text:
Talk:The Name of the Rose

Discussion
How do the stairs in the monastery's library resemble those in Robarts Library? The stairs in Robarts don't seem particularly interesting to me... Adam Bishop 02:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This puzzles me too. I'm willing to stand corrected, but the library as described in the novel is on one floor. The film takes the liberty of adding staircases within it. Magicandmedicine 21:29, 20 Aug 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, Eco mentions in the intro to the book how he found "the terrible story of Adso of Melk" in an original medieval manuscript, later lost by Eco, which was followed by his intricate quest for more references.

 * Perhaps some elucidation on that point, if more information came to light. (Eco later published "Postscript to the Name of the Rose", reflections on the novel. I didn't read it, perhaps there is more information there.) 1
 * But I believe that that introduction is meant to be part of the fictional work, rather than be taken at face value. - Nunh-huh 01:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Novel / Film
I think this article needs to distinguish more between novel and film. -- Blorg 22:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * :D :D :D (i'm working on Patras Wireless Network right now :) can't help, sorry :) Project2501a 23:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to delete references to the film. Danspalding 06:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fork. Never delete useful stuff. — Llywelyn II   17:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ad simplicio?
Why bother to say "ad simplicio" means "to simplicio"? Can we either translate simplicio or remove the half-translation entirely? MrCheshire 21:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Simplicio was a character in Galileo's book. 68.74.112.41 03:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He's still right. It's the character's name but it's just the Latin for "dumbass". We just write "To Simplicio" because we don't want to let the hoi polloi in on the joke. — Llywelyn II   17:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Name of the Rose
NPR had a program about the novel and mentioned that the words "The Name of the Rose" were taken from a Latin phrase that alludes to the present-day Roman Catholic Church not being thelegitimate successor to the early Christian church. What is the orginal Latin phrase and what does it mean?72.150.132.37 16:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)nan
 * I can't believe that people don't know what the phrase "the name of the rose" alludes to. The explanation is so simple and obvious. It's the famous speech by Juliet in "Romeo and Juliet":
 * "What's in a name? That which we call a rose
 * By any other name would smell as sweet."
 * This has double meaning in the context of this novel: the most obvious one is an answer to the ending of the novel. In the last paragraph, Adso admits that the one thing that he cherishes the most on his life is his experience with the girl - even though he never even learned her name! The title suggests that it isn't important that he didn't learn her name, or that he never got to know more about her; what matters is that she made him feel love for the first and only time in his life.

 * The other meaning has to do with one of the central themes of the novel. The main medieval scholastic dispute was between nominalism and realism, over the the existence of 'universals', abstract concepts. Realists argued that universas are *real*. In Plato's theory, universals were the most important, and reasoning was based on deduction from universal principles. Aristotle's position was more moderate, he acknowledged universals, but argued universal principals should be induced by examining specific data. The extreme version of Plato's system of thought (e.g. Neo-Platonism) completely rejects empiric data - neo-Platonists went to far as to consider all material world evil. While they did go that far and while they did accept the reality of the material world, St. Augustine and most other Western theologists had a tendency to put abstract above the concrete, spirit above matter, and faith above reason. In contrast with the realists, nominalists argued that universals were no more than "names" for a group of similar things. This view was subversive because it implied that The Church is no longer an ontological unity as "the Body of Christ", but merely a Name to denote a collection of like-minded individuals with the same faith. Conceptualists, mediating between the two extremes, held that universals are concepts which exist in our minds and express real similarities in things themselves. Here's a part of an encyclopedic entry about this issue: "Under an appearance of much vain subtlety the controversy about universals involved issues of the greatest speculative and practical importance: realism represented a spiritual, nominalism an anti-spiritual, view of the world; while realism was evidently favourable, and nominalism unfavourable, to the teaching of the Church on the dogmas of the Trinity and the Eucharist. Nominalism was a doctrine of sceptics and suspected heretics, such as Berengar of Tours and Roscellinus. Even Abelard's mediating doctrine of conceptualism was sufficiently near to obnoxious ideas to involve him in lifelong persecution. The principles of the great orthodox philosophers of the later scholastic period which begins in the 13th century, Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, were those of moderate realism. When nominalism was revived in the 14th century by the English Franciscan, William of Occam, it gave evidence of a new tendency in thought, a distrust of abstractions and an impulse towards direct observation and inductive research, a tendency which had its fulfilment in the scientific movement of the Renaissance. Occam's dictum "Entia non multiplicanda sunt praeter necessitatem" was inspired by a spirit similar to that of Bacon. Though nominalism is properly a medieval theory, the tendency has passed over into modern philosophy: the term "nominalist" is often applied to thinkers of the empirical, sensationalist school, of whom J. S. Mill may be taken as the chief representative." http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Nominalism

 * Considering the fact that the main theme of the novel is the conflict between the empirism and the scientific mind embodied by William of Baskerville (a follower of Roger Bacon) and the religious dogma embodied by Jorge, and, in broader sense, between free thought and dogmatism in general, the title of the novel, "The Name of the Rose", and its allusion to the Shakespeare's lines I quoted ("what's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet") gains a new meaning and points very clearly the author's stance on this issue. Nightandday —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightandday (talk • contribs) 06:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has no mention of Shakespeare. Could somebody find a reference for this interpretation? --Error (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is the title section deleted? I think that it's an essential part in order to understand the novel.Florin zeitblom (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It really isn't important at all in understanding the novel. Two things are unnamed: the monastary and the girl.  A moderately alert reader is capable of noting that and comparing them.  If something is hugely important, then there will be scholarly works discussing it, and those can then be cited in an article.  But someone's interpretation in the talk page of Wikipedia doesn't make it true or relevant to a learned discussion of the subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.174.65 (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge tags
The article Librarians in the Name of the Rose is unlikely to become more than a paragraph or two, and probably should be merged into The Name of the Rose Kathy A. 21:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. If there's a Wiki about librarians, no doubt a longer article will appear in it one day. And rew D alby  21:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Rose
My edition of the book has a Dramatis personæ. There the yound girl (that seduces Adson) is named "maybe the rose". --62.245.207.18 22:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The editor that added "maybe the rose" should be strung up and pummeled.
 * Sounds like an inquisitorial method to me! :D Strausszek (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Trivia integration
In keeping with Wikipedia's views on trivia sections, I took the liberty of relocating the section into a new sub-category, "Title". Please feel free to expand on the topic. Reason turns rancid 19:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment about Dr Watson
Hi:

The article currently has the sentence 'It is also a play on Holmes' friend Dr. Watson.' Err, How is Adso a play on the name Dr. Watson?

Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.175.251 (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

 * wADSOn? -- Paul Richter (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Further, he is called Adson at one point (at the period the novel is set, it was common for people to be known by variants of their name in different languages, e.g. Bernard/Bernardo Gui/Guido, and this is presumably a similar case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.56.254 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

 * It also helps to consider how the two names would be pronounced by an Italian speaker rather than an English speaker. The stress differences basically disappear.  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Numerous sources (I've cited one) comment on the similarity of the names. 2fs (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

University of Toronto
As I mentioned above a few years ago, I thought it was odd that the monastery was being compared to Robarts Library. However, it makes more sense if the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library was intended, since it does resemble the monastery somewhat, and it is attached to Robarts. Is this crazy original research or should I just assume that's what was meant by "Robarts"? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unexpected success
Should mention that it is not the type of book which is normally a popular best-seller in the U.S... AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Adso - Fransiscan novice
hello, I read this novel for school and I thing Adso was a Benedictin novice not Fransiscan. --82.117.137.130 (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Adso reference in other literature
In Diana Gabaldon's Highlander series, Jamie names Clair's cat "Adso", with the explanation that he is named after Adso of Melk (milk). 24.32.114.16 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Borges who supported the military coup in 1976
Is this a fact? I'm not sure that Borges supported the military coup in 1976, a think a reference should be provided or else this remark should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.72.155 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

fercha.

Style
Just a comment on the article. It is written in the style of an exam essay instead of something truly informative, IMHO this reduces readability and diminishes the value of the page. Mtpaley (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite accurate, and the peculiar, semi-formal and essayistic style of the book makes this kind of exposition useful. Strausszek (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with Strausszek, and agree with Mtpaley. This is not an appropriate format for an encyclopedia article, it reads like a review, and entire sections are unsourced and stink of original research.  The article needs some serious cleanup. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I third that notion. As I was reading through the plot summary, it more and more felt like I was taking part of an academic analysis rather than an encyclopedic article. I definitely think it should be cleaned up to improve readability. Andailus (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

 * WP:NOT. (That said: concur with majority). Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The prologue as parody
The introduction to the book where Eco recounts how he got hold of an obscure printed copy of Adso's story, translated it, and then lost it again and tried to get to grips with where the work came from - all of that is, I think, a shrewd parody of how various "secret gospels" have been introduced by their discoverers/writers. Eco sets his find in Prague in 1968, just before the Soviet invasion, then he translated it quickly before his friend took it with her under circumstances that blocked him from retrieving the book - and efforts to trace the origins of the work give ambiguous results. People who report a find of a sensational new gospel often tell similar stories, they have found it in some place that has since been destroyed or become inaccessible (Monte Cassino - pummeled in the last year of WW2 - some Kremlin library, a Tibetan or Ethiopian monastery) and at some point after making a copy/translation they have lost the original manuscript. People who can't be approached at present (monks, bishops, in Eco's case his female (?) friend) are introduced to act as some kind of guarantee that the book actually existed. As a medievalist Eco must have enjoyed this ploy at the beginning of his novel! Strausszek (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Found manuscript. --Error (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, the point isn't that the book purports to be from a found piece of writing but in the ironic use he makes of the device. Strausszek (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dislodged paragraph in the text
The following in "Major themes":

However, there is an alternative and more plausible explanation - the extremely ingenious solution was taken by Eco from "The Arabian Nights" - the story of "The Vizier Who Was Punished" is based exactly on the same theme.

seems to have been orphaned as the section was expanded and re-edited. Could someone take a look at the history of the page and check what precise issue in the book they belong with (what is it that Eco possibly borrowed from the Arabian Nights? not just the device of having people recount stories of their past??) and reunite them with the "explanation" which must have been proposed earlier in the article? Strausszek (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

unexpected bestseller
Should mention how this book was kind of a surprise bestseller in the UNited States... AnonMoos (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis
"On one level, the book is an exposition of the scholastic method which was very popular in the 14th century. William demonstrates the power of deductive reasoning, especially syllogisms. He refuses to accept the diagnosis of 'simple demonic possession' despite demonology being the traditional monastic explanation. Although the abbey is under the apprehension that they are experiencing the last days before the coming of Antichrist (a topic closely examined in the book), William, through his empirical mindset, manages to show that the murders are, in fact, committed by a more corporeal instrument. By keeping an open mind, collecting facts and observations, following pure intuition, and the dialectic method, he makes decisions as to what he should investigate, exactly as a scholastic would do. However, the simple use of reason does not suffice. The various signs and happenings only have meaning in their given contexts, and William must constantly be wary of the contexts within which he interprets the mystery. Indeed, the entire story challenges the narrator, William's young apprentice Adso, and the reader to continually recognize the context he is using to interpret, bringing the whole text to various levels which can all have different hermeneutical meanings. The narrative ties in many varied plot lines, all of which consider various interpretations and sources of meanings. Many of the interpretations and sources were highly volatile controversies in the medieval religious setting, all while spiraling towards what seems to be the key to understanding and truly interpreting the case. Although William's final hypotheses do not exactly match the actual events as written, those theories do allow him to solve the abbey's mystery."

This section is totally unsourced, reads like an essay, and is frustratingly obtuse about any actual details, instead deciding to dance around the particulars in order to avoid spoilers. It should not be on the page unless it can be made to follow wikipedia policy first.192.249.47.195 (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So rich in meaning it has no meaning
Removed this sentence from the TITLE heading since the same citation appears in the previous sentence.TheKurgan (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Postmodernist? lol
Umberto Eco postmodernist theorist? Really? Please read "Interpretation and Overinterpretation".

