User talk:Bookgrrl/Archive 2

Archive 2

09/14/06 - 08/28/07

Mythology
Hi Boogrrl you were the first person to encourage me on my mythology work. thank you. The Wiki Mythology project is currently understaffed and contacted me to say they need members? would you like to join and signup there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mythology Goldenrowley 17:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request
This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, for all or our sakes
Make sure that vandalism is vandalism before you revert it. As if I am already not disgusted enough by the slant taken on those "American Revolutionary War Heroes" already. 65.95.113.102 02:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Responded on user page and on talk page for article in question, Francis Marion. --Bookgrrl 03:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Francis Marion controvery
Yes, I find nothing in the citation that supports 65.95.113.102's claim. I believe you and I are in agreement. And, btw, something doesn't have to be vandalism to be reverted. The verifiability policy states that *any* edit may be reverted if it is not verifiable. 65.95.113.102's edit is so extreme that it should remain off the article page until (and if) there is a valid citation. Thanks Brian 03:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)btball

Alleged Cult/Cult Leader CfDs
To help with reaching consensus on these CfDs, I added categories to sort votes into reasons for Keep or Delete. You can confirm that I sorted you into the right group here and hereAntonrojo 19:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Placement is OK. Not sure about the propriety of sorting votes, though... --Bookgrrl 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say...
...that your AfD defense of List of fictional books was a tour de force. Well done! (I loved the Marx parody line, too.) Karen | Talk | contribs 04:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ayesha
Not too hard to find, just takes a few tricks. You might like to pass by WP:NOVELS :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  13:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you help?
It's been a while since we've spoken, but I need an independent user to do some copyediting for me, can you help me out?

†he Bread 06:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am in the process of getting Rocky up to FA standard. During it's passing GA review the reviewer suggested that I get an independent editor to give it a good copyedit

†he Bread 22:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, cheers, I owe you one

†he Bread

Could you review an article you tagged for cleanup?
Dear BG: I did some work on National Park Service Rustic, and am hoping it could now have the "needs cleanup" tag taken off. When you get a chance could you take a look? Sincerely, Novickas 17:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hurrah for Jinyong
1). The author is not Japanese. He's Chinese. 2). I don't know how to translate them, may be someone has an advanced Chinese and English skills helps. 3). Please reply to my talk page, I don't watch this. Thank you. Yao Ziyuan 10:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

LOGRTAC Editorials delisting - please vote in poll
Hi Bookgrrl, Right now there's a major change that's been edited into the List of groups referred to as cults rules, that if a slippery slope, could cause ripples across the encyclopedia and beyond. A member of the Wikipedia cult is acting just like other cults in trying to get WP delisted. It would be funny if it didn't make WP lose PR. If you are still interested in LOGRTAC please vote in the poll. Milo 14:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

BRC
Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Three Generous Men of Britain
Just wondering about your rationale for the redirect of this article -- not that I mind particularly but since the three men are not mentioned anywhere in the Welsh Triads article, now anyone searching on Three Generous Men of Britain won't learn anything other than that it's a Welsh Triad (which there's a good chance they knew already). I thought that when redirecting an article it was usual to ensure that the article's information, or at least a summary of it, was included in the new target page so that it wasn't lost? --Bookgrrl 23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the article included almost no information about the triad, other than listing the names of the three men and mentioning it appears in a modern fantasy novel; if there had been anything else, I would have merged it into the different articles. At any rate we can't go into detail about every triad in the Welsh Triads entry- there are 90 of them.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

testing new signature
--Bookgrrl holler/ eyeball 05:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, And...
The processing article is completely awesome! Go you. Could I convince you to contribute more to the archivist article? Efkeathley

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Tales of Legendia NPCs and Locations
I have added a "" template to the article Tales of Legendia NPCs and Locations, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.


