Welcome to Ederchil's talk page.
January 12, 2008 - December 19, 2008
January 9, 2009 - December 23, 2009
January 9, 2010 - November 19, 2010
February 14, 2011 - December 14, 2011
February 15, 2012 - December 14, 2013
February 1, 2012 - September 6, 2016
Hello.I would like to discuss about something here.
- It should be mentioned in a way that resembles English. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you put in your own way? I mean you can write it in your own way (the fact that in Ravendill happened the final confrontation between Thorin and Azog). —Unsigned comment by 184.108.40.206 (talk).
- I've done that for roughly 80% of what you've added so far. Please improve your English. This is not optional. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Complaint and Discussions
Fool.Why did you do that? After all I have done? After all the editings that I have done in Tolkien Gateway;Is this the way you thank me? By blogging me; Is this how you thank the others for their contribitions here? By blogging them? Congratulations.Congratulations.You should be given an award for that.This is the way you thank the others.By blogging them.Right?You are an asshole.If the only thing you know what to do is blogging them and not discussing with them, then do it again. OK? Well done.--220.127.116.11 20:25, 05 January 2017 (UTC)
- Blogging is writing a weblog. What I did was blocking you. Because I've had to clean up all your edits, and you still continued. Don't you look at how I (and others) rewrite your contributions? Don't you learn from that? Don't you see what we remove all the time, what we keep and what we rewrite? --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 21:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I indicated your English was below par before. You make a mess, I clean it up. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 10:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Why did you delete my editings on page Beorn's Hall?I am telling the truth about the filming of Beorn's Hall (where it was shot).You can check it.I am not lying. —Unsigned comment by 18.104.22.168 (talk).
Also, why did you delete my editings on talk page about Tauriel(I am talking about this page:Talk:Tauriel)? This my opinion. OK? Can't I say my opinion about her fate now? This is just my opinion about her fate.OK? —Unsigned comment by 22.214.171.124 (talk).
- Didn't I explain enough? The English is too poor to be usable. It's not a fun thing for me to say to you, but if I don't, you'll never improve. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
All these games that I added on Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment do exist.Why didn't you put these games on this page earlier? Before me no-one else had ever said about these games on Tolkien Gateway. You could have mentioned these games earlier on Tolkien Gateway, but you didn't.Why? —Unsigned comment by 126.96.36.199 (talk).
- I'm largely retired from active content editing. I still do clean up work, though. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 07:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
About my edit
Why did you undo my edit on the nazgul page? When you actually look at the battle of the morannon, you can actually see a wraith falling of his steed during the battle (A screenshot of the wraith in question)
Not complaining about anything here, just asking--LordAndSaviourSauron 18:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- "They are taken out" covers the scene. Whether one was alive or dead is speculation. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ah okay. Also tbh i wonder what would happen if one survived the destruction of the ring--LordAndSaviourSauron 04:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Battle under the Trees
First of all, thanks for reminding me not to capitalize under. Obviously a bit miffed you deleted it so quickly, but admittedly there was a bit of conjecture in it. I would point out that by putting 'maybe' I clearly labled my conjecture, whereas there are plenty of articles that don't, for example: 'The battle was incredibly important in the course of the War of the Ring: if Sauron's Easterling armies had beaten the Dwarves and Men of Dale, they would have been able to join up with Sauron's forces from Dol Guldur in their attacks on the Woodland Realm of Mirkwood and Lothlórien, tipping the scales in favor of Mordor.' I don't see how saying that Thranduil's army in Mirkwood would have probably exceeded that in 2941 is much more problematic. Anyway, what I'm proposing is that I write a more basic version of the article, then submit it to you or another administrator before saving it. Frankly, the Gateway's current stuff on the War of the Ring is pretty poor, and we could really do with a few short articles on the battles. The current War template leaves out half the conflict. It's fair enough to get rid of conjecture, but I'll happily do that for you. —Unsigned comment by Hazad (talk • contribs).
