User talk:Errabee/Archive June 2006 - December 2006

Archive August 2005 - May 2006

Armking
I checked the contribs before I went to AIV. His only contributions were circular redirects. Let me ask you this, if someone posts twelve to fourteen *different* instances where a page redirects to another as their *only conributions*, is that vandalism or not? KC9CQJ 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you completely that his behaviour was not contributing to the encyclopedia. But a little communication could do wonders in some cases. You don't know the reason why he acted the way he did, and you made no attempt to find out. It indeed looks like vandalism, but only a mild form of it. He now is blocked indefinitely for 12 to 14 incorrect redirects, which seems a bit overdone to me. Errabee 23:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And then promptly created a sockpuppet named Armking2, evaded the block, and started doing the same thing all over again. The redirected articles had absolutely nothing to do with one another at all and were creating circular references all over the place.  One redirect, maybe....but twenty over two different user accounts? I call that disruption, not a general error. KC9CQJ 00:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know, and he created a second sockpuppet named Armhead as well. Just because you're proven right in this case, does not mean that WP:AGF should be disregarded; maybe a beginning vandal could be persuaded to do some constructive editing instead. Errabee 00:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're correct, but to me, WP:AGF does not apply when the supposed new user himself is in violation of WP:POINT or being a general disruption and is doing things that most new users don't do, like create circular redirects and spawn sockpuppets every three minutes. (he's up to nine right now) That's what this one has been doing, that's why he was reported to AIV in the manner he was rather than more constructive or progressive warnings. Sorry for the confusion. KC9CQJ 01:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No apologies necessary. We're all working towards the same goal in our own way. Errabee 01:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion at WP:AID
That was an accident. I had no idea it even happened. Thanks for fixing it. Maurreen 10:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I already surmised it was a mistake upon seeing your edit history. Errabee 10:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sterrenstad/Star City
Weet jij toevallig ook of Sterrenstad nog steeds zwaar beveiligd ('highly restricted') is, zoals in het artikel Star City, Moscow staat vermeld? (ik vroeg me dit af omdat er blijkbaar wel foto's kunnen worden gemaakt) Alvast bedankt. --Hardscarf 20:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ik ben er 4 jaar geleden geweest, en het wordt inderdaad nog steeds zwaar beveiligd. Je moet speciale toestemming hebben om er te komen, je moet bij de slagboom niet met je fototoestel zwaaien, maar verderop is het geen probleem, zoals ook uit mijn foto's blijkt. Uiteraard is de beveiliging niet meer zo strikt als ten tijde van de Sovjetunie, toen het bestaan van Sterrenstad gewoon werd ontkend. Errabee 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha, bedankt! (komt me trouwens bekend voor van mijn reizen naar Rusland) Kom je trouwens ook nog eens langs op de Nederlandse wikipedia om iets te schrijven over Rusland, of hou je het (nog steeds) definitief voor gezien? Ik zou het persoonlijk wel leuk vinden als je weer eens langs kwam (en met mij vele anderen vermoed ik), maar de keuze is natuurlijk aan jou. --Hardscarf 18:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Graag gedaan. De Nederlandse wiki heb ik echter definitief vaarwel gezegd, hoe spijtig ik dat ook vind om geen contact meer te hebben met sommige gebruikers. Errabee 21:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jammer, ik zou persoonlijk graag hebben gezien dat je terug zou komen, maar in elk geval veel plezier en succes hier gewenst dan :) --Hardscarf 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nog steeds teveel oud zeer daar. Ik lees nog af en toe bij, en bepaalde gebruikers halen me zelfs dan nog het bloed onder de nagels. Hier is het allemaal veel relaxter, aardiger tegen elkaar, en als er conflicten zijn is er een uitstekende arbcom. Errabee 22:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Tja er is sprake van een proces denk ik, langzamerhand wordt het wel wat professioneler (meer bronvermeldingen, schrijfwedstrijden, mensen die reviews geven, een proces rond etalageartikelen en een Arbcom die nog in de 'kinderschoenen' staat), maar voorlopig is het inderdaad nog een andere wereld dan hier op de Engelse wikipedia, waar, waarschijnlijk door het veel grotere aantal gebruikers (meer mensen betekent ook een grotere kans op mensen die dingen op een nuchtere wijze kunnen en willen bezien en daarmee ook op een normale vriendelijke manier), ook een professionelere sfeer is ontstaan met meer mogelijkheden tot het oplossen van een conflict. Dat neemt natuurlijk niet weg dat er altijd gebruikers blijven die de sfeer verpesten of ontwikkelingen die gewenst zijn door een groot deel van de gemeenschap proberen tegen te gaan (ego's nog even buiten beschouwing gelaten). En helaas hebben dergelijke gebruikers een te groot effect op de sfeer, zeker als ze te lang vrij worden gelaten, wat helaas nog erg vaak gebeurt. Ik hoop dan ook dat er snel een arbcom komt, want ik heb het gevoel dat hier echt behoefte aan is. Daarvoor zijn denk ik echter een aantal mensen nodig die worden geaccepteerd als mediators om werkelijk als autoriteit te worden gezien. --Hardscarf 11:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Star City cat
Hmm, good point. We have Category:Closed cities, but it would not apply for the same reason&mdash;Star City is not a city; it's a facility. Placing this article directly to Category:Moscow Oblast, however, should solve the problem. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with. Cheers,&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I also moved the article to Star City, Russia, because the facility is located outside of Moscow.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That was long overdue. Thanks!&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Olonets
No bother at all, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will probably have to re-do the article altogether; you are right, there are quite a few inaccuracies, especially in the modern section. Thanks!&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Kholuy
Well, the website says the school of icon painting was established in 1882 or 1883, if I'm not mistaken. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia gives 1932 as the year the school of miniature painting was founded. I'm not sure who's right, but you are free to correct the dates. Didn't mean to ruin your article. Keep up the good work! KNewman 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they mean the second one? Errabee 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert :), but see for yourself.
 * If you ask me, I tend to believe the GSE :). KNewman 21:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

commenting out LoPbN rdlks
_ _ Thanks for your attention to two Nic... rd lks. LoPbN, even more than the average WP area, is work in progress, and there is nothing inherantly wrong with rd lks there: they are solicitations to start the bio article. When they went over to comments, that process was pretty much pre-empted, so i looked into whether they were good or bad rdlks. It turns out both people are n-n, so they needed to go, rather than emerge from their comment markups. _ _ I do sometimes put new entries in comments, not so much bcz they are re-lk'd, but bcz they've been recently active & the contributor might be watching & offer missing info to change my (occasionally wrong) impression that they are n-n. _ _ It looks to me like your LoPbN insights are pretty accurate. (I didn't follow your logic re Tesla -- my std statement rests on most people being better alphabetizable by their surnames, and there being no value and substantial burden in listing anyone by given name unless they either have no surname, or are so well known by given name without surname (Madonna, Elvis) as to be likely to be looked up by given name -- but you were dead on as to the action needed on Tesla's "Nic..." entry.) So i hope you'll find it worth your attention to continue working on the list. Thanks! --Jerzy•t 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think I commented out several other red links as well, but in general I feel that if a page does not already exist about a person, the chance is high the person is n-n. In these cases I got that impression as well, but was reluctant to remove them entirely for the same reasons you state in your second point. My logic re Tesla is the same as yours but somewhat shorter stated (and therefore perhaps not explicit enough). Errabee 19:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

