User talk:Argyriou/Archive8

welcome
(Hpetwe 21:04, 20 May 2006 (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 13:16, 8 September 2006 (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 00:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Letter Frequencies
Hemingway and Faulkner were already mentioned in the article. Counting letters in a novel is hardly original research. In fact it is simply quoting the novel's content. The section was an example of fact not a thesis paper of opinions. Above all, it added to article because it was pure facts and that is the basis for wikipedia. Mangledorf 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

re User:Tim Osman and User:NYScholar
I don't think you need to unblock or reduce the block on User:Tim Osman - he clearly violated 3RR and has been incivil. I do think that fairness demands a 3RR block on User:NYScholar, and a warning about calling content disputed "vandalism" and "BLP violations", neither of which applied to Osman's edits to Joseph C. Wilson. I've filed a report at WP:AN3. Argyriou (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have blocked for 48 hours, same as Tim Osman. Perhaps they can now find something they agree on - the actions of a certain admin! ;~] LessHeard vanU 21:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What to do? NYScholar believes it to be vandalism removal (and I am ploughing through his talkpage). I'm afraid I haven't any time this evening to do more than review their talkpages. Perhaps you should bring it up again at WP:AN/I? LessHeard vanU 21:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Userbox addition
That's certainly not the best way to defuse a conflict, don't you think? I urge you to stop this behavior, please; it's not helping at all. Maybe we can discuss this calmly, and politely? Best,  P h a e d r i e l  - 20:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay then - please, could you remove the userbox in question yourself, so we can call this matter over? Thank you in advance,  P h a e d r i e l  - 20:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. The statement the userbox makes is one I've wanted to make for quite some time - see older contents of my userpage. Argyriou (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with phaedriel here and she actually beat me to saying the exact same thing. Ask yourslf, what does that add to this project? You know it is just causing trouble. So, for the sake of furthuring this project, please remove it. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The userbox adds a statement that ultranationalist rhetoric is not acceptable. Enforcing the statement would go a long, long way to cleaning up WIkipedia's POV problems. Argyriou (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is the point of the userbox. You are intentionally using it to annoy another editor per your edit summary.  At least reacnt the intent.  We are here to build a project and help each other, not tear each other down. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you follow the edit summaries and the discussions, you will see that annoying Sceptre is no longer my intent; instead my intent is to make a statement about untranationalism and Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Argyriou, I just wanted to tell you that I, too, have added this userbox to my talkpage. I will now add it to my userpage. Take care. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Argyriou, coming from one who has had to deal with some of the worse nationalistic POV pushers around in the past, please understand I agree with that statement on a personal side. The whole point of my request was simply a gesture of good will in order to help defuse a particular dispute, that's all, just in order to avoid yourself and others the stress. Now I understand your personal feelings regarding nationalistic speech, but sometimes, it's best to avoid confrontations that don't lead us anywhere, and only add to the already high levels of grief and stress we suffer; especially when you say, you intentionally added to annoy someone else. With this in mind, I'm asking you to remove it, not for other reasons. Sorry, but I couldn't leave this unsaid. All the best,  P h a e d r i e l  - 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See above statement I tried to add before the database was locked. Argyriou (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in and thank you as well, for your willingness to defuse the situation and your self-criticism. These rare qualities deserve to be praised. You've more than earned that praise, and my congratulations. All the best,  P h a e d r i e l  - 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll congratulate you on it too. And apologies for being over the top, I tend to do that more these days. Will (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies for baiting you. Argyriou (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Darkthrone
Hey there. I'm not sure if you're genuinely concerned that Darkthrone are not notable or are going to drastic lengths to point out the lack of sources. If it is the former, Darkthrone are generally regarded as one of the most popular and acclaimed Black Metal bands worldwide and definitely meet notability requirements in every sense of the word. If the case is the latter then, well, I guess have a look at the WP article I linked to. MrHate 06:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I ran into the article, saw that there were a) no sources and b) nothing to mention that the band was at all significant. In this day and age, it's easy enough to create a record label, so a bunch of albums with no sales figures from labels I've never heard of, no mention of tours outside Norway, or any mention of actual coverage by the music press just isn't enough to keep an article. If the article had said "Sold a half-million CDs" or "toured extensively in Europe and Japan in 1997 and 2001" or something like that, then I'd just have asked for sources. But the article doesn't even claim that the band meets any of the criteria of WP:BAND. Argyriou (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Imola co-op cluster
I agree the new sentence on the Imols co-op cluster is very weak, but wouldn't it be more intelligent to encourage the author to expand it, rather than juit deleting it? TobyJ 18:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have much less patience for lousy edits from IP editors than from signed-in users. Meanwhile, the edit summary should be enough to encourage replacing the material with proper references or discussion. Argyriou (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nocturno Culto
I removed the delete template from the article because Nocturno Culto is well known if you listen to Black Metal. Jmm6f488 17:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Test
I wasn't testing anything, and I will re-edit when I have the time. Get off your high horse.

