Mercury McKinnon

Hi, you were listed in the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Philippines page as living in or being associated with Philippines. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please add [[Category:Filipino Wikipedians|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]] to your user page. Thanks. :) Coffee 03:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Since you seem to be inactive (at least for the past week), I went ahead and put the category on your user page. Coffee 07:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've run across a deletion of the Alfred Vargas entry for the Encantadia project. It's been tagged as protected by the admin who deleted the information. I'm not adept enough with wikipedia controls to be able to find a way to recreate the entry. Crushweb 05:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've replied at User talk:Crushweb.-gadfium 04:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mercury McKinnon, you work for GMA Network, right? I noticed that the Enchanta article was copied in verbatim by the iGMA.tv site.[1] I think that iGMA.tv should indicate that this article is released under GNU Free Documentation License. --Jojit fb 05:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Jojit_fb. I noticed as well that the content was the same. However, I had assumed that it was the Enchanta article on Wiki that was copied from the iGMA.TV Etheria site. Do you know for a fact which one is the source/original?

If you can verify that it's the Etheria site that has copied from the Wiki article, (and if the originator of the Enchanta article did not provide his/her writings to the Etheria site freely -- it's possible that the Enchanta article writer is affilitiated with GMA,) then I'll try to get in touch with iGMA.TV. Please note that though I work with GMA Network, I am not connected with the Etheria production team. Additionally, I believe that the website is not managed directly by the Network, but by one of its subsidiary companies. So, unfortunately, I've no direct line (yet) to the website-makers. Thanks. Mercury McKinnon 08:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Enchanta article was first written as part the Encantadia article and was separated when the Encantadia article grew. The Wikipedia article is the original. I should know because I personally added information on that article specifically regarding the creator of the language, Suzette Doctolero, and comparing the language to other fictional languages such as Star Trek's Klingon. I will also try to contact them. Thanks. --Jojit fb 10:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see. I distinctly recall that part comparing Enchanta to Klingon and the LotR languages. I guess it's the height of compliments when the official site uses a fan-written piece (although, as I've hinted at, I suspect that a number of folks professionally affiliated with the series also contribute to the Wiki articles on Encantadia). Nonetheless, that's poor excuse for swiping.

By the way, so you contributed that bit. Cool. The Encantadia articles could use a lot more content like that -- the kind that synthesizes or analyzes (and, consequently, augments) what is known -- rather than just building lists. Everything should be verifiable, of course. Anyway, can't wait to see you do more with the WikiProject. Mercury McKinnon 12:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Mercury McKinnon, i am honored to be dubbed as a Wikantadian i am pleased that you have invited me to be a part of this assemblaged aimed to create Encantadia and Etheria articles maesterfully. I would like to suggest if the you could create a Navigational Template for both Encantadia and Etheria. It will clearly be a great help for new readers who aren't as acquanted as we are to the show. It could feature links to characters, places and other important articles related to both shows. As i have seen with other entries containing Navigational templates, the readers are easliy guided and linked in the fastest way posibble.

Thank you for reading and hopefully hearing out my suggestion. More power to your great endeavor and for your belief in the shows. --Fitz 15:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Mercury McKinnon. I’m one of the Wikantadians and I am currently working on a new entry to add to the WikiProject: Encantadia. I am planning to start two new entries, namely List Of Lirean Queens and List of Sapirian Kings. These separate entries details the reign of each royalty and what they have done during their reign. I have already finished my article. If you find any disparity or if it is not cohesive with the any information regarding the show, please feel free to correct it. You may also add more details and informations if the article is insufficient. I am also trying to work on the List of Hathor Kings, but I have to get more information. Thank you! --Fitz 16:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Merc, just wanted to clarify, in the Lireo entry regarding the monarchs, is Avria certifiably queen of lireo, coz someones been placing an entry there. I have doubts that she is counted. Please answer. Thanks --Fitz 12:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Fitz. I'll get back to you soon. Thanks. --Mercurio 12:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Merc, as a result of someone incessantly altering articles on Lireo, Danaya and Avria regarding the queenship, i have protected the articles until the issue/protests have been resolved and cleared out. I hope you understand, i will be removing the tag as soon as I see or know a valid and clear evidence or fact. Thank you --Fitz 21:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wow, you can protect articles?! Cool. I have actually been composing my stand on the matter since this morning, but work kept getting in the way. I'm still working on it, and hope to post it soon. I understand. Thanks, Fitz. --Mercurio 13:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey there Merc, These past few days I have updated articles, I would like to ask for your help to further enhance the entries specifically:

• Kahlil - Personality - needs to be expanded and tackled, Abilities and Weapons - is up for addition, Family Affiliations - needs to be expanded and tackled
• Arman - it's a new entry, hope you could check for grammars and any contradiction to the story as i am not sure who found him in the forest.

