User talk:Libatius

Your message

Thanks for spotting that — it must have been there for years... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 07:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regulus Black.

well you are correct that I like edit summaries to be inventive as well as informative, and entirely correct that I am somewhat bored with noting a revert away from FdF. I don't know what his viewpoint is, but his plain intent is to remove some of the speculative information about how the story will go in the final book. Sometimes he seems to argue that speculation is not permitted on wiki, which of course it is when it is external speculation being reported, and at other times chooses to attack the validity of sources. When I last looked, the policy on sourcing states that sources should be appropriate to the subject. Apart from that, the obvious lack on all the HP pages is external references of any sort at all. If Granger has been good enough, and successfull enough, to publish a book, then he deserves to get a mention. I don't know how far I would agree with his particular theory about parallells between the books, but it is interesting and he is certainly not the only person to argue it. Quite a lot of people have taken up the idea that someone may have faked their death, particularly after the odd business of the US and UK versions of HBP having a text difference where Dumbledore suggests the possibility of hiding Draco during the death scene.

There is no need for grovelling apologies: I am not offended and if I didn't see the funny side of things which get posted here, well, I wouldn't do this. I chose the particular edit comment because I had in fact significantly edited the disputed passage (for the first time, I think, rather than just supporting it), and I wanted to draw attention to this, anticipating that it would be reverted and wanting anyone supporting inclusion of the ideas to note that there were now two ongoing version of the passage to choose from. I am interested to see when Michael Sanders comes back what he things of my changes. I am not hung up about them, just thought it wanted tidying up.

Having now commented on this issue, you may likely expect more opinions to be posted on your talk page by others. I have never bothered to chase all the back history of Falkens page, but his deleted disputes seem to go back before HP. Sandpiper 07:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regulus again

Hello, thanks for your message. It is somewhat frustrating to spend an hour or so trying to improve an article, only to have it reverted without a single comment. It's the kind of thing that can easily turn people away from editing Wikipedia. Good luck with the exams! :) LR 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we have managed to have some kind of discussion on the Regulus talk pages. The article is now what I would consider an approved version of my original edit, and my impression is that people are happy with it so far (at least, there haven't been any complaints). Of course, if you have a look, your comments are welcome; I am sure improvement is still very much possible.

Also, any thoughts on the 'Regulus still alive' theory would be welcome. I have tried to initiate a sensible discussion, but so far there doesn't seem to have much been said which is actually to the point. LR 19:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Granger as a good source for info about HP

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. I brought forward further arguments, to which he never bothered to answer. Too bad you don't speak a word of french.

So I take it as a "yes", your life is so empty that you're monitoring everything I do on WP. Get a life.Folken de Fanel 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Spells in Harry Potter

An article that you have been involved in editing, Spells in Harry Potter, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter (3rd nomination). Thank you. Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]