User talk:Alcmaeonid/Archive 2

Rousseau
Hi Alcmaeonid. Thanks for your message welcoming me as a contributor to Wikipedia, regarding the additions I made to the articles on Rousseau and the Noble Savage. I have a question. There was what seemed to me some incorrect information in both articles in that both asserted what I think is a controversial statement about the *error* of attributing the concept of the noble savage to Rousseau. So, even though I felt a bit presumptuous about doing it, I attempted to correct the errors by offering a more nuanced paragraph showing passages in Rousseau's writings supporting the contention of some scholars that Rousseau believed in something like a noble savage, while on the other hand allowing that there are indeed scholars whose interpretation is critical of that view. Do you have any comments or criticisms of my style or the way I wrote what I wrote? I'm new to this wikipedia contributor thing, so I'd be happy to get your feedback if I made any gross errors or indiscretions. Thanks. Mike Dwyermz (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Mike. Don't worry about being presumptious because that it exactly the right approach here (see:Be Bold). If you're straying from the mark other editors will step in and let you know. I think you are on the right path. Goodness knows the Rousseau article is in need of some extensive editing. A word of advice: take a look at the project's guidance on sources, specifically primary sources. Although relying on primary sources as you have been doing is OK, too much can lead to something we call original research. E.g. when you say "scholars whose interpretation is critical of that view", spend some time looking them up and then cite them as references. Good luck and enjoy your editing here. Always feel free to contact me with any questions. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Awesome quote from David Bohm. Where is it that I am intellectually blocked that hampers my own ability to assimilate and honestly evaluate ideas or information that challenges my own preconceived notions? Is this the same Bohm who was the quantum physicist? Rdgs, Mike. Dwyermz (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The same... a multifaceted genius. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Why?
Quit changing my factual updates. I was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.161.206 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "I was there!" is simply not good enough. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Do not forget to check the Edit summary
please check this out you can always click the links for article history/ user contributions to decide if the edit is really vandalism or not, as it turns out this one was not.I am sure you will consider this. Thanks.-- D Big X ray  13:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Sorry for that. It's funny but in the STiki display the "a" was missing from "application" which led to my too quick revert decision. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not correct to blame STiki for this, actually the IP editor made a typing mistake and did not add an "a" but such cases should not be reverted. I had corrected it when i saw it. Any way the IP editor must be pretty annoyed about the bots. . cheers-- D Big X ray  17:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

infamous Hideyoshi Toyotomi.　Do you enjoy ANIME by a pirated edition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Ambition_of_Nobuna_Oda

HIDEYOSHI is respected by an original Japanese version.

Do you obtain information from a pirated edition?(lol)　60.39.45.48 (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Allegation of Vandalism
I am the person who added the factually correct information That the Liberal Democrats voted for a series of Non Mandated policies that allowed the implementation of the policies I mentioned.

You justified the reversion of my edit by claiming it was vandalism or a test.

You routinely revert any edits that add information that reflects badly on the Liberal Democrats - you are not the Guardian of the Liberal Democrats image but as you act in that way, I am obliged to remind you that the addition of relevant facts cannot be censored simply because you do not like them.

Do you deny that the introduction of the Health and Social Care Bill requires children aged 10 and under to share the same bedroom without any exception on health or medical grounds and that "under occupancy " of one bedroom results in a cut of 13% to Housing Benefit and 25% if two bedrooms are deemed "spare" using this inflexible criteria?

Mentioning that Policy is not vandalism but reverting it was and I regard your persistent and partisan edits as an attempt to circumvent the concept and principle of the honest and free sharing of information - you should interpret this message as a formal warning about removing edits you do not like.

I intend to edit ALL of that particular page, paying particular attention to all of the contentious and widely opposed policies that the LiberalDemocrats endorsed and promoted.

I am required to send you this warning before seeking Administrator intervention.

Sincerely,

B Sanson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.234.66 (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please identify the edit you are objecting to so I can respond. While you're at it please also provide some URL's to back your claim that I "routinely revert any edits that...reflect badly on the Liberal Democrats". Cheers. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please be more careful
Please be more careful. Please don't "welcome" users that have been here for almost two years. Please don't template the regulars. Please don't refer to good-faith edits as "vandalism". Please don't use rollback for non-vandalism edits revert goood-faith edits with automated tools while calling them "vandalism". Joefromrandb (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Difs please so I can figure out what you're referring to. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You need diffs? You can't click the link that says "User talk:Joefromrandb" to see what you wrote on my talk page? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of "Francevillian Group Fossil"
Hi Alcmaeonid,

i thank you for your extremely useful reversion of the edits i made on Francevillian Group Fossil. I really wonder if you looked to what i wrote in the History of this article, as i explain how to contact me (i'm not logged in on the English version of wikipedia as my French username is squatted by an inactive user, but you can contact me on the French part of Wikipedia, it was written !), i also explained what i did in this edit.

