This is Rich Dengrove, the fellow who contributed to the article on Mephistopheles. You doubted that Michael Psellos had talked about an order of demons called the Misophaes, or Light Haters. You said you wanted either the passage itself or a citation. Being lazy and not being able to read Greek, I will give you the citation of my source, Jeffrey Russell. J.P.Migne, ed., Patrologia Graeca, "On the Work of the Demons," 122.819-876. Also, The "Life of Saint Auxentius," ed. Perikles-Petros Joannou,Démonologie populaire, démonologie critique au XIe siécle: La vie inédite de S. Auxence, par M. Psellos (Wiesbaden, 1971). I would have written the title of the first article in Greek but I am not certain which of the letters below are equivalent. If need be,I will make this citation into a PDF file and send it to you.
In 1801, the House acted under the unamended Constitution, which permitted votes for the first five candidates in the Electoral College, but the only votes cast there were for Jefferson or Burr.
The pre-Twelfth Amendment Electoral College (Article II, Section 1, Clause 3) said that if two people received the vote of a majority of the electors (not a majority of the electoral votes), then the House selected one of those two people to be the President (with the other becoming Vice President). The "five highest" provision referred to an election in which nobody received a vote from a majority of the electors. SMP0328. (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborate rules? You should see WP:LAYOUT. It's always going to be a compromise between the need for standardisation and the need to give lattitude to individuals. You and I just aim for different points on that continuum (most, not all of the time).
I'm afraid my brain turns to jelly when faced with the text in Stanton's proposal, so I've reached the limit of my ability to comment, at least until it's explained better.
The other matter: Skyring's driving us crazy in his barely concealed campaign against US date formatting; while my personal preference would be for international (and metrics, indeed) throughout, that's quite different from my political/administrative stance, which accounts for more than my inner prefs. The distinction exists in all of us, I suppose. And while removing DA causes ructions only among a tiny minority, mass conversions of US to international data formatting per Skyring's empirical designs would cause major disruption. In any case, the utter triviality of the difference between the two formats persuades me that, like the trivial transatlantic spelling differences, both are just fine on WP. You have my full support in resisting his push, as I've already made apparent on the talk pages. Tony(talk)04:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Modern" would be less restrictive, don't you think? "Present-day" seems to imply right now; WWI battleships aren't present-day, but the editors seemed to want international for them. And it does say "in accordance with usage", which covers your militant international datist who wants to convert an article on the Civil War (although hard to imagine it would happen). Tony(talk)15:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling change
I know that some spelling changes can be WP:LAME, but in some circumstances it is worthwhile evaluating a proposal on its specific merits. No-one is trying to say that one version of English is inferior to another version in general, the name change isn't being done out of nationalistic pride (with honor/honour killing who'd want to do that?), and the discussion has been surprisingly civil for such an emotive subject. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hard and geeky and most editors don't do it"
We should indeed be grateful for this pithy quote. It expresses well something I've been trying to get at for a long time with much more verbiage and much less eloquence.[1]Haukur (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sept, do you still have an objection to changing the 1800s, 1700s etc pages to disambig pages per my suggestion at
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)? I believe the two policy pages I mentioned support my position. If you're on board, I think the next step is to outline the debate at WP:VPP to see if there's anything more to add, before changing the pages. (Feel free to reply here. Or not.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The never-ending Kiev issue
Hi PMAnderson, hope you're doing well. Thank you for attempting to respond to Vvolodymyr. Earlier today I have twice tried to do it myself, but ended up getting away from the computer slightly depressed and somewhat infuriated... for I also find those ideas "immoral and offensive". *sigh* Humanity seems to be so far away from even understanding what freedom is... (the situation in my dear Argentina is equally depressing, as we seem to be moving backwards towards worshipping the authorities).
Later today, after having a few drinks, I'll try to complement your comments with some boring policy descriptions, just in case. There's still some fainthope. — Dear God, what a constant waste of time. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it immoral and offensive to tell you what my name is? Guess what my name in English is Volodymyr - because I decided so - and nobody has a right to deny me that right. And a million people online can refer to me as "the repulsive idiot" but I will have an upper hand - because it's MY name, MY freedom.
I feel that heavy shackles are being put on Ukrainian government when someone so blatantly disallows it to tell the world on what it's capital should be called.
"the only recent historian whom I know of to support 1757", unless you are some Hamilton historian, you not knowing of other historians isn't good enough. The weasel words need to be fixed too. Ctjf83Talk20:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from removing sourced content and replacing it with your personal view. That source I have inserted is the best of current research, and is not controversial. It is likely not in your sources because the works you favor are so old and out-of-date. I just want this article to be better, but every time I make a few plain, vanilla, well-sourced edits, you vandalize or destroy them. I realize you viscerally hate anything remotely resembling a reasonable, balanced article on the subject of Alexander Hamilton, and always replace that sort of content with whatever your personal opinion is, regardless of the available facts, or with the most selective and esoteric reading of them, but please don't delete my valid, accurate, sourced content. I realize you care nothing for destroying other peoples good, accurate, sourced work because you personally don't like it.
I'm guessing there are many, many other editors who have left in disgust after their hard work is vandalized by someone like yourself who feels they have the absolute right to dictate whose content is valid and whose is not based on a selective and stubborn interpretation of available knowledge rather than a consensus of reliable sources. I always provide reliable sources for my content; I try very hard to provide multiple sources if I think a point is particularly controversial, because the broadest consensus is the strongest. I don't have the endless time you seem to have, so if you want to go on deleting all of my mainstream, sourced edits, you'll almost certainly win out in the end, but please know you're doing a horrible disservice to Wikipedia by constantly deleting well-sourced and mainstream edits in favor of your personal worldview. At least try to see open your mind up every now and then to the ideas of others with whom you might instinctively disagree. However, if you insist on continuing to overwrite peoples' hard work and well-sourced edits like this, then I sincerely hope some admin comes to their senses and tosses you off Wikipedia for a while, or for good. You are acting like a troll, and trolls are poison to Wikipedia and to human knowledge and decency. You are making wikipedia weaker by doing this, and you have personally offended me over and over by doing this again and again. Please, please stop it. AdRem (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PMA, Perhaps you can explain what specifically your objection is to the fact that Hamilton sought an accelerated course at Princeton and was rejected? As I understand your POV, you believe that Hamilton may never have sought enrollment at the College of New Jersey, may never have interviewed with Dr. Witherspoon, etc.? Are you able to provide multiple reliable sources to support this claim? In addition to the source from Chernow (which you deleted again), many other sources list this same bit of information, of which I here provide 3 of the more mainstream and relatively recent Hamilton biographies as an attempt at providing a representative sample of the current historical consensus: This same information is detailed in Alexander Hamilton: A Life by Willard Sterne Randall on pages 61-62, in Alexander Hamilton: a Biography by Forrest McDonald on page 12, and in Alexander Hamilton, American by Richard Brookhiser on pages 20-21.
None of these sources claim their retelling of the history may never have happened like that, nor do they otherwise qualify their versions of this part of Hamilton's life. However, if there is a Hamilton bio or other reliable source that you know of which suggests that Hamilton may never applied to the College of New Jersey, could you please provide those sources? Otherwise, I would ask that please you undo your removal of my well-sourced edit. Thank you. AdRem (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with your recent change because it uses Bate when not giving a straight out quote. Also, it gives a large swathe of page numbers that are already covered by later footnotes, which makes it inaccurate. I tried to direct you to Samuel Johnson's early life for putting in a longer version of the story if needed. The comma was once an and, but got changed sometime in the over 2,000 edits since this was all put together. This section was cut by Awadewit's request for more information that wasn't biographical, so I hope you respect that. We are at the word limit for pages, and this has to be condescend. If you want to work on the other page, feel free. However, please respect the fact that there were over a dozen people working with the sources and contacting me about individual points, many who studied Johnson during their professional lives. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that your primary concern? My concern was that you moved it into the health section. Why not keep it in the biography? It could go right after a sentence in which he was fired from a school. I put in a sample here. Can we agree upon this? I strongly feel that this point is a biographical point and essential to the biography section. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are a bit confused about the health section. It just deals with posthumous diagnosis of his health, the stuff about it affecting his life are integrated into the body of the biography. His scrofula, gout, seizures, etc, are all integrated into the biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you reread the talk page and FAC. This was already discussed by a large group of editors, and the section was significantly rewritten to the agreement. The consensus will probably not change, as there were many people involved in it and came to a mutual agreement. The term "health" was the easiest way to title the section and was agreed upon by all present. Now, do you have any actionable concerns according to FAC guidelines that weren't already agreed by the large consensus to be in the state that they are now? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only other opposes have changed to support the article. Is there anything left to your oppose that needs to be an oppose, or can the rest be covered quickly or brought to the talk page to determine the consensus view over it? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read, you would see that both of their comments have been dealt with, and neither felt like their comments were worth opposing, so you cannot use them to justify your own oppose. This is the Summary of the FAC. Please don't misrepresent their language, especially when they make it explicit that they are not opposing. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pmanderson, if you are going to disrespect me on my talk page, just know that there are many admin who watch my talk page, and such language is completely inappropriate. Furthermore, if they did not feel that their comments were worth an oppose, you have no right to second guess them. Your claims about plagarism before and other citation problems have been put to review by many admin and copies of the works have been provided and everyone I have talked to agrees that what you saw is not the actual case. Since such things are completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, I severely recommend you stop trying to insinuate such a thing again. Not only does it violate things like Assume Good Faith, it also is a breach of Civility and lacks any kind of Verifiability, and these can easily result in a block. So, if you have no merit on your on or strong evidence, please make it clear, or provide evidence. There are only two options for you right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I saw you mentioned me. I don't think "endemic bad writing" is a far point. I had a bad cold, and didn't feel up to doing a proper copyedit, but, after all the changes that happened during the reworking, there were a few points that could use a final polish before it hit FA. Applying that final polish was my sole intent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
Stop edit warring, such as at Francis, Dauphin of France. You have avoided violating the letter of 3RR, but there is also a prohibition against the slow edit war you are currently engaged. Consensus is against you. You can continue to seek new consensus on the Talk page only; stop editing the mainspace page against consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you may be interested in a cart imported to the US in 1948 by my grandfather with the story of Orlando furioso handcarved in Sicily. It is very large and had been used in the parades in the North End of Boston in the 1950s. If you are interested in seeing it, gail.schlicke@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.62.113 (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the personal attacks
This is a formal request on your talk page asking you to stop attacking me personally, and to please address the content of my posts. Comments such as "No one except Serge, in his various incarnations, supports ..." 1 are personal attacks (not to mention false). You've made numerous similar comments today, thus constituting recurring attacks. I hope we can resolve this without bringing in administrators. Please address only the content of my posts from now on. By the way, I'm far from the only one who supports moving all American cities for which [[Cityname]] already redirects to the article about the city at [[Cityname, Statename]]. And please do no conflate a legitimate user name change with inappropriate behavior. Remember, WP:AGF. Thanks. --Serge (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, why did you tag the Lafayette article as POV? You didn't leave a note on the talk page, that I could tell. What are your issues with the article? I'd like to discuss. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. You know, I am a hobbyist; not an expert (I work in marketing, by trade). I came to the article as part of a collaborative effort. I got some books, read, etc. It is true that everything I know about Lafayette, I learned while writing the article. As there didn't seem to be a resident expert on the subject, I decided to learn what I could and write the article.