"The postmodern view, inspired by Derrida, Paul De Man, J. Hillis Miller, and brought forward by Stanley Fish and Richard Rorty, implies that there can be an infinite number of equally correct readings of a given text. Words as such do not possess any meaning, it is the reader who endows them with one. Hence, there is no way to prove that a given interpretation is right or wrong. There is no 'hidden message' to be discovered. Eco, while expressing great sympathy for reader-friendly theories, posited that there are, still, certain boundaries that shouldn't be trespassed. "

http://nude-literaryreview.com/en/05152012_postmodernism_human_face.htm

Here (google books): http://books.google.com.br/books?id=wbhROmD3guQC&printsec=frontcover&hl=pt-BR#v=onepage&q&f=false

M.utt (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Genre
Regarding this, I'm not sure I see the big difference between classifying the novel as "Historical mystery" or with the 2 component genres, "Historical novel, Mystery", or at least why historical mystery is objectionable? I realize it's sort of retroactively classifying the novel because the hybrid genre was relatively unrecognized at that point except for Cadfael, but 2 links seems weird when the topics are basically combined elsewhere. Plus I'd say this novel is more specifically detective fiction than mystery.— TAnthonyTalk 03:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading the article on Historical mystery more closely, I can see why you think it's appropriate…
 * Frankly, I find this book sui generis, so any genre classification will fail - though in a lot of ways I agree with you about detective fiction, that Holmes-like quality in the pursuit of knowing is the trait of Brother William that makes this book cohere into a "Philosophical Fiction"/"Historical Fiction"/"Religious Fiction"/"Critical-Theoretical Fiction"/"Postmodernist Fiction" DETECTIVE FICTION that actually worked! as a truly popular novel?
 * By the way one of the things provoking my revert of your edit is that I feel the genre label "Historical Mystery" is quite misleading, since with that title I would expect such a book to be addressing (and perhaps resolving?) a mystery that took place in history.
 * Whatever, if you really prefer the Historical mystery category, I guess I can swing with that…
 * thanks!, the ever-picky - bonze blayk (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I completely understand your reaction because "historical mystery" wasn't really even a thing when Eco wrote this, and the book does transcend what I am loathe to call the "cookie-cutter" style of some works in what is now the genre (Hercule Poirot in a toga, Hercule Poirot in armor). I think you read the historical mystery article right before I started to apply this article, which really asserts the recent importance of the genre, but it mentions Cadfael (which surely influenced this) and not The Name of the Rose for some reason LOL. Anyway, I hate to retroactively force a "new" genre on an older book so I will leave that to the experts: as (I assume) a regular contributor to this article, I'll let you decide if a link to the genre has a place anywhere here. Thanks! — TAnthonyTalk 16:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really sure what the issue is here
What is The Name of the Rose? It is a book. Is it a fictional library? No, it is not. Is it a fictional librarian? No, it is not, for a real book cannot be a fictional anything. So stop bloody adding real things to categories for fictional things. Not that difficult, really. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Name of the Rose is a work of fiction, which revolves primarily around murders committed at an abbey whose claim to fame is maintaining "the greatest library in all Christendom." Likewise, The Library of Babel, also included in the list of "Fictional Libraries," concerns a library?
 * And YES, believe it or not!, "Blind Jorge," the librarian who controls the library in the abbey, is based on the author of The Library of Babel, Jorge Luis Borges! (Thus, as a "fictional librarian," he is included in the list of… fictional librarians!  MIRABILE DICTU
 * Not that difficult, really… if you've read the book. - bonze blayk (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So then you agree that TNOTR is a real thing. And real things should not be categorized as fictional things. If there were an article on the fictional abbey then it would properly be categorized as a fictional library, and an article on Blind Jorge would belong in the fictional librarians category. Do you understand the mess that would result if real things were categorized on the basis of all of the fictional things withiin them? The typical book or film article could potentially be in dozens of "fictional foos" categories, which would swamp the categories for what the book or film actually is and would render the fictional items categories useless. It is absolutely correct to include the library and librarian on the appropriate lists. It is dead wrong to place them in the categories. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

 * "So stop bloody adding real things to categories for fictional things." - Did I add these Category links? NO.  You are arguing some recondite technical point about "the nature of categories in Wikipedia" in order to denude further a category that has hardly any entries?  What?  You sound exactly like one of the quarrelsome monks from the book, which somehow I feel certain you have never read? LOL and get a life!

 * I really don't know wtf your anger is about, Jerry Pepsi, and you know what? I can't care.  When some wikivandal comes along to fuck up this article, are you going to be here to revert the vandalism?

 * I THINK NOT.

 * And neither will I: over the course of some four and one-half years in which I endured an (inordinately) prolonged incarceration in the mental institutions of New York State while sane, I hewed to the principle:

 * NEVER ARGUE WITH THE LOONIES IN A LOONY BIN

 * So why should I frequent this Home for Terminally Argumentative Anons, given that the lunatics are in control of huge swathes of territory here on Wikipedia, arguing over trivia sans comprehension or collegiality? The (well-inteded but deeply clueless) vandalization of the article on Histrionic personality disorder was the next to last straw… and this is the last.

 * I walked out of that madhouse, and all the way out of that system, and i so am outta here - SEMI-RETIRED - Bonze Anne Rose Blayk - bonze blayk (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you certainly sound sane here...
 * Again, not really seeing why not categorizing real things as fictional things is such an issue but if this outburst means that you'll stop doing it, great. Padding small categories with things that don't belong in them doesn't serve anything. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are under a horrible misconception about Wikipedia categories. They are not "exact", nor are they meant to be.  The purpose of categories is not to come up with an encyclopedic naming scheme, but to provide a user-helpful way to navigate around Wikipedia.  Simplicity is acceptable, and usually trumps complete precision.  See, for example, the category Category:Cities in England.  There are no cities on that page, they are all located in subcategories.  There are several articles, none of which are actually the article for a City in England, and several subcategories, none of which contain a single City in England.  They are, however, extremely helpful pages for anyone interested in Cities in England.

 * The category name is kept at Cities in England. The reason is the point of the name is not to tell people, "look here, all pages that are examples of Cities of England and nothing but Cities of England," but rather, "congratulations, here are all the pages that are of great interest to people interested in more information regarding 'Cities of England'.  You see, if we insisted on the first view—the view you erroneously think has something to do with Wikipedia—we'd have to rename the category to something Category:Cities of England and Closely Related Locations, Lists, Concepts and What Have Yous.  Instead, Wikipedia follows the second view.

 * Our relevant category is named Category:Fictional libraries, and not Category:Fictional libraries and Works of Fiction containing Fictional libraries because it is simpler, and until you showed up, everyone understood the convention that articles of obvious, direct relevance to people clicking on the category belong in the category. This convention isn't just a matter of immediate usefulness.  It is also better compatible with the long-term evolution of Wikipedia: articles and categories mutate, and putting on absolute locks makes maintenance much much more difficult. Choor monster (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose of categories is to group things of the same type together. Real things with real things. Fictional things with fictional things. Mixing real things and fictional things is a misuse of categories. A real book is not and can never be a fictional library or a fictional librarian.

