Talk:Harry Potter (character)/Archive 1

message: Created: 05:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

message: I've noticed that all the pictures on this page are depictions of Harry Potter as Daniel Radcliff. Considering there are a LOT of them, couldn't some be pruned out in favour of a different kind of depiction (not neccisarily japanese-style fanart, but a book cover or some of JK's old drawings of the character?) --195.92.168.165 00:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Different Pictures?

message: There are several reasons:
*1. Daniel Radcliffe is not equal to Harry Potter. readers might mix up easily.
*2. The look of Dan as Harry have a gap difference between Year1/2 and Year3/4.
*3. Harry Potter is a character from a fiction book. No reason to post a real image to show us "it is Harry Potter."
Please agree with me and post your comments on this . ^^
--Mmlcs36 14:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How would the book illustrations be any less "fair use" than using photos or screenshots from the movies, all of which are also copyrighted?  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it better to change all the Dan's picture to the drawings else from the book 

message: I think that the tree is not correct. Mrs. Wesley should be the half sister of Lily because there is no other explanation why she is a muggle and not a wizard.
:What?? Molly's a pure-blood, and Lily's muggle-born. And Molly's maiden name was Prewett and Lily's was Evans. --WhyBeNormal 19:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they were referring to Mrs. Dursley. Lily is Muggleborn, she has no more wizardly ancestry than her sister. Muggleborns are anomalies in previously all-Muggle families. Lily and Petunia are full sisters. Noneofyourbusiness 00:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Tree 

message: The page on MuggleNet linked to as a citation for his birth date and place does not seem to have this information. Brian Jason Drake 15:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Potter's Birth 

message: I've added a section in the biography concerning events in the Chamber of Secrets. Seemed very odd that this was ommitted as all other books were covered. 84.69.65.9 10:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition 

message: If we're going to have a section on his strengths, one on his weaknesses would be appropiate. Harry isn't perfect nor infallible and we should balance the article. 84.69.65.9 10:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion!  When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in!  (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold.  Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly.  If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.SoothingR 14:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started one. Will need expanding. Additions welcomed. I'm a bit worried that some 'Harry is the bestest wizard and has no weaknesses' type will come along and remove them though. 84.68.49.223 18:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Harry does have this quality, that if it is possible to misinterpret a situation, he does. Sandpiper 19:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weaknesses 

message: Isn't "In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry faced more challenges, from merely annoying (such as Gilderoy Lockhart's attempt to exploit his fame and Colin Creevey's hero worshipping), to the hardly bearable ostracism by most of the school after being revealed as a parselmouth), to deadly in the form of a Basilisk released by the spirit of Tom Riddle from the aforementioned chamber while controlling Ginny Weasley by means of diary containing part of his soul (see Horcrux)" (the entire first paragraph) a very long, run-on sentence? Emily 01:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is, and efforts should be made to re-write it, not to lengthen it out, but make it easier to digest for any reader wanting a bit of understanding of Harry's problems in Book 2, but not so much detail that can easily be found in the main article for Book 2. Cybertooth85 07:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chamber of Secrets section 

message: This article is extremely lacking in sources. It's a very long original research piece. Espeicially notorious is the "Strengths/Weaknesses" sections. Some HP die hard fans should be able to find some credible sources. Find a critic that's done a character study, and/or include some quotes from Rowling from an interview where she talks about the character. This article has horribly gone the route of fancruft! The aforementioned sections should be deleted outright unless they can be sourced. --  16:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: The Strengths, Weaknesses, and Notable Possessions sections of this article read like an RPG character sheet. It would require some major editing to change these bullet points into moderate prose (as opposed to brilliant prose), but I'd like to get some feedback before embarking on this endeavor. My complaint is related to the above complaint about the Strengths/Weaknesses section. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strengths (rewrite):
* +3 on will and reflex saving throws
* high WIS, CHA and DEX.
* +2 luck bonus on all checks below DC-30
... 
--AceMyth 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like a character sheet 