_ _ [Smile] After stating it my way, i looked again at yours, and decided we probably agreed after all. Explicit enuf, IMO, bcz anyone who's confused can ask, can't they? _ _ I'm catching up on my normal review of LoPbN changes (after having been mostly off-line for two weeks), and i'll keep an eye open for those, to check a little more thoroughly. Ya know, maybe i was too negative: if you're labeling them as you did in the summaries i already saw, and if your impressions continue as accurate as those two, commenting them out is more like what i do with speediable deletions: i tag articles for speedy, and delete many that others have tagged, but never delete for n-n w/ a second opinion. Maybe your commenting them should be seen as an effective way of leaving the opportunity for a similar double check! --Jerzy•t 01:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Novels WikiProject
Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often refered to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watch it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WikiProject_Novels_announcements there. While you are updating your userpage, don't forget our userbox User WikiProject Novels.
 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but other methods are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines / template outlines some things to include.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  08:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Some questions response
How long should a story be before it is considered a novel?
 * I can't answer that. It is like most things in wikipedia down to other authorities in the field. i.e does the general literary world consider something a novel (or novella) or not. References and citations are always the key. Does that help. Probably not! :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  11:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I do think your assessment of Low-importance for Heart of a Dog is too low.
 * Good spot that was a slip of the wrist, correcting now! :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  11:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Pelagiya
Sorry about that, you are right. I believe I was trying to take out the novelinfoboxneeded template but deleted them both by mistake. Thank you for catching this; the novelswikiproject template has been replaced. -- Gizzakk 22:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Likewise
It's no problem. I was reading the line after the request for an eval. of The Grapes of Wrath and the response was "already had one - project banners go on talk pages.!" I disliked the exclaimation mark as to me it denotes anger (in this case indignation) and well, I was in a ... not so great mood. It was only directed to that person. I posted it on the main page (the project box) because I saw it like that somewhere else. When I saw how big of a deal this mistake was I thought you guys were too 'hardcore' for me. I was mistaken I see, and probably caught someone else in a bad mood, and well, c'est la vie, n'est-ce pa?

Severus Snape
I noticed that you just put a tag on the Severus Snape talk page, saying ot was an ungraded part of wikiproject novels. Interesting, but from the tag I cannot for the life of me see what anyone is supposed to do now. Sandpiper 11:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back. As a non-member of the wiki harry Potter project, who nonetheless is one of the major contributors to it, I may also like to contribute to this assessment process. Putting on a tag which does not explain anything about this process doesn't help me to do so. The alternative seems to be that I shall now need to do several hours reading to find out how this works. Regards. Incidentally, I have read a lot more novels than most people. I recognise most of your listed books, how many people do nowadays?Sandpiper 11:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that doesn't mean I remember them all. Some were terrible and most not exactly unique. I am just reading the discussion about 'Starship troopers'. When I saw the film I recognised the plot as from 'Enders game', which I do recall as a very interesting book. It is hard to comment, because I don't think I read starship trooper, though I may have. I just checked the articles again but could not find any reference to the similarity between the two (Enders game was written later). But I do remember finding such a reference in the articles in the past, appears to been deleted. I had the suspicion that Enders game was arguably a better version of the same theme. Sandpiper

Erast Fandorin
Re: User talk:Grey Shadow#Erast Fandorin

The article looks good. I think it's missing something, but I'm not sure what exactly. Apart from adding some more to the novel descriptions, and perhaps a picture in to go in the Physical description section I'm not sure what to add. Have you had a look at the other main fictional detectives (Nancy Drew, Hercule Poirot, and Sherlock Holmes) for ideas? You could list it at Good article candidates and see what happens. Grey Shadow 05:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've read the novels in German translation, with the advantage of having 10 out of 11 available (I only have the first one in print in Russian, but thankfully, six of them are available online). thanks for building the article, dab (ᛏ) 11:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In-universe
It doesn't need much to change it - if you look at Padmé Amidala you will see it breaks up mentions of her life story with references to the films and outside sources. You can do the same by mentioning the books or the author ("Boris Akunin has described him as having.." or "He first appears in the White Queen as..."). You could also add references to the adaptations: "In the novels he has a stammer but the portrayal by...did not feature this" etc. (assuming there are some differences). Another good example of an out of universe approach is Sherlock Holmes which is peppered with references to the novels when establishing the background and characteristics. Good luck. Yomangani talk 10:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment of novels
I've responded to your comment etc. on the Assessment talk page.

Image:JoopWijn.jpg
Greetings. Did you read the copyright information (in Dutch) on the image description page? This indicates to me that the image may be used, so long as the original source is credited, which is the same restriction as the cc-by license. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. How do you think it should be tagged? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

AID Votes
Thanks for letting me know about that. I was a bit tired when I was doing my voting, so I didn't realize I'd put the vote in the wrong section. TransNique 18:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Canvasing
Hi, Errabee! As per the dictionary, canvasing is the act of "going through (a district) or go to (persons) in order to solicit orders or political support; to seek or solicit orders or votes", support, in other words. The problem lies not in the act of solicitation, I fear, but in its repurcussions. For example, after 90 individuals were notified of the Queen's College vote, four votes were added in its support. My own submission, coffee, then fell behind the article when it had lead it only a couple of hours before. Should I have decided to do so, I could have then requested an even larger number of editors to support coffee's nomination. A third editor feels that he is the disadvantaged, and does the same. How long until all of our user_talk pages are fuller of unsolicited advertisements for support than our email inboxes are with advertisements for penis growing potions and penny stock tips? – ClockworkSoul 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I don't hand out my e-mail address to just anyone, I don't receive a whole lot of those unwanted e-mails :) Errabee 23:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're smarter than me then. :) On the other hand, I know a fantastic product to burn fat while you sleep, and I have recently been told that "right now precious metal st0cks are one of the hottest things going!" (Yes, I just copied and pasted that one - I'm going to be rich!) Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 04:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have two email addresses. One that I use very cautiously, and another free email address that I use whenever a web page needs my email address. The first one has only been discovered b the Nigerian fraud spammers, claiming I have won 25 million USD in the Canadian Internet Lottery or someone has died and left several million USD in a bank account which they need me to empty. The second one, I don't really care what comes in. Errabee 10:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Yeah sure you can put the Queen's University nomination back up for AID. Thanks for all the help :) Speedystickd 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:ARCAID and userpage
Hi there, Thanks for your note on my talk page. I agree with your idea of a vote, and would certainly favour a ban on mass solicitation on user talk pages, while allowing portal pages, although I personally think that the links posted on such pages should merely advertise that ARCAID has a relevant nomination, and suggest that users visit ARCAID.

Regarding my userpage, I use Firefox too, and the [ Show ] buttons work fine on Firefox under Windows and Mac... Have you checked whether you've disabled javascript?

