User talk:Anthon.Eff/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Longhair 00:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anthon
I'll see if I can get around to it. Margery, Home and Palladino are more interesting to me. It seems like too long ago I read an old book that gave a very detailed explanation of the Davenports' rope tie. They were really something in their time. Don't be in a hurry, and remember stories dealing with the unknown love to grow, and they do. User:Kazuba 1 Mar 2006

Hi Anthon- David Devant and Davenport brothers
Just fooling around found something that may interest you. Do a search for: my magic life david devant, that will take you to the book. In contents pick chapter 18, magic in the 19th century. Fascinating history User:Kazuba 1 Mar 2006
 * I'll take a look when I get time. I see that the German Wikipedia has an article on David Devant, but we lack one in the English. Why don't you write it? Or write one on My Magic Life. Anthon.Eff 19:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. No writing for now, and this is certainly beyond the secrets of the medium, my favorite stomping grounds. The rope tie used by the Davenport Brothers is fully explained in The Master Magicians by Walter Gibson, Doubleday & Company, Inc., New York 1966. If I have seen it used I certainly did not recognize it at the time. (Which is not surprising.)I am more familiar with some other ties, that some one else reading this doesn't need to know about. Even you. If you do magic you know exactly where I am coming from. I'm gone.User:Kazuba 1 Mar 2006

Maskelyne and the Davenport Bothers
Obtain a copy of Mediums and the Conjurors edited by James Webb, Ayer co Pub, 1976. It's all in there from the original prime materials. User:Kazuba 19 Mar 2006

My Introduction to Spiritism
Hi Anthon, Many years ago I was fortunate to get an introduction to Eric Dingwall from Milborne Christopher. Dingwall had lived through the grand period of spiritism and has contributed much to its history. To study the paranormal, he wrote me, it was imperative to have a knowledge of conjuring. This can take a life-time and still one is never totally prepared for something novel. Magic, or conjuring, at different levels is always in flux due to new observations, new talents, new methods, new twists. It evolves. The introduction to Mediums of the 19th Century, Vol 1, by Frank Podmore, University books, 1963, formerly Modern Spiitualism, 1902, is written by Ding. This introduction and Podmore's book will give you a small but incomplete contemporary explanation for the seduction of Doyle, Crookes and other men of science. You must try to put yourself in the place of these men in their TIME of the 19th century, who encountered the inexplicable. In many cases these individuals (Doyle) had lost a very close dear loved one (a son) and longed to again hear their reassuring voice from the otherside. I have witnessed this phenomena as it takes place in others myself. There is desperation and relief. Also see the infamous Project Alpha. Don't miss Boy's Life by Robert R. McCammon it is a real treat. You will love it. User:Kazuba 22 Mar 2006

Nice work!
...on Spiritualism. I'm glad that you agree that there is a need for a "Modern Spiritualism Movement" article that is distinct historical overview. The S. article is becoming too big and diverse to be useful for someone researching a movement and era rather than a philosophy or cosmology. It's all too much for me, 'tho -- I'll have to throw in the towel, there simply isn't enough time. -- user:Zosodada

Crookes' brother
Supposedly William Crookes' brother Philip died in 1867. That is probably the hook. User:Kazuba 31 Mar 2006

Eusapia Palladino
Take a look at The Career or Eusapia Palladino, Chapter 1 in Doyle's History of Spiritualism, Vol 2, Then read the entry for Eusapia Palladino in the Wikipedia. This is an extraordinary example of scientitists being absolutely hood-winked by an adept charlatan. Doyle ate it up.User:Kazuba 14 Apr2006

systematic vs specific name
For information only: "systematic name" is generally synonymous with "specific name", just a little more highbrow and less commonly used by other than taxonomists. I don't see any reason to change it back though. -- WormRunner 02:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Cultures in the standard cross cultural sample"
Hi,

What does "Cultures in the standard cross cultural sample" mean? What new value is added by the creation of this category? Thanks! --Ling.Nut 15:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK then, I'll try to turn my attention to the Atayal page. Meanwhile, I've added two Harvard refs and linked Harvcolnb citations to your page as an example. See the text; "... to contemporary industrial peoples (e.g., the Russians) (Silverman & Messinger 1997; Mace & Pagel 1994)." The last two authors are linked. If you don't like it, revert back to the most recent version. I can twiddle with the ref templates too, maybe, if I have time.--Ling.Nut 20:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Our conversation is too spread apart; let's keep it on your page.... or by email, if you prefer. Yeah, I'm an Applied Linguistics guy, which means Linguistics & TESOL. I'm thinking of jumping the fence and writing my dissertation about aboriginal education, though. I haven't had a chance to read the Bellwood book you mentioned, but it looks like one I could enjoy.. after my dissertation is done, about 2 years from now.


 * I'd be happy to fix those citations/references for you, little by little over the next few days or week or so. If you wanna do something in return, go to Taiwanese Aborigines, read it, and leave some comments on the talk page, or add some references to unreferenced passages (e.g. Headhunting)if yoou really have free time. I would appreciate a second pair of eyes. Later! --Ling.Nut 02:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Late reply
Hey Anthon, no problem! As for the poem, you got it—it's Ladino, which is indeed very close to Spanish. Note the differences however between "ninya" and "niña", "kantando" and "cantado", etc. Cheers, Khoikhoi 00:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Regional Science
Hi Anthon. Regional science is not geographical science. It is very close to economic geography, but it's focus is on region or regional economics. See here http://www.rri.wvu.edu/loveridgeintroregsci.htm and look at the figure Elements of regional science. It draws his knowledge heavily from economics and geography and other sciences but is not considered as part of any of them. I agree that many regional scientists are among geographers but as much if not more of them are economists, planners and others.