My question: why did you leave a note on my talk page about dates/spelling a few months back? I mean, there was a group of editors actively improving the article, adding sources, doing research, etc. Why didn't you advise my sources were lacking? Since WP lacks experts in these subjects, why did you not lend a hand; instead of adding some largely irrelevant comment about the dates/spelling? I wrote the article in good faith, not knowing my sources were poor. Again, I am not a scholar; just an enthusiasist. Now it is tagged POV, and has a large oppose at FAC.
I must say, I am demoralised that you decided to continue your work on a largely irrelevant area (date formats/spelling), while ignoring a place where you could contribute your talents. I am not an expert, but I did learn a lot with this article. And, I think it much improved from when I found it in early August. So, whatever...withdraw the article, I don't care. Just, next time: please help guide the improvement drive, or at least comment during the GA review, Peer review or A-class review. And, please, let the damn MOS go...you could do much better work elsewhere (for instance: working with me while I wrote this article for 2 months). Kind regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And apologies if the above was rude. I was disappointed; I'd thought the article in better shape than, I guess, it is. I do wish there was a way in which you could have contributed to the article before FAC -- or a way for you to be more involved in these articles, in the first place. It's frustrating. Your editor summary to my talk said "pan", which implied a certain satisfaction. Yes, you have "panned" my work--good job. But really: why did you not contribute when you noticed work was taking place? It's annoying that one searches Wikipedia to find someone with whom to work on an article of importance; and, finds nothing until FAC when the experts appear out of nowhere to blast the whole thing. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got a little bent out of shape. My goal, really, is to improve coverage of certain areas. And, the French Revolution is one of these areas. This is not because I am an expert on the French Revolution, but because I have an interest and the articles really should be as good as the possibly can be. Regarding your comments, well, the article is based on all of the biographies I was able to find on Lafayette. Biased? I think someone once said that it's hard to write a biography and not be biased. Anyway, I'll work more ont it; sorry for the lash out. As far as obvious and "embarassing errors"--why don't you just correct those?
Spelling/dates: I don't have any opinion. I think we should start worrying about date formatting after we get the content right. Otherwise, IMO, it's a waste of time. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And according to my humble opinion the move is necessary. I find your "Please, stop" comment rude. Since when can't I start discussions on page moves? Should I first start a discussion about starting a discussion about moving a page? Mieciu K (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning one, and than I started the other. In both cases I have contacted the appropriete Wikiprojects , I think 159,380 active Wikipedians can handle my 2 request move debates at the same time. Mieciu K (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your copyedit of Ladder of Jacob. I appreciate it: it was needed. You added a 'clean-up' tag. Where I can improve the Article (References, Article titles and sections, Capital letters, Italics, Quotations, Punctuation, Chronological items, etc )? A ntv (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear PMA, to me, there are two issues: one is straight wording, the other is the number of support declarations that are required in addition to overall consensus. The straight wording option doesn't fuzz up the distinction betwee a nominator as a reviewer, and the occasional withdrawal by a nominator doesn't equate with a reviewer's "oppose", IMO. Tony(talk)03:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Pass edit
Thank you for undoing the edit on the Joe Pass Article. I am trying to encourage editors to at least link the years of Birth & Death for a person so the reader can get some additional context on that person's life. I was going to go back and undo it myself, but I wasn't sure what an edit war with a bot would be like :-). Also, you have an very well thought-out and attractive User Page.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, can you give some suggestions for a name search that would satisfy you. I am really quite sure this town is referred to as Ortisei in English. For all intents and purposes Ortisei and Urtijëi are obviously the same word; and are the way the local population call the city. It makes sense that Urtijëi is rarely used commercially, because look how in English it is difficult to even figure out what the sound is. :-) St. Ulrich is not used, even by most of the local Ladin-speaking people. Anyway... Icsunonove (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, you can be a pain in the arse, but I know you are impartial. :-) I'm pretty convinced myself what is proper English usage with regard to this town, but I agree I should prove my point. Anyway, I'll look into your 'methods'. Anyway, on the other hand, I see no proof that Urtijëi is really used commonly in the English language. That said, I don't know why every topic brought up on BZ has to bring up terms like English Imperialism, fascism, etc., etc. ad naseum. :-) I think the BZ and TN pages on Wikipedia have some of the most benefit in capturing all the various histories and namings for these places. Icsunonove (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, it doesn't matter to me really which name is used, just that it is correct English usage. Note also that the core language of my ancestors is Ladin (Rheatian-Romance), so I certainly have no problem with Urtijëi. Ladin languages are my favourite in the end; but I see no reason to be ridiculous about demanding they be used in English. I disagree that I caused trouble though, and do take issue of being lumped into the same boat as Gryffindor. People like him actually caused this trouble by being completely radicalized, and naming pages and defending their locations without any basic discussion. It seemed he really had a goal to wipe out "Romantic" language usage in this province. On the other hand, I'm very proud for multi-lingual solutions I pushed for with Trentino-Alto Adige/Seudtirol and Bolzano-Bozen, etc. The utter lack of fighting on many of those pages is proof in the pudding. :) Icsunonove (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a native English speaker from America, if you can call us English speakers. :-) My roots are from T-AA/BZ, and they are fundamentally "Ladin", but obviously also Italic cand Germanic. Anyway, I added more searches, see if they are improved. Icsunonove (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're responsible...
for getting me to look at article Type I and type II errors, can you help the fourth paragraph in that lede? While reducing it to simple English would be too much to ask of you (but would help me), could you tell me if you agree that
... perhaps because the information is incorrect, appears more compelling that it really is, whereas a type two error is to that evidence that should substantially change ones prior estimate does not, ...
is wrong twice-over? I'm'a thinking it should be "appearing more compelling" and "type two error is that". Read the entire sentence through first, because I'm only showing the problem section, then recheck? I'd change it, but after witnessing the discussions at the WP:MOSPOOL, I know I'd get it wrong(er). :-) Shenme (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you had an objection to the content of the Bible citation page, why didn't you mention it _before_ moving it to a different namespace? If the issue is important to you, fixing it was another possible route.
Generally speaking, other types of cross-namespace moves will be controversial and worth discussing with other editors. Wikipedia:Requested moves is the proper place for this. However, when proposing to move what appears to be an article out of the main namespace, it is strongly recommended that some form of Wikipedia:Deletion process should be used, preferably Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, as Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Speedy deletion do not build consensus. This is because the redirect that is created by such a move is subject to speedy deletion, which would effectively cause the article to be deleted from the main encyclopedia.
Do you believe that the recent changes made by Ac44ck to the article have created "a non-prescriptive, non-proscriptive, but descriptive article on the various ways in which the Bible has been, and is cited"? If not, what needs changing? Reply on the talk page would be appreciated. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were many ways to handle the problems you perceived in the Bible citation article. Your solutions were uninspired. The first paragraph in the reply here may be of help:
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
Hello, Pmanderson. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Ac44ck (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I object to being referred to as a "single-purpose irritant" I appreciate your support for my right to put the question. It looks like I am not going to get an answer though because the question has now been buried amongst all the IEC garbage. My objective is to assess whether there is indeed a point of principle here that does indeed have consensus. Is that too much to ask? Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you'd applied this to {{intro-tobe}} after it had caused me some confusion. Unfortunately it has rather specific syntax, needing the full {{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} syntax to work correctly when the template it is applied to is transcluded onto other pages. I edited it, and thought you'd like to know. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Occurrence-in-subtuple problem
Is the formula at the end a trivial formula/solution? Have you more information on this topic?
I would be interested in further information for this, if you have... in my institute my colleagues said no, there is no trivial solution for this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biolex2 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pmanderson. You have new messages at Jac16888's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hey, I hope you didn't miss the undented reply under your latest one. I tried to undent the replies so it wouldn't get too scrunched to the side. Just so you don't get lost, haha. --Banime (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Root of all evil?
I notice this line from WP:COMMONNAME is being cited in the flora discussion:
Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name ...
It appears this line was snuck in there without much consideration or discussion a couple of years ago, and is being used more and more as basis to ignore the common name convention. It also happens to be the basis for defending the practice of predisambiguating in many specific conventions, including adding the state as a disambiguator for all articles about U.S. cities that are not on the AP list, whether disambiguation is called for in the individual case or not. And so the efficacy of the general conventions erode... --Born2cycle (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there always need to be room for exceptions on an individual article basis Fixed-winged aircraft comes to mind). My objection is when a convention or guideline for an entire class of articles blatantly contradicts the general guidelines. That's what leads to the erosion of the efficacy of the general guidelines. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this more recent version is better I still have some issues with the page (for example "Simultaneously, a separate page titled with the plant's scientific name should be created; this would be the place for botanical descriptions and relationships."), but they are minor in comparison with the change you have initiated. Let's see if it sticks. --PBS (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the dual-article-per-topic problem is minor. There should be one article titled per the common name of the topic (if there is one - by scientific name if not), and dabbed as needed per WP:D just like any other WP article. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please move your Very Strong Oppose from the straw poll. Your proposal and endorsement are included in that section, your opposition should be obvious to other participants. The discussion is the 15 000+ words above the poll, if it is not already included then reinsert your comment in those sections. Reaching a solution requires a KISS approach, please help to bring about a resolution to this discussion by keeping the poll section short and simple. If you think your preference overrides a 250 year old convention that revolutionised our understanding of the natural world (the unambiguous, unique, and universally accepted nomenclatural system), your cause would be better served by clarifying your own proposal (and 'rationale') and expanding on that in the discussion sections. Your attempt to contradict every RS of any field with your interpretation of wikipolicy is, to say the least, ambitious. cygnis insignis17:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL! Your reference to the Dark Ages brightened my morning. I was not countering your personal preference with one of my own, the system of nomenclature has been adopted by everyone. By your reckoning I can publish an 'english' name, then move articles to that new name - cool! I wonder what I should call this organism, Pmanderson's mushroom-type thing would effectively skirt the problem you have identified. cygnis insignis04:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee
I agree that Coffee the beverage and the plant could and arguably should be two distinct articles, I just think the names of each should both be Coffee, disambiguated as appropriate. Coffee (plant), for example, is far more in line with naming conventions, guidelines and policy than is Coffea. That is, in English, the plant is much more often referred to as Coffee than asCoffea. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster
I note that you have reverted my previous revertion of Phillip Baird Shearer's page move of Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster to Big Ben. In the comments you state that another WP:RM is required to achieve revertion.
