User talk:Icarus3/Archive1

Archive This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

This archive spans June 2005 through March 2006. It contains all content added prior to and during a Wikibreak from October 2005 through March 2006.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Welcome!

Hello, Icarus3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 04:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Morning after pill

Whilst I disagree with 'pro-life' view point, I thought User:Stevertigo had useful quotes on the issues as well as some interesting divergence of opinion within the 'pro-life'. I thought the article much improved for the extra information, but overall the article disorganised and need of tidy up too. The sections indeed needed reorganising as some of the controversy issues came before even the description on the types emergency contraception and advise on their use.

I've been trying to tidy up much of the contraception articles as often the side-effects or controversy sections came before any description as to what was being talked about. So with your correct assessment of the article, I have reorganised Morning after pill and cut out a little of the duplication. There is quite an extensive discussion on this article and I have added to this too. Please let have a look and let me know what you think (of the 'work in progress'). David Ruben 17:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I revoked this...

... ozemail editors were too badly effected. Thanks for letting me know though. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure?

You say you're not into alot of the things you work on, but damn there's some weird stuff in the last few days you've contributed to. Nothing personal though, but I just find it odd. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

My user name...

Actually no, though interesting coincidence, as I've indeed read it, and was commenting on the OSC article quite recently. Alai 20:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Radio Disney

Actually, the article is deleted already. That's why it's a read link. I'm not sure what your question is. VfDs are closed 5 days after they go up with few exceptions. --Woohookitty 04:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfDs are eligible to be closed 5 days after the vote opens. It sometimes takes 2-3 days before someone gets around to closing them, but when they do and the vote is for delete, the article is deleted immediately. --Woohookitty 23:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome pages

I've reverted your changes to Welcome and Wikipedia:Welcome newcomers. We don't usually allow redirects from one namespace to another. I think its appropriate for the Welcome page to have a link to the Welcome newcomers page, but this is unusual and we encompass that link in a self-ref template to highlight that. Without the redirect, the mention of the town called Welcome isn't needed on the Welcome newcomers page, as no one will ever reach that page looking for the town.-gadfium 08:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice

Thanks for the advice Icarus. I've been to AA a few times, (I used to drink a lot when I was a teenager, but never really an alcoholic, I don't drink much anymore) and I've always found their attitude towards athiests very offensive. I have nothing against A.A. except that, well maybe a couple small things, and think that it's great if it helps people, I just think they should be more accepting of people's beliefs, which they say they do, but in a very disingenuos way I think.

I don't think I'm too much of a hothead. Bit good advice!

Icarus

Odd thing, I created the Icarus account, years upon years ago. Would you perhaps care to adopt it? I'm not using it anymore. -- lcarus 09:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lily and james Potter

Hi, interesting to read about enders game. Always liked the book, myself. Thought the film terrible.

Anyway, i noticed you removed a comment about Snape from the article on James and Lily potter. Now, i put it in because it is increasingly apparent that there was some sort of relationship between Snape and Lily. Kinda relevant to a biography. It is all wrapped up with Snape's reaction to Harry...because of who and what his parents were in Snape's life. Also interesting for the triangular relationship theme lily-snape-James, James attacking him and Lily defending him. There is a good body of opinion that Lily is/was the major motivation for Snape becoming a good guy. Anyway, it is undoubtedly part of her legacy to Harry. The question is just what is the best way of working it in Sandpiper 20:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do find the speculation about a friendship between Lily and Severus interesting. However, if it is to be included in any Wikipedia article, it needs to be backed up with hard facts from either the books, interviews with Rowling, or other valid sources. There are a million and one fan theories out there, some of which contradict eachother, many of which have been proven wrong over time, and many others that will never be proven right or wrong. Theory, opinion, and speculation do not belong in Wikipedia, as fascinating as they often are. If you have sources to back up the theory of Lily and Severus's friendship, by all means include them. Otherwise, the extent of its inclusion should be a line akin to "Because of the way Lily chastised James for his mistreatment of Severus, some fans have theorized that Lily and Severus were friends." --Icarus 03:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,well i had it in mind just to note that she defended him and the circumstances of their being classmates, but someone took it out of the article on the grounds it better belonged under 'snape'. wiki is not paper. If there is fact about one person interacting with another, then it is part of the biography of each.Sandpiper 06:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or was it the 'most probably' you did not like? This is a 'balance of probablility' most probably, rather than a wild guess one. It is stated that gryffindor and Slytherin share potions classes, hence they would be. It is also stated they were in the same year. There remains some element of doubt as it has not yet been explicitly stated that they were. (or maybe JKR has conceded this by now).Sandpiper 06:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That Lily defended Severus when James was bullying him deserves a mention. But any information about Lily and Severus having any sort of friendship is pure speculation at this point, unless you have a link to an interview with Rowling in which she confirms it. Just because they were in the same class doesn't mean they were friends. Just because Lily didn't like the way James bullied Severus doesn't mean they were friends. They might have been, but there's no way to know one way or another. Unsourced speculation does not belong in Wikipedia. --Icarus 07:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you just hate the inherent difficulty of conducting a discussion when the two parties' sections appear on different pages? Ah well. The issue is all about the potions book, Snape being the owner and indeed becoming potions master, yet lily was the innovative star student, without their class teacher Slughorn mentioning Snape. That needs explaining. On the justifiable assumption that JKR does not go in for red herrings, and just about everything has a triple plot point attached, all this stuff is important information. The plain conclusion is that somehow lilies brilliance became written down into Snapes book. Whether they were lovers, friends, or Snape just cheated is harder to say, but plainly they collaborated on the book. I would not be at all surprised to find that lily was the one person (mentioned by JKR) who loved Snape. But more importantly, that he loved her. As to including theories, widely held theories are eminently includeable, and as far as I can see are indeed included about most works of fiction.