Regards, Draicone (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV (September 2006)
The September 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 12:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Stingray / Pijlstaartrog
Hallo Errabee, je hebt gelijk met het verwijderen van die interwikilink. Ik had de interwiki toegevoegd omdat het Nederlandse artikel verwijst naar het Engelse Stingray, dus ik ging er van uit dat het omgekeerd dan ook kan. Daarnaast wordt bij de dood van Steve Irwin in de Engelse nieuwsartikelen gezegd dat hij werd doorboord door een Stingray en in de Nederlandse artikelen dat hij werd doorboord door een pijlstaartrog. Het Nederlandse artikel gaat alleen over de gewone pijlstaartrog (common Stingray) en heeft dus eigenlijk de verkeerde titel. Ik denk dat het het beste is als we de Nederlandse versie uitbreiden met andere soorten pijlstaartroggen, zoals dat ook op andere wikipedia's gebeurd. Maartenvdbent 14:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * intussen de boel op NL veranderd. Een nieuw artikele nl:pijlstaartroggen krijgt nu wel de interwiki's. Maartenvdbent 15:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 5th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And Quiet Flows the Don
Knowing your interest in all thing Russian - I wondered if you had spotted that the novel "And Quiet Flows the Don" was up for Novels WikiProject "Collaboration of the Month". Regards :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  10:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fandorin
oh no, I am very happy with your work on the Fandorin articles! I was just suggesting that there could be a quick overview list of novels. regards, dab (ᛏ) 08:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Priority
I think you understand the situation quite well. Two other points, firstly there doesn't appear to be too many people taking an interest in the assessments yet to really warrant work to acheve concensus. Concensus between two or three it not that much better than one using his best judgement. One being bold and another making some corrections appear to be working reasonably so far. Secondly, priority is meant only as an admin guide to assist the project in preparing the most signification subject articles for WP:1.0 but I suspect you knew that. I agree with your approach of getting the majority assessed and maybe then changing to work differently frmo then on. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  08:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Just in case Keven is wondering, I am not stalking him. I'm just asking all the members of the Novels wikiproject if there is something I can do to help. So...can you please tell me what I can do like...on my talk page? I'm new and I've just joined. Lady Nimue of the Lake 11:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Bearly541
Please take a look at this user. On the Alpha Phi Alpha and the kappa alpha psi pages, he has a history of reverting documented edits such as here for no valid reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff=75056898&oldid=75050135  He claims vandalism when it is a spelling error and does reverts rather than revises. References were provided. In a section where other fraternities were discussed thoroughly a reference and thorough sentence was provided. User did a wholesale revert back 5 major edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&diff=75056228&oldid=75056120. He has made personal attacks in talk pages and invalid arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlpha_Phi_Alpha&diff=74012643&oldid=73612624. So far 3 reverts have been made within 24 hours on 2 pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff=75102453&oldid=75060124  Please take a look at this. NinjaNubian 15:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Errabee, how can you block CCSon, if he created the Alpha Phi Alpha page? In addition, why are you going to block me if I am trying to PREVENT a person is clearly vandalizing pages, harrassing users, AND changing information (on a FEATURED article)? Bearly541 03:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You also posted this on RfC:

Comments: User:Bearly541 reverted the other two additions/reversions from User:NinjaNubian. Errabee 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

With no "prev version" I think a warning is probably appropriate William M. Connolley 21:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(My response:)
 * First of all, Errabee, I did not rever NinjaNubian's user page. Second, I reverted edits he made on Alpha Phi Alpha and Kappa Alpha Psi. Bearly541 03:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Bearly541 03:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Errabee, please clarify which page I reverted in order to avoid this mix-up, next time. I reverted his edits on Alpha Phi Alpha, not his user page.  Thank you!  Bearly541 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

CCson
Has already made 3 major reverts without valid reason or mediation. All references have been provided. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&diff=75081404&oldid=75067094, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&diff=75039650&oldid=74944082 , and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&diff=75050202&oldid=75048460. NinjaNubian 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * the real vandal is NinjaNubian, pls see talk page of article.


 * I welcome the opportunity to have this resolved. I am the contributor mostly responsible for bringing this article to FA status, and want to be certain that is not being jeopardized. Ccson 16:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I welcome discussion and would like items and knowledge to be read thoroughly not for the purpose of whitewashing. I welcome the opportunity for talk and mediation. not reverting wars. NinjaNubian 16:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were going to file the RFC, but I will do this if this will create an avenue for solving problem. Now, I'll have to see how to do this. thanks for your advice. Ccson 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

i think the article should be placed under review. this is getting extremely ridiculous. NinjaNubian 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have created the RFC. I understand that the editors must be neutral, however; I'm hopeful that the evidence will be resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks for the wise and much needed advice on how to resolve this. Ccson 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

NinjaNubian has reverted the article again, this time using a sockpuppet ID. Ccson 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC
For the benefit of all (especially with a RfC), the history pages of Kappa Alpha Psi, Sigma Pi Phi, and Alpha Phi Alpha. Oh yes, and the website for former Alpha Historian and author, Rev. H. Mason, through which he may be contacted via email. The historian for Kappa Alpha Psi is Dr. Ralph J. Bryson, and he may be contacted through their respective website as may Sigma Pi Phi Historian William H. Harris through theirs. 64.241.29.196 19:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

why was sigma pi phi even brought up? i am the only person who works on the article! skip mason sometimes presents a non biased opinion. Alpha Kappa Nu has been researched and it shows that "black collegiate fraternity movement might well have had its start in 1903 at Indiana University. In that year, black men registered at Indiana University, in the city of Bloomington, formed a local fraternity called Alpha Kappa Nu with the purpose of strengthening the Blacks' voice at the university and in the city." NinjaNubian 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

NinjaNubian, the information that you are citing as research is a college newspaper that misquotes the official history book of the Kappa Alpha Psi, which clearly defines Alpha Kappa Nu as an club that was attempted, not a "formed fraternity." Kappa Alpha Psi's official history says instead: Black-sponsored Greek letter organizations on the Indiana University campus might well have begun in 1903, but there were too few registrants to assure continuing organization. I'm puzzled by your question about Sigma Pi Phi, when you have been editing Sigma Pi Phi and Kappa Alpha Psi into a wiki entry on Alpha Phi Alpha? I gather that links to the official history pages were included since there is an RfC, and anyone serious about accurate information will have easy email, etc. access to the historians of the "disputed" organizations. The reason that you are the only person working on your newly-created entries for Sigma pi phi [sic] and Alpha kappa nu [sic] may be that your entries are heavily biased (a neutral observer might say retaliatory) against Alpha Phi Alpha and the author of the wiki entry for Alpha Phi Alpha. Robotam 04:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * sigma pi phi is an illustrious organization with a long and distinguised history. everything there is documented and non biased. various article links for references are there as well as the fraternity website as well as chapter website. if there is any problems with the page simply go to it and revise it, go to the talk section.   Sigma pi phi was added to the alpha phi alpha article way before i came along as can be seen here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&oldid=69947100

Wiki does have a policy of no original research! Anything inserted has to be referenced an email by the historians would be considered to be original research. Mykungfu 19:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * alpha kappa nu . although kappa alpha psi was named in honor of alpha kappa nu, they are 2 distinct organizations.  kappa alpha psi has just as much authority as jimmy carter does in stating the type of organization alpha kappa nu is.  Kappa Alpha Psi is an organization while MSU Statesmen is a Newspaper which is unbiased.  There may be similiar wordings, but there is no foundation of your claim that the article is a quote from the history of kappa alpha psi.  Mykungfu 19:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The RFC you created may be fruitless because NinjaNubian has now created another ID, Mykungfu saying he lost his password to NinjaNubian; how convenient since he knows an RFC has been initiated against the NinjaNubian ID. I've heard this before in Fall 2005 when the User talk:Bobbydoop was blocked repeatedly by admins. Ccson 14:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont' know the RFC process, but i made everyone aware of what my new SN is. I did not hide this. I simply continued on my work. Mykungfu 19:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

additional article research. http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=12053 Mykungfu 19:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In response.
First of all, Errabee, I did not revert NinjaNubian's user page. Second, I reverted edits he made on Alpha Phi Alpha and Kappa Alpha Psi. Bearly541 03:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Perhaps if you wouldn't let your emotions interfere with your reading, you would notice that I never said you reverted NN's user page. I simply noticed NN made 6 (more or less identical) changes to Alpha Phi Alpha; Ccson more or less reverted four of those, and you reverted the other two. Errabee 03:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Errabee, please clarify which page I reverted in order to avoid this mix-up, next time. I reverted his edits on Alpha Phi Alpha, not his user page. Thank you! Bearly541 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Can we please do this discussion in one place? I get a bit tired of placing the same answer on three different pages. I answered on your (Bearly541) talk page, let's keep the discussion there. (BTW, I'm going to sleep now, so don't expect an answer soon).

