorry for my mistake, I have now added all cars that use the DC2 platform, according to the Wikipedia DC2 article. Thanks for your help. Gerdbrendel 19:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now it makes sense because the LS really didn't fit. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 04:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Speculation Template?

Well... first of all, I'm not an admin. I'm just someone who edits a lot and gets grumpy about other people's edits.

I am of two minds about your idea.

1. . First of all, from a realistic point of view, it's a very good idea. It's an ongoing war to try and keep "fan speculation" out of the Harry Potter pages, and you're correct that not all fan speculation is equal. "We don't know the whole story behind Snape, and there is more to his character, his allegience, and his 'defection' (which may, or may not be real)" is not on the same level as "Neville's wart is a Horcrux" or "Harry really is Lord Voldemort". Such a template might "bleed off" some of the fan
2. On an ideal level, it may not be a wise idea. It may simply encourage fan speculation inclusion. Additionally, Wikipedia is really supposed to be an encyclopedia. Would such speculation be included in Britannica?

I certainly see the issue and the reasoning you have put behind it, and I think it's a well thought out solution. I am not, however, totally sure what the results would be.

I think it's something to consider, however. Perhaps you could open it up to wider discussion on the Harry Potter project discussion page(s)?

Beowulf314159 12:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi T-dot, and thanks for the recognition! I agree there are a lot of speculation, but I agree with the points that Beowulf made above. I think the reactive comments that we've added discouraging people from adding speculation might be good enough for now, but I'd like to echo Beowulf's sentiments by suggesting that you post this proposal to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter or perhaps to WP:VPP and see what they think. --Deathphoenix 20:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Severus Snape Dates

Hi, T-dot. Just wanted to say I didn't revert the date on purpose. I have no informed view on which of the two dating systems is correct. I was reverting some other deletions and this got put back as it had been. I can't really choose which is correct Sandpiper 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ford...

Hi there -- do you believe it is untrue that the Ford family retains complete control over the company? I didn't think that it was a controversial point. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your tone was all wrong - and it is also untrue. The family controls 40% of the Non-Voting shares in a Class B stock arrangement. They do not have "complete control over the Company" by any means. It is a publicly traded company, controlled by a Board of Directors. Your tone suggested something completely different. -- T-dot 20:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln Flagship

You're right the term flagship is a marketing gimmic. The Pheaton for example is not really representative of VW, yet its their flagship. The explaination used for flagship is usually: "The most expenisve vehicle of the brand's most iconic body style, unless the manufacturer states otherwise. Maybe the Lincoln line up should go by line-up position.

• Entry-level
• Mid-level
• top-of-the-line
• Full-size SUV
• Mid-size SUV

Or as you said by size only. Either way, you're right the current flagship description is not a very good one, and is not used in the template of other brands. Signature^brendel 03:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ignorance in revert of Harry Potter book 7 speculation

Hi, t-dot, please read my comment posted on Harry Potter talk page. I encourage you to reconsider your actions. Cheers. TydeNet 08:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aviator MKS

Okay, I see. I thought by Aviator you were referring to the mid-size Explorer based SUV Lincoln sold until '05. I know that the MKS crossover was originally badged the Aviator, maybe we need to clarify in the article that by Aviator we mean the crossover prototype and not the Mid-size SUV. Thanks. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln Flagship

Well, the only way to really tell if a vehicle is the flagship of a marque or not is if the manufacturer says so. Otherwise the rule is: The most expenisve vehicle of the brand's most iconic body style. Since Lincoln's most iconic body style is the full-size sedan, and the Town Car the most expensive sedan, its the flagship. Only if Lincoln says the MKS is the flagship will it indeed be the flagship. Any other defenition is way to POV. For example: I think the TC should be the flagship because its the most luxurious and comnfortable, you might think its the MKS because it has the most advanced techonology and other just say its the best selling model. I do, however, agree that the word flagship is, for the reasons stated above, to POV in order to be used in the template. Also, I changed the chart for the MKS to start in '08. I just reduced the colspan for the MKS by one, and increased the colspan for the empty space preceeding the MKS box by one. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, yes its is a repeated pragraph, sorry! Yes the MKS is defenitely not fit to be in the same category w/ the Town Car. Not only is the MKS substantially smaller but Lincoln put its emphasis on preformance in the MKS, whereas the TC's emphsis is on being a comfortable luxury cruiser. The MKS' emphasis on preformance and technology also make the Continental its perfect predecessor but the LS V8, I don't know. Yes the LS V8 is not really entry-level and its mid-size. I guess, since the MKZ only comes as a V6 and the MKS will be V8, its appropriate, unless you know of any plans Lincoln has to start making a MKZ with a V8, because I havn't heard any reports indicating such a move by Ford. Also, I read the qoute as the MKS being the flagship concept car, not neccesarly meaning that the vehicle will actually become the flagship once production starts. Thanks. Regards, Signature^brendel 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar for T-dot

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you T-dot for your high quality edits. Your tireless contributions and strive for increasing the standard of our articles is truly appreciated. Keep up the good work! Thank you, Signaturebrendel 03:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dumbledore speculation

I am very sorry. I do not know all the rules of Wikipedia and apoligize for any incovenience. However, I wonder why nobody has stopped me from removing speculation from other pages. Can you please explain why that is?

Hi - Well there are different levels of speculation. Some is appropriate for the wikipedia and some is not. It depends on the context and how it is presented. For example - posting something like "Dumbledore is NOT dead" or "Snape did NOT kill Dumbledore" or "Dumbledore commanded Snape to kill him" as if these were "facts", would be pure (and probably false) speculation, and thus disallowed. Posting the fact that there is a lot of controversy over the circumstances of Dumbledore's death, and a brief description of the thinking behind it, may be allowed. The question boils down to whether the information is factual, useful, and significant to most readers. I am not a fan of posting pure fan speculation as if it were encyclopedic fact. But we also need to be careful about anonymously and arbitrarily deleting entire sections of wiki pages, without explanation in the "Edit summary", or at least bringing it up for review in the discussions on the article's "discussion" tab. These issues are usually discussed at great length in that "discussion" tab you see off each main article, and you are welcome to add your thoughts there. Since you clearly did not mean to vandalize the Dumbledore article, I'll remove the vandalism warning on your page. Thanks, and welcome to the Wikipedia, and please feel free to edit wherever you please. Again, however, it would be helpful to the rest of us if you explain any such non-minor edits in the Edit summary box (or on the discussion page or both) so other editors do not assume you are not just another drive-by vandal who is arbitrarily and maliciously deleting valid information. Thanks again, and have fun! --T-dot 13:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "deep" reverts

Please be careful when reverting articles and give preference to editing the appropriate section and only reverting in cases of clear vandalism. Your reverting of the Harry Potter article caused a corrected piece of information to become un-corrected. Thanks! -- goatasaur 21:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and my bad. Just what "corrected" information was uncorrected? We were engaged in reverting disallowed and unauthoritative speculation on the release dates (until it was clear that this would result in a reversion war with those insane fanatics who insisted on being the first to post a rumored "target release date" as a "confirmed release date", in spite of much discussion and attempted administrative corrections). The mob mentality ruled after a few hours, and the administrators and veterans took a wait-and-see position, rather than constantly reverting and counselling the rabid fanatics not to post unverifiable information. --T-dot 15:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

PS - I reviewed my reversions - the other material that was removed in reversion was a rather non-NPOV "Criticism" section added without any explanation by an anonymous IP address editor - stating essentially that "some fans of the LOTR and Narnia fantasy genre feel that the Harry Potter series is inferior..." (paraphrased) and went on to cite numerous examples to illustrate the point. This information is hardly startling - comparing classic Tolkien and Lewis literature to contemporary Rowling material - but it is completely irrelevant to the HP article. It smelled like a 9th grade book report on comparisons of English Literature. But OK fine. --T-dot 15:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A barnstar for you

For your hard work on Harry Potter-related articles, I hereby award you the Original Barnstar. You are free to put this on your user page (or not), as you desire. Congratulations! --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good edit on Edsel Ford

Good edit on Edsel Ford! Stude62 01:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dumbledore

Hmm. seems I reverted "(by popular view)" back in to the article instead of reverting it back out, which is what I meant to do. I guess I misread the diff or something. Nice work. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Randazzo56

Thanks for letting me know -- I've blocked him for a month for his activities today. Nobody should have to put up with that sort of trolling or personal abuse. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Throwing the baby out with the bath water"

(Regarding Ford external links) - I was pleasantly suprised to see me edit provoked a positive response! It's the sort of thing that can really get some people worked up. I take your point about the main Ford homepage, however my thinking was that it is featured prominently at the top of the page in the company infobox. You're right to suggest that a heading "external links" probably should include the homepage of the article subject. Thanks for your comments. Mark83 17:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why so few Wikipedians are engineers?

I am trying to understand why there are so few Wikipedians who are graduate engineers. Once I get a grasp on that, perhaps I may be able to formulate some ideas on how to attract more experienced engineers to become Wikipedians. It would be very helpful if you would respond to these a few questions:

• Are you a university graduate engineer?
• Please indicate in which of these engineering disciplines you obtained your degree:
  1. Aeronautical or aerospace engineering
  2. Bioengineer or biological engineering
  3. Chemical engineering
  4. Civil engineering
  5. Electrical engineering
  6. Environmental engineering
  7. Mechanical engineering
  8. Petroleum engineering
  9. Other
• In what year did you obtain your degree?
• What attracted you to participate in Wikipedia?

If you would rather not answer these questions on your Talk page, then you may respond on my User talk:mbeychok page. Or you may respond to me via Wikipedia's email which I have enabled on my User:mbeychok page.

If you would rather not respond at all, that's fine also. Regards, - mbeychok 04:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Aeronautical/Aerospace, completed degrees early to mid 1980's. Wikipedia history summary and other information is already posted on the front "user page".

Most Engineers have little time for wiki-work, with career, innovations and inventions, family, personal life, and other issues going on all the time. Engineers are, by definition, "by the book", and yet also creative and innovative. "Original Research" is not permitted on the Wikipedia (even if it is valid), so most of what an Engineer does for a living is banned, and thus they are relegated to proofreading other people's work, which is not particularly interesting as a pastime. Engineers are usually full of "inside information" on modern technologies, and have to be careful about revealing confidential information, and yet they are compelled to correct false information and rumors. Engineers are "never wrong" - and thus refuse to get into reversion wars or engage in wiki-arguments with the "ignorant masses". Engineers will only contribute to articles they consider themselves to be an authoritative expert in, and will ignore anything they consider not of particular interest to them, unless they stumble upon a typo or outright falsehood that they can fix, in an article they were reading something about anyway. Engineers also understand the shortcomings of the Wikipedia, as discussed by anti-Wikipedia commentators, and generally refuse to "put their good name" on something that might be considered total garbage by their peers. Engineers are all about publishing their knowledge, and new and innovative inventions and other discoveries in Journals, as professionals and authorities in their respective fields. They cannot possibly be bothered, and have no particularly compelling reason, to join in on publishing their vast knowledge in something so "low-brow" as a "truth established by public consensus" forum, when that consensus is significantly contaminated by the uneducated, ignorant, and biased agenda-driven masses. If they do get involved in wiki-work, it is only as a hobby, that only lasts as long as they don't find something more useful to do with their spare time. After all, thats when we often come up with most of the really good inventions and innovations, and thats how we keep the world a-turning. Did I mention that we Engineers are cocky, conceited bastards (or the female equivalent)? Sometimes, the brutal truth hurts. --T-dot 15:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assumptively

I laughed out loud when I saw your edit summary [1] on Lord Voldemort. I thought assumptively sounded fairly prepostrous myself, but apparently it's a word (or at least used to be): [2], [3]. Anyway, no big deal; I don't think I've ever heard the word used, and it would be difficult for me to use it in a sentence. Good job on the cleanup! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what the ...

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

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

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

[edit] Harry Potter spoilers

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Welcome to the Kindness Campaign!

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

[edit] Concordia newsletter

Concordia Newsletter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] On spam links

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

[edit] I don't understand stand this

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

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

O.K. ForestH2

[edit] Town Car replacement

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template Sandbox

Lincoln, a luxury car division of Ford Motor Company

<-- earlier

Road car timeline, 1990s-present

edit

Type

1990s

2000s

'90

'91

'92

'93

'94

'95

'96

'97

'98

'99

'00

'01

'02

'03

'04

'05

'06

'07

'08

'09

Entry-level

LS (V6)

Zephyr

MKZ

Mid-size

LS (V8)

Continental

Continental

Continental

MKS

Full-size

Town Car

Town Car

SUV

Aviator

Navigator

Navigator

Navigator

Crossover SUV

MKX

Personal

Mark VII

Mark VIII

Pickup

Blackwood

Mark LT

Historic models:

Capri | Cosmopolitian | Custom | K-series | Lido | L-series | Mark series | Premiere | Sport | Versailles

Concept models:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Harry Potter book seven

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

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

[edit] Harry Potter Book 7

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

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

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

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

[edit] Albus Dumbledore Article

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

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

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

[edit] Henry Ford

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Random date changes

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

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:X_studio_29seamus.jpg

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

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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

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

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:L Ford Edge01.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:L Ford Edge01.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 06:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ford Edge image

I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. The policy's goal is to make sure that Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia that can be used by anyone for any purpose. Fair use images detract us from that goal. We do NOT need "high quality" images -- we need free ones. howcheng {chat} 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homer Simpson

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

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

[edit] User:88.111.11.218

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

[edit] Albus Dumbledore

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

[edit] The Hogwarts Founders

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Image:08MercuryMariner thum01 MR.jpg

Since this is a vehicle that has not been released yet, I believe you are correct that a replacement can not reasonably be obtained at this time. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I have corrected the tag. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --T-dot 00:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horcruxes

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

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

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

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

[edit] Image:Gt500 3 full.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gt500 3 full.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Roguegeek (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again with the beans...

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

Thanks.

trezjr 23:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:07FordEdgeCUV.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:07FordEdgeCUV.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This also applies to Image:1-27-0607-Expedition-S.jpg, Image:112 05 detas fairlane01 l.jpg, Image:B026-trottman-0405n 04-26-2005 F65JURA.jpg, and any other "replaceable" non-free image you may have uploaded. (This includes living people, cars which are still in existence, etc.) Thanks for your understanding. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

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

[edit] Regulus Arcturus Black

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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