- I didn't delete it quickly - not as quickly as I've deleted other articles. I was busy copy editing it, fixing the sources and everything, but without all the speculation, there really wasn't much of a history section left. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 05:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hazad: IIRC, there was a discussion about having an article about a "Battle under the Trees" a couple of years ago, ultimately reaching a consensus similar to Michael Martinez' thoughts on the subject. Thus, if there are details missing about the battle(s) in Mirkwood, I would advise adding these to the history section of Mirkwood. --Morgan 06:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks for getting back to me. I have read that Martinez article and to be honest I think it's a bit below his usual standards, in that when Tolkien writes 'battle under the trees' he is clearly referring to Mirkwood in particular, rather than Mirkwood and Lorien. But anyhow no matter. While I'm asking, why is the War of the Elves and Sauron page protected, when it's marked as in need of expansion? (really needs to be added to, the only reference is Appendix B)
What did I do wrong with the Warg matriarch image?
No offense but i seriously have no idea what you meant with "no source" when you deleted the image
As for the infobox, i couldnt do much better since im on an ipad and the editing interface doesnt work that well on my ipad--LordAndSaviourSauron 19:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- All images need a source category and subject categories. I deleted that one because I couldn't guess which of the three it was from. You like it? You source it. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oh now i get it. Guess ill reupload it tomorrow since i know where its from--LordAndSaviourSauron 21:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, but idk if an image of how the eye appears in the hobbit would actually be pointless, since it looks quite different than what the eye looked like in LOTR.--LordAndSaviourSauron 20:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I was adding some information on the drink Limpe which is canon. Look it up. And it's not copyrighted. I have the darn link right here as proof.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_food_and_drink_in_Middle-earth#Limp.C3.ABSo could you kindly tell me the reason for the deletion please? —Unsigned comment by Tolkienfan31 (talk • contribs).
- It had no source, no proper layout, no proper markup, the wrong title, no categories... It wasn't an article, it was juse a random line. There's more to an article than being right or wrong. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 04:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
About my talk page
Just blanked it cause the discussions on it didn’t really have a point anymore and to make space for new stuff--Hail melkor? 16:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- It's a public record of all communications to you. There's no need to "archive" it unless it's really a long page. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 16:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Also why are you editing my signature?--Hail melkor? 15:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- The way I’m using it is a joke tho (it’s a parody)--Hail melkor? 16:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Whatever--Insert unfunny orc joke here 16:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I would like to ask if it is possible to update all entries concerning the Tolkien Family history. My research in the Tolkien genealogy has changed a lot in this matter. See for instance here:
Now we are 100% sure that first two Tolkiens in London were brothers, sons of Christian and Anna Euphrosina Tolkien from Petershagen in Gdańsk (German Danzig). The Professor's great-great-grandfather was born in June 1752 and was baptized in St Salvator Lutheran church in Gdańsk. His brother emmigrated in 1766 first to Amsterdam, then in 1770 to London. His younger brother, Johann Benjamin joined him in ca. 1772. Both brothers married the English girls and Daniel became furrie and John Benjamin a clock and watch maker.
Their father was born in Kreuzburg, East Prussia in 1706. We know also the other generations:
The Tolkien family from Prussia (15th-17th c.)|Michel Tolkien (b. ca. 1620, Globuhnen by Kreuzburg, Prussia)|Christianus Tolkien (1663-1746, Kreuzburg, Kingdom of Prussia)|Christian Tolkien (b. 1706 in Kreuzburg, d. 1791 in Gdańsk, Polish Prussia)= Anna Euphrosina Tolkien, née Bergholtz (1719-1792)|Johann (John) Benjamin Tolkien (b. 1752 in Gdańsk, d. 1819 in London)|George Tolkien (1784-1840) |John Benjamin Tolkien(1807-1896)|Arthur Reuel Tolkien(1857-1896)|John Ronald Reuel Tolkien(1892-1973)
The Tolkien family name belongs to a big Prussian family of names with the ending -in, -yn, -ien, -iehn and comes from Tolk-īn 'a descendant of Tolk'. Tolk is a Prussian name meaning 'translator, negotiator'
The Tolkiens in the 16th-18th centuries lives in East Prussia. You will not find the Tolkiens in Saxony, because it is a Prussian family of medieval roots in the Teutonic State. —Unsigned comment by Galadhorn (talk • contribs).