 * The category about cities in England is irrelevant, beyond the fact that things that are not cities in England shouldn't be categorized as cities in England.

 * It's not at all difficult to maintain a category for fictional things. Just don't add real things to it and if real things are added to it, remove them.

 * But what the fuck ever. Tyranny of the minority is the rule of law on Wikipedia and ultimately you're going to re-add these categories regardless of how wrong and illogical it is. So have at it. Categorize real books as fictional libraries. Knock yourself out. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are making things up, and then edit warring based on your made up nonsense. The purpose of categories is:
 * "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics."

- WP:CAT

 * Note that nowhere does it say that the name of the category is the characterization. This is your fundamental error.  You are perhaps misled by the word "Category", and want to use it in a standard philosophical/mathematical sense.  Well, too bad, the word on Wikipedia means what the consensus is.  Perhaps it should have been called "Resemblancy" or "Assemblagy" or some such coinage so that no one could be confused by prior uses of the term, but it's too late now.

 * The example of Category:Cities in England is completely relevant: it's a clue, a giant one at that, regarding what is the consensus here on Wikipedia on how Categories are used and named.

 * By the way, in case you haven't noticed: everyone agrees that The Name of the Rose is not a fictional library. You have not pointed anything out that no one noticed before.  You have not noticed a sneaky bit of vandalism snuck in years ago.  Rather, you have stumbled on one of endless thousands of examples of Categories on Wikipedia being used according to the stated purpose of Wikipedia Categories, something that the long-term editors of this page are familiar with. Choor monster (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Jpep's lousy attitude and ill humor obscured this point since people just told him to sit down and shut up but—if anyone came along and felt he was somehow in the right—he's still wrong. The Name of the Rose is not a fictional library. The monastery's library is a fictional library and one of the more important ones in 20th century literature... but we don't have an article on the library from The Name of the Rose. Until there's enough material to such an article, the library is dealt with here and the categories for those parts of this article are dealt with here. —  Llywelyn II   17:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are attempting by commenting on this thread a year and a half later, but for the record, was a sock of a banned user. Choor monster (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Plot
What about Peter Waldo meeting William of Baskerville ? I cannot remember this happening... Robin of locksley (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

St. Michael's Monastery as inspiration
I just edited to resolve a bit of semantic weirdness which implied that Eco had actually visited St. Michael's Abbey in the 14th century. When I looked at the source cited in support of the statement that this place had been the inspiration for the abbey in the book, all it said was that he had visited it just prior to filming the movie version and that it had been considered as a shooting location. It's entirely plausible that the statement is true, so I didn't cut it, but a better cite is needed. 192.35.35.35 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Slavoj Žižek
The Žižek quotation is "critical commentary", not "reception" (which usually refers to reviews at the time of publication). Also, probably too much is being quoted: it should be summarized. Choor monster (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I only just read this, and good god: Žižek can't "read" worth a damn:
 * This book is constructed as an instant example of building an open text. Eco wanted to kill a monk: this work, a grand folly among counterfeit texts, transpired, and otherwise, auctorial intent is irrelevant; you'll never get more out of Eco on the subject (cf. "Postscript to the Name of the Rose", which is all about Eco's "process" in constructing the text).
 * I view this more as an advertisement for Žižek than anything else.
 * the meanings you find here are your own - sincerely, ROSE - bonze blayk (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Allusions to other works
Checked. No "poisoned pages" theme in "The Golden Lotus". I canceled the reference.87.10.217.76 (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Variety of English
The word 'recognisable' was changed to 'recognizable'. Does this page have a policy of using American English? Is it not about an Italian novel? Jose Mathew (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Roger Bacon
Should be mentioned in the description of protagonist. This was the text at Roger Bacon's own article
 * In Umberto Eco's novel The Name of the Rose, the story follows the investigations of William of Baskerville, presented as an anachronistically empiricist contemporary and colleague of Roger Bacon who often quotes his late friend when explaining his own methods.

but it's to go into too much detail on each book's story over there. — Llywelyn II   17:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ink stains?
The article refers to "ink stains", is this the term used in the book? It's been a while and I don't have a copy on hand. Does "Name of the Rose" explicitly say that the poison was in the ink? A5 (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Name of the Rose


text: User talk:68.232.218.58

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:68.232.218.58


text:
Talk:James Monroe University

THIS IS INCORRECT - THERE IS A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST THIS AFRICAN UNIVERSITY - CONTACT THE EMBASSY OF LIBERIA IN WASHINGTON OR MINISTRY OF EDUCATION IN LIBERIA --User:203.221.69.111 (moved from main page by --jag123 02:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC))

THIS IS TRUE
I have two-degrees that I was awarded after writing papers and analyzing past work history.

No its false, infact they are being investigated by the Secret Service at this time (September 15th 2005) I reall feel for you poor people that lost money to these scam artists.

title: Talk:James Monroe University


text:
User talk:SamuraiClinton

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JoaoRicardo 02:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

List of gaps in Interstate Highways
Three-digit Interstates are allowed to connect to their parents indirectly, via another one of the same parent. I have added something in the intro about this. --SPUI (talk) 00:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello - some of your writing is a bit hard to understand. Is English your first language, out of curiousity? Evercat 02:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interstate 875
Please stop adding stuff about this road. It has not existed and there are no current plans for it. It doesn't even make sense where you put it (List of intrastate Interstate Highways).

Hey. This article here: Romance-Interstate standards analogies doesn't appear to be anything except a weird joke. Don't create stuff like that, and definitely don't link to it in other articles. Everyking 02:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A 'tertiary interstate', if the term is even used outside WP, is not a 3DI that spurs from a 3DI. If anything, it is simply another term for a 3DI. That itself only seems to be used on Wikipedia. --SPUI (talk) 03:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please do not make up terms. Unless you have some offline source, the term Hypotenuse highway is not used anywhere. --SPUI (talk) 03:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neologisms
I know that you're the person who vandalized Wikipedia with a bunch of neologisms a while back. Let's put that in the past. Could you please stop creating articles like Hypotenuse highway and -pedia? Many of the things you've written are inaccurate or made-up in some way. Many of the articles you write get deleted, and many more need to be rewritten or heavily edited. You're welcome to contribute here, but up until now your contributions have been problematic. I'm sorry to be so blunt with you but you're creating a lot of work for other people. Rhobite 23:54, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

And also, could you please use the edit summary box? Thanks. Rhobite 00:26, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I do not think of bogus additions to Wikipedia like I used to; I am trying to avoid neologisms and I am trying to use existing words. If I think of a setup of 2 words separated by a space, I don't think of them as neologisms. Will you accept terms that use existing words separated by a space despite the rarety? --GoofyGuy 13:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I don't think you should make those up either. Please stick to actual words and phrases. It's pointless to make up your own phrases, since they'll get deleted. It doesn't matter whether it has a space in it or not. If you're interested in writing articles which are actually needed, please see Requested articles. You may also want to read What Wikipedia is not. Rhobite 16:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Speculation
Please don't create articles that speculate. Example: Unnamed portable XBOX.