I would be very much glad if you could help me. Thanks a lot. And your truly, amazingly great!

Fitz 02:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I am just here to help because of my love of one more thing...elements. Speaking of the kinesis thing, I wasn't really familiar with it but I am pretty good with etymologies...I just double checked ^_^! Pyrokinesis...that I know! (But I think I didn't edit that one) Speaking of which...the pun you intended is not so obvious and I re-read it twice just to realize it...SORRY...LPU. Well, could I suggest that the Encantadia: Pag-Ibig Hanggang Wakas be updated immediately! I am not in much position to edit it from the time Ether revived the sang'gres enemies until the kidnap of Armea because I was busy and didn't get to watch the show much. Thank you again for welcoming me and I hope that we could work on a new project sometime.

P.S. I was editing during the last show but I didn't sign in so you might see some of my work on Lireo, Alena, Armea, Arman, Pirena, Sapiro, Cassandra and Danaya but that's OK. By the way, I started becoming a Wikipedian because of the Harry Potter Articles. Thank YOU!!!^_^

Hi Merc,

I hope this gets to you somehow.. I am so lost here...I know.. it's a blast from the past..... but I'm glad to see you are alive and wandering around the internet.... you had us.. me worried.

Dom told me today that Mark had found you here and of course I'm the bold one to try to get in touch with you. Yep...some things don't change.

I have an account here now..... nothing much on it since computers and I don't mix as you know.... but I have a friend who will be helping set it up for me. But I'd love to hear from you.. we can talk on my page.. account.. whatever this is called. Really, I'd love to hear what you've been up to... you really had me worried when you left.

hugs 'Licia 02:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

hi Merc....

you have no idea how thrilled I am to hear from you..... I sat here and stared at the screen for I don't know how long. I think I got the e-mail thingy working... Hopefully you can see it and send me an e-mail... I've been looking around here for yours but of course I must be looking in all the wrong places......

and as the subject says, yes you will answer..... I know I'm being bold again..... but that's me you know.... if you can't find my e-mail.. I'll just post it here.. I don't care if it's seen...... as long as you get it.

I'm just so glad you're not lost anymore.

hugs 'Licia 00:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

not to bug you... ok.. to bug you..... :)

did my e-mail ever get through to you....

I think I did everything you told me to... but this is 'Licia we're speaking about..... *hugs*

Felicia Hartwick 05:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, 'Licia! I did get your e-mail last March 16. (You did just fine!)  :-) It really is my fault -- again. As usual, I had a very difficult time putting my thoughts to paper (what I'd do for a Pensieve). As soon as I received your owl, I started on an e-mail reply, which got out of hand. The reply languished in my Drafts folder for weeks, until I decided -- what the heck, I'd send it, unfinished -- to you last Friday, March 31. You haven't gotten it? --Mercurio 05:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oops! I did get it..... it would help to check the right e-mail account..... Off to read it now! --Felicia Hartwick 11:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, great movie, watched it just last night. :) Ah, your explanation makes sense... I didn't make that connection between the Chinaman and the Asian immigrants. By the way, umm, would you happen to be anyone I know? :p What year did you graduate? Coffee 12:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I doubt it. I'm from before your time, by at least a decade I think, having graduated in the early 1990s. Ugh. --Mercurio 18:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have something to tell you. In Harry Potter Wikipedia, When I was editing something in Draco Malfoy, I already wrote that He is very prejudiced against Muggle-born such as Hermione Granger. Yes, It is right. That's what Draco did to Hermione(Harry's best friend). So, Do you think that I don't know how to speak proper English? Even, I've been here in U.S for 2years, I know how to speak English. Someone usually tells me that my English is good, Even I've been in U.S for 2years. So, You don't believe someone's opinion? So, Please reply my questions. OK? --User:71.138.88.252 04:25, 3 April 2006

Hi there. Did you check the History page of the Draco Malfoy article? Because if you checked that page, you would see the explanation why I removed that sentence, and you wouldn't have to come here to my Talk page and ask why I did it. The history page would show you this:

13:24, 30 March 2006 Mercury McKinnon (rm previous edit ("He is very prejudiced against Muggle-born Student such as Hermione Granger.") which is already & better dealt with in the next paragraph)

How well do you understand English and Wikipedia conventions? If you have a good understanding, then you would understand the above reason I provided for removing that sentence. (You know how to speak some English, but you should realize it is far from excellent.)