- The current text is what Tolkien himself believed to be the origin of his family and family name. He mentioned it multiple times - Letter 165 and Letter 324, for example. He explicitly dismisses the association with Tolk- ("interpreter", "spokesman") in Letter 349. Even if that blog were true - I'm not saying it isn't - outright removing the current text and replacing it with things that contradict it is not the way to go. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 16:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry. I am not a Wikipedist, I have problems with proper editing in the places like this. I undestrand, Ederchil your position. The clue is that Professor Tolkien couldn't know things we know today. My research is known to the Tolkien family today, it is already accepted by the Tolkien Society (see their website) and is included in the newest "The J.R.R. Tolkien. Companion and Guide". I spent last year in the archives to find the truth about the Tolkien genealogy. Only you know how to enter the information from me into your Tolkien Gateway. Plese, think about including the information about the roots in Gdańsk and East Prussia. And about the alternative etymology of the Tolkien family name. —Unsigned comment by Galadhorn (talk • contribs).
- I have no problems with including it, as long as it is properly sourced and the current is not removed. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 21:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you help me with it, Ederchil? As a source you can cite Ch. Scull, W. G. Hammond, "The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide" (2017), G 828, 1298. When they publish my article in the "Tolkien Studies" there will be another source for the Tolkien Gateway (I will inform you about the publication). Or you can quote the Tolkien Society website: https://www.tolkiensociety.org/author/biography/
"The name “Tolkien” (pron.: Tol-keen; equal stress on both syllables) was believed by the family (including Tolkien himself) to be of German origin; Toll-kühn: foolishly brave, or stupidly clever—hence the pseudonym “Oxymore” which he occasionally used; however, this quite probably was a German rationalisation of an originally Baltic Tolkyn, or Tolkīn. In any case, his great-great grandfather John (Johann) Benjamin Tolkien came to Britain with his brother Daniel from Gdańsk in about 1772 and rapidly became thoroughly Anglicised."
I am very weak as a Wikipedist. I don't understand the language of the coding in here. Please, help me.
Lots of time to learn, my boy
It is clear you bring your own view, only, to this Wiki.
A moderator's task is to intervene when new users first stray from your narrow course.
Not after much effort.
This is clearly habitual.
Now I see why so many Wiki's exist on this topic.
Some even allow flexibility and detail.
You are young and I hope you have the time to really understand Tolkien's great Work.
There seems to be a lot of Noldor in your ATTITUDE.
But it's YOUR Wiki, so...
Fudoki 21:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- So much for the skin of Ironfoot. Wait, was the skin of Ironfoot ever mentioned? Guess not. Silly me.
- I admire that you want to help out. But putting in effort does not automatically mean it's a well-written summary of the life of Fingon. It was practically unsalvageable, a jumbled collection of clauses.
- I'm not young by most standards, and I'm more Dwarf than Noldo. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 21:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
You wrote "again, this is not what Other is for" in the Elured and Elurin articles... So I repeat what I asked in the Talk:Elwing page: Given the fact that Eluréd, Elurín and Elwing present some difficulties in being classified in terms of elf/man/half-elf, why not use a neutral label? Despite the name "other", the label is an empty one, the character in question is not put in some list of "strange races" or nothing like that. See Falathar and companions: they were elves or men, but we don't know exactly what they are, so the "other" label was applied in their articles. If you insist this is wrong, I think a third way should be find, because the "elf" label doesn't seem right to me: Dior was mortal, your sons couldn't be elves. Haran 19:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- Those two are three quarters Elf. They're more Elvish than Half-elves. And even Half-elves are still identified by their Elvenness (they're not called Half-men) so giving them a undetermined elf infobox is still better than lumping them with "race unknown" and "race too small for their own infobox". --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- You explore a very subjective line of argumentation, percentage of elvish blood and the word "half-elf"... I don't see why this so personal thinking would be better, instead of a neutral label - "race unknown" and "race too small for their own infobox" is another subjective vision of yours, nothing in the box says that - or even a “sinda” label, for example... But whatever, I think you had a pet peeve with my editions since the beginning, reverting them and writing hardly nothing, and now have found a new way to continue disagreeing - particularly because this argumentation of yours is a new one, you insisted earlier on restoring the "half-elf" label, and, indeed, you replaced Elurín in the Category:Half-Elves and it still remain so... Haran 21:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I understand now. Thanks for expalaining. --DoctorWellington 13:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Verwijder mijn gebruikersnaam AUB
- Er zijn zoveel fans wereldwijd dat we toch enige grenzen moeten stellen. Mensen die boeken of artikelen gepubliceerd hebben krijgen voorrang.
