User talk:Causesobad

Note
I've removed your username from the Signpost spamlist. Arfan 13:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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 19:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Back?
Haha, welcome back, then. I hope you didn't come back only to create more edit wars. Btw, I suggest you remove your name from the SuggestBot request list, or I'll do that for you. This Bot would only be helpful when you're active again. Arfan 12:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You may find this rather funny. 12:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Severus Snape
Hi. I noticed that you removed the comment on Folken's name which I had placed in the discussion. This originally came up as Folken has taken to making comments using the first person plural, and I was obliquely suggesting that perhaps he should not. Now, he also unjustifiedly deleted my original comment, so I explained at further length what I meant. Despite his invitation in the edit summary to discuss this on his home page, he simply deleted my query when I posted there asking for an explanation. I reinserted my comment, as did three other editors, I think, and he again requested discussing this on his home page. Again he was queried there, and again merely deleted everything posted. He also deleted his debate over this with John Reeves, who consequently blocked him for bad behaviour. Now, I have to say I regard a users nickname as fair game for comment, and anyway do not see why a user should in any way feel insulted by people discussing his nickname, which he has freely chosen. If I was being more pointed, I would suggest that my observation, as a point of grammar, that only royalty use the pronoun 'we', when they mean I, came much closer to the mark than I expected. But it is nonetheless apt that an editor should not be making posts using 'we', when he is in fact expressing his own personal opinion, and he deserves to have this pointed out publically. Aside from that, Folken has a considerable history of deleting anything he dislikes, and I really don't think this practice should be encouraged on talk pages. Sandpiper 13:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ...and chatting about things which are completely irrelevant to the article should be encouraged on talk pages. 15:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is not irrelevant to reprimand an editor for exaggerated claims. Sandpiper 09:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I just wrote a nice reply, but regrettably I was interrupted and the whole thing has disappeared. However I shall try again. First, 'edit a bit'. See my reply to libatius who queried the same thing, but the description correctly describes the edit. If you check the history, you will see that indeed I have reinserted the same ideas as per michaelsanders quite a number of times, but this time I felt the paragraph really needed a bit of tidying up, so I did edit it a bit. I don't think anyone normally interested in the page would be misled by this into thinking I had inserted something entirely new. But I was hoping Michaelsanders would notice my changes (which would very likely disappear shortly) and decide whether he liked them, or not. Or, any other parties, of course. Libatius did quite accurately surmise that I get bored writing the same thing in an edit summary all the time, and certainly in a situation like this, writing rv is somewhat superfluous. Those interested know exactly what is going on. An edit comment is supposed to be informative, after all.

Now, Folken. I have no problem debating with an editor who has firm ideas, different to my own, about an article. However, Folken's insistence that he is the final arbiter of how rules may be interpreted is another matter. It would be better if he demonstrated an accurate knowledge of them, but he does not. For example, somewhere he calls me a liar for telling him there is a rule IAR, after he had been expounding on some point and protesting that rules are inviolable. It was quite funny. The real point at which he lost my respect, or at least polite attention, was after agreeing to a compromise proposal on 'Deathly Hallows', and then protesting madly when it was inserted into the article a week later. There comes a point where it is necessary to stop being nice and object quite firmly, in the interests of maintaining the encyclopedia.
 * No, I had never accepted any new version (as another user said to Michaelsander' -you two are so similar you could even be sockpuppets-, "You simply can't grasp that things might be different from your phantasy"). I said it was a basis that still needed to be worked on, and I pointed out various issues. After days of silence, I thought you had dropped all this, and suddenly I saw you had tagged your imperfect proposal for inclusion, without fixing any of the issues I had noted. Obviously you didn't know (and still don't) what "consensus" means. On a side note I think, since you started about it, that it is worth mentioning that your proposal you're refering to, was later rejected from inclusion by a majority of active contributors on the article.
 * I see also that if you're ranting again about something which is months old now, shows that there is something undoubtedly personal behind all this "let's revert Folken !" thing...You just didn't accept that your version was rejected by general consensus, and now I'm the target of your frustration...Folken de Fanel 23:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * SeeTalk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows/Archive_7. Sandpiper 09:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, none of the specific points of disagreement with Folken is necessarily essential. However, a glance at the french wiki HP suggests that Folken has been significantly responsible for reducing its content to the barest minimum.
 * Can you read french ? It's written nowhere on your user page so I guess it's no. So don't speak of thing you don't know.
 * Besides, I have never ever reduced the french DH content to the barest minimum. I have, as many others have done, removed all the blatant OR from fanatics like you. Folken de Fanel
 * Merde, vraiment je ne comprend pas.Sandpiper