In georaphy there's regional geography which is thought in some universities that could be regarded as geographical science though there are many critics stating its non-scientific nature based on descriptive approach - gathering of information about places. It is also considered as a paradigm (approach to study - regionalism) in geographical sciences. But that's another thing. I talk too much :). GeoW 08:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Spiritualism
Well, you guys wore me out, so I won't pursue it if you dig your heels in, but my request on the talk page still stands: if you wish to rate the article, then please leave behind your comments, so that your rating is helpful to those of us who actually do work on the article. Thanks. Anthon.Eff 14:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Class-criteria is available here. If you wish to get a peer review, (thats what it sounds like you want) feel free to request one at the Peer review request place. ---J.S (T/C) 14:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks J.smith, you are correct, I thought you guys were trying to provide something akin to a peer review. I ran an automated peer review and got some good feedback. The WikiProject Religion folks also left some good comments. As I get time, I will try to make some of the suggested improvements and the article may eventually be ready for the full peer review. I appreciate your constructive approach. Anthon.Eff 18:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw the auto-peer-review. I'll help you setup the REF section if you want. ---J.S  (T/C) 18:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Anthon, I have been learning an interesting lesson about Wikipedia. In the EVP article, I have been banned, warned and all but strung-up for editing the article because I have a "conflict of interest." It seems that any person who might benefit in some way has one. They don't apply the same rule to people who advocate the Skeptical view, even though it is clearly an ideological advocacy. Nevertheless, I think I would just be a source of tension if I began working on the Spiritual pages. Please do contact me at the http://ethericreality.aaevp.com web site if you need backup. I will be happy to do what I can, but meanwhile, you seem to be doing a great job. Tom Butler 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Economic template
I saw your template on the history of economic thought, which I thought was very well done, and I thought you may be interested in helping me out with my template of economics as shown below. Remember 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a project for economics. But it is labeled for business and economics, WikiProject Business and Economics. I put up the template there but have not gotten any comments yet. Remember 04:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yo, I have altered Template:History of economic thought so that it serves as a navigational aid rather than dead-end. However, it no longer links indirectly to the actual economists as some of your previous versions did. Consequently, I have begun creating individual templates for economists of the various schools based on this version of the template in case you are interested in contributing. To give an indication of what I intend, see Template:Mercantilism. Your co-operation would be much appreciated. Skomorokh incite  02:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Population numbers
Hi,

I have seen the numnbers given by Ethnologue before, but the problem is they are very outdated, as most of their sources are from 70s and 80s. Normally we should not include estimates from 30 years ago. Since there are no reliable figures, in my view it is better to use more recent estimates like those in the report by the Council of Europe(which I used for some of the diaspora numbers) or CIA World Fact Book. As for assimilation, please see here : ''The government's main strategy for assimilating the Kurds has been language suppression. Yet, despite official attempts over several decades to spread Turkish among them, most Kurds have retained their native language.'' I tried to add a 2006 report by European Council, which confirms the same 15-20% ratio for Kurds of Turkey.Heja Helweda 06:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your question
Hypnosadist posted some... unhelpful text to a lot of user talk pages. I reverted it. Normal action. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Reincarnation Research
Hi, Just wanted to thank you for your encouraging words on the Reincarnation Research page. With the passing of Ian Stevenson, some interesting material came to hand, and it's been good to use this to bring the page up to standard. Once again, your comments are much appreciated. John Johnfos 08:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Placing of banners
If your statement on my talk page was a reference to my placing the Spirituality project banner on the articles in the parent Category:Spirituality, which is the stated scope of the project, then I think that your own statement may well be less than well informed. The purpose of my doing so, for what little it might be worth to you, is to find all the articles which have received some form of recognition (GA, FA, DYK, release selection), and inform the various relevant projects of those articles. Certainly, I am in no way asserting that those articles necessarily belong within the scope of a given project, simply that, by the way the article is currently categorized, they are within that project's scope. Factually, I know that several articles which haven't been touched for a long time are by modern standards miscategorized, and I hope to at least draw some attention to these articles, hopefully correcting these miscategorizations, by my actions. If there are objections to stating that a given article falls within the scope of a given project, then I clearly have no objections to having those articles' categorization changed and the banner removed. Also, for what little it's worth, it has become apparent to me that the majority of the "religion" based projects have tagged few if any of the relevant articles (I think Sikhism had all of 19 articles tagged). Also, please note that, as far as possible, when I have changed categories (generally by adding them), it is because there is specific relevant content in the article. For instance, categorizing something as Buddhist if there is a paragraph relating directly to Buddhism in the article. This is done because, unfortunately, very few if any people really are capable of knowing whether statements in a given article are necessarily accurate regarding multiple faiths which might be referenced in that article. The project specific to that faith would be more likely to know that. As stated, of course, if you believe that a given article does not fall within the scope of a given project, you are free to change it. If you do so, however, you might also want to change the categorization, because that is basically the way projects find out what articles are relevant to their projects. John Carter 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the questions you asked are hard to answer, One thing they do is indicate to anyone who works on the articles that there is a project interested in that content, and maybe persuade them to join. Another thing that they do is, if there is an assessment function in it, to let members know which articles are in the most need of immediate work, generally the stubs or articles which are of the greatest importance to the subject. Regarding the "presumptuous" ratings, those are always arguable. Generally, though, at least in my case, I never rate an article anything but Stub, Start, or B. GA, A, and FA are generally related to specific review procedures, and I don't try to bypass them. Regarding the last point, that we need people to write articles, I agree. However, we also benefit if those people know whether or not there is already an existing article on that subject. Very often, they don't, particularly if the article isn't tagged as being relevant to the project which relates to the subject. Lastly, as already mentioned, categorization. This is a very big problem, as many articles aren't categorized usefully or at all. At least in my case, when I know of another project which also presumably has an interest in an article, like about a native of the area, I'll make sure that it gets that banner too, so that the editor(s) there know about it as well, and maybe will do some work on it. Finally, these articles will be placed by me anyway on the project's Article list, which makes it easier to check up on changes. None of this necessarily helps make up for the fact that we are always woefully undermanned relative to the content we have, but it is at least a start. And, unfortunately, I don't know how to fix the problem of being undermanned. But making it less effort for interested editors to find content they might be interested in does seem at least to me to be one way to help alleviate that problem. John Carter 13:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Lake Van photos
Wow, that was quick! Thanks for writing. I had just uploaded 4 or 5 photos and put the wrong date (1974) on each of them and was in the process of correcting the captions when you wrote. They actually were all taken taken in 1973. Put it down to "Old Timer's Disease"! I should change the date in the full titles of the photos - not just the captions - but I am not sure how to do it - so have just added a note to each. Anyway, I am glad you enjoyed the photos. I hope to add more when I can find the time - they have got slightly damaged and pretty faded and need a bit of editing before I upload them. All best wishes, John Hill 02:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:CoraLVHatch.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CoraLVHatch.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Deobandi
Hey, got your message. The reason I mentioned the issue of sockpuppetry is because the user put the same edit on my talk page twice through different IPs, which got under my skin. As for me removing the links, I knew they were recent Times articles; unfortunately, that article specifically has been a frequent target of POV and i'm sort of on high alert when it comes to that. In addition, I felt that they would be more appropriate in some sort of "recent events" section as opposed to external links but considering the article's aformentioned history of POV I wasn't having it.