 * Just spotted that someone had tagged a page you have contributed to a great deal for deletion - but they hadn't prodded you so I thought I should! I'm against the deletion but I think the page layout could do with simplifying...Madmedea 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

List template
Love the create-list template, very nice -- and useful :) Thanks -- --Bookgrrl holler/ looksee  02:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome :) —Xhantar Talk 07:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Gurshtein
Hello,

Who is this, and how do you know about Alex Gurshtein? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.187.15 (talk • contribs)


 * Not much, I just edited the article for quality of writing, not for content. --Bookgrrl holler/ lookee here 03:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hy-Many
"Shouldn't the name of the page be the Gaelic Uí Maine since it's an Irish topic, with a redirect from Hy-Many? Bookgrrl 18:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)"

You're right. I've forgotten how to do it, though, and am mostly retired from Wiki. Would you mind doing it? Pretty please? And anyway "Hy" is Norse for "island" so it gives the wrong impression. My bad. Is mise, Fergananim 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S: If I can be of any help with the Cenel nEogain Family Tree, Kings of Ireland, Kings of Ailech, please let me know. Fergananim 16:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unusual university spam discussion
I made a comment on the COI/N talk page. No response yet: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard --Ronz 23:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Uí Maine and Kings of Uí Maine
Much improved. Many thanks. Fergananim 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wandering Fire
Hi! I'm a relative newcomer to wikipedia, so maybe I am in the wrong, but I don't know. Can you take a look at The Wandering Fire article and the history for me? VictoriaGirl wrote that I was overlinking (on the WF talk page), and I want to know if my link tags really were excessive. I don't like jumping all over to follow a conversation, so just reply here, I've added your talk page to my watch list. Thanks in advance for the help, opinion and advice! Respectfully, eveningscribe 23:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Nrodovsky (or eveningscribe), welcome :) I took a look at The Wandering Fire and didn't see anything on the Talk page at all apart from the novel infobox, so I'm not sure what you're referring to there.  In the history, I looked at VictoriaGirl's edit that mentioned overlinking and I saw only one link that she had removed.  The question of overlinking is very subjective; what I generally do is if there's already a link somewhere on the page to a thing, then I don't link it elsewhere on the page.  In this case, it was a link to The Summer Tree, another book in the series which is readily available both in the infobox and in the sentence immediately preceding, so I would say there was no need to link it again.  As I said, though, it's very subjective, so best bet is to assume good faith and let it go, accept the edits.  Unless you feel strongly about them, in which case I'd talk it over with the person who made the changes. Happy editing! --Bookgrrl holler/ lookee here  15:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Thank you so much.  I belong to a writer's group in which we edit each other's work on hard copy, and its things precisely like this that its good to have an objective pair of eyes for.  I would have completely missed what she had edited out and why if you hadn't looked, and its great that you did, I was hesitant to "confront" her about it.  She was definitely right, and I feel so much better.  Thanks again!  :)  Evening Scribe 04:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dungy not trying to ban anything
FYI, I edited your last change to Tony Dungy because your wording – as well as any article that states similar rhetoric – is misleading and misconstues the true nature and essense of the law concerning marriage.

Previous language in the post as well as in the mainstream media today misconstrues this issue of the legalities involving marriage. Marriage, by definition is between a man and woman who are not already married and are of legal age. The last recently linked article stated that Dungy is attempting to “ban same sex marriage.” This is blantly incorrect. The implication in this writer’s assertion is that same sex marriage is already normal (i.e. legal), and that Dungy is trying to stop it. What else does “ban” mean? (Notice he does not say in that article that he embraces a “same-sex marriage ban.” Those are the news writer’s words, not Tony’s.  And I would submit the news organization’s words are intentional, and are meant to equivocate the true meaning of this issue. Just because the majority of the press may put it in those terms does not make it so.) In actuality, what Dungy is trying to do is preserve the institution of marriage – that is, he is trying to insure that marriage – again, a social institution strickly between a man and a woman – does not become extinct. If the law is changed whereby this conjoining social union becomes something other than a legal, civil union between a man and woman, than there is no such thing as marriage anymore. Pro-homosexual activists – whether those contributing to this post, or those in the press, want to make marriage arbitrary and meaningless. Government’s main duty is to protect its citizens. Laws are meant to protect people. What homosexual activists are trying to do, is redefine marriage in our laws. The outcome hurts people – especially the next generation, children.


 * I understand and agree with your criticism of the use of the word "ban," no problem. However, I did alter your edit slightly because you wrote that he "defended attempts by homosexual activists to alter the legal definition of marriage."  In fact it was quite the opposite; he objected to their proposed change and was in fact defending the amendment that would define "marriage" as between one man, one woman.  Hope the revised edit is more acceptable, please let me know rather than reverting it if you object and maybe we can come to an agreement on wording! --Bookgrrl holler/ lookee here  21:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Daoine Sidhe
I see you created an article by this name which was later deleted. You may be interested in knowing that there is a small-circulation magazine of the same name. The web address is courtofthefey.com.

