User talk:Aristophanes68/Archives/2010

Ed Vega
Aristophanes,

It was my pleasure. I knew Ed for some time, and he really deserved it. Thanks for the note!

All the best,

MBernal615 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed Vega article is being challenged
Aristophanes,

The Ed Vega article has received tags, from an editor who appears to be challenging all of my work on Wikipedia.

The editor placed these tags on Ed Vega without any dicussion or explanation.

I wrote a response to these tags on the Ed Vega discussion page. You may want to review this response.

I could remove the tags from the Ed Vega article - but if I do so, the editor who placed them there, may simply restore them.

As the originator and principal architect of the article (and in the spirit of this article), I believe your voice should be heard in this matter.

It's up to you, Aristophanes. Ed is no longer here to defend himself. Thanks again for starting a great article about a great writer.

MBernal615 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:112.201.78.149
Hello Aristophanes, thanks for telling me about this destructive IP, I already reported him to an admin for a temporary block. After that we have to keep an eye out for him in case it needs to be extended. Good day!--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Help with Nelson Denis photo
Aristophanes,

I helped to edit the Ed Vega article a few months ago, and uploaded some photos into Ed's article. I remember that you sent me a note, and I was glad, because the article looked really great and Ed deserved it!

The photos were removed and other photos which I uploaded were attacked.

A photo of mine is now being attacked in the article Nelson Antonio Denis. The copyright permission was e-mailed to OTRS months ago, and it appears right there on the photo file. But it is still being "considered for deletion," even though the permission was sent.

Could you look at it and (in your judgment) condsider defending this photo? It is only fair that a permission is respected, and I would really appreciate it.

Thank you.

24.103.122.94 (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the updates!
Hello, thank you for the updates on the pages for Ty Pak and Gary Pak, and I am so glad to know that we share common interest in topics of literature. I found these two writer's experience and writing quite unique and inspiring, and planned to find some time later to do some research about their works, and maybe add some pages for their books. Clari 2010 (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Mexican American
Thanks for fixing my mistake ...he tricked me into adding it back.. ....We are having an ongoing problem with that editor.05:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Mexican American
I didn't trick Moxy into anything. He seems to be a troll, most of my edits are good faith and it seems he goes round undoing ANY edit I do. And he defames me by saying that I am "causing damage" and "tricking him" which on the edit history of Mexican American, you can clearly see I did not do any such thing. Take a look at Talk:Mexican_American and check what I put at the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernirm (talk • contribs) 06:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Josefina Niggli
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:American novels
I see that you have been doing work with American novelist articles. I am wondering whether you would be interested in helping me disperse the massively large category, American novels? thanks, Sadads (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm limiting myself to ethnic writers. Will that be enough to help you out right now? Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, American novels is way over populated and I am trying to disperse the category into the "by genre" and "by ethnic background" subcategories, see hierarchy below, I am thru it up to the Bs, but if you want to check through it for ethnicities and/or genre classifications I have missed, that would be awesome. Or if you have some good way to populate the "by ethnic backgound" subcats, that would also be really great!Sadads (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Another talkback, Sadads (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tonight I went through with AWB and dispersed alot of the American novels which already have genre categories assigned to them for the bigger genres. That should reduce the number of pages each of us should have to do by hand. Sadads (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another user objected to the complete diffusion of articles into the by ethnic background subcat, so I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Could you weigh your thoughts, Sadads (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have been following discussion, you might see that it has kindof stalled, could you invite anyone you think might be interested. I already invited a few people, Sadads (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Put together a new proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels, Sadads (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Question
Why did you make this edit ? Novels can be in multiple genres. Sadads (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I placed the entire Southern Vampire Mystery series under both American fantasy novel series and under American mystery novels by series--but there's no horror series category yet.... They should still be in the fantasy and mystery cats, only under their series title. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I like diffusion I am not sure if series diffusion is extremely clear... I will think on it. Sadads (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it the diffusion would be clearer if the series titles were listed directly on the Am.Fantasy Novels page, rather than hidden under the series link, where they're overwhelmed by all the "by author" links. Maybe if the viewers could see the titles immediately, instead of having to open the drop-down link, the dispersion would be more obvious to people. In the recent discussions, people seem to think that the novels are "vanishing", but that might be because they don't see any obvious places to look for them. We might need to consider what works best on a visual level as well. (That might be one reason why the English Novels cat page doesn't raise the same objections, even though a lot of novels remain dispersed by author.) I delinked a couple of the bigger series to see how it looks with them mixed in among the "by author" cats--how does it look to you? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea, do the edits I made at Category:American novels make it more clear what categories are present, you think?23:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't make it much more clear. The long vertical lists are overwhelming--I imagine new readers would be confused as to what they were seeing. And it's not as pleasing to the eye as a regular list would be. I want to look again at Category:English novels to see what they're doing, although I recognize that they're don't have NEARLY as many subcats to deal with. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Christianity
Hey Aristophanes, sorry about butting heads with you. I ran into an earlier edit by chance and got interested, since this is precisely what I'm working on for an article--I could find a couple of references from various histories of Christianity when I'm at work tomorrow. The struggle between Christianities and liberalism in the early 19th century in Germany, for instance, produces the Kulturkampf. (The term "modern era" actually isn't quite correct, since that's "after the Middle Ages," but soit.) Christianities in Europe were duking it out with socialists before Marx, so the broader term is the better, in this case. I'll see if I can find a reference I can cite tomorrow; might be tricky, since these are very general statements. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, and I was taking "Modern Era" in a broad sense too. I think probably the section could use an expanded discussion of how the changes of modern society (Renaissance to today) have created conflicts for Christianity. If you're up for that, it'd be most helpful. Cheers! Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really more up for a beer right now. Cheers to you! Drmies (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as it happened, I found myself a Franziskaner Weissbier, as well as a book reference discussing Wilhelm Emmanuel Freiherr von Ketteler, verifying, at least partly (from the Catholic point of view) the item under the discussion. In light of our above remarks, please look at my change to the heading of the section. I added a phrase or two that could probably be worded better--the section needs a little bit more text and a rewrite for tense, I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a paragraph on nation states. See what you think. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick question: How are you defining post-Enlightenment? When I see/hear that term, it usually refers to 20th-century ideas and movements, but you seem to be using it in the more literal sense of the entire modern period from the rise of Romanticism to today. Is that correct? Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. The section already has something to say about the effects of the French Revolution, and I take that literally. If the section gets some more expansion (as well as reduction--that last paragraph is disorganized, and its first sentence shouldn't be in this article, at least not like this) there is probably room to add the 20th century or so, which will make that more clear. The terms can be difficult: secularization, for instance, has a social and cultural value in the 20th century but a more specific meaning in, for instance, early 19th century Germany, where it refers to the state "taking over" what once belonged to the churches. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