Regardless, if you feel that my reverting was out of line then I will defer; perhaps viewing from the outside looking in gives you a clarity I don't have. I'll leave it off for now, and please don't feel shy if you notice anything else you take issue with. I rarely experience people disagreeing with my edits in a civil manner which is sad, so any future feedback is more than welcome. MezzoMezzo 04:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I noticed your save on the Deobandi article. While they are not connected to ibn Abdul-Wahhab, Deobandis are not Salafists either; they are actually a form of Sufism and rooted in the Hanafi madhhab.  Salafis as a general rule are opposed to Sufism and are most often do not follow a madhhab or if they do follow the Hanbali.  I would recommend checking the article on Salafism and the associated links, as they're quite informative. MezzoMezzo 16:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, keep in mind that anything I tell you is solely my own perspective and shouldn't be taken as fact. Do you know how to enable the emailing function on here?  I'm not sure if going in to the details would be considered using Wikipedi as a networking site or not. MezzoMezzo 17:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wanna see a good example of what we talked about in our emails, check the talk pages for Barelwi and Deobandi...lol. MezzoMezzo 03:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Anthon, not only do I like the anecdote that you begin your page with (because i think it's great to see another editor who believes in something he/she is doing), I want to ask for your help in getting a couple of pages merged - including one that you started - Schools of economics with Economic schools of thought. I'm doing this more as a wider project of creating the History of economic thought page and eventually (one never knows) making the economics page something useable. Please get back, or if you are happy to, have a go at merging.  Wik idea  01:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see - well, if I was simply placing the material from the relevant schools from one article into the other, without changing the headers (unless some need to be added?) then that wouldn't hobble the article's usefulness as a base for the template, would it? (I only just put the tag up btw, when I messaged you!) If we did that, then there wouldn't I think be those linking problems. What someone has very usefully done btw is create colourful little templates for the separate schools you've listed on the big one (except socialist, institutional and one or two others). I've collected them all on the main page.  Wik idea  08:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

History of economic thought
Hello Athon, obviously, you haven't followed what's been going on. History of economics was merged into the History of economic thought page. Economic history is a page which I've just put up a few stub headers in to talk about the economic history of the world (ergo History of economics!). Don't revert things without looking into them.  Wik idea  22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Three reverts
Listen Athon, whatever you think about the economic history page, the title History of economics, as previously was, is now GONE. Don't revert again to the whole previous page, because that was discussed.

The choice is, either you think History of economics is a synonym for History of economic thought or you think it is a synonym for Economic history. If there's disagreement over which it is, in neither case should you be putting the previous page up, because that's already been merged (after discussion). I don't mind which it is actually - and I've changed it back to the History of economic thought page. But I would suggest that going "no no no no no" is not the best way of getting ideas across.  Wik idea  10:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Relax Wikidea. You are not in a battle. But your actions are way too bold. No one merges pages without some discussion. Typically the notice sits on both pages for a month or so before any action is taken. The merge you did yesterday was extremely inappropriate: Economic history is a subdiscipline of economics that looks at the history of the economy; History of economics is a subdiscipline of economics that looks at the history of the discipline of economics. Your merge ruined the Economic history page.
 * Your merge project has me totally bewildered, so maybe you can explain it to me. Didn't you already announce on September 15 that you had merged the content of History of economics with History of economic thought? What prompted you to do yesterday's merge? Please understand that I'm perplexed, and apprehensive about what you plan to do next. I'm an academic economist, as is JQ and a few others, and any of us would be glad to discuss your plans with you, so that no unwelcome controversy arises. best regards --Anthon.Eff 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) I merged the content from the history of economics page into the history of economic thought page and others (2) the redirect from hoe to hoet was set up (3) then I decided just a couple of days ago I changed my mind and thought hoe would better redirect to Economic history.


 * (1) and (2) were discussed - which is what I think you've missed. I'm not planning to do anything next with merging! Believe it or not, page merging is minor. If you have a look at the HoET page, then it's things like actual writing that I'm more interested in. I don't think my actions are bold by the way. I get things done, and write stuff on encyclopedias for people to read. Perhaps with your academic economist credentials you could help with that too. :)  Wik idea  16:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. It was only the last step that was a mistake (the merge into economic history). You've fixed that now, so all is well. It is also a mistake to do a merge without announcing it well ahead of time on both pages (you didn't do that with Economic history, and you only let a day or so go by with Schools of economics). Leaving plenty of time for feedback from other editors helps avoid unpleasant incidents. Just to be clear, I did notice the discussion on the proposed merge of hoe to hoet, and I noticed that you followed JQ's suggestion. I hope you noticed that I have been supportive of your efforts, even to the point of trusting you to handle the tricky template-link issues associated with Schools of economics. I have been supportive because I think you are really trying to write articles, and WP needs editors, like you, who want to write articles. Thanks for responding in a civil manner and clearing this up. --Anthon.Eff 20:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Swedish lesson
It's always nice to see someone interested in the Swedish language! Please ignore if you weren't attempting to write in Swedish but since I noticed you wrote something incorrectly twice, I'm pretty sure it wasn't just a typo now. The correct way to write "reply to panda" in Swedish is "svar till panda", not "svar til panda". There are Swedish-English translators on the web that you may find helpful. (Sorry, I don't know of any off the top of my head.) While I don't care if you wish to use Swedish in your edit summary, others may since this is the English Wikipedia and some editors may not understand it. If you'd like to converse in Swedish, our talk pages may be a more appropriate forum for that. –panda 14:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded on your talk page, panda. But I think anyone with a good grasp of Swedish would have understood that I wrote in Danish, so I can only interpret this as a catty comment by an angry mammal, classified in the bear family, native to central-western and southwestern China. --Anthon.Eff 15:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to resort to personal attacks. –panda 16:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics
I think it's now clear that consensus is for "Nobel Prize in Economics". If Liftarn continues to edit war on this I think we should request comment on his behavior. -- Vision Thing -- 17:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Template for Econ Prize
Please see Template talk:Nobel Prize in Economics. –panda 21:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks
I understand that you are very adamant to keep calling the The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel a "Nobel Prize", but that does not give you the excuse to violate the WP:NPA policy. Note especially what is never acceptable: "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor." (bolded for emphasis by me). I do not appreciate to be called a communist because I want an article to be based on facts in stead of a common misconception.--Lensor 15:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe Anthon.Eff wrote that everyone who states the fact that the economics prize is not a Nobel Prize is a communist, or at least people who "conform to the position of the Swedish Communist Party". But that still violates WP:NPA.  –panda 16:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well now I know that you guys are offended by the word communist. It must be an opprobrious term in Swedish. Ain't so in English. The term communist defines a place on the political spectrum--you know, to the left of Gunnar Myrdal, occupied by the people you have been quoting: Vänsterpartiet kommunisterna (Left Party - The Communists). --Anthon.Eff 17:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Care to share exactly what quote you are referring to? –panda 18:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I never quoted any communists (unless you regard the Nobel Foundation communists). Anyways, now you know that calling someone a communist, especially when it completely unfounded and based upon a desire to stick to the facts, is offensive. It might not be offensive to you, but it is to me.--Lensor 18:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * here is your quote panda. Lensor, you are right, you didn't quote any communists, so obviously I'm not talking about you. --Anthon.Eff 18:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is text from an article that was published in DN. What does that have to do with communists believing that the prize is not a Nobel Prize?  They actually state nothing about that -- if you read the article carefully and find out what the background was for their criticisms, you might actually understand what they are criticizing.  Also, are you admitting that you're calling me a communist then?  –panda 18:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. __meco 07:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Johan Galtung
Just a warning that you are far far over the 3 revert limit in the Johan Galtung article. –panda 19:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tranquilate, Panda. It's 4 reverts within 24 hours that's a problem. And it's User:Nastykermit who has broken that rule (on one occasion). I've simply restored text that he reverted. Nastykermit has submitted this for impartial folks to decide. You aren't impartial, so you should recuse yourself. --Anthon.Eff 19:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert
FYI. I've filed a Wikiquette alert about your behavior. –panda 05:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to this, I will ask you to stop arguing your side of the dispute on the basis that particular editors are communists, sockpuppets, or "little boys alone in their rooms in Norway." It's inappropriate, and is resulting in a hostile and inappropriate editing climate. Furthermore, your edits are open for all to see - no one can be stalking you by viewing edits that that you freely contribute to Wikipedia. If you would prefer to contribute to another encyclopedia or web forum in which your posts or edits are private, that is up to you. --Cheeser1 16:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Economics
Since you have voted in the last rename request and are aware of the dispute, I would like to inform you about new page rename request at Talk:Nobel_prize_in_Economics. -- Vision Thing -- 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:
I was thinking about doing the same thing, but leaving the article to the most persistent POV pushers who are trying to drive away all editors who don't agree with them doesn't seem like a satisfying solution to me. However, I respect your decision. -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Economic anthropology
Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I've added the other (missing) parent category, Category:Economics, for Category:Economic anthropology. It's always a good idea to find at least two parent cats when you create a new category (very few truly have only one parent). Regards, Cgingold (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * PS - This was exactly the category I was hoping to find for an article (Adaptive strategies) that was wrongly categorized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgingold (talk • contribs) 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Anthon,