I had the paper Large colonial organisms with coordinated growth in oxygenated environments 2.1 Gyr ago published last year in Nature under my eyes when i made these edits !!!!!!!!!!

So you would be pleased to validate them and not always believe to automatic tools as STiki.

Best regards,

ndiver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.72.79 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. How about adding the info back with a citation to the Nature ariticle? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What i did was better and corresponding more precisely to what was in the paper. For example it is never written in the paper "40m" as you can see it in the article. Best regards --132.199.72.79 (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC) ndiver
 * I defer to you on the scientific information. I only ask that the addition come with a citation to the article. Cheers. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you would have taken a look to the edit I initially made (and that you reverted due to a stupid tool), you would have seen that there was already a citation to the article (that i did not modified ...). So instead of trying to make too much, at least make it properly (not as you did it here). Best regards :-( ndiver--132.199.72.79 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At the current point i reverted your reversion of my edits. ndiver--132.199.72.79 (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again I defer to your scientific expertise. The tool is not "stupid". On the face of things you changed a cited statement without supplying a counterbalancing citation and based strictly on your personal say so. Anyway, I touched up the English and so it shall remain. Sorry for the misunderstanding & thanks for the correction. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

My change to the seven princes of hell
It is constructive, because if there was another meeting to decide what goes in the story book, known as the bible then EA would the demon of greed, you cant deny this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.168.198 (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

St michaels
Dude i study in that school and i know better than you so please retain the changes you made.THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.48.44 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I can't do that unless you source your additions (at least in the Edit summary anyway). ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful note!
I am new, and thanks for the welcome! I picked up pretty quickly that I needed to use the edit summary, had been worried it might show up on the page! I'm getting better and reading/learning the rules as I go. Yours is the first interaction I've had with another editor, didn't know we could do that! I will say my thanks for your note and let you go! Be well and enjoy life! Drtywmn (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck and if you need anything, don't hesitate. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Revert
I was reverting vandalism (section blanking) and you reverted the revert. What's wrong?129.21.139.52 (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. But what happened to russia? In the linked pdf, russia is in the list. sorry for the vandalism. I'm learning how things are done here. Good catch, by the way. I just wondered why a list taken from a pdf page, which has not changed, in fact is merely a reporting of the exact contents of said pdf, why this is not locked once checked to be reportedly accurate. Not the point that it is biased and unreliable. Perhaps instead of an incorrectly-reported cite of an article, this could be listed verbatim? 173.160.213.233 (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC) And, thanks for doing what you do! People like you make this thing work!

Nietzsche revert
91.191.11.28 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC) You've reverted my edit with an explanation that I've deleted a cited material with no expl. Can you please provide me with at least one or two examples of cited material(sentence) that I've deleted? I've done nothing more than deleted apologetic sentence which is already explained down below the article (allegations of anti - semitism and assumption about master - slave morality). Besides that, I have just added a few comments because i don't like when there is too long list of influences with no explanation of what kind of relationship was between two thinkers. Thank you in advance.
 * As I tried to explain, the revert has mostly to do with procedure and only somewhat with content. When you make an edit that extensive it's best to break it down into several edits so you can explain in the edit summary what you are doing in each one and why. Another way to go is to add a section to the talk page and explain the whole thing in detail (ideally before the edit is made live). As far as I can tell you replaced this:


 * Paul Ricœur called Nietzsche one of the masters of the "school of suspicion", alongside Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud.


 * with this:


 * Camus described Nietzsche as "the only artist to have derived the extreme consequences of an aesthetics of the absurd".


 * The latter may be valid but why overlay the cited Recoeur material?


 * It's fine that you think the apologetic sentence is already explained below but how are we to know that without it being mentioned in an edit summary at least?