There is an important distinction between discussing fiction and discussing fact: In the factual universe there exists a right answer, such that guessing becomes inappropriate when actual information is unavailable. In a fictional world there is an actual edge to the known world. The factual information about things beyond that 'edge' is that readers have made their best guess, and what that guess is.Sandpiper 00:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a possible theory. But Slughorn's personality must also be taken into account. He wants to form social and political alliances. Flattery, by means of emphasizing (or even exaggerating) Harry's mother's accomplishments, while tactfully abstaining from mentioning Harry's nemesis's accomplishments, can be easily explained as nothing more than that. Rowling may reveal information in the last book that strengthens your theory, but until then it's fanon at best. There isn't enough support to include anything beyone a brief, passing mention of fan speculation in the article. --Icarus 05:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, harry's nemesis is Voldemort, not Snape. Slughorn even goes so far as to comment to Snape that not even he did as well as Harry (with book) has done. What basis do you have for assuming that characters in JKR books do not tell the truth? They rarely lie. JKR is extremely trutheful with her readers in that respect. Refusing to report the statements of characters on the grounds that they might not have been telling the truth seems to be taking things a bit far. Which did you mean was 'my' theory? The one about how wikipedia should report fiction?Sandpiper 21:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Autoeroticism and Autosexuality merge

I was looking through Category:Articles to be merged, and noticed that a backlog message requested Wikipedians to help with merging. The two articles you mentioned were listed as "to be merged", so wanting to help clear the backlog, I proceeded to follow the request (I also merged baldness with alopecia). Feel free to de-merge, if that's the consensus, but please ensure that they are not listed in the category again. Brisvegas 07:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{CoS}}, et. al

I don't know if there's been any discussion about and consensus reached regarding the Harry Potter templates, so don't take this as supporting or condemning your changes, just as a friendly tip to save you time in the event that what you're doing isn't violating any sort of consensus. Okay, disclaimer done :-) (For the record, I myself like the templates. But I'd rather have one definite way of doing things than having them switched back and forth constantly.)

Instead of changing each and every {{CoS}} (just to use one as an example) to [[Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets|Chamber of Secrets]], you can just visit Template:CoS and change the text there to your preferred version. That will, I believe, automatically change every instance in which it is used. --Icarus 18:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of discussion, please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:CoS, where the consensus is to delete this particular template. Following said consensus, I have nominated the other templates as well. The problem with using the template is that it uses transclusion, which is more expensive system resource wise than a redirect or a direct link. There's nothing wrong with taking the extra time to type out the full link. I think linking to articles by the book title, such as Goblet of Fire is better than using the full title, and also better than using something like GoF, as I think the full title is a bit tedious to use in every instance, and using just the initials is a bit informal. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar!