message: Several HP fans have actively posted details - all speculation - about how Harry's fortune in gold and other coins in the bank vault at Gringott's would have grown - doubled or even tripled - since the death of Harry's parents.  This is all speculation, and not neccesary for the story line.  Keep in mind that interest earned in real bank accounts comes from shared loan revenues, and there is no mention in the books or movies of loans going on at Gringott's, and there is no mention of any "sharing" of any finance charges from such loans going back to the deposit accounts.  The wizard gold and other deposited wealth is simply stored in vaults - that is all we know.  I removed the excessive speculation about how Harry's fortune may have grown due to interest - unless someone can provide specific mention of such revenue sharing in the canon.  The business model at Gringott's appears to be more in resemblence of the ubiquitous "Swiss Bank Account" - where deposits are not generally awarded interest, but are in fact charged "maintenance fees" - exactly the opposite of the speculation described above. --T-dot 10:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "A substantial amount of wizarding gold in a vault in Gringotts inherited from his parents and later Sirius Black (the exact amount is unknown, but as Harry has inherited the money of the both the Potters and (since the death of his godfather) the Blacks, both prominently wealthy wizarding families, it is assumed that he has a substantial fortune) If Gringotts has the capacity for an increase in the amount in a vault due to annual interest, as with other real world banks, both fortunes, which are said to be a sizable amount to begin with, likely grew during the time in which both vaults were left alone. Thus, the fortunes in both vaults would be at least double what they originally were prior to the story's beginning in the first book. In the case of the Black fortune, this may be as much as tripled, as Sirius spent time in Azkaban during much of Harry's life, and nobody else in the family had apparently touched it, potentially including Serius himself, with the possible exception of two major purchases: Harry's firebolt and Ron's owl Pigwidgeon."
Could someone  please explain where this excessive speculation about how Harry's fortune  came from?  If T-dot hadn't deleted it, I would have.  If whoevere you are wants, you should set up a seperate article:  Speculations about Harry Potter.  I'm not complaining -- given the recent rubbing Admins the wrong ways I 've done during the past week -- but this really streaches things. -- Jason Palpatine 13:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry's Fortune 

