User talk:Law Lord/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hm

Oh, I get many messages. It's possible yours was lost. Perhaps you should leave it on my talk page. DS 13:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tramadol brand names

Why bold, and why in a huge vertical list? Tony (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of Beck films

Why should they be in the Category:Swedish novels when they are already in Category:Novels by Sjöwall and Wahlöö which is a subcategory to it? Skizzik 14:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, you are right. Though I did make some other minor improvements as well. --Law Lord 15:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Now cleared. --Law Lord 15:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) Skizzik 21:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Alfred Enoch

Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy #1. We do not use a non-free image where it is possible that someone could create a freely licensed image. Specifically, non-free images of living people or buildings that currently exist are not permissible unless we're talking about Osama Bin Laden or someone else in hiding where a photo is completely and totally impossible. The photo in question can be used (or would be able to be used if it were properly sourced) to illustrate an article on the character he plays, but not in his infobox. --B 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. All these rules are so complex. Now the source is added so it can still be used here but not here? --Law Lord

Several different problems. (1) A non-free image cannot be used to illustrate a living person. It can be used to illustrate a character in an article about the movie/character/story, but not a living person in an article about the person. (2) Most meaningful content on answers.com is actually copied from Wikipedia. It is one of a number of "downstream" uses of Wikipedia content. That photo was actually originally originally uploaded to Wikipedia as Image:Dean_Thomas.JPG. That image was deleted. I am looking at the deleted edits and it did not have a source. So just saying that the image is from answers.com doesn't actually tell us the source. --B 22:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty Boy

Hello, Law Lord, I noticed your additions to the Pretty Boy page and deleted them. Unfortunately, no references are given and I did some google searching for sources that describe the title "Pretty Boy" in a manner, maybe, such as IT girl, but I didn't find the info. If you have access to sources to clarify the term "Pretty Boy", please do add them. Currently, there is also a link to effeminacy, but the entire article doesn't state "Pretty Boy" once, so I'm considering to delete that, too. Seeking your opinion on this. Maybe some other editors might give comments on this, too. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 14:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Plumcouch,

Thanks very much for your kind message. I noticed your edit ealier. I agree that the link to effeminacy should also be deleted, and then I will take it upon myself to try and find some sources that can document my understanding of the meaning of the term. --Law Lord 16:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dougie Poynter

Hi, the reason I reverted your edit to Dougie Poynter is that while I don't disagree that it has a reference, albeit one that violates copyright law, saying that he has a big cock is hardly a comment worthy of an encyclopaedia, especially when the interview was obviously facetious, and as such such questions and answers cannot be trusted. mattbuck 08:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I'm happy, but I've moved the comment so that it's now next to the section about being shy and with a connection. I hadn't looked at it from the shyness angle, it just appeared to be an unrelated teenie cock-comment. mattbuck 14:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've addressed that matter. It's non-notable, and we don't cite YouTube as a reference, like, ever. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Forced Homosexuality

Hi Law Lord. This article was previously deleted due to lack of sources. The name was changed to Forced Bisexuality. The AfD was here: [1]. Consequently, I have put this up for speedy deletion. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. IronDuke 21:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Please do not make edits such as this one. They are vandalism and you will be blocked if you continue. asyndeton (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

When you are previously warned that an edit speaking to the sexual conduct of children is inappropriate and considered vandalism, and that same edit is reverted by another editor, it is a clear indication that you shouldn't be re-introducing the edit without attempting to discuss the matter in the discussion page for the article. Furthermore, your assertion that children engage in sex between 17-18 is uncited and more importantly, it is uncited within any of the novels. As the majority of the books cover a period of time when sexual conduct amongst the protagonists is considered illegal and is furthermore a non-nonexistent topic in the books, addressing this topic is inappropriate in the extreme. If you wish to speak to an admin in regards to this matter, and seek the benefit of their wider experience, I entreat you to do so. However, if you attempt to reintroduce the subject again without discussion, i am concerned that you will likely be blocked or banned, as discussion of such borders on pedophilia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what country you are from nor the reasons why you are a prude. However, in Denmark, the age of sexual consent is 15. Discussing sex between two people or more, who are 15 or older, has nothing to do with paedophilia. I take offence at your innuendo, and rejoice in the certain knowledge that the chance of you being a paedophile is infinitely better than the chance of me being one. That is pure mathematics, since I am not one and will never be one. There is plenty of sex hinted in the books. In the beginning of Order of the Phoenix, Dudley asks Harry whether Cedric is his boyfriend. In the same book, a real romance happens between Harry and Cho. In the end of Deadly Hallows, we find that Harry and Ginny have produced two children. They did so, by having sex. If you think sex in Harry Potter has anything to do with paedophilia, then that is because you think of sex between the protagonists before they reach the age og sexual consent. I find your thinking very revolting. --Law Lord (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to back down, L. Your comments are becoming very aggressive - suggesting that others need therapy is an outright personal attack, and you can very easily get blocked/banned for such. I don't care what the age of consent is in Denmark, as it is off-point. The characters' sexual activities throughout the course of the novel are not mentioned; ipso facto, they don;t get mentioned in the article. I don't consider myself a prude, and your calling me and anyone else within earshot one implies that the possibility exists that if everyone else is a prude, perhaps you might be happier in an editing environment better suited to someone of your more 'permissive' tastes. Either way, i would certainly appreciate you stepping away from the personal attacks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for apologizing, and for realizing you were letting your temper get the better of you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

== wikt:Talk: Norway ==

I see I have to post here, but I wonder you have any knowledge of this issue, and can answer my question. Thanks Mallerd (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5