User talk:Atethnekos/Archive 3

ambiguity
I edited to delete a "that", and was reverted. It appears that the phrasing is ambiguous, as both I and the reverter interpreted the original text differently. What should it actually say?

The original text was: "but Justin Martyr accepted that much of Greek philosophy which he felt was not in conflict with the gospels"

with my edit it read: "but Justin Martyr accepted much of Greek philosophy which he felt was not in conflict with the gospels"

The ambiguity is in "that" in English: is the meaning of the above "but Justin Martyr accepted that < much of Greek philosophy which he felt was not in conflict with the gospels >" (i.e. he accepted an opinion about Greek philosophy), vs "but Justin Martyr accepted that much  i.e. he accepted a portion of Greek philosophy itself.

The sentence should be rewritten to make clear meaning which is intended. I don't know enough about Justin Martyr to say which is correct.
 * Yes, I rewrote it to help anyone who might think it is unclear


 * Purely academic:
 * The sentence can't be the first usage of "that", which is as a conjunction which marks indirect discourse; this is because such a usage would require just an (otherwise independent) subordinate clause to follow it, but what follows is not just a subordinate clause itself, but a nominal phrase. It would be like saying, "He said that five people who are all judges."  That's just plain ungrammatical.  Reading "He accepted that much of Greek philosophy which he felt was not in conflict with the gospels" in the same way would be just as ungrammatical. I.e., "that" must be used in the second sense you mentioned—as a determiner—if the sentence is to be grammatical at all. So the whole "that much of Greek philosophy which he felt was not in conflict with the gospels" is one nominal phrase which includes a relative clause, and is the direct object of the verb "accepted". -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Vanada
The DYK project (nominate) 17:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

RE: Vanada chord copyright status
If it is a chord, specifically a public domain chord, it is not copyrighted, but if Torke created those chords he has the copyrights. If the score doesn't contain this chord, you are the copyholder then. I'll revert myself. ©  Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 01:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Mosque revert
Thanks for catching that. I can definitely say the revert was due to me being a complete idiot. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Intelligent design
Hello! I wonder if you can have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/ID_RfC_draft. Please feel free to add material or comments (within reason). If necessary we can activate the talkpage as well. I am not intending to rush this. I also had a question to you which has been asked on my talkpage: do you think "intelligent design" is ever a term used to refer to any person, movement or position contemporary with the intelligent design movement, but not in it? I see it as a side issue, not decisive to the logic of the situation, but it is one people will keep asking about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those sources. I would be good to get more advice about whether you think the approach has any merit, and how to use the sources. There are obvious reasons for me to think it might be a waste of time. After looking around at examples myself I see it is rather complex, but I also see no escape from that given the situation on the talkpage where the two arguments which constantly reappear are that everything has been argued before already and there is no point discussing it unless there is an RfC first. I can see that a simplistic RfC will achieve exactly what has happened in the past: nothing. The problem will then be how to apply the decisions, just as we currently have general agreement to following policies and reliable sources, but a strong feeling by some editors that the "local consensus" are not doing so. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

COI
Hi Atethnekos. I am a regular COI contributor that has been rolling out quite a few GAs in a marketing capacity. I contribute about 50/50 COI and volunteer. I came across your COI proposal on User:Smallbones Talk page. There is something that concerns me regarding the phrasing of any "professional connection" and I wanted to share a couple examples:

I wrote the article on the Public Relations Society of America (now GA) and had to deal with some harassment on that page from a now-banned user that was claiming I had a COI, even though I have no affiliation with the organization whatsoever (not even a member). However, almost every PR pro in the US has some kind of "professional relationship" with the PRSA. The proposal as stated seems like it would have actually legitimized that user's harassment and prevented me from contributing to the article.

The same could be said for a large number of other articles. I cleaned up some promotion and made other quick improvements to Sparkpr. I think I know someone that works there, but I can't even say for sure without checking my LinkedIn. Does that give me a "professional connection"? I wrote the article on Shift Communications where I have a professional connection with the CEO, but I consider the COI to be very minor in that a conspiracy-theorist could allege that I'm handing out professional favors, but not something that should prevent me from writing the article. I use to work for Edelman (firm) about ten years ago - should I not be allowed to edit it?