Bearly541 has done at least 2 reverts on Alpha Phi Alpha page and 2 on the Kappa Alpha Psi page. Is this good enough for a 3rr report? NinjaNubian 18:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, they have to be done on one article. But you do seem to disrupt Wikipedia by trying to illustrate your point. Errabee 11:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for the clarification. i'm simply looking for a NPOV in articles i work on.  Mykungfu 19:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

and so, now he's back to reverting on the same article that he was asked to stop rv-ing on under a different ID Robotam 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

i've been commenting using this sn for the past hour. i have no other id. Mykungfu 19:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

First black fraternity and First intercolligiate black fraternity.
As previously pointed out on another usertalk page. There seems to be  research that indicates that the first black fraternity is in fact alpha kappa nu is the first inter collegiate as well as overall black fraternity and sigma pi phi is the oldest surviving black fraternity.


 * sigma pi phi is an illustrious organization with a long and distinguised history. everything there is documented and non biased. various article links for references are there as well as the fraternity website as well as chapter website. if there is any problems with the page simply go to it and revise it, go to the talk section.   Sigma pi phi was added to the alpha phi alpha article way before i came along as can be seen here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&oldid=69947100

Wiki does have a policy of no original research! Anything inserted has to be referenced an email by the historians would be considered to be original research. Mykungfu 19:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * alpha kappa nu . although kappa alpha psi was named in honor of alpha kappa nu, they are 2 distinct organizations.  kappa alpha psi has just as much authority as jimmy carter does in stating the type of organization alpha kappa nu is.  Kappa Alpha Psi is an organization while MSU Statesmen is a Newspaper which is unbiased.  There may be similiar wordings, but there is no foundation of your claim that the article is a quote from the history of kappa alpha psi.  Mykungfu 19:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

An additional article has been researched that details more of the controversy.

http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=12053

Mykungfu 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

another reference provided.

http://groups.msn.com/NPHCArchivePhotoSociety/yourwebpage2.msnw

Mykungfu 20:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 11th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your edit to Template:AMX companies
I have replied to your message on my Talk page. --Slowking Man 16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ninjanubian RFC
You should not list the RFC on the RFC page until it is ready. You can work on it without it being listed, but as soon as you list it, it will be open for comment. (If you need a link to help you find it, put the link on your user or talk page or make a user sandbox.)  Make sure to put the correct date and time on it when you are ready to list it. Thatcher131 22:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Darcy has opened a new sockpuppetry allegation (Suspected_sock_puppets/Mykungfu_%282nd%29) against User:Mykungfu, who is evading his block via anonymous IPs and via User:StrangeApples. If you have evidence to provide of similar behavior across these IDs, please add it to the article. Thanks. Ccson 12:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mykungfu/NinjaNubian
Mykungfu has now simply gone back to vandalizing and reverting the Alpha Phi Alpha page he was warned about using NinjaNubian. Robotam 14:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have requested formal mediation on the article. I can think you can added a section called "peripheral parties involved". I hope you were successful in your campaign. Thanks. Ccson 12:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

robotam
Came around september 6. his second edit was sept 12th, his third was on the 13th it basically seems as if his whole existance was to sign this RFC. I believe him to be a sockpuppet

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robotam&limit=500&action=history Mykungfu 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Robotam has made it a pesonal mission to destroy pages created by ninjanubian as can be documented by his actions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigma_Pi_Phi

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Kappa_Nu

he opens up dispute pages for the sake of wasting everyone times..

he is also reverting pages twice in the past 90 minutes

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&action=history

64.131.205.160 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Russia Portal
If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist. --Irpen 11:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:nationalism
From your comment on ArbCom I (and another user who pointed it out to me and suggested I react to it) got a distinct impression that you see the Poles as victimizers, and Russians as victims; something that I think is certainly not the case (especially in the context of Ghirla's behaviour, whose behaviour has been both unprovoked and very pro-Russian and anti-Polish). I certainly agree that both Polish and Russian (and other nations or groups) nationalisms (POVs) exist in Wiki and vary from time and place, but let me repeat: I got the impression that in your post you were saying that Polish nationalism is much more visible then Russian, and even went as far as suggest that Polish nationalist may attempt to 'hijack' this ArbCom discussion. It has nothing to do with WP:AGF: I don't know what your intentions were, I am assuming they were good, but the result was a post that looked quite one sided and inflamatory. Perhaps I should've asked you to apologize or refactor it first before responing there, but honestly, after so many examples of Ghirla's (and others incivility), I am losing much hope that most people involved in this discussion understand the concepts of 'I made a mistake' or 'apology'. If this was a wrong assumption on my part, let me apologize for it here or now, but again that doesn't change the fact that your post was uncivil and inflammatory. Last but not least, as for Iop(39) move, IIRC it was not a Pole (or a Russian) who campaigned for the move, but a German editor. In the end a proper WP:RM procedure was followed, and if Irpen has any problems with how his vote was treated, it is something he should have raised there to the closing admin. For the record, I think that the 'Polish Defensive War' would be the least controversial name, but apparently it was quite unacceptable to some :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure it was not your intention to offend on purpose; the fact remains that you did so. If you don't want to aplogize for that, that is your choice. I know you didn't direct it againt me personally, nonetheless I and other Polish editors I talked to interpret your post as 'Poles bad, Russians good'. Please note that we don't insist on reverse order - we think all are equal, and I'd warn you even if I was not among the nationality slighted by that post (i.e. if you wrote a critique of Lithuanian or Zulu editors, I'd point that it is offending and inflammatory, too). As for Ghirla, well, perhaps here we differ: to me (and virtually everyone I know) he is a very uncivil Russian POV pusher, although he seems to have finally stopped attacking Poland-related articles (thus my neutral stance in this RfA). Btw, comparing my critique of your post to an average reaction of Ghirla shows you have not really interacted with him in the past (or rather, disagreed with him):, , ...). So if you felt bad about my mild reply, consider how do people interacting with Ghirla feel.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, please stop this practice of putting things on their head and trying to present the valid critique of yourself and your friends as PA and incivillity every time it pops up and demand appologies left and right. Ot gives a convenient pretence that the issues don't exist. This is tiresome and unhelpful. When I see your attempts to go around the problems by deflecting the issues on trying to concentrate on the form rather than on the substance, I take it that there is nohing you have to say on the issues themselves. I will be responding only if you post on topic. --Irpen 18:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Irpen, while I am suprised at your comment in what was a private discussion, in no way addressed or advertised to you, I will just tell you that facts speak for itself. To clarify, those facts being that it is Ghirla who is increasingly banned for incivility and now on ArbCom, not me. Feel free to argue that those facts are 'deflected' or 'unsubstantial', but I will not reply to any more of such murky 'arguments'. PS. As I would prefer not to turn Errabee's talk page into our OT discussion, if you have something worthwile to say to me, please do so at my talk page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, if you want to conduct private discussion, the "email this user" link is there for you. Talk pages of the people with whom I talked in the past are on my watchlist and I am free to read them from time to time and comment as I see fit. I say things where they are preserved in the context. I repeatedly encourarged you to respond to my requests at your talk in the same place and the note on top of my own talk reminds of that as well. If Errabee minds me speaking at his talk, he can delete my statements as he sees fit. You are free to not respond. I simply address the issues that consern me.

