User talk:PBS/Archive 14

Quotes
My favourite quote I've used recently is P. K. van der Byl suggesting to Ian Smith to "play the British government at their own game; accept the damn thing then ignore it." Always makes me smile. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 13:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:ODNBweb
There has been some discussion about changes to Template:ODNBweb. The discussion is on the template talk page at Template talk:ODNBweb. As you have edited this template in the past, I wanted to make sure you were aware of that discussion in case you wanted to comment there. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your message. I naively thought that the addition of one sentence supported by citations was a minor matter, I now know better. How songs and rhymes which mention "bonfire plot" and "bonfire time" lack relevance to an article on Guy Fawkes Night escapes me. I have a longstanding interest in the Napoleonic period and a rather newer one in the English Civil War.Urselius (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Burma to Myanmar query
There is a recent poll going on about changing the name of Burma to Myanmar. Since I believe you had posted there before on the subject I thought I could ask you without it looking like canvassing. This is probably an important issue for Canada, UK, US and Australia as the major English countries whose gov'ts do not recognize the name Myanmar but whose people (our editors) are probably split down the middle. This was an ugly contentious fight last go around and I'd hate to find out editors didn't get their say this time because they didn't even realize there was a poll going on. A lot of the talk was even done on the page Talk:Burma/Myanmar so they may not have everything marked properly for this poll. I had thought of adding a few wikiproject categories to the talk pages but I thought it best to ask an administrator the best way to make sure everyone, even those who voted and posted before, understood it was happening again. Maybe everyone has changed their minds and that's fine... just so long as they get a chance to see the conversations in case it gets a hurry-up closure in a week. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi Phil. Any idea why  your creations are being  listed at  special:new poages? AFAIK 'autopatrolled' is bundled with sysop. Let me know, because it  may  be a bug. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Merging the history of a sub-page in user space into a pre-existing article
Hi Phil, thanks for letting me know. Like Anthony, I generally don't do those types of history merges because of fears about overlapping edits. Graham 87 09:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Cite DNB
This template is also used for articles taken in part or completely from the DNB, e.g. George Beattie (poet), George Steward Beatson, John Bearblock, Richard Butcher (antiquary), John Dunstall, Gabriel Dugrès, William Augustus Barron, Dubthach Maccu Lugir... These pages are now not listed in a DNB category. Any suggestion how to solve this? Fram (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(your post to my talk page crossed mine to yours). What would be the easiest way to convert all pages that have Cite DNB but should have another DNB template, to that other template? Fram (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You should try this one at WP:WP DNB. I don't see a way to get absolutely all of them, but I know how to track down most of them. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent comment at Talk:Guy Fawkes Night
Regarding this piece of sagely advice - I recall at your recent RFC a great many editors "independently" giving you advice, advice which you have apparently completely ignored. The difference is that a good many of those editors are experienced content builders with plenty of GAs and FAs to their names, whereas the people you've observed accusing me of ownership generally have not the first clue about either process, a category I also place you in. Parrot of Doom 18:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * From an official policy: "The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." If you have a point to make, you should make it within policy. Always. That is why we have official policies as community norms. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Those who want respect, give respect. Parrot of Doom 23:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a wrongheaded personal opinion, rather than a community norm. If you withhold respect, then you put yourself in the wrong. Not anyone else. I have been opposing loudmouth behaviour onsite for a long time now, and I know what prevarications to expect. Coming across like an aggressive drunk in a pub is not acceptable, whomever you are talking to. Please understand that you are in an ongoing dispute, and the community's interest is in having it cease: not in saying "biting newbies is quite understandable" or "belligerent behaviour in defence of content is what we like to see". You scoff at WP:CIVIL. Your problem, not any defect in the system. One very good reason is the negative effect editors who carry themselves in this growling, territorial fashion have on the participation of female editors. A top priority in strategy; a reason I have made myself unpopular in the past with those who think going around bellowing at people is just a way of life. I need to get across to you that this is a serious matter, and being rude if you feel like it is not a longterm strategy. That is not my only concern in the tangle of disputes we are seeing, but it is certainly one where I think you should not be at all surprised if your behaviour is brought up against you. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hilarious. You compare me to an aggressive drunk in a pub, and then start waffling on about civility and women, as though you're some kind of expert on both subjects.  The only thing you've proven is that you're a hypocrite, Charles, and not a particularly clever one. Parrot of Doom 17:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is simple enough, though. Wikipedia is a working environment, and certain things are ruled out of order because they are detrimental to the work. Turning up on someone's usertalk simply to express contempt in divisive and snobbish language is well out of order. I'll let those who collect up the diffs of your continual rudeness be the judges of the pub comparison.