There's a policy for this: What Wikipedia is not

Thanks. --Milkmandan 22:15, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Copyrighted materials
Please do not post copyrighted materials to Wikipedia. Zilwaukee Bridge was copied verbatim from. older ≠ wiser 01:45, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * REPLY: I am sorry, now I know not to do verbatim copying from copyrighted websites; now I will only do different setups.

stubs for things that are not ever referred to by the name you choose
Please stop adding stub articles like Temporary Interstate 69 (between Lansing and Flint) or Temporary Interstate 75 (central Michigan) or I-75 (between Grayling, MI and M-32). There are at least two problems with stubs like these: 1) no one refers to these entities by these names and 2) these entities are entirely unremarkable on their own and descriptions of them belong in the context of related articles (like I-75, I-69, ot M-78). These sub-stubs with invented names (replete with nearly unintelligible language usage) are starting to become annoying. older ≠ wiser 03:14, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Listen, I am trying to have the best intentions for Wikipedia nowadays. I am a roadgeek, road historan and whatsoever.  These stubs and substubs that I generated are not meant to annoy anyone, they are here for historical value and retroactive curiousity about freeway construction projects from the past. --GoofyGuy 03:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * They are not much use if they lack content and nobody is able to find them. I think you have the potential to be a good editor here, but there have been a lot of problems with your articles up to this point. I think you should try editing existing articles (instead of creating your own) until you get a better sense of what constitutes the perfect article. You should read Naming conventions too. Simple names are almost always better than long ones, and many times you don't even have to create a new article. You could edit Interstate 75 instead of creating a new stub about each road feature. Rhobite 03:29, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * I didn't mean to imply that you should stop writing altogether. I agree with Rhobite's advice. I also think you have the potential to become a good contributor here. There are plenty of other road geeks here. I'm not exactly a road geek, per say, more of a Michigan geek, and as such have an interest in articles on Michigan roads (having written or edited a fair number of them). The little bits of information in poorly named articles aren't much use if no one finds them because of the name or that can't understand them because there isn't enough context provided. I think it'd be much better to try to incorporate the information into existing articles, or perhaps into more substantial new articles that address many of the stub topics (like perhaps something like Construction of Interstate 75 in Michigan). older ≠ wiser 03:57, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * If there's enough information, it might make sense simply to make Interstate 75 in Michigan and put anything that would go on I-75 there. I'm thinking of doing the same for I-95 and Rhode Island. As for the easiest way to clean these up, you wrote them, so just copy and paste the contents into the I-75 and I-69 articles, and put on the page. --a roadgeek, SPUI (talk) 13:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I admit that I am a bit of a road geek. Take a look at my user page to see what I mean.  You iz gonna love my Ridge Route and U.S. Highway 99 articles.  In the meantime, I don't have additional advice to offer beyond the excellent advice you've already received. - Lucky 6.9 09:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Freeway system of Los Angeles
We already have an article called Southern California freeways for this topic. Please make your additions there. Zzyzx11 23:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I merged your "Many of the firsts of Los Angeles freeways" to Southern California freeways. Zzyzx11 23:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BS I-75 (Mackinaw City)
Since you created this before creating your account, you probably don't have it on your watchlist - just letting you know that it's on VFD. If it's not pure speculation, please provide a source, --SPUI (talk) 23:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A word of advice
Some of your articles are being listed on WP:VFD because they are minor subjects that can easily be included in a larger article (like the part of Old 27 in US 27, or the sections of I-75 in I-75). Deletionists don't like these, and even some inclusionists barely tolerate them. If you want to see your stuff stay, I recommend adding to larger articles wherever possible, including taking care of the current matters on VFD. --SPUI (talk) 12:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually now that I think about it, you may want to make one article called Unnumbered Michigan State Trunklines or something similar, and include all of them. --SPUI (talk) 12:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, if you want people to take you seriously, you should sign VFD votes with your own name using 4 tildes. Mgm|(talk) 12:20, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Club Roast
I have the best intentions for Wikipedia. Being banned would be a bad thing for me. I know some articles that I made have a VfD on the, but despite of that, I still have good intentions for Wikipedia.

This thing about Chevy Chase's Club Roast show is that I thought the name for his show was a funny one, and I thought it would be worth making an article about; I feel bad for you proposing to ban me from Wikipedia on the VfD page for that article I made. Just because pages I make have VfD dosen't mean that I am intentionally making bogus contributions to Wikipedia.

One reason why I make some articles is because my mind runs out of ones that would have enough significance to be kept; but having contributions with VfDs shouldn't spark any suspicion on me!

 * Frankly, I get the impression you're just having a bit of fun with us. I've been watching your edits for a while, and "Club Roast" isn't your first spurious article. In fact, I count nine of your pages on VfD right now. If you're honest in wanting to be a valuable Wikipedian, then my apologies for suggesting that you be banned. But it's hard to believe that after all this time, after so many of your articles have been nominated for deletion, after you have shown no signs of changing your behavior, that you're just a victim of circumstance. Make no mistake: we don't enjoy ganging up on people. We don't do it without cause. If you want your presence here to be appreciated, you have to work at it a little. Don't expect other people to happily clean up your mistakes. Don't create pages on a whim. If you have nothing to say, don't write an article. Check out policies and guidelines and just develop a familiarity with the rules so you know what we expect from you. You seem to have a lot of knowledge, but you have to learn where it belongs. Binadot 03:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * P.S. Although other users may disagree, I've always considered it bad form to vote on your own page's VfD. If you choose to do so, always sign the page with your own username (not "Goofy Guy"), or people may suspect you're trying to cast a sock puppet vote. Binadot 03:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your Articles and Edits
Howdy.

As others have already pointed out, many of your articles get nominated for VfD because they don't really fit the mold for what subjects are covered in Wikipedia. If you haven't already, carefully read what Wikipedia is not and these guidelines on importance and notability. (Keep in mind that the latter link is not yet Wikipedia policy, only a general guideline, but parts of it may be in the future.) I know you already have a hang of creating and editing articles, but you might want to read through those as well, to pick up tips you may not be aware of.