Catholic dioceses
"Hi! I'm glad you have a lot of enthusiasm to add to the articles about the organization of the Catholic Church. However, a few things you've done have not been terribly cleanly executed:"

I've been editing the entire structure now for about a month. :) I am pleased to see that some of my changes are finally attracting the attention of other people here on Wikipedia.

"Your structured list of dioceses, which I've moved to List of Roman Catholic diocesesuiopqew(structured view), may be a violation of the compilation copyright of Catholic-Hierarchy.org. We can't just copy his work in a slightly different format here, without permission."

The list is a compilation of his work, and from other sources also. Nothing I have done corresponds directly with his work, nor is it unsourced. For example you will not find a list of North American Dioceses, structured in the format that I have given it, there are similarities, but there are also differences. He breaks them up into Central America, and North America whereas I combine the two into a common list. Nowhere does he put everything into one entire list, although he does break it down. I also have updated his manual to express the more recent changes.

"You moved List of Roman Catholic dioceses to a name which is not compliant with the Manual of Style. I've fixed that, but please be careful."

Ok, I just wanted to express the differences between the two, one is an alphabetical list, and one is structured list.

"At least two articles listing diocese - List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Nicaragua and List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Honduras, started with the sentence: The Roman Catholic Church in Nicaragua comprises one ecclesiastical province each headed by an archbishop."

Yes, I am sorry. If you look through all lists they follow the same format. That is one I have missed, and thank you. I've made over 10 lists based on this information, and thanks for fixing the one mistake I made.

"While it's very tempting to use a copy'n'paste to populate articles like that, one should be a little more careful. Countries with more than one province will be fine, but countries with only one ecclesiastical province need the word "each" removed. I've already done that for Honduras and Nicaragua, but you should go through any others you've created and fix them, too."

Done. I missed that one and thank you for your due diligence. "I'd also consider changing "comprises one ecclesiastical province" to "is organized as one ecclesiastical province" (and "is organized into five ecclesiastical provinces" in plural) or something similar."

I will consider that. For now, I was mostly concerned with making sure all the links worked and that all the dioceses have stubs. I am hoping that all the diocese pages will eventually be like the US ones, where they have considerable work. The organisation has to be in place first before the actual articles can really make sense. Now you can find ALL the diocese articles on wikipedia together. :) That is my eventual goal to make a single page where you can see the Catholic church like the Pope would, from all the way down to a diocese.

"In List of the Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States and other lists, you added a colon after each occurence of Province of X; the colon is not a useful addition. (Adding Ecclesiastical in front is ok, though.) Section titles do not need colons, because they are section titles. If the list was preceded by ordinary text, a colon would be appropriate."