However, PBS originally moved the page after unilaterally ignoring the results of the previous RM, which was no clear consensus to move. He went ahead anyway, employing spurious reasoning, against established policy concerning consensus. So what would be the point of having another RM? The results of that could just be ignored too, making the whole thing a double waste of everyone's time. What is the point of having an RM in the first place, let alone a second, if the admin just goes ahead and makes their own biased decision anyway? Chillysnow (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for your comments on Frederick III, German Emperor's FAC. I have gone through your oppose and addressed all of your concerns, with the exception of the concern about the legacy section. I stated my opinion on the page that the secondary sources did give those opinions, not the wikipedia editors, and the net result of the legacy section is "neutral" in that it shows both sides and doesn't come to a hard conclusion so it is not pushing any sort of POV. I have replied with more specifics on the FAC page as well if you'd like to take a look. I'd really appreciate it if you could relook your stand on this issue, as I feel because it is in all of the secondary sources it should go into the article in a NPOV manner, which I believe is already done. Thanks, and if you'd like to discuss more please let me know. --Banime (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, have you read my responses and arguments at the FAC and talk page? Is there anyway I can clarify them more for you? I want to make sure you understand them fully and I definitely don't want this to become an edit war. --Banime (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again, I want to make sure theres no hint of a conflict between us. Arguments are fine, since we're working together they inevitably happen. I do thank you for your contributions and review to the article, however. I just disagree with you very much on that one point, and I feel no action can be taken on it by anyone due to the nature of the concern which I feel is a bit mistaken. Thanks again and if you have more questions you can ask. --Banime (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I really want to make this work. I understand all of your concerns, you really don't want to put undue weight to any side of an argument. While I disagree that the date of the source matters, do you have anything you can suggest that I try to improve the article? Thanks --Banime (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JSTOR Request
Hi PM, I saw you're listed at Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR; does this mean you can provide me with a full article from JSTOR, or just with information taken from an article in JSTOR? I'm working on expanding the National Agricultural Library article, and the only information on the history of the library that I can find is in an article on JSTOR, but unfortunately I don't have access to it, and the nearest library that has it is about 2.5 hours away. Thanks! SheepNotGoats (Talk) 19:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Language cranks
You said, "Like much of the Manual of Style, WP:DASH is the product of language cranks, who see WP as a means to reform the English language to their liking." Heve you discussed this elsewhere? — AjaxSmack 22:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anderson, I strongly object to the comment you made at that talk page, to which AjaxSmack draws attention here. As I have pointed out at that page, your gratuitously offensive remark was occasioned by an apparent elementary misunderstanding of WP:DASH. I took the trouble to correct that for the editor who misunderstood; you merely took the opportunity to continue your smear campaign against MOS editors. I, as you well know, am prominent among them. See my further remarks at WT:MOS.
"Cygnis insignis", the unofficial coat of arms motto of Western Australia, being a Latin pun meaning "distinguished by its swans". Note the spelling difference between the Latin word for swan ("Cygnis") and the neo-Latin scientific name for the swan genus ("Cygnus"). Hesperian00:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, I had intended to stay out of that “date” biz on WT:MOSNUM until I saw you jump all the hell over a newcomer and slap him down as you did. If you had treated him with civility and toned down the arrogance, I think you wouldn’t have seen me hop in the saddle on this one. This is all just a suggestion; you can have it your way too. Cause and effect. Greg L (talk)01:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Just like to say. Thank you for your support at the MOSNUM talk page. I'm beginning to feel like the whole of wikipedia has gone stark raving mad over this issue over the last couple of months. So it is refreshing to hear a voice of reason. Hopefully, sanity can be restored at some point in the future. I hope we can work together. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you think I can help you with anything. Just out of interest, what do you think of my proposals for the MOSNUM policy? G-Man?23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop vandalizing
Please stop vandalizing the IDF RfC by putting comments up in the hat statement. Those comments are already located in the section where they belong: the Comments section. Moreover, those comments have already been responded to. We certainly don’t you salting duplicates wherever you please. Unless you can present your *I am really, REALLY special* license for inspection, you can conform to the code of conduct on RfCs that other editors abide by. Greg L (talk)01:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need for an edit war, just start up a new conversation on the talk page and if you're right a new consensus will develop. I know you're disappointed but don't be, if you really think its wrong then the facts will be on your side and it'll come towards your view. I've explored your view a number of times though and frankly I think you are a bit misled in this instance. Good luck though on future edits, but please discuss on talk pages before trying to overturn consensus and tag FAs. Thanks. --Banime (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with your recent edits to Richard Hawes. First, the historical marker "notes" that an inauguration took place. "Asserts" seems to me to cast doubt upon the fact that the event happened. The fact is, there was an event and Hawes was inaugurated governor of a group known as the Confederate government of Kentucky. The fact that the marker "notes" the event does not lend legitimacy to the government itself; it simply recognizes the fact that an event took place whereby Hawes assumed executive power in the group. The caption does not say Hawes was inaugurated governor of Kentucky; that would be grossly inaccurate. It does say Hawes was inaugurated Confederate governor of Kentucky; that is a fact.
Second, the Russellville Convention did enact a new constitution – one that dictated rules of operation for the Confederate government of Kentucky. The fact that it had no discernible effect on most Kentuckians is really irrelevant. If I declare my house and yard to be Acdixonland and draft a constitution to govern the inhabitants of Acdixonland, the fact that said constitution is totally ineffective does not change the fact that the document was created. As above, the article does not assert that the Confederate constitution supplanted the actual constitution of Kentucky; it merely states that the convention drafted a constitution, that this constitution prescribed a method of electing a new governor, and that this procedure was followed by adherents of the Confederate government. In fact, your edit is the less accurate of the two. The Russellville Convention did not affirm the Kentucky Constitution; it adopted all measures of that constitution that were not inconsistent with the document drafted at Russellville. Acdixon(talk • contribs • count)22:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The oath of office need not be a part of an inauguration. Wikipedia's article on the subject defines "inauguration" as "a formal ceremony to mark the beginning of something such as a president term of office." Whether Hawes took the oath of office or not is immaterial given this definition; it marked the start of his term as Confederate governor. A celebration of such a ceremony is documented; if there was no such ceremony, what did Buell interrupt? Besides, all of the government's records subsequent to the event acknowledge Hawes as governor. I highly doubt they would have recognized him as such without his having taken the oath of office. The only cause for doubt is a denial Hawes made in the aftermath of the war, when admission of disloyalty may well have been punished with death, or at least ostracism. This seems a pretty flimsy basis for doubt to me.
It also seems that your most recent edit goes to great lengths to stress the irregularity of the Russellville Convention. It seems to me that the fact that the government was in exile and traveling with an army says pretty much everything that needs to be said about the legitimacy they possessed and the efficacy with which they operated. Regarding their "affirmation" of the Kentucky Constitution, they definitely saw themselves as a provisional government, but the permanent government they hoped would eventually replace them would likely have looked much different to the one previously constituted. I'll leave your edit as-is until we hash this out a little further. I've copied this discussion to the article's talk page; let's continue it there. Acdixon(talk • contribs • count)00:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lafayette
PMAnderson: Would you be willing to remove the large tags across of the top of the article? I saw the other day that the clean-up category had over 100,000 articles in it; I would imagine the tag is not going to draw a skilled copy-editor. I just now started re-editing the article; and, I find it quite abrasive that you immediately tagged the article after I've been active on it for less than 24 hours.
I assure you that I will try and copyedit the article to the best of my ability; and, later, approach others with more copyediting skill to do the same. It is quite disheartening; I'd rather that we worked together to improve the article than it be tagged. Also: no one is in dispute currently about anything, that I am aware.
Why is it tagged that we are disputing the article? You made your opinions quite apparent during the FAC--I am working to address those--how do you feel that the blatant tagging and calling it "utter trash" is helpful? I haven't even touched the sections you mentioned since the previous FAC. I feel you are being provocative; I am clearly trying to edit the article with your suggestions in the forefront of my mind. I would much rather work with you than against you. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: Yesterday, I began editing the article in light of your suggestions. This was after nearly 7 weeks away from it. I approach this as an incremental affair. Do you honestly think it necessary to, immediately after I start editing it again, call it "trash" and begin placing tags all over the place? Is it something about me? I mean, why do you do this right after I begin trying to improve it again? I'm just completely confused. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Of course I will approach you. I'd intended to always; but, did not feel the need to waste your time until I was finished. And, I hope that you are willing to help fix the idiomatic language. I assure you that I have no bias; and, welcome all help you offer to assure a NPOV. But, please, your actions indicate that your problem is with me, not the article. From my point of view, I just began to start work when you slam it as "trash". Can't this not be more of a collegial affair? Otherwise: why should I even bother? No one else works on the article. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am glad it is not about me. I sincerely just want to make the article better. Anyway, the best indicator of progress, if you are interested, is the copy of the FAC in the article talk-space. I am replying and addressing all of the concerns one-by-one and commenting on the actions I've performed. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you mentioned that you would be returning from a break on the 26th. I wanted to advise that I vastly underestimated how much work I'd be able to accomplish on the article in that time. I was able to add bits to the French Rev section; but, not as much as I would like. One area I did try to augment specifically was the background surrounding Lafayette's impeachment and decision to cross enemy lines; previously, the article left the impression that he played a reactive rather than proactive role. Regardless, I wanted to advise you that I was able to achieve much less than I had envisioned; further, much of what I added was "pegged" on without much thought to narrative flow. I'd intended to work back into that today and tomorrow; but, perhaps I had been a little overzealous. I likely won't get many improvements completed over the two-three days.
Lastly: I agree 100% about Lafayette's lovers. I do not immediately recall her name, but I remember reading of one young belle with whom he was quite involved during the 20s. Again, I will be working back into it; but, wanted to alert that I had been overreaching with my initial estimate of work "to-do". Kindly Lazulilasher (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PM :) I have gone to bat for the Mortimer Gerald Bredon Wimsey, 15th Duke of Denver article, which someone was proposing for deletion. While I am obviously not a fan of the increasingly disheartening tendency of some contributors to bureaucruftily destroy useful information just because they have never heard of it, I can see that some people might fail to see a need for a separate dedicated article for this single minor member of the Wimsey family (however notable its better known scions). Accordingly, I suggest it may be a good idea to merge this and other lesser known members of the Wimsey family (such as Thomas George Churchill Wimsey, 10th Duke of Denver) into a dedicated "list of" article (which would also be easier to protect from deletion addicts). What do you think?
You may also find it of interest that I have created a starter stub for Gerald Christian Wimsey, 16th Duke of Denver, arguably the most notable of the Dukes of Denver, which oddly enough did not seem to exist yet. I hope you will be able to fill in more details, as I currently have no access to source materials other than my memory :) Nude Amazon (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! It was suggested to me by 3dAlcove that you might possibly be interested in critically reviewing the Greeks article for any signs of bias and non-npov. I would appreciate that as a third party can spot issues not immediately apparent to those involved. Thank you and I am always at your disposal for any clarificaitons or suggestions you have.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've been here a long time, I seem to remember seeing you involved in debates around guidelines and policies. Established policies and guidelines are not overthrown simply because two or three editors come along and proclaim their unhappiness with the policy or guideline. If that were the case just about every policy would be long gone. Are you really unaware of the way things work around here? Is that really what you are saying? I find that assertion mind-boggling.
I am willing to assume that you are acting in good faith, and that you really don't know these things. If that is the case, I would strongly suggest that you familiarise yourself with the basic rules and policies of Wikipedia before you choose to edit policy and guideline pages again.
It would never have occurred to me that you didn't know this. Honestly, I am shocked. But if that is the case, I apologise for thinking that you were familiar with the way we do things around here. Guettarda (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before, it's obvious now that either (a) you are unwilling to educate yourself about how we make rules here (in which case you are being disruptive), or (b) you are simply being disruptive to make a point. Regardless, STOP. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus exists. A small number of editors are unhappy with that consensus, and are trying to create a new one. That's the way the system works. Simply declaring that it doesn't because you don't like it isn't the way we do things here. Since you claim to be unaware of the way that we work here, I asked to you educate yourself about the way we work. Instead, you chose to be disruptive. All I ask is that you cease your disruption and let the involved editors work towards a new consensus. Guettarda (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I get the impression that you try to be the good cop to Born2cycle's bad cop. I know that's cynical of me, but if I'm right, please try to do a better job of it, because Born2cycle has his role down pat.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is I can't find the merits of the arguments anywhere. I looked. I spend 2 days reading and trying to find them before I posted. The merits are lost in pounds and pounds of words, of accusations, of pointless, useless, discussion about things that are so far off the track of what this is purportedly about that I'm certain at least half the editors there don't know what Born2cycle is proposing. I'm thinking close to 100% don't care in the face of the onslaught of insults about how we're damaging Wikipedia by daring to edit any other way than under his/her command.