 * I think you get my drift. Btw thanks for taking an interest in the Nietzsche article. I think your additions are improvements. If I can be of further help just let me know. Regards ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

RideLightning (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC) It's me again lol i made an account, well i deleted Ricoeur comment because it's already mentioned in the lede what he said. I plan on reverting your revert and leaving Ricoeur sentence right before Camus, would that be O.K.?

And i made many edits from at least three different IP address, i wrote the whole Apollonian and Dionysian section (even though at least 30% of it is copied from related wikipedia sources) and i re-wrote master slave morality and Ubermensch to an extent. I also wrote almost all of Perspectivism which was previously linked with God is Dead and nihilism and mentioned only by one or two sentences...

Just answer, can i revert your edit(to a mine previous version) only this time a commentary by Ricoeur will be left in article?
 * Sure, go ahead. Just remember that the lede is a summary of items to be found in the body of the article itself. So anything found there should also be below. Also you should sign your talk page entries at the end by adding " ~ ". ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've restored to my version, and i'll try to explain better some of my future edits. RideLightning (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

edits Burton/Speke
I have provided a summary, and joined the discussion on the Talk page - my edits mainly concern the section on Burtons relationship with Speke, which I found highly biased, one-sided and not in keeping with the current state of research on Burton and Speke. Also, the original text contained many unattributed remarks and speculation, consistently negative about Speke, and at odds with new material published by, among others, Tim Jeal (2011). Samenspeler (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wondosson Kassa
I am editing the profile of my great grandfather Wondosson Kassa because the information published is not true and is respectful to his legacy and to my family. I will update the information once I get the time to replace it. Till then, I would appreciate if those lies would remain off the web. He wasn't captured and killed by the Oromo. He was killed by the Italians. I will update this as well as upload a picture for the profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Kassa (talk • contribs) 05:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Although your contributions are welcome please remember that Wikipedia is a sourced based project and as such requires reliable secondary source citations for its articles. The information you deleted was cited and sourced which explains the revert. If you feel this source is in error, provide a counterbalancing one and take your concerns to the article's talk page. Good luck and thanks for showing a concern for accuracy in your great grandfather's article. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Melvillians
Category:Melvillians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A mistake
i never made any edit to dil dosti dannce

i haven't even oppenned it ever

if my bro or sis have done it pls let me know when!