His behaviour on 'Deathly Hallows' suggests that this would be his objective here too, and his arguments in discussion suggest that any conceivable reason may be advanced to support his position.
 * My objective here, with other people, is to make the DH article encyclopedical, and not merely another blog or a mirror for fansites and their own little speculations.Folken de Fanel
 * Good, I approve of making things more informative. show me where you have added sourced analysis of the books of any description, rather than removing it. Sandpiper 09:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If this was just some series, then it would perhaps not matter, though an editor who was in fact simply determined to reduce content would not really be acceptable anywhere. However, we are currently expecting the final book in approximately 3 months, together with the next film. I was listening to the radio today, where someone was talking about a different female author, and saying she was second only to Rowling in popularity, although Rowling writes for children. This was not precisely true. Rowlings books are officially childrens books, but they significantly owe their success to also being detective novels which appeal to adults. Having spent 15 years working on these books she is keen that readers will take best advantage of her hard work, and try to work out the ending before it is printed. Rowling encourages this. Indeed, she delights in it. The difficulty (as she is on record as saying), is to encourage readers, but still not reveal the ending. Folken seems not to appreciate this point. It is important to any useful coverage of these book that they report what is known and has been deduced about the puzzles set in the story so far. This is entirely distinct from what the final outcome may really be.

As a case in point, RAB and the locket, which have been blighting 'Horcrux' and 'RAB' (apologies if you already know all this). Rowling was asked on publication day of HBP whether RAB was Regulus. She did not confirm it, but she did say she expected people to guess it. I would say within a week, it was regarded as a significant possibility that the locket in question had been seen at Grimmauld place in book 5. This is pretty much an open secret, and I think intended by Rowling to be such. I judge it is part of her plan, along with intermittent 'leaks' of one sort or another to keep people interested in the books until the last one appears. However, it is entirely proper for us to report the basic plot, and what people have surmised. The interesting part will be to see how the real story turns out, and to what extent Rowling is ahead of the game. Before publication our proper course is to report the main points of what is thought about the books. Not to do so is to spoil the experience for all concerned. I entirely agree that articles should be couched in a neutral way, not pushing particular theories, and even underplaying ones which are regarded as certainties. But my approach is to create good informative articles, not ones which merely parrot the story. Folken's intent seems to be to delete anything remotely controversial, and I see this as entirely wrong headed, not to say spoiling the HP experience for many. I believe people should be encouraged at any opportunity to think.
 * Your not on your personal blog and your not allowed to post your personal theories. You can shout as you want, you can insult me as you want, you will change nothing.
 * You're the only one spoiling the HP (and the WP) experience. Folken de Fanel

So, this is a matter of principle with regard to editors who are bull-headed, and particularly fast and loose with fair dealing, but more importantly it is a matter of defending the usefulness of the articles to readers at the time when they are most needed. I don't see it as wiki's role to take the place of mugglenet, Lexicon, etc, which have all played their own part in hosting debates which have allowed people to develop the theories about the books. This phenomenon is something which could not have happened without the internet, and this is a significant part of why such sites are in this specific case exceptionally good sources of information. Our role, however, is to report the clearest conclusions. My reponses might appear aggressive and short tempered, but I assure you they are also calm and judicious. I agree that reinserting a comment, which for some reason Folken refuses to discuss, he finds it necessary to blank out, is mean, but it is not acceptable to persistenly delete comments from talk pages. This is simply an extension of his habit of mutiply reverting articles to his version (a tactic which he has used to good effect on a number of HP articles and I believe from a quick look also on articles in the genre from which his name arises). Folken once suggested leaving out all the sections he finds unacceptable until after publication of the last book. My suggestion is rather the opposite, let them remain for 3 months and the issue will largely dissolve. Sandpiper 22:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Our role is not to report the "clearest conclusion", moreover when they don't exist.
 * I have agreed to let you one month to find a source. After that, the text will be deleted and you can be sure no one will be opposed to this since it's a blatant No OR violation. I'm kind enough to let you one month to find a source, so instead of wasting days saying all over Wikipedia that I'm the incarnate Devil, you should try to work and find a source. Folken de Fanel 23:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, don't you hate it when a nice flowing piece gets cut to pieces with interjections? Sandpiper 09:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message on Sandpiper's talk page
Just to clarify a few things. You can say what you want to Sandpiper, I'm not going to blame you for your opinion in these matters, and it's not an attempt to meddle with your private conversations with Sandpiper. However there are a few things which directly concern me :