Where I have a legitimate and significant COI, such as editing on behalf of the article-subject, I expect and encourage the right amount of defensiveness, speculation, etc. It should be uncomfortable for everyone. But spreading that to everywhere I have a professional connection would just legitimize the harassment and bad-faith I get in my volunteer editing as a result of my COI disclosure.

Thanks for hearing me out and sorry for the wall of text. CorporateM (Talk) 14:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: the proposal has evolved beyond my original, so I can't take responsibility for all aspects.


 * The proposal as it is now does not seem to prevent any of the examples you have listed. For example, it seems you weren't paid by the PRSA, nor were you a business partner (and you definitely are not the other things) so you would be fine to edit it under the proposal.
 * You've made me realize that the part about "professional or personal relationship" is unnecessary, so I've removed it. All that aspect did was preclude what would actually be meatpuppetry if the proposal was actually made a policy, so it is redundant.  Even with it, your editing that you talk about here would not be precluded: It did not prohibit editing articles when you have a professional or personal relationship generally, rather it prohibited specifically having another user with whom you have a professional or personal relationship for you when you are already prohibited from editing directly under the conditions listed.  I see now that that would just be meatpuppetry if the conditions listed were part of policy, so I can see why the text was just confusing.  Thanks for the message.-- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I am actually a little confused, but based on your message it sounds like if there was a problem, it is now solved ;-)


 * Yup, in my role I've heard all the loopholes marketers come up with and some of them are related to meatpuppetry.


 * Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 21:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Unrelated question, do we have a specific anti-promotion policy besides WP:NOT, NPOV, etc.? I sent some promotional, unsourced articles to AfD as WP:NOT and was surprised at all the KEEP votes based on notability. I wasn't contesting the articles' notability - I said it should be deleted because the entire article in its current state was OR and PROMO as an unsourced advertisement. (some of them were genuinely bad AfDs as I was moving quickly) We have really aggressive policies against BLP and copyright violations - seems we should have something similar that defines and outlaws promotion with a more aggressive stance on deleting it where it's found. This has the benefit of focusing on the content and not the editors. CorporateM (Talk) 13:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If the article was created with blatant promotion and it has remained that way, then it should qualify under CSD criteria, G11, Criteria for speedy deletion. When I'm patrolling new user contributions, I probably submit more pages to CSD G11 than AfD.  I think it's possible that many users at AfD are not familiar with the CSD criteria, and so vote otherwise. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

COI Limit
Atethnekos, I think for now we should retain the prohibition on family, significant others, and roommates in your COI proposal. I looked at the objectors arguments, and I don't think that they want any policy on conflict of interest or paid editing. If people who support restrictions on paid editing believe that the family/significant other/roommate rule is too strict or too vague, then we'll remove it.

I opposed Dank's suggestion that we close discussion. The other paid editing proposals received the customary 30-day discussion period, and so should this one. Also, think about enforcement. I think that we could get many more supporters if we have a way to enforce this policy. I was thinking something along the lines of how sockpuppet investigations are conducted. DavidinNJ (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

when a Reliable Source talks about Mohammed being in the bible, does it matter if the claim is logically true?
Hello Atethnekos, sorry to have dragged you into the Sheldrake basket-case. :-)  There are many similarities, to my mind at least, between your position on what 'counts' as a reliable bible-related-source, and the position of Barney/Vzaak/Ken/TRPoD over on the BLP talkpage about what 'counts' as a reliable sheldrake-is-a-biologist-source.

Here is the key exchange between Paul_B and yourself:

This thread was started by an Islamophobic member of the neo-Nazi EDL ((not Paul_B and not Atethnekos and not 74)), who wanted to argue than  an article on Muhammad in the Bible was " pseudoarchaeology", even though there was no mention of  archaeology in it. --Paul_B
 * And your source that somebody is an EDL member or that the EDL is neo-Nazi? Anglophobic member of the neo-Trotskyite UAF  — Preceding unsigned comment added by James from Carlisle (talk • contribs) 22:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I know I suggested I wouldn't continue, but you are now saying that my claim is that the belief is necessarily fringe because it's just rubbish. I did not say that, and that is not my claim. I say it's fringe for the same reason that I think any theory is fringe: because all or virtually all of the reliable sources for the topic reject the view. --Atethnekos @ 06:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You are using 'virtually all of the reliable sources' in the colloquial sense of reliable==truthful==factual. Your goal, stated or unstated, is to delete the Reliable Sources that the really-reliable-sources of your choice disagree with; that is what 'virtually' actually means, after all -- keep the ones that say X, those and *only* those sources are  really reliable, and if some small set of the ones that are unmistakeably reliable say NOTX, then exclude them too, because 'virtually'.