But I'll explain myself again anyway: Read the 3rd paragraph of the Draco Malfoy article. It says "Draco ... treats Hermione Granger with utter disdain for being Muggle-born, calling her by the derogatory term Mudblood." Compare that to the sentence that you had added: "He is very prejudiced against Muggle-Born Student such as Hermione Granger." As I had explained, the idea in your sentence is already dealt with by the earlier sentence. So your sentence was not necessary and that's why I deleted it.

My advice to you: Please learn how to use Wikipedia properly. Learn how to use such features such as the Show Preview button, how to sign and time-stamp your comments, how to tell apart what is acceptable content (you need to understand Verifiability and No original research), etc. If you do that, you won't find your contributions being repeatedly removed (and you'd also spare a lot of us many headaches). Thanks. --Mercurio 00:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear, Mercury McKinnon, Thank you for reply my question. I have one more question. For example, If someone changes anything in the One Page, will it be vandalism? why? If It's right information, It won't be vandalism. So, Aren't you telling me I'm wrong, or I'va made a big mistake When I was editing? User---71.138.88.252 April 03, 2006. 17:49.

Hi again. Well, "vandalism" means deliberately destroying or damaging property by a person with malicious (bad) intent (that person is called a "vandal"). In Wikipedia, changes that are considered vandalism include (1) deletion of legitimate information; (2) insertion of nonsense or irrelevant content; and (3) other violations of Wikipedia policy. (An example of a violation on Wikipedia is blanking or altering another user's page, which you did to me I think. That's a big no-no.)

An important part of Wiki vandalism is the person's intentions for editing. Since we can't read each other's minds and intentions, you realize that someone can call you a vandal based on your actions, the things you have edited -- even if you really meant no harm, were just experimenting, or thought that you were even putting "right information".

In your case, several Wikipedians (including myself) have described your work on the Harry Potter articles as vandalism. This is because one sign of vandalism is repeated violation of Wiki policies, especially after the person has been given warnings over a good length of time. I have seen that you have been given many warnings and explanations these past weeks, but you have seemed not to pay attention to these. Were you able to read these warnings and explanations? If you had seen and understood these warnings from other users, you would have known why many edits you've made were not acceptable in Wikipedia. As I've said, I'm assuming that most of your edits were in "good faith", that is that you were just unaware or ignorant of how Wikipedia works, of the rules/guidelines for making proper contributions.

So if you really want to contribute to Wikipedia, you have to learn how things work here. If someone reverts your work, stop and read/look for the reason why your work was removed. You can always ask for help. One way is to put the {{helpme}} tag on your User Discussion page, then write your question underneath. A more experienced Wikipedian will respond to you. But I advise that you also learn about Wikipedia even by yourself by reading the Help sections. Good luck. :-) --Mercurio 03:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear. Mercury McKinnon, can I ask you about the character(Marlene McKinnon) who is the member of the Order of the Phoenix. So, How could she be Muggle-born? Because Her parents(Whether Mother, or Father) was wizard or witch. That's why I don't think She is not Muggleborn. Are there any evidence that Her parents were not Wizard or Witch? Because Marlene MacKinnon's family(included Marlene) were killed by Death Eater possibly Karkaroff's Trial. Her Parents must have known how to use the magics. Anyways, Do you think that MArlene McKinnon(Member of the Order of the Phoenix) is Muggleborn? But, I will not edit it. And also in the article of Gilderoy Lockhart, what were you trying to say that His color is forget-me-not blue? I still don't understand forget-me-not-blue means. Could you explain What does mean? I'm just asking you. Ok? Ahh, When Book seven Will publish it, So could I make new things that will be about Book Seven of HArry Potter(Included Title, when JK Rowling tells the title of Book Seven)? I'm still scared that It will be maked vandalism by another wikipedians even I put New Book's information. Have a good time with Wikipedia. April 4, 2006, 19:11, This has been sent by 71. 138. 165. 221.

