User talk:Hemlock Martinis/Archive 3

History of Armenian Nationality
You redirected my page to History of Armenia which was wrong because if you had read the intro you would have seen its a page about CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY issues in Armenia, not its general history. I'd really appreciate it if you could refrain from redirecting it again especially because its for a class at my college. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manju Ismael (talk • contribs) 19:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Companies by country
Can certainly be further diffused and should be. They can be defused into proper "industry" categories within the country--a major piece of work. Everyone is certianly invited to work on them Hmains 03:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha! I see what you mean. Very good work then! :) --Hemlock Martinis 07:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Why have u deleted my page
I have created a page about a Pakistani actor and musician Fawad Afzal Khan and you have deleted it. I want the article back. If an american artist can have his wiki page why can't a Pakistani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.101.132.114 (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because he wasn't notable. And vandalizing my user page is not going to convince me otherwise. --Hemlock Martinis 14:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing backlinks
Please do not remove backlicks in cases like, where the article could exist. Thank you. --NE2 21:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottoman Empire]]
An article that may eventually interest your budding wikiproject is currently under translation from French to English at User:Eliyak/History of the Jews of Thessaloniki. Cheers, Tomertalk 01:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of George Robert Aberigh-Mackey
A tag has been placed on George Robert Aberigh-Mackey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Treygdor 22:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Element 115 (Band)
Element 115 (Band), a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Miscellany for deletion/Element 115 (Band) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Element 115 (Band) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Tobor0 02:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine Emperors
You have included the template catdiffuse in this category Due to the message: "Articles in this category should be moved to subcategories where appropriate" I've been removing this category and checking that the article was in the right subcategory. For example I've deleted the Category Byzantine Emperors from the article Andronikos I Komnenos, because the Category:Comnenid dynasty is a subcategory inside Byzantine Emperors.

But some wikipedians doesn't agree with this, for instance User:Kober 'Disagree. Category:Comnenid dynasty also includes several individuals who were not emperors' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margacst (talk • contribs) 14:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

DYKnow
Hi - your article is a bit light and the hook was a bit unhooky. I suggested and have nominated
 * DYK...that John Cartier was eulogized by Edmund Burke for his Governorship of Bengal despite losing a third of the population during the 1770 famine? by Hemlock Martinis nom by Victuallers 20:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC) (user has been warned that this less than 1500 chars)

Hope you like the changes ... if not then please amend. The article is likely to be rejected unless there are more than 1500 chars of real text (ie minus refs, pics titles etc). Hope that helps Victuallers 20:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC) - next update of main page Victuallers (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you
I appreciate your kind praise about my work on Harriet Tubman. Thanks for making WP a happy place. – Scartol  ·  Talk  12:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.


 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * 2) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * 3) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * 4) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * 5) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * 2) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Renaissance heading
This new heading in early modern history of Europe looks quite strange at the moment. Incidentally you are the first editor to add names of people to the Europe history section. This could possibly create some problems (eg there was a huge problem with Scipio3000 about having a whole paragraph about Constantin the great). It's probably easy to fix the orphaned Renaissance header which at present seems to serve no purpose: what does WP:MOS say? Mathsci (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Which plays did Homer write? What's wrong with Euripides and co? Mathsci (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching my weird little half-sentence there, must've forgotten about it. I'm shying away from specific people in the Middle Ages and beyond, since individuals had less impact at that point, although I may add some Renaissance artists. Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey, two fundamental plays in Western civilization. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * They are not plays, they are EPIC POEMS. It even says so on the WP for the Odyssey and the Iliad. What you have written is simply inaccurate and unhelpful. I will alert Dbachmann. At my grammar school in the last century, founded in the reign of Henry VIII, we read Euripides and Thucydides in ancient Greek and Virgil and Caesar in Latin. Euripides' Admetus and Alcestis was a play, the Aneid was an epic poem. Have you had any such training?   Mathsci (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for catching that mistake! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hesiod was a poet not a playwright. Note however that all greek plays were written in verse (iambic pentameter I think). Perhaps "narrative and dramatic verse" might be a good way of summarising what the greeks gave us in literature. What do you think? Mathsci (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why all these references to National Geographic for history references? What exactly are you referring to? It's quite hard to tell. Is it the reference book you added? Mathsci (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm referring to specific page numbers in that book. I couldn't discern a specific author of it so I'm referring to the author as "National Geographic" since they seem to treat it as a collective product. See Song Dynasty for examples of the "author, page number" citations. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still very odd to use this as your sole reference. Are you a historian? Mathsci (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a very reliable and accurate source. And no, I'm not a historian, although I don't see how that's important. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you know it's very reliable and accurate? It would seem unlikely to be used for a university level history course, not so? I find some of the things you have added a bit arbitrary, although on the whole I don't have major objections. It seems just that at some points you have added too much irrelevant detail which has destroyed the balance a bit. Why single out Napoleon Bonaparte for example? Why not Oliver Cromwell? Mathsci (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't gotten to the modern era yet, that's why it seems uneven at the moment. Napoleon's influence was felt throughout Europe, whereas Cromwell's effect was confined geographically to the British Isles. As for reliability, I trust the National Geographic Society. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Also I am puzzled about your sentence concerning the middle classes and the renaissance. Are you talking about 1480 - 1600? A middle class emerged in England during the industrial revolution. Holland was probably properly middle class, but in the 17th century, long after the renaissance. Is Raphael greater than Titian or Giovanni Bellini or Giotto or Fra Angelico? Isn't it better to talk about schools of painters, like quatrocento? Deciding that history is made by individuals is surely a personal point of view. Why mention only the most ineffectual and unknown of all Roman emperors? You don't mention music, only visual art. Why? All quite arbitrary. Mathsci (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, you could add these things yourself. Be bold! :D --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made some changes to balance the classical section. The section on the Dark Ages was problematic: this period is extremely complicated and it is very hard to do it justice in even two paragraphs. I have therefore reinstated the original version which fitted better into the flow. My copy of the Penguin Atlas of Medieval History charts the innumerable migrations during this period. It even mentions the Vikings, who surely have their place in European history. Mathsci (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Early Middle Ages (rise of feudalism) are the same thing as the Dark Ages. You have added unnecessary confusion to the history section. Mathsci (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I've changed it to match as such. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It was easy to fix this change as well as several other minor discrepancies. I have also transferred the mention of Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci to the caption. I will add the Medici family as a wikilink to "courtly patronage". I think your choice of photo was extremely good for illustrating the paragraph on the Renaissance. I see it's among the 10 images on WP. Why not more images for the history section, eg a greek temple or sculpture? Just a thought. Mathsci (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I don't see why you've removed sourced information in favor of unsourced information. I'm extremely busy irl at the moment but when I get a chance I'll work on it further. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've taken a spare moment to modify the article again. Thoughts? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A Life Once Lost
Hi, I saw you A7'ed this article. Being as the group is signed to Ferret Records and has charted, that shouldn't have happened; can you please restore the article? I can fix it up if it looks ugly. Chubbles (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chubbles (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of the History section of Europe
Why did you revert my edits as you just did? Are you intending to include my changes? I am quite bemused why you use just ONE BOOK - your National Geographic World History book - as a source. This seems unscholarly. Already have you made a number of mistakes. In particular why are events of the 20th century included in the Age of Revolutions? You are behaving irrationally and arbitrarily. Kindly stop this: you do not have any experience in editing history pages. Have you even heard of Euripedes? Have you considered that your book might not be the only source that can be used? I have no way of checking that your reading of it is correct. Normal form is to add a number of reference texts, rather than a myriad of citations from one fixed book. Please now behave like a normal editor and discuss what you want to do on the talk page of Europe. Mathsci (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please explain the discussion of the two world wars in the section on Age of Revolution. This was a just an oversight on your part, which I corrected and you capriciously corrected. Why? Are you using a different definition of the Age of Revolution (1750-1800) and Modern History (late 18C-present) to WP? In reading Michael Levy's fine book on the Renaissance, I read that Renaissance scholars scoured the Islamic and monastic libraries to obtain classical greek and arabic texts (in Latin often) on the arts and the sciences. There were also texts retrieved from the Holy Land during the NINE crusades. Other parts of WP agree with my statement. Mathsci (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I've only worked on portions up to the Renaissance. I haven't had a chance to go further than that yet; the stuff there about the modern period is not my doing. Second, your edits either consisted of reversion back to unsourced versions or of removal of my cited material. Third, as for my "experience" editing history pages, that's neither here nor there. Fourth, you haven't added a single citation to the text, and it seems to me that the bulk of your edits on that page mostly consist of pruning or removing the stuff I've added. Fifth, I've adjusted the Renaissance section to accommodate your wishes. Sixth, I like the pictures you've added. Any thoughts as to one for the Middle Ages section? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom table with portfolio links
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. &mdash; Sebastian 05:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Europe
Your paragraphs on 20C European history are inaccurate, poorly written, represent your own WP:POV and use only one source. Please respond on the talk page of Europe before making further edits. If you do not, your method of editing will probably result in your contentious style of editing (reliance on one short source - a 250 page picture book on world history, refusal to use talk page discussions, reversion of properly sourced statements from academic sources) might warrant a report on WP:AN/I. Please follow the usual norms for wikipedia editing. If you wish to continue to edit there, please find more than one source, as is usual for history articles. --Mathsci 07:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have I offended you at some point in the past? Did I delete an article of yours or something? You come here, harass me every time I edit the page, and are overly antagonistic towards everything I do. Now you're just plain threatening me. I'm more than happy to discuss the article itself, but when you just snipe at me I just tune you out. Please just leave me alone unless you have something constructive to add. --Hemlock Martinis 08:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
Hi - I noticed that you added the following to the SPP article: "Critics argue that the SPP is a 'blueprint for building a European Union-style merger of the three countries of North America', creating a 'North American Union', although that has been referred to as 'mythical' and a 'conspiracy theory'." I reread the source (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50981) and I can't locate any of those quotes. In fact, the words 'conspiracy' and 'myth' don't even occur in the source! Is it possible that your edit was in error? If so, I would appreciate it if you would revert. Otherwise, please clarify. Thanks! - N1h1l 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries! I can see where the confusion might occur, since the article's author seems to have been somewhat sarcastic in his tone. The first sentence of the fourth paragraph reads, "As fears of the mythical NAU grow, they appear to be subtly shaping more mainstream debates about immigration and trade." The fifth paragraph's first sentence reads, "The NAU may be the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time, according to scholars studying what the historian Richard Hofstadter famously called the "paranoid style" in American politics." That's where I got the quotes from. --Hemlock Martinis 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I'm baffled... Are you really looking at the WorldNetDaily article linked above? Because I swear that those quotes are not in the article. Are you reading the article by Joseph Farah from June of 2006? - N1h1l 21:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, my bad! I had the wrong source open on my Firefox browser...my mistake! Thanks for catching that! :D --Hemlock Martinis 21:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:74.200.75.5
How is this an acceptable block? The user was not warned and the reason his behavior was not acceptable was not explained to him. What you did would be considered biting a newcomer, and as an admin, you should know better. I simply took the time to explain to the user what was wrong. The user was unblocked today, and rightfully so. - Rjd0060 17:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * His votes consisted of calling two candidates "cabal members" and in his vote against FayssalF he opposed on the basis that FayssalF "Has not shown strength of character to resist clamours to indef-block valuable users." He also cited Deskana's block of Android Mouse's alternate account, which occured in August of this year. An IP address suddenly editing four days ago with a familiarity not only with Wikipedia processes and procedures but also with a specific and minor incident four months ago stretched my assumption of good faith too far. --Hemlock Martinis 19:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Still an inappropriate block. Nothing was explained to the user without immediate blocking threats, and subsequent blocking.  There was no clear disruption being cause to Wikipedia. - Rjd0060 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but it seems that the issue's been settled. --Hemlock Martinis 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it has, however, in my honest opinion, this reflects very negatively on your judgement as an administrator. You may want to re-read the following from Blocking Policy:

Everyone was new once, and most of us made mistakes. That's why we welcome newcomers and are patient with them, and assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. We also ask that newcomers make an effort to learn about our policies and guidelines so that they can learn how to avoid making mistakes.

Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour conflicts with our policies and guidelines. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable.

Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking ɤ. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity, and accounts whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sock-puppetry, obvious vandalism, personal attack, and so on) may not require further warning.
 * ɤ Bolded for emphasis. Thanks for "listening".  - Rjd0060 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom election
Thank you for your very nice note : ) It's hard for me to oppose any of the candidates and I dislike doing it!  I admire very much that you are willing to invest all the time answering questions, subject yourself to a very stressful election process, and on top of that, be willing to serve voluntarily in a role that addresses one of the more drearier sides of the project if you win.  Btw, if it weren't for the fact that the number of available spots for the position is limited, I think you'd be a great asset to the committee as you seem very straightforward, even-keeled and fair-minded.  It wouldn't be a bad idea for Jimbo to expand the committee to include all willing qualified volunteers.  -- M P er el  06:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the kind words! :D In the words of Winston Churchill, the question of the seats is "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" - I don't think anyone knows what Jimbo's going to do, maybe not even Jimbo himself. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see... --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"anti-science"
You stated in response to Ragesoss's question:


 * WP:SPOV is outdated and historical for a reason - it forces us as a community to make judgments, to decide what the scientific community is thinking. WP:NPOV is more than comprehensive enough, and is far more suitable for our purposes as an encyclopedia.

I don't like that response at all. SPOV is historical because people thought it wasn't needed as NPOV covered it better. The idea that SPOV "forces us as a community to make judgements, to decide what the scientific community is thinking" is something I consider insulting as one of the members of the scientific community trying to fight against the pseudoscientific POV-pushers here at Wikipedia. Having been subject to arbcomms where many members were so committed to the idea of accommodation that they failed to see how damaging the people who fight against proper description of scientific consensus in the articles, I can only support candidates who give the most weight to those trying to combat pseudoscience in favor of a scientific point-of-view (which is, ultimately, NPOV in such situations).

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly support fighting pseudoscientific POV warriors. My qualms were more with the policy itself than scientific point of view as a concept. Trying to divide articles into "uncontroversial", "pseudo-controversial" and "controversial" sounded overly and unnecessarily bureaucratic to me. I also expanded upon my answer here. Make no mistake, I oppose pseudoscience, but I didn't like how WP:SPOV itself forced us as a community to make that judgment. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the issue: the Wikipedia community must ultimately decide based on sources and the verifiabilitiy of such sources what is and is not pseudoscience. While many are concerned about the demarcation problem, determining what is and is not pseudoscience ultimately becomes an editorial decision in articles ranging from intelligent design to cold fusion to Big Bang that has to give most weight to the consensus of the scientific community. It has to because otherwise we would be bombarded with cranks trying to impose their own opinions about what makes their particular brand of pseudoscience a "scientific revolution" or "true science". This is where a judicious application of SPOV effectively becomes NPOV. It is a tricky problem, but one that has to be made or else there is no means of resolving disputes. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well now we're getting into a field in which ArbCom has no jurisdiction. It doesn't rule on content disputes, only user disputes. I'm uncomfortable with being characterized as "anti-science" which, aside from being both untrue and an oversimplification of my statements, has no relevance as to my ability to arbitrate fairly and effectively. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in, but if you keep in mind the content decisions made in the Paranormal arbitration that I pointed you to earlier on my talk page, I believe you'll understand ScienceApologist's concerns more clearly. The ArbCom has, in effect, set a precedent for making content rulings relating to science. I believe this is the source of his concern (as it was the source of mine). If the ArbCom hadn't made those content decisions, I think this would be a non-issue. Ante  lan  talk  21:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as a "content" issue at all. What we have is a situation where certain current arbitrators have adopted the attitude that accommodating all editors no matter how outlandish their editorial stances to the detriment of the encyclopedia is preferable. I myself believe that we need to keep a level-head regarding judicious application of the policies that are in place to prevent hijacking of the encyclopedia for aims other than those outlined by WP:ENC. What I have seen which is appalling is that civil pseudoscientists have been given a pass over strident skeptics. This is unacceptable in my book. Whether my objection is technically that such attitudes are "anti-science" or more "too pro-community" is arguable. I will assume good faith and change my rationale to "too accommodationist" so as to remove the offending remark. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: For the record...
Where have you said you shouldn't have done it? ...And what do you "disagree" with then? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops, thought I had. Well I have now then, I guess. As for the disagreement, I was mistaken at the time and I apologize for that. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm, okay? Hope you understand why I've opposed you then. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Another, unrelated question for you. How do you read all of these pages so quickly? Up to 9 in 60 seconds? I thought the purpose of patrolling new pages was to make sure that they are acceptable for Wikipedia, and surely somebody cannot tell that by only reading a few sentences, right? - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm just a fast reader. I dunno what to tell you. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Although you did not know that to be fact, so it still doesn't make your block acceptable, if thats what you are trying to prove. Secondly, I see no checkuser, just "suspicion", however they do seem to be the same. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to change your vote - I gave up on that long ago. Nor was I saying the block was acceptable - I've already renounced it. I just wanted to keep you up to date in case of future discussions. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. To be completely honest, our previous interactions have caused me to be very wary of the motive of any of your communications to me, as well as the intentions of your contributions in general. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't quite know how to respond to that last part. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize, as that was clearly inappropriate. I should have worded that a bit differently.  I know you've apologized and admitted that the block was inappropriate, and that should now be the main focus. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange closing request
This message has been addressed to you because you happened to be around at the time. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (2nd nomination) has reached a consensus, but it's one to stop itself - not one of the usual results, but it's been done to allow for attempted improvements, with good results. I was on the verge of closing it as AFD stopped for time being, but I've sworn not to close fiction AfDs due to my own activity in the field. Care to take a crack at it? --Kizor (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. My - quote - "healthy disrespect of the rules" got me my RfA, but will as surely get me in trouble one of these days. In the meantime, this closure was pretty clearly in the best interests of the encyclopedia. After all, what's the point of a discussion that's being invalidated at the same time? Cheers, Kizor (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Situations like these are why WP:IAR exist, my friend. :D --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom vote
Oh, OK. I probably should have elaborated. It's absolutely nothing personal. You do strike me as an asset to the project. I'm mainly concerned that you don't have enough experience. I've been around here a little bit longer than you have, and I'm still finding myself in new situations with new challenges. But I might support you at some point in the future. Take care, Zagalejo^^^ 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries! Your concern is one that's come up often during my candidacy, and I don't really know how to counter it. In my mind, one shouldn't judge a person by how many days they've been here but by how they've spent those days, and not by how many decisions they've made but by how they arrived to those decisions in the first place. However, your concern is a valid one, and I appreciate you taking the time to clarify further. Cheers, Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral!
Nice job on watching your votes.


 * Support I like many of your positions.
 * Oppose There are other candidates with good positions.
 * Support ArbCom needs fresh faces.
 * Oppose You might be too fresh.
 * Support You did Mock Trial. :D
 * Oppose Mock Trial isn't experience for these kind of disputes.

I guess I want to see a little more walking, though I like the talking. That make sense?

And out of curiosity, which state did you do MT in?

-- \/\/slack (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevada. I put that primarily so I wouldn't have to put "None". I haven't been able to figure out a good response to the experience thing, but I did write this above: "In my mind, one shouldn't judge a person by how many days they've been here but by how they've spent those days, and not by how many decisions they've made but by how they arrived to those decisions in the first place." So hopefully that helps. As for liking my positions, I won't begrudge you for voting to support any of them either. If you like what they have to say, then by all means vote for them. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A good point in the area of experience, relevant to a certain primary election. I'd hope that you can empathize with the parties in a case, because every cases has two sides, no matter how lopsided. I'm not convinced of your ability to empathize as an arbiter. -- \/\/slack (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've stated throughout my candidacy, I place fairness very high in arbitration proceedings. Part of being fair to all sides is respecting all sides, understanding their viewpoints and seeing where they're coming from. Only then can we as a committee make the best possible decisions for the best possible resolutions to user disputes. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Karelian Birch egg
Hi, I just wanted to congratulate you on creating a good article. I've been writing articles on the individual eggs recently, and really appreciate any contributions :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! :) Keep up the good work yourself, I took a look at some of your articles when I was preparing mine and they're great. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reno undo's. What gives?
What gives with undoing my changes to Reno? I gave an explanation for all the edits and you gave none. Are you arguing that there is NO nightlife outside of downtown Reno, that an entire section on every city's Wikipedia page should have something about drug abuse, that there is RTC service to Douglas County? Give me a break. Please explain. I'm not a wiki pro, but I know wiki enough to made good edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.15.21 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert you. See here. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The truth
Hi, I'm not looking for any kind of a fight, but have you considered that it might not be such a good idea to have that blockquote at the top of your user page? The fact that you're an administrator might lead a reader to believe that this is some kind of official Wikipedia policy instead of a paraphrase from Star Trek. It also might create the impression that you're an advocate of truth over verifiability. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, and I appreciate you coming to talk to me about it. I don't think the quote itself is harmful, but you may be correct about someone misinterpreting it. Let me correct that and tell me what you think. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, HM. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Rettetast
Hello. This images administrator has removed all the date wikilinks in the history section of Europe, claiming it makes the article unreadable. You added many of them yourself, so you might not share his personal point of view. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: For the record
That still doesn't excuse Sarah's block threat whatsoever. As far as I am concerned, you opened the door to such accusations and now must live with them (irrelevant of your intentions). Sarah blocking critics won't help either, since it'll make you look worse and seem as though the critics are being silenced - it's better to let the critics have their say, as opposed to blocking them. LuciferMorgan (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? First of all, I had no idea Sarah had further threatened to block him; I removed the IP's talk page from my watchlist after he refused my apology. Second, the IP wasn't a critic - as we had determined at this point, the IP was a well-known block-evading editor who was trolling the ArbCom elections. And third, I have no idea what "accusations" you say I now have to "live with". --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to even respond to this, given the fact you claim you have no idea what "accusations" I'm referring to. I have better things to do than waste my time having discussions with unruly admins. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okey-dokey, then. Have a nice day! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Kick ass!
Nice work on the new, well cited North American Union! Now we just have to keep all the conspiracy theories and WP:OR out in order to spare it from the same deletion fate that struck all of its predecessors. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! This topic is too important for us not to have an article about it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncategorized pages
There are over 8200 of them currently. The list is available in subpages: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Courtesy of User:DaB.. Enjoy! --MZMcBride (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're awesome. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I opened a BRFA to do this for Special:Uncategorizedpages. I noticed your request and have included this purpose in the brfa. see [] -- Nn123645 (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, Elonka 06:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Economics of Global Warming
Thanks very much for redirecting the page - it never occurred to me to just look at the page with a different capitalisation! --Neo (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

2nd XMonad AfD
Hi: you previously contributed to/edited the 1st AfD discussion about XMonad. XMonad has again been nominated for deletion; as you previously edited, I thought you would like to know. (I have also contacted all the other non-anon editors.) If you no longer care, please feel free to ignore this. Thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 02:04 24 December 2007 (GMT)

AFd: MIchael O'Connor (aerospace Engineer / entrepreneur)
Hello, I was informed that the article on Michael O'Connor (aerospace Engineer / entrepreneur) was nominated for deletion with the criteria being non-noteriety. I would like to ask that this decision be reviewed. Dr. O'Connor can be found through a Google search using the following terms: Michael O'Connor novariant and Michael O'Connor Technology Review. Since Micheal O'Connor is a popular name, it was not found in google with just a search on his name within the first 20 listings.

Dr. O'Connor was named one of the top 100 young innovators by Technology Review Magazine in 2003 (this is the criteria used in relation to his notoriety).

Thank you for your time and consideration! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sax1johno (talk • contribs) 08:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Postal Orders of Alderney
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Postal Orders of Alderney, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Postal Orders of Alderney. Spinningspark (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

North American Union
Even when the North American Union theme is a conspiracy theory, the Independent Task Force on North America by the Council of Foreign Relations that proposes a North American Economic and Security Community is NOT conspiracy theory, as neither the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Why do you systematically delete every reference to this articles in order to deny the existence of any legitimate effort on that way?

For example in the article about Union of South American Nations where you deleted a "see also" reference and in the article of Continental Union you did the same. kardrak 21:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * SPP involvement in creating a North American Union is a conspiracy theory, as has been shown by multiple independent reliable sources. The academic and scholarly proposals of a North American Union are factual, but it is important to separate them from the conspiracy theories. I have done just that. Also, I removed links to a "North American Union" from those pages because it implies that there is an actual North American Union, which there is not. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sinestro Corps War
I just happened upon Sinestro Corps War at the GA nominations queue. I just want to say it's a very well-done article, particularly compared to other comics crossover articles. I can see it being a model for other crossover articles. My main concern is that you should try and cut down the plot synopsis as much as possible. Detailed plot synopsis are encouraged to be avoided, for if they are too detailed, they can effectively replicate the reading experience of the original material and therefore infringe on copyright. Aside from that, it's looking good so far. Publisher's Weekly is a website has a feature that analyzes sales figures for Marvel and DC every month, so you should look at those as well for more hard data. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, quote the source directly and exactly. Paraphrasing can lead you to phrasing that that might lean a bit too much towards OR. Here's the link to the sales charts and analysis WesleyDodds (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Crusade historians
Category:Crusade historians, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

State Quarter page
I saw that you are working on the state quarter page. I've added the names of the engravers to the 50 State Quarters designs. I hope this will be helpful.--Ted-m (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Redirect template
Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the Category redirect template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Burma-Myanmar
Yep you'll have to watch that. We went for years naming it Myanmar and then suddenly back to Burma coinciding with the protests. Ekyaw is Burmese and is adament it is Myanmar! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     Talk? 22:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, I just spent the last hour reverting his changes to the Category:Burma categorization structure. Going through his edit history now to fix anything else he might've changed. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Union of Myanmar is recorded by UN, ASEAN, BTC and other notibility organizations. You mean which convention. I am Myanmar form Union of Myanmra. Why dont u accept? Are u Myanmar or Britain?--Ekyaw (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the extensive discussion about this at Talk:Burma/Archive 3 for why Wikipedia uses Burma and not Myanmar. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Green Lantern template
It is not nice undoing each others actions in this template. Does it not improve Wikipedia by providing some helpful information? Only if you have a personal discomfort with the involving creators, but I hope that this is not the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Green_Lantern

Retroqqq (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * They haven't made a noteworthy impact on the Green Lantern mythos. They don't belong there. Your accusations of a personal vendetta are false. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK remove whatever you like. :P

Retroqqq (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Brethren Court
An editor has nominated Brethren Court, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome work with the Newspaper endorsement 2008 page
Many thanks! -Kallahan (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Brethren Court
The page has been nominated for deletion, please join the discussion here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Question re Project Chanology and semi-protection
How does an edit like this from a new user manage to get through when the article is semi-protected? Cirt (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The account was created in March 2006. It's likely either a sleeper account or one that someone created and forgot about until today. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What is a "sleeper account" ? There seem to be alot of that on this article, especially in the recent AfD...  Cirt (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an account that a person, usually a dedicated vandal, creates in advance to bypass things like the four-day barrier for semi-protection of articles. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is very annoying/frustrating, especially in this particular situation. Thanks for the info. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SNOW
Hello,

I noticed that you closed the AfD Articles for deletion/Project Chanology "per WP:SNOW." While I agree that the discussion would have eventually ended in a Keep (despite the huge, huge numbers of SPAs involved in that discussion), I feel I should remind you that WP:SNOW is not policy, AfDs should not be closed by account of it, and when referencing it in a decision (since it's an interpretation of IAR) it is critical that you explain your reasoning in detail, rather than merely linking to a non-policy. You owe the community that much in making your decision, especially in a discussion with well-thought-out opposition. Cheers! - Chardish (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Vital articles
I've been discussing changes on the talk page for awhile (though for a different list) and no one mentioned a rule about putting things in alphabetical order. Is there a written rule about that somewhere? Historical order just made a lot more sense to me. Also, the edit you reverted was only a change of order. There were no "subtractions and additions" to revert. Just thought I'd let you know. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Green Lantern Template
The template is currently being protected over an issue that's arisen between myself and another editor over the inclusion of Geoff Johns. I am for it, he is against it. I would appreciate any support for him that I can get, if you wouldn't mind. Thanks! --CmdrClow (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I second the above editors concern over this matter. Geoff Johns has every right objectively to be in this template, and the other editor typically exerts pressure to push through his POV at times. Your review of this would be appreciated.Netkinetic  (t / c / @) 05:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulgaria
How do you know it's opened? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just re-read it and you're right, it's not an op-ed. It is, however, dated June 14, 2007, so it's not current to the situation. I would prefer a more recent statement from the Bulgarian government. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion
The actual discussion is at Talk:Foreign relations of Kosovo. I am all for removing the merge tags entirely, and have done so twice, but I'm not doing it again. J Milburn (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That merge discussion's about merging that article into another article. They scratched their heads when I commented there. That's why I commented on the list talk page as well. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger
Sorry, I got ahead of myself and forgot to look at the talk page. Everything reverted. — Kurykh  00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, we all make mistakes! :) --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

EU
Why no EU section on the Kosovo recognition page? You reverted, but gave no explanation at all. Korossyl (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It didn't seem appropriate to have a whole section for five countries. I'd prefer we keep four sections for countries: Official Recognition (of which there are none currently), Planned Recognition, No Recognition, and Neutral. Besides, the EU is meeting as we speak so we'll likely know what those five countries are doing soon. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Allllrighty. Thanks! Korossyl (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[dweeb]
Is Dweeb (band) categorised well? Im a newbie so I wouldnt know. Tractakid (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC) (I always forget to sign first time :P)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
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 (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

224jeff6/Userboxes/lambo owner
A tag has been placed on 224jeff6/Userboxes/lambo owner, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a user page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a regular Wikipedia article rather than a user page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request yourself to wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ViperSnake151 23:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Service is needed in layaway
Pardon my frustration, but as the creator of the North American Union article, could you weigh-in on the brewing edit war over the NAU being described as an urban legend and/or conspiracy theory? --Kralizec! (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Quietly Confident Quartet
Hi there, could I have a time extension for this, I've been rather tied up lately. Thanks, Blnguyen  (vote in the photo straw poll ) 07:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that the only concerns you are holding out for are the lack of images. Is this correct. I do believe that it is standard to not push the bounds of FU to scrape a picture for a recently active athlete, whose photos are not old enough for PD. For example, has many modern sport articles with no PD images available. Blnguyen   (vote in the photo straw poll ) 08:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a quick Google search and found that finding images for these guys is, to speak colloquially, a bitch. So I'll overlook it and pass them anyways. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Israel the illa real
I found a user page, User:Israel the illa real, which seems to be used for self promotion. - Warthog Demon  20:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And again. Shall I report to AIV? - Warthog Demon  20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I will attempt to contact them on their talk page first. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for redirecting
Thanks for redirecting List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek:Enterprise, although I've since done a copy and paste as my version was more nearly complete. My punctuation needed correcting anyway. Confused me mightily for a minute or two as I was by then creating (double) redirects!

Were you using some tool that alerts you to articles created with similar names to existing articles? - Fayenatic (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, no worries! I didn't use any tools; I just saw your article on Special:Newpages and when I attempted to rename the article to add a space between the colon and Enterprise, it alerted me that there was already an article by that name. I didn't check to see if it had any changes though, so that part was my mistake. Glad it all worked out though! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Justin DeJong
Hey,

Don't worry I'm not contesting the delete of the article in fact i regret creating it. I just want to say that it was not vandalism and i did not use Twinkle (What ever that is). Cheers. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Blackest Night
Hey, I'm looking for people to help me out with the creation of this article, care to lend a hand? --CmdrClow (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hell yeah! I'll do a source search this evening! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
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 (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Subcategories of
Hi,

Thank you very much for your message. I understand about Category:Government, institutions and politics of Moldova. But you have reverted all my changes. The ones related to merging Politics of Moldova and Government of Moldova were a majority, but why did you revert the rest as well? I believe those were correct. I see all your changes were done in a 2 minute interval, so I guess you used some robot...

Since you specialize in categories, I guess you are the person I've been looking for. Could you, please, explain me how do you decide what goes into Politics of ... and Government of ... At least, I believe they shouldn't be subcategories of each other, or I am wrong? Here is what subcategories were after my moves in Category:Government, institutions and politics of Moldova:

* Elections in Moldova * Energy in Moldova o Oil and gas companies of Moldova o Power stations in Moldova * Flags of Moldova * Foreign relations of Moldova o Moldovan diplomats * Moldovan law o Law enforcement in Moldova * Law enforcement in Moldova * Military of Moldova * National symbols of Moldova * Political parties in Moldova o Political parties in Transnistria * Moldovan politicians o Moldovan communists o Presidents of Moldova o Prime Ministers of Moldova * Presidents of Moldova * Prime Ministers of Moldova

Could you, please, tell me (without looking at the current state :-)) ), which goes where. In additon, for example, there will eventually be cathegories MPs from Moldova and Judges from Moldova. Where do these go? They are not executive brench, and judges are forbidden to do politics. Also, where National Bank goes?

I hope you are not busy, and can explain me. Anyway, I am sorry if I caused vandal-panic.

To explain my actions: The principle I had and have in mind is: people use categories to search for information, hence it is very unwise to have empty or one-article categories, super-cycles and 4 and more-times repetitions. Once a category grows, there is no problem to split it. This is especially the case for small countries, where many categories that are rich in the case USA might be empty for centuries to come. :-) :Dc76\talk 04:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * Thank you very much for your reply. You don't have to apologize, you can see that I am also busy in real life. So the amount of apology should be equated... I am very glad you were not ignorant to my reply: that's what I wanted, nor more (also no less :-))) )


 * Before your reply I thought about the issue more, and I am very glad that you have confirmed the soundness of the arguments that I arrived at. Indeed, Government and Politics should be separate categories (the fact that they were separate for all other countries was already a strong enough reason, but anyway). Government should be understood in the larger sence, i.e. institutions through which a country is governed (the noun comes from the verb in this logic), not the executive brench only. The brenches are brenches of government. Judges would only be in Gov, while MPs would be in both Government and Politics. I am not going to repeat you arguments for Gov/Pol as well; I agree with them. So, I'd say this is settled, and I would be defending it to third editors, if it would be the case.


 * I partly accept your opinion about rather keeping the categories that could be filled in time, as opposed to a minimalist stance. Further, it depends on what is considered "could be filled in time". I need to think about this more, as the ground on which my opinion is based now are very week.


 * On a different note, I consider Category:Moldova needs a human review. I'll give you one example. In Category:Moldovan culture you will find Category:Moldovan art and Category:Arts in Moldova. As the term "Moldovan art" always has the meaning "Art of the country Moldova", not some ethnic or traditional art (in this case that would be Romanian art, Soviet art, Ukrainian art), I believe some modification here is needed: Let us have only Category:Arts in Moldova, or if you insist, then keep Category:Moldovan art as sub-cat of Category:Arts in Moldova. Another example: it should be Transportation in Moldova, not Transport in Moldova.


 * I have a plan. Let me make in my user space a "map" of the first and second tier subcats of Category:Moldova. Both what exists, and what I would suggest to have. I would like then to discuss with you whether the proposed changes make sense. When we go over all of them (a dozen, maximum 20 small diffs), I can place it as a subpage in Portal:Moldova as an "instruction" to anyone creating articles about Moldova. The instruction would read:


 * "Here is a "map" as of month, date, year of the first- and second-tier subcategories of Category:Moldova. If you are creating, or reviewing an article which has relevance to Moldova, or discovered such an existing article without proper categorification, please use this "map" to place your article(s) in the proper category(ies).


 * "If you like, you can also help more: regularly review all of the categories listed here (or a number of them that correspond to your interests), and if there is a case, distribute the articles further into lower-level categories. Also, move to the proper place the articles that are introduced there by mistake (e.g. if you find a music article in a sport category. N.B. In doing so, use your caution, it could be a sport team' hymn! - in which case it has to be in both sport and music)"


 * I hope after this, I could find someone writing and running a program, that will sweep through WP for potentially Moldova-related articles. The output of such a program would naturally be a long list. It would be nice, if at the cost of 1-2 clicks the program would also add the proper (sub)category. So, you see the need to review the existing structure of Category:Moldova for logical soundness before attempting such tasks.


 * Well, I'll be contacting you again, once I've done the "map" in my user space. Feel free to edit in Category:Moldova at any time (in WP it is easy to track changes, it is difficult to view the whole picture).


 * Best regards, Dc76\talk 15:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Quietly Confident Quartet review
Hello, I am working on cutting down on the backlog in the "Sports and recreation" GA nominee list. I noticed that you placed this article's review on hold on February 24. The editor responded to your comments on February 29. This is the last activity on this article. I was wondering if you would be able to review the editor's comments and make a decision about the article (or point out any concerns that you feel still need to be addressed if it is going to remain on hold). Thank you for taking the time to review articles. It is greatly appreciated. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have checked to see if you were in contact with the editor. Please ignore my comments. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine navy
My word, that was quick! I expected it to languish there for a couple of weeks before getting anyone's attention! Thanks! I know there are too few images, but all I have available are in books, and, needless to say, copyrighted. I'll try to find some more. BTW, do you think I should try for A-class, or does it need more work? Best regards, Cplakidas (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * An A-Class nomination couldn't hurt; at the very least, they'll give you good suggestions on where to improve. As for images, I'd try looking at other related articles and using those as a starting point. For example, if I was writing about the United States Navy I'd want to include a picture of John Paul Jones, the Navy's "father". If I were writing about the Royal Navy I'd want a picture of Horatio Nelson, who commanded one of their greatest victories. If I were writing about the Imperial Japanese Navy I'd want pictures of early Japanese ships to show the historical progression of the Japanese navy. And if I were writing about the Russian Navy I'd look for a painting of Peter the Great, the monarch who first established and expanded Russia's navy. Does the Byzantine navy have any analogous examples in its own history? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm honored
Thank you, Hemlock Martinis. That was the most genuine and thoughtful award message that anyone has ever left on my talk page. I love sharing intricate and comprehensive views of history with other people, and I love democratizing knowledge and ensuring that it is not just a privilege of the educated elite. I'm glad that you think so highly of my efforts to improve articles here on Wikipedia. Cheers.-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 20:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Cannon.
In case you're not watching it, a note. Cheers. · AndonicO  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:navy;">Hail!  18:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, weird server lag. It just showed up. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
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 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Pestilence (DC Comics)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Pestilence (DC Comics), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Pestilence (DC Comics). B. Wolterding (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
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 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Polish culture during World War II GAR
Please note that the article has been subject to much improvement, and there is a reply at talk to your comments. Thanks for the review so far, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Category:History of China by era
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:History of China by era, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:History of China by era is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:History of China by era, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
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 (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Australia
In your contributions last night our time - you did some diffused category changes - while I dont have a problem with most of the changes - I was concerned by one - Labour disputes do not necessarily coincide with violence - in Australia at least - that does seem a bit culturally loaded category or not what i would call NPOV _ as for the rest, and seeing it in context of your usual contributions I can see the australian context was a mere blink in your work - I have reverted an earlier message and comments - as in the end it would seem like water off the back of a supersonic seal :) SatuSuro 01:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, you're right. I was on autopilot at that point and should've taken a second look. I was using as a structural reference the Category:History of the United States category and subcategories since it is the best organized of the history of countries categories. Thank you for pointing it out and correcting it! :) --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Re fixing cats - I think i wanna grow up and be like you some day :) - also i have a thing about untagged categories which only few  members of th oz project seem to have interest - I keep seeing other projects who dont tag their category pages at all (leaves me in apoplexy but i should have alife elsewhere i know) - and if only the time in the day and a good awb type process i think id wanna go get rid of every red discussion/talk page tag on every category page in wikipedia - i think id have to be on something or a multiplicity of things for that particular ideal :|  SatuSuro 02:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha, I feel the same way! I don't do it myself because it's twice the work and I'd get half as much done, but I'm always glad to see other people do it! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)