Barney calls the same thing 'serious reliable sources'. TRPoD calls the same thing 'academic reliable sources' or sometimes even 'scientific reliable sources'. Vzaak is the most deeply confused: he just flat out calls them 'neutral reliable sources'. Ken has been around since 2002, and is perfectly fine with deleting 'irrelevant' Reliable Sources: think of the poor gullible readers! Everybody else has the same refrain as you: we must delete these particular wrong Reliable Sources, because think of the reader, and because WP:FRINGE, and because virtually/serious/academic/scientific/neutral *real* sources say what we want mainspace to say. Your specific confusion, and your specific question, goes like this: "I'm sorry, what are you talking about? When in that discussion did I ever say anything about deleting anything?"

What I'm talking about is when you say 'virtually'. What I'm talking about, is the Reliable Sources you thereby exclude from being *really* reliable, and thus from mainspace.
 * 1)  "Atethnekos - following your logic... any article on any religious prophecy must be fringe, no matter how mainstream the prophecy is within the relevant theological context."  --Gandalf61  (you respond:  "I never meant to say that.")  But it *is* the only logical conclusion.
 * 2)  "The topic of the article is the Muhammad's future advent is predicted in the Bible. There are plenty of reliable sources which discuss that view." --Paul_B (you respond:  "...the view that Muhammad was predicted in the Bible is not held by any reliable sources, or very few at any rate. I agree that reliable sources discuss the view. The fact that reliable sources discuss a view is not sufficient for rendering a view non-fringe, there also has to be a significant number of reliable sources which actually support the view.")  You in fact *are* arguing for deleting 'some' Reliable Sources.
 * 3)  "WP:FRINGE is simply not, in any conceivable way, a license to delete sources you disagree with, which is what Atethnekos wanted to do, so as to erase all mention of Mohammed from some article they were warring in." --74 over in the Sheldrake talkpage (you respond: "I never wanted to delete anything related to that discussion. Erase all mention of Mohammed? What? When did I ever say that? I never wanted to do that.")  But here is your exact quote from WP:FTN -- "I would indeed say that most theological theories are fringe".  Sentences in wikipedia *must* cite a reliable source.  If the source is fringe, like the Journal Of Sasquatch Believers, then it cannot be cited as a reliable source, and both the fringe-source and the fringe-sentence must be deleted from mainspace.

At the end of the day, you were then, and from what I can tell, still are, absolutely positively arguing that Mohammed ought to be deleted from the article Theories_of_Muhammad_in_the_Bible! There are around a billion people on earth that hold exactly that *religious* belief. It is not, by any wild stretch of the imagination, a fringe *theological* belief. It is a mainstream theological belief. Wikipedia must reflect it as such. Reliable Sources describe it as such. Your argument than no true reliable source takes that view -- or at least "virtually" no true reliable source takes that view -- is just wrong.

You are taking all the Reliable Sources, which includes newspapers and academic materials from *every* field of inquiry to include theology and philosophy and religious studies ... but not excluding science, humanities, general knowledge textbooks, and especially general-readership infotainment. Next, you delete everything except theology-slash-religion-slash-deconstructionist-academics. Next, you are deleting all the ones that are not Christian Textual Studies Of The Bible. Next you are deleting all of those ones that disagree Mohammed was not in the Bible. How can you not see that you are deleting sources, when you say 'virtually' and thereby include *every* source that disagrees with you? I realize this is a long reply. But methinks it is fully justified -- you've had this argument with many people besides myself. You have never figured out what they were saying. I have tried to put it as utterly plainly and perfectly clearly as I can possibly make it. If you read the stuff above, and your response is, no no no, I'm not saying that stuff of course ... then please read it again. You are, no question, no conceivable possibility of error, saying exactly this: "Mohammed does not belong in the religious-field-of-inquiry article about Theories Of Muhammed In The Bible". I am happy to discuss it with you, until what I am saying makes sense. But you have to take the conversation seriously, please. I have glanced at your edit-history. You are clearly an asset to wikipedia. But this is a tad subtle. You are confusing reliable==factuallyCorrect, with Reliable==factChecked.