If Born2cycle's arguments have merits, let him/her spend some time to find them, present them, and stop attacking other editors, but rather focus on the merits of whatever it is he/she is proposing. Until the merits of his/her arguments are strong enough to stand out above the venom (meaning in his/her mind), assisting him/her in continuing to create this hostile atmosphere among plant editors will only be seen as a green light to go ahead and do this in some other area.
No other group of editors will welcome being personally attacked, insulted, and lamely passively/aggressively told they are damaging Wikipedia by their editing.
Wikipedia could stand improvement in a lot of areas, still. Editors who come here to do that could be effective if they didn't lose their message in their lack of diplomacy.
Calling us the "floral cabal," however, is the first time that anyone has accused the plant editors of working together on anything. But it also just shows that Born2cycle didn't even bother to learn anything about the plant editors as a group before starting this attack.
I'm having trouble with two points in the newly revised Champ de Mars section. First, the sequence of events. Sources variously give differing sequences, some say Lafayette gave an order, some don't, etc... The other area I am having trouble in is the deaths; estimates, again, vary. They range from a bit more than a dozen to around 50 (seems to be the most accepted, from what I can tell) to 400 hundred, to thousands. How do we fairly represent this in the article? Lazulilasher (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering...
PManderson, a few weeks ago you wrote, "I continue to oppose this; Serge does not see the advantage of predictable names, but he is almost alone in this inability." link I wonder how you reconcile this statement with your position at flora. At the time I started the discussion at WP:NC, I was not aware of the flora guideline wording. However, it is a good example of exactly the kind of problem I was addressing. Yet at flora, it is the flora editors who are on the side of defending the "advantage of predictable names", and you, along with me, defending the advantage of using common names when possible. I assume you would agree that it's not fair to describe our agreed position at flora as "not seeing the advantage of predictable names". I wonder if you still feel that is a fair assessment of my views. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought you were one who argued the difference between Joshua Tree and Joshua tree is a distinction of significance. If so, how do you reconcile that with your settlements example of Matewan/Matawan being "the same"? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you're not arguing that Matewan and Matawan are closer etymologically than are Joshua Tree and Joshua tree. That aside, I hope you can at least appreciate my argument a bit more now, and recognize that it is simply not true that I don't see the advantage of predictable names, it's just that I see the advantage of using common names as being more important. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Hi, Pmanderson. I enabled rollback rights for you, as it looks like you want it mainly for the flagged revisions debate. There was the edit-war/block incident you had back in July, and I trust that you will not use rollback to edit-war in the future. You've been around long enough to know that misuse will result in loss of the tool, so I don't need to say any more about that. I have only been paying minor attention to the flagged revisions debate, but did expect there to be additional requests for rollback associated with it, especially if it passes. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured; the main drawback to rollback is you can't use custom edit summaries, so it's really only useful for reverting obvious vandalism. I still use the undo button for most of the reverts I make. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FlaggedRevs on German Wikipedia
You've been stating that the median waiting time for reviewing new revisions on German Wikipedia is three weeks. I think you are misreading the report: it says that they've been keeping the all unreviewed edits at under three weeks, and that the median waiting time of those listed as unreviewed at a given time is one week. This means that the actual median waiting time for all edits made by those without the reviewer flag is significantly lower than that, since edits that are reviewed quickly don't stay on the list for very long.--ragesoss (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the assertion that the cultural revolution in china is an infamous event is I think agreed upon by most western scholars. It might be controversial at the chinese wikipedia but it is unlikely to be controversial here. You may note that user:Keyi himself has acknowledged that Pu was repressed for 4 years during that period. What is the point of making a tempest in a teapot about well-known facts? Katzmik (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get too excited about Category:Cyclopses vs. Category:Cyclopes; is it even a useful category? The first is probably preferable on Wikipedia simply because it is the 'popular' form. --macrakis (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I missed the fact that a long time ago you added the phrase, "Gan Ying also described the adoptive monarchy of Nerva" to the article on Gan Ying. I have just added a "citation needed" tag to this statement as I am not sure this can be demonstrated, and thought I should let you know. If you do have information supporting this I would love to hear about it - even if it is only a theory. All best wishes, John Hill (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! Thanks for your reply on my Talk Page and the Gan Ying talk page. I am not sure what you mean to imply with your statement, "If you find it necessary to be silent, that would be regrettable" - I have never said anything about remaining silent and, at least on this subject, I certainly don't intend to. The point of discussion here is, I believe, about Gan Ying's account in which he says that: "Their kings are not permanent. They select and appoint the most worthy man. If there are unexpected calamities in the kingdom, such as frequent extraordinary winds or rains, he is unceremoniously rejected and replaced. The one who has been dismissed quietly accepts his demotion, and is not angry."
I have always assumed that this was probably a fantastic tale Gan Ying was told (possibly by sailors) when he was in Parthia. As we know, he never managed to reach Roman territory, so all the information he gathered was, at best, second-hand. I have never thought that his account of some sort of democratic process of choosing leaders in Rome was believable.
You added a statement to the article saying that, "Gan Ying also described the adoptive monarchy of Nerva." This might be so - the timing is right - but there is no other evidence that I know of to support this assertion. That is why I put a "citation needed" tag on the claim and wrote to you to inform you I had done so. I still think Gan Ying was probably just repeating a fabulous tale. Unless there is some real evidence relating his account to Nerva's accession I think you should remove this statement. It wouldn't hurt, of course, to make it plain that Gan Ying's description of the process of choosing Rome's leaders was idealistic in the extreme, and certainly not factual. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Reposting this message to you as I know it will be of particular interest. Please contribute to Wikipedia:Page movement and Wikipedia talk:Page movement. I have started this proposal as an attempt to formalize and/or get down in writing some of WP:RM custom and etiquette, as well as give an opportunity to institute some things, such as rubber staming the status of WP:RM as the device for resolution of conflict regarding page movement as well as instituting a WP:RM appeal process. It would also be good if we could consider centralizing discussions and/or formalizing the means of doing so, at least regarding mass moves proposals. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indo-Greek sources
Hi Pmanderson. You seem to be arguing that I essentially rely on Tarn for my sourcing in the Indo-Greeks, but that's quite untrue. Tarn was definitely my first introduction to the subject, but besides him I have relied most extensively on Bopearachchi and Senior. Actually I have been relying on about 30 sources (which I all own) for my work on the Indo-Greeks (listed here). It is true I do not have much leaning for A.K. Narain though (even of I created his article:), but this is more due to the general weakness of his arguments. I am looking forward to your understanding. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pmanderson. If your point is specifically about Ujjain, I think I have not used Tarn as a source, but rather the much more recent Mitchener: "A distinctive series of Indo-Greek coins has been found at several places in central India: including at Dewas, some 22 miles to the east of Ujjain. These therefore add further definite support to the likelihood of an Indo-Greek presence in Malwa" John E. Mitchener, 2002, "The Yuga Purana", p.64 (referenced with quote in the Indo-Greek kingdom article). Besides, I think you should stop qualifying me as "a dedicated believer in Tarn's most dated picture, who has no real understanding of the sources or the issues" [2]: this is highly uncivil, and, besides, quite untrue. I would appreciate if you could correct such accusations and avoid such language. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compilation.
Hi Pmanderson. I did not create a map by myself at all. I only used existing maps, such as the Westermann map (attached, Großer Atlas zur Weltgeschichte), the Historical Atlas of the Indian Peninsula (Oxford University Press), and Narain "Coin types of the Indo-Greeks". The three maps were simply compiled to show the extent of the various sources available. Cheers PHG (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mitchener
Hi Pamanderson. For your information John Edward Mitchener is a British scholar and diplomat. He is a graduate of Bristol University and received an M.A and a Ph.D. from the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University.[1] John Mitchener entered Britain’s diplomatic services in 1980. After positions in Istanbul, New Delhi and Berne, he was appointed British Ambassador to Armenia from 1997 to 1999.[2] In 2000, he was appointed British Deputy High Commissioner for Eastern India, in Kolkata, India.[3][4] He is the author of numerous books and articles on Indian history and religion.[5]
For the sake of exactitude, I suggest you correct your statement here. Mitchener is indeed (among other things) a specialist of Indian history. PHG (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a friendly reminder for you to archive your talk page. It's currently running at 342kb, something which takes obscenely long to load on smaller computers. NuclearWarfare(Talk)01:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K, and this page is currently over 10x that size. Pmanderson, would it be alright if I setup an archivebot for your talkpage? This would automatically archive any threads which had been inactive for a certain period of time, and then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore? --Elonka16:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just wanted to drop a line to thank you for the proposals you made. It focussed my mind on the debate and led to my proposals. I hope you don't take my debating the points with you as anything personal (and I guess I'm not upset about being called a 'Wikilawyer' - although I didn't intend to set out to be one). I honestly believe that the sooner we can thrash out the arguments and reach a conclusion, the sooner we can get back to normality. I genuinely appreciate your willingness to debate with candour and without rancour. Let's hope everybody participates in that spirit. Sincerely --RexxS (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think would be the most constructive approach to this whole issue of this particular article remaining FA? Would it not be better to copy edit it into compliance? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In support of Lightbot
I oppose you over the matter of LightBot. As far as I have seen, it has functioned well and I resent that you want to revoke the approval of it or try to block LightBot. You make this request again, I may initiate proceedings directly to the Arbitration Committee, bypassing the rest of the dispute resolution procedure in light of the seriousness of my concerns about your machinations against Lightmouse and his bot. AdirondackMan (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to do as you ask, I read your commentary on the request for approvals so I think of you as a valid party. But if this is your wish, to take this to arbitration, let it be done in all propriety. Let this be settled like gentlemen. That's all I want. AdirondackMan (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I felt your change was a beneficial one: What do you think of the proposal? I'm pondering moving it to the mainspace and linking to it from the trial proposals page, but want to be sure I've got something that's at least semi-developed before getting others in to help refine the proposal. Any other comments you can offer in addition to those you've already made would be helpful. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your PHG proposal
I like your explanation, which was how I interpretted it (and apparently User:Angusmclellan has interpreted it). I would also like to allow the mentor to add pages if necessary. What do you think about this language:
PHG's mentor, guided by consensus on the talk page concerned, has sole discretion to waive PHG's editing restriction for any particular article, and may restore the restriction as the mentor sees fit, especially if an editor objects to PHG's edits. Similarly, PHG's mentor may expand PHG's editing restriction to any page where a consensus of other editors objects to PHG's edits. The mentor's decisions may not be appealed, although new mentors may be appointed if decisions are manifestly unreasonable.
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.
PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is both revised and extended; the full list of new conditions are available by clicking this link. Furthermore, the original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history has been rescinded. PHG is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.
Any particular article may be added or removed from PHG's editing restriction at the discretion of his mentor; publicly logged to prevent confusion of the restriction's coverage. The mentor is encouraged to be responsive to feedback from editors in making and reconsidering such actions. Furthermore, the Committee noted that PHG has complied with the Committee's restrictions over the past ten months, and that PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. PHG should be permitted and encouraged by other editors to write well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons, and to build trust with the community.
