Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 02:19, 6 July 2007 (→Middle-earth in popular culture - pre-DRV request: thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Smile

James, La gloria è a dio 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.

um,excuse me but...

um,excuse me but how did you get your user page like that. i mean with all the "user boxes". i don't know how to do that. could you help me? i mean this is the best i could do with user boxesː

signeddarkness

signeddarkness ^_^ this user is a fan of magma

^_* this user LOVES amine

>ː( this user can get angry if you mess with her

signeddarkness

ːp this user's tongue is always out at people

ːzzzː this user might be sleeping if she's not on right now

ː0 this user will be surprized if you don't like inuyasha

could you helpme. if so thankz

userːsigneddarknesssigneddarkness

==Spam in Brand (magazine)==

That was quick. If you had looked at the history you would have seen that the actual content was deleted by an IP and spam inserted. Could you please undelete it and restore the valid content. // Liftarn

My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Surrealist groups

Hi. (I've not requested such before, but have seen it mentioned, so please point out any misassumptions :) I'd like to try merging some of the information that was in Surrealist groups into Surrealism#Surrealist groups (older diff), per the afd, and I was wondering if you could paste a copy of the last revision into my sandbox, or somewhere? Thanks. --Quiddity 06:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bruce Wydner

Did you forget to delete the co-nominated article Weidner Communications Inc.?  --Lambiam 09:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wrestling Federation deleted

Hi, I just found out that you deleted The Wrestling Federation's entry page. I would like to update that page and do not want to start over from scratch, could you please put it back up? Pfcool 18:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Lockout Wikipedian

Regarding: Image:Uberto_Eco_-_Foucault's_Pendulum.jpg.

The user, ], is currently locked out (until August 2007).

The item of your concern is a BOOK COVER.

--151.202.87.159 20:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Middle-earth in popular culture - pre-DRV request

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Middle-earth in popular culture - I am considering taking this AfD to deletion review, but I noticed that the instruction page there says it is best to contact the admin who closed the AfD, so I am doing that first. I feel there should be an article on Middle-earth in popular culture, and I feel that the existing information would be useful in writing that article. No new information has come to light, though I am certain I could track down some references to books and papers on the impact Tolkien's works have had on popular culture. There is one in particular that I am thinking of: Brian Rosebury's book which includes a chapter ""The Cultural Phenomenon." In this chapter Rosebury examines the "afterlife" of Tolkien's works and attempts to bring Tolkien criticism up to the present moment by considering the "cultural afterlife" of The Lord of the Rings in popular culture." - that would be the "new information" I would bring up. I could write the article again from scratch, but I would hope that you would consider allowing me to work from the existing article and pare it down and rebuild it with references? If you feel I should raise these arguments at deletion review instead, just let me know. Thanks. I am also going to notify those who voted on the original AfD, as they may like to add their opinions. Oh, I almost forgot, this article is actually part of a series of three articles on "after Tolkien". See Template:After Tolkien navbox to see what I mean. Carcharoth 11:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply on my talk page. I hope you don't mind me responding here to a few of the points you raised. I fully agree that the onus is on me (or whoever writes or rewrites the article) to find the references and sources first. My main problem is with how the AfD short-circuited the way I thought the article would be improved (the 'wiki' way). As long as no-one was unhappy with the article, I was quite happy to leave it the way it was and concentrate on more important things. As soon as anyone raised concerns, I would have been quite happy to carry out a rewrite. Indeed, I would have done so at the time of the original AfD, but completely missed the AfD altogether. You mention consensus, but looking at the AfD I actually see 5 delete votes and an absence of any arguments against. Given the long history of the article, and the existence of a WikiProject on this subject, the absence of any keep arguments suggests that those who would want to keep the article failed to notice the AfD.

In essence, I am asking to be allowed to carry out the rewrite that I would have done if I hadn't missed the original AfD. You suggest that I carry out a rewrite in my userspace, but I would be loathe to do this without starting from a complete restore and move (including the edit history). Anything less would contravene the GFDL under which the original contributions to that text were released. If you could restore and then move to my userspace, and then delete the redirect, would that be acceptable? I would then carry out a rewrite, adding sources, and then move it back to mainspace when I thought it was ready. I would notify you when I move it back, and if you or anyone thinks I've moved it back too early, or it is still unsuitable, then they could open a new AfD. Would that be acceptable?

To expand a bit more on some of the issues. You comment on the original content with "The original article was entirely unsourced POV original research" and "that stuff likely won't prove very useful". I'm looking at a mirror copy of the article and I agree that most of the material won't prove very useful. However, given the choice between writing something from scratch, and editing an existing article, I always favour the latter because it demonstrates the process by which articles change over time. Some of the sources I propose to use are the Brian Rosebury book I mentioned above, plus this book and this research project. There are also several news articles such as this one and there is also the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, which has several entries devoted to the reception of Tolkien's works in various countries, and in particular an article on Tolkien's cultural impact on the USA in the 1960s.

Quite clearly, there is enough in various sources for an article. The question then becomes how to illustrate the article with examples? Which ones should be chosen and which should be omitted? That would be something that would be discussed on the talk page of the article. Some of the ones I think worth mentioning are The Return of the Fellowship of the Ring to the Two Towers, The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins, Misty Mountain Hop, and Nightfall in Middle-Earth. The more trivial, one-liners, would be excised from the article. Does all this sound acceptable, and would you consider restoring the article and moving it to my userspace so I can work on it? Carcharoth 02:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Carcharoth 02:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Terror Level

What makes you think it's not relevant?--Hornetman16 21:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)