gmt will do :)
 * ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.207.122 (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky
Hello, thanks for your edits. I see you put a tag on a section. What do you think of the prose now? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "An improvement, definitely. Here's some of the outstanding problems as I see them:
 * The sentence: "Dostoyevsky believed in an utopian Christianized Russia, as he meant that 'not a single social question would come up'" is opaque and needs to be clarified.
 * And this sentence: "He viewed democracy as an ill-minded system, taking the French disinterest of society and the country's future state." What is meant by "ill-minded"? evil? deceitful? stupid? And what exactly is the connection with the French?
 * Regarding the quotation that starts with "lacking the instincts of the bee", where does the quote end?
 * Regards ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Armageddon (1998 film)
I believe you are mistaken that my edit to Armageddon (1998 film) was incorrect. A 40% rating would mean mixed reviews, or at least mixed to negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.194.0 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest you bone up on Wikipedia policy. "Review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus". see: Review aggregators ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky and Lavrin
Hello, you are claiming that you found it online. Now indicate the url. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 15:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop disrupting my good faith editing on this article. It's starting to form a pattern. I asked for a pagenum before restoring the edit: you ignored it. You state the book is not searchable online yet it can easily be found via Google books. Stop wasting my time. I read page 7 as the citation indicated and it's not there. You're claiming it's in Lavrin. Now indicate the pagenum. Give me a quote. Something. And in general, don't just revert without thoroughly resolving all the issues brought up. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this is a relatively different book. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 15:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's seems to be typical of your cryptic replies. What is "relatively different book" supposed to mean? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am talking about this book, not the study book. The mentioned book was published in 1947 while the other in 2005. Nevermind, states that the pennant of the family Rtyshchev (predecessors of Dostoyevsky) had a crescent and a hexagonal star, indicating that the Rtyshchevs were of Tatar descent.--Kürbis (✔) 16:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The book you refer to is not an English language source. Nor is the link you provide for the genealogical information. It seems to me that the assumption you make from this constitutes original research. If this Tatar connection were confirmable I think it would be in Frank, which is the definitive English language source. If you want, we can take this to the talk page and get other editor's thoughts on the matter. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Lavrin book is in English and the genealogical source is reliable. Here, translate this: На гербе Ртищевых - полумесяц и шестиугольная звезда, что указывает на татарское происхождение рода Ртищевых. No original research. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A search of your Lavrin book for "tatar" comes up with no hits. I asked you to provide a pagenum & quote: You still haven't complied. Instead you provide non-English backup for your contentious editing. I've tried to work with you but you demonstrate no interest in collaboration. You seem to be digging in your heels in a wp:own fashion. Reverting before all concerns are addressed is a form of harassment. Cease & desist. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Lavrin biography definitely contains this information. Nevermind, I added an additional reference. The two sources plus the indication of the Tatar coat of arms suggests that he was of Tatar descent. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 19:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please discuss on the talk page instead of making controversial removals. The article is currently a Good Article nomination and it needs to be stable per WP:GA?. Thanks and regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, this is your final warning. You need to discuss your removals on the talk page. The Tatar claim is definitely stated in the sources. The tag is nonsense; please provide examples, thanks. I feel you have a certain WP:POINT, perhaps you just don't like Tatars, right? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the second time you've threatened me. Lose that. And stop your pugnacious bullying. Oh yeah, and stop asking me to "discuss your removals" when this thread and it's clone on the talk page is heavy with such discussion. Your tactic of ignoring what I've said so far and asking me to say it again is simply not going to work. There's a word for it. It called tendentious editing. And don't come back to my talk page unless you have something new and constructive to say. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Death of Capt. Vere is shown in Billy Budd
While the rigging of HMS Avenger is not shown actually falling on Capt. Vere in the Peter Ustinov film Billy Budd adapted from the stage play version of the Herman Melville short novel, he is most assuredly shown after it had fallen on and killed him with the deceased Post Captain's right arm and hand clearly visible. (This shot appears 37 seconds before the end of the film at 2:02:25.) A screen shot of this can be viewed here in which the dead Capt. Vere can be easily identified by the braid on his sleeve. I have thus restored the language you deleted in good faith in the article on the film so that it again reflects how Capt. Vare died. Centpacrr (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not having seen the film in several years I'll take your word for it. But why didn't you just correct the ending? Your revert also wiped out my other changes. There was no plot to end Claggart's life as far as I can remember. Billy was accused of participating in a mutiny plot. (Btw, it's Vere not Vare.) ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt reply. I have restored your other change relating to the Master at Arms which I had missed because it was not mentioned specifically in the edit summary. There is no need, however, to take my word for Capt. Vere's death being depicted in the film as I created and have provided you a link to a screen shot to support that this is the case. However as you also state above that you have not seen the film in several years, I am wondering why you would have made the change about Capt. Vere's death in the first place (and posted "Good find. I've fixed it up. Vere's death occurs in the book but not in the play/movie" in the article's talk page) if you didn't know or attempt to confirm whether or not the unsigned comment by the anonymous IP user was actually true. Centpacrr (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't say I didn't know. I simply went on my memory of the film. I remembered no explicit death scene for Vere and it appears from your screenshot that the ID of Vere was subtle, to say the least: from the braiding on a sleeve poking out from under a sail. This was missed by the anon, me, and almost certainly by the average viewer. Guess I should direct the "good catch" to you. Anyway, thanks for clearing things up. How'd you generate those screenshots? Pretty cool. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Interestingly the only scene in the film in which Capt. Vere wears a full dress uniform with gold braid on the sleeve cuffs (as well as the pockets and borders of his uniform coat) is the final scene at which Budd is hanged. In every other scene in the film he wears a much plainer working uniform which only has epaulettes (as does the full dress one) but no additional braid. Vere can also be identified as being the officer killed when the rigging fell because he was the only person standing on the aft port quarter of the ship's poop deck seen in the image when the battle with the French ship happened. I made the composite screen shot from two frames I screen captured from the film on my MacBook Pro while playing a copy of the film which I keep along with many others as .avi files stored on 32GB SDHC cards to watch on my laptop. As I can usually fit about 25 feature films on a single card this makes it much easier to carry around lots of movies with me than to drag around dozens of DVDs.