message: I may be wrong. But does anyone else find Harry Potter’s eyesight a little strange? Because I do. Because his eyesight seems inconceivably – unrealistically – bad. To the point where he cannot function without them. This is not a case of needing specs to see the blackboard or the textbook. This is an inability to see: to the point where he seems almost legally blind. We have had descriptions of what he sees without the glasses. And the answer is, not a lot. He cannot see anything clearly, only vague shapes, and even in PoA (when Sirius invades the dormitory looking for Scabbers), when thinking Ron under attack, has to reach for his spectacles. He is without his glasses, nearly non-functional, beyond any sort of inherent eye-weakness I have heard of (I am short-sighted myself, and have needed glasses since I was ten; I therefore when reading the books when younger found myself comforted that at least my only problem was being unable to focus on something far off, and that I was not close to disabled). Until he puts his glasses on, at which point he is able to see so well that he can function as one of the best Seekers ever in Hogwarts (unless it rains, at which point he hasn’t a hope of seeing the ground, let alone a tiny gold orb). What sort of eye condition IS this, that he cannot survive without glasses, but is able to enjoy a perfectly respectable quality of eyesight with a pair of NHS issue?
	What caused this abysmal level of sight, and so young in life? Years of being locked in a cupboard? But if it could only have been caused by that, surely someone would have noticed: his optician would have realised that the four year old he was treating had eyes that would be expected from a Prisoner of War. Surely, for that matter, it would have been commented on by Dumbledore or Hagrid (Dumbledore would surely have realised that there was something seriously wrong with the child’s eyes, that his eyesight was abysmally worse than James’s) And even if they felt it expedient to not point out another manner in which the Dursleys had crippled Harry, I doubt Sirius would have the same delicacy (and you’d expect him to have been knowledgeable enough about his best friend’s problem to notice that Harry’s was far worse). Which leads us to the possibility of inherited eye problems. Which is pretty common. But which in the case of Harry seems horrific. Are we to believe that it is an inherent trait in the Potter family to be nearly as blind as the proverbial bat (maybe the Gaunts weren’t the only family to retain distinctive traits through inbreeding)? That this appalling, seemingly unparalleled eye condition strikes down nearly every Potter in their first decade? If so, then I don’t see how, in this case, Petunia cannot be at least partially justified in calling the Potters, at least, freaks.
	There is also the matter of deterioration. Those suffering from defective eyesight will generally find, in their teenage years, that their sight gets WORSE. It is perfectly common, and natural. If you have bad eyesight as a child, you expect to leave childhood with worse eyesight than when you started out.
	This does not seem to apply to Harry Potter. As remarkable as it is that he could have been so badly myopic at age ten, it is equally remarkable that since then he has never, to our knowledge, needed to update his prescription. Got a higher strength pair of glasses so that he can continue to enjoy his 15-20/20 enhanced vision. Bear in mind that he is a Seeker, a job where he needs near-perfect vision. And his eyesight would decline enough, mid-year, at least in the midst of adolescence, to make him realise at the summer Quidditch match that he couldn’t see the Snitch as well as he could at the winter match (assuming that over the previous summer he had gone with Petunia to the opticians). Yet he never seems to have had any trouble seeing in summer. Which would, at face value, suggest that his sight isn’t declining. That he can see as well at the end of HBP as he could at the start of PS. Which seems remarkable. And unbelievable. 
	When did Harry’s eyes first start acting up? Or could he never really see? Was he living in a world of fog and shadows, before someone finally took him to the opticians, and (in a moment comparable to the Ollivander Sequence, which IS similar to getting glasses after a long time of struggling with bad sight) gave him the tests: eventually leading to the right lens, at which point he suddenly saw clearly? Personally, I am suspicious of the Dementor-induced memories in PoA: I suspect that his inability to see his parents and Voldemort with any clarity, yet fully hear them, was due to simply being unable to see. I suspect that his life with his parents was like that: fog, shadow and sound. Which would make his discovery of the Mirror of Erised all the more poignant, because it would be his first real sight of his parents EVER. Though, if he really was at that stage when he went to the Dursleys, he would not have been wronged by them in the matter, but actually be somewhat indebted to them: it would have been they who gave him the ability to see, so to speak (which is, of course, an ambivalent ability: it would have meant that he could see the bad as well as the good).
	It is likely that when the Dursleys first got him glasses, his sight was extraordinarily bad, to the point where he NEEDED them. The Dursleys, after all, had no compunctions about locking him in a cupboard for nine years. I doubt they’d have got him glasses merely because he couldn’t see the board at school (Vernon would have told him to sit closer and to stop whining). But they would have got him glasses if he was in danger of walking under a lorry that he simply couldn’t see (especially since in such an instance the result would probably be some magical reaction from the boy). This would be especially true if they couldn’t get glasses on the NHS (I don’t know what the situation would be for a child in the care of an obviously affluent family, especially in Major’s Britain: quite possibly Vernon would be footing a large bill): they would have only acted if there was a risk of something embarrassing happening, or if it was likely that Harry would die by mischance, leaving the Dursleys with a very angry wizarding world, and a curious muggle police force to deal with. But if that were the case, I find it extraordinary again that a pair of glasses could so remarkably improve Potter’s sight.
	Less problematic is the question of general maintenance. Glasses will inevitably get damaged over time: indeed, in the first book, Harry’s glasses are held together with cellotape, due to having been constantly snapped by Dudley (though I would imagine that his parents have ordered Dudley not to let the specs suffer any sort of irreparable damage: the Dursleys don’t want to replace the things, and don’t want the boy dead, but have no problems with casual mistreatment of him), though I would imagine that, if not already repaired/replaced, Mr Weasley’s repairs in the second book took care of that. Which probably suggests an unspoken explanation of what happens if they get damaged at school: the teacher will take a wand to them and repair them, and it is either so rare or so common an occurrence that, to Harry’s mind, it merits no mention in the books. That is easy to explain. And if his eyes aren’t deteriorating, then he can merely counter the growth of his head by using some sort of charm to stretch them (maybe he does this the first day back every year). It would explain why he seems to have worn EXACTLY the same glasses every year (even if it is a common brand, you’d expect some problems in getting the same style every year, and it would suggest that he genuinely liked the way those particular glasses made him look: which doesn’t seem to be the case). Why he has never bought more trendy pair, or at least had a change, or even considered contact lenses. He probably doesn’t need to.
	There are however, two possibly relevant points this leaves us in the canon. First: why has no-one ever incapacitated him simply by throwing something solid at his head (Crabbe or Goyle could do that easily), and will there be some point in the seventh book where he IS rendered useless by a punch to the specs?
Second: he has Lily’s eyes. But he has James’s eyesight. Is there some relevance to this, or the fact that Lily’s eyes cannot see well without James’s specs?
	There is also the question: is his eyesight even possible? Michaelsanders 14:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure most of the points you raised are eligible for discussion on a Wikipedia talk page. And as for Harry's eyesight, maybe it's as bad as it is because in his youth he was forced to read eighty-lines-long essays without any double line breaks. You raise interesting points, some of which could definitely benefit the article (for example noting that the condition of Harry's eyesight with as opposed to without the glasses is unrealistic). Most of the rest, however, is speculation we have no way of verifying and would be more at home in a fan forum than in an encyclopedia article. --AceMyth 09:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But if Rowling is attempting to portray a conceivable, functional universe based upon rules (as opposed to a fairy-tale where everything simply 'is') then it has to make sense! Michaelsanders 12:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm short sighted, am always taking off my glasses and lossing them. Being unable to see without them is partly a habit you get into. Sometimes I reach for them so I can see something, and then realise I already have them on. i even try to put on a second pair while wearing the first. But personally, I think it is all due to having inherited Lily's second hand eyes. (sorry). Sandpiper 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awful, awful joke. Seriously though, I agree with some of those points (I often get momentarily confused about if I have mine on or not, lose them, etc). But, in my experience, I can see best when I have not had them on for an extended period - e.g. mornings. I am able to see pretty well then. It's when I take them off after having worn them for a long period of time that I have problems - because I have got used to using them. Harry, by contrast, is unable to see anything properly from the moment he wakes up, when his eyes should be at their best (refreshed, unused to correction). Before his sight is miraculously perfected by a cheap pair of spectacles (which, equally miraculously, have managed to survive over five years without noteworthy damage, or needing to be replaced or upgraded. Oh, for such a pair!). Michaelsanders 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought there was a running joke where Hermione kept repairing them with magic? Now, I would have thought that a permanent spell to correct vision ought to be simple enough. Obviously glasses are considered an important prop for a wizard. Sandpiper 12:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I am aware, they are only repaired once: when he smashes them on the Borgin and Burkes hearthstone. Although Hermione did make them waterproof. Perhaps Dumbledore banned such spells: because once, there was a little boy who used a vision spell, and he grew up to be the most evil wizard to have ever lived. Michaelsanders 14:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry’s Eyes 