That same deep confusion is what has destroyed the Sheldrake-page, since July, four months ago. Fairly often, people make the same mistake over in the political pages, where I used to hang out. But over on the politics-pages, it is a temporary aberration, quickly corrected... whereas on the Fringe noticeboard, it seems to be that nearly half the editors there are under the mistaken impression that WP:FRINGE and WP:RGW are indistinguishable... and useful as weapons to get their way. Anyhoo, appreciate if you made it this far. As anybody at the Sheldrake page will tell you, I'm the queen of WP:WALLOFTEXT. Appreciate your solid contributions to wikipedia, and promise to reply tersely after this initial burst. :-)   &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused, sorry.


 * You seem at one point to say that because I believe a theory is fringe, therefore I also believe that the theory cannot be mentioned in this encyclopedia. How does the fact that a theory is fringe mean it cannot be mentioned in this encyclopedia?  I've never heard of such a position before.  And that is certainly not my view, at any rate. Within articles I regularly include and describe theories which I believe are fringe.   Again, I never wanted to remove anything mentioned in that discussion. I'm sorry that you think I did and still do want to remove something, but I can promise you with full sincerity that I do not currently, and never did previously, want to remove anything as such.


 * You say that if a source is fringe, it cannot be cited as a reliable source. That's fine (I'm not entirely sure if I would agree because I might take a wider view of what counts as a reliable source, but I won't dispute your claim). But, are you saying that fringe theories are the same things as fringe sources?  I've never heard of such a position before.  And that is certainly not my view.   For example, I would say that intelligent design is a fringe theory.  I don't believe that intelligent design is a fringe source; it's not even a source.  It's just a fundamentally different sort of thing. I believe there are many fringe theories which can be mentioned by citing entirely reliable sources.  An example:  Keldani's theory that Muhammad is referred to in John 14:16.  I believe that's a fringe theory.  Do I believe the theory can be mentioned in some article?  Absolutely, because there are reliable sources for many claims concerning the theory.


 * At another point you say I want to delete reliable sources. I assume you mean that I regard some sources as reliable for a claim and some sources as not reliable for a claim?  That's true. But everyone distinguishes reliable sources from non-reliable sources.  That's the whole point of calling them "reliable".


 * You say "Next, you delete everything except theology-slash-religion-slash-deconstructionist-academics. Next, you are deleting all the ones that are not Christian Textual Studies Of The Bible.  Next you are deleting all of those ones that disagree Mohammed was not in the Bible."  Excuse me?   When have I ever done this?  I think you may be confused as to what I regard to be reliable sources.  It has nothing to do with the sources being deconstructionist or Christian, which are both positions I do not share.


 * Let's take an example theory of Muhammad in the Bible, Keldani's theory of Muhammad in John 14:16. It is my judgement that either all or the vast majority (that's what I meant by "virtually all") of the reliable sources for the claim that John 14:16 originally had "periklyton" instead of "parakleton" disagree with this viewpoint or otherwise do not substantiate this claim.  If you think I am wrong with this judgement, then please supply me an example.  You can supply me a Muslim reliable source, an atheist reliable source, an anti-deconstructionist (whatever that may be) reliable source, a Platonist reliable source, etc.  I would not exclude any source on the basis of the beliefs of the author, which has never been a criterion for me. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarification
Hi Atethnekos, you seemed to misunderstand me. When I said "no amount of argument is going change my view", I meant my religious view. It was not meant for Wikipedia. I didn't mean that door of discussion is close. Your comment I must depart rather hurt me. - Ascetic Rosé   16:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
and keep up the good work on Jimbo's talk page. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Exhortation to the Greeks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaximenes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary 'fix'
Hi Atethnekos, and thanks for all the 'fixes'. It would be really helpful, however, if you could say in the edit summary what sort of 'fix' it may be - e.g. "fix cite params" so people needn't waste time checking. These might actually be labelled (again, helpfully) as minor edits, since (correct) param fixes are not controversial. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try.-- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That's very good of you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Great Barrier Reef
I'm sorry about my edit. I always thought that, when more than one author was involved in writing an article, that the authors concerned were known as co-authors. I apologize if I was wrong about this.