Fair use
As I told Yllosubmarine (María), I put it together from other editors' rationales, so I can't claim much credit. But I'm glad you like it. Please use it, change it, rearrange it, and/or pass it on to anyone who needs it. -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  13:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

follow-up regarding Dungy's attempts at defending the institute of marriage
Just before posting the following, I noticed you removed your “banning” language. You seem like a fair-minded person. Having said this, I want to still post to you my prepared remarks to you prior to your recent update. I’m doing this, first, because I spent the time writing it. ; - ) …but second, because I think you will appeciate clarification on this significiant issue facing us as a nation -- and I’m afraid you won’t get much clarity on this much in the mainstream press. I’m also posting it so perhaps others will read it as well.

Don’t take anything I say about what you wrote very personally. It’s entirely based on what I read from your previous post over the weekend. Again, your change shows you are open to fair arguments and the facts. : )

YOU SAID IN YOUR TALK TO ME:

FYI, I edited your last change to Tony Dungy because the article cited actually states that he opposes same-sex marriages. The link in the reference was dead so I also updated it with a live one. --Bookgrrl holler/lookee here 14:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand and agree with your criticism of the use of the word "ban," no problem. However, I did alter your edit slightly because you wrote that he "defended attempts by homosexual activists to alter the legal definition of marriage." In fact it was quite the opposite; he objected to their proposed change and supported (defended) the amendment that would define "marriage" as between one man, one woman. Hope the revised edit is more acceptable, please let me know rather than reverting it if you object and maybe we can come to an agreement on wording :) --Bookgrrl holler/lookee here 21:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

MY RESPONSE:

First, I appreciate your willingness to find common ground. However, I have yet to be persuaded by you enough to give you any ground. That is why I reverted it. I won’t compromise for the sake of “finding middle ground” but will only give ground because you have persuaded me based on sound, rationale arguments and facts. My stance can be derived from natural law, history, and sound policy-making principles. That’s not to say you may not gain ground. I just wish you gain it because of persuasive arguments and not because you happened to devote more time to more taps on your computer screen. Simply reverting it back to the “banning” and other pro-gay equivocations without good reasons would be after all, heavy-handed. Therefore, I appeal, in good nature, to your sense of conscience and reason. Let that be the basis of reverting, not compromise for “compromise sake.”

Secondly, I think I understand where you’re coming from on your point in your last talk. I think you’re saying by Dungy’s support of an amendment that would DEFINE marriage as between one man and one woman, that he, in essence, is doing the very act I accused the other side of doing – namely, redefining what marriage is. Is that right? If I am right in understanding you, let me ask you, what has marriage always been? The obvious answer, of course, until recently, is that it has always been a union between one man and one woman. So if that’s what Dungy is supporting, how could he be redefining it? Actually, he simply wants to codify into law what it has always intended to be. He is a traditionalist you can say. He wants things to remain what they have always been. Who’s trying to change things? The Homosexual activists are the ones who are trying to change the definition (and interpretation) of legal marriage.

Marriage BY DEFINITION has always been a civil union between opposite gendered individuals – of whom both are not already married and are of legal age. Marriage has always discriminated in this way. The law restricts me from marrying in many ways; the state does not legally recognize nor support -- as marriage -- a union between me and someone who is already married, me and more than one qualified person, me and a legally-defined minor, and me and a dog, or horse, or any other non-human. These restrictions include unions between me and anyone of the same sex.

If homosexual activists had their way and could rewrite the laws so that legal marriage includes same-sex couples, then that would redefine what marriage is for all of us. In fact, that of course has already happened in parts of this country. And the results have already been felt. For one, in Massachusetts, Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to either go against their beliefs and allow gay couples to adopt in their programs or shut down all together. To protect the integrity of what they stand for, these Catholic organizations were left with no other option than to close their doors.