message: In the first sentence, it says that Hermione was a mistaken love interest; isn't this a classic P.O.V.? Therequiembellishere 08:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --AceMyth 08:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Romantic attachments

message: I did a (hopefully) decent run-through of the Harry Potter (character) page and did what I could with copy-editing: Summaries of Philosopher's Stone through Order of the Phoenix were updated to present tense, which is, I believe, standard for discussing plot. Also changed around some of the wording for flow and added paragraph breaks where I felt they were needed.
Also, after this last revision, does anyone think the copy-editing tag can come down? Yay or Nay?
I'm new to Wiki, so any comments, feedback, etc. is greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
Roarke Stratton 20:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-editing tag 

message: *I know this is right. Something on Harry (his eyes, his scar) or Harry himself is a horcrux and in the end, to defeat He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, he will have to kill himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.47.241 (talk • contribs) 
:That is some terrific speculation there - and it may even be true - but sorry - this "just the facts" encyclopedia does not allow for such speculation.  You might want to air your views on some of the fan forums and blogs at other web sites, such as those discussed at the Harry Potter fandom page.  Thanks for your ideas though, and feel free to edit here, but please stay within the guidelines outlined in Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.  Basically, unless J.K. Rowling says, in a published book, or on her web site www.jkrowling.com or in a verifiable interview, that Harry's scar or whatever is a Horcrux, then we cannot say it here.  She has not done so, so neither can we.  Besides - why would Voldemort want to kill Harry, if Harry was a Horcrux?  If Harry was a Horcrux - then Voldemort would do anything within his power to protect him, right?  He certainly would not trap Harry in a graveyard and try to kill him with an Avada Kedavra.  But even going through that line of reasoning might constitute Original Research as well, so we just leave it alone, and let the fans argue the points in the HP forums and blogs.  We deal only in the verifiable facts here - what Rowling has confirmed in interviews, or written.  Thanks again, and have fun editing, within the guidelines!  --T-dot 03:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit negative assuming he will have to kill himself. I'm sure someone will think of a better plan than that. But as T-dot said, that is all rather something which hasn't happened yet so we can't exactly report it as fact. It is a fact that many people think it likely that Harry is a horcrux, but some care would be needed to include even that. Sandpiper 09:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry Potter is a Horcrux

message: Here
Can use limited forms of magic without a wand. An example of this is used in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, where he causes the glass protecting a snake's cage to disappear with simply his sight. 
I do not think this is some fantastic skill that only Harry has. I recall a passage in book 1 or book 2 mentioning Neville being able to use magic without a wand through, his grandfather or something threw him from a tall position and he bounced back up. I think that sort of magic, done without a wand at an early age, is more of the sort of uncontrolled abilities that all wizards have that manifest themselves at an early age. The way to tell if you have magic in your blood or not. Itake 21:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ....yo Itake 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Passage about magic skills

