User talk:ClovisPt/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Kharsag Epics

Would you please take a look at this and the associated AfD (and if that interests you, the associated articles by the same author). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Your assessment seems spot on. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Bermuda Triangle

Factually speaking, Kusche's research was just plain bad. To quote the website that you claim is a disreputable source:
...Kusche’s rendition of the "Legend" is sometimes so dull that it seems little worth refuting. A case in point: "In 1866 the Lotta, a Swedish bark bound from Goteborg for Havana, vanished somewhere north of Haiti." He then admits he could find no sources. His work is a debunk on popular discourse on the Bermuda Triangle rather than actually investigating it. He claims he found more ships that vanished outside of it (but does not name any), but seems ignorant of at least 100 disappearances within the Triangle.
And again:
He writes that Columbus noted, starting on September 13, that the compass needle did not point to the North Star, then adds: "He watched the variation increase for the next few days, knowing that the crew would be alarmed should they learn of the new development." This is not true at all, but it does seem to make it easier to introduce the idea of plain old magnetic variation. The relevant points of Columbus’ log, as translated, can be found on this site, and should be consulted. The magnetic changes were erratic and did not increase, but were noted off and on for weeks. Interestingly, they did not happen while in the Bahamas or on the voyage back, as there is no entry of them. Kusche said that the unexplained light seen on the eve of discovery of the New World could not be explained, but "The most commonly accepted theory is that it was an illusion caused by extreme strain and wishful thinking." He does not seem to know that more than one man saw it.
And again:
There are 57 cases that follow, beginning in 1840. Let us look at them.
Yes, that's right: Quasar proceeds to study all fifty-seven examples given by Kusche, and roughly 80% of them are pretty badly botched in research, at times going so far as to give complete fabrications of events, such as "bad weather" when it was perfectly fine. If you wish, I can go through each and every one for you, right here on this page, to exhibit that my supposed "sensationalistic bent" is actually based on rather cold-blooded logic instead (and in "good faith" to boot), and simply not willing to write off the viably bizarre phenomena simply because the vast majority seems to believe in precisely what they attribute to other Triangle authors: an erroneous and mostly fictional work of "nonfiction" by someone who is quite simply, factually, wrong. --Chr.K. (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer

Thanks, your comments make it much clearer to me how to improve this. The Black Dahlia pages seem a bit wildly structured. My attempts to find a page referencing Hodel failed via search. He is more throughly discussed in Black Dahlia suspects. Lets change the Black Dahlia Killer to the existing Black Dahlia suspects. Drats that doesn't work very well as it requires a lot of prose changes. I'll try Black Dahlia Killer (Black Dahlia suspects). Is that in acceptable style?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Briangmilnes (talk • contribs) 23:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Between your edits and subsequent reversions, it seems to have been worked out. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

helpme please

When I use the Auto Sig ........

It sometimes does not work for me ? --Kimmy 10:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs)

I used the auto Sig above and it says I did not ?

And thank you .....Nice to meet you :0 Kimmy 10:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs)

To sing your posts on talk pages, simply add four tildes, this little wavy line likely in the upper left of your keyboard: ~ ClovisPt (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I do use the ~ or the Auto sign - however - when I go back to look, I get this message- Preceding unsigned]] comment. even on this page , and I did sign all my post :[ Thank you .Kimmy 10:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs) see it did it to me again " Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290" Kimmy 10:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs)

Thanks

Much appreciated, hopefully this will be stopped soon. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. Those two talk pages, and the various fringe theories that try to worm their way into the articles, seem to effectively distract editors from actually making improvements to content. Oh well. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
If the harassment and general stupidity continues, where do you believe the correct forum to report it would be? I'd like to do so, but I have a fairly poor understanding of that side of Wikipedia. ClovisPt (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Out-of-place artifact

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Kharsag AfD

As I have just discovered that a select group of editors who !voted or commented in favor of the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics have been notified ofWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag, I am notifying the rest of the editors involved with the old AfD about this new one, and asking that they look at both Talk:Kharsag and the new AfD (particularly the latest comments) and if they wish comment or !vote. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Thank you for your actions at the article Scientology controversies. The account Superfalse (talk · contribs) is most likely a sock of banned user User:DavidYork71. Specifically evident, when compared to the most recently blocked sock, Special:Contributions/Ulmgambolputty. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Nice work on that page, by the way. ClovisPt (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Newport Tower

Have you been watching the discussion there? And Zecharia Sitchin? Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have, with some interest. I guess the conversation hasn't quite reached the point where I felt compelled to jump in, as you and a couple of other editors seem to be explaining things very well. I'm happy to take another look, if you think it could help. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech on Wikipedia

To this user, please be advised and take this seriously. Wikipedia is a forum of encyclopedic information in which all the information of the world regardless of whether right or wrong, supported or unsupported, all information in the world should be stored in this repository of information known as Wikipedia.

Since Gavin Menzies did indeed successfully publish his books 1421 as well as 1434, they are thus respectively entitled to their own Wikipedia pages. There is no justification for removal or deletion of these articles just based on the so-called opinions of a small group of the SAME repeat POV editors that just post unjustified attacks against Gavin Menzies and delete his articles.