you did more than your edit summary suggested and removed citations.

Please do not do so.

In my opinion, You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Thank you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What is your problem Anthon? Do you want to discuss it? I am awfully tempted to quote DICK at this point but instead I would rather just request that you collaborate cooperatively and continue to add benefit by adding citations and references to back your inclusion, or exclusions. I understand you are an academic, please let us keep up standards.


 * I recommend you re-read some of TVÆRTIMOD yourself and hope that you neither using me as a little experiment regarding your paper on the Wikipedia nor not trying to pass on your genes to me ... "Game theory has established that the strategy most likely to help a social organism pass on its genes is one of tit-for tat." ;-) --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you explain to me what they mean when they talk about, "Leibniz as the founder of modern spiritualism"? it would not seem to fall within the religious movement. References and citations please. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You make bad edits, I point it out. Standard WP stuff. The only person-attacking-person stuff I see is here on my talk page or there on the template deletion discussion. All authored by you. And by the way, I'm not your research assistant. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, be specific then rather than waving a club blindly ... I have made an awful lot of edits. Which one do you think is "bad" from your POV? Let us address it.


 * But let's start first with the difference between the use of the word spiritualism or spiritualistic ... what point are you trying to make? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

'''I am sorry to warn you again Anthon, but you are obviously out to edit war over this. I am happy to accept a general cleanup and stub, because that is exactly what the topic is. '''

I have tried to engage you in discussion. I have offered you some leads to follow up on. The article is well referenced. Yet you have made no attempt to discuss matters on either your talk page, or the topic talk page, nor on Talk:Spiritualism (religious movement).

Really, I the onus is on to at least point out where the references and citation are inappropriate. if you cant, or wont, then I am afraid I have to just see the action as a deliberate provocation.


 * So, may I ask politely again, what is the point you wish to make? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war and Spiritualism. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Given the additional identified and erroneous acts of bad faith you can recorded against me, please Anthon, engage in the discussion.

Without doubt you are a sophisticate contributor but you appear to be ignoring or unwilling to engage in essence of this disagreement ... does spiritualism refer to merely the religious movement or a broad series of events and practises? I appreciate your wish for accuracy but I think the multifold citations bear the latter out.

I also find it difficult to reason why you wold remove Modern Spiritualism from the article.

So, please, be reasonable. I appreciate that I may Espoo might have hurt your feelings by moving the article and you blame him for losing the GA nomination ... but that was not my doing.

I do however agree and I think there is plenty of room in the wiki for all interpretations of the word ... which is what I am working to. I tend to work "llive" as it encourages other to contribute positively with their expertise and citations. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi my friend (Anthon). It is now time to look over my article on Spirituality and see what we can do with it. I has a small heart issue and was off for awhile. You are the head person on this endeavour so tell me what we need to do to use parts of it on your Spirit site. You have done a great job so far. I have never won anything on Wiki except grief and attacks. But I still keep going down the yellow brick road.

72.24.148.150 (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

Article moves
I see that Nealparr made a few changes to the Spiritualism aritlces, hopefully those will help resolve the issue. Dreadstar †  03:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Policing "Spitualism" infoboxes
Thanks for doing this. Tossing some huge new age religion box on top of an article about Muslim religious leaders (Marabout) was VERY problematic for me as well. You've made my life a bit easier! T L Miles (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How many times do I have to underline this ... the infobox is not relating to Modern Spiritualism.


 * If only you could show evidence of appreciating the difference in the uses made of the word.


 * It went to a vote and it was kept. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I will try again but it very difficult to discuss when is someone is neither being entirely honest about oneself or the subject at hand.


 * i think Tylor did a little bit more than "some work" on animism. His theory of animism also addressed nineteenth-century European dilemmas about the meaning of materiality. Despite the expansion of scientific materialism, with its implicit challenge to religious belief, the séances of Spiritualism were gaining popularity in Europe at the time.


 * Initially, Tylor actually considered using the term “spiritualism” for his theory of religion. He regarding contemporary spiritualist practices in Europe as a “survival” of prehistoric religion just as I have documented. Like the religious beliefs and practices of indigenous people, the spiritualist séances represented an unwarranted persistence in spiritualistic theories. His theory of animism can be situated in the context of nineteenth-century concern over the religious implications of scientific materialism and the scientific implications of the practices such as Modern Spiritualism.


 * Of course, what he knew of the world was much less than we do.