message: As of now the article fails every GA criteria even article's stability. Come back to GA once you have added inline citations, cut down on the trivia section (or removed it), prosify the bullet points (I don't mean all of them but a few of the unnecessary ones) and make sure that all pictures have their fair use rationale stated on the image page. If you have any questions just ask them on my talk page. Lincher 17:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: Rewrote Strengths and Weaknesses section as suggested, though I did not touch magical part.
Another thing, what's with the tag? Most of the events described are fictional. The in universe thing needs some explanation.--200.32.222.2 02:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the tag. It doesn't really help to include a tag which the majority of editors here do not consider is appropriate. Better to discuss the matter here. Dare I say it, it has been conceded elsewhere that the in-universe approach is perfectly OK for describing storyline, which is what is happening here. I would however say that the article strikes me as spending rather too much text going over the details of the story so far. I would much rather not see the article divided into sections for each book, rather telling his story point by point as a whole. 
For those that havn't a clue what in-universe  meant, some people feel it is better to write an article of this sort repetedly saying 'in book 5', 'the author said', 'Harry is shown as talking to', rather than just describing the story. The idea is to distance the description  from becoming simply a re-telling of the story. That is 'out-universe'. I think this generally daft, as it is a wholly unnatural way to tell a tale. It is entirely plain we are discussing a work of fiction and no reason not to get the storytelling done in the most comprehensible way for the reader. That is not to say that as appropriate there should not be information to the reader to show where the information comes from 'in chapter 7', 'at the end of HBP', but taking that approach obsessively makes the article poorer. Sandpiper 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite and In-universe tag 

message: Let's try to get this to GA. Something this important needs and deserves it. ♥ Fredil 17:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 

message: Where did all of the images go? After what seems like a little revert war happening, all of them have been deleted. Anyone care to explain? Disinclination 18:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'little revert war' was when I saw that someone had deleted the links to the pictures. I reverted that (for obvious reasons). However, the links do not work (they are red, indicating that the pictures are deleted), so I put it back to how I found it. I would be interested to know why the pictures no longer work. Michaelsanders 19:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the images in the HP pages (and many other categories) were uploaded and "registered" as Fair Use images under Wikipedia's Fair Use guidelines.  But a number of adamant wiki-editors and administrators have taken up the duty of cleansing and purging the Wikipedia of all or most of these "fair use" images, under the strictly interpreted grounds that there should be "free" images that can replace the "fair use" ones.  You cannot argue or discuss the matter with these people.  They firmly believe that the use of images in the Wikipedia should be heavily restricted to only those images created and freely contributed by the editors - regardless of the quality.  A really badly composed amateurish photograph of a car taken on a terrible cell phone camera, for example, is far preferred to one professionally produced image provided by the automaker in press release materials.  These people say that "free-ness" of an image is always to be preferred over "quality".  I have gathered a large number of high quality professionally made fair use images, taken from the publisher's publicity media pages, which I uploaded to the Wikipedia over the last year.  All were clearly allowable and described and documented and linked and referenced under fair use "publicity photo" images, and all of which were freely provided by the respective publisher or copyright owner specifically to the free press and other media outlets, for use in promoting their product.  Most of these images have since been deleted by the "un-fair use" fanatics, under their belief that someone should be able to replace it with a "free" image.  They generally give you about a week to replace your targeted fair use image with a free one, and then go ahead and delete the fair one, whether there is a suitable replacement for it or not.  It is the burden of the original uploader to find a free use image to replace the fair use one.  I am sure some of the fanatics are simply victims-turned-terrorists who are making a point:  since their favorite fair-use images were deleted, then they go around deleting others they find out of revenge.  This has become a major problem in the last 6 months or so, and there are enough administrators rallying behind the efffort that there is really nothing that can be done.  Just say goodbye to any professional images uploaded under the "fair use" criteria, and hello to really crappy street pictures, at least until the pendulum swings back to the left again, and the "allowable" use of fair use images are allowed as free media.  It will probably take a grass roots effort and a clear ruling by Jimbo on this - when enough formerly "good" articles" get downgraded to "awful" because of the lack of suitable and high quality images to illustrate them.  But for now, many hundreds and thousands of former wiki-editors have abandoned the project altogether because of this fair-use image issue "policy", as their "good faith" efforts to beautifully illustrate the Wikiworld have been trampled into the dirt; and the trampling nazis are winning the fight and growing in numbers.  The overall quality of the Wikipedia suffers when poor images or no images are used to substitute for formerly great images.  That's where we are now, and you see it in more and more articles every day, with their images stripped.   That said, stealing copyrighted photographs and images from web sites, and posting them on the Wiki is not the answer.  There has to be a middle ground, and that middle ground resides in the Fair use policy - or at least it used to.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 20:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be willing to provide the names of these adamant prudes so we can voice our opinions to them? John Reaves 08:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I'm not certain, because the images have been deleted so I can't check them, but I think they were deleted on the technical ground that no one had added a text explanation of why they were fair use, and where they came from. It is not sufficient merely to tag them as screen shots. The 'rules' require a written explanation as well. Afraid I have yet to see an explanation of what should be in the explanation, but there we go.... Sandpiper 11:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images