 * The "gender gap" is something widely discussed: here's a quote from |Sue Gardner's blog, "“I think [the gender gap] has to do with many Wikipedia editors being bullies." It is perfectly easy to be an expert these days on "women on Wikipedia": this point is widely discussed all over the media. I was dealing with this point (with a different verbal bully in mind) five years ago, because it is actually common sense (is there anyone who really doesn't understand women's aversion to your type of hostile interaction?) So let's just put that down to a generic sneer, coupled with an ad hominem argument against me which proves nothing. All par for the course, certainly.


 * I'm actually looking into this mess with an problem-solving approach, having in mind various options (FAR done seriously, AN/I, mediation, ArbCom), since the misconceived RfC to which you allude was not structured in such a way as to make any impression on the dispute as something to resolve. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia is a working environment then it can pay me what I'm owed. Until then it's a hobby, nothing more.  The rest of your post is just the usual bollocks; civility warriors are always blind to their own incivility, and the first to moan about others'. Parrot of Doom 21:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually tu quoque isn't an argument anyway, and I have not been uncivil to you, rather than frank. Your post simply ducks the point: your approach is bad for the business this site is in. Therefore there are policies about incivility, and you can expect them to be pointed out to you. As often as is required. If you habitually ignore a policy, everyone else is entitled to point that out, repeatedly. If they don't, it's because of the business of mudwrestling. Basically you rely on being unpleasant to deal with.


 * It amounts to this: you are serially rude, and unapologetic about it. No one is entitled to do that here. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you ought to be looking seriously at your own behaviour Charles, not that of others. This is far from the first time I've seen you and PBS misbehaving, and I hope it will be the last. The days of administrators being immune to sanctions are thankfully drawing to a close. Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What has Charles done that you think is misbehaving? -- PBS (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Most recently, "you are serially rude", but there are many other examples of his dishonesty where civility, or his distorted notion of it, is concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The only parrots I have had personal contact with are bad tempered, tediously verbose, inclined to bite and defaecate all over the place they inhabit - Oh dear! - am I being dishonest or even possibly rude? It seems that there is one code of conduct wich applies to PoD and another for everyone else. PoD can be downright offensive and use gutter language and this is fine, but a perfectly civil admonition of his behaviour is "dishonest." Urselius (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. Specicifically, it's hypocritical to conduct oneself as Charles does: "You mustn't say rude things to me, but I can say rude things to you". 14:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is worth pointing out (i) that this thread is about PoD dissing PBS, not anything ever said to me; (ii) I never have any problem with people using frank language to me anyway, rather than flaming me; and (iii) the contrast between the (professional) approach of dealing with criticism in a calm and proportionate manner, and the (amateurish) notion that other views are best dealt with by lashing out, vulgarity, attempted mockery, dragging up irrelevancies, fallacious logic and above all always personalising everything to the hilt, should be pretty clear on this page alone. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep digging Charles, it'll be six feet deep soon enough. Parrot of Doom 09:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll never apologise for being honest when confronted with hypocrisy and general idiocy. I'm quite comfortable with the improvements I've made to this project.  Deal with it. Parrot of Doom 22:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One can be honest without incivility. I would hope that anyone would be comfortable with the improvements they have made to the project, but I would also hope that they would also be uncomfortable with anything that they have done that on reflection they considered harmful to the project, and that they would try to rectify those things if they can. -- PBS (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "I would also hope that they would also be uncomfortable with anything that they have done that on reflection they considered harmful to the project" - That's a happy thought, PBS, but for me it supposes almost superhuman objectivity. The way I should put that thought is to say that we all need to keep an open mind, willing to be persuaded that we are on the wrong side of an argument when we are. We all make mistakes, but surprisingly few active Wikipedians have the character to say "I can see now I was wrong". Moonraker (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I take it then, by combining your actions and the above comment, that you wish to be reviled.Urselius (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Parrot of Doom, your comments above are so generalized that they demonstrate nothing except flawed reasoning. It would be a step forward if you could learn to be less aggressive. Moonraker (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Why? Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * MF, if the leaked emails are accurate you yourself have alluded this issue when considering a new start. -- PBS (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite. What I was fed up with was the kind of interminable nonsense of editors demanding some trivial change or other until they finally wear down their opponents into either committing that greatest of sins, an incivilty – which forever after brands them as bad 'uns (ooh, just look at his block log) – or into retirement in disgust. Not being quite yet prepared to retire, I wanted to avoid the gaze of those who considered me a bad 'un. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