Hi. A forget-me-not is a kind of flower (you can see a picture in the linked article). "Forget-me-not blue" means the shade of blue that flower has; it says in the US version of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets that Lockhart's eyes are this color.

I'll try to get back to you as soon as I can on your other questions. --Mercurio 21:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. About Marlene McKinnon: I don't think anything has been said about her parents yet. We know that Marlene's family was killed with her by Death Eaters, but we don't know which family members this means. (For example, Edgar Bones was killed with his wife and children, Gideon Prewett with his brother.) And even if Marlene's parents were the ones killed with her, they could still have been Muggles, couldn't they? --Mercurio 23:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! I'm afraid it is stated that Marlene's parents were wizards (even if both were muggle-borns, which would make Marlene also a muggle-born). Hagrid says the Voldemort had killed the best wizards in of that time, and mention only families that we do know that were pure-blooded as the Prewetts and the Bones, and then he mentions the McKinnons as well. So I'd say they were wizards. (I know "of that time" is a terrible choice, but I really don't have my british edition of PS here, so I had to look on the national one)Diana Prallon 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's already an article about Book Seven to which you can contribute. As for fearing that someone may edit your work, that is something all of us Wikipedians must be ready for. But as long as we stick to the facts, and learn from those times when someone does correct or revert our work, we'll be fine. :-) (Remember my tips to you above. Vandalism means that there is harmful intent. It's normal to make mistakes, especially for beginners, but it is important to learn from your experiences. And to have fun.)

Have a good time with Wikipedia too. Thanks.  :-) --Mercurio 23:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you added some stuff to the severus Snape page, in particular with regard to year of birth. It seems that some people are coming round to the idea that he might have been born in 1958, and similarly his classmates all be a year younger - based on information/deductions from the auctioned tapestry drawing by JKR. i don't know whether you have a view on this, or whether there is evidence to dismiss this as a possibility? Sandpiper 02:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Sandpiper! I haven't seen arguments for 1958 yet (luckily, perhaps, else I wouldn't be able to get any work done). But now that you're asking...

• There's nothing to be gained on this subject from the Black family tree (in my opinion).
  • The only thing in the tree that would have been probative in a discussion of Snape and classmates' birthyears is Sirius's own year of birth. Unfortunately, there's a big, gaping hole (OK, a small, hand-drawn cigarette burn) where that record used to be.
  • Any other dates in the tree would be either irrelevant -- for example, knowing the birthyears of Bellatrix (b. 1951, if the HP Lexicon's source was reliable) and Narcissa (b. 1955) isn't helpful since it is not known (at the moment) how much older/younger these two are than Sirius -- or not yielding of new info -- Regulus (b. 1961 per the HP Lexicon) is known to be younger than Sirius; unfortunately, since their exact age difference is unknown, this bit just proves that Sirius was born before 1961, which we already know.
• Since no new information can be obtained from the tree, we are back to the old givens - the 3 pieces of info here.
  • The 1st given does not rule out 1958.
  • The 2nd given (JKR saying that Sirius was "around 22" at the time he was sent to Azkaban in late 1981) leans to 1959, but does not absolutely rule out 1958. (The iffy "around 22" gives a bit of room, you see.)
  • The 3rd given rules out a birth year after 1959.
• In summary, nothing in the known facts positively contradicts a 1958 birth for Sirius and his classmates, particularly towards the end of that year. (I'm thinking their class would be those born between September 1958 and August 1959). However, such would be stretching or assuming the long end of the givens -- particularly, it would have to assume that Sirius was 23 (rather than 22) when he was imprisoned. The more likely birthyear for Sirius et al is still 1959, but saying c. 1959 wouldn't be far off. (Again, all in my opinion.)

