User talk:Magidin/Archive 2

Mathematics CotW

Hey Magidin, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 23:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job

Nice job on James McReynolds! Do you work for the Supreme Court, or you are one of the nine justices? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snape edits

D'Oh! Good catch, and thanks for the assist! :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my intention to remove specifically your edits. All I did was remove a lot of the in-universe stuff and that which did not deal precisely with Snape's story. Of course, you are aware of my opinions on cruft and OR. And yes, I think we are shaping up the article nicely. Again, thanks for not taking the edits personally, as they certainly were not aimed at you. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snape

Hi. Since we seem to be having an edit conflict on the article, I suggest we talk if over on that article's Talk Page. I've begun by listing the main areas of contention, and my views thereof. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Nightscream 05:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy response. Yeah, I noticed you guys kept some of my edits, but this occurred before or at the same time I was composing my posts--I getting a lot of Edit Conflict notices every time I tried making a big edit because we were editing at the same time! In any case though, I wasn't accusing you of anything; I just thought I'd request you participate in the discussion because you were closely editing me and the other guy, and figured it was appropriate to get your views. I have to turn in now; but maybe we'll talk tomorrow about the "passive voice" matter; I don't see the big deal about it, but it's not as big a deal as the other points. Thanks again. :-) Nightscream 06:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article is about Snape's representations in BOTH the books and film (as per your comment here). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with the alternative edit. Looks nice. Now, I want a shrubbery. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Karkaroff

Good work on the Igor Karkaroff article! Comparing the dismal starting point to your finish it's a clear improvement. As you say, a lot more chapter references are required - I find the calendars at the hp-lexicon.com are invaluable for finding things quickly in the books. Of course, you need to have the books with you - I have a massive pile of them on my desk at the moment!! The only (tiny little) thing I would mention is a caveat of British English: when writing quotes which finish a sentence, the full stop goes outside the quotation mark in British English. So you would write:

"blah blah blah turned traitor at great personal risk".

rather than

"blah blah blah turned traitor at great personal risk."

In this case it's even arguable that, because there's a full stop in that position in the source text, you could include it there. However, because in general usage we Brits (and I'm only assuming that you're not a Brit because of your fluency in Spanish) like to put a full stop outside the quotation mark if possible (and "blah blah.". looks really stupid), it's customary not to include closing punctuation mark in the quote. If it's important, of course (eg a question or exlclamation mark: "blah blah blah?" rather than "blah blah blah"? or (heaven forbid) "blah blah blah?".) this rule is bent, which is rather typical of English!! As I say, a tiny caveat of British English. Other than that, a generally great job - go ahead and grab another flagging HP character and give it the same treatment! If you can provide chapter references any time, that would be brilliant. If not, I'm sure someone will do them. I will if I have the time - I bit off rather a large mouthful when I started working on Harry Potter images!! Happy-melon 22:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of Karkaroff

You were right: what I did was just copy n' paste and I missed the chapter references. Sorry about that. I also noticed that Karkaroff's information is shorter than Dolohov's, but maybe that's because Dolohov's section is overdetailed and repeats some information (for example, that he killed Lupin and stuff). Lord Opeth 17:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 04:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snape edits

So, we are using the novel numbering and chapter formats again? I thought this was done away with as per HPO wikiproject discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LV

You're absolutely right. A better summary would have been something as simple as "irrelevant." It was an obvious revert situation (IMHO, at least), so I simply jotted down the first reason that came to mind, on the off chance that the IP editor would notice and take exception to his edit being reverted. I don't think that's particularly likely, but if it's reinserted I'll be ready! :) Cheers, faithless (^speak) 05:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning minor 1st paragraph edits?

Re: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor
This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.

I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

A1. Benjamin Cardozo
A2. Learned Hand

B1. John Marshall Harlan
B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?

Would you care to offer a comment or observation? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"Your comments on Lord Voldemort/Talk"

Yes I was trying to convince you but I was sort of being humorous at the same time. You win. Illustrious One (^{Receive my Majesty}) 22:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court of the United States article

Magidin: You made this comment in the edit summary of one of your recent edits: "Fine; but then why remove the link to the actual source, and a citation with a "name"? That means it could be used more than once; carefuly, please!"

Will you please explain what this means? What could be used more than once, and how is the "name" you mention of consequence to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evenin' scrot! (talk • contribs) 23:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]