User talk:TreebeardTheEnt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, TreebeardTheEnt, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Elphion (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Bombadil[edit]

I hope you're not taking the discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings personally: we're not ganging up on you. But you are using the Talk page to advance a personal view of the book. That's not the point of Talk pages. You raised the question of whether Bombadil should be considered a major character; that's fair. The answer, basically, is: it certainly isn't obvious from the text; find a reliable source to convince us otherwise. Reliable sources includes scholarly accounts published by reputable publishers; it doesn't extend to opinions aired on fan pages, even relatively good ones like "The Thain's Book". (And in the long run, Tolkien's discussion in Letter #144 (pp 178-9) will probably trump anything you find!) -- Elphion (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

(Letter #144 is quoted at length in Tom Bombadil.) -- Elphion (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Herman Melville[edit]

Nice work on Herman Melville; welcome to Wikipedia! - Neonorange (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you please read some guidelines to Wikipedia policy first, and not add any unsourced material to Melville's pages? The suggestion that Melville's ambivalence mirrored his parents's ambivalence should be attributed to a scholar, otherwise it looks like it is your own opinion.MackyBeth (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC).
Please assume good faith. - Neonorange (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This back-and-forth editing in the Wikipedia article Herman Melville is getting close to a violation of the three revert rule; more than three reversions of materially the same edit within a 24 hour period. Please 'assume good faith' and be civil. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and no one 'owns' an article. Time to get other opinions. -Neonorange (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

The warning I posted has some scary words. Don't worry... you have properly stepped back. Keep in mind the warning, but recognize that any editor can post this warning with a Wikipedia:Template. Only an administrator can take the action. I'm sure that, as a good Ent, only Saruman could provoke you again! - Neonorange (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Humility may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • according to the words of St. James, ``God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble'' ({{bibleref|Proverbs|3:34}}, {{bibleref|1Peter|5:5}},{{bibleref|James|4:6}}.
  • |source=(translation of the [[Tao Te Ching]]} by) [[Arthur Waley]] 1958:225| align=right|width=19%}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Karl Marx stuff[edit]

Hello there Treebeard. I don't mean to be disruptive by reverting your recent edit to Karl Marx, and I am not averse to changes in the actual wording of that section. However, a number of errors have been included into the text as a result of recent edits to it – references placed before punctuation marks, information being removed from the sentence in which it is referenced, non-referenced material added, and parargaphs divided into two for no clear reason. For this reason, it was necessary to undo these recent edits, restoring the prose to a stage where such problems were not apparent. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Bloodlands[edit]

I have initiated a discussion over at Bloodlands [1]. I would appreciate your response on the talkpage of Bloodlands. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Viola Liuzzo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloody Sunday (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

American Left[edit]

Your comments at Talk:American_Left#This_article_is_biased_and_needs_to_be_re-written. were very helpful in eventually convincing me to get my butt into the library. What those Oxford socialists actually wrote in 1998 is at Talk:American_Left#Encyclopedia_of_the_American_Left_2nd_ed._1998_verification_failure_.28use_of_first_edition.27s_preface.29 . The path is more open for a rewrite as a result. I hope you go there and contribute if you can. I also mentioned your text at Talk:American_Left#Buhle.2C_Buhle.2C_and_Georgakas_should_still_be_used_to_determine_article_scope. and on my talk page in the hide/show window at User_talk:Flying_Jazz#Scope_issues_at_Talk:American_Left. I don't like articles that have a narrow scope and don't present anything in context, but I can't help you beyond broadening the scope, so the potential for adding context now exists. I'm sick of editing in there, and I'm not interested enough in the topic over the long term. Thanks again. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, be sure to check out my userpage! It tells a simple and humorous tale. Flying Jazz (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)