--Mercurio 09:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

well, i was reading this: [2]. Just recently updated following the tapestry revrelations. I am by no means an expert on this, and was interested in Blacks rather than dates, which is why I started reading it. However, the argument seems to be as follows. Perhaps first I should say that redhen is a little disturbed with dates on the tapestry, which seem to be compressed too much, particularly in the earlier generations. However, she seems to feel the dates for recent characters are more likely to be consistent with the books. Bellatrix Black is listed as being born in 1951. If Snape was born in 1959, this would make it impossible that they were at Hogwarts at the same time. However, Sirius said that Snape used to hang out at school with the lestrages, i.e. including bellatrix. This only becomes possible if Snape was born earlier, and other factors allow that he was born 1958. So, he would then have attended hogwarts years commencing 69-75, while if Bellatrix was born in the latter part of 51, she would have attended 63-69. It is also necessary to assume she was born in the later part of the year, or she would have qualified for the entry 62-68 and again missed Snape. What do you reckon? Sandpiper 21:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. Thanks for sending the redhen link my way. Hmm. The article's right (and I was wrong) about Bellatrix's birthyear being relevant to Snape and co.'s own birthdates. I'd forgotten that Bellatrix and Snape were part of that gang of Slytherins. So, if this means the two were students together (rather than in some kind of Slug Club alumni network), the birthyears 1951 and (January) 1959 won't work, as Bella would have graduated before Snape started his first year. That'd indeed leave 1958 as the year that best covers all the bases (which are now four in number, with the addition of Bellatrix's birthyear).

With a January 1958 birthyear for Snape, the reckoning for his classmates' births must now slide to within the September 1957 to August 1958 range. (You're right, Sandpiper, they're dominoes.) This stretches the 2nd given about Sirius being "around 22" at his imprisonment. He'd be 22 at the start of 1981, but after the Potters' Halloween murders, he'd actually be at least 23. Jo Rowling's self-confessed weakness with numbers strikes again.

So. Should we start updating the articles? My vote is: not just yet. This all hinges on accepting the 1951 birthyear for Bellatrix. Assessing this bit of information objectively: (a) at this point this is a factoid that was solely publicized by the HP Lexicon; I'm unaware of any independent corroboration of the info; (b) even if the Lexicon's source is accurate, can't we put the 1951 Bellatrix birthyear on the drawing to a mistake by JKR? Why should this fact carry more weight than the 2nd given which Rowling published on her website? Just playing devil's advocate. --Mercurio 13:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. My own course of action is first to be convinced of exactly what is correct, and then to consider what is commonly held and thus reasonably within the 'rules' of wikipedia to report. I am still not convinced, in the sense that I would rush round changing dates, but I think a note should exist on wiki somewhere explaining how HP dates are derived, and also explaining this discrepancy. It is perfectly fine to note a discrepancy between actual source facts. Also though, wiki is currently asserting that various characters were born at certain times, so if there is doubt we are already misrepresenting these dates as certain facts. As i said, I have not concerned myself with this before, largely because I reckoned it would need a deal of going into to decided what the arguments were, so I do not have a view yet where to put things. --Sandpiper 20:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Understood and agreed. The Dates in Harry Potter article seems a good place to explain the sources/bases of timeline info as well as problems with this.

I would have hoped that JKR had got her numbers precise on the chart, being as she must by now be aware of the numbers of people over-analysing everything she says, but redhen points out a number of oddities in the early generations, and it is possible that JKR did not actually have a detailed source biography for Bella, but rather made up a number which seemed about right. So it does remain possible this is a mistake. But it is also possible the other statements are similarly mistaken by a year, and it becomes rather hard to decide which to dismiss. (as to accurate date reporting, part of the chart was actually photographed and printed in newspapers, was this particular fact published: if not, redhen seems to imply that a number of people viewed the original and made notes. But, yes...) --Sandpiper 20:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Rowling's lesser precision with dates and other numeric details in her works (the novels, companion books and Famous Wizard cards) is known to those who read her work closely, and is something she has acknowledged. I believe she has said that she'll go over and correct these in subsequent editions. --Mercurio 08:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Which given has got to give, eh? Personally, I'm putting the most weight on the statements published in the books: that Snape's worst memory took place more than twenty years before the tail-end of Harry's fifth year, which rules out birthyears after 1959. That Bellatrix and Snape were in the same gang in school carries equal weight, meaning that their births should be no more than 7 years apart. 1951 as Bella's birthyear is from the drawing, not the books. However, the drawing is one of the sources that cites specific years. The 1980 birth for Draco on the tree corroborates Nick's 1492 death, the one citation of a specific date in the novels on which the HP timeline is famously anchored. Another thing that could lend weight to the drawing's accuracy is that Rowling likely devoted quite some time to preparing it. --Mercurio 08:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

