User talk:Sadads/Archive 2009 August

IFES
User talk:Alistairatlarge SADADS (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge process
As explained on Talk:Redistricting, the Redistribution (election) article was created to be general topic, and not be focused on one country. Redistricting was left focus on the US aspects of the process, as it is a primarily US term. There are other article about the process, particularly Redistribution (Australia), yet you have not proposed merging those articles also. Why should the US topic be merged in with the general one, but not the Austrailian, Canadian, Irish, and UK articles? You were aware that those articles existed, were you not? Why do think those countires should have separate articles on the redistribution/redistricting process, but not the US? Also, when you add merge tags to article, you need need to choose a single talk page - usually the aritcle title to be kept - for the discussion, and add a Merge rationale (a reason for the merge) there. I am willing to help you get this straightend out, but I'm not going to do all the work for you when I disagree to begin with, and when you may not even respond. In the future, it's better to read all the talk pages involved before proposing a merge, as this will give you a better idea of the issues involved, instead of just slapping on a tag. I don't mean to sound harsh, but the reasons why the situation is the way it is was already explained, and the fact that you singled out the US topic shows you don't understand the situation. - BilCat (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You really need to stop and discuss what you want to do first. Boundary delimitation is mostly redundant to Redistribution (election), which you want to get rid of. Odd. - BilCat (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK< I'm proposing to merge the new content from Boundary delimitation to Redistribution (election)‎, and opening a discussion on this at Talk:Redistribution (election). Feel free to weigh in. Also, I am removing the merge tag from Redistricting, as it appears evident you actions have been good faith, but not well thought-out. Feel free to re-propose the merge with a proper rationale, and to oppose mine if you oppose it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael de Angelo
Hi, Sadads, (new user) Question: You quoted the "sheer mass" of literature involving Merlin. This is the problem. The distinction between the re-interpretations and re-workings of the twelfth and thirteenth century French and German chroniclers of the Arthurian legend, and that fiction which seeks to use the historical record of fifth and sixth century Roman Britain is significant. The works of Michael de Angelo highlight this distinction, and offer a considerably different insight into the character of both Merlin and Arthur. To exclude these works from the appropriate pages it to exclude an entire class of such work, and therefore incorrectly limits knowledge and discovery into the possible historical record and understanding. A more serious review of this work would verify this Clearlight101 (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sadads. I do not quite understand. What are the sources (original research) listed for the presently included works of fiction regarding their relationship to the character of Merlin? Other than the fact of their publication, who decided that they were in fact related to Merlin, as opposed to Merlin in earlier romantic literature? In other words, how were they allowed in there in the first place? How does this section differ in content/purpose than the "Merlin in Fiction" page? Thank you. Clearlight101 (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, could you please tell me how long it takes for a new page to be approved/posted? Clearlight101 (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions on the Cyr Myrddin page. By the way, is this published, because I cannot find it on Wikipedia search. I will also think more about the Merlin page. Perhaps the text about contemporary literature should be moved to the "Merlin in Fiction" page, in order to present a more thorough, classified, and balanced view of the subject matter. I also find the reference to Roger Zelazny odd in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clearlight101 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)