Yes, I did, as per all the other lists. The US is not a special exception. All the other lists follow the same format and use a colon to denote each section. I have simply followed their lead in editing the US list. "In List of the Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States, you added Archdiocese of Samoa-Apia to the list without any indication that the archdiocese is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, even though the other diocese is. (The reverse mistake exists in the section Ecclesiastical province of Agaña, and is not something you did.)"

Yes I did, because it was confusing the way it was in the list previously. The diocese is in the territory of the US, but is not subject to an archdiocese within the US. There are several exceptions to this rule already listed. It should be listed apart from the others.

WP:CSD#R2
Please note that WP:CSD only includes redirects to certain namespaces. --- RockMFR 16:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Geotech navbox
Hi, I saw your revert to civil engineering and remembered that I've been wondering what you think of the Geotechnical engineering navbox ZueJay and I created. I'm specifically interested in your thoughts on the inclusion or lack of inclusion of some articles, the organization of the navbox, and if there are some holes in the coverage where new articles should be created. I'm hoping that the whole series can be a fairly comprehensive overview of geotechnical engineering. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in replying. Crosshole sonic logging belongs in the geotechnical investigation section. The laboratory tests section seems underpopulated. Otherwise, it looks pretty good. Argyriou (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your contributions to Cone Penetration Test and also other engineering topics. Please forgive this request if you don't think it appropriate. I'm asking this because I don't really know how to do it, but would like to contribute the pictures I've taken of different CPT rigs both in Europe and the U.S. and donate them to the public domain on the CPT page. They are uploaded at my website http://www.mngeoservices.com/image. I don't want (or need) to advertise here (which is why I posted this on your talk page rather than CPT talk), so feel free to remove the link if you like. The pictures are of trucks from a number of different companies, so once again, no advertising motive. Can you help me out? Thanks in advance, Drillerguy 13:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'm going to ask Basar too.
 * There's an upload file link on the sidebar - feel free to upload one or two of your pictures, then link to them in the Cone Penetration Test article. A picture or two of the actual working parts of a CPT rig would be really nice. (The photo of Herb operating the CPT obscures a bit the actual mechanics of the rig, but perhaps the picture of the setup under assembly would work.) When you're uploading, there is a menubox which allows you to select a license - I'd suggest using CC-by-SA rather than public domain, as you will still retain some rights. You probably want to put a statement to the effect that you own the pictures, and are releasing them CC-by-SA or into the public domain. If you have trouble either with the upload or with formatting an image link in the article, get back to me. Argyriou (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Neoconservatism
You removed my submission of three unique aspects of neo-conservationism, and they were directly from Irving Kristal. What is the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.245.128 (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're an anonymous editor, adding material which is not supported by the reference you provided, and which material is presented in a way which doesn't really fit with the rest of the article. So I removed it. Argyriou (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So your saying your bigoted against me because I am anonymous? You also say my additions are not supported. You must not have read the reference.  Here are his direct quotes listed next to my paraphrased bullets.  Maybe this will clear it up for you.  Also, the positioning of the three bullets is directly after the three pilers of neoconservatism are listed.  I can't think of a better place for them.


 * First, the political tonality was different. This was surely the result of our liberal heritage, which predisplosed us to be forward-looking, not in any sense dour and reactionary. I once remarked, semi-facetiously, that to be a neoconservative one had to be of a cheerful disposition, no matter how depressing the current outlook. In America all successful politics is the politics of hope, a mood not noticeable in traditional American conservatism. The way to win, in politics as in sport, is to think of yourself as a winner.


 * 1. They have a positive outlook. The way to win, in politics as in sport, is to think of yourself as a winner.


 * Secondly, it follows that our natural impulse was melioristic. (Websters Dictionary Definition of melioristic is my statement below)


 * 2. There natural impulse is the world tends to improve and humans can aid its betterment.


 * Thirdly, neoconservatives - at least the New Yorkers among them - came out of an intellectual milieu, in which some large ideas - i.e., ideas with a philosophic or ideological dimension - were taken very seriously


 * 3. They take philosophic or ideological ideas very seriously.