You seem to be very enthusiastic about Wikipedia, and I commend you for your politeness while dealing with those of us who frequent VfD -- some of us (myself included) can get quite cranky, or just simply terse. If you learn from the links above, and concentrate on editing the topics you know well, I think you could become a valuable contributor. However, if you continue to create and edit articles in the way you are doing so now, I can only see frustration for both of us. Good luck. android↔talk 02:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Samurai, I'd like to give you some friendly and totally unsolicited advice: Read up on the Manual of style and especially What Wikipedia is not. Strive for quality over quantity. Surely there's some subject(s) you care deeply enough about to either expand a current article or to begin one on something that is of broader interest than the one about the Sesame Street parody. I've been here about a year and I really don't have a lot of original articles to my credit, but the ones I have done are of general interest. A eBay user in Australia (I'm in Southern California) recently cribbed part of my Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 article for the auction of his own car! That truly blew my mind to see my own words paraphrased on an eBay auction. This is the kind of power this site can wield. Use it well. Best, - Lucky 6.9 23:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the "GoofyGuy" thing -- I've been using all of your nicknames when discussing your articles on VfD because you have variously used three different names to sign your edits, and they're different enough from each other that other users might get confused. I'm only doing this so those that may remember the "GoofyGuy" nickname from earlier discussions realize that SamuraiClinton, GoofyGuy, and TheSamurai are one and the same. android↔talk 22:56, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Changing your nickname wouldn't have prevented you from being banned. It's quite easy to tell which edits belong to which usernames, regardless of how they are signed. android↔talk 23:41, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Category:New Orleans culture
Hi. If you didn't know, take a look at the Zydeco and Cajun articles you just added that category to. No doubt relevent to Louisiana culture, but not specifically New Orleans. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 23:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neologisms
I have no idea, as I've never used Wiktionary. My guess is that they will unless they're in widespread use. --SPUI (talk) 00:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Age of Aquarius
A quick Google would be more than enough to provide you the basic information to create this article. Even without Googling, I can tell you that the medley is from the musical "Hair" by Andrew Lloyd Webber and was performed by the 5th Dimension. Putting down some malformed substub, slapping a stub notice on it and hoping that someone cleans up after you is, quite frankly, poor etiquette. I could expand this, but I'm going to let you do it. Your behavior is running you the very real risk of banishment from further editing on this site. Please do the right thing. - Lucky 6.9 02:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't really doubt your intentions. That's why I'm trying to guide you, harsh as it may seem. It isn't always easy to express that in writing. I'm not an admin so I can't block you. Nor would I if you were doing the right thing. If you take a look at the article now, another editor added a few basic facts that were easily obtainable with a quick Google search. Before putting fingers to keyboard, do a bit of research first. That's all I'm asking. If you're for real, and I hope you are, please take my advise. Now that it's expanded a bit, why not research the subject a bit more and expand it further? That should help you get a better feel for what goes on here. Have a great weekend...signing off for now. Remember: You can always leave a question on my talk page. Take care. - Lucky 6.9 02:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Papa Was a Rolling Stone"

 * *a short time after PWaRS was made, some funk song that interpolated parts from it with the recurring quote "standing on the top" was made; if a Wikipedian knows what that song is, add it to this section.

That song is "Standing on the Top", another Temptations song. It was written and produced by Rick James in 1982 for the group's reunion tour with David Ruffin and Eddie Kendricks. It does not sample or in any way reference or interpolate "Papa Was a Rolling Stone". --FuriousFreddy 00:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2 Questions about Votes for Dis-ambiguation
Here are 2 questions:

 * 1) Shouldn't it have "Wikipedia:" at the start of its title?? I moved it there shortly after I saw your first vote.

 * 1) How should it be abbreviated to distinguish it from Vfd standing for votes for deletion??

Georgia guy 17:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation process
Hi,

You seem to be creating a new process for suggesting pages that should be disambiguated. I don't think this is a good idea. Why do you think Wikipedia needs this new process? I'm concerned that it may be an example of instruction creep. Have you discussed this with anyone else? It would be good to get consensus on whether this is necessary. If other people agree that it is necessary, they can help to build the pages for it.

I've started a discussion of this process at Village pump (policy) under the heading "Votes for disambiguation??"

FreplySpang (talk) 18:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clunky cartridge button
I see you created this page, and someone has nominated it for deletion. Could you please go to that discussion page and explain why this article is valuable.-gadfium 23:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested in the fact that this article doesn't even make sense. The US and European... Well, ANY outside of Japan-released Nintendo Entertainment Systems did not even have VERTICAL loading slots. Nintendo Entertainment System uses horizontal loading slots and doesn't have a cartridge eject button. If you are referring to the Japanese model, you should have stated it as the Famicom (or Family Computer), not NES. And if you're not from Japan, you probably bought a fake NES. Did you know the NES is the most cloned console in existance? Famiclone. I'm an anonymous user, though I should probably create an account soon...

Creating Articles w/ Categories
Good work creating new articles. When you create things, it helps tremendously to assign them to an accurate category (see WP:CG for info). If you're really not sure about categories, at least assign your new articles a stub category (see WP:SC for info). By assigning a category, you help make sure your new articles don't get lost as 'orphans' that are not associated with related topics. Feco