For the sake of argument, assume Sirius was born september 1958, at whatever the last date to qualify for the school year commencing 69. This would make him 23 on September 1981, two months before the time he was likely sent to Azkhaban. Framed 1 Nov according to HP lexicon timeline page (this is not in the wiki article and I do not know the facts myself), and I do recall, sentenced speedily without troubling over the formalities. However, the JKR faq[3] is discussing how much worldly experience Sirius had when sentenced. It would have suited the argument JKR is making to say 'around 22' (which she did), instead of '23', to make the point of the number of completed years he had lived. It is also odd to say 'around 22', if you know that he was exactly 22 in the normal meaning. So, actually and in context of the quote, a birth year 58 is plausible. --Sandpiper 20:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes. As I said at the start, 1958 isn't ruled out by any of the 3 original statements, even the one which says Sirius was "around 22" (which I've always taken to mean "22, give or take a year"). --Mercurio 08:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The one I find most troublesome is Snape's age quoted after publication of GOF. But I think I calculated this could be made to fit if JKR was talking off the top of her head, and had done a quick calculation of his age at the start of the book, rather than at the end. I take it this was not a question she had prior knowledge of, and thinking about it, The precise age of each character is probably not the most important fact to keep at the front of her mind while writing. For most purposes while writing, it would be irrelevant. If she is a scatterbrained as I am, certainly this is the sort of thing I might have forgotten precisely. Sandpiper 20:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Right. I'd count this as one of those responses she's given off the top of her head, possibly less carefully considered/worded (and less weighty in my book). But, as you know, 1958 does still fit that statement: Snape would indeed be 36 in 1994, the first 6 months of Book 4. --Mercurio 08:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, she was also interested in Regulus' death date of 1979 rather than 1980. Which apparently means he died probably before the prophecy and at just about the time Snape became an active spy (for someone, she would say for Dumbledore from start to finish). This might mean that RAB is even more important to the story than simply having snaffled one horcrux, which actually has a very good feel to it in bringing together story lines. And always assuming he did actually die, since Dumbledore rather claims to have staged at least one death. Sandpiper

I see that HP lexicon are still touting Snape's birth year as 59 or 60, and in some pages as 60. it seems to me that on the basis of the evidence, they are wrong. I think the Harry looking back 'over 20 years ago' reference actually rules out 1960, while the others do not favour it. Bella's date, if believed, would seem to rule out everything except 58. When I have time I shall try to investigate HP lexicon more and try to figure out why they originally favoured 60, and have yet to consider 58. Sandpiper 10:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, Sandpiper. Yes, HPL touted only 1960 for the longest time. As for the review of the Lexicon that you hope to undertake, I've been down that road myself, and I'd be very interested to know your thoughts afterwards. Thanks. --Mercurio 10:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Haven't entirely had a lot of luck with lexicon yet, but I did notice this timeline page [4]. It lists the marauders, Snape etc. starting Hogwarts in 1970, and bears a copyright date 2003. i.e. it is 3 years old but contradicts current pages elsewhere, such as [5], where they claim the class started in 1971. Sandpiper 19:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Update. I sent an email to lexicon and got back the following:

I would say that the Marauders birthyear is 1958, with the caveat that we can't be 100% certain at this point. That year does seem to best fit the canon facts we have.

We are redoing our Lexicon timelines right now, so it could be a while before this shows up. We're changing it all to database format, so it's taking several weeks as we work through the best way to enter the data and display it in various configurations. We're working behind the scenes, of course, so the change won't show up for a while yet. In the meantime, I will try to get a chance to make at least the main locations say 1958 in the next few hours. (Character pages, the main timeline). That should help you get things clear over at wiki. Steve Sandpiper 15:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}Reply

Hi, Sandpiper. It's good to hear that the HP Lexicon actually got back to you. My own experiences with offering well-intentioned (and, if I may say so myself, well-written) constructive feedback to the Lexicon have been disappointing. Despite the site's claim to welcome feedback, errors and inconsistencies have perennially persisted on the HP Lexicon. To be fair, I've read that many others have experienced the same from the Lexicon, so the snub was egalitarian, at least. Also, the webmaster had acknowledged this shortcoming, and eventually I think he got people to help him attend to the e-mail.

Anyway, I guess we can also start putting the 1958 date on the Wiki articles since it is the best fit for what is currently known -- and with some assurance that the popular HPL will not be a source of less-informed edits. Thanks. --Mercurio 11:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I may be looking in the wrong place, but i havn't seen any changes yet. He said he was rather busy right now. While I think 58 is the best fit for Snape (others may vary depending on birth month), I still feel a little uncomfortable going out on a limb and changing it first. Strikes me there is quite a lot of work required to update those HPL pages.