 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n121/ai_17489596/pg_5


 * The only conclusion I can come to is your baselessly removing my addition to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:47, 19 September 2007 (talk • contribs) 75.5.247.152


 * So your saying your bigoted against me because I am anonymous?  Yes, I am. Anonymous contributors to Wikipedia are by and large either vandals or illiterates. That, by the way, is assuming good faith, after a sufficient application of experience.


 * Your contribution is a paraphrase - Kristol never summed up neoconservatism in three one-sentence slogans the way you have. Your paraphrase is also significantly in the wrong place in the article. Given that, I feel no guilt at having removed your "contribution". Argyriou (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Feedback
Would you mind giving feed back on the Polymer Concrete article. You seem to be knowledgable of wikipedia and I would appreciate your input. Tell me if it needs more or some corrections. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.35.28 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 13 October 2007
 * First, I'd suggest creating an account, as it appears your IP address changes around some. Then go read WP:MOS, WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:RS. The edits I made to polymer concrete were primarily to remove material you wrote in the style of an instruction manual (one of the things which Wikipedia is not). A Wikipedia article should be descriptive, not prescriptive. So instead of saying "You should wear gloves and a respirator while handling X", you should say "Safe handling of X requires gloves and a respirator", or something similar. Also, things like safe handling during produciton aren't nearly as important to the article as more thorough and detailed description of the subject.


 * So, for the polymer concrete article, talk about what different sorts of polymers are used, what specific properties are gained from specific polymers, when cement is used and when it is not, and why. Discuss the economics of polymer cement - if polymer cement is so great, why isn't it used everywhere? Discuss drawbacks other than cost - are the mixing or placing requirements more demanding than for normal concrete? Are any of the polymers or reaction compounds corrosive?


 * Lastly, cite sources. While manufacturer data is generally reliable, trade association data is better, and academic research is best of all. If you need help with how to cite sources, ask me, or add the sources, and I'll fix them. Argyriou (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User Page
In the ' What are you doing here' section I quote "I user to think that Wikipedia was great" it looks like a typo to me, so I thought I would let you know. I was reluctant to change it incase you wanted it that way ;).  Tiddly - Tom  19:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed it - thank you! Argyriou (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
I am confused by what you think admin tools would be needed for then, such as the user-block tool? Tiptoety 01:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are already enough people clearing out WP:AIV, and reporting people to AIV doesn't need admin tools. I have a fairly high threshhold for trusting someone with the authority to block users or delete pages. Since your work doesn't need the tools, I'd rather not give them to you at this time. On the other hand, with some more experience, and either some work in areas where having the tools is particularly useful, or a change in the need at WP:AIV, I think I'd be ok with giving you that trust. Argyriou (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RfA
 Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

far right
Did you attempt to find cites yourself before deleting? 1Z 19:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No. That's not my job, it's the job of the person claiming that such groups are far-right. Argyriou (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's the job of all editors to edit in an unbiased way. "That person" may have left WP. 1Z 20:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted. Normal procedure is add citation needed tags before deleting. Note that the article was reviewed by an admin, Dbachman immediately before your edits.1Z 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the list again per WP:BLP. Calling a group of people "far-right" is potentially derogatory, and must be supported by a reliable source; none of these entries are. Dbachmann's being an administrator does not exempt him from the rules. Argyriou (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Zorba calling
Apostolos Margaritis 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Go away, and don't ever edit my talk page (or user page) again, you little nazi scum. Argyriou (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Pabst Blue Ribbon question
Hey, I found an answer to the question you posted on Talk:Pabst Brewing Company about what the heck "33 to 1" meant. Hope it helps, even if it is over a year too late. --Brownings (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

baseline editing
Hi Argyriou,

This is regarding the disambiguation page of baseline

I have added baseline : baseline - in Project Management, which is a snapshot of a project (/MS project ) at a certain point of time. RudreshJoshi (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC) for project management.