In brief then: User:Parrot of Doom thinks it is perfectly fine to use a term such as "idiot" when "I disagree with you on that point" would do (or "hypocrite" for "I feel you're not being consistent here"). It is not fine at all, but a big negative for the community. There is a policy on behaviour forbidding it, and he can't be bothered to comply. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Whereas its perfectly acceptable for hypocrites like yourself to label me as an aggressive drunk, wrongheaded, a verbal bully, someone who relies on being "unpleasant to deal with" and who is serially rude. Yes, because of course none of that is contrary to your precious civility policy, is it?  When you do it, it's called "being frank".  When I do it, it's a different story.  And after pronouncing your views on this matter, and ignoring the verbal garbage issued by others in this thread (which is equally as bad as anything written here), you think you have a "(professional) approach of dealing with criticism in a calm and proportionate manner"?  It'd be laughable if it wasn't so sad. Parrot of Doom 19:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The civility policy is of course official policy. Saying "my" civility policy is an example of "personalising up to the hilt", as I was saying. It is as much yours as mine, isn't it? "Coming across like an aggressive drunk in a pub is not acceptable, whomever you are talking to." That is the "Tony Blair you" naturally, replacing the less demotic "one"; this applies to me just as much as you. But in any case there is a profound difference. If I write your comment "waffling on about civility and women, as though you're some kind of expert on both subjects" into a proper comment in frank language, it might come out as "I don't see the relevance of what you are saying here about women to civility issues". The trouble with that, of course, is that it looks a bit disingenuous, instead of blokish.

Look, you obviously write well enough when you choose to. So I imagine you are perfectly alive to what I'm saying here. It seems to me that if what you are saying is translated into polite discourse, it really doesn't amount to much in the way of rational argument. It is actually not uncivil to point out to someone that they are violating policy: if it were, how could any admin operate here?

It is quite true that there are regrettable comments on this page (by User:Urselius, the parrot thing); dragging discussion down to the level you have been setting, and in fact lower. I'm quite happy to criticise that comment in the same way (attempted mockery). It just proves to me that we do need to be civil to each other. And I'm actually not the one being criticised here: you came to this page to flame PBS, not me, after all, and he has made just one very restrained remark. Why did you think I was praising my own approach? Charles Matthews (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My comment was, as it happens, entirely accurate - the parrots in question were African greys, called Jake and Jem, and were indeed bad tempered, tediously verbose, inclined to bite and defaecated all over the place they inhabited. Whether their characteristics could be extended to PoD I left entirely at the reader's discretion.Urselius (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The only thing I understand Charles is that you're in a glass house throwing stones. It's just a shame you can't see it. Parrot of Doom 23:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sir Gilbert Gerard of Harrow-on-the-Hill
You asked how I know the above was High Sheriff of Bucks in 1626.

I know he was High Sheriff of Bucks in 1626 because the published lists of High Sheriffs for Buckinghamshire include him as High Sheriff for that year. Although he lived in Harrow he had inherited property in Bucks (Aston Clinton) from his wife's family. Plucas58 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Barrack is confusing
Sorry, but I find Barrack (as in Regicide) confusing (difficult to understand). Am I not allowed to express this viewpoint on an article and ask for clarification? I didn't edit the word, I added a request for clarification via what, so far as I can tell, is the normal means. Please inform me if I am incorrect in adding a "Clarify" inline template and clarify (no pun intended!) then what "Use this template in the body of an article as a request for other editors to clarify text that is difficult to understand" means. Allens (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alberto Fortis (musician)


The article Alberto Fortis (musician) has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

John Payne (engraver)
Just wanted to let you know that I saw that you created the new article John Payne (engraver)--You did an excellent job with including references and citations.However, I think the article seems to contain a few errors: the article is confusing. I do not understand what you are trying to say.It would be great if you could also improve the related article Albert Henry Payne. Amy Z (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hermann Ritter
I have replied on the South West Africa campaign talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