I must say that I found your revert a bit unconstructive. If you think that a merger should be done, why don't you propose a merger? I think everyone agrees, as Kotniski has pointed out, that having NC(places) and NC(geoname) is idiotic. He proposed something to remedy this, and you are undoing his work, but are not contributing anything else to address the problem. Sorry to say, but his looks a bit like WP:OWN to me. Jasy jatere (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Papist prejudice
I saw your notes on Talk:Nestorian Stele. Lately I have been increasingly concerned about the extent of bias in the English Wikipedia. Not imbalance - the English encyclopedia will naturally have most depth on subjects of most interest to English speakers - but a tendency to be dismissive or intolerant of different cultures. We are sensitive in our use of terms that are common in our culture. Nigger, Papist and Kike point to articles that discuss the implied prejudice, Red Indian skips direct to "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" and Queer leads to a carefully balanced article. But with other cultures I sense an arrogant and perhaps racist tendency. What English speakers say about the "native" beliefs, customs and rituals is more important than what they have to say about themselves. After all, they are just natives. Apart from WP:BIAS, do you now of any good guidelines or essays in Wikipedia on the subject? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
---
I am a bit puzzled at your response. I did not refer to the ninth or nineteenth centuries, or to the Church of the East (which I had never heard of) or to Arianism.
I find it hard to understand the theological disputes of the early Christians, although I suppose at the time they were seen as the difference between eternal joy and eternal damnation. As far as I care to explore the subject, there seem have been various intense debates in the early Christian church such as whether a Gentile could become a Christian, whether Christ has a separate nature and divinity or is purely a manifestation of the one God, the nature of the Holy Ghost and so on. It seems that many of the Syriac Christian groups at first inclined towards the Nestorian view of the separation of the divine and human elements in Christ, but most later shifted towards the more orthodox and nuanced view formulated by Babai the Great. I may be wrong on this, which bothers me, but I get the sense that although the Assyrian Church of the East recognizes Nestorius as a saint, they dislike being labeled "Nestorian".
The English language is wonderfully flexible. Wikipedia articles should ideally use only the most clear and unambiguous form. But the English culture is riddled with prejudice. Wikipedia articles should avoid prejudice where possible, presenting a neutral point of view. My concern is that in some articles about distant times and peoples, or even just in the titles of the articles, we are reflecting the common and uninformed prejudices of the English-speaking culture, rather than giving our readers a clear and unbiased view. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
---
Partly I am looking for accuracy, clarity and consistency. The article itself says that the adjective "Nestorian" is incorrect, and that is backed up by related articles on the Assyrian Church of the East and Babai the Great. These articles seem to have solid sources - I have no reason to doubt them. Partly I am indeed trying to be sensitive to the views of the members of this church who are struggling for their existence in Iraq today. If we can avoid a needless insult, we should. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Actually, the reason I stopped bothering about South Tyrol was discussions like the one about Meran-Merano taking place at WP:NCGN now. I think it's a big waste of time, some people really should get a life. MarkussepTalk09:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudo-Aristotelian De mirabilibus auscultationibus
Who the hell gives you the right to tag that RfC as an essay after it has been in place for less than 24 hours? Especially as you clearly do not understand the issues involved? And especially as the guideline on such proposals is that they should stay in place for at least a week?!
The proposal is NOT about the wprd "myth" - it is about the use of ambiguous words - an issue that has proven contentious in many articles.
The proposal boils down to this: if a word is ambiguous, make sure people understand what you mean by it.
What is vague about that? How does that warrant the idiotic comment that "it could preclude WP being written in a natural language at all"?--FimusTauri (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal
Hello,
I have taken on the rather challenging task of fixing a core policy that is hopelessly broken. If you boil my proposal down to a philosophical position, it is that we should be leaving people to do the sensible thing, rather than making prescriptive rules that they are going to break anyhow. Since I believe you share this basic position, and I value your opinion whether you end up agreeing with me or not, can I invite you to get involved before I publicise it? If you're interested, start at Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Proposal.
"Especially" not "only". If you think NPOV applies only to descriptive article names, then you should be over at WP:NPOV trying to correct what must be an egregiously misleading paragraph. I think you'll have trouble convincing people, though; after all, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia."
What we've written here seems fairly straightforward, but I can't shake this nagging feeling that we are talking past each other and may actually agree. Do we both agree that
An article on a book entitled "Jews Really Suck" should be named Jews Really Suck?
Battle of Pinjarra is not entirely neutral, but is nonetheless the best name for the article? (read the first paragraph)
Ignore the above; you were right. I failed to appreciate the crucial WP:NPOV line:
"Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources."
This is rather poorly worded—the connection with descriptive/prescriptive is vaguely analogous rather than literally correct—and the insistence on using the most common name is the kind of prescriptive sillyness I am trying to get away from. I can imagine situations where the most common name is biased, but an unbiased name runs a very close second. Forcing people to use the biased name is inappropriate in this case. Let them immerse themselves in the context, weigh the merits of each, and choose as they think best.
So I've rewritten the neutrality section. It still ain't right, but I think you will find the general premise much less objectionable.
Hello Pmanderson. Long ago it was decided to include in the title both the Italian name and the German one, similarily to what happened to Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol (the region including the province). What we were discussing about was simply the hyphen/slash issue. I think it is the time to make a broad discussion about the title of the article about the Province of Bolzano. Would you like to start it or to participate actively? Can you lead us into this discussion and help us to find out the best solution? Obviously, if the outcome of the discussion will be again something including both "Bolzano" and "Bozen" (as I believe it will happen), we should use the slash instead the hyphen as they are simply the same thing in different languages. Differently we should probably discuss also about the article about the region. --Checco (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember well those discussions and I definitely agree with you on the fact that having a single name, the most used in English or the one of the official language of the country, would be definitely better. However I know how difficult is to reach such a result. We need people like you (and also me! I don't identify as an Italian, actually...) who are neither Italian or German... Can you help us? In the meantime, why do you oppose the slash proposal? In the present situation, with the oppositions of Ezhiki and you, we won't change the status quo and we will even have something incorrect in the title, a hyphen instead of a slash. --Checco (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to let you know that this edit was an accident and was not part of the discussion between myself and Hlj. Good Catch and I will try and watch for that.--Kumioko (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already stopped changing the section titles although I still believe it is generally confusing to the reader and editors to call a reference list a note. There are simply too many other changes and edits to be made to WP without arguing about the symantics of whether Reference or Notes is more appropriate.--Kumioko (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bozcaada is the official name of the island and internationally recognized as such. The same applies to Gökçeada the official name of the island and also internationally recognized as such.
Bozcaada is the official name of the island and internationally recognized as such. For instance if someone wants to send a letter and writes "Tenedos" as the address, then the letter will be returned. (If there is a return address) This is also the case even when someone writes the official name Bozcaada along the obsolete name "Tenedos".
The same applies to Gökçeada the official name of the island and also internationally recognized as such. And not the obsolete name of "Imros". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.76.42 (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me they have similar style and behavior, and despite editing during similar time intervals, always manage to avoid overlapping. Should something be done? --C S (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled by [3]. I wouldn't be surprised if he had written about something related, but our Lullus article doesn't seem to discuss it. I think at the very least you should provide some context with the link. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is a vowel with ὑπογεγραμμένη usually (or indeed ever) called "iotified"? In the sort of linguistics that I'm familiar with, a jotated, or iotated, or in Unicode-speak iotified vowel is one preceded by a [j]. Historically, indeed, a vowel with ὑπογεγραμμένη was followed by a [j], but do people actually refer to this as iotification? In any case, the question we're dealing with relates strictly to characters (graphemes) which originated as ligatures of Ι + existing vowel-character. I'm fairly confident that there are none such in Greek. Лудольф (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't edited the article in question, but since you are or have been actively involved in the IEC prefix discussion (sorry to remind you of it if you, like me, got tired of the uncivil discussion and wanted to have nothing to do with the issue anymore), I invite you to consider the nomination for deletion of the article JEDEC memory standards, which I believe can fairly be said to have been created only as a hammer for the discussion.
I beg you to try to keep your sentiments about the actual IEC prefix on Wikipedia question out of the deletion discussion and consider the merits of the deletion proposal, namely, notability in the Wikipedia sense (WP:N), regardless of which units you believe Wikipedia should use.
Re: your Comment of April 6: Crystal ball or no crystal ball - the small area of the Austrian Duchy of Carinthia that in 1918 was ceded to Yugoslavia never was a Yugoslav or Slovene province, and the much larger present-day region of Slovenia that now goes by the name of "Koroška" and whose "Carinthian" territory covers less than half of that region's area is no province either, as Slovenia is not organized in provinces. So why should anyone insist on preserving that wrong description?--Marschner (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my original move I expressed my objection against the use of the false term province for that region, and this remains my argument: It isn't a province, so why call it one?
Both of you - please do not edit war over key templates used on guideline pages. It is completely inappropriate to duel back and forth over wording that is there to stop people from edit warring. I have protected the page for now; I suggest you take your debate to the talk page. --Ckatzchatspy05:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this. Do you have to be so obnoxious? It is a discussion about a minor (even, dare I say it, trivial) piece of formatting. Throwing out terms like "half-educated" and "bullies" doesn't seem all that likely to lead to a civil discussion or a harmonious consensus. Thanks for your trouble. --John (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Would you like to offer a broad critique of History of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), which I've been ignoring lately. You can do so on the article talk page. A paragraph or two. Not the details, but the big picture. I'm hoping it will inspire me to get my ass in gear and attend to the article, add the footnotes etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk»04:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and created a Manual of Style for dermatology-related articles, and have been working on it with another user. This specific MOS is still in its infancy, but I wanted to get your feedback at this point. What issues do you think should be addressed? Are there any important issues related to dermatology cotent which you think should be added? Thanks again for you help! ---kilbad (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to a party are not evidence, nor are comments. Please take a look at the Arbitration Guide above for a better understanding of what the Arbitrators require. If you believe you have evidence that will add to the case, please feel free to add it. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contual low-intensity Cantor-babble
Pmanderson,
I'm getting pretty tired of all this back and forth on Cantor re Judaism. Of course I would very gladly do something to address the issue myself, but as you may or may not know, I no longer have access to English-language libraries. I only have access to the Internet. Would you and perhaps others be willing to access all of the sources listed etc. and take on the task of revamping the "Ancestry" section, addressing each and every statement/point in a non-OR and non-POV manner? Geometry guy recommended your name in this respect. I'm also contacting Paul August and Trovatore. Tks Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR)10:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Germer-Stadion move
Hi, just a thought - if you move the stadium to the "correct" name as per the conventions, why don't you fix the text in the same instance then? Madcynic (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First I want to apologize for the mistake and I will try and watch that one. Truthfully though I do thousands of edits and mistakes are bound to happen from time to time. I will however NOT promise to not touch that article or any other. Mistakes are unfortunately part of the business of editing and the fact that you caught the mistake merely proves that the concept of WP works. I also want to say that I am disapointed in your attitude towards AWB and your attitude of ownership over this article. I take pride in the articles I edit and create as well, but I also know that I do not possess ownership overthem eventhough I frequently do not agree with edits made to them from other editors. Additionally, as a seasoned editor you should be well aware of the net rewards of using AWB to the project and if not I recommend paying closer attention.--Kumioko (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the article section Holy_Spirit#Non-Trinitarian_views, the section intro and subsections show that most nontrinitarian Christians do not believe the "holy spirit" to be a person (that is, a proper noun). They believe it's a mindset or an impersonal force (like numina to repeat the term you used). Yet, even when the term is not used as a proper noun in the article, the term is forcibly capitalized by editors apparently more interested in trinitarianism than grammar.