Forgive me for my bad editing, but apart from that, I feel this entry should be there. Please comment.

thanks & regards, ~ Rudresh

Reagan's role in the Cold War
I don't know if you are interested, but I could use any of your comments here. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments regarding Reagan and the Cold War. I largely agree with you, and I hope you support what I intend to insert into the article. Thanks a lot, and feel free to comment further if you like. Happyme22 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Openserving
I object to your prodding of this article and I have accordingly removed the prod tag. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Stonegate Country Club
I hope that cleaned up my mess. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply - yes - it cleaned up nicely. Argyriou (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Asymptote architecture
Good common sense call that one - but I would say that :-) Joopercoopers (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for "New Youth Parliament of Canada"
Sorry, I didn't get the chance to respond on the deletion-discussion page before it was summarily closed.

What I meant by "official youth counterpart to the Parliament of Canada" is its intent, its raison d'etre, if you will. That is the professed intent of the organization's administration in filling the void of its predecessor. And it's not like there has been a total lack of recognition that it exists; Michaelle Jean, the Governor-General herself, noted "an effort to create a youth parliament next year" in an official online chat.

See ; scroll down a ways to the comment for 08:06:44 PM.

And, should you prefer to communicate with a user rather than an IP address, I have recently created an account. --216.16.236.2 (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC) --Vi Veri Vici (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * None of that constitutes notability. If there had been recognition and support from the real Parliament of Canada, or significant newspaper coverage of it, then there'd be a case to keep the article. Notice that the Model United Nations and the Model Congress have some significant backing, including some support from the organizations they are modeling. Argyriou (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thus, would you support reversing the deletion when news articles about candidates, etc., start appearing closer to the YPC's election late this year? In fact, the organization is holding a conference and candidates' debate in Toronto, Ontario on February the 9th; I wouldn't be surprised if an article or two about it would appear, given that it's being held in City Hall, a fairly prominent location.   This event is probably the first real opportunity for the public to take notice of and for government entities to either endorse or reject the YPC. --Vi Veri Vici (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably not, at least not until there's more than one event being covered - five stories in local Toronto papers about the same event won't count for much, unless at least one is fairly in-depth. My suggestion: Once there is actual media coverage, ask the admin who closed the AfD to restore the deleted content to User:Vi Veri Vici/New Youth Parliament of Canada, and start working on the article there, adding references, changing text as things change, etc. Once you think it's ready, ask a few people to look at it, then, if they agree, move it to article space.  My personal preference would be that you limit the amount of space that the "parties" take up, and really don't try to recreate articles about them - the organization as a whole appears likely to be barely notable, suborganizations within it won't be notable. Argyriou (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * True. I wasn't advocating creating sub-organization pages, just the main article.  Someone will probably get the jump on me in recreating the article anyways. -- Vi Veri Vici (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Edits to Engineer
Whoa... I'm not sure what happened, but honestly, the only thing I did was delete some extra space and a line (the code looked like this - - - - ) that were right above the TOC. I have no idea at all what happened, but I definitely did not make all those changes. Is there any way that perhaps two edits at the exact same time could both show up under mine? Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Communist state
I removed the ISBNs because IMHO their proper place is a literature section, not the footnotes. As for the Manifesto, I wanted to make all the references be uniform (author, title, publication). I don't see a reason why that book should be treated differently. And to be perfectly honest, I dislike citation template of any sort as they tend to make things more complicated than necessary, at least for editors. Str1977 (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I find that citation templates make it much easier to obtain a uniform style, than trying to remember what order everything is supposed to be in. But de gustibus et de coloribus non disputandum. Argyriou (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The information you put down is clearly NOPV. While I dislike communism, neutral point of view is necessary. I'm sure you understand! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstone35 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The information is neutral, factual, sourced information. You obviously do not understand WP:NPOV. Please go back and read it, then read a little more about what actually happens in Communist states. And stop removing sourced information. Argyriou (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And now you're lying. You state that you've discussed the material you're removing in talk, yet there are no edits by you or your sockpuppet AuthenticM in Talk:Communist state. Argyriou (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