To begin with, several people told you lately that you abuse accusations of others in PA every time you hear something unpleasant and find it unattractive to address the issue itself. That's unhelpful and disruptive. Ghirla was blocked not for incivillity but for the expressed dissent to the questionable actions by those who think they can get away with anything. His dissent was expressed in an entirely civil form. His previous block was caused by Elonka's complaint, you instigated her to file at WP:ANI that brought a totally out-of-whack accusation in Ghirla's using of ethnic slurs (you know full well that he wasn't). But your invoking of Ghirla here is inappropriate in the first place. Ghirla has nothing to do with that habbit of yours to accuse everyone, himself included, in PA when you face the issues you find difficult to respond, be it your questionable admin actions being brought up or your relentless defence of Molobo and Halibutt. Whether it is a part of an overall strategy aimed at getting an upper hand in all disputed through having your opponets blocked and using every chanse to achieve that, is a separate question which I raised earlier.

The only issue here now is that you were asked repeatedly by several users to stop pretending seeing PAs where there are none. Address the issues or do not respond if you don't have anything on substance. When there are true PA, that's a different story but I usually choose to ignore those too. Otherwise, I would long time ago seized to asnwer Halibutt statements. WHat I usually do is ignore his PAs and respond to any substance of his statement (when there is some)

Finally, note, that this written above is also not a PA and I request you do not pretend that you can dismiss this painful points on the false pretences of them being uncivil. If you don't have anything to say, say nothing. When I feel like telling you niceties, you here those. When I think your actions are improper, I am free to say so and if your response always is "Look! This is a PA!" that just shows that the points are valid. --Irpen 00:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Irpen, thanks for your contribution. I couldn't have said it better. Errabee 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dumb Witness
Thank you for assessing the Dumb Witness article. I can see that the article might, for example, need a picture of the first ed. cover in order to make it complete, but am surprised that you only rated it "Start", since there is no obvious additional material that could be added to it. Are you thinking of perhaps a section on the biographical background to the novel's having been written, for example? I'm not sure that this would be appropriate for a comparatively minor novel, but would be grateful to have your ideas. --Sordel 06:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll add any further information that I turn up along the lines that you suggest. At the moment, I'm just concerned to bring a group of novels up to a basic standard as I read through them. By the way, I don't know whether you've noted the discussion on the Project page of your top-importance page, but I'd suggest that you remove the obsolete flag from it. --Sordel 12:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, that actively pursuing Importance assessment rather pre-empts a number of processes (not the least of which is the emergence of a consensus backed by the main body of editors) and may thus be a waste of effort. On the other hand, I do think that the page you created is very valuable as a record of thinking within the Novels Project. I'm comparatively new to Wiki editing, and I find the ideal of a comparatively egalitarian editing structure very intriguing. I'm sure that the Novels Project is not intended to constitute some sort of "editorial oligarchy", but I think that we should do what we can to experiment fully with instruments such as the one you created. I'll probably fiddle with it further for my own entertainment and edification. In any case, thanks again for the response. --Sordel 18:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:On this day
I think it's too late to add to it, there is someone who picks these out before they are displayed on the front page.--Konstable 11:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I put it in. Not too experienced with editing the front page stuff, but I asked around and it seems ok.  Enjoy =)--Konstable 12:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

reply
There was some (unfinished) discussion at User_talk:C_mon. I agree, this needs to be resolved. Intangible 15:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Invite to consider Novels WikiProject Collaborations
Hi, as you have been contributing to a number of novels articles recently I would personally like to invite you to have a look at and consider participating in, our WikiProject Novels Collaboration department.

We propose articles to have a concerted effort at and once agreed edit away to make as many improvements as we can.!!

We look forward to possibly gaining the benefit of your input! :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  11:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Citizendium
I am sorry, but I am pessimistic about this. First of all, the name is a horrible thing. A very lame echo of wiki-pedia (which may not itself be a stroke of genius, but which works on many levels), the sort of thing marketing drones come up with after five minutes' of ridiculously overpaid brainstorming. It may make sense to create the possibility of "fork and fork back" with compatible licences to streamline the development of articles. It is a very bad idea to try and lure brainpower away from Wikipedia; the best this can achieve is creating two broken projects in place of one just barely working. Sanger has some right ideas, but he doesn't have the karma or charisma. He would have been useful if he had stuck around here as a voice of reason, but his walking away in anger imho proves that he doesn't have the qualities to build (read: to let build itself) something like what we have here. The best scenario I can see is that the thing will prove some sort of policy testing ground that will help Wikipedia grow into the more restrictive policies it so sorely needs at this point. dab (ᛏ) 18:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Joseph
oh yes, no problem -- I did have misgivings about meddling with a project I had no in-depth knowledge of. It does seem like a lot of red tape is emerging, what with nominations and votes on everything; I used to prefer the state of affairs where you could go ahead and do things until somebody told you they disagreed and then you'd start discussing. Nowadays, there appears to be a lot of debate before there is even any disagreement :) I am unsure if Joseph and his Brothers has "Top" or merely "High" importance as novels go. I did notice that the "Top" importance tier is frightfully anglo-centric, and while it is fair enough to cover English literature first on en-wiki, there can be no discussion of world literature from such a provincial perspective; since Mann is a major 20th c. author, and Joseph is one of his major works, I reckoned "top" rating to be justified (inspired, I admit, by your labelling of Fandorin as such, which I would see more near "high" importance, for one thing because these books are too recent to have already exerted all that much influence on literature). dab (ᛏ) 07:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * it would be a horrible, horrible mistake to classify things like Harry Potter or The Da Vinci Code (yuk!) as "top importance novels". These are bestsellers, yes, but I doubt they are even 'literature' in the a more narrow sense. Maybe in a Wikiproject:Bestsellers they could be listed as "top" in best faith, but as "novels" in general, "high" would be much already. Oh dear, but I never wanted to get involved in this rating business, so I suppose I should just shut up about it :\ dab (ᛏ) 08:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already seen edit wars over the ratings and had a dispute with User:Kirill Lokshin on his talk page over the wisdom of this rating business. Seems like a hopeless affair to me. The "top" rating of bestsellers well illustrates the fact that the project is oriented towards mass reader and mass contributor. Let's just ignore the ratings. -- Ghirla  -трёп-  09:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

334
Thanks for reassessing 334 (novel) after my recent changes. I have a couple of questions... I know I also need to spend more time on the WikiProject Novels page, but if I may ask you too:


 * 1) What would you say are the main areas to address in this article to get it closer to Good quality?
 * 2) User:Kevinalewis has fixed the section headings to correspond to the template. Not to nit-pick, but... among the template's very thorough list of desired section headings (a little too thorough to my mind, but I wasn't there for the discussion) there are separate ones for "allusions to other works" and "allusions to actual events etc." By that scheme, I'd have to add a whole section just for the one point about the Burke & Hare murders, because that's not "other works". Is it really awful to collapse those into a single "allusions and references" section as I did? Also, I still don't understand at all why we're repeating the book title in the "Characters" section, but I know that's already been discussed.
 * 3) Is it really necessary for the "spoilers" warning to be at very beginning of the "Plot summary" section? The beginning of that section just covers the basic background and premise of the novel, and talks about its structure.