I don't mind capitalizing Holy Spirit, but it's wrong to do it without thinking, as most do. I believe that capitalizing non-proper-noun instances of the term to be unscholarly and ungrammatical. You may be interested in sharing your thoughts there at Talk:Holy_Spirit#Capitalization_II.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your farewell. If you happen to think of it, and wouldn't mind, if there's ever a decision in the case use Wikipedia to e-mail me. I'll check in from time to time. In the meantime, I have bruises and airbag/seatbelt burns to heal. RainbowOfLightTalk19:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pmanderson. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, my name is Jarhed and I am an amateur rock climber and mountaineer. I recently reviewed some of the articles on these subjects, and I believe that they could use the attention of interested editors such as yourself. I have proposed a new project on these topics and I am interested in your opinion. You can find the proposal here: Mountaineering and Climbing Project Proposal. Thank you for your time, and have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good—I entirely agree. But perhaps you might make clearer what I think you mean: that it is very odd indeed to put restrictions on stylistic editing on which MOS is silent, while not restricting stylistic editing that is within the ambit of MOS. Either type could be the subject of disagreements, and in fact stylistic matters outside MOS's ambit are much less likely to be the subject of reversion. Tony(talk)16:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like our chances: they seem to think people will "game" the restrictions. I cannot see how on earth that would happen, but I've lost hope that the "remedies" will be appropriate. One wishes for a more detailed explanation of the logic and intention of the Committee (not to mention of the term "indefinite", as we now understand it) rather than their putting so much time into writing and endorsing the raft of motherhood statements in the first half.Tony(talk)09:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The motherhood statements that receive virtually unanimous votes by the arbs are a serious waste of time for drafter, voting arbs and readers. They repeat policies and other widely accepted principles (even a pillar in one case, do I remember?). ArbCom is flooded with unfinished business and has taken nearly five months to get this far. Restating principles and policies again and again is actually weak, don't you think? Or even ludicrous? Tony(talk)18:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "your own section" on a general talk page. As the person who separated the responses out by editor, I can tell you it was not my intent to stifle discussion amongst the various responses. —Locke Cole • t • c22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The request for comment by the arbitrator has a clear implication of permitting editors to respond in a manner that is away from the normal comment/response atmosphere of a talk page. There is nothing to stop Pmanderson from replying in his section (or elsewhere). You, Locke Cole, are not a clerk in this issue, so I respectfully request that you leave myself and Pmanderson to sort this issue out on our own (we are more than capable of doing that without your assistance). The letter of the law is not the issue here—instead, we should all be fostering an atmosphere that permits us to move forward constructively. HWV258 23:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by complying with WP:TPO and not outright removing another editors comment. You have NO RIGHT, whatsoever, to remove another editors comment made in good faith. The sections were put there by me (and copied by the additional respondents) to make navigation simpler, not to create issues of ownership which you seem to be displaying. I'll note other sections have replies by others than the named editor, and you don't see those comments being removed. —Locke Cole • t • c23:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps those replies are too the point? Please note from Wikipedia:TPO#Others.27_comments—Point 3: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article...". Point 4: "Removing personal attacks and incivility...". Point 11: "If a thread has veered off its original subject..." all indicate that at certain times it is permissible to edit/remove comments on a talk page. So "NO RIGHT" is definitely not right.
You'll note those bullet points are all under a lead stating "editing another editors comments", not "removing another editors comments". Still not your place and I find this form of bullying on your part, the removal of another contributors comments, very discouraging and highly inappropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c23:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As has happened so many times before, I find that the more you are pushed into supporting your actions, the less I can respect your responses. Specifically, "Deleting material..." and "Removing.." are covered under that section as they are clearly a form of "editing". Applying the label of "bullying" to my actions (actions now supported by an administrator) staggers belief. Just a friendly word of advice: saying "sorry" (at least occasionally) is also a method of bringing people around to your way of thinking. HWV258 23:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Pmanderson: please note the request made by the arbitrator: "Useful responses will not be directed to criticism of particular editors". Your response to (and in) my section does nothing to address the issues at hand (rather it perpetuates the frictional atmosphere that we are all keen to get away from). I respect your right to comment on my viewpoint, and request that you move your comment to a new section below the "An arbitrator's question for all parties" section. Thank you. HWV258 23:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, please note that your comments are bound to elicit responses, and quite possibly produce a healthy thread of replies. Such a trail would be inappropriate for the section in which you first posted. Would you like me to establish your comment in a new section on the page so appropriate responses can begin? HWV258 00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HWV258 proposed FoF
Could I please ask you to reconsider your posting of proposed FoFs about HWV258's reverts to Workshop? At a time when several of us are arguing against overly-harsh sanctions (possibly with effect - see Remedy 33.6), you are inviting someone to post parallel FoFs about Locke Cole, who also reverted twice. I accept that you are accurate in your interpretation of WP:TPO, but you also will recognise that Locke's actions are indefensible as edit-warring, particularly when we have clerks to do those jobs. Frankly, the time has come to try to dampen down the flames, not pour more fuel on them. --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have been here for three years. You should have learnt by now:
All our policies and guidelines are makeshift assemblages of Scotch tape and piano wire. Please read WP:PRO on a related point.
Obscure subpages of Wikiprojects are neither policies nor guidelines.
The force of a guideline consists only of the arguments it makes and the consensus it represents. (So phrased, because key policies may differ - a theoretical point, since they have a very strong consensus; but this isn't one.)
Guidelines should therefore be changed when consensus proves not to exist.
Even something that claims to be policy would not be, if it was written by one editor back in 2005 and undiscussed since (although such a policy tag would probably have been removed).
Guidelines which make assertions of fact should be ignored, if (as appears to be the case here) the assertion is wrong. It is preferable to be cautious about making guidelines assert things before seeing if the fact is verifiable. :SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I read you correctly, you are claiming that the proposed reversion to Berne's former title of Bern is because the canton is German speaking and/or there is a difference of useage between American English and British English. The fact is that both versions are used in the United Kingdom and in English language texts in Switzerland. Where there is not a clear preference in English for the non-local version, unlike Cologne, Geneva, Lucerne or Florence, there seems no reason not to use the local version. In this respect, Bern would be treated the same way as Basel. If you wish, please reply here as it makes it easier to follow the discussion than swapping to and fro between user pages. I'll watch for a reply. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd spare the arbcom pages from my views on politics. You are of course right about FDR, because you care about a country that separates legislature from executive. In the tin-pot democracy where I live, we elect the entire legislature and executive simultaneously at a general election (you already knew that, of course). The result here is that when a party has a majority, it is expected to enact its entire manifesto - and is criticised if it doesn't! I guess that colours my view of process somewhat differently from yours, but I understand your point, even if the concept is a little alien to me. I guess it's noteworthy that governing parties here rarely receive more than about 40-45% of the popular vote. Imagine how we'd be governed if we had to get popular consensus on every piece of legislation! --RexxS (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Americans also "elect the entire legislature and executive simultaneously at a general election"—well, at every second election. Tony(talk)12:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes. The elections occur at the same time (on the same date, barring special elections due to deaths, etc), but the time in office (years) varies from office to office. Presidents serve four years. Senators serve six years (two Senators per state). Representatives serve two years (some minimum number per state, based on population). Together, members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives form the United States Congress (a bicamerallegislature). —Locke Cole • t • c14:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for looking at this one, PMA. Your advice was expressed in authoritative terms. I'll have a look tomorrow and will contact AD later for a final check. Tony(talk)17:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diocletianic Persecution
I've re-checked all primary source citations and added bibliographic information for the translations I've used. I hope you'll find the article satisfactory now. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[In reply to a comment on Tony's talkpage] Uh, PMAnderson, the article does not claim, at present, that its author has read the Bollandists. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strategikon
Hello! I reverted your move, and feel I should explain why: the term, unlike most names used for Byzantine books (e.g. De Administrando Imperio etc), is actually the original Greek one, transliterated into the Latin alphabet. Numerous publications, from the ODB to the English translation by G.T. Dennis, use the form Strategikon, which even in Google appears to be the preferred form. The older variant Strategicon is also used, but less frequently nowadays. In the case of the Tactica, the alternate transliteration Taktika is also often encountered; the former is still better known, presumably because the book itself has been known for a far longer period, and has become established. From a linguistic perspective however, the term Tactica is correct as it exists in Latin, whilst Strategicon is merely a pseudo-latinized transliteration. I do therefore think we should prefer the more "native" form, in common with most Byzantine articles in WP. Regards, Constantine ✍ 20:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, not exactly: Strategicon is the latinized title of this specific book. I have not seen it elsewhere in Latin usage, in contrast with Tactica, which, as "tactics" was used in Latin. Either way, I do not see the connection with the demotic language here. Neither title is the "correct" one, but the "k" form is the one by which the book is best known and referred to. If a reference work like the ODB uses it that way, and if the only English-language translation uses it also, we should too. It has nothing to do with personal preferences or a Greek POV, if that's what you mean. Constantine ✍ 21:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, as for WP:GREEK, it covers Ancient and modern usage, but not Byzantine transliteration. Consensus on Byzantine names in WP seems to be using the more direct transliterations. If we have "Manuel Komnenos" instead of "Manuel Comnenus", it is illogical to not extend that to all such articles. Constantine ✍ 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is outright rudeness. I am not proposing moving the page to Στρατηγικόν, OK? So take your talk about self-indulgence elsewhere, please. Both forms are equally comprehensible (or not) to an English-speaker. I am merely in favour of using the form most used for the term (from Google, at least, Strategikon[4] is more relevant than Strategicon[5]) and the one which is gaining in currency. So clearly, per usual naming rules, it should be "k". Your opinion about the ODB formulas is noted, and in some aspects I agree, but it is being increasingly used, and is the form used in the most pertinent text: the only English-language translation, which is the means through which most English-language readers will probably know it. In any case, do as you wish. I really am not going to pursue a dispute over a letter. But if I may make a suggestion, restrain yourself on expressing opinions about people who you don't even know... Constantine ✍ 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, but no. You responded to what you "thought" you saw, because I am Greek. That was prejudice. More "native" implies no preference, it is merely descriptive, since the transliteration with the "k" obviously is intended (not by me, but by the Byzantinists who first used it) to closer resemble the original Greek. I realise too well the limitations of written messages, but you made too many assumptions about personal preferences and threw AGF out of the window. On the same token, your opposition to that form falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since, as terms, both are equally valid. And if the "k" form is predominant in German and Spanish ([6] vs [7]) as well, languages which have no preference for any particular transliteration and which use the Latin terms like De Ceremoniis as well, then that is IMO one more indication in support of my position. Also,in my experience here, Google searches are habitually used to establish the "most widespread" variant. Nevertheless, as I said, I rest my case, since the issue is rather trivial. Constantine ✍ 12:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most modern academic publications use the term "Strategikon" and not the "latinized" form "Strategicon". Since there is no specific academic treatise on the preferred use of the term in English, we can check Googlebooks, where it is very clear, that "k" is much preferred over "c" in 21st century publications, which of course is a very good sample and that makes it a good "test". And of course, I also find the use of an argument that has to do with a fellow wikipedian's declared or possible ethnicity offensive. The correct spelling of a word has nothing to do with nationalism, especially when the same person proves it by not creating any problems with the transliteration of other words in English like "Phocas". GK1973 (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've got Cassell's Latin Dictionary and have gone to the effort of finding the appropriate entry, could you add a reference to the article? Nev1 (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any progress on this? A referenced explanation really needs to be added to the article and since you've already looked up the relevant source I was hoping you could do it. Nev1 (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has now closed. The final decision may be reviewed on the case page. A synopsis of the final decision is provided below.