I would also like to apologize for another comment I made, when I reverted your edit, for which you actually had nothing to do with in your edit of the Great Barrier Reef. My comment was actually directed at a grammatical error, on another page altogether (which I subsequently corrected on the correct article). I was very tired when I made the edits I did and this led to my unfairly commenting on it with regard to the Great Barrier Reef article. I am very sorry for this - I tried to find a way to remove my mistaken comment, immediately I discovered my mistake, but could not find a way to delete the comment. I hope that you will forgive me. Figaro (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Answered on your talk. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining. All the best.  Figaro (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Exhortation to the Greeks
Orlady (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Question about Robinson source for the The Teaching of Vimalakīrti (Vimalakīrtinirdeśa)
Atethnekos, do you have the full citation of the Robinson source for the The Teaching of Vimalakīrti (Vimalakīrtinirdeśa)? That way I can have a complete citation.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you just mean:

"Reviews" in Indo-Iranian Journal Volume 9, Issue 2 (June 1966), pp. 147–163. ? -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's it. Thanks! I didn't know about the ping function but I do now :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plato, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Porphyry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

SPI
I just posted a note in the SPI that you started concerning User:I'mnotthatcrazy. I agree with you that the connection is clear. However, there are preexisting cases concerning not just the "mywikibiz" account but the "thekohser" account as well, and maybe it needs to be made there. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah; I'm not sure about procedure with merging, that's all.  When I first opened it, I had no idea about the connection to the older accounts.  I'm sure whoever closes it (once they get around; it's quickly becoming the oldest case on the list) will deal with it all properly.-- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent sockpuppet hunt
You recently went hunting for a sockpuppet, but (as far as I can see) you never notified the target, did you? Isn't it protocol to notify the targets of SPI? - 2001:558:1400:10:F878:2746:2655:FCD4 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There was recently a debate at the Administrators' Noticeboard about having just such a protocol (Administrators' noticeboard/Archive258), but in general there was opposition to it. So no, I don't believe there is a protocol quite like that. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Major Plato rewrite
Will you please take a look at Talk:Analogy of the Divided Line. User Mercer.philosophy is rewriting Plato images, templates and articles. Thank you, BlueMist (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Diff pls
Re User_talk:Jimbo_Wales "I changed this post to avoid any misunderstanding" - can you put a diff on the end of that, so people reading it can follow what's happened? Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.157 (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * A brief note; have you considered applying for autopatrolled status? Happy to nominate you if you think that'd help. Ironholds (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks a lot! Yeah, if you think it is appropriate, I would accept any such nomination.  I haven't closely looked at the de-facto prerequisites for that permission.  (Note, that that speedy nomination which I just received a notice for below was declined by an admin; it may seem ironic to receive a suggestion to get autopatrolled and a CSD notice back-to-back!). -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it gave me a twitch of the lip when I saw it! I'll nominate you now :). Ironholds (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hans-Johann Glock
Hello Atethnekos,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Hans-Johann Glock for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Wieno (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dunn
Just a comment to say good to see an informed editor. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Congrats! :). Ironholds (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Mediation
Would you like to be included in the Mediation see User:PiCo talk page. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Geller
Hey, just wanted to say that I didn't mean to imply that you were using bias Googling. What I was describing was the process of verification of a statement, so we ended up with a lot of sources to verify the use of that term but not a focus of assessing the weight of descriptions in a broader sense. Also, when I said wikilawyering, I was referring to trying to follow the letter as oppose to the spirit of the text. I just wanted you to know that I think you've been discussing this in good faith, civility and making good arguments. I don't agree in this particular case, but you've got my respect. Morphh  (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I screwed up
Wrong "A" name - meant Andrevan. Correcting my mistake. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)