 * So, please ... apart from your American bias, what is your issue? it is a matter of your faith? Please, I am trying to understand. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you really want to know, it would be churlish not to respond. One problem I have with your work is that it is the kind of cut-and-paste plagiarism that annoys every teacher. Take for example the message you wrote above. The text purports to be your own, but is actually from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature:
 * Initially, E.B. Tylor considered using the term “spiritualism” for his theory of religion, regarding contemporary spiritualist practices in Europe as a “survival” of prehistoric religion. Like the religious beliefs and practices of indigenous people on the colonized periphery of empire, the spiritualist séance represented an unwarranted persistence in attributing life to dead matter. As a European intellectual problem, therefore, the theory of animism can be situated in the context of nineteenth-century distress about the religious implications of scientific materialism and the scientific implications of a new religious practice such as spiritualism.


 * I enjoy conversation with people who know something about a topic, but find it less enjoyable to talk to people who appear with a paste from a website and think that this trumps everyone else's remarks. The fact that you also cut-and-paste in article space creates a copyright issue for WP. For example, your paragraph in Spiritualism (religious movement):


 * In 1939, just as hostilities on the Continent began to flare up again, its findings — in the form of majority and minority reports — were kept secret, forgotten and not made public until 1979. While the intervening years saw a decrease in the outward membership in spiritualist societies which had so alarmed the Anglican establishment, there was probably an increase in the popular adherence to such beliefs.


 * was lifted from this website:


 * The committee delivered its report in 1939, just as hostilities on the Continent began to flare up; its findings—in the form of majority and minority reports—were embargoed, forgotten, and not made public until 1979. The intervening years saw a decrease in the outward membership in spiritualist societies, which had so alarmed the Anglican establishment, but there was probably an increase in the popular adherence to such beliefs.


 * I could go on, but time, alas, is short. I hope you are satisfied with my effort. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Anthon, I paraphrased it directly from the book. I had not seen that page and it would have made my work much easier. If I had not tied it to the text, you would have said it was WP:OR or POV. There is no copyright violation in a short acredited quotation on the topic. You are confusing discussion on a talk page.


 * So let's make a start on the actual references on the spiritualism page. You are not my teacher, so please, step down a little. We are all equals here.


 * I have made the suggestion that if you want to write in a more academic style that we limit one article to the historical movement, e.g. Modern American Spiritualism (1840 -1920). That would be highly accurate and I would support it entirely.


 * I apologise if I have offended your patriotic sentiment but the rest of the world does use the world more broadly and my edits are based on reliable citations, e.g. "Spiritualistic practices have been recorded as being widespread throughout history and humankind. However, they were virtually unknown in American society until March 1848, when odd happenings were reported at the house of a farmer named Fox ..."


 * Please, I am beinghonest here, help me understand exactly why you feel so strongly about this ownership issue with regards white American spiritualism? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucyintheskywithdada
Nealparr, currently blocked, noted that you suspected Lucyintheskywithdada was a sockpuppet. If you still feel a checkuser is warranted, I suggest you do so (particularly because a positive result there will likely lead to Neal's unblocking). --  tariq abjotu  19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I would highly recommend you stop edit-warring on the Spiritualism articles and templates. If you don't, there is the possibility you may be blocked soon. --  tariq abjotu  19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you tariq abjotu . I do think that is very fair and reasonable of you to record.


 * Anthon, I am coming back to edit on the spiritualistic pages. I am entirely willing to be reasonable if treated as an relatively intelligent individual. I must humbly caution you for the condescension that you have exhibited on the spiritualism page and cutting and erroneous statements you have made about myself elsewhere. In this environment you are only equal to us all.


 * I would be naive not to consider that have now found a good ally in Nihil novi but I consider that mass deletion of perfectly adequate citations and references as done in bad faith.


 * I must also note that, having lost the vote on your nomination for deletion of the template for spiritualistic topics, you have gone about and deleted it off every topic is on. This also must appear to be done in bad faith.


 * If I have one great inhibition in dealing with you, it is that on your linked to blog you state that you are working on a paper about the wikipedia and I have this fear that we 'lab rats', and our good intent, are just a "little experiment" for you.


 * I am offering you a chance here to discuss matters briefly in a mature, non-partisan manner and put matters back onto a reasonable framework. I would never have dreamt to have gone about and attempted to prejudice others about you, I expect the same in return from you.


 * Thank you.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthon, you have now on several occasions continued to make false assertions about me even though we have addressed the matter in discussion before hand. Firstly over the wachowski user accounts that we disallowed due to their similarity to living individuals and now over the issue of Tylors connection with spiritualism.


 * Please do not continue to do so. Ultimately, it ... along with the mass deletions after the failure of the RfD ... is likely to backfire on you.


 * I am more than willing to meet you half way. What is your point? Do you want an article on Modern American Spiritualism (1880 - 1920) or not? What is your personal interest or involvement with the movement? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Spiritualism
Thanks for re-formating my list, although I still have no idea why what you did worked and mine did not. In a more perfect world someone with my level of computer understanding would not be editing Wikipedia. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I understand. Thank you for the explanation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deoband
It does look like a big, notable conference. Would you suggest we use it as an external link or in the body of the article? MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The section looks succinct and well written, good work. :) MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview
''What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience?'' Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Spencer
You have removed my reference to Spencer's influence on Hermeticism - which was supported by a citation: Yet you have left in the unsupported references to his influence on Anthropology, Town Planning, Ecology, Freud, Logical Positivism, & Sociobiology. Your only justification being "This belongs in Hermeticism - not here". The same argument could be easily applied to his influence in other areas. Spencer's influence on modern Hermeticism is a verifiable fact. It might not be a fact that you like - but that is no reason to censor it entirely.Josephus (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Influences mustn't be anachronistic. Do you really think Spencer was an important influence on a doctrine developed in Ptolemaic Egypt? Your quoted passage obviously indicates nothing more than that some of those who have studied Hermetic thought happen to approve of Herbert Spencer. Some Episcopalians also happen to approve of Herbert Spencer. Does that mean that Spencer influenced Episcopalianism? Think about it. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * At least this time you have provided some rationale. But please read what I have written before you automatically delete it. I wrote about Spencer's influence on Modern Hermeticism.  The Kybalion was published after Spencer's death; and is almost entirely a modern work - being nine tenths a commentary by the 'Three Initiates' on a supposedly ancient text; a few excerpts from which are included (but which has otherwise never surfaced).  There is therefore no anachronism in saying that this volume of modern Hermetic commentary was influenced by Spencer.


 * Furthermore the 'Three Initiates' are not just "some of those who have studied Hermetic thought" they are the authors of the primary modern statement of Hermeticism, which has influenced much of modern esoteric thinking.