All mass date delinking is restricted for six months
Date delinking bots will perform in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group.
Lightmouse (talk·contribs) is: banned for 1 year; topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation, from using any account but "Lightmouse"
Tony1 (talk·contribs) indefinitely banned from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page; placed on a 12 month editing restriction
Greg L (talk·contribs) indefinitely topic banned, placed on a 12 month editing restriction
Ohconfucius (talk·contribs) is: topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation; prohibited indefinitely from using any account but "Ohconfucius"; placed on a12 month editing restriction
Arthur Rubin (talk·contribs) admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute.
Notes: (1) for "topic banned", read "banned from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions"; (2) an "editing restriction" is a prohibition from reverting any changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.
Please explain to me the logic of changing the redirect of Quincy Adams back to John Quincy Adams from the redirect request I made and had subsequently approved. I don't believe that it was a nickname of JQA, or otherwise a term that searchers would use to research JQA.
Therefore, I find that the redirecting to Qunicy Adams MBTA Station page is much more appropriate per this section of WP:REDIRECT.
I have listed it for discussion. Please make your opinion on this known in applicable section of the WP:RFD page. 15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Please note that we have been asked to state only one choice of proposal in the Macedonia discussions (see the top of the RfC pages). Unfortunately you won't be able to give a second and third choice. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply - I merely wanted to make you aware of the request posted by the referees at the top of each of the RfC pages: "Please endorse only one proposal, and leave a (preferably) short comment if you wish." A couple of other editors have endorsed multiple proposals but have subsequently removed their excess endorsements. I guess there's nothing to stop you leaving multiple endorsements, but I don't think you should expect the referees to take any notice of your second and third choices. This appears to be a one-choice-only game. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in reply to the comments you've made on my talk page, please address any concerns you have to the referees - I'm simply letting you know what rules they've given us. I should also add that the ArbCom seems to be happy with the process so far, given that Rlevse has intervened in it several times to support the referees (most recently only a few hours ago) and at least five arbitrators have commented on matters relating to the process. But by all means please feel free to speak out if you're unhappy with it. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it's up to you. I'm not going to try to persuade you of any course of action. The rules we've been given may not be ideal, but they're what we've been asked to work with. Personally, I don't think there's going to be much support for attempting to change the rules at this stage. The discussion - not a poll as such, since the refs are going to deal with the outcome on the basis of arguments submitted rather than weight of numbers on each side - has been open for 24 hours at this point, so it may be a bit late in the day to change its method now. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And they were appointed by the Arbitration Committee to deal with this as a result of the recent brouhaha. Yeah, I know that it would be best if we could list all our choices in order, but they have indicated they don't want that. I think one of the reasons would be the amount of work involved in counting multiple votes from everybody, and the possibility or probability that someone might make an error, or later say they made an error, or whatever. I think it would be found reasonable and not create any trouble to add comments in the single "vote" regarding what other options we might prefer if that one were not accepted, as long as they remain within the single statement though. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess the idea is more that it's not supposed to be a vote anyway, so "counting" things will be only a minor aspect of the evaluation. In any case, I agree with John about one thing: there's no problem about stating second and third preferences, many of us have done so, but it can be done just as well within a single statement. Since evaluation will not be by way of counting but by way of registering arguments, it doesn't really make that much of a difference where those arguments get stated. Fut.Perf.☼08:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the one thing I think they're really hoping to avoid is someone trying to game the system after the fact and say, "Oh, I didn't mean to offer my primary support to this idea which didn't win approval, but to this one which did", and then maybe changing their minds again depending on the results there, and on and on and on. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your behaviour
As it is obvious that you have no idea about how to behave in a civil way, I encourage you to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia rules. I advice you to stop speculating about other contributors' nationalities and motives, as that is completely irrelevant, it is factual arguments that decide.JdeJ (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I retract the first part of the comment as it is not likely to be helpful, but my warning over uncivilty remains. We see far too many cases of contributors trying to silence other contributors by refering to irrelevant issues such as nationality, race, gender and similar issues. Use factual arguments instead!JdeJ (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I undid your undo on Smedley Butler. Per the MOS "of" should not be sandwiched between month and year. For example it should not be October of 2009 but should read October 2009. I admit that changing image to file was of limited value but since I was there making the other change I did it at the same time. --Kumioko (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to get into an edit war over something as petty as this but your opinion that the consensus opinion is stupid is also quite foolish as well.. --Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is understandable. Thank you for explaining. In enough time you won't have to deal with my incompetence anymore. :P —harej (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ANI
Unfortunately I have had to report you at ANI [8]. I have warned you about your comments about other users' nationalities several times, both on this talk page and in the discussion, but as you continue to use them I have filed the report.JdeJ (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merano/Meran
Hi, since you asked me to comment: I try to stay away from South Tyrol naming issues since I know it will only frustrate me. At least the double names haven't reappeared, that's positive. As I recall the difference in English usage between Merano and Meran wasn't overwhelming, but there was a small preference for Merano (maybe 2:1, maybe less). Given the present move controversy (looks even worse then the discussions with Taalo/Icsunonove), I don't think the time is right for me to rejoin the discussion. MarkussepTalk08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what is going on here. The F.A.R. cited above is named 'archive1', so I'd think it was not active, but in fact it was just created yesterday. --macrakis (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From litering my talk page. It is not appreciated and you will be reported for your incivility next time you do. Thanks.--Xenovatis (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Also kindly read Charmidis 164e. Now.--Xenovatis (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pmanderson. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic current events articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at 2008 South Ossetia war that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below. An explanation of my project is included with the survey.
Hi, could you take a look at the FAR for this article? Several editors have worked to bring it up to standards, and it would be nice if you could verify that everything is good to go on the content side. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your message. I will have a go at a 2nd Peer Review and FAC for one more time. If I don't get the article through then, I will give in. It is very unlikely (whatever the outcome), that I will ever go for FA again after this second attempt. Seth Whales (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Los damit
Hi PManderson, a German speaker would rather say or write weg damit instead of los damit, if he wants something to begone. -- Emdee (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Laches (general)
Actually since "general" is an ambiguous term, "Laches (person)" may have been more specific, as the only other person so named, is only known from a preserved list of Archons, and is completely covered in the article. "Laches (general)" might be taken for a general discussion of the concept of laches. --Bejnar (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Thanks. I'll enter a "Keep" at the Attalus FARC. I left a note at Sedden asking to be contacted if it returns to Peer Review. Tony(talk)13:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Socks and RFAR
You wrote:
If you don't like the drama, vote against the candidate; if you think it seriously disruptive, go to ArbCom. [9]
and
If you think I am wrong about that, take Bish** to ArbCom; ...[10]
Then you wrote:
Asking for sanctions against a party (and cutting off Bishzilla is a fairly severe one) should make Will Beback a party; asking for them on patently invalid grounds should result in penalties.[11]
I followed your advice, so I don't understand why you now write that I should be sanctioned for raising this with the ArbCom. I didn't ask for sanctions agasint anyone -- I merely asked for the ArbCom to address the issue of alternate accounts. Could you please explain why you told me to go to the ArbCom if this is how you feel about it? Will Bebacktalk00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the policy talk page you seemd to say it was a matter for the ArbCom, and on the RfAR page you seemd to say it isn't against policy, so I'm mixed up about where you think a change would have to occur. The idea that objecting to the existince os sock puppets is a violation of (which policy?) worthy of sanction seems inappropriate. I don't understand your animosity. I'm not calling for the banning of any editor, just a small change in a policy. If that offends you I'm sorry, but I'm only doing what I think is best for Wikipedia. Socks are an enormous problem. If you don't agree then that's OK. There's no need to get personal. Will Bebacktalk00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attalus I
Hi there. You have contributed to the Attalus I discussion, and commented on it (and on my remarks there) at Tony's talk page, so i thought I would pop by here. I am curious about your dismissiveness of a discussion of sources in cases like this. As I understand it, everyone agrees that Livy is the main source of information about Attalus I. We thus have a roman historian, who (according to the WP Livy article) made use of Polybius, writing about a figure whose life was lived roughly 200 years before Livy's accounts. There is scholarship about Livy's style and historiography (about which I know nothing, as I have previously said), and the WP article on Livy says of him, amongst other things, "Livy's writing style was poetic and archaic in contrast to Julius Caesar's and Cicero's styles" and that "he often wrote from the Romans' opponent's point of view in order to accent the Romans' virtues in their conquest of Italy and the Mediterranean". I will accept this account in good faith, though the Livy entry lacks in-line cites. In all of these circumstances, it seems to me less than good academic practice to then present to the lay reader an account of Attalus I that makes no comment on how we have come to this account. If modern reliable sources have synthesised archaeological findings and the works of Livy, Polybius and others, have weighed up all that evidence and drawn conclusions, then we can readily simply report these here, without a long discussion of those modern sources. That would be normal practice. But the in-line cites indicated that Livy and other historical sources (i won't call them primary sources) were being directly used as evidence. Now, I am happy to see what Paul August has done in recent days, bringing the contemporary analysis directly to bear on the article text. But why would you conclude that failing to discuss the sources used by this article (and by historians of the period) "is no great loss"? Most of all, why argue that at FA? (incidentally, having read the dust jacket comments on Green's book, it seems some discussion of sources might be well advised). Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
alt accounts
You're taking a hard line against the tightening of the conditions for undisclosed alt accounts. "Disruption" is a rather vague concept, and may not cover uses that you or I would consider regrettable. The clandestine double voting in an RfC, for example, isn't immediately disruptive (unless we discover it); this seems to be going on a lot under our noses. Don't you think the culture needs to be shifted away from the relatively free use of such accounts, to at least minimise ID deception. It's so much effort by admins and so much potential mistrust within the fabric of the community.
Would you be willing to specify a list of reasons for which (1) no declaration is required, and (2) no declaration and no secure listing are required? Tony(talk)03:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Measurements in figures
IIRC, you said it was you who added "Measurements, stock prices, and other quasi-continuous quantities are normally stated in figures ..." to MOSNUM. Could you take a look at WT:MOSNUM#Question: changing prose to measurements? I know you're banned from there, but you can answer here or on my talk page. --A. di M.20:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't care about whether the article deserves GA status or not; edits such as this are disruptive. I will report you to ANI if you continue this, although I hope it won't come down to that. If you have a problem with the good article process, please bring it up at WT:GAN or a relevant project page. Regards. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a quite unrelated note, ArbCom has started a motion that, if it passes, would allow you and other similarly topic-banned editors to return to the MOS discussions. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since nobody else will...