Lastly, I don’t see Dungy, nor any social conservative, advocating the banning of gay marriage per se. Gays have been allowed to marry for a long time now. In fact, a cottage industry has emerged that caters to gays who want to have a ceremony and call themselves committed partners – even a married couple. Frankly, I, for one, have no problem with that. Nevertheless, what they want now is for society at large to affirm these “gay marriages” as legitimate social contracts. They are trying to force the rest of us to say these unions are a good thing and to support them. Society has good reason not to affirm such lifestyles. The facts show that support for such unions would not be in the best interest of society. Government, rather, should be about the business of promoting the public good. That’s why this issue – if accurately referred to – is not about “banning gay marriage” as is often portrayed in the mainstream media. Instead, it’s about “defending marriage” or about “opposing same-sex marriage.” The media writ large states it wrong. And I would argue these equivocations are intentional for the most part.


 * Well, that's as may be; there are strong feelings on all sides. In my edits to the article I was not pushing any particular viewpoint either overtly or covertly, simply working for an accurate reflection of what Dungy supported.  As it stands now I think the wording is a correct and truthful statement of Dungy's position (he did support the amendment and the amendment was for the purpose stated), so if you're happy with it and I'm happy with it then it's all good :)   --Bookgrrl holler/ lookee here  19:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Daoine sidhe
When I deleted it, this article was a long promo piece for a gaming clan, starting with:

"You are currently browsing our wiki-pages which is a handy tool that brought DS a new depth when it comes to handling information and expressing both this and that. First of all the hyperlink-adress to our official website, DS.2, is here (www.daoinesidhe.net). Then second of all; this page defines some sort of a general summary of what has come to be one of the elder clans ever to have existed online. Many games have we conquered, many roads have we travelled and there are still endless of them to come. If you feel intrigued by our wide range of differences of approaches, ways of living online and our family-like community: make sure you visit our website."

I've recreated Daoine sidhe as a redirect to Sídhe, which discusses the legendary Daoine Sidhe in some detail. Daoine Sidhe (second word capitalized) already redirects there. Thanks, NawlinWiki 19:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No deletion review necessary, because whatever you would be posting would not be about the gaming clan. If you think Daoine sidhe deserves its own article, just replace one of the redirects with your text (and change the other redirect).  NawlinWiki 19:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Maron
A very nice start--great work. Can I admit that I've read not a single one of her books? But she's one of my wife's favorites, and I knew she'd won several awards and had some bestsellers, so I thought her absence was a glaring omission. Now remedied, thanks to you. Best-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  03:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

overly hasty speedy deletion...
Someone else removed the speedy deletion you applied to Hafiz Abdul Basit. Sorry, but your nomination did not, IMO, comply with WP:CSD.

The third paragraph of WP:CSD says:

You placed your nomination tag a mere three minutes after the article was created. I find it hard to believe that this provided you with enough time to properly read the article, and check its references, to form an informed opinion as to whether it could usefully be expanded.

I left a comment on Talk:Hafiz Abdul Basit, where I explained why, IMO, criteria A7 doesn't apply.

Is there any possibility that you could consider following the recommendation of WP:CSD, and refraining from tagging articles within mere minutes of their creation? What I did after creating what I thought was a viable stub, was create viable stubs for Tariq Pervez, the director-general of Pakistan's Federal Investigation Agency, and Iftikhar Mohammad the Chief Justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court.

Is there any possibility that you could exercise more discretion, and refrain from calling on the authority of A7 for nominating controversial articles for deletion?

Cheers! Geo Swan 11:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am at a loss to understand why you were more restrained in your tagging of this pub, than you were for a guy at the center of huge political scandal, particularly when the article about the pub is totally unreferenced. Geo Swan 13:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't help noticing you were also more restrained with your tagging of Artemis Pebdani, even though this article too, unliked Hafiz Basit's, has no references. I am trying to find a tactful way to say this.  Is it possible you are forgetting that the wikipedia is an international project, and that the citizens of other nations are as deserving of coverage here as Americans?  Geo Swan 14:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the courteous feedback -- your comments are justified and I will take more care in future! Bookgrrl holler/ lookee here 02:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Trefnant
Hi and thanks for your message on Welsh wikipedia. As requested, I've added what little we have in the Welsh article to the English half-liner (not too informative, that one!), changed the category and added the interwiki link, such as it is. I'm afraid I can't help much more than that at present. If I find anything to add in Welsh I'll try to remember to add it here. Hwyl, Enaidmawr 19:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (=anatiomaros's alter ego, or v.v.!)