Thanks again... ←Hob 00:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article really needs pictures to lighten it up a bit. A cover of the first edition would be nice (put it in the infobox). Also, it needs expansion in the sense of context: how does it compare to other dystopian future views? And as for any SF novel, fiction gets overtaken by reality very quickly (e.g. Star Trek and doors that open automatically, the communicator vs mobile phone), which raises the question: how does this novel hold up in light of recent developments? The reception by public and literary critics could be expanded, e.g. by adding book reviews from newspapers. The allusion section could also be expanded by explaining how the allusion compares to the alluded fact. As I am familiar with Crime and Punishment (which influenced Friedrich Nietzsche to formulate his Übermensch theory) which the Nazis combined with eugenetics to create the Holocaust), I would like to read how 334 (and Angoulement specific) and Crime and Punishment compare. Also, the plot summary is not rerally a plot summary. Finally, the novel is missing references (see number 2 of WP:WIAGA) which are needed in all sections except the plot summary.
 * I think templates are to help you, not to force you. But in general, I agree with Kevin's changes. ALthough I personally prefer the word synopsis, it would be confusing to have one article say plot summary and another synopsis. Apparently, Plot summary has been chosen (probably because synopsis is too difficult for the casual reader).
 * The first part of what is now Plot Summary could be moved to a separate section Plot introduction or something like that (please check other novels for the correct phrase).
 * I hope this helps, Errabee 11:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 25th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Erast Fandorin for GA?
Hi, do you think Erast Fandorin would stand a chance at being awarded GA-grade?
 * looks pretty good to me - I would propose it and see what happens. Let me know if you do and I will chip in at the time. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  15:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I particularly like the section of the article titled “Concept of the series”. If there were one section which might be expanded, it is “Allusions and references to other works;” the section begs for other characteristics taken from the work of other authors. You've converted me; I'm currently reading The Turkish Gambit. Agree you should nominate it. Williamborg (Bill) 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes Minister
Just a note to say thanks for assessing (and passing) the Yes Minister article. Makes the work worthwhile! Out of interest, what do you think might be required to get this up to FA? (In addition to your constructive comments) The JPS talk to me  16:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil
No, the reason why you put it up for FAR is that the current version (backed by reference sources) does not suite your personal POV, as evidenced by your discussion with Irpen at Portal:Russia/New article announcements. The reason why you have announced it at Portal:Russia/New article announcements is also crystal clear. Face it: this is not a constructive behaviour by any means. --Lysytalk 22:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you really wanted to be constructive you'd look for sources to support either version of the article instead of making comments like "This is beginning to get ridiculous. Time for a RfC, RfM and if need be, RfAr?" at Russian new article announcements noticeboard. Where do you find my behaviour uncivil, by the way ? --Lysytalk 23:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Cynical it was, but uncivil is a different thing. I'm sure you can distinguish between the two. Anyway, I've looked at the article and saw one group of editors trying to support their claims with sources, and another group limiting their actions to saying that "this has been discussed" or wondering how to de-FA instead of fixing it. And discussing this in the "new articles announcement" board is outrageous, don't you think ? --Lysytalk 23:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not noticed that. But: how about discussing this at the appropriate talk page instead of revert-warring and making irrelevant announcements at inappropriate notice boards ? --Lysytalk 23:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my "how constructive" comment, which was not very constructive itself. I'm sorry for the time you've wasted because of this and if my remarks costed you any stress. I hope not. --Lysytalk 23:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Importance Assessments
I'm glad you changed them to Low--I should have followed my instinct and done it myself. Yesterday was my first day assessing articles, and while I feel I have a good handle on quality rating, importance is shaky and a bit subjective and also likely to draw complaints. Thanks for your input! -- Merope Talk 11:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Shilder
I agree with you. Shilder is better than Schilder. Just have an edit conflict with you over this article, I have changed it to Shilder abakharev 02:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Erast Fandorin
Sorry, I missed your message - I'll have a look later in the week. Cheers, Yomangani talk 11:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's much improved since I last looked at it. Some comments:
 * It needs a copyedit - I didn't want to storm in there, but just ask if you want me to go through it
 * It is overlinked - the book titles only need linking once, not every time they are used
 * I'd move the table on the titles to the end, as it breaks the flow of the article where it is now
 * The section on the individual titles is somewhat stilted and listy - you can expand on the details slightly even if they have their own articles, and I'd also expand the date/location at the beginning of each to be a complete sentence rather than a fragment.
 * The awards section would be better rewritten as prose rather than presented as a small list
 * There are too many images used under a fair use rationale - this will be looked at very closely if you put it forward for FA - you'd be pushing it with four and there are nine currently.
 * Hope this helps and congratulations on the GA. Yomangani talk 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 19:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - October 2006
The October 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Fotolyse
Hoi Errabee, Was op zoek in NL naar de auteur, helemaal niet aan gedacht dat je hier zou zijn, jullie komen er verder wel uit, denk ik zo, gr.Mion 11:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Het valt inderdaad wel op dat meerdere mensen liever naar een andere Wikipedia gaan, en daar helemaal niet tegen dezelfde problemen oplopen, ik ga er maar vanuit dat door de te kleine aantallen het democratisch gehalte te laag is. Er zit wel veel goede wil, ook al lost dat het probleem niet op. gr. Mion 12:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 16:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Recently_created_admins. Warmly,  Durova  21:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NPA
So, do admins get to define personal attacks? Why don't we be respectful and respect the opinions of every users, especially thse from E Europe and don't discrinimate them. Sosomk 18:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem, I just fell like I get treated like crap by Khoikhoi because I'm from E Europe and I expressed my opinion there and some IP editor keeps deleting my comment which has no offensive input in it whatsoever. Can you help me? Sosomk 18:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! ;-) --the anon


 * I saw what u did, what if I just sign my name? Is it gonna be ok? Sosomk 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is a personla attack for god's sake? He attacks our political culture, history and nearly every article on Georgia nd e calling him Russian POV pusher does not meer the wiki criteria, heh:) Sosomk 18:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I get what you're saying, I will sign my name next time, thanksSosomk 18:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have enough time to do a research about Russian NeoNazi or NeoBolshevik skinheads. In addition, why do I have to cite something on the talk page. It is just a talk page of something that is not even a wiki article. So, take it easy, dude. Sosomk 19:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that too! About the WP:PAIN, you'll figure it out. I just made the start, as I hate being offline... All the rest of the time I am being a fairly legit editor you know... Anyways, thanks for the intervention, and keep in mind that the user has evidently been contacted by permabanned User:Bonaparte via e-mail and messages in his talk that were deleted by admin User:InShaneee. I will disclose my identity at a latter date. (and that's a threat!!) ;-) ;-) 62.1.223.155 19:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm curious about your identity, and can't wait until you act on your threat :) Errabee 19:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good job, guys! What an amazing step! Sosomk 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm won't help you here. The anon user didn't do anything wrong; it was you who shows a pattern of personal attacks. Errabee 21:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

from Soso
Please, do not suspect my friend, Ricky to be a puppet. He is my friend and he does not understand the coding that well, so he asked me to code his userpage for him. I realize that I am in kind of a fishbowl now, but any attempt to prove that GiordaniBruno283 is my puppet is basically a waste of time. Just take it easy and relax, Sinecrely Sosomk 14:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know if your smiley is sarcastic or not, but that does not make that much of a difference. That;s why the cyber communication is such a bad way to figure out what one means, because you are unable to see the tone of the conversation. Sosomk 14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that's why it is hard to understand a moderate Georgian, who grew up reading Ilia Chavchavadze and Shota Rustaveli, having a deep respect of the societies where the individuals rights are respected and people, who work hard for the concept of freedom and democracy. As far as the Soviet and Russian occupation of Georgia, it will always stay as a stain in Georgian history as the [| Persian Arab and Mongol] invasions of Georgia. Sosomk 15:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's don't go far in poliics:) I think history is rather static science whereas political science in more dymanic. There are also controversies while interpreting those though. I am a typical proud and hot-tempered Georgian, while some people try to deliberately piss me off on wiki [].
 * As far Chavchavadze last name is concerned, it is a Kakhetian (Eastern Georgian) noble family name and Ilia was not directly related to Alexander and Nino, but I don't kno how far are they in terms of genealogy. I can research it, but right now I am very limitd in time and I will do it as soon as I can. Thanks for a kind advise. Sosomk 15:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
For reverting the vandalism *and* updating my vandalism counter! Maybe I should enjoy having my page vandalized so much, but I do. Cheers. --  Merope  14:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (to Errabee) Thanks for the congrats as well. :-) &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias


Hey Errabee, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

References for The Overcoat (animated film)
Hmm, but on the other hand that wouldn't allow the name of the article and the date to be listed in the references section - it would just give the url link, which isn't as descriptive. Neither would that method allow for a separation of Russian and English references, which I think is needed here. So... I'm not sure if it needs fixing - I kinda like the current look of the references section (also, it's listed in chronological order, with the newest articles at the top). I WAS wondering if maybe I was using the wrong symbol for the references ("↑") than is the conventional one. Esn 12:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well I'll see before judging. Does it also allow them to be listed from newest-to-oldest and separated into Russian and English references? Esn 12:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, it may be better for me to change it to a footnotes system (like the one in WP:References), since it seems to have the strengths of both systems - you can control the order in which the links appear in the references, and also see what the reference is used for. Your system does have its strengths, but it looks a little more cluttered and has some disadvantages too - I'll try to convert it to another "standard" system (by the way, you might've asked on the talk page first before changing it - that is the policy after all, and it would've saved some effort for both of us). Esn 12:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But I think I'll wait a bit... it's a big job and I have other work to do just now... :p Esn 12:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm very sorry about this whole thing. It was wrong of me to put the notice up on the WPRussia page when what I should have done was look more closely at the accepted reference styles to find one that fit more closely what I was looking for.  Although you did indeed convert it to the official implementation of references in the software, my understanding (and I may be wrong - you've been here longer) from reading the WP:References page is that there is more than one official style of listing references.  It seems to me now, looking at it, that the way I did it before is rather close to this, and a change to that particular style would've required far less work for whoever converted it.  It also makes more sense, because this is one of those articles where the date of a source is rather important, so a referencing system where you can list the references in order of date would be more usefull to a reader of the article (a reader would likely want to go to the references and immediately see the oldest and newest news, instead of having to tediously search for them).  I've fixed the links thing, though I haven't yet found the policy page which says that they're not allowed...(?) Esn 00:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

personal assault question
RE:


 * their block lists suggest my claim is substantiated
 * Ghirla has been blocked for trolling
 * Isn't it against wikipedia rules to take advantage of a portal with the aim of gathering pseudeconsensus (similar to voting fraud?)
 * I don't object to mnentuioning disputed articles, but his way of summarising it might and should be deleted.
 * look at the labels Ghirla gave me on talk page of the article concerned. If nothing else helps, may-be he needs another small block, so that he could calm down a bit, before resorting to his unencyclopedic, anti-wikiquette style again?Constanz - Talk 12:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't revert, but add only another message if necessary. Could you comment on my concerns asw ell? Or is it that Ghirla was an offer of personal assaults/trolling whatever, as some users already suggest? anyway, I AM GOING to report noticeboard if HE has not learnt from the tag, he and his comrades (unlegitimately?) delete.Constanz - Talk 12:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tautology already met: 'you vandalise' pro you're a vandal'. Did my fingers air russophobia without me being aware of it? Well, tomorrow I WILL add a request for comment, and let us see how this mess will be regarded. All the Best, Constanz - Talk 12:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've really misinterpreted. Constanz - Talk 14:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually i don't think i'll file anything, i'll better leave the place here. and i would not have 'used' year old materials here. - I've been a wikipedia for a year, and almost every time i've met Ghirla, he's reactions to my edits have been similar to those I've linked. a pity. Editing controversial subjects is no excuse, I also edit controversial ones, but have not resorted to nasty accusations and offensive labelling on other nationals (y,know, 'polacks' etc - tens of cases. Have I used such labels for once? But of course this doesn't matter to guys like Grafikm fr and you). If the latter way is being accepted by you guys simply for the sake of national unanimity, i'll better finish with my account very soon. Constanz - Talk 09:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006
The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ernest Rutherford assessment comments
I was looking at the Core Biography list, trying to find an article I would be interested in helping out with, and I added comments at Talk:Ernest Rutherford/Comments. Hope that helps. Would you have any advice on the best way of synchronising material between the 'experiment' and 'atomic model' articles and the 'biography' article? I thought of summarising them, but then I realised the 'science' articles were rather short. Merging wouldn't really work either, as the 'science' articles should be separate. I think summary style is the best way to go, and we can hope that the science ones may get expanded later, so more can be added into the 'biography' summary. Carcharoth 17:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know much about Ernest Rutherford at all, except that he is renowned for the gold foil experiment. As for enhancements to the biography, I think the term Geiger-Marsden experiment should be avoided at all costs, and be replaced by gold foil experiment. This would help immensely for people who have a rudimentary understanding of the importance of Rutherford (people like me :) ). Furthermore, the nature of the experiment needs to be detailed briefly; just a couple of sentences should be enough. Just mentioning that he fired alpha particles at a gold foil, and most passed through unhindered, but some deflected and the implications for the atomic model; something like the second paragraph from the experiment's page should suffice. I hope this helps. Errabee 10:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That is very helpful. Thanks. I have a little bit of experience in studying and writing about the history of science, so I'll try and do what I can, from the sources I have available. Carcharoth 10:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input
Thank you for taking part in my RfA. The RfA was not successful, mostly because I did a pretty bad job of presenting myself. I'll run again sometime in the next few months, in the hopes that some will reconsider.

In the meantime, one of the projects I'm working on is A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook. This is a wikibook how-to guide intended to help new administrators learn the ropes, as well as to simply "demystify" what adminship entails. If you are an administrator, please help out with writing it, particularly on the technical aspects of the tools. Both administrators and non-administrators are welcome to help link in and sort all of the various policies regarding the use of these tools on wikipedia in particular (as well as other projects: for example, I have almost no experience with how things work on wiktionary or wikinews). Users who are neither familiar with policy or the sysop tools could be of great help by asking questions about anything that's unclear. The goal is to get everything together in one place, with a narrative form designed to anticipate the reader's next question.

A second project, related but not entailed, is a book on wikimedia in general, with a history of how various policies evolved over time, interesting trivia (e.g., what the heck was "wikimoney" about?), and a history of how the wikimedia foundation itself came about and the larger issues that occurred during its history (such as the infamous "Spanish Fork").

Again, thanks for your input on the RfA, and thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide for the handbook. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 12:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006
The December 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alaibot and disambig
I don't think that would be very feasible; my 'bot isn't looking at histories, and I'm not trying to determine what categories an given page should have, which would require some sort of "intelligence" about content, just observing that it doesn't have categories. If a category gets removed, and that gets past the usual vandalism patrol and reversion bots, I think it's reasonable to treat it like any other "uncategorised" article. (There's a built-in safety margin in this process, since it takes some time to extract the information from the database dump, by which time it's already quite 'old' in its new state.) Alai 01:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Novels scope
Um, what are you talking about? Cbrown1023 02:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just marked it because it was asked to be created through the newsletter that is sitting on your talk page two posts up. Cbrown1023 02:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I mean you are right. I was just saying I marked that article because it was asked to be created through the newsletter. Cbrown1023 03:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * response on my talk page :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  08:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * great stuff, also is you would like to give thought to a slight scope rewording, just to be inclusive of such articles that would be good. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  09:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - make the changes you indicate - when you can! :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  12:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Right On - seems fine to me - thanks. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  17:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Question
The Novels project is only for fiction, so the books project is for everything else book-related? Just wondering, so I don't put the wrong tag on talk pages again. RobJ1981

Anton Chekhov B rating
Did you read the article before tagging it, or just copy the out-of-date tag above? I see no advantage in under-rating an article. qp10qp 02:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies for my tone, which is, I think, justifiably cold; but I am always polite.


 * You are quite right that the article doesn't require a further assessment at this moment, which is why it was superfluous of you to give it one; it was already rated a B; all the work has been intended to raise it above a B. What is the point of giving it another B?


 * If I understand you correctly, you are saying that even though the article can't be assessed at an A because it hasn't gone through other processes, it can be reassessed at a B. I don't follow. It was already assessed at a B, so how does giving it a second B tag help? Almost every word of the article has changed since it was assessed at a B, by the way, so if you just copied the existing tag, that is of no help, either. If my tone is cold it is because your edit history reveals that you labelled this (and many other articles) all at once, without having time to read them. What is the point of that?


 * As far as the article being unstable because it is still being edited is concerned, I agree only insofar as it won't be ready to be proposed for an FA for a few weeks yet, when it will get the necessary improvement advice of other editors. A tag without any improvement advice seems to me unhelpful. On the other hand, from here on, the changes to the article need only be minor, because the subject is fully covered using biographies, articles, and fictional works. Now must come a concentrated attempt at compelling prose and at the finer points of scholarly controversy; for example, today I was working on the slightly differing views of scholars about Olga Knipper's pregnancy.


 * qp10qp 04:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand the rating system. Point of the rating system is that because I gave that B-rating it ended up in the category Category:B-Class Russia articles. If I hadn't given the B-rating, it would have ended up in the category Category:Unassessed Russia articles, which is silly as it has been assessed. It would also be a bit silly if two projects rate the quality of the same article differently, so the Biography qualify rating and the Russia quality rating have to be aligned. Since the article didn't meet my criteria for GA-class, A-class or FA-class, it still got rated as B-class.


 * I understand the rating system; I don't understand an article having two ratings of B. One B will do. To just copy the rating, without properly assessing the article and giving the editors points to address is unhelpful. Explain how it helps the article.


 * Because of these criteria, I can assess an article quite fast, without going into detail. GA-class and FA-class are already identified by the appropriate tags, and A-class articles that underwent a peer review but didn't receive FA-grade or GA-grade are not that common. That leaves only the distinction between B-class, Start-class and Stub-class. Usually, it doesn't take me too long to make up my mind between those three classes. And of course, if I were to disagree with an already given rating, something big needed to have happened, as it did to Chekhov, but that was B-class already.


 * In effect, then, you want to make the point that the article is Russian or under the umbrella of a Russian project. You can do that without grading it.


 * BTW, I don't agree with your statement that your tone was justifiably cold; it was cold, but not justifiably so. It seems to me that you don't assume good faith. If you got upset about the quality assessment, I'm sorry about that, but the proper thing to do was to ask why I had given that assessment, and not to accuse me of not looking at the article.


 * No one was upset. I always assume good faith. I don't doubt that you labelled the article in good faith. I am always polite. You have a tone too, by the way, but I'm only interested in the substance of what you're saying.


 * Now I'm through with defending myself. I wish you good luck with the work on Anton Chekhov, and urge you to consider becoming more friendly and less aggressive in your communications. That will ultimately also help in getting Anton Chekhov up to FA-class, as aggressive responses to criticism will tend to sway the vote away from the desired result. Errabee 06:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I assess FAs myself. I'm never aggressive. You are mistaking assertiveness for aggressiveness. I love addressing criticisms of articles; but you have made none of Anton Chekhov yet, except that the article may be unstable. qp10qp 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC
Hi Errabee, I noticed your outside view on the RFC. I'm afraid I do not agree with it, and since you said you appreciate private comments, allow me to point out why. There has been friction between some Polish and Russian editors for a while now, with guilt on both sides. However, your one-sided portrayal of this sensitive topic as a "pro-Polish and/or anti-Russian" conflict, "extreme Polish POV pushing", and a "Polish nationalist movement" was offensive, especially to Piotrus who has tried hard to mend fences. Also, it seems you misinterpreted Piotrus' remark about RfArb. He said he expects the community to bring you before RfArb sooner or later if you continue to make such divisive comments; he was not threatening you. Cheers, Appleseed (Talk) 16:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. I am not familiar with the Ingria incident, but I can't say I'm surprised Piotrus didn't receive you with open arms after your comment on RfArb.  I believe I read it correctly; I noticed that you said that there is nationalism on both sides, but after that you didn't mince words about the Polish side.  It's hard to AGF when that is your first encounter with an editor. All in all, however, this seems to be just a big misunderstanding.  You seem like a reasonable editor, and in my experience Piotrus is too.  Perhaps both of you can apologise to each other and put this behind you. Appleseed (Talk) 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

meta and ru-sib
Could you please confirm your identity with the user m:User:Errabee in Meta? It is needed to prevent sockpuppetry on the vote page Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Siberian Wikipedia. --Yms 14:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Pushkin/Schiller/LaRouche
LaRouche sources are not considered reliable for a variety of reasons. The ArbCom previously decided, in Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche that: I was clearing out a few dozen links to LaRouche sites from unrelated articles. -Will Beback · † · 22:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.

Signpost updated for December 26th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Importance ratings
Sorry, I've never really took interest in ratings and assessment processes (although I probably should have), so I can't really offer anything insightful. Your arguments presented so far, however, feel quite logical and are laid out in a manner that makes a lot of sense. If I think of anything useful to say, I'll add my comment. Cheers,&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I see, both spellings (Hadji and Khadzhi) are used in English. Since the guy was a Chechen freedom fighter, it probably makes more sense to romanize his name from Chechen (which, I assume, is what Hadji is) rather than from Russian. Still, considering existing usage patterns, I don't really have a strong preference for either variant.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)