"Monika" articles
Samurai, you have got to add more to an article besides half-finished sentences. Your last two entries are speedy-deletion candidates as they stand. Please take another look at the tutorials if you need to. - Lucky 6.9 03:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, then...all you have to do is a bit of research beforehand like I suggested before. You could have easily Googled the phrase and added a bit more than what you recalled from memory.  Same with that "Men In Black" substub I just stumbled on.  If it helps, remember this:  Keep the end user in mind.  This is supposed to be a research site. - Lucky 6.9 04:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course. I used "Google" generically.  Feel free to use whatever search engines you wish. - Lucky 6.9 04:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stop creating your nonsense substubs. RickK 04:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Lists
I'd rather if you used complete sentences instead of simply adding lists of trivia to articles. But if you absolutely must form your additions into lists, please spell "occurrences" correctly. Thank you. Rhobite 05:00, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Again, it's spelled "occurrences". Not "occurances", and not "occurences". Two R's and zero A's. May I suggest that you download a spellchecker for your preferred browser, such as ieSpell for IE or Spellbound for Firefox? Thank you. Rhobite 00:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Context
Please, add context to your articles. For example, your article on "Cartman's Silly Hate Crime" never mentions the TV series it's an episode of. Have you ever considered editing existing articles rather than creating new ones? You might get better results that way. Yours, Meelar (talk) 21:17, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, please. We've all been patient and helpful since you seem to be very enthusiastic about this site.  For that, we thank you.  However, a lot of what you're doing is highly disruptive.  This latest article is an excellent example.  Unless they're particularly notable, single episodes of TV programs aren't considered encyclopedic.  This is another example of information that's better served and presented at the main South Park article or perhaps the list of South Park episodes.  OK?  Deal?  Friends? - Lucky 6.9 21:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please Stop
Please stop: In short, Wikipedia is much better served if you add what you know to existing articles, unless the subject is large enough to warrant its own article. Individual songs, individual episodes of TV shows, and jokes and pop-culture references are not examples of things that need their own topics. android↔talk 03:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Adding "jokes" and pop-culture references to well-established articles. It's great that Beavis started masturbating in front of the Washington Monument, but that really ought to go into an article about him, don't you think?
 * 2) Creating misspelled redirects and using them in articles. Look up a word before you use it in an article. It's obvious you've since realized your mistake, but now we have a nearly-useless redirect from Falix symbol to Phallic symbol, and you didn't even bother changing it in the Washington Monument article.
 * 3) Adding links to your own newly-created articles in "See Also" sections in well-established articles. If you really think Gettysburg address needs a pop-culture references section, add it there; don't create new articles like 4 score and 7 years ago.
 * 4) Creating useless templates like Template:Nn. Things like common VfD votes don't need templates.
 * 5) Using some X in articles. If you're going to write substubs like X is a song by some band, at least do some research and find out which band it is. Google is your friend.

Wikipedia is not IMDb, which can easily be used (and is more suited) to providing complete soundtrack listings for pretty much every movie ever made. Would you care to address any of the other points I've brought up? android↔talk 03:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

My friend, you are right on the verge of being drummed off this site. I don't want to see that happen. If you continue to treat this site in the way you have been, it's a certainty. Android brings up perfect reasons as to why. The 4 score and 7 years ago entry is not the sort of thing someone will look up before looking up the Gettysburg Address. BTW, the proper way of writing something like that does not involve good old Arabic numerals, but the words for them: "Four score and seven years ago." In fact, take a look at the main article. It's written that way in Lincoln's own hand. Actually, what you've done is a pretty good redirect to the main article. While it's likely that someone might type the phrase searching for the Gettysburg Address, it just isn't an article on its own. I'll beseech you once again: Please do the right thing. - Lucky 6.9 04:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Autosexuality
The vote was not redirect and merge. VFDs last 5 days, but given what's been voted so far, it's a clear keep. Please do not unilaterally impose decisions that have strong consensus against them. --SPUI (talk) 14:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD on Autosexuality
Unless I'm severely mistaken, you do not have the authority to close VfD discussions, especially when the consensus is clearly not what you say it is. This should be treated as vandalism. Do not do this again. android↔talk 14:21, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Dude, you're really pushing it. Listen to your old pal.  I think you could be a terrific asset but you keep on doing things that will get you banned.  Users have been banned for far less than what you've done.  You're starting to tick off administrators which means the bureaucrats are going to sit up and take notice. - Lucky 6.9 18:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Based on this action and other past patterns of behavior, I have written up a Request for Comment regarding your articles and edits. You are invited to add your response. android↔talk 02:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Micropolis Corporation
I noticed you created a new page, Micropolis Corporation, but you made a redirect to Hard disk. I think it would be better if you did a little research about the company and see if you can make it to and article... or at the very least make it a stub. Just a suggestion. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Then, I am curious. Why did you create the redirect in the first place? Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not sure I follow you. It might be helpful for you to read Redirect and point to me the specific reason you are suggesting here. Thanks. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I still think you can make at least a 1-2 paragraph stub out of it. Have you heard of archive.org, the Internet archive? I believe if you enter Micropolis' old website www.micropolis.com into the wayback machine search engine, you can get some info on the company. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I cleaned up your additions on Micropolis Corporation. For your information: Notice how I bolded "Micropolis Corporation" in the first sentence in the article. This is part of the style of writing encyclopedia: you bold the main subject in the first sentence. Next, look at the second paragraph and notice how I really paraphrased a paragraph from Hard disk. Now, since this article is a stub, I put in the article. Finally, I attached Category:Defunct computer companies of the United States because another company listed on hard disk, MiniScribe, also had that category. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfC & Traverse City
Howdy. I added some talk to the RfC talk page regarding your recent edits on the Traverse City articles. Please give it a look. android↔talk 22:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Black culture of Detroit is a large-enough concept that it might deserve an article on its own; I'm not sure about that, since I know very little about Detroit, but it's a good, long article. The Culture of Traverse City article and the Tourism section of Traverse City, Michigan are both small enough – and not likely to grow much larger – that it's only natural to merge them into the main article on the city. The "there's a merge directive there already" excuse is pretty meaningless since you put it there yourself. android↔talk 22:46, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Fraud and Hoax
Fraud and Hoax are completely different. A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real -- a practical joke. Fraud is more of a crime to steal money. Therefore, I strongly disagree that they should be merged into one article. Besides, there is enough content on each of them to have them separate. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I just saw that somebody else put your Fraudulent hoax on speedy delete. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyway, even though they are similar, many people regard them as separate topics. Again, a hoax is more of a practical joke while fraud is a crime to trick people into giving away their money. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * However, I will admit that there are enough hits on Google about "Fraudulent hoax" that we could possibly make an article out of it. Is that ok with you? Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