 * If I write "I hope my editing shows a more co-operative style than that of Anthon Eff." it shows a knowledge of, and a reaction to, another writer; i.e. it shows influence. The nature and the degree of influence can be debated, but the fact that there has been influence of some sort cannot. The writers of the Kybalion were clearly influenced by Spencer. You obviously consider Hermeticism to be an entirely bogus philosophy, and that any association with it tarnishes and cheapens Spencer's reputation. That is an entirely legitimate opinion, which I might partly agree with. By all means write a book or put it in a blog; but don't use it as criteria for editing Wikipedia.


 * I would be obliged if you would revert the edit yourself, or at least propose an alternative expression which you think might gain more general agreement. Wikipedia is supposed to be a co-operative enterprise.


 * By the way, Spencer almost certainly DID influence some strands of Episcopalian thought (though not nearly as much as he influenced modern Hermeticism); but that is not my interest. Regards Josephus (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I'm not the only one who wants to get rid of your edit. Probably your best chance of making the edit stick would be to wrap it up with a few other religious influences, so it doesn't violate WP:weight. For example, if you can say something like "Despite his condemnation of ecclesiastical institutions, Herbert Spencer was an influence on various new strands in religious thought, including modern Hermeticism (your source), Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (another source), and liberal Protestant theology (example source)." Give it a try. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Kaylene Gebert
Another editor has expressed concern that Kaylene Gebert is not notable. Please add references to her article to demonstrate that she is in fact notable. --Eastmain (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics
To answer your questions, obviously several people, myself included, are unhappy with the current dysgenics article. While ideological conflicts are unavoidable I think it will be possible to work on the article without edit warring. --Zero g (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I'll keep the article on my watch list, but I can't promise to do much: I have a few things in the real world keeping me pretty busy right now. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Social purity
Okay, I concede the point and have moved it back. DS (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette
I've apologised, and thankyou for telling me too. I can't help but think though, that in some cases, in sterile computer environments, people need to be told off in a human way (as you did!). I don't really go in for reporting people on vandalism pages, and that sort of thing. I expect you saw the developments on the three pages.  Wik idea  02:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been reported to Wikiquette myself--for speculating too openly that another editor was a child alone in his room with a computer. I'll probably be reported again one of these days. The straight and narrow on WP is indeed straight and narrow! But my impression is that VT is actually a very good editor; it's a shame that you two tangled.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith
Hi Anthon, I just noticed this article is at GAN and thought you may be interested... best, john Johnfos (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Anatolia
Please don't do any more blind reverts to this article. You seem to have reverted simply because of what you objected to in my edit summary rather than actually reading my edit (proven by the fact that you reverted to a vandalised version of the entry by an anonymous editor). I have reverted back to the version with my edit, and also explained my edit in the talk page (something I should have done at the time I made the edit). If you object to what I have written in the article or talk page, please explain your objections in the article's talk page first rather than just reverting again. Meowy 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I made a mistake going back to the anon. That's why I did the second edit, to take it back to the previous registered editor's edit. You're right, I objected to your edit summaries. One thing I objected to was that you misused the word "vandalism"--this edit is not vandalism. Another thing I objected to was your use of the opprobrious term "propagandist" to describe a scholar who I happen to admire. These little details gave the impression that you were a POV-pushing hater of Turks, rather than someone seeking to write an encyclopedia. But your polite message reassures me. Happy editing.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The anonymous edit was vandalism of the drive-by sort: without any talk page comment or even an edit summary, it removed accepted material and replaced it with something that was clearly false. If you object to what I wrote in the edit summary then that is fine - but at least I wrote something there! And it is the actual content of my edit that is important, so let's get back to that. Meowy 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "...removed accepted material and replaced it with something that was clearly false." In fact the anon's contribution was "Greeks who were native to Western Anatolia attempted ethnic cleansing of Turks in the area first, then left Turkey"--a statement which is factually correct. Anatolia is full of ghosts: Christian, Muslim, Jewish. Everyone has lost someone. If a Turk were to take the stance that no Turk ever killed a Christian, you would be offended, even outraged. Likewise, if you take the stance that Ottoman Christians were solely victims, never aggressors, then naturally the Muslims and Jews who remember their losses would be outraged. We all need to accept that the Other mourns lost ones. If we do that, articles can be written without quarreling. So it's not helpful to deny the losses of the other side.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Richard Lynn
How about discussing your objections to these sections on the article talk page?--Ramdrake (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really necessary, since it is such an obvious case of WP:SYN. Read it, you'll see.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide
I'm morbidly fascinated by the historical revisionists' toil over at Justin McCarthy's article. I noticed you're among those who've removed some quotations I contributed to that article. I'm wondering, are you the real deal? How on Earth can there be someone working to deny or obscure the Armenian Genocide who is not a native Turkish speaker inculcated into that cheery Anatolian culture of race-hatred?

Is this an innocent edit? Do you really not know? You can go to Amazon or Google Books yourself, find the best-selling WWI books in the English language and search for "Armenian". That you've actually requested something "peer-reviewed", this is astounding--what on Earth have you read, at all, to make such a request? I do not want to hear your version of what happened to the two million missing Christians. I want to know, how the heck can you exist?

I also recommend using Google Books or Amazon to search out McCarthy. He's frequently characterized as a genocide denier who stands alone, a longgggggg way from Guenther Lewy (despite your improperly cited suggestion that the two hold similar views). He's known for wacky revisionist polemic more so than scholarship. 