While this may happen in communist states (as it does!) this is considered by most to be unfairly biased against communist states. They may be sourced, but the description is compromised by weasel words. And, a failing economy isn't a feature! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstone35 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to move this into a new section called criticisms, to solve our disagreements! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstone35 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perspicacite/Jose João incivility
Thanks for your support. I don't think I have ever seen a user react in such a way. He has "issues." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Shoplifting
I see that you have removed the entire section concerning the history of Civil Recovery for Shoplifting. I ask that you put this section back in this article because I don't know how to do this.

You cannot tell the truth and inform readers about shoplifting unless you also inform the public about the history of Civil Recovery. There are no comments in this "History Section" that can be proven to be untrue and that are not "verifiable" upon investigation of the local practices in cities and towns for civil recovery and arrests for shoplifting in American Communities.

Civil Recovery Statutes are a subsidy that has been given to the Retail Corporations of the United States and the World by government but the use of these statutes together with city tickets for "stealing" that are rationalized as a means of deterring shoplfting for the retailers ---that is further rationalized as for the "public good" has tainted our courts and has resulted in abuse of power and process.

Unless the truth of how civil recovery demands that are legal, and out of view of the courts, and the civil recovery statutes are used together with the criminal law for larceny shopliofting is exposed and dealt with by the higher courts, the mixed practice of either both sanctions, criminal and civil, or only one sanction,  the civil sanction. will not be straightened out by the courts and the abuses will continue.

CJKC 27 Jan 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.188.91 (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I will not restore it unless you can provide citations for your claims. Argyriou (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Your comment, addressed to Betacommand at Village pump (policy) is inappropriate. Consider this an official warning. Comment on content, not on contributors. You can express ideas without attacking other contributors. This will not be tolerated. - Philippe &#124; Talk 21:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will not apologize to Wikipedia's champion WP:BITE violator, nor to any bully. Argyriou (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly can't make you apologize. I can tell you, however, that the community tends to look very poorly on these issues.  I'm disturbed, moreover, by the aggressive tone of some of your edits.  I strongly encourage you to maintain civility at all times.  This is a volunteer community, and our volunteers - admins, former admins, and contributors all, deserve to be treated with civility.  Please keep this in mind.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 21:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Betacommand has a continuing pattern of incivility towards anyone who dares question his wikilawyering encyclopedic knowledge of policy, and my calling him a bully was in response to an attempt by Betacommand to bully me out of the discussion. When was the last time he received a warning for bullying other users? Argyriou (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That response is a clever attempt to divert from the point of this discussion. My discussion with you has nothing to do with his conduct.  It has to do with yours.  Your conduct in making that aggressive comment was inappropriate.  Step away from the argument a minute and I'm sure you'll realize that you crossed a line.  Just don't do it again, please. And I strongly encourage you to consider the tone of your words before hitting the "Save Page" button. - Philippe &#124; Talk 21:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbonne International
Thanks for fixing the AFD. I started using Twinkle a few weeks ago, and this is the second AFD in a row that it hasn't completed. I'll keep a closer eye on future nominations. Thanks again! Dchall1 (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I keep thinking about getting Twinkle, and then something like this happens. By the way, what prompted you to nominate Arbonne for AfD? Argyriou (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding arbitration injunction and scope
Hello! Although I am not an involved party as I have never reverted any redirects nor nominated significant numbers of articles for deletion, I have participated in the discussions as I think they have significant ramifications for everyone involved in our project. Anyway, I have asked the committee about what the case all entails and we'll see what they say. Also, just so you understand where I am coming from, when you look at the evidence (such as this) posted and the discussion underway, you'll see that those inolved have been treating the matter as if it is not just television characters, but rather fictional characters in general, including video game characters, movie characters, etc. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Beyt Tikkun
Hi Argyriou, in the past I've said that other editors were lying, so this isn't me suggesting that your comments are wildly inappropriate. However, broadly speaking, I think it's better to use dispute resolution processes such as WP:RFC/USER instead of getting into a heated discussion during an AfD. Looking at the numbers of 'votes', and references cited in the article, I guess this is going to be kept. In this context, I would suggest discontinuing the debate about Bstone's conduct. Addhoc (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. Though if Bstone tries to go to DRV, there's probably a good case to go to RfC/U based on his conduct. What I don't get is the source of this, except possibly some sort of long-standing dispute with IZAK. When I get uppity on AfDs, I ask questions, rather than saying I'm correcting other editor's mistakes. Argyriou (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For your support in that MfD. — BQZip01 — talk 00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * and the other stuff thrown at it. — BQZip01 —  talk 16:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI re: this, is not an administrator. Thought you'd like to know. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, thanks for the input. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Communist State
Uhh, I did explain why I deleted the paragraph. I sais it was vandalism. Read this:

