User talk:Deposuit

Welcome!
You've actually been editing off and on for awhile - I don't know how you managed to avoid a welcome before. I noticed your edit to Daniel Pipes - thanks for clarifying the wikilink, etc. Would you say that "detects as" vs. "claims as" is more neutral when discussing the work of Campus Watch? Avruch  T 18:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, although it appears someone else has reverted your change in the mean time. I'm not sure if in this case claims is more problematic than detects, perhaps some other variation of find would do better. If you're still interested in making the change, a number of reasonable people watch the article talkpage and could comment. Avruch  T 00:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Egypt
Hi Deposuit, Can we help with the improvement of the List of Presidents of Egypt? The formatting and the factual errors. Thanks --Essam Sharaf 17:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essam Sharaf (talk • contribs)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. NW ( Talk ) 18:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC) During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.


 * Hi. I didn't intend to get you blocked, the other day. There's ongoing talk on the article talk page, and I'd encourage you to participate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

SIR TOM JONES There are many people from all over the word that come to Treforest to visit Sir Tom’s birthplace. By stating the house number and road name, it enables Sir Tom’s fans to identify the exact building in which he was born – which is often the whole purpose of their visit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.49.183 (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Corded Ware culture
I'm glad you've actually indicated what your problem is rather than just completely removing the section – but I do still find your changes quite puzzling. Aside from correcting my misreading of the source about grave goods (my bad), all you seem to have done is add a lot of direct quotes. You are aware of the concept of paraphrasing? — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 12:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, when I simply reverted the whole lot, I already intended to come back and do it right. I didn't have the time then.
 * Of course I am aware of paraphrasing and find that question a bit on the disrespectful side. The point of the quotes was to reflect what the sources say. Sure this can be done by paraphrasing but not by inaccurate paraphrasing using loaded terms like "heteronormative". Deposuit (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it loaded? The excavator's specifically used "third gender" – my use of "non-heteronormative gender identity or sexual orientation" was simply as a simile for that. It's jargon, to be sure, but sometimes jargon's necessary and it offered an opportunity to link some concepts that are relevant to the issue in a succinct way. They key thing to get across--one of the criticisms of the way the media coverage was that it didn't--is that specific labels such as gay, transgender, etc. aren't supported by the available data, only the general notion that this individual did not fit into the distinct male and female roles seen in other burials (assuming the skeleton has been correctly sexed).
 * And please pay attention to what you're reverting. Twice now you've introduced a grammatical error into the first sentence. If you intend to retain some of the things in the last edit it's probably best to manually remove what you don't want rather than reverting and re-adding stuff. That will also help to keep the history readable. — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 23:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You ask how it is loaded but then lack the simple courtesy of actually telling me about my supposed "grammatical eror" in the sentence "In April 2011, a deviant Corded Ware burial had been discovered in a suburb of Prague"? I didn't change any grammar, I removed the superfluously wordy "it was reported". About the term "heteronormative": it carries with it a value judgement and hence using it outside of quotes or paraphrases - when the people involved use it - would be endorsing that value judgement. Deposuit (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not superfluously wordy, it's accurate. The discovery was reported in April, we have no idea when it was made. The bad grammar was retaining "had been" instead of "was" after you'd removed "it was reported". But I'm done arguing this point. If you insist on excessively quoting to compensate for your lack of understanding of the topic, then have it your way. But in future you might find things go smoother when you treat others' contributions with a little more respect. — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 08:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am no longer arguing the "reported" either, but about your last comment: disrespect was apparent in your very first posting, asking me whether I knew paraphrasing. So don't hypocritically ask me for respect because you already are getting more from me than you deserve. Good day!! Deposuit (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="background: #ffd; border-bottom: dotted 1px; padding: 0.25em;" | Other feudal states
 * colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="background: #f0f0f0; border: dotted 1px; padding-top: 0.75em;" | Arms of the Count of Luxembourg.svg County of Luxembourg 963–1384
 * colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="background: #ffd; border-bottom: dotted 1px;" | 10th–14th centuries

no edit summaries?

 * No edit summary at Investiture controversy? Wanna fill me in on the rationale for the deletion of text? Ditto for edits at Holy Roman Empire... &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Rowse and War of the Roses
I do not wish to become involved in an edit war about a trifle, especially as you have evidently done some research on the subject. However, please note that it would be more helpful if you could at least clarify information or provide opposing arguments rather than merely deleting a statement as speculation. Rowse's statement may have been speculation, but it was at least informed speculation; most reliable secondary sources consist substantially of authors' educated commentaries. Otherwise, we are left with only verbatim primary sources (which may of course be biased, dishonest, mistaken or unreadably poor) and lots of white space. If other historians disagree with Rowse on the point in question (the suggestion that Edward IV loyalists turned against Richard III for the assumed murder of the Princes, Edward IV's sons), then let us at least view these other historians' own comments on peoples' attitudes and motivations at the time.

Secondly, please be a little more careful when using terms such as POV. It can be a hurtful accusation, and I admit I have a bee in my bonnet about this ever since another editor accused me of POV because I used the word "their" when referring to Ottoman troops' defences, and I was accused of assuming therefore that the Allied attackers were "ours", a very tendentious argument. POV is used where bias is introduced, or where a narrative is based entirely on the sources of one side in a conflict. I have made no edits to the article on the Wars of the Roses which are clearly either pro-Lancastrian or pro-Yorkist. Rowse's argument is neither. (It may be held to be anti-Richard III, but evidently the man attracted some hostility, and it may be worth investigating why.)

Rowse may not be a brilliant source. I find the man trudges interminably through minor and irrelevant details on More and Shakespeare, then says "Oh, by the way, there was a big battle at Towton". However, that is not cause to dismiss every statement he makes. HLGallon (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I respectfully have to disagree with your observation that Rowse's speculation is "informed". He takes this interpretation of what made Buckingham revolt against his erstwhile ally, Richard III, straight from Shakespeare. According to the Richard III biography of Charless Ross, Rowse is practically alone in his stance, which is extremely hostile to Richard, an anti-Ricardian so to speak.
 * I agree that it would be better to present differing views, but (apart from the personal reason that I am pressed for time right now), the "War of the Roses" article not the proper place for this, as Buck's rebellion was just a very short episode in a conflict lasting decades.
 * Re POV, I have already explained that Rowse is not representative. His view is problematic given that various primary sources and some modern historians actually make Buckingham an accomplice in the murder of the princes, if not the culprit itself. And though the statement that Richard had the boys killed is a widely held (and I would, however so barely, agree), we should not forget that it is not a simple fact. It must be noted but should be inserted again and again, when not needed. (And certainly not with loaded terms like "disgusted".) It doesn't matter that "Rowse's argument is neither" Lancastrian nor Yorkist - he still isn't neutral (not a complaint in wiki-terms, just an observation.) To take hatred against somebody as an indication that he must be evil, is not a good idea when dealing with human beings, isn't it?
 * I don't see "POV" as a personal attack, especially if directed against a piece of text and not another editor. (BTW, I would agree with you on the Ottoman attacker's issue.) Deposuit (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. HLGallon (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited James Anderton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Alderson (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) 11:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Intentional accident. 132.187.253.24 (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Bavaria
I noticed that you called Horst Seehofer Prime Minister of Bavaria. I just want you to be aware that there has been no consensus on what to call a Ministerpräsident. It seems a lot of people have called it Prime Minister, a lot of people have called it Premier. I personally call it a Minister-president. Minister-president is probably the best until a consensus is reached. Kingjeff (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)