from holawikiworkers
so let me get this straight, you are a christian and your gay. sorry but it dosent work that way. maybe you should read the verses Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holawikiworkers (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber awards
Thanks for contributing to the merge discussion at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Justin Bieber. If you have the chance, please comment on how the information should be merged to the Justin Bieber article. Regards, – Chase  ( talk ) 21:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What about categories OF lists?
Do you all work strictly with individual pages? Because there are a lot of categories of list pages, e.g., Category:Lists of writers. Should I categorize that whole category under the Index Category? Or should I tag only the individual articles in the category? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not the whole category. Add index cat tags only to the lists that are alphabetical indexes.  The others are structured lists.  The Transhumanist 06:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Merciline Jayakody
Dear friend, could you please assists me to solve Problem of this Article Talk:Merciline Jayakody/Temp--Wipeouting (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nelson Antonio Denis
Aristophanes,

Feliz Navidad y prospero año nuevo. I hope all is well.

I'm writing to ask your assistance with Nelson Antonio Denis. Under the guise of "good faith editing," the page has been savaged and butchered by two editors who are teaming up. They eliminated entire sections and over 20 newspaper citations, all of which were carefully sourced.

If you look at the page as it existed on December 12, 2010 you will see a balanced, well-researched article that had educational value -- with citations and newspaper references for every major point.

The editor Off2RioRob has had problems with administrators before, so he is teaming up with someone to destroy this page. The page has been up for over a year, with no major problems. Now in two or three hours, they came by and destroyed it.

If you have a chance, please take a look and provide some assistance. I cannot win an editing war against these people.

The article was fair and beautiful on December 12, 2010. Now it is a mess.


 * All changes were discussed and agreed to on the talk page, and were urgently needed to restore neutrality and remove the most egregious COI edits. It was revealed in a sockpuppet investigation that this article was principally authored by the sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor with an obvious connection, per user name, with the subject of the article. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nelsondenis248. The article was a mess, with multiple issues including peacock terminology and unsubstantiated text. (P.S. the claim by this IP that I'm a "teammate" of this editor is laughable. My only previous contacts with him were in the climate change articles, and I believe we were on opposite sides of that as I recall.) ScottyBerg (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)