La Cienega Boulevard
Since you seem to enjoy roads and highways, I thought you might want to sneak a peek at my latest article. La Cienega is really notable, I used to drive it often and I was surprised to find a red link. I also took this as an opportunity to show you what a short road article should look like. What I did was simple. I combined what I already knew like you do but I added info I found with a quick Google on the history of the boulevard as an incomplete freeway. In a few minutes, I had a decent short article complete with a couple of Caltrans photos. Hope this helps. - Lucky 6.9 19:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops. The photos were not Caltrans as I thought they were.  You can still view them at the external link section. - Lucky 6.9 21:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nomination for adminship
I have nominated you for Administrator status. Please go to the WP:RFA page and accept the nomination. 63.173.114.137 22:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently this was removed due to my anonymity. I'll have it back up in a few moments when I create an account. 63.173.114.137 22:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It has been re-added. You can accept your nomination on the WP:RFA page. LevelCheck 23:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you interested in seeking adminship? Your comment suggests you aren't. Either way, would you mind going to Requests for adminship/SamuraiClinton and indicating if you accept or decline the nomination? — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Candy Girl article
You've gone and done it again. Haven't you read a single word any of us have typed? Once again, you have created a non-article because of your continued refusal to research your subject before writing about it. I have been patient. I have been nice. However, if you create just one more of these malformed, undercooked articles, I'm going to take this to the next level. You're leaving me no choice. - Lucky 6.9 22:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That "Freddy Got Fingered" thing was vandalism. Sorry, pal.  I tried as have many other users and in response you've chosen to rub everyone's face in the muck. - Lucky 6.9 00:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SuperDude
It's extremely hard to believe, given the circumstantial evidence, that you and User:SuperDude115 are not one and the same. You have the same writing style, edit/create the same kinds of articles, and support one another's articles on VfD.

Regardless of that, it would behoove you to respond in a more substantial way to the items brought up in your RfC. There's a whole section reserved for your response. Use it well. android↔talk 02:16, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Agree completely with Android79. Weird, unencyclopedic edits and articles despite repeated advice from other users who've offered nothing but help coupled with possible sockpuppetry and your refusal to answer all but the most basic concerns is causing a real mess. To answer your comment regarding the difference between a good edit and a bad one, go back to the Freddy Got Fingered edit history and read your edit aloud. Frankly, it makes no sense. I realize this is a volunteer effort and we're all separated by distance, but the internet literally puts us all in the same room together. Ask yourself: Would you want a well-meaning but totally disruptive individual who ignores advice on an in-person project of yours? Think about it. Also, keep in mind that I have nothing personal against you nor am I trying to discourage you from anything other than conforming to the rules. In fact, I'm miffed at the individual who put you up on the admin nomination page while this is being sorted out. BTW, if you want a more personal and direct response from this end, drop me an e-mail. I'll get it at work. Best, Lucky 6.9 03:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler and North Park edits
I am through. Through. I admit Hitler isn't my favorite historical figure but that horrendous pop culture reference was too much. Ditto the utterly useless one at North Park. These both came after my rather generous offer to help you out of this mess. No more. I am going to put up a request for arbitration at this point, assuming an administrator doesn't blow your editing privileges clear out of the water beforehand. You blew it big time, Sam. Ride's over. - Lucky 6.9 02:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SuperDude115 talk page
You may wish to look at a message left on that talk page by Postdlf. He happens to be an administrator. He's also on the verge of blocking you. This is my final plea. Stop it or lose your editing privileges, perhaps permanently. That means all sockpuppet accounts and all of your IP addresses will be hard-banned. Period. No turning back. The process has begun. It's up to you to stop it. - Lucky 6.9 20:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joe Cuttone
A "" template has been added to the article Joe Cuttone, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.162.26.213 04:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of As seen on TV (marketing)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article As seen on TV (marketing), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of As seen on TV (marketing)
I have nominated As seen on TV (marketing), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/As seen on TV (marketing). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of auxiliary Interstate Highways
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of auxiliary Interstate Highways. 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 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 Articles for deletion/List of auxiliary Interstate Highways. 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) 01:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of auxiliary Interstate Highways
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of auxiliary Interstate Highways. 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 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 Articles for deletion/List of auxiliary Interstate Highways. 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) 01:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Doom Troopers

The article Doom Troopers has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * No evidence of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Explodicle (T/C) 16:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Doom Troopers
I have nominated Doom Troopers, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Doom Troopers&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Explodicle (T/C) 22:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ExMx

The article ExMx has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Minor, mostly self-explanatory game term. Wikipedia is not a gaming dictionary.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Article notability notification
Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, Farmington Winery (Michigan), has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources:. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 18:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Mini mouse for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mini mouse is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mini mouse until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Micropolis (company)

The article Micropolis (company) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:NCORP. Completely unreferenced.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MB 00:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Nintendo culture listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nintendo culture. Since you had some involvement with the Nintendo culture redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Mario monsters listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mario monsters. Since you had some involvement with the Mario monsters redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Nintendo culture listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nintendo culture. Since you had some involvement with the Nintendo culture redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Evil Spongebob listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Evil Spongebob. Since you had some involvement with the Evil Spongebob redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Composite monitor for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Composite monitor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Composite monitor& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"Dog bone controller" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dog bone controller and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Magic Jewelry

The article Magic Jewelry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "lack of notability"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Waxworker (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pine Island (Ontario)

The article Pine Island (Ontario) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Completely unsourced; could not find any significant coverage to establish notability."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:SamuraiClinton


text:
User:Erifnam

I'm just a writer and amateur photographer in Washington, D.C., spending time adding facts on local history and photos of this area to various Wikipedia pages. I was born in Baltimore and have lived for years in the chocolate city. I did some anon writing on Wikipedia before signing up -- the WMAL article is mostly mine, and I made significant contributions to the now-defunct Archimedes Plutonium article, among other things.

title: User:Erifnam


text:
User talk:Francomium

leave messages at the tone

title: User talk:Francomium


text:
San Cosme metro station

San Cosme is a station on Line 2 of the Mexico City Metro system. It is located in the Cuauhtémoc municipality of Mexico City, northwest of the city centre, on Avenue Ribera de San Cosme a few blocks before it becomes Calzada México-Tacuba. The southern exit leads to Colonia San Rafael while the Northern one leads to Colonia Santa María la Ribera. It is two blocks from the Mercado de San Cosme. In 2019, the station had an average ridership of 22,891 passengers per day.

Name and pictogram
The station name comes from the Ribera de San Cosme avenue, on which the station is located. The former name of the road was Calzada de San Cosme and a stream used to run along the way before the desiccation of Lake Texcoco, hence the name "ribera".

The station pictogram depicts a balcony from the nearby colonial building known as La Casa de los Mascarones that currently houses the National Autonomous University of Mexico Foreign Languages School.

General information
The station was opened on 14 September 1970 as part of the second stretch of Line 2, from Pino Suárez to Tacuba.

The station serves the Colonia San Rafael and Colonia Santa María la Ribera neighborhoods.

Exits

 * North: Avenida Ribera de San Cosme and Rosas Moreno street, Colonia San Rafael
 * South: Avenida Ribera de San Cosme and Naranjo street, Colonia Santa María la Ribera

title: San Cosme metro station