RM and Ireland
Hi Philip. I was just wondering if you're intending to go any further with this proposal regarding Ireland on the RM talk page. I thought it was a good idea. Scolaire (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

References and notes at William Duff
Is there a policy mandating this change? Personally, I find this way of organising references much harder to deal with as a reader, given that I have to jump between lists. It's a convention suitable for paper books, not hyperlinked ones.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your very detailed reply. I wasn't going to revert on sight - that hadn't occurred to me. I actually wanted to check if there was a policy mandating such a change before doing anything. I understand your arguments for the short citation/bibliogaphy model, particularly with the DNB mess (I saw the page after the DNB addition - I admit a twinge of OWNership as the article starter - and was put out at the dog's breakfast I found.) Moving to short citations was clearly the quickest way of fixing it.)
 * It's true that in terms of editing, some paragraphs do get awfully cluttered, and mistakes can be made, when there are long cites. However, I still prefer the long citation method, both as a reader and as an editor. I've been slowly overhauling the page on Creativity, which was a mix of long and short citations. I found quite a few references that are not actually cited in the text. It seems easy to edit out a main text reference without also checking to see if the bibliography should be updated. I also like both as an editor and a reader being able to see more clearly, in a long bibiography, which sources are actually doing the most work.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The one issue is page numbers. Is there a good way to indicate page numbers with the long cite model?
 * I won't change the Duff article back unless I do more serious work on it and feel the alternative is better. Thanks for clearing up what's going on. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That reflist technique is great! I've been using twinkle for adding references as I write, but I'll try to use this format from now on. The page number thing I didn't quite get. How do I get something like this?
 * 1. ^ap.23bp.64cp.34. Jones, G. (2010) An example of a book title. OUP.
 * Can I have one reference, but multiple page numbers?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That rp thing looks like exactly what I want. Some editors may dislike it, but we all have our passions about citations. Sadly. Many thanks for your help.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Cite EB/whatever
I'll certainly have a look at this, email or drop the settings on-wiki somwhere. Rich Farmbrough, 00:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC).


 * James Shaw Kennedy seems to contain a second parameter... Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Here the citation is used as an external link, rather than a citation proper. Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC).

Poor sources
There's just no point in adding references to nearly 300-yo sources as here. Either get a modern source or leave it alone. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Russian War (1807–1812) reference reversion
Hi Philip, your change may be to standard usage, but it is a poor standard. I prefer to group like with like. I reserve "Notes" for footnotes that have text, i.e., when I have used. I then designate citations as such under references. The citations usually include things like the London Gazette that could be in the bibliography, but would clutter it up. Separating true notes from citations, and citations from the bibliography makes things easier for the reader, which I believe should be the priority. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Drive-by comment: personally I prefer notes & citations together, as "notes", and while this is the most common arrangement it can't be called "standard", least of all for high-quality articles. At FA level Acad Ronin's preference is probably more common, especially among scientific subjects where it is near universal. I get very annoyed when people try to separate notes and citations (also claiming to be moving to the "standard") & can understand that a move thwe other way is equally annoying and against guidelines. I just revert such changes, if made without a consensus being reached on talk. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

tweaking Include-USGov
Hi! I noticed that you are tweaking Include-USGov. While you are at it, could you adjust the italics to make sure that the word "document" is italicized when the article parameter is used? It's been bothering me for years. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC) (P.S. see this diff for a way to so it. Thanks again! —hike395 (talk))


 * I went ahead and edited the sandbox to add the italics. Would you mind copying your if-formatted + one word italicized up to the real template? Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * [[Image:WikiThanks.png|43px|left|WikiThanks]] I see what you're doing the the source parameter, and it is a very good idea! Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I was bold and made the following three changes to Include-USGov/sandbox: What do you think?
 * 1) If the source parameter is used, the template refers to it as "an AGENCY document:" rather that "websites or documents of the AGENCY", because the source parameter is a single source.
 * 2) Similarly, if the url parameter is used, but not the article parameter, then the template links to "a website", rather than "websites or documents"
 * 3) There are two uses of templates that call this one. The common case with no parameters is a warning message for the including article (see, e.g., Nichols Field). That should be italicized. The less common case is use as an inline template, e.g., in the references at Blue Mountains (ecoregion).These should not be italicized. I think that the two cases can be distinguished by the existence of the ARTICLE parameter. Therefore, I made the italics conditioned on the ARTICLE parameter.