Cheers for the Barnstar, much appreciated! I hadn't come across Barnstars before so a great introduction! I'd also like to thank my agent, my friends and family, and most of all Miriam Margolyes who makes a pukka Professor Sprout. Thanks for the accolade! ;) Peeper 08:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

half-Blood Prince

Hi icarus, just had a look at your latest revision. I have to still say, I don't see why you insist on going through theories of whether Harry was right or wrong in what he concluded about the potions/spells. The book does not discuss whether Harry might have made a mistake, I havn't particularly (or indeed at all) seen this point debated by anyone seriously arguing that Harry was wrong. I am not convinced it is important to argue whether he was right, or to explicitly argue at all about it in the story. What is gained by proposing alternative interpretations? Sandpiper 19:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say that Harry was wrong about his conclusions? I never said that he was wrong to think that the spells were written by the HBP. You, however, are implying that because it was not specifically mentioned that Harry thought the potions tips were the Prince's original work, that means that Harry didn't think that. This is not confirmed by the book. It is an extrapolation that may or may not turn out to be true. Or was it something else you thought I was saying Harry was wrong about? (BTW, if you reply, please do so on my talk page. I don't check wikipedia as often or as thoroughly as I used to, so I'll probably miss it if you post it elsewhere. Thanks!)--Icarus 03:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You inserted theories about whether the potions might have been invented by the prince. Harry's words make a contrast between the potions tips and spells. Yes, I agree, he speaks explicitly only about the spells being invented, but the form of wording makes a distinction between the two cases, such that Harry thinks the spells are invented but does not think this about the potions. That is what the book says and I do not see the point of belabouring it by adding theories. It is plain enough for people to think of these points for themselves. I could make this paragraph to you twice as long by adding theories about why Icarus wrote this sentence, why he thought that, but that would just make it harder to get across what is directly relevant to this discussion. It did occur to me to wonder whether the theories could be stripped out and placed together in a separate section at the bottom. Then it would be easier to follow the narrative of the process Harry et al. go through. It is quite a good story if it is written up to give it a bit of pace. I also felt that Harry might have been wrong, and could have got it the wrong way round, if the author of the additions is good at potions she might have written potions tips perfectly, but had a lot of trouble with the spells which she cribbed from someone else. It is still unexplained why Snape would have made mistakes writing down spells if he had created them years before.Sandpiper 07:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The way it appears to me is that rather than me trying to insert theories about the Prince having written the potions tips, you are trying to insert theories that he didn't. I haven't responded point-by-point to the evidence you've given, but what it boils down to is that you have an interesting theory that may turn out to be true, but is not definite as of yet. But I've given up trying to keep such unverified speculation out of the article (even Dumbledore's house being Gryffindor is considered unverified, so I'm not just being nitpicky) because I don't have the time, and it seems clear that you're not going to budge. So instead I'm trying to present a balanced view that includes your theory, but also points out that it's not yet verified. Maybe Harry thinks the Prince wrote the potions hints, maybe he doesn't. It's unclear. Your theory that he did not cannot be included unless it is done so in a way that makes it clear that it hasn't been verified either way. There are many things that will hopefully be cleared up in the next book. Until then, no unverified theory can be presented as fact.
It occurs to me that you may not even be aware of how leading your wordings have been. Look at the descriptions of the events surrounding Dumbledore's death for examples of how words can state mere facts, but be worded in such a way to lead people off in a particular direction. For example, one editor tried to add "But things in the Harry Potter world are not always as they seem." See how this implies that that is true in this specific case, even if the sentence itself is only a general statement? If someone strategically added "But Dumbledore trusted Snape, and he demonstrated his loyalty many times in the earlier books." after a section about Snape's possible defection, that too would be a statement of fact, but the wording and placement within the article would lead readers in a specific direction. You may think that you're merely stating the facts, but you're doing so in such a way as to lead the reader in a very specific direction (intentionally or not). I still question whether or not your theory is widely accepted enough to be notable, as you have provided no evidence on that, but like I've said, I've decided to stop pursuing that line. Now my main concern is that the article not lead the reader to think that one particular as-of-yet unverified theory is more valid than another. --Icarus 04:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Icarus. Had another read of HBP from your point of view, and Perhaps I begin to see your point. I will agree, that the book does not make a flat-out distinction whether the potions do or do not contain crossings out. But it does not make sense to write about the jinxes which Harry was sure, judging by the crossings out and revisions, that the prince had invented himself unless they are a distinct case from the potions tips, which he just mentioned in the same sentence. So I take the wording to be demonstrating a contrast between the two cases, which is how I have written it.
On a slightly different tack, I noticed on the same page it mentions Levicorpus as causing the writer considerable trouble. How would you interpret this, bearing in mind this is a year 6 textbook, and levicorpus was known throughout the school in year 5 and had been invented by Snape?


Happy Diwali

Hey

Just thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination) because you participated in the first vote. Savidan 21:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholics Anonymous

Icarus, you deserve a Purple Heart for all the crap that his been thrown your way at the Alcoholics Anonymous article. I applaud your efforts and as you can see I am attempting to help improve that article myself.

Cheers! Mr Christopher 23:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.