 * On Regulus Black, I am not satisfied in any way with Sandpiper's version (please don't start claiming such things, because he won't hesitate to attribute it to me and to use it instead of properly debating). I have merely agreed to discuss the matter on the talk page first, instead of immediately getting involved into an edit war as is Sandpiper's habit. If you read the talk page, you'll see that I strongly disagree with him and that I'm not the only one.


 * I removed "considerable amount of information from Deathly Hallows" ? Please look at the history of the article, the said content (which was only a small paragraph of 5 sentence, by the way) had already been previously removed by another user, there was already a conciderable discussion about it, I merely confirmed there was a problem with this "content". Please note also that the removal of this content was later approved, both in the course of the debate and in a proper voting, by a large majority of the active contributors to the DH article. So please, don't be too quick in trusting Sandpiper and his "drama queen" attitude he tends to adopt each times thing don't go the way he would have liked...


 * As I have said previously, I did not even initiate the discussion about DH, it had started a few days before...(again, when Sandpiper switches to "Drama Queen" mode, he likes to blame me for every single evil in the world).


 * "intolerantly disruptive, “bull-headed” and uncivil" ? If you closely look at the history pages of the articles I contributed to, I'm sure you'll notice 2 other editors having a certain fancy for revert warring, namely Sandpiper and Michaelsanders. Obviously, a fight never involves only one side, and it was obviously not me reverting myself each time...
 * On the issue of "disruptive and bull-headed" I think my opponents have proved their perseverance in these domains. Because they obviously have to be disruptive and bull-headed in some way, to spend days fueling revert wars in various HP article (and in the case of Michaelsanders, in various articles not even HP-related) with various pointless and endless debates. Also because after a few months, they obviously revert my edits more by "personal disliking" than anything else...
 * Also, if Sandpiper systematically ends up making dubious analogies between my edits and the Nazi ideology, and if Michaelsanders systematically ends up concidering me as a French bastard who can't even understand english, it certainly means they are bull-headed and uncivil in some way...

Folken de Fanel 19:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not severus snape
Hi again, Causesobad, and nice to hear from you. Now where to start? Last read, first remembered. I have always been inclined to double up on ls. I also, and completely separately, type badly and find lots of typos when I re-read. Some find their way into the text. Strangely, some of the first discussion I read on wiki was very much of the inter-mixed comment type. After getting used to what was going on, I kinda assumed that is how it is supposed to be done.

Had Folken not beaten me to it, I would have pointed out that I was not aware he had accepted anything. A number of articles now are blocked, which means they are not likely to have much traffic. I'm also busy, and Michaelsanders seems to have disappeared too. I fancy it is his turn to comment. I think you are somewhat optimistic in interpreting absence of opportunity as absence of intent. However, this does also depend which article you are reading. The disputed paragraph re the locket in RAB is essentially the same paragraph about which the same dispute first arose on 'Horcrux'. (the information being relevant to both). The debate on Horcrux concerned a more refined version which was more or less accepted by three editors, but still opposed on all counts by Folken. The debate on RAB is thus something of an extension of the same debate which had already occurred on Horcrux. Not seeing the point of another extended debate, we havn't. Similarly, even if I had placed a very specific edit comment on the RAB page, 'edit a bit', I don't see it would materially have helped anyone to understand what was going on. I have already given you the long explanation of that one, yet I suspect you still did not understand the full circumstances.