"Historically, the primary features of a Communist state are a one-party dictatorship, totalitarian control of the economy and society, repression of civil liberties,[1] centralized economic planning resulting in enormous economic failures, including shortages of vital products, sometimes to the extent of famine,[2] militarism, and omnipresent propaganda to cover up the systematic failures of the government.[3] Genocide is a common occurrence in Communist states."

This is not a description of a Communist state, this is blatant vandalism full of subjective terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthenticM (talk • contribs) 21:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Dioceses of Great Britain
Thanks for your comments, but Deacon has blanked the Category again, and emptied it. Can you please tell him that if he wants to delete the Category he can take it to CFD, which he has refused to do so now on 3 occasions. This is getting tiresome and disruptive. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

On second thought I'm going to leave. Thank you for being kind to me Argyriou. You were one of the few people who really cared about my contributions to the encyclopedia. It's just not worth the fights and hassles. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello Argyriou, I was wondering, would you like rollback rights on your account? From your edits, alongside your content work, you do quite a bit of vandalism-reversion, and rollback would make that easier for you. Rollback is not for reverting good-faith edits, though, and nor is it to be used in content disputes. Would you like me to grant you rollback? Acalamari 22:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no thanks. The undo function is good enough. With my luck, I'd use rollback on a BLP violation, and get in trouble for that. Argyriou (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine then if you rather not have it, though personally I don't think you'd use it incorrectly. Best wishes to you. Acalamari 03:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Benkenobi18
Sorry I didn't see your comments. Anyways, given some of things that this rather tendentious user was doing (check his/her contribs), I think handled it relatively well. The user in question was moving the Catholic diocese articles to the form "Roman Catholic diocese of" from "diocese of". A number of articles I had created or expanded [with lists] for medieval Scottish bishoprics (a few of which were recreated/resurrected by the papacy in the late 19th century) got moved to "Roman Catholic diocese of", which is where I first ran into the user. I pointed out that such a move created problems because the dioceses in question weren't Catholic between 1560 and 1689, but because the user continued to insist [based if I recall on the incorrect belief that the Church of Scotland has conflicting bishoprics and that RC dioceses must have a common format] they must be moved ... because of that ... I created 4 new articles (covering the modern Catholic dioceses) in an attempt to solve it. That worked! The other stuff about the duplicate articles and content the user was creating I would probably have solved the situation quicker had I had posted around more asking for comment rather than dealing with it on my own, though the urgency didn't seem great as I felt I had dealt with the substantive argument and the user only visits [usually] once a week. I guess maybe you could argue I should have did what David Underdown did, expressed disagreement and let the user get on with it, but avoiding continued disagreement is not preferable to perpetuating misleading material. Not in my mind anyways. If the user returns and you wish to take a greater role as mediator then that would be great! All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that dispute. I was more concerned with the Great Britain Category dispute, where from what I saw, you did not handle it as well as you could have, but what I saw was colored by his perspective, so I wanted to hear an explanation of whether you thought you'd handled the dispute well. But it's kind of moot now. Good luck with being an admin. Argyriou (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Well, just to let you know, you're welcome to add some comment on what I did wrong. It can't hurt either of us, and maybe it'll benefit me! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at WT:RFA
I addressed you proposal at WT:RFA here, if you are interested Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Engineering articles
Hi Argyriou,