Yes, I meant "1958" for Snape and Lupin, and "circa 1958" for the rest of the Marauders. As for waiting for the HP Lexicon to update, I say let it catch up to Wiki -- again. That's how it was before the Black family tree came out, when I pushed for the 1959 birthyear on Wiki. (I wasn't aware that Red Hen also argued for 1959.) I'll try updating the Wiki articles within today. --Mercurio 00:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Someone just posted on HPL a comment that Dumbledore said right at the beginning of Philosophers stone, presumably when Harry had just been orphaned, that there had been 11 years of bad news. The start of this would appear to coincide with the year Bella left school, assuming her last and Snape's first was 69-70. This just might add weight to idea that the 'gang of Slytherins' graduated then, and started a new round of mayhem. Sandpiper 23:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I honestly can't see the problem with the earlier generations dates of birth. Ok, Pollux would only be 13 years-old when he became Walburga's father, but that wasn't really unusual around 1920's. And, well, the more I organize Harry Potter articles, the less I find HP lexicon usefull. It's way incomplete. Diana Prallon 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes — things got complicated, and I was rushing. I was first going to speedily rename the category (which was wrongly capitalised), but then found that it had no parent category. I begant investigating to find the correct parent cat., and discovered Category:GMA Network, which in fact already contained programmes — so I switched the articles in "GMA Programs" to "GMA Netowrk". When I'd finished, I did some more editing, and then found my original delete screen, still open, for the speedy rename... and clicked on "delete". I suppose that, in a way, it was speedily renamed "GMA Network". Well, in a way. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

 

For your hard work on Harry Potter-related articles, I hereby award you the Original Barnstar. You are free to put this on your user page (or not), as you desire. Congratulations! --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. You deserve it, buddy. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Merc, thanks for the message. I'm really working on this project to be as good as it can get. Anyways, i have something to consult with you. It's regarding the Avria queenship issue. And someone's been tagging Avria's page with a succession box as queen of Lireo, as i have been constantly reverting it and have been accused of vandalizing the page by the user. Plus the fact that the user is not registered. I believe that Avria did not become queen (or so did she? I'm asking for your stand on this matter). In my point of view, Avria never become monarch for the reason that she just used Danaya's image as guise in order to infiltrate Lireo, and she wasn't even designated as one, unlike several situations that although Pirena, Agane or Mira where not in line to succeed, Pirena invaded Lireo to decalre herself queen and she is in fact in the seat of power making her capable to become one; Agane was designated by Hagorn to be the kingdom's head after Pirena was banished and it was logical because Hagorn controls Lireo in that period and the same thing with Mira, she was crowned by Hagorn upon his wishes because he, in fact, is in control of Lireo. All of the above mentioned names where perceived by the denizens of Lireo as their true image and therefore observed and respected their rule. These circumstances are unlikely to be similar to Avria, she just took the form of Danaya and still, people would refer to her as Queen Danaya since it's her form that they see and not Avria's.

I really hope you could help me. Thanks a lot Fitz 01:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't know how to use wikipedia that means I thought that I can change anything as much as I want, and I will not be marked as Vandalism. So, I realized that I can't change anything in any article, only Sandbox(Article that I can change anything I want). So, Please help me to be good Harry Potter Wikipedian like You. OK? April 11, 2006, 18:04 Daniel5127

Listen. The view of Slytherin I have written into the Founders article is not 'original research', any more than your writing. It is a statement of what Professor Binns says, and is clearly presented so in the CoS. All I have added to that is a commentary on the inability to adequately judge Slytherin's views by historical standards due to the lack of historical evidence presented in the books. You seriously need to work your way past the prejudices that have been created in you as a result of reading these books. The views you hold are not uniformly held by the books. You have to learn that all people must be held to the same standards: you cannot be prejudiced against the prejudiced. In the meantime, stop maliciously deleting my comments. Because I will not back down over this without a genuine reason which is not your petty spite, or your inablity to be neutral. Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes. Michaelsanders 00:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Merc, someone's editing and adding article for powerful artifacts and i really hope you could comment on whether these additional artifacts should indeed be part of the subarticle. And another thing, the grammar used for the Avatar part is really pre-school (I don't know if the one who wrote it is not very well versed in the English). I really hope you could revised some of those as i have been really busy with school as of the moment. Don't worry, I'll be back doing my chores for the project soon as I get all my school works done. Thanks a lot. Fitz