But cheers on your contributions to Johan Galtung! A fascinating fellow whose bio has benefited from your presence! DBaba (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * McCarthy is a brave and honest scholar, who cares about the truth. If you choose to immerse yourself in an echo-chamber full of Turk-haters, that's your own business. But it hardly gives you the right to speak so condescendingly.
 * I did remove a quote from the New York Times, written during WWI, when the Ottoman Empire was at war with the United States, when all of Christian Euro-America fawned with sympathy for Ottoman Christian minorities, and when virtually everything about Anatolia published by any U.S. newspaper can be easily dismissed as wartime propaganda. I expressed this view, abbreviated somewhat, in my edit summary. Did you really not understand?  --Anthon.Eff (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything you remove will return tenfold, better written and better referenced. You will see that the more you push your POV edits, the more you are actually working against your POV position. You will eventually learn that inactivity is best. Meowy 00:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Better referenced. That's the key. Get to work lads. WP isn't a place to spread your despicable hatred. It's an encyclopedia.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hatred for what? You are on your own planet.  This is you removing fact and writing what you want.  You are distorting Lewy's views to fit your agenda.  If he is writing about McCarthy and he concludes with this statement, how do you rationalize to yourself the removal of his actual writing?  Let that be a rhetorical question; you are too scary to engage any further on this.  DBaba (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I read the Lewy article. I summarized his argument. You, or another Turk-hater, had simply pulled a few quotes from the article, to make McCarthy look as bad as possible. It is you who are scary, with your vaporous moral superiority. But I agree, we have nothing to say to each other, so no need to engage any further on this.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Calling it a genocide is tantamount to Turk-hatred? Right. Maybe on your little blog, not here. TA-ME (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't this fun, Dorothy? The beneficiaries of the availability cascade are all showing up. No, TA-ME, calling it genocide does not amount to Turk-hatred. I know that there are some who like Turks, but who reluctantly concede that it looks like genocide. As for you guys, I have no hesitation in saying that you are Turk-haters. But perhaps I've made a mistake. Please, show me some edits where you said something nice about Turks.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Greenberg
Hi Anthon. Thanks for your note, I am glad to know that we share interests and heritage. I do not hold any antipathy towards Joseph Greenberg - but I do hold one against bad linguistics, and his ideas of historical linguistics were notoriously bad and have been quite squarely rejected by the linguistic community in Denmark and the US (and the World), although some other (non-linguistic) fields (some anthropologists, mostly physical anthropologists) still hold on to his ideas because they go well with their own, and because they have no understanding of the shaky ground upon which he has build them. You proposed to change the word criticized with the word discussed. I disagree strongly with this change for the following reasons: Any theory in linguistics or in Science is discussed - no one proposes a theoryt that is just accepted straight away without discussion. Greenbergs theories have not just been discussed they have been widely and severely criticized, both because of the methods that he used to arrive at his conclusions, which are not believed by a majority of linguists to be able to produce any kind of reliable result, and because of the complete sloppiness in his handling of data. If you read some of the reviews of his Language in the Americas (those written by linguists) e.g. those by Ives Goddard, Lyle Campbell and other influential figures in the field you will see that it is not only criticized but also mostly rejected as resting on completely unfounded speculations. User:Taivo is a professional linguist specialising in Uto-Aztecan languages and he was present when Greenberg first presented his ideas before a conference of the worlds foremost linguists - they were at once sbject to severe criticism by all the brightest heads in the field and he never presented his theory to linguists again. As for the path of Holger Pedersen - there are Danish nostraticists - but as on the world scene of linguistics they hold a place off to one side of the mainstream - and they will stay there ubntill they find a way to succesfully show that tthe usefulness of the comparative method can be extended into the far past (+ 15,000 years ago).·Maunus· ƛ · 05:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply Maunus. I think we agree that Greenberg's lumping together of languages is much more accepted among anthropologists than among linguists. Physical anthropologists, as you point out, like these deep phylogenies since they seem to reflect some of the data they are producing in genetic history; archaeologists also like them because they can look for analogues in archaeological horizons. While linguists evaluate Greenberg on the internal validity of his methods, anthropologists are more likely to evaluate Greenberg on how well he fits with genetic and archaeological data. As you doubtless know, Colin Renfrew and Peter Bellwood are two influential archaeologists who have embraced these deep phylogenies.


 * I don't really have a disagreement with you--you are the expert in linguistics--but I hope you keep in mind that Greenberg's work can also be evaluated by non-linguists, based on its concordance with non-linguistic data. The anthropologists who use deep phylogenies do it not out of stupidity or ignorance--they do it because deep phylogenies are consistent with the data they know how to evaluate.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * True, the problem is that Greenbergs result only seem to support their data, but in reality it doen´t suport anything because its built on too fragile ground. The fact that it coincides with biological data is really irrelevant (Greenberg himself was among the first advocates of the principle that linguistic relationship hypotheses should be evaluated only on linguistic evidence, before him for example many african languages were lumped together in families based on the physical traits of their speakers) unless it is first shown to be linguistically sound. Anthropologists can use deep phylogenies all they want of course, but they cannot expect linguistics to support it since linguistics as for now doesn't have any sound methods to establish relationships that far back in time.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To an outsider, this is an interesting dispute among intelligent people: Lyle Campbell is unquestionably intelligent, but so is Merritt Ruhlen. I disagree with you in at least one way: it's not correct to say that the discipline of linguistics has uniformly rejected mass lexical comparison, since the method still has some adherents among linguists. Economics, too, is full of disputes, but it would strike me as odd if an economist were to assert that the discipline of economics has uniformly rejected the views of one party to a dispute. I think the culture of linguistics must be quite different. Frankly, it doesn't sound healthy--too much concern for methodological purity. Much better to let a hundred flowers bloom. Nyd din fieldwork! --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I most humbly apologize
For having inadvertantly reversed your correction to Ryukyuan languages when reverting another editor's addition of a pseudoscientific theory and a non-notable reference supporting it. I hope I have not ruined your week. Kja er (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the apology. Sorry if I sounded snappish. Best wishes.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

JONATHAN BISHOP
Why does this guy get to use Wikipedia as a resume.

He is clearly engaged in self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.92 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Opposite
Regarding "In some cases, however, children studied have shown behavior in the opposite direction." It is available on google books:. It refers to a girl born into a high-caste family who claimed to be a sewage collector. I would appreciate it if you would restore a more comprehensible version of it. Mitsube (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I put it in a footnote--seemed the best way to make an unobtrusive response to a criticism.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. Mitsube (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The newly arrived critical editors are offended that statements in the criticism section are followed by a response (the response showing why the criticism is unfounded). I agree with them, that we need to be more careful--let the critics make their case as clearly as they can (in return, I hope they will cease muddling up the description of reincarnation research). Therefore, when I put in your response (not all children with memories are poor kids remembering a rich family), I put it within a reference, so that it can be read as a footnote, and does not interfere with the flow of the criticism section.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Objectively, this detracts from the article, wouldn't you agree? Mitsube (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I would do the whole article differently, but this is a crowd of people writing, and I'm just trying to stay in the crowd. Let's see what comes out of it. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR
I note above that you have been made aware before of the 3 Revert Rule. There are only a few exceptions, such as removing vandalism or copyvios, but this policy applies to Reincarnation research like anywhere else. This is just a reminder. Thanks, Verbal   chat  20:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Seems like a golden moment when a lot is getting done, and just trying to stay part of it. I think what I'm doing is within the rules--trying to rewrite passages when others wish to delete them.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have exceeded or are very close to exceeding 3RR again. Please be careful. In order to not antagonise other users, if you want to restore an edit you made that they have removed, why not discuss it first on talk. Verbal   chat  19:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Reincarnation research
Please stop removing valid WP:RS from this article. You have done this twice in the last 10 minutes. Please restore the last reference you have removed, and take any concerns you have to the talk page. Removing sourced, valid, material that is not a copyvio is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Verbal  chat  13:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure which reference you are referring to. Sorry to put you to the bother, but it would be easiest if you reintroduce the reference that you think should have been retained. Thanks! --Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My user page
It would seem I went beyond the boundaries of what wikipedia accepts as a user page. Even though I am a trouble maker, I am an easy goin' critter. So it's kaput, gone. I'm sorry. It's nice to know someone enjoyed it. Thanks. You may get a kick out of Gary Schwartz, Joseph McMoneagle, and Dean Radin. It takes all kinds. You may find Bridey Murphy of interest. It was claimed she could speak in Gaelic. She said one single word, banshee.Kazuba (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Chavista
I have no explanation (or source to hand) why it's "Chavista" for both sexes... But a googling of "soy chavista" turned up this Disembrangler (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 3rd party here. "-isto" just doesn't exist. There are any number of words with "-ista" that are non-gendered; you could also google "los zapatistas" or something. Homunq (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Homunq! Realized when I read the example--it's a word like Sandinista. I was thrown off the track when the earlier edit said it was a pejorative--seemed plausible since it's a common insult to apply the feminine form to a man.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Verbal  chat  19:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Verbal, you need to chill a bit. When someone makes an edit on an article you own, it doesn't mean that they are trying to pick a fight, nor does it mean that they are in imminent danger of falling afoul of policy.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't make silly accusations of ownership, it's not compatible with WP:AGF. If I "owned" the article, for example, I'd also have removed the unjustified POV tag. Another reason I reverted you was your claim that you were following my suggestion. This is blatantly untrue, and not a very good justification for reverting me (the supposed suggester) against WP:BRD. Your talking of "fights" is also unhelpful and rude. I suggest you have a look at WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Verbal   chat  19:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My suggestion still stands: chill.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought my reaction was rather cold, if not frosty! I assure you I'm cool (that's what the ladies say, and some of the guys...) Peace out! Verbal   chat  20:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, I'm sure you are cool, dude. But just a wee bit hysterical.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hysterical like A Bit of Fry and Laurie? Thanks :) I aim to please. Christ, I left the iron on. Verbal   chat  21:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Not cool to hate Turks
You had written: "So, why are you here? Best to push off if your only agenda is to push ethnic hatred.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)"

