Start a new talk topic.
List of Hobbit Families
The list of Hobbit Families page is both outstanding and informative. The Hanes names is indeed not true. My intent was to remove the change later this week. If it is at all possible, would you consider allowing me to add the familly name back in for a few days as we are creating a hobbit week at work for this week only?
UKIP negativity again!!
Please do not undo referenced and cited edits to UKIP's profile page. UKIP's membership has risen as of yesterday from 28,000-29,000+ as has been confirmed by the Official UKIP website which I referenced. Unexplained reversion of edits in the future will be reported as vandalism. I note you included the WP:IRS link for recognising reliable and unreliable websites. I would suggest that you have some pretty intense and unbalanced bias if you cannot recognise a official political party website citing exact membership figures as not being a reliable reference. If you have a personal problem with UKIP as it seems you do have from earlier messages from other users who take issue with your edits, and you are trying to label them/us as "Far Right" for example, and you cannot refrain yourself from unbiased edits, I suggest you refrain from editing the page altogether. Regards. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
- One- I would have thought an official site was fair enough reference. I use official references for football transfers etc and that has never been brought into question. Two- I have since added a third party reference. Three- I notice your multiple edits to UKIP's page because of unreliable first hand references. I wonder why then the Liberal Democrats Wikipedia page uses a Liberal Democrats run reference for its membership number. Yet you haven't changed that one have you? I accuse you of having a agenda taking note of multiple comments in your 'talk' page. Examples; Removing outdated analysis, accusations of Negativity towards UKIP from more than one user, trying to highlight UKIP as a "Far Right" party (LordFixit 07:16, 15 April 2014) and now this. It seems you have a direct issue with UKIP and I am getting really bored of correcting your insisting in keeping negativity of UKIP on the page. It is getting boring! User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
I am actually 27. The "2001" represents when I started going to High School.
Eucatastrophe: The source being referenced is not a credible. The statement provided is erroneous, and it needs to be removed. Surely you would not support an article stating that "2+2=5" no matter how many references the user provided... Deus ex machina and eucatastrophe are entirely separate terms. The source points to the destruction of the Ring as being both a eucatastrophe and a deus ex machina. It is the former, but not the latter. Wikipedia's deus ex machina describes it as a mechanism which involves a problem being "suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention." However, this does not describe the destruction of the Ring, given that it is foreshadowed since the second chapter of the book.
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor: WB may claim that their game abides by the lore, but that does not make it so. There are serious issues with that, and I believe that Wikipedia should not serve as their PR page. Their claim should be present, but so should refutations of that claim as well. The most serious error is that the protagonist in their game is a resurrected man. The source I provided (Morgoth's Ring) gives an explicit statement from Tolkien stating "No fëa of a dead Man ever returned to life in Middle-earth." Other errors exist as well: they have a guard post on the Black Gate 1600 years after it was abandoned in Tolkien's stories, they present NW Mordor as a lush environment, when it had been a ruined and desolate area for quite a long time. They have Gollum in Mordor several decades before he should be there. They use "wraith" erroneously -- "houseless elf" would be the appropriate term. They depict magical powers which did not exist in Tolkien's stories.
- I have to say I find it odd that you take issue with me removing a bad source, but then you decide to remove a perfectly legitimate one. Gódhellim (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Others may disagree with you, so just because you don't like it, a source needs not to be of bad quality at all. And as you both have been reverting happily back and forth at the article, you've started a typical edit war. Gódhellim, I have left a you a warning at your talk page, so please don't revert any more at this article unless there is consensus on what to include. And the same advice goes to Gimli who should know it better (although it has become utterly disruptive in this case, editing against consensus is not vandalism). I don't want to have to block any of you, so please keep on talking instead of reverting. De728631 (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm doing this right but hopefully I am. I don't use Wikipedia often so I hope this is the right place to send messages. I saw some changes back and forth on the shadow of mordor page and while I agree that they've taken the story to a different place than usual, they also own the company, the title... Well everything about Middle-Earth. So, when they say that the story they are creating is canon, then there's really nothing you can do about it except pretend it doesn't exist. I'm sure you also already know that a websites facts shouldn't be erased. One day the page says its canon(which is true) and the next it says its not(which isn't true)? Probably don't need to erase that because its true. You know? Now, maybe saying the few things about how the stories don't align is okay, but your going to erase the truth just because your upset about something? Wow. By the way, there are plenty of people excited for this game that don't have one problem with it. So let's leave the truth for them. How would you feel if you went to get info on something, look it up, and then find out later that the info you looked up was false because some fanboy was upset about it. And don't try and call anyone a fanboy or say your not one because I've NEVER seen someone who would create a hobbit family list... Maybe that's your thing, but I'd bet you would love this game too.
Thanks for reading! Sorry if I sound a little rude, but its all just the truth and I can't hold that back. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhillioChapps (talk • contribs) 14:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
But you don't own the rights to the franchise, they do. And how are you goin to say that a company called Middle-Earth interprizes doesn't have a say over Middle -Earth? Once again, they OWN IT, and have stated that it's canon. The only way you can believe its not true is by creating a fantasy world were the game was never created but, when you talk to other humans you just have to remember thats a fantasy, and it IS canon lol. By the way, there coming out with quite a few sequels. They said theres plenty o untold stories in Middle-Earth and that they not going to back any of the stories up into a corner. That means there's gong to be a lot more to come, and there all going to be canon! So, spend all day fixing a page so that it lies to others, there's the real proof your a fanboy! Gona sit there all day watching over the page to a game you don't like so no one puts the truth down about it being canon. Grow up and accept that it's canon, that you don't own the rights to change that, and there's more awsome canon LOTR games to come! And I'm sorry but If you really think your not lying on that page, then you must already be in that fantasy world were the games not canon. However, I'll always be here to remind you that it is... And that there's nothing you can do about it. Sorry to keep repeating that but it's true. It's canon and there not a thing you can do but gripe and complain just like a fanboy would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)