- Ik heb nog geprobeerd om het te herschrijven, maar er was bar weinig aan te doen. Sommige delen waren woord voor woord (en dode link voor dode link) overgenomen van Haradrim (Tolkien Society) en andere waren niet meer dan reclame. Dat het valide is betekent niet dat wij het in de aangeboden vorm maar moeten gebruiken. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
But what the matter with my edits??? They are not vandalism, this is a fact that spiders don't have stingers, if Shelob was born in the First Age, she's obviously several millenia old, and square kilometer converting is also useful for somebody not mastering well Anglo-Saxon metric system. Not every statement needs sourcing, it would be nonsense. 188.8.131.52 18:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- The age needs to be a number. Even if an approximation, it needs to be written out in numbers with the source in a ref and any explanation in a note.
- Is there any source spiders don't have stingers in Middle-earth?
- It's not the "Anglo-Saxon metric system". Or the Imperial system, as it's actually mean (it's not metric). The mentioned measures are the translation convention Tolkien used for the Lár/league and the Ranga/yard, and presumably other units of measurement too. A mile in the real world is a third of a league, and that's usually used in analysis of scale, but as the Númenorean reckoning was decimal, one could question whether they had a "mile" equivalent, or if they used tenths of leagues or fifths or something. But miles were the terms Tolkien used. Not kilometers. Strictly speaking, I'm not sure if the term "square mile" is even used. I've removed the comparison of real world countries because this minute difference.
- Parabombing is the wiki practice of plonking a sentence within parentheses in the middle of a paragraph, without regard for what it does for the sentence. If you cannot work it into the section in a natural, readable way, don't add it. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Spammer Problem and Trying to Fix It
Hi Ederchil, I've been trying to restore the infobox on the Wizards article after 184.108.40.206 spammed it and then restored it to normal, but I can't find the template. Also, I've seen that this user has been consistently spamming and restoring articles, and that is definitely a rotten thing to do. Can you help me? Thank you! -- Holdwine Meriadoc (Talk/Contribs/Edits)
- Done. An easy way to fix it is just go to the page's history and edit and save the last version from before the vandalism. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 21:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Article Image Question
Discrepancies on Arvegil
So just how do you propose to acknowledge that the published text of TLotR leaves no room for the birth year or lifespan attributed to Arvegil by "The Heirs of Elendil" to be correct?...letting the latter stand uncontradicted is just unconscionable.220.127.116.11 15:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- We generally have "Other versions of the Legendarium" as a section header for any out-of-universe information. But that wasn't the only issue. Sources need to be in-line with specific citation templates, and it should just be a mention of the discrepancy, without a conclusion about its canonicity.
- And you should never start anything with "It should be noted". --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 17:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, I just rewrite the edit, so it fixes the TG style and article structure. I recommend Mr.18.104.22.168 to read TG policy on canonicity before saying what's canon. I leave to the admins to let be my edit or not, as I don't have those book editions, so I can't check them or cite them properly. It should be rewrite anyways, I know my English is not the best, but it took me a while to understand the issue with a whole paragraph in just one sentence. --LorenzoCB 17:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)