This article cannot be justifiably deleted, blocking this IP will do absolutely nothing as we can easily switch to an unlimited amount of other IPs. Reasoning with us is your best course of action.

You are more than welcome to make Good Faith edits, not biased POV edits, and make suggestions for any of the pages on Wikipedia but you must also realize that you CANNOT simply gather your friends together to create a fake pseudoconsensus and delete the article in an effort to censor the information. Censoring or suppressing the information just because you or your friends don't agree with it does not solve the problem, not to mention that it would be a violation of official Wikipedia policy.

All information as mentioned before, whether right or wrong, supported or unsupported, must be placed in the encyclopedia for the public to decide and edit, and not you or your friends.

In short, Gavin Menzies has published his books and they legitimately have a right to be here on Wikipedia. And on the issue of whether or not his theories are supported or dismiss that is a separate matter that must be discussed and provided with evidence.

Please read Gavin Menzies books from start to finish before POV editing, dismissing or deleting his articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.69 (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. Threatening to engage in an edit war and sockpuppeting (i.e. using multiple IP accounts to bypass any blocks) is not going to win anyone around.
  2. The articles have not been deleted, they have been merged.
  3. The publication of a book does not make it notable.
  4. If you do cause trouble, locks can be placed on the articles to stop you editing them. John Smith's (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Let me just second John Smith here, he's said pretty much exactly what I was about to write. ClovisPt (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop spinning our statements, you two bigoted POV editors are the trouble makers, putting biased one sided attacks against Gavin Menzies. You guys have never even read any one of Gavin Menzie's books from start to finish. Menzies presents all the historical evidence he discovered in his books. So read it first, understand it first, then go do independent research on your own at the British National library or the Library of Congress and then come back and dicuss the details.

Please stop causing trouble on these articles and work together to help improve this articles in accordance to Wikipedia policy on biographys. That no biography be libelious. No attacks against Gavin Menzies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.69 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, these type of comments are unlikely to win you much support. Simply state your arguments in a reasonable manner on the relevant talk page, and a civil discussion can ensue. ClovisPt (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wampus Cat

While I agree with you that the Wampus Cat page should be clean, I disagree with you that only one version of the "American Folklore" relating to the Wampus Cat should be shown.

It just seems to me that by limiting the article to what it is now, it is not a true representation of the Wampus Cat, which I thought is what wikipedia was for.

Using terms such as "often" and "variously" and "a number of" also seems too limiting. I've seen very well done wikipedia pages that actually tell what the subject is about. This page is now overly vague.

Can we at least have Stubs going to the different uses of the Wampus Cat term? Why limit it to a small blurb?

Thank you for your time.

Conrad (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Conrad Vogel Clark Fork Wampus Cat alumni

Hi Conrad. As I see it, the Wampus Cat article should be about the creature from American folklore. It shouldn't be about a given high school's mascot, or the story surrounding that, since, to me, the topic of a specific school's mascot isn't really notable enough to warrant an article here on Wikipedia, whereas an obscure item of national or regional folklore might deserve a small article. Of course, I could be wrong. I hope you don't mind if I copy this discussion onto the article's discussion page, and see if other editors respond. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wampus Cat II

I respectfully disagree with your thought that the Wampus Cat should ONLY be about the creature from one person's version of American Folklore, with no surrounding uses or stories. Not only our school, but I'm sure the others, are very proud of the history and folklore relating to the Wampus Cat. I still don't understand why subpages cannot be created relating to the school mascots. Given the uniqueness of the Wampus Cat, I still think it deserves more on Wikipedia. Even the "horned Frog" has a wiki page listing it as a mascot. Does this mean that this will set a precedence to require all similar pages to be edited?

Again, i do thank you for taking the time to listen to my arguements!

Conrad Conrad (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you possibly raise this issue on the talk page of the article (talk:Wampus cat)? I don't have previous experience with any editing issues concerning high school mascots, and so I honestly don't know if my feelings on the matter are correct. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies use of the Nong Shu

(From the talk page:) No problem. I actually wrote the English Wiki article on the Chinese official Wang Zhen, so I am surprised indeed to find that Menzies is using his Nong Shu (農書) as some sort of holy grail book of knowledge scoured by everyone from Taccola to da Vinci. I'll let the serious scholars speak for themselves, but it's kind of hard not to share an opinion about this on the talk page: it's laughable! This in consideration that direct Chinese-European exchanges of scholarly knowledge did not occur until the hard work of Matteo Ricci, who visited the Ming court at the beginning of the 17th century. His work with the Chinese official Xu Guangqi paved the way for others like Johann Schreck, who, alongside Wang Zheng (王徵), published the Diagrams and explanations of the wonderful machines of the Far West. This is the real history of the beginning of direct Chinese-European scholarly exchanges, although Geoff Wade, in that Reuters article I just cited, does note that certain technologies were earlier transferred along the Silk Road between the Chinese and European spheres.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Good find on the Geoff Wade bit. I've read Menzies; "laughable" is almost too kind a word. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