I wonder if you might be willing to help me with something.

I've been making some edits recently to some engineering articles, eg Wind turbine. I wanted to add a link to a couple of articles, but the domain has since become blacklisted.

I feel that the external articles are relevant to the projects to which they were added and are intended to help readers gain a better understanding of the engineering issues involved. The referenced site contains genuine technical information and images pertinent to the articles that I added the links to.

This external article has recently been whitelisted, but I wonder if you might be willing to assist in the removal of the domain from the blacklist?

Thank you. LisaInig (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that I've looked into it, I'm not willing to assist in the removal of the domain from the blacklist. It appears that you, and an old account probably belonging to you, have, as your only activity, promoting Bennett Associates in various Wikipedia articles. In some cases, it appears that the technical information is actually useful, and the link adds to the article, but in others, there are many other companies which have similar information which could be added. Since your only substantiual activity on Wikipedia has been to promote Bennett Associates, I don't see a need to cooperate with your spamming. Argyriou (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Duke and Neo-Nazism
It apperas that user boodlesthecat has no respect for the limit of reverts alloted to him or the discussion page--Spitzer19 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sock report on Spitzer19 filed here Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So? Argyriou (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

what BLP violations
Show me where my edits have BLP violations. If not, kindly remove that charge from the 3RR. Thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Go look yourself - I've called them out in my edit summaries reverting them. If you want me to actually compile a list of diffs, I may do so, but then, so that the work actually has some use, I'll go post it on the BLP noticeboard. So ask yourself if you really want me to go to the trouble. Argyriou (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits
I have noticed every time I try to click on "talk" it doesn't work. Apparently you have the wrong formula, Please try this..... Argyriou (talk) ... This way, when I click on "talk" It will take me to your page. thanks Dwilso (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unable to reproduce this bug. The "talk" link in my signature correctly links to my talk page. It does not open a new section, and I don't want it to. Argyriou (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverse Funnel System
Why was the section describing RFS pyramid schemes removed for being irrelevant? It's definitely a real phenomina as any google search for the term will show and aside from the wiki entry you removed, there is almost no straightforward description of what it is, only thousands upon thousands of machine generated marketing websites drowning out any sites with legitimate information.

I honestly think it's important to have some information on the subject in wikipedia given the fact it seems to be spreading across the net very quickly and it's nigh on impossible to find useful info on it using google.

Also, what issues did you have along the lines of BLP violation? I can only assume it's the reference to Ty Coughlin as a "self proclaimed beach bum". I'm not sure of the specifics of Florida law, however the beach bum comment is quoted on many of the marketing pages for the system. Regardless, if it's a sticking point, I'm sure it could be removed leaving the rest of the section intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.202.188 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The "reverse funnel scheme" isn't really any different than any other pyramid scheme. If it's important because of its recent popularity, then create an article about it in particular, using the text I removed from the pyramid scheme article.


 * The BLP violation is that in the U.S., operating a pyramid scheme is a crime, and the section I removed said that Ty Coughlin was running one, which is saying that Ty Coughlin is a criminal. That may be true, but you must have a reliable source for that sort of allegation.  The reference provided was to a personal blog, which does not meet WP:RS's requirements, especially for allegations of criminal activity. Argyriou (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)