 * As for a plot to kill Claggart, there actually was one of those among maintopmen Enoch Jenkins (before he died in a fall from a yardarm), Neil Kincaid, and a few others. The fact that it was not carried out successfully was because Budd thwarted it when he took away Kincaid's knife in a struggle on deck which Claggart interrupted the night before he then falsely accused Budd of being the "ring leader" of an alleged mutiny "in conclave" with Kincaid, The Dansker, "Squeak" and others whom Claggart described to Vere a "growlers" and "malingerers" bent on mutiny and murdering himself and other officers. Centpacrr (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Really like your style, the way you use your tools, the way you approach a question with incredible detail. Comforting to know there's someone like you in the project. Oh and gotta get me a copy of BB on SDHC. Kudos! ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Actually I have been a professional writer for more than 45 years with seven published books and a bunch of non-fiction history websites as you can see from my Wikipedia profile so I am very big on detail. Centpacrr (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky generally
Hello,

Ì hided the Tatar information for now, and reinserted the copyedit banner. However, I don't think that the GAN will fail only because of a single section that appears to be written satisfactorily. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I failed this based on instability and could use another pair of eyes to look through it. However, Tomcat has vowed to renominate immediately which shows a distinct lack of respect. I can't pass a GA which is subject to dispute and frequently subject to edit warring, he doesn't understand this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I know he did the same thing to the previous reviewer. He seems to be gaming the system here and by that I mean instead of collaborating and doing the work, he simply keeps renominating in the hope of finding a reviewer that will be easier to get by. There should be a rule against this kind of activity, like maybe a mandatory waiting period between nominations? Don't know. Anyway I tried to be a pair of "fresh eyes" a few weeks ago and found him stubborn, combative, disrespectful and unwilling to consider changes in even the most basic grammatical errors. It's appears to be a textbook case of WP:OWN. Thanks for your reviewing work. I know it can be labor intensive at times. Best wishes. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Came here after seeing your note on my talk page, Alc. I was the above-mentioned previous GA reviewer, and created Themes in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's writings because of the review.  I attest to the assertion here, and had similar experiences with this article.  It's a shame, because the subject deserves a high-quality article and lots can be learned from the process of improving it.  I did find it insulting and disrespectful that the main editor took it back to GAC so quickly, without demonstrating any real desire to accept feedback.  To the credit of the process, however, reviewers at GAC were able to recognize this and it did get failed again immediately.  Thanks for the kind note on my talk page, Alc. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Talking to me
communicating in this fashion makes me a bit nervous, you seem extremely intelligent and at once I just must thank you for the correction you had made on my behalf. Thank you sherry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shesobudha (talk • contribs) 07:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Gogol
Insert non-formatted text here

You did make a mistake. To accuse someone of anti-semitism is a serious thing and the accuser has the burden of proving it. No one has to disprove it. All the article has are references to Yankel and an inaccurate interpretation. What do they offer in terms of citations? I edited the Gogol page once before and did put specific citations showing kind portrayals of Jews in Gogol but that was removed too which is why I didn't go to the trouble of putting them in again. Do you have reason to think that Gogol was an anti-semite? If you don't, you should not have removed my comments because, as I said, it is the accuser who has to prove such slander not the accused to prove a negative. Could someone prove that you are not an anti-semite, a racist, or any awful thing especially after you are dead? I have read everything, every story, every letter, everything Gogol has written. I have also read a great number of books about Gogol including accounts by people who met him and never have I seen one comment he is said to have made which shows a trace of antisemitism. Please put my comments back. You should have contacted me before you removed them. sklaw5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklaw5 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As it stands now these are your personal opinions and as such have no place here. If you want to contest the original contribution please do so on the talk page. If you have reliable sources, you are welcome to add the material back in with citations. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that someone edited me out again. Name calling is wrong, especially on such flimsy evidence. As Gogol said: skuchni n'yetom sveta gospoda! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklaw5 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I did NOT post personal opinions. I criticised someone else posting personal opinions as if they were facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklaw5 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaTikwa
Hi, I saw that you filed the sockpuppetry investigation on HaTikwa back in 2011. It seems that the issue has continued to spill over on a number of pages. Also see User:Hounding Patrol and User:Boldpot. How should we proceed with this? -SFK2 (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It apperars User:Hounding Patrol has been blocked. Any other incarnations you know of? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hare Psychopathy Checklist
You said,

"The article does not "glorify" anyone. Your use of this word raises red flags (my emphasize) immediately. The PCL-R is not merely a "personal invention" but is the product of a peer review process that included its being published in established scientific journals. The populations it is used on does not figure in. This is about the test and the cited fact remains it is "the psycho-diagnostic tool most commonly used to assess psychopathy". Please do not add tags to articles without at least attempting to rectify the situation. I invite you to find some reliable sources and add in whatever balance you think the article needs. The website you linked to does not qualify. It is an individual person's site and a person, I might add, advancing a polemical agenda. In the meantime I am removing the tags."