Dear user,

Please stop your edit warring, this is your 2nd warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.69 (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Statements like these make it very hard to assume good faith. Regardless, you've finally taken up your issues on the appropriate talk page (talk:Gavin Menzies) and have been properly answered there. ClovisPt (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ta

Thanks for your sweet message. A few months ago I decided I would retry and even lined up noms. But then I was overloaded in real life and I can't say when if ever that will let up. So I really need to keep the liberty to edit sporadically. Nice of you to suggest it though. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Iran

"I don't see why a country's infobox would exclude regional languages. sorry in advance if i'm missing something obvious." Actually, you are not missing anything. In fact, the consensus heavily favors (7-1) the inclusion of regional languages in the infobox. See [1] for more information. Agha Nader (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the template somewhat; take a look. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Columbus

ClovisPt, for years a few of us have been trying to add factual information to the pages relating to Christopher Columbus so that readers can benefit from their reading of Wikipedia. For years you and your cronies have been removing our edits and reverting the pages back to an inaccurate representation of the facts. Lately I added information gathered from several authoritative historians (names and references were included) that is not new nor contested yet you keep removing this information saying it is my point of view which it is not. What can I and the other members of the Association Cristovao Colon need to do to add information to these pages without having it deleted every time? I would like to think that your job is to make sure the information added is credible and not to be targeting specific pages and specific individuals. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You've been warned before about the proper use of talk pages. You've also been warned about using multiple accounts to edit. You've also been warned many times about adding items to articles when you have a clear conflict of interest - trying to promote your own works. Finally, you've been warned about edit warring many times. ClovisPt (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

high social rank of Columbus’s wife

How can you deny the research done in the last 20 years and hold on to hearsay from 100 years ago? Cristobal Colon's wife was the daughter a Portuguese Captain, who was owner/governor of a Portuguese island and whose grandfather was part of the governing committee for the City of Lisbon- all noblemen with coat of arms who were descendants of the noble Lombard, Count Filippo Langosco, governor of Pavia. Do you think this means she was not of high social rank? Furthermore she was 1 of 12 with the privilege of living at the Military Order of Santiago's residence in Lisbon. Do you think she was not of high social ranK? Furthermore her nephew was the Portuguese king's Lord Chamberlain and the Comendador Major of the Military order of Santiago. Does this imply she was not of high social rank to you? Her niece's husband was Marquis of Montemor and Supreme Military Leader of Portugal, does this means she was a nobody to you? Her brother-in-law was Captain of an Island in the Azores and was the King of Portugal's Bodyguard, does this prove to you that Filipa Moniz was an insignificant laborer peasant as was your Colombo wool-weaver? Her half-sister's cousin was the King's Mistress and High Comendadeira of the Military Order of Santiago. Her uncle was the elite Comendador of Panóias for the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago. Does this confirm for you that Morison and Davidson and Tavianni were correct about the high rank of Filipa Moniz in Portugal? Her father's sister-in-law raised the King's two daughters and also became High Comendadeira of the Military Order of Santiago. Will you continue affirming contrary to the evidence that Filipa Moniz was at the same social rank as your penniless wool-weaver Colombo? Filipa's niece, D. Inês de Noronha was the Portuguese Countess of Abrantes, her niece D. Catarina de Noronha was the Portuguese Countess of Penamacor and her niece D. Isabel de Noronha was the Marquesa of Montemor. Does this show you that your sources were wrong in their misguided assertions that Filipa Moniz was insignificant and unimportant in Portugal's society in 1478? Her Portuguese cousin was married to the Portuguese Viceroy of the real India. To top it off, being that Filipa Moniz was a member of the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago in 1475 as this document shows, and by the order's rules she required authorization from the King of Portugal to marry any one. Do you seriously think she would have been given authorization to marry a peasant foreigner who arrived shipwrecked with no resources or job in his new kingdom? A person that the genoese archives prove was nothing m ore than a penniless peasant always running away form his creditors? A person who could not even read and write his own Genoese language? The misguided ones are not those of us who today assert that the history was wrong but those who continue to insist that the history of the wool-weaver was correct. Can you say Fairytale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.250 (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

ZOG?

Why did you delete my input in the discussion section of ZOG? I asked a question, I didnt say it was a forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.62.192 (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

From WP:FORUM: "bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article". ClovisPt (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes? Thats what I wanted to spark, a discussion whetever this is antisemitism or not?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is inappropriate for the talk page, not to mention a waste of everyone's time. ClovisPt (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok I see you are a vandalizer. Stop doing that please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was intelligent... ClovisPt (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you remove my discussion-question once again I will consult with moderators about your vandalizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Notice regarding 3RR and Scientology

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scientology controversies. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Please also be aware of WP:COFS and WP:ARBSCI, and the applicable remedies therein. -- Cirt (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern, although I wasn't planning on editing the article any more today. Please remember that a simple note reminding me of any such concerns would suffice, since templating regular editors is often perceived to be kind of rude, and perhaps unnecessary. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3