User talk:46.15.65.218

Lord of the Rings
Thank you for your intention to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Middle-earth. However, several things are going awry at once with your editing. Firstly, we do not normally cite the lead, summary, section. Secondly, the lead is just that, a summary, and it is never the place to introduce "new" materials, cited or not. Thirdly, Tolkien was extremely clear about the status of Middle-earth as the real green and solid Earth at some remote time in the past, something that is readily cited, but that is not the focus of this article, so the topic is inappropriate. Fourthly, the BBC is a respected source of journalism, but it is not the equivalent of Tolkien scholarship. Finally, it is not acceptable to keep trying to insert something into an article when you have been reverted (that's called edit-warring, even if you only retry once): the correct approach is to find a genuinely reliable source, and to discuss it on the talk page to obtain consensus. All the best,

Takk for at du har tenkt å forbedre Wikipedias dekning av Midgard. Flere ting går imidlertid galt på en gang med redigeringen din. For det første siterer vi normalt ikke lederen, sammendraget, delen. For det andre er ledelsen nettopp det, en oppsummering, og det er aldri stedet å introdusere "nye" materialer, sitert eller ikke. For det tredje var Tolkien ekstremt tydelig på statusen til Midgard som den virkelige grønne og solide jorden på et fjerntliggende tidspunkt i fortiden, noe som lett kan siteres, men som ikke er fokus i denne artikkelen, så emnet er upassende. For det fjerde er BBC en respektert kilde til journalistikk, men det tilsvarer ikke Tolkien-stipend. Til slutt er det ikke akseptabelt å fortsette å prøve å sette inn noe i en artikkel når du har blitt tilbakestilt (det kalles redigeringskrig, selv om du bare prøver på nytt én gang): den riktige tilnærmingen er å finne en genuint pålitelig kilde, og diskutere den på diskusjonssiden for å oppnå konsensus. Beste ønsker, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The BBC interview is Tolkien talking. First question he answers explicitly provides the different stage of imagination quote. So if there’s an opposing view equally cited, article should say that there are two views, or that Prof T contradicted himself, or whatever. Nick Levine (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Lord of the Rings, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please stop edit-warring! I have given you a friendly and gentle warning, and you reply by throwing it back in my face! That's totally out of order. You cannot force materials into the wrong place in the wrong article by edit-warring, it never works.''

Vær så snill å slutte å redigere! Jeg har gitt deg en vennlig og mild advarsel, og du svarer ved å kaste den tilbake i ansiktet mitt! Det er helt ute av drift. Du kan ikke tvinge materialer inn på feil sted i feil artikkel ved å redigere, det fungerer aldri. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure this is vandalism. See my comment above.
 * Take this to article talk page? Nick Levine (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)