In order you may not miss reading my reply, I repeat it here:

Too easy way to push off someone, who is not approved by some group that appropriated the right to write here any nonse that suits them to support their commercial and political interests. Once more: I DO NOT HATE ANYBODY, BECAUSE I AM A CHRISTIAN. There is nothing in this world that is done without the Creator's will. It is the base of my attitude to any event. And because here is not the place to propagate someone's religious believes, I offer you to discuss the problems, relating to the genetics, health, welfare and even education and popularization of the domestic feline breed that is recognized by numerous international cat fancy organizations: Turkish Van cats. And please, stop your psychological supressions and attacks, it will not work with me. I appeal only to the common sense of the people of good will.--Zara-arush (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zara-arush" --Zara-arush (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Kazuba
I have updated my user page. Kazuba (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Economics
Can you explain why you reverted my edit on the page? I undid your revert because well.. here's a short list of what I did and why. None of it is unreasonable. It covers the same information, clearer and more coherently. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed Nobel Memorial Prize as a "known" name because it really doesn't get many hits per Google search, certainly not enough to call itself "often", there was no citation for the claim that it is a well known name. If we just mention Nobel Prize in Economics as an alternative name, the section reads cleaner and more coherently.
 * Added a comma for the "also known as" clause.
 * Removed the repeated mention of the double names, sounded redundant.
 * Removed the full listing of the Nobel Prizes, seemed unnecessary and wordy, those interested can just click the wikified link.
 * Added a qualifying, cited inaccurately for the "Nobel Prize in Economics", citation clearly states that it is "Not a Noble Prize".


 * I reverted because you have completely ignored the long-running argument on the talk page. This is a contentious topic and you were a bit too bold. I will revert again, and this time, if you wish to argue, do it on the article talk page. Most of us are sick of this though, and will wonder why you wish to disturb the consensus.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about? I'm not disturbing any consensus. The consensus is to keep the page titled NMP, and that's being respected. Of the 5 changes I just elaborated on, which one are you unhappy with? Please explain yourself. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No cursing please. Take it to the talk page.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Every minor edit on grammar and clarity doesn't need to be taken up with the talk page. There are certain things that are consensus opinion, such as the title of the page, but those are being respected. WP:BB. I'm not changing any content, simply reorganizing the information in a clear, coherent way. The only debatable (content related) change of mine is #1, but I'll gladly reincorporate Nobel Memorial Prize as a possible name if that is the change you think should be debated. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning
Next time you write such an uncivil pagesum you will be noticed and no thanks! Bye!Gazifikator (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Worthwhile assuming good faith from unknown editors. Just stupid to assume good faith from a notorious troublemaker like you.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Unless the someone intent on being a "dick" is yourself, this edit summary looks very much like a personal attack and an attempt at mindreading, which gets no credence on Wikipedia. Please assume good faith and acknowledge that there were considerable problems with your previous edit, which your last two edits to the article went a long way to resolving. The sections in question appear to lack verification, it will help if you find suitable citations to avoid original research in the form of unsupported personal opinions. Thanks, dave souza, talk 20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Dave, WP:DICK is jargon here. Appropriate when some editor calls a kid's edit "illiterate" and insults a school attended by 10-13 year olds.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't "insult the school" and it's a plain fact that the edit in question was illiterate, unencyclopedic, careless and non-neutral. I'm glad that you appear to have belatedly acknowledged that this was the case by addressing these issues in your last two edits. Accept the warning and move on.– Signal head  &lt; T &gt;  22:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anthon.Eff, an editor called your edit "messy, illiterate, POV", quite accurately. Sorry if as a kid you find this insulting, but you took ownership of that edit when you reinstated it, and had a full forty minutes to improve it so that the school for 10–13 year olds wasn't let down by a messy article. You may be filled with pride that "Our chearleading squad is truly amazing. They can stunt, and yell, and chear all night long! Meigs definately has spirit!" but I think you know by now that such descriptions are inappropriate here. Next time, please try to improve articles instead of reverting to unsuitable versions while making snarky edit comments. Thanks, dave souza, talk 22:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're tired. But it was Signalhead who didn't rewrite--he deleted everything positive and left in something about a lousy wrestling team. I tried to throw it back in his lap, but in the end I had to go ahead and fix it myself.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? Please, Anthon, don't be a dick. . . dave souza, talk 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You know Dave, you were once the kind of editor that made me optimistic about WP. Now, well--did you even listen? You just want to win. Go take a valium. And SignalHead, go play another round of GrandTheftAuto. WP belongs to you.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with writing something negative in an article, as long as it's both true and encyclopedic? This is an encyclopedia, and negative statements are allowed. Although the 'negative' statement was unreferenced, so was the alternative "aren't we all great!" edit, but I'm much more inclined to believe the version that's properly written in an encyclopedic tone, without the spelling errors and exclamation marks. – Signal head  &lt; T &gt;  22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)