I agree, Folken can make good edits. The difficulty is that he frequently argues to disallow the most obvious of sources, eg the websites. re your comment on general references, where specific pages from those websites have been introduced, Folken has claimed that they are fansites, and thus inadmissable(etc). Mostly, on RAB, no one has previously made an issue of this, so there was no reason why specific refs would be intelaced in the text. When he declined to accept websites, we (sanders and I independantly) found him a couple of books. One by someone who seems to have become famous as a proponent of the books as having a strong christian message, and the other a professional analyst of this sort of literature. I have the impression that his view is that no theory about the books can be included, because in the absence of the final volume it can only be speculation. It is of course true that it is speculation, but it is widespread speculation which is being reported. Either he does not see this distinction, or does not accept it. So I further suspect that his delving into the rules is rather to support his POV, rather than the other way about, in pursuit of adherence to rules. My impression is furthered when he, as I would see it, misinterprets the rules. I suspect that the debate on 'Deathly Hallows' only ended because people became sick of it, so agreed with Folken to shut him up. In the long run, this is not a good policy.

I'm not sure what you consider to be a real article. The article RAB is somewhat akin to the artcle Half-blood Prince. Both are mysteries set by Rowling. The RAB one was set only at the end of the book, whereas HBP was set right at the start, and we get a solution by the end. Otherwise, both are discussing a puzzle set to readers, and it is only a question of where you have got to in the story. An article is about what there is to say on a subject. In the RAB case, almost everything is external to the books, as I beleieve it was obviously intended to be. It is a big TO BE CONTINUED... sign tacked on the end of the story, and I think it was deliberately intended as a throwaway, so that we could all work it out and then Rowling might simply confirm it on page 1, and spend her book writing about something entirely different and unexpected. Or Regulus might be important, or pigs may fly (rather more likely in the wizarding world), or whatever, who knows for sure. But what we have, is the existing debate which we should be reporting as a legitimate phenomenon which has grown around the puzzle.
 * The debate on deathly hallows was about exactly this same issue. Rowling has set another puzzle, which is what does the title mean. Like HBP we will find out by the end, but in the meanwhile we should be reporting the debate about it. I am slightly ambivalent about this, because there is some degree of 'spoiler' attached to explaining the book before it appears. But on the whole I think we are doing exactly what Rowling wants, by explaining the debate her announcement created and the theories about what the title means. I still don't know how up to speed you are on this, but I also found it very entertaining/clever when I discovered Rowling had used a statue of Hermes to send yet another message to her readers. I don't doubt this was another clue and deliberate invitation to speculate about the title.

I can't say for sure on what Langford based his claim. I quoted what he wrote about it on the RAB talk page. He asserts that many people have come to this view, which is the point of referring to him, as an authority that it is indeed being debated. Personally, I don't see that this claim is ridiculous. There was considerable debate on the subject on the aformentioned websites at the time, still now, and there are now editorials saying the same sort of thing. naturally, if I thought he was wrong I would not be arguing in support of citing him. (An example of where editorial opinion legitimately influencces content.) But this issue of citing books about HP has only come about because Folken declines to accept the source websites as evidence that people are indeed discussing these issues. Never mind that the author recommended that readers should do so. I don't agree that it is inappropriate that we pass on her reommendations for sources about her books to readers. As a matter of course, i think any article should have some general refs indicating the best places to look for more information. Don't you? Sandpiper 22:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue generally has little to do with severus Snape. Michael supported inclusion of the passage, and on balance I think it deserves to be there. But we have rehearsed just about any argument you can think of elsewhere already. Sandpiper 22:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mailbox
Check it! 17:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh God
Arjen Robben is now a good article! I never believed I could make it qualified, but it's passed the GA review. My first GA ever!! Robben should be rightly proud to have me as his fan :-) I'll continue to work on the article to improve it further. Thank you for your advice when I first started editing this article. Btw, I've replied to your email. Arfan 07:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey hey hey, online? Arfan 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Who care about updating stupid news?!!? I won't add it to the article. Check your mailbox in a few mins. I'm writing sth to send you. 16:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied. Arfan 16:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)and another mail :) 02:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Illinois 2007 Census
IvoShandor 11:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call
Melon ‑ Bot  ( STOP! )  17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
-- Nadir D Steinmetz 09:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

File:Magic wand Harry Potter.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Magic wand Harry Potter.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 06:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Deletion
I'm trying to get the above project active again. If you like to participate, please add you name to the project page. Mad Man American (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

File permission problem with File:Wet Method Phosphoric Acid Production.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Wet Method Phosphoric Acid Production.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)