I also realized that the comment parameter could be handled within the USGS template, so no need to handle it when source is non-empty. —hike395 (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a few issues with the core template structure as you are proposing:
 * Sometimes Include-USGov is called directly from an article, when an obscure governmental agency's PD material is used. Include-USGov is highly protected --- non-admins (such as myself) will not be able to edit it to include new agencies, so they'll be stuck.
 * If all outer templates will redirect to Include-USGov, then we'll lose the ability to specialize the template (e.g., the comment field in USGS).
 * If outer templates don't redirect to Include-USGov, I don't understand the advantage of the new template structure (although perhaps you can enlighten me). —hike395 (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

useful edits
Hi Philip, haven't talked to you except on Wikipedia for years. I see you do a few useful edits too. Eddaido (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Amadigi di Gaula
Could I ask you a favor? Could you take a look at Amadigi di Gaula and tell me your opinion. Someone who seems to follow me and behave as a troll added flags there. This person thinks I did something wrong, by adding a few lines from two articles I found on internet. I contacted one of the authors, and he does not seem to be annoyed, on the contrary he is willing to help. But I really think I did do something wrong. In fact I made references which is usually enough in academic circles. I contacted an experienced scientist and he told me if this person is not the author, I should not worry. But this wikipedian has different ideas, probably because he does not like me for some time. Nobody else seems to bother. The article is very poorly visited.

This person earlier hijacked George Frideric Handel's art collection which I started. He removed all the links to the Dutch and Italian painters and thinks he did a good job. I don't think he is a good pedagog. The link to this article from the main article Georg Frederick Handel is poor too, so nobody is going there to investigate. Taksen (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What on Earth has brought this on today? I added Copypaste templates to the article (almost six weeks ago) to counter Taksen's blatant copy-and-paste of external material (something he has done many times in the past). I noticed that he implemented cquote templates to (at least this time) indicate that the text is copied. I did nothing to interfere or comment on these latest edits, so what possible reason can he have for starting this dialogue?
 * Regarding the art collection article, this is the state Taksen left the article in, and this is the state I subsequently left the article in. To get the information in the article, I wrote to an overseas library and had them send me the printed catalogue—which I then parsed to enter into WP (which turned out to be no small task). Taksen's version was littered with mistakes and over-linking. To now be unfairly criticised by Taksen is utterly demoralising.
 * I'm not the only editor who continually has to correct Taksen's lazy and sloppy editing. I really try my best to be tolerant, but since Taksen refuses to learn the policies and guidelines for article-editing, it's inevitable that friction will arise. I would like it noted that I have offered to help Taksen learn more about the policies and guidelines, but to no avail.
 * Lastly, his paranoia about being stalked or followed must be treated with the contempt it deserves. I have watchlisted every Handel-based article, so it is inevitable that his edits in that area will come to my attention. I'm not aware of having interacted with Taksen on any non-Handelian article.
 * I would appreciate it if he were to withdraw his attacks and insinuations made against me today.
 * GFHandel &#9836; 08:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I will supply one recent example of why working with Taksen is a demoralizing business (and why I believe he should be given a long, long break from editing at WP)...
 * Yesterday Taksen edited the Alcina article to attribute the libretto to a known person (despite the fact that the article has stated that the precise librettist is unknown—and has done so from the very first edit, over eight years ago). It just so happens that while I was reviewing references for this matter and hunting for the Grove article, another editor fixed Taksen's Alcina addition. What is revealing in Taksen's edit is that he included a reference that states "The libretto combines several literary sources – it was adapted by an unknown author from...". Okay, it was a particularly poor reference (being the program notes from a performance), but the fact that it contained information directly opposed to his article edit wasn't enough to ring alarm bells or to make him pause to reconsider.
 * And therein lies the problem with Taksen's approach to WP: he treats it the same as a schoolboy treats a school project—pretty much any way he wants to. That was fine at WP from 2001 to 2003, however we've all moved on from there with some pretty tight guidelines when it comes to sources and copyright. Not only does Taksen steadfastly refuse to adopt the policies, he takes matters one step further by actually arguing with people when they point out why he cannot edit as he does (for example, his comment above: "I contacted one of the authors, and he does not seem to be annoyed..."). There is an arrogance in Taksen's approach to editing at WP which I suppose has to be tolerated, but it just takes so much time to check and correct his (at-first-glance) seemingly valid edits—and that means less time available for adding content.
 * The most frightening new development is Taksen's use of hard-to-obtain printed sources. Given his proven inability to read and properly use sources, I'm terrified that he is now utilizing material from sources that are nigh on impossible to verify. When I implored Taksen to be very careful how he uses material that is difficult to verify, he responded with "You could have ordered the book on internet (they will be happy, and send it within a few days)". So there you have it: no "thanks for pointing me at the relevant copyright policy", and no "I will certainly take care when using such sources"; instead, an arrogant suggestion that I tried to fool him, and that I should spend money to verify his edits.
 * Many sports have a concept of a professional foul, and in academia there is a concept of intellectual dishonesty. Is there a similar policy at WP that helps to control editors who appear to be helping, but are actually lowering the standards wherever they edit?
 * GFHandel &#9836; 20:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. you wrote to an overseas library after I supplied you with his name or adress. You have been interfering Johan de la Faille and you were the only one critizing me. I live close to a few excellent university libraries and Amsterdam has probably the biggest city archive in the world. I am in the possession of most of his work and have a couple of books on Handel. I study the subject and listen to his music since 1977.Taksen (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Taksen, please stop trying to justify your actions by attacking. I have never edited at Johan de la Faille (although I did comment once about your copyright violations at that article—on your talk page). If you look at the history of Johan de la Faille you will see that Moonriddengirl had to comment on, and address your copyright violations at that page. I think that takes care of both of your tags added to my post above. Unfortunately, all you are providing are more attacks when what the community needs from you Taksen is a commitment that you will no longer perform copyright violation at WP. Are you certain you can't provide that assurance? GFHandel &#9836;  18:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban, ANI & Fowler&fowler
FYI, I notified Fowler at the time that I mentioned him. He cleared his talk page yesterday because he has had to go on a wikibreak for RL reasons. He has acknowledged the ANI point on my own talk page. - Sitush (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:IMOS
Please read .Murry1975 (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems
I think you're conflating two different reports -- please check to see which one you were actually responding to. Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Breach of 3RR on Annexation?
PBS - ''An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert''. -- 1) 11:11, 25 November 2011‎ Philip Baird Shearer (revert to last version by 140.247.249.179. // 2) 01:57, 26 November 2011‎ Philip Baird Shearer(Rv to last version by PBS // 3) 02:01, 26 November 2011‎ Philip Baird Shearer (removed pre 47 annexations) // 4) 02:02, 26 November 2011‎ Philip Baird Shearer (removed 45-48)

Please self revert ... Thx ...talknic (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OK Got the message re-3 un-interrupted edits in a row.... However you're still not giving ANY valid reasons for reverting ... talknic (talk) 09:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bulleted list item

Kirkman Finlay
Whether he actually existed or not, the article still has to have at least one actual content category on it — every article on Wikipedia must be properly categorized with no exceptions. You're certainly free to try to have the article deleted through the AFD process if you feel that strongly that he's a hoax, but as long as the article still exists in articlespace it has to have categories on it or be tagged as needing them, because there are no circumstances under which any article on Wikipedia may be left permanently uncategorized.

It doesn't have to be left in the specific categories you removed it from, if they're not appropriate, but it still has to be in categories of some kind — and there are categories on here which are perfectly appropriate even if he never really existed; in fact, there's actually a category specifically for people who never really existed (though I'm not going to add it for you, as I want you to find it for yourself.) Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphan tags
Hi Philip. Nice work on John Barrow (geographical compiler). Just letting you know that (as far as I'm aware) orphan tags are meant to go on the actual article, not talk pages, and I've moved the tag you placed accordingly. Jenks24 (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with what you're saying, and I'd be happy if all such tags were moved to talk pages. However, for the orphan tag common practice is definitely to place them on articles, the documentation says to put it on articles and (most importantly) the tracking categories such as Category:Orphaned articles from September 2011 don't appear work on talk pages. Anyway, not a big deal but thought you might like to know. Jenks24 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. As long as the issues with tracking categories is resolved (I assume changing to  would fix that?) then I have no problem with you putting the tag on talk pages. Jenks24 (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Marquis
See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. He's already back as, full details at Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron if you feel like blocking him sooner rather than later, to stop him doing too much damage. Thanks. 2 lines of K 303  09:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)