Here I quote one of the Wikipedia's common tags, "This article improperly uses one or more texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view."

The one person you eliminated, Dr. Bob Johnson (wwwDOTtruthtrustconsentDOTcom) is as one person similar to Mr. Hare himself. He is not one person; he is part of a larger organization and is more reliable than Mr. Hare. Mr. Hare is an academic (in parenthesis, himself much in persuasion of fame, prestige and wealth). The criticizing person has been a practitioner spending all his life time in charge of the most infamous super secure prisons in an advanced industrial scientific country, United Kingdom. His works also have been peer reviewed and published equally to Mr. Hare. Please put your red flag next to other cliché templates of Wikipedia for sabotage of lay people and with your killer nom de plume introduce a criticizing section in this inhumane method of life-time ontological imprisonment of humans. Encyclopaedias are written by established paid dedicated unbiased experts in subject not by pedestrians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.47.92 (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Melville Revisions
I'd like to discuss your taking down the entire section on Wife-Abuse I put up on the Melville thread.

You reference Spark's Hunting Captain Ahab (which I happen to have right here with me), so I'd like you to point to the page numbers where she discusses the Wife-Abuse controversy.

Furthermore, you claim that my sources were "dated, non-academic". Renker's essay appeared in the journal American Literature and also in her 1997 book Strike Through the Mask: Herman Melville and the Scene of Writing, which was published by Johns Hopkins University press. Another work I referred to, The Endless, Winding Way in Melville: New Charts by Kring and Carey, was published in 1981 by The Melville Society and edited by the noted Melville scholars Herschel Parker and Donald Yannella. My quotations from Philip Weiss' article "Herman-Neutics" (New York Times, 2002) probably should have indicated that Weiss was, himself, quoting The Endless, Winding Way as well as the 1975 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Nevertheless, these are thoroughly academic sources, even if the oldest is from 1975. I'm not sure you can claim that they are "dated" until you explain how Spark's 2001 study "thoroughly debunk[s]" the sources I've cited.

Finally, it was exceedingly rude of you to delete the entirety of what I'd posted without first acknowledging the presence of primary source material (like the letters I mentioned that went between "Lizzie" Melville, Sam Shaw, and pastor Bellows) and then urging direct quotation of that material instead of quotation through a secondary source (like Weiss' New York Observer article). I have saved my additions and am working to give them more thorough citations. Also, I am trying to wean out what is possibly conjecture (although, depending on the source, conjecture can be highly relevant) and what is fairly concrete.

Thank You, YTolle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.42.213 (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your main source was the 2002 Weiss article published in the Observer (non academic). The other sources you mention above flowed from this one article. Your remark about primary sources leads me to believe you might be somewhat fuzzy on Wikipedia's take on these which, if you want, can be found here (primary sources should be used with extreme care because it is easy to fall into original research when using them.)


 * Alleged drunkeness & wife beating are old issues on this article's page and it all boils down to what your own source says: it's all "gossip, rumor, and enlargement". Renker is the primary driver and, as I said in my edit summary, she has been superseded by Spark. If you have her at hand, I invite you to read up on her penetrating analysis. (I don't own the book.) For a quick look at her perspective on suppressed primary source materials look here.


 * Anyway if you feel strongly that this stuff needs mention in the article (I don't) it must be framed by the most recent perspectives of Melville scholars. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've read that "summary" by Spark in which she only glancingly refers to Renker (although not explicitly engaging her essay, only her supposed allegiance: "multiculturalist non-whites, feminists, and their allies") There's no active engagement with debunking Renker's reading of the "Lizzie"/Shaw/Bellows correspondence. But I'll spend some time with Hunting Captain Ahab to see how her arguments unfold regarding the suppressed material and Renker's essay. In essence, I'm not convinced yet that "Herman Melville, Wife-Beating, and the Written Page" has been "superseded," but I'm willing to be persuaded.


 * I do, in fact, believe that the domestic abuse (whether only verbal/mental, or physical, as well) is an important element in Melville's biography, especially considering the tendency in certain biographies (Parker's comes to mind) to repeatedly idealize, valorize, and glorify Melville while hushing some of his more frightening qualities. The various abuses he visited on his family are both a part of Melville's troubled life and a valuable key to understanding the nature of his writings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.42.213 (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

i go to that school — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.24.236 (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The Wild Bunch
Hello Alcmaeonid, Just wanted to say thank you for your recent contributions to The Wild Bunch article. The pics are good and help to understand the making of the film. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And thank you for the words of support David. They're always appreciated. Btw, I recently nominated the article to be classed as a good article. Wonder if you would like to take a crack at the review? which can be found here. If not, best wishes anyway. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wild Bunch GA
I've begun the GA review on The Wild Bunch and would like your thoughts on a few small points. Thanks for your work on this important film article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * De nada. And thanks to you for taking on the review. Look forward to working with you. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello folks, Just wanted to say "thank you" for your work on The Wild Bunch. Just wish I'd had the time to contribute. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Student7 edit
You may be interested in my comments, following yours, on this editor's talk page. He has done something similar on the History article. See my comments there: Talk:The History of England (Hume). There is something very odd going on with this editor. Myrvin (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've twice politely asked him to remove his personal opinions and he has done nothing. Wdyt? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Student7 is talking about us elsewhere:. Myrvin (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway templates
You are one of a handful of editors with more than 50 edits at Ernest Hemingway and at least one such edit this decade. There is a debate at Talk:Ernest_Hemingway regarding the inclusion of To Have and Have Not, The Old Man and the Sea, The Killers (short story), For Whom the Bell Tolls, A Farewell to Arms, The Sun Also Rises on the article. Previously at WP:NOVEL a discussion was held when editing at Fyodor Dostoyevsky got contentious. The discussion was held in May 2013 at a broad level regarding editors with multiple templates like these. At the time Charles Dickens, Stephen King, Jane Austen, H. G. Wells, Mark Twain, Jules Verne, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert Louis Stevenson, Agatha Christie, Bram Stoker, Felix Salten, Arthur Conan Doyle, Truman Capote, Curt Siodmak, Dashiell Hammett, Émile Zola, Washington Irving, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Oscar Wilde (mostly plays), Alexandre Dumas, Hans Christian Andersen, Nikolai Gogol, Leo Tolstoy, Edgar Allan Poe, A. J. Cronin, Ernest Hemingway, H. P. Lovecraft, John Steinbeck, Herman Melville, Wilkie Collins, H. Rider Haggard, Thomas Hardy, Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay, Henryk Sienkiewicz, John Wyndham were all in this group. Since then William Shakespeare has been added based on discussions at WP:BARD. That discussion reached no consensus but the closer suggested reopening debate on the group as a whole or on a subset with five or more templates which might be handled differently than those with fewer templates. He made no suggestion that the debates should devolve to debates at each individual author's page. The group with 5 or more would be Hemingway, William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Stephen King, Jane Austen, H. G. Wells, Jules Verne, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Oscar Wilde, and Hans Christian Andersen. My interpretation of the current debate is centering on whether Hemingway should be laid out differently than this peer group of authors in the sense that this article be the only one with these templates removed. Please come join the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Todd Browning.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Todd Browning.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Origins of greek prytaneum in the 8th century BCE
-- relocating my comment here from my talk page -- -The references are sound, the sequence is sound, the existing entry overlooks the preceding culture, thus omitting a big part of history. - I admit the various pieces of my entry have not been widely discussed in connection, but none are false and do fit well together ///
 * You removed an addition I made that didn't really alter what was there, but added information on another period of time.


 * So what do you think could be included to allow references to the cultural transition that occurred and the origin of this important building form in the 8th century BCE?? Jlhenshaw (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add the edit back in. But you must use a footnote to indicate what the source of the information is. It cannot come from you but from a published reliable source. If guidance is needed see wp:ref ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess it's actually research, and I'll clean it up and include all the material and circulate it with the historians who drew my attention to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.18.100 (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Warren Oates 1967.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Warren Oates 1967.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

About arabslavetrade.org in Arab slave trade
Hi, I see that you had participated in a discussion about the reliability of the page. We are discussing the issue again, please, if you do not mind, join the discussion. Thanks in advance. Rupert loup (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Woody Strode.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Woody Strode.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Risk
Saw your edit on "Risk". I'll cite/restore later. No time today. Cheers, BSapph BlueSapphires (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Blaze Foley.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)