Picking randomly at Category:Television shows in the Philippines reveals that they're highly POV and fancruft. I was hoping if you can help in copyediting and cleaning articles up. :) --Howard the Duck | talk, 12:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I never got around to joining the Encantadia Wikiproject. I have to admit, I've only watched very little of the show, and started the Inspirations article by skimming the other Encnatadia-related articles. But it's much better than Panday... Uthanc 12:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

RHB(AWB) 23:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC), on behalf of WPHarry PotterReply

Thanks for uploading Image:Mau Marcelo - On My Own CD.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

To Mercury McKinnon You have reverted my deletion of the 'Dolly the Sheep' statement. Did you read the justification for my deletion at Talk:Dolly Parton and discuss the change before you made it? I did not delete the paragraph lightly and without due consideration. The quoted reference supporting the sheep assertion made no mention whatsoever about the sheep being named after Dolly Parton. I hunted the web extensively and could find not a single hint that substantiated the claim. In fact one newspaper article at the time stated that the scientist that led the experiment named Dolly the Sheep after a favourite Aunt of his. At the talk page I stated that the paragraph should not be replaced unless it could be supported by a valid and verifyable reference, yet you replaced it nevertheless. May I ask why and with what justification?

I have deleted the sheep statement a second, please do not replace it again unless you can provide a specific reference that confirms the adult cells were taken from udder material and that the genetic scientists specifically named Dolly the Sheep after the country and western singer. If you able to do that, then by all means reinstate the paragraph. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for making those improvements to the article. However you added this unsourced statement: "Cunningham and Levine had lent their personal copies as part of Beedle the Bard exhibits in December 2008". Can you please place a source for it? Diego_pmc ^Talk 19:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Lireo. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lireo. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Encantadia, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Encantadia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Encantadia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk) 22:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited The Merlin Mystery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mensa (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) 10:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to the 3rd Philippine Wiki Conference (WikiCon) on May 26, 2012 9am-1pm at the co.lab.exchange in Pasig City. Please fill this form should you signify interest. --Exec8 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

This Project's talk page is less than active. Feel free. --George Ho (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear Mercury McKinnon,

Greetings!

As a Filipino Wikipedian, I hope you are aware of the passage of Republic Act No. 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III on September 12, 2012. Currently, there is a discussion on the Tambayan, the noticeboard for Philippines-related topics, about a proposed blackout of the English Wikipedia in the Philippines in order to protest the passage of RA 10175, similar to the blackout against SOPA and PIPA held earlier this year. I feel that your input on the subject will definitely help in the discussion.

Please feel free to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#The Cybercrime Prevention Act, and I hope your input will help the Filipino Wikipedia community determine which is the best course of action against this law. Similarly, we hope to get as much input from as many Wikipedians as possible.

Thank you and maraming salamat po!

Kind regards,

Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mercury McKinnon, I'm contacting you because we need some Tagalog translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on tl.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Tagalog Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, PEarley. Sure, would love to help with Tagalog translation. What do you need translated? Unfortunately, I can't look at TranslationCentral today, but I'll get to it soonest. --Mercury McKinnon (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mercury, great to have your help. Whatever you have time for. Specifically, the User guide still needs some work. I have access to some newer Tagalog-English dictionaries at work if you have trouble choosing translations for some of the technical terms, or we can make some up for the wiki-specific ones ;) Let me know if you have any difficulties, and thanks, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for spotting my clanger. I can only guess that I thought I was in the January 6 article but goodness knows why or how. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, sir @Mercury McKinnon.... Do you know that several programs from ABS-CBN such as Magandang Buhay and It's Showtime are finally and officially comeback to the original frequencies because it also air on ALLTV...??? And there is the reliable sources for this:

https://www.abante.com.ph/2024/04/30/eere-sa-alltv-regine-velasquez-di-iiwanan-ang-magandang-buhay/

https://balita.mb.com.ph/2024/06/18/tahimik-lang-its-showtime-balik-channel-2-napapanood-na-rin-sa-alltv/

Thanks..... 2001:448A:1021:3855:3877:DF64:9E3A:504C (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply