Jump to content

Talk:Circle of stars/Talk Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I's just want to say that it wasn't my idea to separate out Circle of stars from Crown of Immortality. But as its now an article with star circles, I can't find any argumentation why NOT to include the EU Flag. The only way I see how we could marginalize it is to let the article dwell in art with circles of stars. --Roberth Edberg 19:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seperate - That would have been possible before when the article were AfD tagged, but now that article has become explicit to Immortality and can't be merged. --Roberth Edberg 11:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seperate - unless a definite connection connection emerges. As I see it there is the religious Apocalypse/Virgin Crown or circle - not connected with Immortality as far as I can see, and a Crown of Immortality - laurel in classical times & stars from some point in the Renaissance. The two are different, and should be maintained as such (unless, as I said, a connection emerges). No connection between either & the EU circle has been demonstrated. Johnbod 13:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the Apocalypse/Virgin parts as there is no source reference to the connection. I will fix that and maintain those in the Circle of stars instead. --Roberth Edberg 13:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Crown of Immortality has been improved, and its content is now clearly separated from this article, I withdraw the merge proposal.Paul111 20:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPAMMED: Fisheater.com

[edit]

It seems that the article has been affected by fisheater.com spammers. There is no blacklisted link in the article, and still it reports so. It seems to be a known WIkipedia hacking method. As a Newbee here on WikiPedia I need help! --Roberth Edberg 15:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More information about it is documented here: User:JzG/Fisheaters.

How strange, yep It's my name on the add. I thought I added something completly different. Thanks anyhow. --Roberth Edberg 19:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]