Consider this your only warning to refrain from lying about other editors, as you did about me in Cobi's RfA. You knew what you were saying was untrue, and it deliberately painted me in a bad light. Do it again and I will seek an admin to block you for deliberate personal attacks. → ROUX₪21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anderson, please be more aware of the potential of your posts to be inflammatory. Comments like this: "and Roux' need to reply to every objection turns me off." are generally unwanted on WP. Tony(talk)06:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you inserted/reinserted a link at the above article. I would point out that the article's title actually refers to Baidu Baike, and not Baidu Inc. it is like making a link to Wikimedia Foundation when you are referring to Wikipedia. The link is therefore of little value, and I have reverted you. Thank you for your comprehension. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to wind down at George F. Kennan. I still need to add a legacy section and restructure the "Academic career and later life" section, but besides that, I think the work is nearly complete. Do you have any suggestions for improving this article and do you think it is near FA quality? Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)18:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to Miscamble, I found this to be a good review of his scholarly assessment of Kennan's work. However, the author of the review frames Miscamble's arguments in the context of the two divergent schools of thought – Gaddis, Hogan and Leffler on one side and Hixson and Stephanson on the other. He argues that Miscamble took the middle ground, arguing for and against some parts of each side. Would you still consider it inappropriate to refer to the views of Gaddis, Hixson, etc. and then present Miscamble (and maybe Mayers and Isaacson), or do you think the Gaddis et al. issue would remain as an WP:UNDUE problem? Thanks for all the help, by the way. I've taken a foreign policy class before, but it was a second semester course, so it started off with Kissinger and progressed through to Shultz. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)15:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for arbitration: Date delinking amendment motion
A request to amend the dates delinking arbitration case (filed 19 July 2009) has
resulted in a motion (filed 2 August 2009) that proposes to change the
restrictions imposed on you as a result of the case. The proposed
amendment would affect the restrictions pertaining to 16 editors, all
of whom are now being notified of the proposed amendment. Given that
the proposed amendment affects your restrictions, and further that the
proposed amendment will restrict the filing of further proposed
amendments for a period of 30 days, your input is invited at the
amendments page. You may view an unofficial table of the proposed changes here. Comments from affected parties are currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee. If you would like the arbitrators who have already voted to
reconsider their votes in light of your comments, please indicate that
in your comments.
Thanks for your helpful comments. It may interest you that some more discussion of the issue is now taking place at [12], where a fourth editor has now chimed in with our shared view.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kings of [Various other places]
I was very pleased to see your very appropriate edit here. Thought I was the only one who cared about the problem. This looks to be an ongoing and perhaps never-ending struggle. Three kings of Sweden for example are often called King Eric of Pomerania (recently changed back from Eric VII of Denmark), King Albrekt of Mecklenburg (OK for the moment as Albert of Sweden) and King Christopher of Bavaria (the article you edited now). One Swedish queen, just an example of many, could correctly be called Queen Hedvig Elisabet Charlotta of Holstein-Gottorp of Sweden and Norway by these enthusiasts. People who want them under such headings seem to be willing to argue for them ceaselessly. I have tried civilly to talk some sense into them (sense as I see it), but have never succeeded. What to do? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
apologies
I think I owe you an apology, or you under another guise, Septentrionalis. It's there at the Talk:Cicero page, but here it is again. I did not mean to direct my remark about the Rome TV series at you personally, but I completely see that it must've seemed so. I was being a smart aleck, and I don't like that kind of ad hominem undermining. I saw the character of Octavian in one scene among the little I viewed of Rome, and I must say that scene was very convincing, so things were firing in my brain that didn't add up on the page. Shutting up now. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you could spare some time to contribute at WP:Naming conflict.
In short this version contained the following. in the section "self-identifying entities:
"Where any persons or groups (organizations, cities, political parties, fringe movements) have chosen to refer to themselves by a certain name, the titles of the articles that cover them should use that name"
This is claimed on the talk page to take precedence over the principle of choosing the most common name, in order to reduce disputes.
I edited the article to quote directly from WP:NAME and WP:UE, to indicate that common names still take precedence for the title, and all alternatives are to be explained in text. This was removed.
You are aware of the bigger picture of the naming conventions and their development - if you could correct any inaccuracies in the talk-page statements or guideline text it would be appreciated.
Thanks for your time, I have commented further there. I still believe that the original wording in that section from 2005 was written to refer specifically to article text, but its slight ambiguity has now lead to a increasingly widespread interpretation that it refers to the title - at least that's the impression I get from these comments. At the very least, the ambiguity should be resolved.
Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:
(1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";
(2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";
(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;
(4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.
While not wishing to characterise it as an edit war, I am concerned at the number of relatively minor edits that are occurring at WP:MOSNUM. I notice you put one in and I don't include you in that (it was a partial revert I think). It seems to me patent that the issue has not achieved consensus and changes should not have started to be made before that consensus was reached, and I have said so on the MOSNUM talk page. I didn't want you to think I was including you in this for your one helpful edit; the others may individually be helpful but MOSNUM should not be a moving target. I would be glad of your help on the talk pages if it does come back there. These are good faith editors (though Noetica seems to have jumped the gun a bit in my opinion) but how are editors supposed to rely on MOSNUM if it changes under their feet? Of course it cannot be written in sstone, but there are actual changes of meaning here, not just minor rewording to make advice clearer.
Thanks for your comments at my user page. I tend to agree with you wholeheartedly. While I myself have fairly strong views on English (and being an Englishman having lived in the US with a Canadian and currently going out with a Hungarian I perhaps have slightly more knowledge of English varieties than some others) they are, to me, inappropriate for MOSNUM which, er, is about NUMBERS. Of course it is important to write the advice clearly, but it is not the place to introduce, by the back door, things that belong in MOS proper. It is simply impossible to meet MOS guidelines if they constantly change in substance: if it is a rewording for clarity, fine, if it is agreed that the rewording does make things clearer (yours, for example, I also thought as you did unnecessary, but it did not make anything worse and did not change meaning, just made explicit what was implied).
In a way it does not matter for most of us like myself who, while trying to obey the spirit of the MOS, actually try to get on and edit articles. I don't create much new content but am always gnoming around adding references, doing translations, conversions, etc, and the whole point of all that is to improve the substance of the article: while I will try to conform to MOS, if it is in constant flux I give up and take WP:COMMON, in this case saying ignore MOS it will change next week anyway. It should be entirely apparent – indeed is apparent –; to those who quote style guides that they differ. I think I will go start SimonTrewipedia, wanna join? :) SimonTrew (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, MOS either means something or it means nothing. I am not sure which.
I don't expect MOS to be writ in stone, but it is simply practically unhelpful if it is changing under one's feet. Like it or not, an article does not get GA or FA unless it complies with MOS, and that is pretty much impossible both because MOS keeps changing and because it is interpreted differently by different people. While MOS should be able change, the wording itself should be rigorous and unambiguous. This is expected of articles so should be expected of the MOS itself, and frequently seems not to be. So, getting GA or FA is largely down to the whim of who does the review. I already have a couple of articles stacked for GA (not my creation but ones I have heavily gnomed) which from experience will probably fail MOS. A wise GA takes WP:BOLD and fixes it, as is recommended, some GA reviewers seem to be there because they like to mark things as FAIL.
The difficulty that all the MOS stuff is trying to address, really, is cross-article consistency. Since this is pretty much expressly denied as necessary, it will get nowhere. Either you want cross-article consistency or you don't, it's as simple as that. If you do, you have to enforce it (with the usual provisos that WP is not finished, WP is not perfect etc i.e. don't delete the bloody article just cos it doesn't conform, but improve it). If you don't, MOS is irrelevant, since obviously you can have your own MOS for each article. Simple as that. SimonTrew (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)
Your recent edit adding "Pearl River (China)" as an example, struck me as a little off. The discussion that is being exemplified there is the addition of the work "river" to disambiguate a river which is commonly known just by its name, such as the Ob. "Pearl River (China)" is not disambiguated in that way. Am I missing something? --Bejnar (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to ending sentences with prepositions, such violations need to be stepped on!!
Hello, Pmanderson. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Catholic Church, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. anietor (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Naming conflict. 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. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib)10:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Big, near-infinity, and infinity
Have you considered archiving some of your talk page? Man-oh-man does your talk page load slowly (and I’ve got 8 megabaud broadband). The only page I can recall that loaded this slowly, was an Internet page showing some gazzilion digits of pi; though pi goes on forever, they wisely ended the progression on that page at some point, just like this page does. ;-) Greg L (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried loading it on my mobile phone and the phone's memory couldn't take it and it shut off entirely! I'd highly recommend archiving some of the older comments as well. --Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib)04:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3RR warning - August 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Naming conflict. 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. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --StormRider20:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you must misrepresent my opinions ...
... please do so in public forums. This comment at a user's talkpage required my rebuttal, and the user resents both you and me usurping his space. I don't blame him.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. anietor (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take a break and let others talk. When you reply, your opposition replies, and soon there is too much to read. This is good for people trying to keep things the way they are, since it discourages input, but bad for those trying to get incorrect wording removed. M00:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not revert, especially without any explanation, given that there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. Given the history of this guideline, we should all be striving to avoid a heated debate. If there was actual consensus to include the statement, then I am happy with its inclusion in the guideline - my concern is process, not substance. If youcan assist with the discussion, that would be helpful. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I didn't clue in until a moment ago that you and Septentrionalis are one and the same. You obviously did participate in the talk page discussion, and you kindly apologized for the rollback comment. My comments, therefore, make no sense, and I am sorry for that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you believe something is a statement of fact or not is beside the point -- you need consensus to add it to the guideline. Please don't engage in silly reversion games. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You actually made a very good point on this one (you were right on this one, I was wrong), but unfounded accusations of vandalism never help one's case. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of the AE discussion and a review of your recent contributions, I am re-widening your year-long ban to include a restriction from editing any pages or talk pages in the MOS or any related style guidelines. A record of this change has been logged here. Shellbabelfish14:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that. I wasn't sure, and preferred to bring it up here as opposed to on that public talk page. Feel free to delete my inquiry/post. --anietor (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Xandar
I'm not sure how productive responding to him directly is going to be. Every time someone responds, he seems to take this as an opportunity to pound on and on about what he's been saying, without change, since the start. Since there's little danger of people actually agreeing with his huge blocks of often incoherent text, I'm going to substantially limit my responses to him. There are times when someone doesn't understand, and there are times when they have no hope of understanding until they calm down and decide to work with others. This is the latter. M23:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always cringe when people call you "PMA", because it is one of the numerous prior usernames of one of our lesser-known veterans, who started with us in 2001 and is still here. I wonder if there is such a thing as a user disambiguation page. Hesperian04:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oracle bones
Hi PMAnderson, and thanks for your suggestions concerning oracle bones on Economic history of China (pre-1911). I finally opted for "contemporaneous inscriptions," with a hidden link to oracle bones. I don't know why but "epigraphy" in Chinese contexts usually refers to inscriptions found on bronze vessels, and I had already used "epigraphic evidence" in the next section, on the Western Zhou. Do let me know if you think the passage is still unclear.
I wish the FA nomination had lasted longer. I always felt bad for not having contributed more to that wiki, and the FA process forced me to offer concrete suggestions for improving it. But we were only getting started! This article can probably be featured in the future, but it will require a lot of reading and rewriting to correct its content problems. Peacocks and weasels are conspicuous, but relatively easy beasts to handle. It's much harder to find good balance and respect NPOV in articles that survey thousands of years of Chinese history. A successful example is List of Chinese inventions.
— 16 March 2009
